For I was hungry and you pointed me to the nearest dumpster;
I was a stranger and you locked me in a cage in a detention center;
I was naked and you said I was a child groomer;
I was sick and you told me to have a bake sale;
I was in prison and you said “Cool, free labor!”.
Would an executive order giving a blanket pardon to women obtaining and any and all people assisting in abortion services be workable? It would be similar to the hundreds of thousands of draft evaders pardoned by President Carter in 1977. There would have to be provisions for excluding third trimester abortions and abortions under conditions that would have been illegal under the Roe v Wade, but it could provide a short term relief for women unable to leave their home states.
The President cannot pardon state charges.
No way, Jose (as it were).
But funding it by TAXATION, and HIGHER taxes at that… I don’t freakin’ think so. If you want something, you pay for it directly. That’s the 'Murrican way. And if you can’t afford it, well, it’s your own damn fault. I repeat: not the federal or state government’s problem.
[Of course, I personally think we should go full-on democratic socialism, with higher taxes, which will give us many services and protections such as those enjoyed by civilized countries. But that’s not gonna happen in my lifetime. I’ll be dead in 25 years or less, thank goodness.]
One stopgap measure that intrigues me:
Another particularly invasive proposal would bring abortionists to federal facilities like military bases, which are a sort of autonomous zone for state prosecution, inside states that have outlawed abortions.
Screw their pejorative take on it 
I like it !
And aren’t at least some VA hospitals on federal land ?
We keep getting caught up in the “abortion” part. What the Supreme Court did was strip womens rights from the protection of the 14th Amendment. My reproductive and sexual privacy and freedom have been removed from my ownership and turned over to the government. HIPPA (most likely) doesn’t protect my gynecological choices if I am suspected of a nefarious act. Any woman who suffers a miscarriage is now going to be in that pool of suspects.
Women are bearing the consequence of this decision, even if men are affected. This is effectively a decision that, IMO, puts women into “their place” within a patriarchal Christian government structure.
It also strips protection from the girls who are molested and raped and get pregnant. Seems like the trauma of forcing a 10 year old girl to birth her own sibling or cousin will have far greater impact than any abortion would. Fast forward to dating prospects in high school. “She’s a slut, she’s already had 1 kid”
This has been mentioned on various news show last night. Tribal lands could also be possible. There were quite a few stop gap measure tossed about yesterday.
It is if the government mandates something. If the people of a state don’t want to pay for children who would not otherwise exist, they can vote to change the law. If they don’t want to change the law, then they should be responsible for their choice. Saying that the People can force women to have children without taking responsibility for forcing them to do it is saying that they want to eat their cake and have it too. You want more babies? Take responsibility for them.
The thing they don’t tell you is that that arc has a very jagged curve, and at any given moment may be bending the wrong way.
(Who’s “they”? I’ve no idea. That was the way this reply came out of my head, and I’m too tired to rephrase it. Though, apparently, not too tired to type this explanation.)
We are supposed to be able to do exactly that with the federal government.
And also for the women’s time for nine months plus recovery; and major indemnification for any way in which they don’t recover, including pain-and-suffering awards and repair if possible of any and all medical issues they endured and/or were left with, including mental issues; and also indemnification for loss of work/education/etc opportunities; and even more major indemnification for any permanent damage, paid to the survivors if that damage includes death?
A point, as far as it goes. And your implied point that the anti-choice faction will do no such thing is valid.
However, “we want more babies, so you should be forced to produce them” is an utterly terrible argument even if it has added on to it “and we’ll pay to take care of them”. Even if it comes along with payment for expenses and damages made directly to the unwillingly pregnant. It amounts to “we can enslave you in the most intimate way possible, from inside your own body”. No amount of payment makes that OK.
People who want more babies should have more babies. (I’m quite willing to hear arguments that they should be paid for it; that’s essential work that the society doesn’t respect anywhere near enough, despite lots of lipservice paid – and that’s generally the only thing that it gets paid.) They shouldn’t try to make other people do so.
Exactly.
Coincidentally, this popped up on FB today. (Just copying the text.)
‘My religion says I can’t do that.’
‘Okay.’
‘My religion says you can’t do that.’
‘F__k off.’
Benefit? Are you serious? There are over 7.7 BILLION people in the world now. How is forcing women who don’t want to, to make more a benefit to anyone? Hell, even the kids forced to be born are likely going to grow up in a shithole world and probably won’t be thanking you later.
I have no idea. But to anti-choice people, there is clearly a benefit else they wouldn’t force women and girls to have babies.
They’ve made it very clear, not once, but twice, with the infamous Fourteen Words.
Given that abortion bans will almost certainly affect people of colour the most, I don’t think the 14 Words would apply.
Someone has to fill all the for profit prisons we keep building.
I just had a thought and I have to share it. The exact same pseudo-historic reasoning used to reverse Roe v. Wade could be used to reverse Loving v. VA. I think they ought to immediately arrest the Thomas’s and try them for miscegenation.
Arrest the Thomas’s what?
The parts that were doing the miscegenation, of course. They can keep the rest.
I’ve been saying this for years. In fact I think we should unionize, demand wages and benefits. Yes, I’m the woman who doesn’t want children, because I’m self-centered and also because of a genetic issue I don’t want to pass along.
Here’s the issue I’m having: while I’m pro-choice, I kinda sorta agree (and I believe, so did RBG) that it was a stretch for Blackmun to find a constitutional “right to privacy” in a reading of the amendments.
But was that the only way to rationalize a pro-choice stance? Isn’t there any other principle that says that states have no business running around enacting laws that impinge on private matters that they have no legitimate interest in regulating?