I quite take your point, but think it unlikely that such sabotage could be effectively done. And, as much as I dislike such Rovian cynicism, we should also remember that such actions would have a disastrous impact on the anti-abortion credibility. The first white teeny-bopper to die because of some “pro-lifer” sabotage…well, there would be hell to pay, you can rest assured.
But to cut to the chase: like many progressives (with a distinct radical tinge) I am almost entirely pragmatic, I thoroughly distrust ideology. If I were assured that faith-based initiatives would be of enormous benefit to the poor and powerless, I wouldn’t hesitate to endorse such, qualms about church/state notwithstanding.
Similarly, if I could be assured that womens right to choose safely were largely protected, the political issue of RoeVWade would count for nothing, so far as I am concerned. The prospect of having this issue disappear from the political firmament is the sort of thing that makes Karl Rove wake up screaming. A delightful prospect, in other words.
(Aside: I think this is to some degree a “generational” thing. Those who were not grown persons in those dark days have no experience of the dreadful results of “back alley” abortion, the risk doesn’t seem real. I personally knew a fine young woman who, through fear and ignorance, suffered such consequences: very nearly died, and was rendered sterile. Again? Over my dead body.)
I think it was about both. Reading The Brethren by Woodward and Armstrong, I got the impression that the court was at the very least taking into consideration public sentiment.
If a young girl lived in say South Texas, she would have a tough time getting one. Especially if many surrounding states also banned them. Even with a place to stay, getting there is a tough. And providing aid for minors to cross the statelines could be a felony.
This is a good point. I’m sure if there were problems with this, that would become an effective weapon for the pro-choice movement. I did mean in the hypo in the OP that it would be safe, but my assumption was probably too far off base. “Too big an if” as you accurately put it.
I hate to tell you all this, but you act like a black market trade in abortifacients isn’t already occurring.
In Ireland, where abortion is illegal in most circumstances, Chinese immigrants who can’t travel to the UK for an abortion (as it violates the conditions of their visas) are having relatives in China send them Misoprostol (Cytotec), Mifepristone (RU-486/Mifeprex) and traditonal Chinese herbal remedies in the post. The drugs are all easily and cheaply available in China. Others are having relatives send the drugs, and are then selling them on to desperate women, at about $200 a pill.
I predict that online drug companies not based in the USA, a similar thing with immigrants from countries with legal abortion and easily available drugs or an increase in bogus “ulcers” would all occur should Roe vs Wade be reversed in the US.
Since these drugs are only effective in 95% of cases, and can cause severe bleeding, the risks to the women of using these drugs without medical supervision is not something to be ignored.
I bet they’ll cut the woman’s head off and put it on a pike outside of town, just as a warning, too. Probably take her dead body out in a back alley and kill it again, just for good measure. Back-alley deaths will skyrocket. As it has been pointed out, a lack of confidence in black market drugs that would perform the abortion safely–or would they?–will naturally lead women to choose abortions conducted in back alleys by a legion of drunken Dr. Nicks using rusty hangers.
Folks, I just don’t see this leading to a good place, I’m afraid. Frankly, there is simply no possible scenario, no advancement in technology, no change whatsoever that I can envision, where back alley abortion deaths will not be rampant if we let the states decide this issue. You could have the technology to go back in time and not have sex to avoid the pregnancy, and women would still submit to back alley abortions rather than take the time machine risk. (Think about Back to the Future. What if the woman began to disappear because she inadvertently changed the past somehow? Is anybody thinking about that?)
IF Roe was overturned, it would doubtlessly be much easier to get abortions in some states than others. Some might look the other way regarding abortion-inducing pills, some may aggressively investigate doctors that prescribe these drugs for women. Some might ban any medication that could be used to induce abortion. A woman’s right to control her body would vary tremendously depending on where she lived.
I think the speculation is moot in that Roe is not going to be overturned. A few months ago I heard a Wayne State law professor on WJR’s Mitch Albom show. He was very adamant that Roe is never going to be overturned, citing that there has never been an individual right affirmed by one Court and later overturned by another. Whether that’s right or not I’ll leave to the more diligent. But he pointed out that this is not the US Abortion Court and that Roe is not the only matter of importance. I’m not sure I share his faith completely but I found it quite reassuring.
Back-alley medication is still back-alley. There’s a reason doctors go through all that schooling and stuff: to make sure, after an interview and exam, that a procedure is likely to be safe for this particular patient right here, not for some percentage of women in general.
It’s still a pharmaceutical drug, and still has it’s risks and side effects. Which drug am I talking about? Any of them. Doesn’t matter. Nothing is 100% safe for every person, and nothing is 100% effective unless it’s surgical.
There will always be a risk that a pill won’t work. Unfortunately, the vast majority of abortifaceants (pharmaceutical or herbal) will create horrid birth defects in any pregnancy they don’t correctly end.
I do know legal, non-prescription herbs that will, with good efficacy, end an early pregnancy. I very rarely refer to them by name, and only to women who have commited to a surgical abortion if an herbal one fails. Why? Because they make you very sick, and if they don’t work, you need a surgical abortion anyway, or you have a good chance of ending up with a horribly deformed baby.
So we have several bad possibilities here:
Scenario A: woman takes back-alley drug, woman dies from it because of some pre-existing condition a doctor would have discovered.
Scenario B: woman takes back-alley drug, doesn’t abort. She decides to have an illegal back-alley surgical abortion.
Scenario C: woman takes back-alley drug, doesn’t abort. She decides to have the baby, who ends up deformed and requires expensive medical treatment for life.
None of these, to me, is acceptable. Whether the back-alley is peddling illegal drugs or illegal scapels, it doesn’t replace qualified medical treatment.
So true. This is the most tragically overlooked component of the abortion debate! What we need to do in the country is promote a culture of non-temporarily displaced! I think the Senate dropped the ball not asking John Roberts about his views on the Flux Capacitor!
Preach it, brother. People get so caught up in their righteousness that they forget about this stuff. And if the world is going to continue to ignore the time machine issues, then the machines from Terminator have already won.
