That won’t mean abortion is illegal. All it means is that abortion, no longer enjoying constitutional protection, becomes an ordinary legislative issue. Which would be very bad for the Pubs electorally. I think that most Americans, even those who feel morally uncomfortable with abortion, still want the clinics to be there in case their daughters get pregnant, and they will express that preference in voting.
Are you for real??
Do you really think all that effort was just to let the states decide, and that the forces that united to halt abortion rights will just sit back and let the states decide if R v. W is overturned?
The red states may ban abortion (some have so-called trigger laws that kick in the instant Roe is overturned), the blue states certainly won’t. Many red-staters will migrate to blue states for abortions. Those who can’t, may opt for illegal abortions.
I don’t think that’s all they WANTED to do, but it is all they CAN do.
Actually, that presents a scenario in which the so-called geographic “great sorting” of American residential politics – by ZIP Codes, according to most theories – becomes much more salient and relevant.
My Grandma makes pink prophylactics
She punctures the ends with a pin
My Grandpa does bootleg abortions
My God, how the money rolls in!
Getting R v. W overturned is only the first step.
Thank you for that little revelation as to where you stand.
On the side of anything singable. Even “The Marching Song of the Waffen-SS.” Or even, “Dixie,” which is arguably worse. (What exactly is “Injun batter,” anyway?)
Yes, it would. Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, Missouri, Tennessee, and Utah have “trigger laws” that ban abortion the instant the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wisconsin never got rid of their pre-Roe bans on abortion, so those go back into effect. That’s 18 states right there.
Meanwhile, a lot of the remaining states will have bills to ban abortion on the floor to be voted on within a week, if not days or even hours.
For the anti-abortionists it’s almost never about their daughters - it’s about imposing their rules on other peoples’ daughters. Also wives, sisters, and mothers because women don’t just get abortions in their teens, older women get them, too.
Pre-Roe one several things happened with unwanted pregnancies
- For the wealthy, or even the middle class if they had sufficient money on hand, there was the option to travel where abortion was legal. I personally know women who traveled from the Midwest to New York State to have this done.
- Illegal abortion. This ranged from women throwing themselves down staircases or drinking certain herbal teas or otherwise risking self harm hoping to miscarry to back-alley nastiness to the Jane Collective.
- Have the baby. For middle class and above families either worked it out if the unwanted pregnancy involved a married woman or, if it was a teen, she was sent away until she had the baby and the baby taken from from her (consent was never a point, the girl typically had zero input). If lucky, the kid was adopted. If not, the kid lived in an orphanage or institution, basically a place to warehouse unwanted people. For the poor, it could mean financial devastation, and, since social shame for out-of-wedlock births was a thing back then possibly social devastation as well.
Um… no. The trigger laws are not strictly divided between Blue and Red states - take another look at the list I wrote out at the beginning of this post. Michigan and Wisconsin usually swing Blue, not Red. Illinois will likely allow for abortion, at least for awhile, but I’d expect it will be the only place to get one between the Appalachians and the Rockies. Not as familiar with the situation on the east and west coasts, but plenty of conservatives live on both.
Looks like 17.
Sorry. Math before caffeine, have to stop doing that…
First of all, as Broomstick points out, it will be illegal in 17 states immediately. So, the poor women in those states will have to find a way to get to someplace where it’s legal. Second, there’s nothing stopping a state from prosecuting a woman who gets an abortion in another state when she returns home. If I conspire to commit murder in my own state and go to a neighboring state to do the deed, my own state can still prosecute me for conspiracy.
Second, there are personhood laws that some states are passing that say that a fetus is a person. Persons have all kinds of rights, including the right not to be killed – what’s to stop the Supreme Court from agreeing with one of those laws, declaring that fetuses are persons and have rights, and making abortion illegal across the US?
It’s going to make life harder for poor and middle income women. Escaping the poverty line will be harder. I’m guessing the amount of infants left at safe haven places will sky rocket.
Couldn’t that actually make it Federal ?
I think you’re asking, could the Feds also prosecute? Yes, probably, but that would mean a federal law calling abortion murder, and it seems unlikely that would get passed the House right now.
Roe v Wade will be eliminated in a far different world than the one that created it. Abortion is a national market that will not be ignored by the investment community. Once control reverts to the states, California, Nevada and New York will set up fly in clinics. I suspect Orlando FL won’t be far behind. The process will follow the Casino model. What was once a sin will suddenly become business.
But … to your point … if a conspiracy can be established – possibly even by picking up the phone in Mississippi and making a phone call to a clinic in Colorado – there may not need to be new legislation.
I presume it’s mostly about how motivated an administration is to establish or secure its socially conservative bona fides with the electorate.
I would guess that most here are familiar with the insidious end-runs (“TRAP” laws) that have been made in an effort to drive abortion into extinction … with Absolutely No Compelling Evidence Whatsoever that “the health of the woman” is involved.
For the moment, it seems like prosecutions – either for patients or providers – seems to be a bridge too far. But I don’t doubt that minds could be changed on that, too.
I used to think conservatives valued the issue more than they valued the win, but … as we’re discussing … the issue wouldn’t disappear with an overturning of RvW.
I understand that the conspiracy has to be in furtherance of a crime … which is why you made the point about new legislation.
I guess I’m wondering if they couldn’t shoehorn in something else that’s already on the books without declaring abortion to be murder.
I’m not going to fight the premise; I’ll accept for the sake of argument that the Roe decision is overturned and we’re in a situation where states can individually decide whether or not to prohibit abortions.
I feel the political impact would be a move away from the Republicans. Right now, the Republicans have it easy on abortion; they can make grand promises without having to fulfill them. Pro-life Republican voters are happy to hear the promises that the Republican party supports the banning of abortions while pro-choice Republican voters feel comfortable ignoring these promises because they know the Roe decision makes them meaningless.
If Roe disappeared, the Republican party would no longer be able to get away with making empty promises and playing both sides. Laws banning abortions would be possible and pro-life voters would expect Republican office holders to enact them. But enacting those laws would cost the Republican office holders the support of the pro-choice voters.
Are there any pro-choice Republican voters left? I can’t imagine there are many, and those who remain must put it pretty low on their list of priorities.