Did I miss something? What federal money is funding abortions? Do you mean abortions for rape and incest?
Not sure about Roe vs. Wade, but I’m confident that the next Supreme Court can and will support attempts to make getting an abortion really difficult, so it’s definitely worthwhile to explore alternative options. It’s a toss-up to me which is riskier, childbirth or foreign medicine.
Just because a thing is forbidden is no reason a Republican can’t restrict it. We are talking about very creative people.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and state I don’t think Kennedy would have retired under Trump if he got any sense that the other justices would go insane and start overturning extremely hotbutton cases left and right. They do talk to eachother outside of court you know. Roberts got ObamaCare turned into a tax so it could go through, he’s not touching Roe v Wade.
It’s already illegal to use federal taxpayer money to fund abortions, and has been so for decades.
It will help. It helps now. There are groups of people who transport and house women from state to state to get them to clinics. There will also be tons of information on self inducing abortions - much of it dangerous, but some of it useful.
But the biggest problem with restricting abortion access is that its a blunt instrument. If my daughter needs an abortion, I can take her to Canada - heck, we can fly to Europe. She is also not at all likely to need an abortion (for one, she’s asexual, but she is also intelligent, upper middle class, with supportive parents, able to access medical care easily, with good insurance, lives in an urban area, and has had excellent sex education.) Even with internet support, getting the support to the poor (whether rural or urban) who don’t necessarily have the research skills to find the right people, or even a permanent address to mail something to, or a girl in a conservative rural community will be tough. The people who are most impacted by an unplanned pregnancy - who just being pregnant can create hardship - economic, their physical security, are the most likely to actually be restricted by the laws.
The majority of abortions performed before twelve weeks gestation are chemical abortions, using a common pharmaceutical used for treating ulcers. I know that personally I managed to exist for about forty years as an uncaught felon and transported all kinds of drugs for personal use across any number of state lines and even internationally–a bottle of pills is child’s play. If Roe is overturned, I foresee a bustling industry of smuggling misoprostol and mifepristone into the benighted states–hell, Oregon has literally zero restrictions on abortion at all, we’re fine with it and might become a hub for making sure what women need gets to them safely. This will require pregnant women to confirm their pregnancies and make up their minds to terminate in a timely manner but it’s a whole lot better than being forced into an unwanted pregnancy and trying to do something about it with a fucking coat hanger.
In practice, based on the experience of abortion bans in Latin America, I would guess that women are going to choose to get sterilized in fairly large numbers or else opt for IUDs and long acting reversible contraception.
One thing I’m fairly sure of is that an abortion ban isn’t going to affect the birth rate.
I find it depressing that this is seen as a foregone conclusion rather than the possibility that more people might bother with using birth control correctly… I personally would like to believe that if abortions were harder to get a significant number of people would be more concerned with not getting pregnant in the first place.
The pill was only legalized for unmarried women a year before Roe Vs. Wade, so we actually have no idea how well birth control alone might’ve reduced the rate of unplanned pregnancies had abortion never become legal.
That’s a bit deceptive, though, because the court case only said states couldn’t make it illegal. It wasn’t the case that there was a federal law prohibiting the sale of birth control to unmarried people, was there? And was it the case that every state had laws like the one in MA?
Similarly, Roe didn’t mark the beginning of legal abortions in the US. Some states had begun to liberalize abortion laws prior to Roe.
The pill wasn’t even on the market until 1960, and by 1965, 26 states had outlawed it to unmarried women. Every state? No. Majority of states? Yes.
And in the same manner you can say that Obergefell didn’t mark the beginning of legal SSM in the US, as some states had begun to liberalize SSM laws prior to Obergefell.
Still a pivotal point.
I should have made it more clear that I was also generalizing to all types of birth control, and not just talking about the pill. For example, was it illegal to sell condoms to unmarried men?
Yes, but we still can’t say we had “no idea” what SSM would be like before Obergefell. So, when the poster I was replying to said “we actually have no idea how well birth control alone might’ve reduced the rate of unplanned pregnancies” that’s not really true.
In the Netherlands, the use of the pill and other contraceptives is much higher then in the US, and while abortus is legal, the rate of abortion is much, much lower then in the US. I’ve elaborated on this here.
Back far enough, yeah. Before the 20’s that was illegal. It was still illegal to market them as being for contraception. It was still illegal for an unmarried woman to posses them until the 70’s.
Now, these were state’s laws, so they did vary, but many had them on the books.
The poster was probably talking about unwed women’s access to effective birth control, not just the existence of condoms that men could use if they wanted to. As the pill didn’t even exist much more than a decade before roe v wade, and was not legal for unmarried women in the majority of the states till just a year before, I will agree that there would be very little data from which to extrapolate. “No idea” may be a bit of a stretch, though, so if he should have said “virtually no idea”.
And that’s why I first said it was “a bit” deceptive, not “massively” deceptive. 
It might turn out that way, eventually.
But abortion has been so polarizing, for so long, that I question how much new support the abortion rights movement would pick up if *Roe *were overturned. It would mostly need to be picked up in red states, to inflict any electoral hurt on anti-abortion rights politicians. And a lot of the affected people would be poor, who don’t get as actively involved in politics. The lines around the abortion battle have been drawn for a long time.
So a certain thing isn’t technically illegal, and in fact has been ruled to be constitutionally protected. But a lot of people think it should be and, with the SC’s acquiescence, do everything legally possible to obstruct and nullify the ability to in practice exercise this right. This reminds me of something.
AFAIK, Connecticut still has a law on the books banning contraception. It was ruled unconstitutional, but maybe never repealed. If the court reversed that you could see such bills passing.
I will probably get bombed for this, but I have always felt that the decision in Roe v. Wade was poorly based and it stopped the women’s lib movement from fighting it on a state by state basis where it should have been. Instead pro-choice women dropped that campaign, thinking it won. History shows it wasn’t. Now maybe they’ll try to get rid of all the women-hating legislators.
I was never in love with Roe v Wade so much as fond of the effect of having it established.
To do it right, there should be an irrevocable law that says anyone has the right to terminate their own pregnancy if they choose to do so, period, end of story; and that medical service providers cannot be prosecuted for providing medical services that facilitate that, nor can they be discriminated against in their profession as long as their medical behavior is in keeping with the ethics and medical standards of the profession.
I agree with this. It will be interesting to see however if Democrats attempt to block the nomination.
Presidents Clinton and Obama had court nominees (Justices Breyer and Kagan) confirmed shortly before midterm elections.
We’ll see if Schumer has a double standard and says oh, but this time we need to wait.