# Impact of a potential Roe v. Wade reversal **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 28, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961 "2018-06-28T23:54:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/21 "2018-06-29T20:35:52Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Too much of this post is beyond what I feel like I can respond to in GQ. > > That said, could you explain why you think a strict constructionist jurist that finds that Roe was improperly decided (and thus there is no Constitutional protection for abortion rights) would find that a federal ban on abortion is unconstitutional? What part of the constitution would preclude such a federal ban? And surely you agree that all of the myriad limitations and restrictions at the state level (hospital privileges, ultrasounds, parental notification) could also be imposed by the federal government with the appropriate Congressional and Presidential make-up? No they wouldn’t agree that the federal government can put those restrictions in place. They would say that the 10th amendment says that any powers not specifically given to it by the Constitution are reserved to the states. There is no Constitutional provision that allows the Federal government the right to do anything with healthcare except in regards to pharmaceuticals that cross state lines. They would say then that any Federal healthcare legislation is unconstitutional. That’s why Obamacare couldn’t just simply say ‘Medicaid for all.’ They had to dangle carrots to encourage states to open their Medicaid roles and they had to coerce and cajole states into accepting provisions rather than just dictating them. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/22 "2018-06-29T20:39:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What purposes are those? Not disputing, just asking. Can they prevent you from traveling to another state to do something that is legal in that state, but not your own? > > Yes, it’s over the top, and I don’t think the analogy holds. A person who has had an abortion isn’t bringing back anything with her. > > Regards, > Shodan There aren’t many, as most laws about kids are relatively universal, but this would obviously be a big law that differs between states. If you had a state that allowed euthanizing your kid, or allowed FGM, then your home state may impose a law that prevents you from leaving with your kid to these states for these purposes. If a fetus gets the same rights as a human, then I could see states imposing laws not allowing you to take that fetus across state lines for the purposes of ending the pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/23 "2018-06-29T21:02:03Z")
Crime rates would increase over the next twenty years or so. On the plus side adoption would be a lot easier. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/24 "2018-06-29T22:48:51Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > No they wouldn’t agree that the federal government can put those restrictions in place. They would say that the 10th amendment says that any powers not specifically given to it by the Constitution are reserved to the states. There is no Constitutional provision that allows the Federal government the right to do anything with healthcare except in regards to pharmaceuticals that cross state lines. They would say then that any Federal healthcare legislation is unconstitutional. That’s why Obamacare couldn’t just simply say ‘Medicaid for all.’ They had to dangle carrots to encourage states to open their Medicaid roles and they had to coerce and cajole states into accepting provisions rather than just dictating them. Oh really? Please explain this decision then: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales\_v.\_Carhart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart) For those that don’t want to click, its’ a 5-4 decision (with Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, and Alito in the majority) upholding the constitutionality of the federal “partial-birth” abortion ban. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2018, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/25 "2018-06-29T22:56:09Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If a fetus gets the same rights as a human, then I could see states imposing laws not allowing you to take that fetus across state lines for the purposes of ending the pregnancy. Then the question would be at what point does a fetus get the same rights as a human? If it’s conception, then most forms of birth control (and likely stem cell research) would become illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/26 "2018-06-30T00:59:06Z")
> [@NDP](#): > > Then the question would be at what point does a fetus get the same rights as a human? If it’s conception, then most forms of birth control (and likely stem cell research) would become illegal. Not true. Most forms of conception prevent fertilization. ---
**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:** [June 30, 2018, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/27 "2018-06-30T01:32:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If a fetus gets the same rights as a human, then I could see states imposing laws not allowing you to take that fetus across state lines for the purposes of ending the pregnancy. If a fetus gets the same rights as you or me, abortion would be illegal everywhere in the US. There might be some exceptions (life of the mother), but abortion on demand would be illegal and there would be no state you could go to get a legal abortion. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/28 "2018-06-30T01:57:31Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Oh really? Please explain this decision then: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales\_v.\_Carhart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart) > > For those that don’t want to click, its’ a 5-4 decision (with Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, and Alito in the majority) upholding the constitutionality of the federal “partial-birth” abortion ban. Read the concurrence of Thomas and Scalia. It specifically says that the parties did not raise the commerce clause jurisdictional issue. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/29 "2018-06-30T02:02:36Z")
Current WV law (not enforced now because of Roe/Casey): > [@W.Va. Code§61-2-8. Abortion; penalty.](#): > > Any person who shall administer to, or cause to be taken by, a woman, any drug or other thing, or use any means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and shall thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction, shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than three nor more than ten years; and if such woman die by reason of such abortion performed upon her, such person shall be guilty of murder. No person, by reason of any act mentioned in this section, shall be punishable where such act is done in good faith, with the intention of saving the life of such woman or child. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/30 "2018-06-30T05:12:30Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Not true. > > Most forms of **conception** prevent fertilization. Ack :smack: Should read… “Most forms of **contraception** prevent fertilization.” ---
**Author:** ![Mallard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Mallard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mallard)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/31 "2018-06-30T14:00:46Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > Crime rates would increase over the next twenty years or so. On the plus side adoption would be a lot easier. I would suspect the biggest implication would be the increased numbers of abused and neglected children. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/32 "2018-06-30T14:26:10Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This is why you should hope Trump appoints another strict constitutionalist to the court. A nationwide ban on abortion would almost certainly be unconstitutional, unless it can be justified under the commerce clause, which has been heavily abused by the court in the past to justify federal involvement in areas that should be the jurisdiction of the individual states. Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch have been very skeptical of sweeping interpretations of the Commerce Clause to empower the federal government. > > Perhaps after having seen what kind of President they might get sometimes, the left might develop a new respect for Federalism and checking the power of an imperial president and an overweening, incompetent political class in Washington. In fact, IIRC in deciding the key “Obamacare” decision, Roberts took a sideswipe at the commerce clause by deciding that the commerce clause argument was too much of an extension of any interpretation of the clause and did not apply, setting another line to limit Commerce Clause arguments. But then, in a “you guys fix it” message to congress, said it was a tax and therefore legal. IMHO Roberts despite his alleged leanings has been trying hard not to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for any faction; but to keep it a respected institution. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/33 "2018-06-30T14:33:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If a fetus gets the same rights as you or me, abortion would be illegal everywhere in the US. There might be some exceptions (life of the mother), but abortion on demand would be illegal and there would be no state you could go to get a legal abortion. I was talking on a state’s level, not federal. Obviously, if there are federal fetal personhood laws, then those would cover the nation. But if a state were to enact one, then they could use that to justify not allowing you to leave the state for the purposes of ending the pregnancy. In fact, they’d have quite a bit of control over any expecting mother, as she would be less an independant being with personal autonomy, and more a state assigned incubator. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/34 "2018-06-30T16:41:58Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If you had a state that allowed euthanizing your kid, or allowed FGM, then your home state may impose a law that prevents you from leaving with your kid to these states for these purposes. This is GQ - do you have a cite for this? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/35 "2018-06-30T17:10:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is GQ - do you have a cite for this? > > Regards, > Shodan I don’t know of any reason why a state could not have an extraterritorial law that is applicable to its citizens. I also don’t know of any state that currently does it, but the United States does at least in respect to having sex with underaged prostitutes when out of the country. But most of these horror stories are unrealistic. I remember during the Bork confirmation, Ted Kennedy kept going on about how a state could outlaw birth control, or implement a one child per family policy under Bork’s jurisprudence. That’s hyperbole. The system has a respect for the democratic process and if people start enacting nutty laws, then they get the system they deserve. It’s more protective than the system that the UK has (Parliament has absolutely NO limits at all) and there are no ridiculously outlandish laws being passed there. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/36 "2018-06-30T17:55:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is GQ - do you have a cite for this? > > Regards, > Shodan Umm, [yes, actually.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act) > [@](#): > > made it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose”. It has most recently been used against pedophiles and sex traffickers crossing state lines, but it is ambiguous, and has been used to prosecute people for things as petty as marital infidelity in the past. If it is illegal to have an abortion in your state, then it could be argued (and would be by anti-abortionists) that it is an immoral purpose to transport a woman across state lines for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy. It’s current wording is, I believe, “any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense”, which the second part is a given, if abortion is illegal in the home state, and the first can be debated, as to whether or not an abortion is related enough to sexual activity to fall under the act. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/37 "2018-06-30T18:02:36Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I don’t know of any reason why a state could not have an extraterritorial law that is applicable to its citizens. I also don’t know of any state that currently does it, but the United States does at least in respect to having sex with underaged prostitutes when out of the country. > > But most of these horror stories are unrealistic. I remember during the Bork confirmation, Ted Kennedy kept going on about how a state could outlaw birth control, or implement a one child per family policy under Bork’s jurisprudence. That’s hyperbole. The system has a respect for the democratic process and if people start enacting nutty laws, then they get the system they deserve. > > It’s more protective than the system that the UK has (Parliament has absolutely NO limits at all) and there are no ridiculously outlandish laws being passed there. Of course, Bork not getting the nomination and not overturning roe v wade means that that was never tested, so is hypothetical that states would not push for as much restriction as possible. And the fact that you happen to live in a regressive state that wishes to treat you as an incubator rather than as an independent human being is not something that anyone deserves. Keep in mind, in a democracy, around about half of the people are not getting the system that they asked for, so it is a bit more than a little disingenuous to suggest that it is what they deserve. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2018, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/38 "2018-07-01T00:41:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Ack :smack: > > Should read… > > “Most forms of **contraception** prevent fertilization.” I was referring to contraceptive methods like “[Morning After Pills](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/morning-after-pill/about/pac-20394730)”. But you are right that these types of pills don’t comprise the majority of available oral contraceptives on the market. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2018, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/39 "2018-07-01T06:40:24Z")
> [@NDP](#): > > I was referring to contraceptive methods like “[Morning After Pills](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/morning-after-pill/about/pac-20394730)”. But you are right that these types of pills don’t comprise the majority of available oral contraceptives on the market. Indeed but it is worth noting here that oral contraceptives, while the most popular form of contraceptive, only account for [16% of contraceptive use](https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states) (in that 100% number is 31% using no method…not sure why they did it that way). The morning after pill is waaaay less used at 0.2% listed under “emergency contraception”. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2018, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961/40 "2018-07-01T16:40:34Z")
I think that if the feds can make it illegal for marijuana grown in Colorado and consumed there without crossing state lines, then they could certainly pass a law stating that personhood begins at conception. They could also use the Mann act, already on the books, to ban crossing a state line for the purpose. Would they? Why not? It is easy to start enforcing an old law than passing a new one over a likely filibuster. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impact-of-a-potential-roe-v-wade-reversal/816961.md?page=3)