Could American women seek asylum elsewhere

Abortions are available in NI, but with a much shorter cut-off time.

Calling the area a “nasty little corner” is bigoted rubbish.

Doubtful. It’s still widely available in the US.

There's a growing list.

Disney, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Alaska Airlines , Starbucks, Tesla, Yelp, Airbnb, Netflix, Patagonia, DoorDash, Levi Strauss & Co, PayPal , Reddit and Condé Nast also.

Facebook , Citigroup Inc. , JPMorgan Chase & Co. , Bank of America Corp Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley have said they will pay travel costs.

And good for them. I hope more follow their lead.

Even if those laws (allowing a state to prosecute someone obtaining/assisting an abortion in another state or country) are allowed to stand, which I think is highly unlikely, I think quite a few of those will be undetectable or not feasible to prosecute. An early in-home pregnancy test, a road trip or flight to the other state, a few days "vacation" and a trip home. And in other cases, the state where the abortion took place would have to cooperate with the prosecuting state to even prove that an abortion had occurred, which is very unlikely.

Later pregnancies and those sought for medical reasons not recognized in the woman's state will be much more problematic for many reasons, even if those laws are held to be invalid.

Facebook , Citigroup Inc. , JPMorgan Chase & Co. , Bank of America Corp Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley have said they will pay travel costs.

Many of their employees are likely to be able to pay and/ or to keep it private but it's a very welcome public stand for them to take.

There’s no need for that. Some of the reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision to revoke Roe v Wade has been ridiculously hysterical and shown a complete lack of understanding of how the US legal system works.

Abortion has NOT been banned in America. Access to safe, legal abortion will still be available in dozens of states including big important ones with excellent transport links, eg California, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Massachusetts etc etc.

Because in many states that are limiting abortion the woman, and the out of state provider, can be prosecuted upon return.
New York, Connecticut, and California are already pushing through legislation to limit or prevent cooperation with states who are choosing to do this.

There was an African American man who tried to claim asylum in Canada a few years ago because of police shootings in the US, but it didn’t work. To get asylum in Canada, US women would have to meet the standard of a “well-founded fear of persecution due to: race, gender, ethnicity, religion…etc., etc.” Theoretically a woman facing prosecution for receiving or aiding an abortion could argue that and I think there is a good argument for it, but politically Canada would never declare the U.S. unsafe. What’s going to happen is wealthier US women who can afford it will seek abortion care in Canada, which in turn will put pressure on Canadian providers and will make poorer women in Canada have less access. So it’s also important that people support Canadian organizations in continuing to push for more funding and expanded care, and allowing no-touch prescription of the “abortion pill” which would take out more backlog.

I don't think this is going to be a barrier. For one thing, provision for people who cannot pay will be offset by those who can. I don't see states like California and New York turning Republican over the issue of fiscal support for abortion provision. And I think we are going to see quite a bit of corporate and non-profit support for access across state lines.

No, they can't claim asylum, but where I see this argument going next is where the states that allow abortion are going to be spending more taxes on helping women from other states get to their state to get an abortion.

I can see arguments brewing of why people in certain states are paying high taxes to help women in other states. And that's particularly going to affect Republican low tax pro-choice voters.

Having spoken to an American friend yesterday who up until this point was yeah, oh well, shrug, can see why you're upset, when I talked about the issues for females. He is horrified by this, and is very well aware as a gay man that his rights are the next under the scope and whether or not his marriage is valid or his relationship accepted. This is going to have a major impact on his vote, and this is the first time I've seen him angry and wanting to do something about it.

He's certainly taking apart the liberal position at high speed, and very clear separating the gender identity and it's homophobia from the LGB interests as he's well aware that LGB will be joining female type uterussy cunty things under the bus.

I think the TQ+ lobby is in for a very rude shock as this dawns on the penis bearing thingies who have actual power, voices and are starting to see the downside for them now. And that all this lovely tolerance and lets dismantle this bit of language and lets wangle the definitions and lets all let go a few rights to benefit others and it's fine for unpopular people to get less well treated has led to this utter disaster.

The problem seems to be that in the US trans rights and abortion rights are conflated. If you're pro-choice you have to be pro-trans-having-anything-they-want rights.

It's not like that in the UK.

Facebook , Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley have said they will pay travel costs for their employees.

Whilst I expect many of their employees will be able to pay their own costs, and may prefer to do so, that is still a really important and welcome stand to make.

It's been a darling threat of the left over females for a long time now: 'shut up and sit down, or wouldn't it be awful if you lost your abortion rights'.

We're not stupid. A lot of this has come directly from the whole removing of sex based rights because women aren't women, they're people (so that males can have whatever they want without barriers) and the gender ideology rise that says it's fine to take rights off females and monster them and dehumanise them and reduce them to body parts.

This has been helped to happen, and it was by people shouting love and kindness and throwing glitter. It was not caused by women demanding to retain sex based rights.

It will now have to be stopped by women rising up and demanding sex based rights, in never before seen numbers, and getting really, loudly, seriously pissed off until politicians start seeing the cost to themselves by fucking off half the electorate, their sons, their husbands, their fathers, and that the days of being good girls who put everyone else first and feminine self sacrifice for others went out with twin tubs and girdles.

And this time, no nice little veneer pretence that females have a few nice rights and now they have equality: no more a few token good girl MPs who were allowed to be there because they say and do what they're told and do nothing nasty like standing up for women. This time it's going to be actual equality, of the kind that is really going to piss people off, and it's time they learned to deal with it.

Some of the laws in each state are so draconian that anyone who lends women money or helps to transport them in any way can be sued or even prosecuted. The state AGs can sue companies like Uber for access to customer's records if it is alleged that they have gone elsewhere for an abortion. Suit can be brought by anyone who claims to be the father or related to the father. Even disinterested persons in the state can bring suit against anyone alleged to have assisted a pregnant woman.

This has been extremely well thought out and approached from multiple levels.

And yet @WindowsSmindows TRAs are currently all over twitter blaming British feminists for this happening whilst simultaneously shouting that we’re not speaking up

as usual a womens place is on the wrong eh

While this madness is going on, they should be able to still access clinics in other states, like California, that have confirmed they will stick to supporting a woman's right to choose. Or I assume Canada will help too.

Not ideal but hopefully this crazy decision can be challenged and reversed.

Much as I like the theory, half of them are too afraid of the gun lobby to take that on with words, never mind money. It’s a perversity of logic that many of the people screaming out against abortion (pro-life?) are also the rabid defenders of the right to shoot and kill people with guns

There's nothing to stop the Hollywood liberals setting something up themselves then. Normally what a celeb thinks is not something I give much credence to but in this case I think if they all stepped up it would help, at least in the short term.

www.vulture.com/2022/06/roe-v-wade-hollywood-reacts.html

www.google.com/amp/s/pagesix.com/2022/06/24/celebrities-react-to-supreme-court-overturning-roe-v-wade/amp/

www.wonderwall.com/celebrity/celebrities-react-to-scotus-overturning-roe-v.-wade-615640.gallery

All the English women in a froth about a country many thousands of miles away and nothing to do with them,

'Froth' - silly, hysterical, what a lot of nonsense
it's a country too far away to care about
It's nothing to do with you

Sit down, be quiet, look the other way, don't rock the boat, don't care about anyone but yourself, if it's not happening directly to you you've no business mentioning it, other people may think badly of you -

what other subject do women so often get these authoritarian, derogative, unpleasant tactics deployed on them to shut them up and prevent them inconveniencing a political lobby?

Oh yes. Another hugely misogynist one.

Any minute now we'll get the hints that any woman that cares about this is probably also racist, right wing evangelical and saggy titted. Bingo card is at the ready.

why would they need to claim asylum? Surely they would just make a trip over and return?

Much as I like the theory, half of them are too afraid of the gun lobby to take that on with words, never mind money. It’s a perversity of logic that many of the people screaming out against abortion (pro-life?) are also the rabid defenders of the right to shoot and kill people with guns.

Just as is the case in the UK, the bigger problem is the silent majority. I read an article yesterday that said that a Pew survey showed that fully 61% of the US public is in favour of free and legal abortion in all or most cases – even most of the 37% opposed to abortion being legal agree that there should be exceptions in some cases. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/06/wide-partisan-gaps-in-abortion-attitudes-but-opinions-in-both-parties-are-complicated/

The power of these lobbies lies not in numbers but in influence, and that only works as long as politicians are more afraid of them than they are of the majority of voters. The answer still lies where is always has, and when voters wake up to that fact, then things will change. Few celebrities will use their influence or risk being associated with the pro-choice lobby if it makes them a target of the pro-lifers.

I remember women's groups at university who used to fund raise for and run schemes that helped Irish women escape, come to England, have an abortion, recover in a safe place, and return home. I suspect those days are coming back.

I suspect we're also about to see enforced pregnancy tests on women leaving the country in certain countries unless women start making drastic noise and getting bloody difficult en masse right now.

I'm old enough to remember when Roe was decided. Even before Roe, some states allowed abortion, and women who could afford to traveled to those states to get a termination. It will be very difficult for some women, but likely easier than going to another country. As for those laws aiming to stop women from traveling to another state, they are probably unenforceable. There are long-established legal limits to which one state can enforce its laws across state borders.

It's been/being dealt with. It's far from ideal but women can at the worst, still travel to mainland UK. Anywhere in NI is going to be a hop, skip and a jump, distance wise compared to the sort of distances women in the US travel.

Of course, due to the time limits and lack of provision women in the Republic of Ireland also still travel to mainland UK.

Oh and btw, how do you know posters' nationality?

I'm not sure what the point of this wildly theoretical thread is as a practical solution.

If I were in America and if I were someone like Alexandria Ocasio Cortes or Elizabeth Warren , I might try to do something useful (for once) like lobby all the Hollywood celebrities they are likely to have easy access to , in the short term, set up a charitable fund to provide funding for women to travel between states.

That's by no means the answer in the long term but in the short term, millions could be raised very quickly from people who wouldn't even notice the loss of what for them would be small change.