# After Roe v. Wade falls **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2016, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222 "2016-11-27T21:58:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/21 "2016-11-28T03:28:51Z")
Luckily we have a pro choice President-Elect. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/22 "2016-11-28T04:11:18Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Luckily we have a pro choice President-Elect. Who wants to punish women who have abortions. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/23 "2016-11-28T04:13:47Z")
I suspect the most likely outcome would be nothing changes in CA and NY, and abortions are illegal in KS and UT except perhaps in some rare circumstances. I was going to say that I’m “OK” with this arrangement, but then I read all the Commerce Clause posts and concluded a ban on interstate abortions would be just as valid as the rest of the Commerce Clause bullshit the [federal.gov](http://federal.gov) has pulled over the years, and so i’d be ok with that too, but I don’t expect that any such law would survive the next change of party control, and probably couldn’t make it through Congress even now. If some pro-choice Dems want to join me in amending the Commerce Clause out of existence to prevent this, I’ll happily work with them to accomplish this. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/24 "2016-11-28T04:22:24Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > **Bricker** , just curious - if the Mann Act is within federal jurisdiction (banning transportation of a woman across state lines for an immoral purpose), why wouldn’t Congresd have the power to make it an offence for a woman to cross a state line for the purpose of an abortion, if Congress deems that to be an immoral purpose? 😕 In my opinion, the Mann Act was an instance of Congressional overreach. But that’s not the law, which is why I said, “In my opinion.” ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/25 "2016-11-28T04:50:43Z")
The Hatch Act was never subject to a constitutional challenge, was it? Noodling around the wiki articles, I got the impression that _Lawrence_ would mean that the Hatch Act would have to be read down to exclude consensual sexual activities, but the _Lawrence_ analysis wouldn’t have struck down transporting for prostitution? There’s also the Lindbergh law, where Congress made it a federal offence to kidnap across a state line. And wire fraud that crosses a state line. I guess it just seems to me that there are precedents for Congress criminalising conduct which occurs across a state line, which could provide support for an offence of crossing a state line to obtain an abortion, if abortion is no longer constitutionally protected. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/26 "2016-11-28T05:05:43Z")
Oops - getting late. Meant to say the “Mann Act” in the last post, not the “Hatch Act”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/27 "2016-11-28T05:11:33Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Luckily we have a pro choice President-Elect. > [@running\_coach](#): > > Who wants to punish women who have abortions. That was one day. The next day he didn’t. Seriously, though, of all things that scare me about Trump, the idea that he will somehow cause women to be prosecuted for abortion is way down on the list. Ain’t gonna happen. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/28 "2016-11-28T05:17:39Z")
Bell bottoms are not coming back. That’s just about the only thing on my “ain’t gonna happen” list. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/29 "2016-11-28T05:21:11Z")
and Nehru jackets, of course. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/30 "2016-11-28T06:28:10Z")
Congress would have to pass a law. Congress is not going to do that, even if Trump wants it (which I don’t believe he does). Trump is going to concentrate on enriching himself. Punishing women for abortions doesn’t put any money in his pockets. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/31 "2016-11-28T16:26:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That was one day. The next day he didn’t. Seriously, though, of all things that scare me about Trump, the idea that he will somehow cause women to be prosecuted for abortion is way down on the list. Ain’t gonna happen. Of all the positions Trump pretended to support, believing in God and being anti-choice are the ones I’m most certain he was off by 180 degrees. He’s an ass for saying those things, but as **John Mace** says, he has no reason to ever revisit the issue. One the other hand, ee will (probably) put very conservative Justices on the Court, so _Roe v. Wade_ might be going down in the next 5 to 10 years. On the other hand, there are some libertarian-type conservatives who think the government shouldn’t have the power to require or prohibit medical treatment that a woman might seek out. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2016, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222/32 "2016-11-28T16:38:21Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Of all the positions Trump pretended to support, believing in God and being anti-choice are the ones I’m most certain he was off by 180 degrees. He’s an ass for saying those things, but as **John Mace** says, he has no reason to ever revisit the issue. One the other hand, ee will (probably) put very conservative Justices on the Court, so _Roe v. Wade_ might be going down in the next 5 to 10 years. On the other hand, there are some libertarian-type conservatives who think the government shouldn’t have the power to require or prohibit medical treatment that a woman might seek out. Thomas would, no doubt, overturn it if he could. Alito, maybe. Kennedy, for sure not. Roberts, I doubt would overturn it. There will need to be at least 2 and probably 3 new justices ready to overturn it. That’s possible, but it’s quite a long shot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-roe-v-wade-falls/773222.md?page=1)