Recently in the Netherlands, people wanting to take control over their end-of-life-phase, have taken to ordering lethal painkillers in China. The role of the Dutch association for end-of-life planning strictly limits itself to advising members with what reliable Chinese comapny they can order these drugs. This was apparently not against the current Dutch law that forbids suicide assistance.
Suppose a similar service would emerge in the US. A website with info where to buy pregnancy-ending medication, and the guarantee that such medication will be sent to the adress in an unmarked envelope.
And my own local hospital already offers medical consults with the doctors via Facetime, for certain types of treatment. It is technically possible for that doctor to be in another state or even country.
It is not optimal, but neither is trying to get to that one clinic that is left in the State. Or to getting no treatment at all.
Once it is known which company is doing it, what sort of packaging is used and from which city it is mailed, tracking and/or stopping the shipments will be easy.
There are already states in the US where abortions are available in an extremely limited number of locations. But if abortions become illegal in some states, the option the OP offered might trigger further legislation to make it particularly dangerous, legally, for women to opt for it. I could be wrong, but I would think most women would rather drive across state lines and get an abortion in another state where it’s legal. Granted, that can be a significant burden for many women, but it beats the possibility of jail time.
I’ll also just note that I don’t think the SCOTUS will overturn Roe. But if by some chance they do, I think it will be a disaster for the GOP. Be careful what you wish for!
You think? I think you misspelled “impossible”. Do you know how easy it currently is to buy prescription drugs online without a prescription? Even controlled substances? Hint: It’s really easy. And a quick web search show that you can already buy all sorts of abortion drugs on-line. Your post makes it sound like only one company would do this, making it easy to shut them down. When, apparently, there are dozens of companies currently selling these products illicitly on-line.
And it’s trivially easy for the companies selling illicit drugs to package them as something legal by concealing the inner packaging by putting them in a container labeled as an herbal supplement. Or aspirin. I guess the USPS could confiscate all these packages of outwardly legal substances and test them, but that seems time consuming and tricky. These companies also disguise their outer packaging and spread around the mailing locations. The packages frequently appear to be personal mail from private citizens.
I know lots of people that have purchased illegal substances on-line. Frequently. Not one has ever been caught or had a package intercepted. The companies that do this have learned how to do it and they usually get away with it. Catching them will not be easy.
I think the use of federal taxpayer money to fund abortions is going be withdrawn or limited, but I’m not sure if the law of abortions itself will change with a moderate conservative swing vote Super Court Justice, being replaced with a stronger conservative.
One day abortion may be frowned like say Jim Crows laws are now, but that’s in the future.
Until then, there is nothing wrong with adoption. If additional workers are needed a work visa can be granted. Getting drugs from for foreign nation which may not pass our standards is risky
Since no one likes the act of an abortion, and human life is in the balance, I think the suggestion that one day abortion may be frowned like Jim Crows laws is more likely.
In a small way, I can agree with this, because I don’t see that there will be a direct assault on Roe. Instead, I can envision any number of the red states passing onerous abortion restrictions, even outright bans, and letting these be challenged in court which SCOTUS upholds despite Roe. Their decision might also impact other states that haven’t outlawed abortion.
So, technically, Roe isn’t overturned, but it becomes a distinction without a difference.
I’m not so sure why you are so confident. It would work as follows:
South Carolina passes a law banning abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.
Planned Parenthood goes to the U.S. District Court, gets an injunction, and the court properly holds the law is unconstitutional pursuant to Roe and Casey.
The State of South Carolina appeals to the 4th Circuit that rules exactly the same way.
South Carolina files a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided. If FOUR justices want to overturn Roe, they can hear the case.
I would guess that Thomas and Gorsuch would grant cert for that reason. Hopefully Trump nominates a new justice in that class. If Alito is on board, then that is four and the case is heard. Will Roberts find his conservative spine? Possibly.
But if there is another vacancy on the court? Oh boy!
That is exactly as the Slate article describes it. Roe vs Wade stands in theory, but in practice in red states it will be next to impossible for a woman who isnt rich or resourceful or lucky to get medical care.
I’d argue it’s not that convincing of a case. They basically assume a straight party line vote. That ignores the votes of two moderate Republican Senators that are supportive of abortion rights, Murkowski and Collins. (Cite with their initial statements about a new SCOTUS appointments.) It also ignores the three Democratic Senators that still rate less than 100% lifetime rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that could potentially cross party lines. (Manchin and Donnelley are both up for election this fall in states that Trump won in 2016. They’ll need to balance their own beliefs, those of their electorate, and the possible negative effects of crossing party lines on DNC support for their campaigns.) With McCain in AZ the Senate is 50-49. Those five Senators matter a lot.
There’s also the issue of precedent that my first cite brings up. Murkowski had several personal conversations with Gorsuch before voting to confirm. He stated during confirmation hearings a strong respect for precedent and that he considered access to abortion as the “law of the land.” She voted to confirm only after carefully considering the competing pulls. None of us were there for the conversations that convinced her to vote for him and he’s never made a decision with respect to abortion. I’m leery of the common perception that a vote on a given case related to abortion is a sure thing either way.
The Slate author baldly stating even a likely possibility as fact is lazy, hyperbolic, or both. It’s more an article exploring a hypothetical IMO than one attempting to support the claim made in the title.
I’m not sure how that follows. Roe v Wade didn’t protect access to the family planning services that prevent pregnancy. It’s only about what services are legally available after becoming pregnant. States already can and do make policy decisions about what is taught in mandated sex education, whether high schools are allowed to distribute condoms and what kinds of public health services related to family planning that they fund. An overturn of Roe doesn’t really do anything with respect to policies that support or impede prevention of unintended pregnancy.
Netherlands has a low unintended pregnancy rate despite being solidly on the restrictive side of current US state laws with respect to abortion. Your country seems to manage.
Approved medical (ias opposed to surgical) abortion methods are prescription drugs. A state law could constrain doctors writing those prescriptions. Something like a video consultation with a state that still allowed the prescription to be written is a handy workaround. Customs and Border Patrol doesn’t monitor domestic mail. USPS allows mailing legal drugs, with some restrictions for controlled substances like opiates. They are a semi-independent part of the federal government so the state’s can’t directly control their policies. What happens on that front potentially becomes one of the new points of political friction.
The downside is chemical abortion has a much shorter window where it’s an appropriate and safe method of abortion. There are also women for whom it is contraindicated. Complications that require follow on medical care are possible. That’s an issue if taking the drugs is criminalized under state law.