So what if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

[UltraVires]

@k9bfriender

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

It’s been 50 years since a state could prosecute anyone for an abortion, in or out of state. I don’t know that your historical precedent is as solid as you would like.

There are laws about taking minors across state lines. If a fetus is considered a person, which this law seems to indicate, then that is a new situation that was not addressed pre-Wade.

So you concede that this is pure speculation on Slate’s part and should likely back off of the bold statement that women will be prosecuted for murder, even upon leaving the state for an abortion? There is simply no support for that statement.

@k9bfriender

And that’s exactly it. This is the usual case of laws that bind others, while not binding oneself. You and your wife can happily support an anti-abortion candidate, knowing that if you or one of your children is in a situation where an abortion is in your best interests, you will not face any difficulty in procuring one. You also know that those who are less fortunate, the ones that don’t get abortions for the right reasons, will be prevented.

That’s not it at all. There are hypocrites everywhere, but you don’t believe that there are many families and women who do not view abortion as an option?

You are also avoiding the question. Given the current state of the law under Casey that holds that states may indeed enact regulations against abortion that do not put an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion, we have to explore what makes a burden “undue.” Who is the person we are using as an example?

If we use the most geographically isolated and poorest woman in the United States as that example, then every regulation is unconstitutional, not just for an abortion, but for everything. Pick any issue: guns, free speech, free exercise of religion, jury trials, right to an attorney, etc. Take a poor and geographically isolated woman who has been abused and needs to buy a gun for self protection. She must undergo an FBI background check and possibly wait up to 72 hours (would be extended to 30 days under recent proposals). If we are being fair and comparing apples to apples, wouldn’t you have to concede that if these abortion regulations fail, then the gun purchasing laws would have to fail as well?

@k9bfriender

This is a good point, and is a good argument as to why we should have a universal healthcare system, one that provides reproductive health. It is not a good argument for why we should make it harder for one to receive necessary medical treatment.

Nothing in Roe requires states who are opposed to abortion to pay for them. You are not arguing to keep Roe, you are arguing for a more expansive heretofore unheard of right to an abortion. Again, apples to apples, should the government buy guns, printing presses, or give free Bibles to poor people?

@k9bfriender

It’s silly because it also applies to a 3 day old blastocyst.

Not under this Georgia law it doesn’t. Personhood starts when a heartbeat is detected. I will concede that such personhood laws have problems lurking in the bushes–say for inheritance purposes. If I die in a car crash, how are we going to determine if my child in utero had developed a heart beat at that exact moment? Further, even the most ardent anti-abortion person I know would believe in an exception to save the mother’s life. In no other area of law would we simply choose one life over another in that fashion.