Null



Sign in to follow this  
NolaAuTiger

If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it wouldn’t ban abortion

Recommended Posts

I don’t think it will. But  in the event that it does and contrary to what many people assert, abortion would not be outright banned. Rather, the authority over abortion would go back to individual states, most of which have abortion laws already (right now they are just preempted by federal law). Off of the top of my head, I can list several states that would still allow for abortion. Thus, the first ramification of Roe v. Wade being overturned would require some to travel across state lines to receive abortions. It would not, however, make abortion illegal nationwide.

Insurance coverage and funding for abortions are separate issues. The power would rest with state legislatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I don’t think it will. But  in the event that it does and contrary to what many people assert, abortion would not be outright banned. Rather, the authority over abortion would go back to individual states, most of which have abortion laws already (right now they are just preempted by federal law). Off of the top of my head, I can list several states that would still allow for abortion. Thus, the first ramification of Roe v. Wade being overturned would require some to travel across state lines to receive abortions. It would not, however, make abortion illegal nationwide.

Insurance coverage and funding for abortions are separate issues. The power would rest with state legislatures.

It would be a de facto ban for the poor in certain states. People with means could simply travel across state lines. Others, not so much. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we can glean is that there will be a lot of illegal, unsafe abortions. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

It would be a de facto ban for the poor in certain states. People with means could simply travel across state lines. Others, not so much. 

In theory sure, but practically I don’t see that. Especially in light of travel capabilities today, notably public transportation.

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

What we can glean is that there will be a lot of illegal, unsafe abortions. 

Sometimes that happens today. It’s sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

In theory sure, but practically I don’t see that. Especially in light of travel capabilities today, notably public transportation.

That’s not very easily done for a large segment of the population.

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sometimes that happens today. It’s sad.

Not to the degree it would if you make back alley abortions the more convenient option for a lot of women. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, AUDub said:

That’s not very easily done for a large segment of the population.

Not to the degree it would if you make back alley abortions the more convenient option for a lot of women. 

A homeless person in Florida can make it to San Francisco in less than 72 hours. It happens every day. I just don’t see the “travel” aspect as a legitimate concern, at least for people who live in the 48 contiguous states.

Also, I’m having a tough time understanding the purpose of your speculation that a significant number of women who get abortions would do it themselves but for Roe v Wade. In other words, if not for Roe v Wade, more women would DIY abortion if they lived in a state where abortion was illegal, on the basis of travel inconveniences?

Edited by NolaAuTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

A homeless person in Florida can make it to San Francisco in less than 72 hours. It happens every day. I just don’t see the “travel” aspect as a legitimate concern, at least for people who live in the 48 contiguous states.

That's a rather flippant reply. Travel takes time and resources a lot of poor folks won't have.

Say you live in Florida, and Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi all outlaw all abortions. If you are a wealthy Floridian, you simply hop on a plane or drive to the nearest state where it’s legal. No problem. If you’re a poor sap in the middle of the state, you either have your baby or risk your life with a “back alley” abortion.

Problem with a lot of folks with means, I suppose. The inability to put themselves in others' shoes. Some folks never think about the law of unintended consequences.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AUDub said:

That's a rather flippant reply. Travel takes time and resources a lot of poor folks won't have.

Say you live in Florida, and Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi all outlaw all abortions. If you are a wealthy Floridian, you simply hop on a plane or drive to the nearest state where it’s legal. No problem. If you’re a poor sap in the middle of the state, you either have your baby or risk your life with a “back alley” abortion.

Problem with a lot of folks with means, I suppose. The inability to put themselves in others' shoes. Some folks never think about the law of unintended consequences.

 

So the person in your hypo can’t get on a bus, but if abortion was legal they could get to a planned parenthood?

A woman who unilaterally decides to abort her own baby DIY becuase traveling is too much of an inconvenience, would be an unintended consequence of the law? While at the same time, a homeless person who doesn’t have $20 dollars to their name can make it from Florida to San Fran in less than 3 days? Interesting.

I know we’re getting off track from OP but I’m enjoying this.

 

Edited by NolaAuTiger
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AUDub said:

That's a rather flippant reply. Travel takes time and resources a lot of poor folks won't have.

My apologies. But I respectfully disagree with your collateral considerations. They are tenuous IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So the person in your hypo can’t get on a bus, but if abortion was legal they could get to a planned parenthood?

Travel is already a significant barrier for a lot of people, but more travel means increased costs for transport, overnight stay, lost wages, childcare. It's not as simple as hopping on a bus. The poor are often effectively anchored.

Edited by AUDub
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

A woman who unilaterally decides to abort her own baby DIY becuase traveling is too much of an inconvenience, would be an unintended consequence of the law? While at the same time, a homeless person who doesn’t have $20 dollars to their name can make it from Florida to San Fran in less than 3 days? Interesting.

I described it as a de facto ban. Not a de jure ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AUDub said:

Travel is already a significant barrier for a lot of people, but more travel means increased costs for transport, overnight stay, lost wages, childcare. It's not as simple as hopping on a bus. The poor are often effectively anchored.

See edit.

Yeah I just don’t see that as a legitimate concern. Ultimately it’s the woman’s decision. If Roe v Wade is overturned, women in some places will have to travel over state lines to get abortions. The few that don’t decide to travel becuase it isn’t convenient and alternatively go the back alley route would do so at their own peril. I can’t see that as a consequence of the law. 

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bigger problem is the intended consequences of abortion.  Maybe that's just me.

What I think we really need is a two-pronged approach to abortion.  Yes, our laws should respect life and a human's inherent right not to have it forcibly taken from them.  But also, our laws and social safety nets should make it so that having a child is not a ticket to the poor house for those who make a bad decision in having sex before they are prepared to bring children into the world.  But that means pro-life conservatives have to stop opposing anything that they think smells like "welfare."  We need paid maternity/family leave like the vast majority of other First World nations.  We need universal health care coverage (however you wish to make that happen).  We need more family-friendly workplaces in terms of flexible working schedules or locations, on-site daycare and other innovative solutions to help young mothers and families balance the demands of work and family.  You can't just outlaw something like this and have done nothing to address the main drivers behind seeking abortions:  Lack of practical resources and support.  

But that does mean that people on both sides of the aisle would have to compromise on some their long-held positions to achieve something like this where every child is seen as a person and not a thing, where pregnancy and motherhood are honored and supported not just in rhetoric, but practical support.  Some small government folks might have to accept that government might be best able to help facilitate some of this support in laws and programs for instance.  Advocates of the sexual revolution may have to give in on the notion that for a woman to have equality, someone else has to die.  Our current entrenched political paradigms aren't allowing for pragmatic, real-world solutions like this.  But that needs to change.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What I think we really need is a two-pronged approach to abortion.  Yes, our laws should respect life and a human's inherent right not to have it forcibly taken from them.  But also, our laws and social safety nets should make it so that having a child is not a ticket to the poor house for those who make a bad decision in having sex before they are prepared to bring children into the world.  But that means pro-life conservatives have to stop opposing anything that they think smells like "welfare."  We need paid maternity/family leave like the vast majority of other First World nations.  We need universal health care coverage (however you wish to make that happen).  We need more family-friendly workplaces in terms of flexible working schedules or locations, on-site daycare and other innovative solutions to help young mothers and families balance the demands of work and family.  You can't just outlaw something like this and have done nothing to address the main drivers behind seeking abortions:  Lack of practical resources and support.  

This is a rare, genuine pro-life stance and a welcome break from the anti-abortionists who are far less pro-life than many of us who support a woman's right to choose and who are willing to accept that terminating a pregnancy is often an excruciating decision made with the welfare of the fetus in mind. 

As for prior posts, it would be surprising if it were anyone else from New Orleans who didn't understand that sometimes it's very difficult for people to leave home, even if, say, a hurricane is coming. 

  • Like 4
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You can't just outlaw something like this and have done nothing to address the main drivers behind seeking abortions:  Lack of practical resources and support.  

The main driver behind seeking abortion is convenience, at least that’s what it appears to be among my generation. 

We’re guilty of opposing abortion, while adoption lines remain empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

As for prior posts, it would be surprising if it were anyone else from New Orleans who didn't understand that sometimes it's very difficult for people to leave home, even if, say, a hurricane is coming. 

By the time the storm turned, it was too late to leave. I have family who traveled “two hours” north (the time it would regularly take). Guess how long it took them to travel? 18 hours. Everything was gridlocked.

The circumstances were very different. There’s no comparison between the contexts. But you wouldn’t know that...

Also, when Katrina came, 3M people were trying to evacuate at once... and that’s just in the Orleans/Jefferson Parish area.... 

Sorry to ruin your comment.

Edited by NolaAuTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The main driver behind seeking abortion is convenience, at least that’s what it appears to be among my generation. 

We’re guilty of opposing abortion, while adoption lines remain empty.

That's not what the research says.  Is it a driver for some?  Sure.  We will always have irresponsible people who believe its the God-given right to make any dumb decision they want and simply avoid the natural consequences.  It's not why most women get them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think the bigger problem is the intended consequences of abortion.  Maybe that's just me.

What I think we really need is a two-pronged approach to abortion.  Yes, our laws should respect life and a human's inherent right not to have it forcibly taken from them.  But also, our laws and social safety nets should make it so that having a child is not a ticket to the poor house for those who make a bad decision in having sex before they are prepared to bring children into the world.  But that means pro-life conservatives have to stop opposing anything that they think smells like "welfare."  We need paid maternity/family leave like the vast majority of other First World nations.  We need universal health care coverage (however you wish to make that happen).  We need more family-friendly workplaces in terms of flexible working schedules or locations, on-site daycare and other innovative solutions to help young mothers and families balance the demands of work and family.  You can't just outlaw something like this and have done nothing to address the main drivers behind seeking abortions:  Lack of practical resources and support.  

But that does mean that people on both sides of the aisle would have to compromise on some their long-held positions to achieve something like this where every child is seen as a person and not a thing, where pregnancy and motherhood are honored and supported not just in rhetoric, but practical support.  Some small government folks might have to accept that government might be best able to help facilitate some of this support in laws and programs for instance.  Advocates of the sexual revolution may have to give in on the notion that for a woman to have equality, someone else has to die.  Our current entrenched political paradigms aren't allowing for pragmatic, real-world solutions like this.  But that needs to change.

I could get behind a total and complete ban on elective abortion, with some narrowly defined exceptions, if we had an effective welfare state/support system. As it is now, poverty, particularly if you’ve children, is a trap that can not be easily escaped once you’re in its clutches. 

Edited by AUDub
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

That's not what the research says.  Is it a driver for some?  Sure.  We will always have irresponsible people who believe its the God-given right to make any dumb decision they want and simply avoid the natural consequences.  It's not why most women get them.

I’m not arguing with you. I think it is convenience. I’ve also seen research that sides with me. But anyways.

  • Facepalm 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think the bigger problem is the intended consequences of abortion.  Maybe that's just me.

What I think we really need is a two-pronged approach to abortion.  Yes, our laws should respect life and a human's inherent right not to have it forcibly taken from them.  But also, our laws and social safety nets should make it so that having a child is not a ticket to the poor house for those who make a bad decision in having sex before they are prepared to bring children into the world.  But that means pro-life conservatives have to stop opposing anything that they think smells like "welfare."  We need paid maternity/family leave like the vast majority of other First World nations.  We need universal health care coverage (however you wish to make that happen).  We need more family-friendly workplaces in terms of flexible working schedules or locations, on-site daycare and other innovative solutions to help young mothers and families balance the demands of work and family.  You can't just outlaw something like this and have done nothing to address the main drivers behind seeking abortions:  Lack of practical resources and support.  

But that does mean that people on both sides of the aisle would have to compromise on some their long-held positions to achieve something like this where every child is seen as a person and not a thing, where pregnancy and motherhood are honored and supported not just in rhetoric, but practical support.  Some small government folks might have to accept that government might be best able to help facilitate some of this support in laws and programs for instance.  Advocates of the sexual revolution may have to give in on the notion that for a woman to have equality, someone else has to die.  Our current entrenched political paradigms aren't allowing for pragmatic, real-world solutions like this.  But that needs to change.

Another thing that would need to happen is that government and private non-profits, including religious ones, be able to work together better without people getting overly wound up about church/state issues.  Beyond some bare bones rules stating that such organizations can't discriminate based on religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or set as a prerequisite for their help that a person first sit through a proselytizing session, let the organizations be who they are and come alongside government to meet these needs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think the bigger problem is the intended consequences of abortion.  Maybe that's just me.

What I think we really need is a two-pronged approach to abortion.  Yes, our laws should respect life and a human's inherent right not to have it forcibly taken from them.  But also, our laws and social safety nets should make it so that having a child is not a ticket to the poor house for those who make a bad decision in having sex before they are prepared to bring children into the world.  But that means pro-life conservatives have to stop opposing anything that they think smells like "welfare."  We need paid maternity/family leave like the vast majority of other First World nations.  We need universal health care coverage (however you wish to make that happen).  We need more family-friendly workplaces in terms of flexible working schedules or locations, on-site daycare and other innovative solutions to help young mothers and families balance the demands of work and family.  You can't just outlaw something like this and have done nothing to address the main drivers behind seeking abortions:  Lack of practical resources and support.  

But that does mean that people on both sides of the aisle would have to compromise on some their long-held positions to achieve something like this where every child is seen as a person and not a thing, where pregnancy and motherhood are honored and supported not just in rhetoric, but practical support.  Some small government folks might have to accept that government might be best able to help facilitate some of this support in laws and programs for instance.  Advocates of the sexual revolution may have to give in on the notion that for a woman to have equality, someone else has to die.  Our current entrenched political paradigms aren't allowing for pragmatic, real-world solutions like this.  But that needs to change.

Yes, Much closer to the pin Titan....carry it all the way thru...

  • overturn Roe v Wade - it was ruled incorrectly in the same way Brown v Board of Ed was ruled wrongly.  Bad precedent is bad law
  • turn it back to the states; which is where it belongs...
  • defund planned parenthood
  • end illegal immigration; build the wall...zero tolerance
  • we spend between $115b - $135b annually  today on illegal immigration (depending on who's numbers you use) ...give that money to the states....put all that money into raising our own children instead of aborting them and importing other peoples children. Use the $$ to: build child care centers, job training for single mothers impacted, education and birth control to reduce the need, programs to encourage marriage in inner cities, fund church support in these communities to encourage couples to stay together, parenting classes, etc.

Abortion on demand is a national disgrace....it is a national disgrace that one party is so invested in mass murder that it has become their rallying cry....

Edited by japantiger
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to how poverty might affect one's ability (or inclination) to travel. Super obvious stuff. Crazy that it's even a discussion. 

Quote

When Hurricane Katrina hit, more than a quarter of people living in New Orleans in August of 2005 lived below the poverty line. Many of the poor in stayed at home to weather the storm. Why?

Twenty-seven percent of New Orleanians didn’t own a car, making evacuation even more difficult and expensive than it would otherwise be.

People without the means to leave are also the most likely to rely on the television—as opposed to the radio or Internet—for news. TV news began warning people how bad the storm would be only 48 hours before it hit; some people, then, had only 48 hours to process this information and make plans.

Poor people are more likely than middle- and upper-class people to never leave where they grew up. This means that they were much less likely to have a network of people outside of New Orleans with whom they could stay, at the same time that they were least able to afford a motel room.

For those who were on government assistance, living check-to-check, it was the end of the month. Their checks were due to arrive three days after the hurricane. It was also back-to-school time and many were extra cash poor because they had extra expenses for their children.

A study of New Orleanians rescued and evacuated to Houston, described here, found that:

...14% were physically disabled, 23% stayed in New Orleans to care for a physically disabled person, and 25% were suffering from a chronic disease....

Also:

• 55% did not have a car or a way to evacuate
• 68% had neither money in the bank nor a useable credit card
• 57% had total household incomes of less than $20,000 in the prior year
• 76% had children under 18 with them in the shelter
• 77% had a high school education or less
• 93% were black
• 67% were employed full or part-time before the hurricane

The city failed to get information to its most vulnerable residents in time and it failed to facilitate their evacuation. The empty buses in flood water—buses that could have been filled with evacuees prior to the storm—is a testament to this failure.

https://psmag.com/environment/who-didnt-evacuate-for-hurricane-katrina

  • Like 3
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this