Half of the US bans abortion. Then what?

[Cutlass]

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.

What flies depends on what the Supremes say flies. The old rules can't be counted on to hold.

 

[FriendlyFire]

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?

The black population growth increases substancially which will then trigger the Republicans to strip away as much of the saftey net to punish the poor by this time due to the aging rual population as all the smart white young people have left for a better life in the Liberal cities, Republicans lose power

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What flies depends on what the Supremes say flies. The old rules can't be counted on to hold.

There will still be boundaries. Even the daffiest ideologue doesn't want to establish "the laws of your home apply to you rather than the laws of your current location."

That said, a path towards making it work would be a state declaring that the unborn are citizens and demanding that a neighboring state require notification prior to the "execution of our citizen." It is conceivable that the reactionary court could support something like that. Not sure what the consequences of such a declaration of citizenship would be.

 

[Cutlass]

There will still be boundaries. Even the daffiest ideologue doesn't want to establish "the laws of your home apply to you rather than the laws of your current location."

The United States government taxes people based on their home, rather than their location now. Some states do as well. Precedent is there.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The United States government taxes people based on their home, rather than their location now. Some states do as well. Precedent is there.

The stretch from that to criminal law is, again, far beyond even the daffiest ideologues on our kangaroo SCOTUS. You have to work really hard at it to be taxed by a state other than where you are located, by the way.

 

[Goodfella]

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.

Hate to nitpick but there's no way any of the items you listed result in abortion being illegal (de facto or not) in "95%" of the country, either by population or area. California alone is almost 5% of the country's area and 12% of the population. The states you list after CA result in well over 100 million people (~1/3 of the country). And 80%-90% of counties in certain states not having clinics is obviously a function of those counties being rural. You can probably come up with a similar stat for places where people lack "access" to Starbucks (sarcasm). More than 80% of the country lives in an urban/suburban area and I'd hazard a guess that a similar number have abortion-providing facilities within their county.

I also doubt any of the things you listed result in de facto illegality. If you were pregnant, would the hassle of getting an ultra sound really outweigh the inconvenience of, you know, carrying a pregnancy to term? I'd take the ultrasound.

 

[onejayhawk]

I wonder how many people would support a ban on late-term abortions. That is where the Supreme Court will likely rule next.

In this forum, well over half the respondents acknowledge 30+ month fetuses as sentient. Given that, it is hard to support a right to abort on demand for the 8th and 9th month. Granted there are many potential medical issues, but at some point pre-birth the potential child should have rights.

J

 

[Zkribbler]

In this forum, well over half the respondents acknowledge 30+ month fetuses as sentient. Given that, it is hard to support a right to abort on demand for the 8th and 9th month. Granted there are many potential medical issues, but at some point pre-birth the potential child should have rights.

J

I could be misremembering this, but I recall the Suprer Court saying this in Roe v, Wade.

 

[Commodore]

Consider:

Okay.

1 in 4 women on medicaid report not having access to abortions

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

Okay. As of right now, the government's stance on abortion is that it is a Constitutional right. However, that does not mean the government has a responsibility to provide abortions or access to abortion clinics, it just means they won't punish you if you do get one.

To better illustrate my point I'll use another Constitutional right: gun ownership. All Americans have the right to own a gun, but that does not mean the government is obligated to provide every American with a gun or ensure that every American has access to a gun store where they can purchase one.

Same with your 1st Amendment rights. The government is not required to give you a platform from which to speak, or provide you with a place of worship to practice your religion. They just can't stop you from creating your own platform to speak from or building your own house of worship. Basically, the government can't prevent you from exercising your rights, but nor do they have to go out of their way to facilitate the exercising of your rights.

3 states require that both parents give consent before a minor undergoes an abortion; 21 others require at least one parent give consent

I don't see why this is a problem. Especially when you consider it will be the parents who have to bear the brunt of any cost associated with either the abortion or the cost of raising a child should the minor in question decide to keep the baby.

26 states mandate a waiting period of at least 24 hours

Again, this does not seem unreasonable to me. Keeps people from making "freak out" decisions they might regret later. Nothing wrong with requiring someone to think about it for a day to make sure it's really what they want, especially since "abortion regret" can cause severe psychological issues.

25 states require that a woman seeking abortion receive counselling before making her decision; 5 require that that counselling be done in person

Same as above. Nothing wrong with making sure the decision is being made with a clear mind and clear conscience to cut down on potential harmful psychological problems that might result from getting an abortion.

15 states require a woman undergo an ultrasound prior to receiving an abortion; 3 require the woman to see the ultrasound's image.

Okay, that's a little weird and clearly aimed at attempting to guilt someone out of getting an abortion. So I'm with you on this one that these laws should be done away with.

 

[Sommerswerd]

People aged 18-20 Pregnant women crossing the border to drink have an abortion legally can be prosecuted for coming back not pregnant drunk, but not for the drinking abortion that they did.

What about this?

 

[Cheetah]

Wouldn't that also mean people who have a miscarriage will be prosecuted?

Not that they wouldn't also be expected to go that low...

 

[Bamspeedy]

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

Is this part of your claim it's 'defacto illegal' in these areas? My county has a hospital, but it's unofficially called a 'band-aid' hospital. The hospital takes great offense at being called this of course, as they do have an emergency room, a clinic and do some surgeries. But for most specialists (and intensive care), patients are referred to (or sent via ambulance) to a larger hospital, 30 miles away in a bordering county. Those specialists and intensive care is by no stretch of the imagination 'defacto illegal' in my county.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Wouldn't that also mean people who have a miscarriage will be prosecuted?
Not that they wouldn't also be expected to go that low...

They would have to remain in blue states or overseas after the abortion, returning back home would open them up to charges of murder
Most poor people wont be able to afford to travel across half the country, then pay for the abortion.
Dont worry once all the "blacks" start having large families Republicans will change their tune, since prosecutors have decesion on whether to press charges, abortion laws will remain on the books but enforcement will be relaxed.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wouldn't that also mean people who have a miscarriage will be prosecuted?

Not that they wouldn't also be expected to go that low...

No because an accidental miscarriage and an abortion procedure are not the same thing. In any case, I imagine the actual language of the law would be longer than that one sentence and include some more details, conditions, caveats, exceptions, etc.

 

[Bamspeedy]

would open them up to charges of murder

Even if it was murder, can you be prosecuted for it outside of the jurisdiction of where it happened?

 

[Senethro]

No because an accidental miscarriage and an abortion procedure are not the same thing.

This is a harder problem than it initially seems. Think about what would actually be involved in determining this.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't see why this is a problem. Especially when you consider it will be the parents who have to bear the brunt of any cost associated with either the abortion or the cost of raising a child should the minor in question decide to keep the baby.

Well the parents don't have to pay for raising the child if you abort it without them knowing about it, so that's a non-sequitur justification for parental consent. As for the parents paying for the abortion... no, that does not make sense either. If the parents don't know about it then they aren't paying for it. But even assuming somehow that the parents were being made to pay for it without their consent... Are you saying that as long as the minor (or her boyfriend, or her boyfriend's family) are willing to pay for it then there's no need for her parent's consent?

Same with your 1st Amendment rights. The government is not required to give you a platform from which to speak, or provide you with a place of worship to practice your religion. They just can't stop you from creating your own platform to speak from or building your own house of worship. Basically, the government can't prevent you from exercising your rights, but nor do they have to go out of their way to facilitate the exercising of your rights.

There is some disconnect between this ^... and this:

Again, this does not seem unreasonable to me. Keeps people from making "freak out" decisions they might regret later. Nothing wrong with requiring someone to think about it for a day to make sure it's really what they want, especially since "abortion regret" can cause severe psychological issues.

Isn't this exactly the "government preventing you from exercising your rights" that you just said they can't do? Woman: I want to exercise my right to an abortion right now. Big daddy nanny state: No. You can't exercise your right and we're preventing you from doing so until we say you can.

Again, this does not seem unreasonable to me. Keeps people from making "freak out" decisions they might regret later. Nothing wrong with requiring someone to think about it for a day to make sure it's really what they want, especially since "abortion regret" can cause severe psychological issues.

Are you OK with Big daddy government doing this with gun rights? Imposing waiting periods to so that we can be absolutely sure to "keep people from making "freak out" decisions they might regret later?" Would you agree that there's "nothing wrong with requiring someone to think about it" for a while before they get a gun "to make sure it's really what they want" especially since "murder" and "prison" can cause severe issues including severe regret?

Same as above. Nothing wrong with making sure the decision is being made with a clear mind and clear conscience to cut down on potential harmful psychological problems that might result from getting an abortion.

Same as above. What you are saying is a pretty good case for making people who want a gun to undergo psychological counseling and evaluation before being allowed to obtain one, in order to "make sure the decision is being made with a clear mind and clear conscience to cut down on potential harmful problems that might result".

I'm sure that this comparison I'm making isn't anything new to you... I'm just curious whether you'd favor those restrictions being placed on gun ownership rights or if you instead want to make the case that gun rights are different somehow.

 

[Cutlass]

I wonder how many people would support a ban on late-term abortions. That is where the Supreme Court will likely rule next.

In this forum, well over half the respondents acknowledge 30+ month fetuses as sentient. Given that, it is hard to support a right to abort on demand for the 8th and 9th month. Granted there are many potential medical issues, but at some point pre-birth the potential child should have rights.

J

Late term abortions are primarily about medical necessity. Banning them is largely a matter of intentionally murdering the mother.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No because an accidental miscarriage and an abortion procedure are not the same thing. In any case, I imagine the actual language of the law would be longer than that one sentence and include some more details, conditions, caveats, exceptions, etc.

Kavanaugh believes contraception = abortifacient. I would not rule out someone like him similarly stretching definitions as they see fit to meet their ends. I don't see anyone making a connection directly between miscarriage and abortion but it isn't that far off from equating the pill with abortion.

What flies depends on what the Supremes say flies. The old rules can't be counted on to hold.

I don't think they will outright ban abortion but I also think people pinning that hope on 5 guys deciding to put the legitimacy of the court over their own personal desires and ideology is a stretch. It is also much harder to predict how 5 guys are going to vote on the matter than judging public sentiment via polls. Plus, one of them vowed to get even with the Democrats.

 

[Cheetah]

No because an accidental miscarriage and an abortion procedure are not the same thing. In any case, I imagine the actual language of the law would be longer than that one sentence and include some more details, conditions, caveats, exceptions, etc.

There are actual human beings in prison in Latin America right now, because their miscarriages were seen as abortions by the state.

I'd like to join you in thinking that Republicans are more moral than the statesmen in those Latin American countries, but I have no reasons for expecting that to be true...