A practical look at the reform

I wanted to ask the rabbi how relevant practical considerations are when it comes to formulating a legal reform policy in our districts.
A. If we assume a reform will severely damage Israel's image, and make it difficult for IDF soldiers abroad (rightly or wrongly), is this in itself a good enough consideration to oppose it, even though perhaps in theoretical reality it is actually justified?
In other words, decisions of this type should be made under the "screen of ignorance." The question is whether such a consideration is considered such or not, and whether these considerations should necessarily always be accepted only through the screen of ignorance.
 
on. It's pretty clear to me that legal reform will only screw up our future in the country. It will give the ultra-Orthodox an opening to rampage, for Christians to celebrate without any consideration at the expense of our taxes, it will distance us from liberal values, etc. Isn't it appropriate to take these kinds of considerations into account even if in a utopian reality the system is not sufficiently balanced?
third. Isn't it worth taking the economic consideration into account as well? In other words, it is possible that the reform that is theoretically worth doing will still be very harmful on a practical level economically, and then it is worth withdrawing from it.
D. Is there no room to consider our governing culture? We don't live in Britain or New Zealand, our country is corrupt to the core, and lacks a significant democratic culture compared to those countries (some even in a structured way by the Chief Rabbinate, for example). Isn't this also appropriate to take into account here when, say, we determine that the position of the rabbi is not binding?
It may be that theoretically it is really better for her position to only consult, but isn't the Rabbi worried that if her position only consults, our governing culture will deteriorate drastically in terms of the extent of corruption? Where does the "veil of ignorance" actually come into play in cases like this? Is the character of the country, its citizens, and its culture something that should be taken into account?
 
thanks!!