If "Back Alley Abortions" were removed from the argument?

Great Debates
1

A Hamster ate the first attempt at this thread, so I’ll give it take two!

Even if the court restricts or eliminates the right to an abortion, the often-raised specter of a return to back-alley abortions is not likely to be realized, said Dr. Beverly Winikoff, president of Gynuity Health Services, a nonprofit group that supports access to abortion.
“The conditions that existed before 1973 were much different than what they are in 2005,” she said. “We have better antibiotics now and better surgical treatments.”
But no change is bigger than the advent of an inexpensive drug called misoprostol, which the federal Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of ulcers in 1988 but which has been used in millions of self-administered abortions worldwide. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, freeing states to ban abortion, this common prescription drug, often known by the brand name Cytotec, could emerge as a cheap, relatively safe alternative to the practices that proliferated before Roe.
“We won’t go back to the days of coat hangers and knitting needles,” said Dr. Jerry Edwards, an abortion provider in Little Rock, Ark. “Rich women will fly to California; poor women will use Cytotec.”

If Meiers and Roberts are firm pro-life votes (an assumption), and Bush is able to replace Stephens with a third pro-life vote, then Roe is overturned 5-4.

At that point, about 15-20 states would probably ban abortion immediately.

Logically, the choice movement would begin to take political action to legalize abortion in those states.

But if the drugs in this article are safe, would that take some of the wind out of the sails of the choice movement’s argument?

Because then it would be more of a straight debate about the life of the fetus versus the right of a woman to control her body.

The “rights of a woman” have both emotional and intellectual elements to it.

However, the concept of the “back alley butcher” is an appeal to raw emotion. As a result it is VERY effective as a (legitimate) scare tactic. It not only appeals to women, it has serious appeal to fathers. Few want to see a girl butchered and scarred for life even if they are pro-life. I think the back alley abortion fears keep America pretty firmly in the “pro-choice” column. It is a key difference maker in the debate.

If Roe were overturned and it became illegal to get an abortion in Mississippi, instead of going to back alley abortion clinics, pregnant women seeking an abortion would go to back alley pharmacies. (I’m assuming this pill would be banned).

While it would still be illegal, if it were actually a SAFE process, would the public become more complacent in returning the right to an abortion?

I think there would be a sizable segment that would look at it and say that there may be no LEGAL alternative, but at least there is a safe one.

How would these advances in science technology change the debate itself?
(And let’s please try to keep this debate on subject. It isn’t about propriety. It is about how these advances in science and technology would affect the abortion debate. There are hundreds of threads to debate morality and life vs. choice.)

2

You seem to be assuming that the states who “would probably ban abortion” would restrain themselves to forbidding doctors to perform a specific set of procedures.

Wouldn’t a state that had decided that the deliberate abortion of a fetus equates to murder also include restrictions on the prescription of misoprostol in their legislation?

Back to the alley…

3

Might just see a spike in ‘ulcers’. Alternatively, since cannabis and MDMA are readily available, why not misoprostol?

4

You might also see some very draconian legistlation increasing the scrutiny of both prescribers and users of certain drugs, with severe penalties for those found in violation. Many doctors may simply refuse to risk it. Such a scenerio wouldn’t surprise me at all.

5

Any state which would ban abortion would also go to whatever lengths necessary to prevent womens’ access to any drug which could be used as an abortifacient and we’re right back in the same boat. Should we really trust the black market to provide safe drugs? That hasn’t exactly worked out well in the past. Plus it still criminalizes desperate and vulnerable women. The Choice movement wouldn’t lose any bullets.

6

What would be the point in making abortions illegal under the premise that the women who still want to have one will just go and get some drugs illegally?

They would be accepting, and to some degree condoning the misuse of harsh drugs.

7

Given the attitude that abortion = murder, I wouldn’t be surprised if anti-abortion states made the penalty for an ( illegal or out of state ) abortion death. New drugs won’t make that better.

8

I posited in the OP that the pills would only be available on the black market.

9

I imagine it would be the same thought associated with any other law. Some people are going to break it.

10

From time to time Diogenes and I reach a point of perfect agreement.

11

Gotta say, mighty damn tempting. If I could feel assured that reversing RvW would not result in an upsurge in “back alley” abortions, a lot of my motivation would vanish. Because I really don’t give a shit about the theology or the political principles involved, just the effect on people.

But the real temptation is that such an outcome would take away a tremendous source of power for the Tighty Righty junta. Confusion to my enemies, and all that. So I need to watch myself closely, that I dont allow this delicious prospect to sway me too much.

But if we could get this nasty bit of business off the national agenda without sacrificing the well-being of young women…well, like I said, mighty tempting.

12

Well if you’re looking for some situation under which the choice movement could quietly resign themselves to to a SCOTUS reversal on Roe resulting in some states’ removal of legal access to medical procedures, I’m here to tell you that criminalization of women who seek alternatives ain’t it.

13

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
Well if you’re looking for some situation under which the choice movemp+

14

The risks of posting with a Treo phone are demonstrated in my previous post.

15

It doesn’t matter whether “back alley abortions” are removed from the argument. The real elephant (pardon the pun) in the room is that the GOP leadership knows that reversal of Roe would be a political disaster for them – their Falwelloid faction would expect them to actually do something instead of just “working the greivance”, and their Respectable Country-Club faction would want them to do no such thing.

16

I’ve been told that Cytotec that used to be a wonder abortion pill… has changed its formula in order to lessen abortion ability of the drug. This increases the chance of not working as an abortive pill and leads to fetus malformation.

So I’m not sure that back Alley abortions have been removed from the equation…

As for the argument itself… Roe vs Wade was about personal liberties not health risks… from what I’ve read.

17

The OP asks how advances in technology affect the debate. Technology isn’t just pharmacuticals vs. coat hangers–it also includes the internet.
30 years ago, an 18 year old woman in rural Georgia had no way (other than a back alley) to get an abortion, or even ask any questions about it. Today, anyone can surf the net.
If Roe v Wade gets overturned, about 20 states will ban abortion. But the other 30 will allow it–and plenty of liberal groups will have web sites offering all the info necessary, and will probably sponsor “halfway house” accommodations for free to any red-state resident .
Abortion will still be available to all. (which is why I think the whole issue is being blown way out of proportion.)

18

Black market trade of drugs has serious problems of its own. For one thing, the use of black market drugs would just compound the illegality of the abortion if the user is caught. At best, it exposes the user to serious health risks that are by necessity outside of the control of regulatory bodies charged with reducing or eliminating such risks. Black market drugs could be just as hazardous to some as back-alley abortions if the drugs being used are no good and/or administered without proper oversight.

19

But I think the OP means us to presume that such drawbacks are not entirely relevent. If the “black market” were reliable, that is, made up of people who’s primary intent is idealistic rather than profit, and were committed to maintaining the purity and reliability of the drugs offered, this threat could be largely eliminated. Marijuana, for instance, remains illegal, but can be obtained from relatively trustworthy sources at reasonable prices. Or so I’ve heard.

20

I guess that’s a bigger if than I’m comfortable with, and I’ve no confidence such a reliable black market could be maintained. Knowing the sick minds of some who target the abortion “movement”, I wouldn’t rule out deliberate fraud or even poisonings via the black market distribution channel. I would far, far prefer medical matters be handled by medical specialists in an open manner such that all aspects of the process are properly regulated.