And let’s not forget that even many of the women who do manage to get an out of state abortion will suffer serious inconvenience and, depending on their means, possibly significant financial loss. It’s not as though only the women actually denied abortions will be harmed by these laws.
And if you think those are bad, well, you don’t want to know.
So much of bumper-sticker philosophy around abortion is hyper-reductive and vapid.
But I actually like “Every child a wanted child.”
With Roe intact, a large percentage of pregnant people have made a decision, and – to the degree that each of them has the knowledge and the means – will likely work toward good prenatal care, nutrition, and lifestyle choices.
Or – at least – to a greater degree than the people who have an unplanned pregnancy and no choice.
Stereotypically, ‘regular army’ (ie, volunteers) didn’t like serving alongside of draftees – people who didn’t want to be there, and that lack of commitment, allegedly, often showed.
Where’s the motivation for a pregnant person who neither wanted to become pregnant nor wants to be pregnant to do what’s right for the fetus ?
Aside from sheer numbers, I wonder what that will do to the – what did SCOTUS (quoting the CDC, IIRC) call it ? The ‘domestic supply of infants.’
Yeah. As we’re all seeing lately, supply chain issues can be a bitch.
Indeed.
…I genuinely thought this was leading up to a strange conclusion about the infantry.
There are already laws in the works to criminalize women leaving the state for an abortion (and anyone who might help her).
I’m curious—how would authorities be able to tell the real motive a woman left the state? Or is this just a feel good measure meant to placate extreme right wingers?
That reminds me of a friend of mine. In addition to the 5 kids her and her husband already had, they adopted [checks newspaper article about her] 5 more. Most of them special needs. Born to parents addicted to meth or abused (causing neurological damage) and removed by the state.
In one case, she adopted a child right when it was born. She must have kept up with the mother, since she visited her in the hospital after she gave birth to another child a year later. The mother, knowing that she [the person I know] has taken in a number of special needs kids said ‘if I hurt her, will you take her’.
This person was so mixed up in her head and so badly didn’t want a child, she was willing to abuse the child to ensure the state wouldn’t let her keep (or she’d kill it in the process).
And she did it too. As my friend begged her not to hurt the child and said she would gladly take the baby off her hands now, the new mom still smothered her child with a pillow. The child survived, but not without permanent brain damage, and is now being raised by my friend.
Now, why that person carried a, very clearly unwanted, pregnancy to term, I don’t know. And it’s entirely possible that, due to her situation and/or external factors, abortion wasn’t an option. But I think this goes to show the measures she was willing to take to ensure she wouldn’t have it for long after it was born. And I doubt that’s a unique situation.
Maybe it’s in one of the other threads, but theories have been tossed around about that one. The general idea being that if you’re pregnant and then you’re not and you went out of state at that time, it’s just a matter of putting the pieces together to prove you left the state to have an abortion as opposed to leaving the state and having an abortion. Starting with the assumption that someone did indeed have an out-of-state abortion. Evidence that would point to leaving the state TO have it would be things like making an appointment for the clinic in advance. Browser history showing searches related to abortion clinics in neighboring states before you left on your trip, mentioning it to friends or family.
And, probably above all else, turning all the citizens in your state into abortion bounty hunters by allowing them to sue anyone even tangentially related to getting an abortion. Imagine hopping in an uber and telling the driver you’re going to the Planned Parenthood just outside of Texas. Since they could be sued by any random person for driving you there, it’s entirely possible they’ll either refuse the fare or, at some point, report you themselves so they don’t get reported.
Sure, not all of these will work and plenty are easy to subvert (if you think about it ahead of time). But even so, I’m betting they can cause a not-insignificant portion of pregnant mothers that want an abortion to decide against it just to avoid the legal issues.
If those laws (policies? standards?) in Texas hold up, it’s going to be a constant witch hunt in that state as everyone starts suing everyone.
Didn’t anyone suggest to the addict that she get sterilized to prevent future pregnancies?
A)I have no idea.
B)Who’s going to pay for that? The person that cut the ankle bracelet off her 4 pound baby so she could get her out of the hospital and bring her to a meth house (that’s where they found her with the baby), I’m assuming, can’t afford an elective surgery. Plus, the point I was making was that someone in this situation might not have any interest in doing what’s right for the fetus (even if that means never having a fetus to begin with).
C)Maybe she has/had every intention of cleaning up and starting a (healthy) family at some point.
As someone who used to work at a clinic with a lot of addicts, including pregnant ones, it can be remarkably difficult for a woman of child bearing years to obtain permanent sterilization, especially if there is any question whatsoever about whether or not said woman is mentally competent enough to give valid consent to a medical procedure.
Even obtaining/using birth control can be difficult - prescription pills need to be taken regularly and reliably, which is a laughable requirement for many addicts. Longer term birth control costs more money - who is going to pay for that?
Also, expecting logical and reasonable actions from active addicts is a bit… well, somewhere between over optimistic and ludicrous. It’s nice when it happens but not at all something you can rely on.
Oddly enough, I just talked to her (the adoptive mom*) a little while ago and specifically asked her about that.
However, without realizing it, instead of asking about the addicted mother, I ended up asking her about the mother that tried to smother one of the kids (I really only have a cursory knowledge of all this and don’t know all their stories). She actually still keeps up with her a bit and said she’s got so many mental issues, she doesn’t even seem to know what’s going on half the time. Apparently she is now and has always been clean and sober, but psychologically, she’s a mess.
*And the reason I was talking to her was because she stopped in at my store while putting together a graduation party for one of those adopted kids.
I would be willing to bet it is a lot cheaper for the state to provide birth control of any sort than to pay to support a child until they are 18.
Oh, I agree - the problem here is that the state is largely unwilling to pay for either, with just enough religious nutjobs to insist that when something MUST be done the more expensive option be taken.
I don’t see how that follows. If one views sex as an agreement where a baby is a possible result, then it matters whether I actually agreed to it or not. I’m not obligated to abide by contracts I never agreed to, regardless of the harm that might result to someone else.
For instance, if I agree to donate a kidney to someone and then back out or demand the kidney back, it’s a very different thing than if the kidney was stolen from me. I don’t know what the law actually says in this case, but it’s at least reasonable in the first case to say you’re out of luck, but in the second case that the organ should be returned (even if it means the death of the patient).
I’m not arguing that the state should take such a transactional view of sex, but if you do start with that it makes perfect sense to have exemptions based on how much choice was involved.
I think the notion is the fertilized egg is a human with the same rights to life as you have (a human who has been born and is free of their mother).
So, whatever transaction you (general “you”) and your SO made when you had sex does not impact the rights of the fertilized egg which is essentially a third party that is not a part of the agreement.
I do not agree with that in the case of a fertilized egg (I reject it is a third party with rights) but that seems to be the argument.
Again, I don’t see how that’s relevant. If a kidney is stolen from me and transported into a third party, I deserve to get my kidney back–even if it means that third party dies. The situation is different if I agreed to the transplant in advance, even if the agreement was with another party.
Are there any situations in the law where this isn’t true? Something of value is transferred from me to someone else. Neither was a part of any agreement. The law still says I should be made whole as much as possible. Just not if I actually did agree to the transfer at some point.
Is that really what would happen?
No idea how it would actually play out, but it’s at least a reasonable and consistent position to take.