# What would REALLY happen if abortion was banned? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921 "2005-10-19T16:03:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/61 "2005-10-19T21:16:28Z")
In a related vein, it’s worth pointing out that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged to [“actively support” a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101800715.html) So much for “state’s rights” and “activist judges,” eh? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/62 "2005-10-19T21:24:50Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Doctors performin Abortions for money certainly meets the standard of substantially affecting interstate commerce. I’d say it has much more effect, by orders of magnitude, than a very small number of people growing a very small amount of marijuana. Really? Quantify that. Give the dollar amount of interstate abortion services verus the dollar amount of interstate marijuana trade. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/63 "2005-10-19T21:26:18Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > In a related vein, it’s worth pointing out that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged to [“actively support” a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101800715.html) So much for “state’s rights” and “activist judges,” eh? Such an amendment would have to be passed by three-fourths of the . . . what was that word? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/64 "2005-10-19T21:34:24Z")
> [@treis](#): > > a very small number of people growing a very small amount of marijuana. I’ll start you off with some information from [NORML](http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4444#execsumm): > [@](#): > > United States marijuana growers harvested a minimum of **5.5 million pounds** of saleable marijuana in 1997 worth $15.1 billion to growers and **$25.2 billion** on the retail market. Government crop yield estimates place the value of these 8.7 million harvested plants at approximately $26.3 billion to growers and a street value of **$43.8 billion**. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/65 "2005-10-19T21:46:23Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Really? Quantify that. Give the dollar amount of interstate abortion services verus the dollar amount of interstate marijuana trade. That isn’t the right way to compare the two even if the comparison meant anything. The way to compare them would be % of abortions done on out of state patients Vs. % of MJ produced in accordance with the medical marijuana laws. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/66 "2005-10-19T21:49:38Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > In a related vein, it’s worth pointing out that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged to [“actively support” a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101800715.html) So much for “state’s rights” and “activist judges,” eh? When something is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, there isn’t much argument about “states’ rights” is there? It’s pretty clear that the 10th amendment doesn’t apply to parts of the constiutiton that read “no state may…” How would she have been an “activist judge” by trying to get something passed by the legislature? Do you even know the difference between the legislative and judicial branches of government? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/67 "2005-10-19T21:53:42Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Planned Parenthood has had decades to dispute that claim. In all that time, I have yet to find a single reference in which Planned Parenthood stated, “No, we never said such a thing!” So, do you wish to go on the record standing behind the principle “If A make thus-and-such a detrimental-to-B assertion, and B does not make a denial, then the assertion should be presumed true.”? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/68 "2005-10-19T22:04:05Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > So, do you wish to go on the record standing behind the principle “If A make thus-and-such a detrimental-to-B assertion, and B does not make a denial, then the assertion should be presumed true.”? In this particular circumstance, since Mary Calderone’s statement is supposedly a matter of public record, having been reported in the July 1960 issue of _The American Journal of Public Health_… YES. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/69 "2005-10-19T22:13:18Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > In this particular circumstance, since Mary Calderone’s statement is supposedly a matter of public record, having been reported in the July 1960 issue of _The American Journal of Public Health_… > > YES. All right, let’s see a cite of that _that does not come from a pro-life website_. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/70 "2005-10-19T22:24:12Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Such an amendment would have to be passed by three-fourths of the . . . what was that word? “_Republican-controlled_ Congress.” ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/71 "2005-10-19T22:29:03Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > All right, let’s see a cite of that _that does not come from a pro-life website_. Only if you’re willing to disregard any and all claims that come from any pro-choice sources. This includes NARAL, Planned Parenthood and any authors with pro-choice leanings. Me, I’d rather refute the arguments themselves, rather than ignore the ones that come from people whose viewpoints I dislike. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/72 "2005-10-19T22:46:22Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Only if you’re willing to disregard any and all claims that come from any pro-choice sources. This includes NARAL, Planned Parenthood and any authors with pro-choice leanings. Of course. I don’t want those, either- I want a cite from a _neutral_ site. The original journal would be best, but any site that wouldn’t have a motivation, financial or otherwise, to manufacture a quote or take one out of context to prove a point will do. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/73 "2005-10-19T22:51:09Z")
I was just looking up that article. It isn;t avalible on the net, but is intead avalible [here](http://www.ajph.org/misc/older.shtml) for 15 dollars a shot. Looking through anti-abortion sites (Ugh!) I find this “article” is cited for everything from “A” to “Z” I ssupect it says nothing of the kind. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/74 "2005-10-19T22:53:55Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > “_Republican-controlled_ Congress.” Well, if it’s the Republican controlled Congress, then it would indeed be an act by activisit judges. Gosh, how did we miss that. :rolleyes: As for “states’ rights”, the GOP is no more a defender of that than the Dems. They just want to control different things. Generally, though, that phrase is meant to interpret the constitution to prohibit the feds from overriding the states unless the feds are explicitly allowed to do so in the constitution. As I said earlier, if the constitution forbids the states to allow abortion, it isn’t an issue of “states’ rights”. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/75 "2005-10-19T23:01:15Z")
non sequitur? > [@John Mace](#): > > As for “states’ rights”, the GOP is no more a defender of that than the Dems. They just want to control different things. Damn those dems, and they way they took away the states freedom to control the wombs of female residents! Damn them for taking away the states right to express that America was founded with Christian princibles. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/76 "2005-10-19T23:02:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Don’t know about gutting of SDP - it would depend on the decision. It sure would. If they kept the right to privacy, but excluded abortion from that right, it may not have that drastic of effect on other rights. But, if it were a “strict constructionist” opinion, it most likely would call into question all those things. > [@Shodan](#): > > Segregation, no. I would have thought that was obvious. Enlighten me. > [@Shodan](#): > > The rest? I suppose we could, but I doubt if such things are going to get very far. In general, any right not in the Constitution could only be established by the states, or the people, as the Tenth Amendment states. > > I think you are assuming that unjust laws can **only** be addressed by having the courts overturn them. Obviously this is not the case - a legislature can rescind a law, and is more responsive to the popular will than an unelected judge. So if you wanted to have a China One Child law, you would have to convince 51% of the Senate and House. Hey, first response post and already you’re telling me what I’m thinking. How surprising from you. :rolleyes: No, the courts are not the ONLY body that can address unjust laws, but they are certainly part of the Constitutional review of legislation. It was those wonderful legislatures that you trust so much that enacted laws not allowing people to decide whether to use artificial methods of birth control, legislating what goes on in our bedrooms, and telling us how to raise our children. You really think, especially in this climate, that legislators have the best views of minorities in mind? Heh. > [@Shodan](#): > > The ideal is that the Constitution explicitly establishes certain of the basic rights of the people. Laws not in conflict with those basic rights are passed by the legislature. If the people decide they want to recognize another right, they amend the Constitution, or merely have their representatives pass laws establishing that newly recognized right. That’s not the “ideal.” The ideal is having a Constitution protect the rights of it’s people. The “ideal” is having another branch of government acting as a check and balance on the “will of the majority”. > [@Shodan](#): > > You may be making the same mistake a lot of folks make talking about Roe v. Wade. Overturning Roe v. Wade (insert gasps of horror at the thought here :D) would not “make abortion illegal”. It is not a simple binary, where the Court turns that faucet on and off. Roe v. Wade made it illegal for states to regulate abortion. Allowing them to do so again would free the differing regions of the country to make different decisions based on the will of the people of their state. Hey, two times you’ve put words in my mouth that I never said. And called them a mistake. No wonder I get such joy debating you. > [@Shodan](#): > > Which would be fine with me. “Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend” as Mao supposedly said. This would be (IMO) the solution least offensive to the basic notion of limited government, especially limited federal government. The Constitution doesn’t address abortion. Therefore it seems to me illicit for the Supremes to pretend it does. > > Regards, > Shodan “Pretend” it does. Your rhetoric is, as usual, dripping all over the issues. Here’s some more quotes for you: All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Thomas Jefferson “Nothing is more revolting than the majority; for it consists of few vigorous predecessors, of knaves who accommodate themselves, of weak people who assimilate themselves, and the mass that toddles after them without knowing in the least what it wants” Goethe ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/77 "2005-10-19T23:24:50Z")
No, such a Constitutionanl amendment would have to be passed by three-fourths of the _states_. That’s why talk of > [@rjung](#): > > So much for “state’s rights” and “activist judges,” eh? makes no sense. If anything, making it a Constitutional amendment would take it _out_ of the hands of “activist judges”, and then only if three-fourths of the _states_ concurred. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/78 "2005-10-19T23:29:03Z")
> [@treis](#): > > That isn’t the right way to compare the two even if the comparison meant anything. Then why did _[you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6702737&postcount=59)_ make the comparison? > [@treis](#): > > The way to compare them would be % of abortions done on out of state patients Vs. % of MJ produced in accordance with the medical marijuana laws. Where in your original post did you specify “medical marijuana”? And where did you get the idea that the interstate commerce justification has anything to do with medical marijuana? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/79 "2005-10-20T00:37:06Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > It sure would. If they kept the right to privacy, but excluded abortion from that right, it may not have that drastic of effect on other rights. But, if it were a “strict constructionist” opinion, it most likely would call into question all those things. And my preference would be to call all those new rights emanating from penumbrae into question. > [@Hamlet](#): > > No, the courts are not the ONLY body that can address unjust laws, but they are certainly part of the Constitutional review of legislation. It was those wonderful legislatures that you trust so much that enacted laws not allowing people to decide whether to use artificial methods of birth control, legislating what goes on in our bedrooms, and telling us how to raise our children. And the Supreme Court has made equally stupid and short-sighted decisions. Absent any consideration for what the Constitution actually says, there is no check on the power of the Supremes to be stupid. Therefore, it is in everyone’s best interests to reserve that power for the responsive legislature rather the unresponsive courts. > [@Hamlet](#): > > That’s not the “ideal.” The ideal is having a Constitution protect the rights of it’s people. The “ideal” is having another branch of government acting as a check and balance on the “will of the majority”. Then see above. If judges are the sort of absolute autocrats who can bring about anything they like by simply informing us that this is what the Constitution really says, then there is no limit on their power. And the rights of the people have no protection. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Hey, two times you’ve put words in my mouth that I never said. And called them a mistake. No wonder I get such joy debating you. You asked the question, and I responded. Words like “may” or “I think” apparently escape your notice. That being the case, feel free not to ask me questions in future, if you dislike my responses so much. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Enlighten me. Probably not possible. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921/80 "2005-10-20T00:59:50Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Then why did _[you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6702737&postcount=59)_ make the comparison? First off, I didn’t say how I was comparing the two just that it had a much greater impact. I should have been clearer and for that I apologize. I brought up the comparison becuase it shows that the standard is set at a drop in the ocean. If the California law was enacted in all 50 states we are talking at most a couple hundred pounds maybe a thousand pounds of marijuana. Considering that (according to your cite) 5.5 million pounds of MJ were grown in the country you will be hard pressed to convince me that a thousand pounds will have a greater impact than legalizing/banning abortion in an entire state will. > [@Walloon](#): > > Where in your original post did you specify “medical marijuana”? And where did you get the idea that the interstate commerce justification has anything to do with medical marijuana? I didn’t and I apologize for not making it explicit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-really-happen-if-abortion-was-banned/326921.md?page=5)