Half of the US bans abortion. Then what?

[aelf]

Saw an article that claims, with the make up of the US Supreme Court as it now is, 24 American states may go ahead and ban abortion. Not sure how real such a prospect actually is (go ahead and discuss that too), but if it does happen, then what?

Will the majority of American voters accept it like they have accepted Trump and the Republicans so far? Will there be mass exodus to states where such regressive laws do not exist? Will there be a revolt? Will the Handmaid's Tale become a reality while Christian conservatives sing hallelujah?

It got me curious.

EDIT: Found the article.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Saw an article that claims, with the make up of the US Supreme Court as it now is, 24 American states may go ahead and ban abortion. Not sure how real such a prospect actually is (go ahead and discuss that too), but if it does happen, then what?

Will the majority of American voters accept it like they have accepted Trump and the Republicans so far? Will there be mass exodus to states where such regressive laws do not exist? Will there be a revolt? Will the Handmaid's Tale become a reality while Christian conservatives sing hallelujah?

It got me curious.

EDIT: Found the article.

There's no particular reason for a mass exodus. People will just travel for the service, like they used to have to travel to Mexico, only easier because there's no international border to cross or language barrier to be overcome.

 

[Zkribbler]

I'm old enough to have lived in a pre-Roe-v.-Wade America. Indeed, until I was in college, I supported banning abortions. What changed my mind was the realization was that outlawing abortions did not end them, it merely pushed them into back alleys where women were too often maimed or killed. [Watch Dirty Dancing to see what it was like.]

Rich women will be able to afford traveling to the states to get abortions. Poor women's options will be back-alley abortions or to have children they do not want and can't afford. Ghettos will fill with unsupervised delinquents, growing up with no love, no hope, but plenty of anger.

So...more crime, more poverty, more shame, a Republican-made dystopia.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm old enough to have lived in a pre-Roe-v.-Wade America. Indeed, until I was in college, I supported banning abortions. What changed my mind was the realization was that outlawing abortions did not end them, it merely pushed them into back alleys where women were too often maimed or killed. [Watch Dirty Dancing to see what it was like.]

Rich women will be able to afford traveling to the states to get abortions. Poor women's options will be back-alley abortions or to have children they do not want and can't afford. Ghettos will fill with unsupervised delinquents, growing up with no love, no hope, but plenty of anger.

So...more crime, more poverty, more shame, a Republican-made dystopia.

I was there too, and no doubt only the wealthy could afford a trip to a clinic in Mexico if they were starting from the east coast. Where I was, which was southern California, even high school kids could afford to get down to Baja if they needed to. I even pitched in once for a female friend to make the trip the summer between my junior and senior years, when she found out her bf was a penniless jerk.

I find it hard to believe that back alley abortions will be able to compete against comparably short trips that don't even involve leaving the country, so I really can't see them becoming all that common.

 

[warpus]

I find it hard to believe that back alley abortions will be able to compete against comparably short trips that don't even involve leaving the country, so I really can't see them becoming all that common.

They're not always going to be short and women are not always going to have the time. This will hurt those down on their luck the most, for instance the single mother of 2 working 2+ jobs in order to feed her family. She doesn't have money for a bus ticket to leave the state, nor the time to do so.

A lot of women will lose power and standing in society as they will lose access to vital healthcare services that men don't have to worry about.

 

[Cutlass]

It means more dead babies (and their mothers). And this is a feature of the plan, not a bug.

 

[Synobun]

I'm old enough to have lived in a pre-Roe-v.-Wade America. Indeed, until I was in college, I supported banning abortions. What changed my mind was the realization was that outlawing abortions did not end them, it merely pushed them into back alleys where women were too often maimed or killed. [Watch Dirty Dancing to see what it was like.]

Rich women will be able to afford traveling to the states to get abortions. Poor women's options will be back-alley abortions or to have children they do not want and can't afford. Ghettos will fill with unsupervised delinquents, growing up with no love, no hope, but plenty of anger.

So...more crime, more poverty, more shame, a Republican-made dystopia.

Not really relevant to the topic, but it's nice to see people grow more liberal as they age. Too often once people start entering the workforce they veer to the right.

On the topic, I don't think you can expect any sort of exodus. While states do tend to have their pockets of rigid beliefs, mobility is largely a privilege. You'll see dissidents to the company line silenced long before you see all classes of people migrating elsewhere.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

II even pitched in once for a female friend to make the trip the summer between my junior and senior years, when she found out her bf was a penniless jerk.

noice. gotta admit with every bit I learn about the real Tim I respect you more. regardless of whether or not one supports that decision, it was the right move to help out.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I was there too, and no doubt only the wealthy could afford a trip to a clinic in Mexico if they were starting from the east coast. Where I was, which was southern California, even high school kids could afford to get down to Baja if they needed to. I even pitched in once for a female friend to make the trip the summer between my junior and senior years, when she found out her bf was a penniless jerk.

I find it hard to believe that back alley abortions will be able to compete against comparably short trips that don't even involve leaving the country, so I really can't see them becoming all that common.

Recognizing the very real deterrence factor involved with the back/alley route (some women just can't go through with it under those conditions), there will still be some uptick in DIY and back-alley abortions if actual bans start going into place. Now TBH, there are already some States where the laws act as defacto bans, plus abortion is just a really uncomfortable, embarrassing, humiliating, unappealing process for many women as it is... so the DIY and back alley stuff happens a little even where they are technically legal.

Even putting all that aside, there will also definitely be a lot more folks who have the ability to go to another State/Country to get the abortion, just because the prohibition will be on a State-by-State basis rather than nationwide. But there will also be plenty of people for whom that additional obstacle will be too much. The obstacle of having to leave the jurisdiction, and/or do something that is illegal or regarded as "illegal/criminal" by the standards of the place where they live is nothing to be dismissed. If you live in a place where abortion is outright illegal, and you go to one of those places where it is legal to get one... when you come back people are going to be looking at you as criminal scum.

But even that doesn't take the "Deep South" factor into account. To borrow a concept from the slavery era, which is... frankly, unsurprisingly appropriate in this context... the folks living in say West Virginia, or Utah or Indiana who want an abortion are going to potentially have way less distance to travel than the person living in Louisiana or Mississippi, and that distance will absolutely factor into the decision of whether to get one or not, and how their community will treat them for it. The person in Gary, IN who travels to Chicago for an abortion has a whole different set of considerations that someone coming all the way from Biloxi, MS. Its worth considering that the people who are going to be disproportionately needed/wanting abortions in the first place are going to be the women in poorer more disadvantaged circumstances, so every obstacle is going to harder to overcome for them. Not to mention that unwanted pregnancies coupled with poverty and other assorted disadvantages are going to lead to lots more kids growing up in toxic, hopeless situations.

Another unintended (or perhaps intended, depending on your perspective) consequence of this kind of system, whereby abortion becomes a State-by-State thing, is the question of how far a State can go to regulate the conduct of its own citizens/residents in this area. So one example that springs to mind is what happens when a father in a abortion-banned State sues a mother who conceives in the banned State, but then travels to the abortion-allowed State to get the abortion? Or can Alabama for example, pass a law that says its illegal to travel across state lines with a fetus conceived in Alabama with the intent of aborting in another jurisdiction? If you say "No, Alabama can't pass any such law"... the question becomes "Says who? The SCOTUS?"

 

[Cheetah]

Another unintended (or perhaps intended, depending on your perspective) consequence of this kind of system, whereby abortion becomes a State-by-State thing, is the question of how far a State can go to regulate the conduct of its own citizens/residents in this area. So one example that springs to mind is what happens when a father in a abortion-banned State sues a mother who conceives in the banned State, but then travels to the abortion-allowed State to get the abortion? Or can Alabama for example, pass a law that says its illegal to travel across state lines with a fetus conceived in Alabama with the intent of aborting in another jurisdiction? If you say "No, Alabama can't pass any such law"... the question becomes "Says who? The SCOTUS?"

Unintended consequence?

Tell me, can a free man in the North be arrested and sent back to the state in the South where he is an escaped slave?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They're not always going to be short and women are not always going to have the time. This will hurt those down on their luck the most, for instance the single mother of 2 working 2+ jobs in order to feed her family. She doesn't have money for a bus ticket to leave the state, nor the time to do so.

A lot of women will lose power and standing in society as they will lose access to vital healthcare services that men don't have to worry about.

I wasn't trying to suggest it was a good thing. Yes, having to make that trip is a huge and avoidable problem and expense. But that woman also doesn't have the time or money for a back alley abortion, and I think generally they won't be competitive. They weren't competitive with a trip to a Mexican clinic back in the bad old days if you were close to the border, and I seriously don't see how they will be competitive with the trip to a nearby state clinic.

If you really examine a map and make some thoughtful predictions there are hardly any states where the trip will be further than to an immediately adjacent state. The only places I can see that are Louisiana and Mississippi, and even crossing Alabama doesn't make Florida far away. People from east Texas having to trek all the way across to New Mexico probably face a longer trip.

As to the vital healthcare, that may be a positive in this that the GOP hard line idiots didn't intend. Right now, because of the war on abortion, there is apparently only one women's health clinic in all of Texas. Maybe an outright state ban on abortion will appease the crazies enough that they will stop burning down clinics offering pre-natal care, pregnancy prevention, and other women's health services in their zeal to make the world a better place for the unborn.

 

[Zelig]

Well, the states with legal abortions by and large are the states with money, they could fund a national, comprehensive family planning program that covers free contraception and paid-for travel for no-cost abortion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, the states with legal abortions by and large are the states with money, they could fund a national, comprehensive family planning program that covers free contraception and paid-for travel for no-cost abortion.

State funded clinics will crop up in border towns, guaranteed. There will almost certainly be organizations that will provide travel assistance as well.

It's a mostly pointless exercise in attempted villainy.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Saw an article that claims, with the make up of the US Supreme Court as it now is, 24 American states may go ahead and ban abortion. Not sure how real such a prospect actually is (go ahead and discuss that too), but if it does happen, then what?

Will the majority of American voters accept it like they have accepted Trump and the Republicans so far? Will there be mass exodus to states where such regressive laws do not exist? Will there be a revolt? Will the Handmaid's Tale become a reality while Christian conservatives sing hallelujah?

It got me curious.

EDIT: Found the article.

TRAP laws are certainly putting the squeeze on abortion clinics in many states by raising safety standards to lunar orbit.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/kentucky-last-abortion-clinic/index.html

About 1 million abortions per year are mostly performed at abortion clinics in the US.
http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...tions_performed_in_clinics_not_hospitals.html

There were many benefits to clinics. They were less expensive than hospitals. They could also hire a staff that was enthusiastically pro-choice; by contrast, many hospitals refused to provide abortion care, and in the ones that were willing, some of the staff could be resistant.

There was just one downside: The stand-alone clinics made things easier for anti-abortion picketers, hecklers, and, in some cases, violent terrorists. As Press writes, “Few advocates anticipated that, in establishing clinics, they would unwittingly be creating a nationwide network of targets—and isolating abortion from the rest of mainstream medicine.” As protests at clinics escalated, hospitals were less and less willing to provide abortion, making the besieged clinics even more necessary—and more of a target. Press’s research found that, right after Roe, roughly half of abortions took place in hospitals; by the late 1980s, “86 percent were performed in clinics.”

Some states only have 1 abortion clinic, and the numbers go down every year.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-abortion-clinics-are-in-america-each-state-2017-2


The debate will intensify in 4 days when the Dr. Kermit Gosnell movie starring Dean Cain comes out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosnell:_The_Trial_of_America's_Biggest_Serial_Killer

The push to ban abortion again is very real, but it will take 1 or 2 more conservative supreme court justices to make it happen.
5v4 overturning Roe vs. Wade won't happen, but 6v3 or 7v2 would be much more politically acceptable if Trump can make another SCOTUS pick get through.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The push to ban abortion again is very real, but it will take 1 or 2 more conservative supreme court justices to make one happen.
5v4 overturning Roe vs. Wade won't happen, but 6v3 or 7v2 would be much more politically acceptable if Trump can make another SCOTUS pick get through.

There isn't going to be any overturning. It's just that the laws enacted in many states that are clearly in violation of restricting to the point of making unavailable will be deemed constitutional by a court packed with ideologues who don't care about the actual law. And the buffoons who have screeched for years against "activist judges legislating from the bench" when it wasn't happening will applaud the activist judges legislating from the bench.

 

[sophie]

Saw an article that claims, with the make up of the US Supreme Court as it now is, 24 American states may go ahead and ban abortion. Not sure how real such a prospect actually is (go ahead and discuss that too), but if it does happen, then what?

1) Something like 60-70% of Americans support abortion being legal.

2a) Roe v Wade will not be overturned. Firstly because "Roe v Wade is established precedent" and the Supreme Court has to maintain some kind of a façade of jurisprudential consistency or it loses all legitimacy and meaning. But more to the point, Roe v Wade won't be overturned because
2b) Roe v Wade has already been overturned. While morons like Collins may push that "Planned Parenthood v Casey upheld Roe v Wade", the truth is that the ruling undermined Roe v Wade. It said that abortion was a constitutional right, and that the government was not allowed to place "undue burden on the mother's access to abortion". This has given an avenue for conservative states to enforce restrictions on abortion access, and it's largely been working. Consider:

1 in 4 women on medicaid report not having access to abortions
3 states require that both parents give consent before a minor undergoes an abortion; 21 others require at least one parent give consent
26 states mandate a waiting period of at least 24 hours
25 states require that a woman seeking abortion receive counselling before making her decision; 5 require that that counselling be done in person
15 states require a woman undergo an ultrasound prior to receiving an abortion; 3 require the woman to see the ultrasound's image.
There are 28 states in which 90% or more of their counties do not contain an abortion provider
There are 35 states in which 80% or more of their counties do not contain an abortion provider

The current Supreme Court is not going to overturn Roe v Wade, and Kavanaugh could be completely confident in not overturning Roe v Wade because there is no need to overturn it. Abortion is already de facto illegal in 95% of the country, and overturning the decision would result in no effective change at ground-level for all states except California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, and the NE states. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch weren't put on the bench to overturn Roe v Wade, they were put there to ensure the continued undermining of Roe v Wade as allowed by Planned Parenthood v Casey continue unabated.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Unintended consequence?

Tell me, can a free man in the North be arrested and sent back to the state in the South where he is an escaped slave?

I can't tell whether you're joking, but if not, then yes... Under the Fugitive Slave Laws, Northern free States were required by law to return escaped slaves back to their masters in the slave states.

 

[Cheetah]

Yeah, I was referring to how the Southern States tried to force the Northern States to return escaped slaves.

Forcing their laws onto other states -- if even just for their own citisens -- is definitely something I can see these people trying to do.

 

[Cutlass]

What's likely is laws saying that residents of a state crossing state lines for an abortion is a criminal offense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What's likely is laws saying that residents of a state crossing state lines for an abortion is a criminal offense.

Yeah, that doesn't work. State laws regulating activities outside the jurisdiction of the state aren't flying, even with the kangaroos we have put on the Supreme Court. The "fugitive slave" laws were absolutely grounded in law, revolting as that may be. The escaped slave had broken the law of state A, so as a fugitive was required to be apprehended and returned by state B. There is no provision anywhere for calling activity in another state illegal if it is legal in that state. People aged 18-20 crossing the border to drink legally can be prosecuted for coming back drunk, but not for the drinking that they did.