Breaking: claims that the American Supreme Court will strike down Roe v. Wade

The only possible benefit of woman refusing to have sex is if it made (powerful) men change their mind re abortion. ie if men who make these decisions could no longer have sex unless they allowed abortion.

Otherwise, women refusing to have sex will have little to no difference to abortion rates.

I have seen data yes. Here's one I found with a quick google. I've seen similar data when doing some work with a client who did some pro bono work in this space but don't have that any more due to routine deletion of client data.

www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

Unintended pregnancy rates are highest in countries that restrict abortion access and lowest in countries where abortion is broadly legal.
As a result, abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is restricted and those where the procedure is broadly legal (i.e., where it is available on request or on socioeconomic grounds).

www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30315-6/fulltext

In countries where abortion was restricted, the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion had increased compared with the proportion for 1990–94, and the unintended pregnancy rates were higher than in countries where abortion was broadly legal.

Another day closer to the handmaids tale

But they don't care about actual breathing, living women. They just care about getting their own way. They also don't care about the unwanted children once they're born. It's a big crossover between pro-life and small-state, anti-benefits, anti-state provided medical services etc.

This is horrifying. A massive step backwards in women's rights.

I am also concerned that they will turn their attention even more vociferously to other parts of the world. The UK can certainly do without it.

Men might want women chaste and married, but they're also generally pretty keen on having sex.
I wonder what impact it might have if women did start refusing more. The advent of contraception was the supposed herald of choice for women about whether or not to have sex, without the added risk of childbirth.
Maybe America is going to find itself back in those days when abstinence was the contraception of choice. If this really was the case I think that more men would actually be in favour of bodily autonomy for women.

‘There is a direct line between abortion and sexual behaviour for some women, including me.’

And me. I can live without sex if I have to. If abortion (and possibly contraception, in the long-run, given the direction of thinking) became illegal, I wouldn’t go near a bloke until after the menopause.

‘Except the number of women who would stop having sex if abortion was removed is such a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the total population as to be statistically irrelevant. And we know this for a fact because in states without access to safe legal abortion, pregnancy rates don't go down. They just either have more children or more unsafe abortions.’

That’s interesting. Do you have data on that?

Oh woeful of course @theemperorhasnoclothes

I don't mean it as an entirely serious solution, but men don't rape because they're not getting sex at home - they rape because they can. Of course simply not having sex isn't going to work for lots of women, but I agree with a pp - I simply wouldn't have had sex after the birth of my son if I didn't know I had a right to an abortion, due to birth trauma. DH maybe wouldn't be the first out in the streets to protest Roe v Wade being questioned, but his thinking would adapt pretty quickly if I said 'we are never having PIV again and here is why'.

Again, it's something to think about if women are safe to do so. There is a direct line between abortion and sexual behaviour for some women, including me.

Except the number of women who would stop having sex if abortion was removed is such a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the total population as to be statistically irrelevant. And we know this for a fact because in states without access to safe legal abortion, pregnancy rates don't go down. They just either have more children or more unsafe abortions.

Not having sex doesn't work if women aren't allowed to say 'no' though and would result in rapes going up. What's the rape conviction rate like in the US?

How many women will have to die before any of these male activists, legislators and their handmaids care?
It is so depressing.

‘Shut up shop. If I cannot access a safe and legal abortion if I need or want one, then I cannot consent to sex.’

It’s what I would do if I couldn’t take the risk of a pregnancy. Contraception doesn’t always work.

Why on earth didn't Clinton or Obama put this into legislation?

Many women (including me, probably) might change aspects of their sexual behaviour if they knew safe abortion wasn’t an option

To be honest, this is probably the only way to galvanise the Nigels of this world (or whatever the American equivalent is of a Not My Nigel) into pushing back and standing up for women. Shut up shop. If I cannot access a safe and legal abortion if I need or want one, then I cannot consent to sex.

Yes, I know that's regressive, makes women the gatekeepers, doesn't of course work in cases of coercion, rape or abuse, but there is a significant body of 'decent' men who need to get woke on this issue and denying them sex feels like a pretty good way to do it.

‘God, it's comments like that that are part of this slippery slope we on. If even the people who think abortion should be legal think that women use abortion as just one of many contraceptive choices....’

That wasn’t what I said. Any sex comes with the risk of pregnancy. Abortion is a (wholly necessary) safeguard. If that safeguard is removed, some people will stop having sex. I would if I couldn’t afford a pregnancy, or my physical or mental health couldn’t sustain one.

Please don’t put words in my mouth again.

I think this highlights a key issue. Abortion rights are not properly grounded in Federal legislation. In the U.K. the courts have refused to give judgements on sensitive topics that they believe are a matter for legislation. A key example is “right to die / euthanasia” cases. Courts are very careful not to stray into law making/law extension in this area.
I suspect this is the issue with Roe v Wade - technically the SC may be correct that the Constitutional basis is not clear cut and this should have been a matter for legislation.
However, the impact of this decision, no matter how technically correct it is, is potentially appalling and regressive. I hope there is sufficient political momentum generated to sort this out properly.

Obviously in Twitter-land this can all be laid at the door of gender-critical feminists. Because the far left has has nothing to do with driving moderate people and people in the left who do know what a woman is to a place where they are refusing to vote with, campaign with or elect people who call us “birthing bodies” and “bleeders”, and think children should be given sterilising sex change drugs. 🤡

I'm increasingly of the view that there's quite a lot in common between TRAs and incels. Neither want women to have the right to say 'no'.

"Many women (including me, probably) might change aspects of their sexual behaviour if they knew safe abortion wasn’t an option"

The number of woman whose sexual behaviour is impacted by their right to abortion is small. Of course there might be some women who don't use protection because they are happy just to have abortions whenever they get pregnant, but the vast vast bulk of women seeking abortion have not just being willy nilly having sex without worrying about pregnancy.

God, it's comments like that that are part of this slippery slope we on. If even the people who think abortion should be legal think that women use abortion as just one of many contraceptive choices....

‘How will changing behaviour prevent one being raped?’

It won’t. The question (or point being addressed) was whether overturning Roe v Wade would lead to fewer abortions being performed. I have no doubt fewer abortions overall will be performed if legal abortion is banned. That will mean some women will abstain (more) from sex. It will mean some women will have a child when they would otherwise have accessed legal, safe abortion. It will mean some women will access illegal, unsafe abortion.

‘But you shouldn’t have to. Your sexual behaviour should be something of your free will, as should be the right to body autonomy in regard of pregnancy.’

I know.

How will changing behaviour prevent one being raped?

Didn't a politician in one state think women could shut down their bodies when being raped? Possibly the same state that decreed ectopic pregnancies must be reimplanted in the uterus?

Blessed be the fruit. I'm sure Atwood thought she was writing fiction.

Why would it be TRAs rather than, for instance, incels? They are much more likely to view it as their right to control what happens to women's bodies

TRAs are already using it as a threat

the idea if abortion rights being rolled back is horrific