A less-noticed factor in this whole debate, Rick, is that as the Supreme Court starts to allow more regulation of abortion, some state Supreme Courts bar under their own constitutions a variety of abortion restrictions the federal constitution allows; the state courts in CA, NJ, TN, WV, MT, and AK already have so ruled. So I think the current regime of regulation is on less solid legal ground (setting aside whether that’s good or bad) than many observers acknowledge, given (a) that many state Supreme Courts will disallow state law abortion regulations, and (b) that Justice Thomas’s narrow view of Congress’s legislative power over “Commerce” (the basis for key federal abortion restrictions) means I just don’t see 5 votes on the current Supreme Court for a lot of abortion restrictions — I think the Gonzalez v Carart decision allowing the federal “partial-birth” abortion ban would’ve come out differently had the plaintiffs been willing to make the “beyond the Commerce power” argument (because their Roe/Casey “right to abortion” argument yielded 4 votes, and Commerce could’ve landed Thomas as the 5th).

I take your point that some regulations might push abortions a bit later, but there is, on the other hand, what I regard as the legitimate desire to “nudge” people, in what is often a very difficult situation, toward a fully considered decision. (To the extent such nudging is a bit parentalist, it does not strike me as excessively or unjustifiably so.)

I take your point that some regulations might push abortions a bit later, but there is, on the other hand, what I regard as the legitimate desire to “nudge” people, in what is often a very difficult situation, toward a fully considered decision. (To the extent such nudging is a bit parentalist, it does not strike me as excessively or unjustifiably so.)