How odd. It’s as if state legislators have the ability to deal with legal issues around abortion on their own. Who knew? In anticipation of the outcome from the Dobbs case at the Supreme Court, Vermont’s legislature will vote today to add a constitutional amendment guaranteeing access to abortion in the state:

Vermont legislators will vote Tuesday on a constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right to abortion and contraception, the first amendment of its kind anywhere in the United States.

If passed, the proposed amendment, known as Proposition 5, will head to Gov. Phil Scott (R), who is required to give public notice of the measure before it appears on the ballot in November. Scott has signaled his support for Proposition 5. And voters in Vermont, where 70 percent of people say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, are expected to approve it.

The proposal is part of a wave of abortion rights legislation to emerge in Democratic states this year, ahead of a key Supreme Court ruling on abortion expected this summer. The Supreme Court case, which involves a Mississippi law that bans abortion at 15 weeks, could overturn or significantly weaken Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that has guaranteed the right to abortion for almost 50 years.

Most of the hysteria on the Left over Dobbs obsesses over the Supreme Court’s supposed potential to outlaw abortion. That is patently false, at least as any direct consequence, and turns the issue around 180 degrees. If the Supreme Court upholds Dobbs and overturns Roe and Casey, it will have to declare the US Constitution neutral on the issue to get to that decision. If there was an express constitutional jurisdiction for abortion, Roe wouldn’t get overturned at all. The outcome of Dobbs will either be upholding Roe, limiting its reach, or overturning it altogether.

Overturning Roe would only mean that the issue will go back to the states. Democrats and pro-abortion advocates have spent decades casting this as a ban, but Vermont at least is making it clear that state legislatures can and will take up the issue and deal with it through the accountable process of representative democracy. In deep-blue states, that will likely take the form of absolutist constitutional amendments. In more ideologically diverse states, the outcomes will likely reflect the broader American cultural assessment of abortion, which means support for first-trimester access under certain restrictions (such as parental approval). Deep-red states will likely ban it altogether, or perhaps pass heartbeat bills that will functionally amount to the same thing.

Of course, all of these reactions will now carry a hefty political price tag, a condition that legislators may not have fully calculated — in either direction. Even in deep red and deep blue states, voters are not necessarily all-in on the extremes of policy choices in the abortion debate. That makes these kind of knee-jerk legislative responses potentially dangerous. State lawmakers might be better advised to just wait for the Dobbs decision first before providing a legislative solution that may end up creating an unexpected backlash.

To be fair, though, everyone will need an adjustment period to actual accountability for abortion policy. For almost fifty years, politicians of all stripes had Roe as cover for legislative performance art on abortion, emoting to woo the advocates while having next to no power to do much one way or another. If we’re lucky, this Supreme Court will remove that political cover and force everyone to act responsibly on the issue. Vermont’s efforts might not be wise in and of themselves, but it’s a signal that we are returning to a wiser form of public policymaking — legislation rather than judicial fiat. In the long run, it will be healthier for both legislatures and federal courts, too.