Abortion and gender dysphoria are serious issues worth serious discussion. But you\u2019d never know it from listening to Connecticut\u2019s two U.S. senators, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy. They offer only hysteria to rile up their supporters, fanning the flames of the culture war. According to Blumenthal, the Supreme Court\u2019s leaked draft decision reversing its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade \u201cwould be a horrific moment inflicting a huge leap backward with incalculable costs and chaos for countless women and their families. ... Overturning Roe v. Wade would leave American women abandoned and alone.\u201d Huh? \u201cIncalculable costs and chaos\u201d because states and Congress would recover authority to legislate about abortion through the ordinary democratic process? Blumenthal makes it sound as if nine unelected judges are plotting to fix abortion law throughout the country when in fact they are preparing to relinquish the judicial power to do so. And how would reversing Roe leave women \u201cabandoned and alone\u201d when they would retain all their other constitutional and statutory rights? If all women in the country rose up in support of codifying abortion rights, such rights would be codified everywhere. Such rights are not codified by certain states and by Congress precisely because many women disagree with Blumenthal\u2019s abortion fanaticism, not because they are \u201cabandoned and alone.\u201d Little protest of the court\u2019s draft decision involves the issue actually before the court: What does the Constitution require? Indeed, few people other than legal scholars and serious journalists have even read the draft decision and its dozens of footnoted references. Nearly all the protest against the draft decision involves something else entirely: What should abortion policy be? Most of those protesting the draft decision seem to think that the Constitution requires whatever they like and prohibits whatever they dislike. Some people argue that the court should not reverse precedents. Yet the court often has done so, as with the odious precedent in favor of racial segregation, Plessy v. Ferguson. That precedent endured for 58 years before it was reversed, nine years longer than the Roe decision has been in force, and adapting to Plessy\u2019s reversal was far more disruptive than adapting to the reversal of Roe would be. As policy rather than law, Roe well may have gotten abortion right \u2014 that it should be left to the individual prior to fetal viability, whereupon the state has a fair interest in legislating, including legislating to protect the lives of the unborn. Short of saving a woman\u2019s life amid a rare complication, there is no good reason for abortion after viability. After all, this is the age of free contraception, free \u201cmorning-after\u201d pills, free abortion prior to fetal viability, and free surrender of unwanted babies at hospital emergency rooms. While some states seem eager to outlaw abortion, over the long term, with democracy working on the issue, the policy outlined in Roe might make sense to most people and be legislated by most states and Congress. Some people call reversing Roe \u201cradical.\u201d But far more radical is post-viability abortion, which in effect has become legal by judicial order nearly everywhere in the country. Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer in Manchester.