The one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will soon be upon us.

For those just emerging from some cave, this landmark decision reversed 49 years of Roe v. Wade precedent, as well as a subsequent 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

America over the last half-century has known no more divisive issue than the question of abortion rights. Feelings on both the pro-choice and pro-life sides are deeply ingrained and passionately held.

Even as a large share of less noisy citizens gravitate toward some more nuanced, middle position removed from the most ardent voices in each camp.

In the lead-up to the Dobbs ruling, I asserted that it was possible, even logical, to support a woman’s right to choose while still regarding Roe v. Wade as judicial overreach. Immediately prior to the decision, in an exercise of barking into the darkness, I urged a modicum of grace and good faith on the part of those on both sides.

Among my social circle, my commentary was greeted with a pronounced roll of the eyes. Many friends, along with more than a few correspondents, could not fathom anything but an all-out defense of Roe and total revulsion, even outrage, at its repeal.

True believers gotta believe.

The essence of the Dobbs decision was the finding that the Constitution did not confer a right to abortion and that the question should be returned to the political apparatus in 50 individual states to regulate within their borders.

Twelve months and endless consternation later, allow me to make the case that the new regimen is actually working, albeit imperfectly. Those seeking perfection should explore the spiritual realm as it will never be found in the halls of government.

No doubt, there have been excesses aplenty. Six-week abortion cutoffs are tantamount to an outright ban. Attempts like that in Missouri to restrict the right of its residents, in this case women wishing to terminate a pregnancy, from traveling to another state for the procedure violate all manner of Constitutional protections. Other examples abound.

Further, there is no doubt that the new lay of the land has inconvenienced many women not wishing or being able to manage a pregnancy or a child. In some cases, it goes far beyond inconvenience to outright jeopardize a woman’s health.

Just as Roe was on a collision course with medical technology in terms of fetal viability, so, too, are state laws and court edicts that forbid chemical abortifacients. If the procedure becomes not really a procedure at all, but something that can be handled at home, in private, via approved drugs, it will be impossible to keep that genie in the bottle.

On the other side of the coin, some blue, pro-choice states have further doubled down on unfettered abortion access. In Colorado, it now seems that the whole thing is legal until the baby’s first birthday. Or do I exaggerate?

After a half century, this new process of state regulation and returning jurisdiction to our battered system of political give-and-take was never going to be seamless or pretty.

Given the policy extremes in both blue and red bastions, but with a particular emphasis on some states in the latter category enacting draconian prohibitions, some might inquire how I can claim this is for the better.

For starters, bad law is just that, no matter the intention. I can read over and again the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment without finding a prescription for trimesters. That is a remedy for elected legislators to enact, not appropriate judicial fiat.

Over these five decades, one side of this divide was effectively insulated from the political process in hiding behind a few lawyers in robes. At the same time, those on the other side were politically neutered and told their voices, and their votes, did not count.

As an inevitable result, pro-choicers grew soft and entitled, while pro-lifers became ever more aggrieved.

The United States are exactly that, a union of 50 states, each in many respects its own small laboratory of democracy. Unless one contends that abortion is a fundamental right, on par with guarantees of equal protection, then why shouldn’t the people of Arkansas be able to take a different course on abortion policy that those of Colorado? And so on?

Indeed, it can be messy. But when one sides overreaches or deviates too far from prevailing opinion, the pushback takes over. We witnessed that over the last year in deeply red Kansas and Kentucky, among other places. Any tuned-in Republican knows that the country’s unwillingness to strip away all abortion protections kept their party from a U.S. Senate majority in 2022 and greatly mitigated what was forecast to be a GOP wave.

That is one sign of politics working.

If you think the 2022 resistance was strong, imagine what will result if the most zealous pro-life leaders pursue a federal ban or something close thereto. In terms of congressional action, that would be a non-starter. Beyond that, and help me out here, but wasn’t the point of Dobbs, consistent with pro-life messaging for years on end, that the issue should be left to state jurisdiction?

Over some longer period, the return of this issue to the political domain should lead to quieter, less polarized voices coming to the fore. States will tilt in different ways, but leaders with a more centrist outlook in support of abortion rights but within guardrails and limits will gain sway.

What has been lacking from this debate for far too long is any understanding that those with a contrary viewpoint are every bit as earnest and sincere in their conviction. You can still think them wrong-headed, but it is far harder to ignore them or write them off since Dobbs returned the issue to the public square.

A year in, almost no one is totally happy with the court’s verdict. Which I regard as a good and hopeful sign.

Eric Sondermann is a Colorado-based independent political commentator. He writes regularly for Colorado Politics and the Gazette newspapers. Reach him at?EWS@EricSondermann.com; follow him at @EricSondermann