Then they most certainly would fall if Roe was overturned on your grounds.
No check on the Supreme Court? The founding fathers would be surprised to hear that. Especially given the Executive Branch’s power to appoint, the judiciary’s inability to enforce, it’s inability to enact laws, the case and controversy requirements, and all the checks.
See above too.
You answered the question. And then went beyond in an attempt to put words in my mouth. If it were the first time, I may have had a bit more patience.
Cute. Any time you want to actually debate…nah, scratch that. I’d have more luck getting porcines to aviate, than get an honest, intelligent debate from you. I’ll just leave it with the answer that your method of overruling Roe would have drastic effects on a great deal of more rights than just abortion, and we can both save the hassle.
Doesn’t matter becuase doing it for free will affect those that charge for it. Even if everyone does it for free they still have to buy equipment and medicine for the proceedures.
Not impossible. It’s already illegal to cross state lines to get around the age of sexual consent. What’s to stop anyone from making it illegal to cross state lines to get around abortion regulations?
I believe it’d have to be a federal law, but in a climate where abortion rights are no longer federally protected, I don’t think that’d be much of an obstacle.
The excellent film Vera Drake shows the reality of what did happen all those decades ago when abortion was illegal in the UK. The wealthy found a way, no matter how expensive, while the poor had to rely on well meaning older women with enough experience to (usually) safely dispose of the growth which the state absurdly called a human being. Those who died did so as a direct result of such a ridiculous law: it would be less silly to simply ban sex.
There are two things I’ve noticed recently which make me concerned about what would happen if abortion were made illegal. While I was in Ohio recently, I remember reading a newspaper article about a bill which would not only make abortion illegal, but would also make it illegal to travel out of state to obtain an abortion. I can see Ohio and other states passing such laws. I’m afraid I wasn’t able to find an on-line cite at the time, and I’d welcome confirmation or denial of this.
The other thing is the recent cluster of cases in which a pharmacist refused to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill or standard birth control pills because they could cause abortions by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting. I looked for some information on what the odds of such things happening, but I couldn’t come up with any figures, reliable or unreliable, nor can I think of an effective way of finding out if the pill does prevent fertilized eggs from implanting or how often it happens with or without the use of birth control. What I did find was websites calling for the ban of all hormonal birth control because any of these methods could prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, which makes them abortifacients. Since hormonal methods are the most effective form of contraception, in some cases, even more effective than sterilization, this concerns me.
If abortion is made illegal, I can see the same people who called for it to be made illegal calling for hormonal birth control to be made illegal, thus increasing the number of unwanted pregnancies. If you’d asked me this question a year ago, I wouldn’t have mentioned this concern because, frankly, it wouldn’t have occurred to me. Now, however, it does.
First of all, it will lead to a repression of sexuality, as the cost and risk of having sex will be increased significantly. A repression of sexuality so far seems to nearly always coincide with less sex-ed, more taboo, and, ironically, more unwanted pregnancies. Since the personal cost to such pregnancies in terms of shame, personal expense, and so on tends to be high, in such societies, the ironic side effect could well be that motives for getting an abortion will increase. If you think this comes out of the blue, then I welcome you take a closer look at abortion clinics. In the Netherlands, for instance, the abortion rate has been one of the lowest in the world, thanks to our very liberal sex-ed (coming from both schools and parents), good access to contraception, and so on. But recently, the number is rising again, completely due to the increased number of immigrants from countries where sex is much more of a taboo.
One thing that many forget is that the people who have to deal with abortion are still, even in the U.S., a large minority. The number of people who are anti-choice that will change their mind once faced with the true implications of an unwanted pregnancy (something which for many is beyond the capacity of imagination, unlike, say, imposing simplistic morality on others) have been historically large, in any society where abortion has been a taboo. As with so many things, making something illegal does not remove the need for it, and often puts them out of sight and control.
Ahhh… are you referring to The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion, where pro-life people think that everyone else who’s having an abortion is a slut, skank, whore, immoral toad who shouldn’t have had sex and who definitely doesn’t use birth control when she does?
It’s amazing how far some people can willfully stick their heads into the sand.
So, the unwed pregnancy rates would be higher before Roe v. Wade than after, right?
So, if that were true, the number of teenagers getting pregnant would not have increased during the 70s. The number of teen pregnancies would not have nearly doubled from about 1975 to 1994. The teenage pregnancy rate in the US would not be among the highest in the industrialized world.
Does the phrase “false generalization” mean anything to you? In any movement, you are bound to have some individuals that will fail to uphold their own principles in times of duress. This should come as no surprise to anyone who understands human nature.
And that’s what really scares me. If the Supreme Court decided it was constitutional to make hormonal birth control illegal, I’d be seriously looking at immigration requirements for Canada or Australia
Well, here’s the thing that makes it a little different on the topic of abortion. A pregnant woman who didn’t really WANT to be pregnant is between a rock and a hard place. She has tough decisions to make, the outcome of which will affect her for years to come. I know the anti-choice crowd likes to paint the outcome of all births in warmnfuzzy colors, but in the real world it just doesn’t work out that way all the time. But the anti-choice crowd is nevertheless right there, telling the woman what her only decision can be in that tough situation. Even those who are willing to acknowledge how tough such a decision is, still call on women in that very tough spot that they HAVE to decide things the anti-choice way.
So when the anti-choice folks get in that very tough situation themselves and THEN make the “wrong” decision (from their POV) it totally destroys, not just their credibility, but the entire movement’s credibility. Because the whole anti-choice movement is about MAKING others uphold THEIR (the anti-choice crowd’s) principles in “times of duress.” Whether they like it or not. And the ones who decided “wrongly” (from the anti-choice POV) are obviously hypocrites, and the ones who have never been “under duress of pregnancy” are in no position to criticize others’ choices, or their interest in HAVING choices, because who knows what they might do under duress … just look what their fellow anti-choice partisans have done.
I’m trying to recall the scenario, but IIRC about 10-15 years ago there was some hard right, very anti-abortion US Senator or Representative whose teen-aged/college aged daughter had gotten an abortion with daddy’s full knowledge and support, and when it hit the news a few year after the fact, the Senator was very indignant that this matter would be brought up and his family’s privacy invaded and refused any comment.
It’s easy to pontificate until it’s your little debutante that gets knocked up.
I think there could certainly be additional social cost. The section in Freakonomics that considers abortion makes a convincing argument for the relationship of abortion to crime. There could also be other social cost. I certainly would prefer for any state that put significant restraints on abortion responsible for these cost.
I would assume that it is most likely red state that would restrain abortion. Are red states not in general as economically vibrant as the blue? All ethical considerations aside, it would be an interesting experiment to select two similar states, ban abortion in one and make abortion free and very easy in another and measure the economic results.
