To think that US states who want to ban abortion should be able to?

[allsorts1]

Abortion is such a fraught topic in the US. Would it really be so bad to just let the states who want to ban abortion do so, and leave it in the hands of the states themselves to decide? It seems that the Roe v Wade decision has caused a lot of tension in the context of the USA and the feeling that states should be independent and able to choose their own laws (e.g different laws on capital punishment).

Would it be a completely terrible thing for each state to decide on this, and then live with the consequences (as presumably many young people/liberals would relocate to different states where abortion is legal?). Maybe if they experience brain drain they will change their tune. People aren’t forced to live in a certain state.

Obviously I am completely aware this will have a huge negative impact on women in poverty as they have less options. So this is a key consideration and concern.

But I’m just really thinking out loud. I am very much pro-choice, but interested in views from people who understand US law and politics… could the overturning of Roe v Wade potentially be positive in that it settles the issues, states can decide, and everyone can talk about something else?

Or would it just mean that there is a gradual encroachment on women rights and then the pro-lifers start lobbying in pro-choice states and abortion rights are even further reduced. Another risk could be that abortion becomes a political issue every election in every state, and switches back and forth from being legal to illegal - causing massive headaches….

Interested to hear everyone’s thoughts!

Why would people need to move? You don’t have to be a resident of California, for example, to have an abortion in California.

I’m in the US. I’d rather laws were decided by our state representatives and senators (voted for by us, the people of the state) then 9 unelected judges in DC. That way I have done say in the matter and will consider carefully who I vote for.

Would it be a completely terrible thing for each state to decide on this, and then live with the consequences (as presumably many young people/liberals would relocate to different states where abortion is legal?). Maybe if they experience brain drain they will change their tune. People aren’t forced to live in a certain state.

I’m an educated, high-earning woman who has lived in the same 5 mile radius all my life. Moving to the next town is anathema for me, let alone moving thousands of miles away, all so that I can be a statistic for OP in 30 years’ time.

How does someone living on the breadline in Texas for example afford to get to a state which offers abortion? No car and can’t afford a plane?

how does an abused wife get one behind her husbands back?

how does a 16yo get one without her parents finding out?

how does a woman with five kids already find the time/childcare to travel out of state for a trip which may well take a few days.

Most of us in UK won't be able to pholosophically discuss state legislation vs federal legislation as we don't work/live in such a system

Of course they should be allowed to ban abortion in certain states, if this is what the majority want in that state. That's simply how democracy works isn't it. I didn't want Brexit to happen but apparently the majority of people did so it did.

The opinion about abortion very much varies between states and several states are very heavily against abortion and I think it's good that this discussion is being had because I find it quite frankly horrifying how casual abortion has become.

I am not anti abortion but believe there should be very strict time limits - the second a baby could survive outside of the womb, I think that should be the cut off point. Ideally much before that point - I personally think that no later than 8-10 weeks is most ethical. In some states there was talk of changing the rules so that abortion could continue up until the baby was 1 month OUT of the womb. Up until 1 month old, you can leave a baby to die and it would be considered abortion. That, to me, is far more grotesque and evil than banning abortion altogether. So America is very divided to the extremes on this issue.

We are trying to downplay that abortion is killing a baby. We have made ourselves cold to this fact. But some people aren't cold to this fact and they feel very strongly that these babies deserve defending, just as we defend living children. We don't just ignore child abuse if it doesn't affect us, do we?

Everyone's always like "if you don't like abortion don't get one" but it's not as simple as that. Imagine if Putin turned round like "Guys if you don't like the invasion of Ukraine then just don't invade Ukraine?" Things affect other people. People defend each other. And some people want to defend these babies. And if this is what the majority want then that's the price we pay for democracy.

@Thehundredthnamechange I completely disagree with you. The only thing you’re right about is that things affects other people.

banning abortion would affect other people - women. While protecting unborn fetuses. Which is more important? I’d argue that women should be more important than a fetus.

Why aren’t women allowed to have control over their bodies? Why should they be forced to give birth to a baby they don’t want? Who is going to pay for the upkeep of this child? I’ll give you a hint, it’s unlikely to be state benefits. Not in at any meaningful level anyway. What if children’s homes are overrun?

I don’t think democracy should just be about doing what the majority want. A civilised country should also be looking at what’s the right thing to do overall. If you have a state with 51% men plus a number of religious, brain washed women why should they make decisions for the majority of women? Maybe because it’s a female issue only women should have a say. I’m sure the majority of women want to keep abortion.

I live in a very racist town. I’m sure the majority of people would want a lot of things passed in law which thankfully they’re not allowed to have a say in.

It’s effectively banning a sometimes life saving medical procedure. Without legal abortion, some desperate women turn to horrendous methods to terminate pregnancies which sometimes result in them losing their lives. It doesn’t make sense to ban it, it’s 2022.

"Casual" abortion over unwanted babies any day. And women over foetuses.

Banning abortion at 8 to 10 weeks? Many women might not even know they were pregnant by then if they had irregular periods or were in peri menopause.

I am personally struggling with any narrative that suggests this should be decided by majority vote.

We could compare this to Brexit, as a PP suggests, but since Brexit didn't happen inside anyone's body it is a moot point. Don't get me wrong, I didn't want Brexit either, but I can accept that this kind of decision could be an appropriate one to take to majority vote. Deciding on what individual people have to have happen to their bodies IS NOT. I find it extremely worrisome that this will be led in a significant majority by men, who are enforcing rules on women's bodies. This is a huge step backwards and abhorrent.

I would be very worried about the direction of travel that overturning R v W takes the US. It is criminalising women for wanting to have body autonomy. A number of states in the US have a significant core of extreme fundamentalists, where women's rights are already compromised. Some women are already seen as the husband's or father's chattel. A decision to overturn R v W would galvanise this opinion and standpoint.

If this goes through, expect a landslide of conservative states challenging other accepted rights and liberal states scrambling to protect them. This will be a pivotal and polarising moment for the US IMO. Whilst the negative implications for women and girls will be the most immediate outcome, especially the vulnerable, poor and disadvantaged, there will be far reaching consequences of this for minority groups, LGBTQ+ rights etc.

I find it depressing that there are so many women who would celebrate this ban as well.

And what about when you're miscarrying and haemorrhaging litres of blood and doctors refuse to perform a D&C because there's still a heartbeat so you bleed out? (Happened to my mum, thankfully she was treated.)

What about when you're diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy and threatened fallopian tube rupture?

What about when you're diagnosed with a septic miscarriage like Savita Halappanavar?

You're going to hop in the car and drive for days to whichever state is nearest to get treatment?

Wow that was one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.

Everyone's always like "if you don't like abortion don't get one" but it's not as simple as that. Imagine if Putin turned round like "Guys if you don't like the invasion of Ukraine then just don't invade Ukraine?"

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous ways of putting the argument against abortion that I've ever encountered.

So you're equating Putin's invasion and destruction of another country along with the murder, torture and rape of many of the population of that country with the rights of women over their own bodies?

Really?

No one wants an abortion. They often have little choice .Young girls unable to care for a child .women who have been raped .women having an affair .the list goes on .poor women will be affected most ,in the past wealthy women would seek help privately. The rest at the mercy of a back street butcher. How is this being discussed even .50 years later?

@Thehundredthnamechange

I am not anti abortion but believe there should be very strict time limits - the second a baby could survive outside of the womb, I think that should be the cut off point. Ideally much before that point - I personally think that no later than 8-10 weeks is most ethical.

So you think a foetus can survive outside the womb at 8-10 weeks? Gosh.

The anti-abortion arguments being promulgated on this thread are bordering on the insane.

Of course they should be allowed to ban abortion in certain states, if this is what the majority want in that state. That's simply how democracy works isn't it.

By that logic, slavery should remain openly legal.

By that logic, segregation should remain legal.

By that logic, apartheid should remain legal.

Because that's how democracy worked. Those states were dragged kicking and screaming into emancipation and integration. It took a civil fucking war to do it.

Was it wrong to drag them onto the side of human rights for human beings? Are you sure?

Abortion isn't "political", for God's sake. You are not discussing some remote philosophical essay question in RMPS. You are talking about human rights. Human rights. Women are human. Fully human. Not livestock.

How about we allow women to make their own choices in regard to their own bodies and provide them with the information and resources/medical care in order for them to do this in the safest possible way (I say safest because any medical procedure has a risk attached)

Absolutely not. I'm American. This is scary. And as many have already pointed out, outcomes for the least well off will be worse. They can't just upsticks and move and perhaps they don't have the money to travel to a different state. The USA has almost no safety net for the poor as well so it's not like having a baby gets you a house and income like it seems to over here! (I'm actually pro-welfare but thought this was worth pointing out).

Yes, that seemed unlikely.🙄

It's impossible for there to be a stable union of democratic states wherein some states have equality between the sexes and others have state control of women's bodies, forcing women to surrender their bodily autonomy and dignity in order to bring into the world a child she doesn't want and can't afford, risking her life and her lifelong health the the process at the same time as not providing free healthcare so that she has to pay for these consequences herself. Its simply unsustainable long term for a country to exist where half the population are regarded as second-class citizens on one side of arbitrary lines - especially as some legislations being drafted will attempt to stop their residents from travelling to procure an abortion.

But it's possible that the overthrow of RvW will lead to better, more comprehensive legislation being passed which enshrines the rights of women properly and explicitly. It's always seemed a little odd that women's rights in the USA are based on the precedent of a particular fight between Roe and Wade rather than by primary legislation.

I think they could make a start by creating federal legislation that said that any state which bans abortion must be required to simultaneously enact measure to provide free healthcare, education and a minimum income guarantee for life for both the woman and the baby, in every circumstance where a pregnancy would otherwise have been ended by abortion. Being pro-life only as far as forcing the birth to happen without making provision for supporting the life created and restoring the life damaged in that process shouldn't be possible.

Are you high?

God, I hate new Mumsnet.

Apologies for the quote (main point remains)

@Thehundredthnamechange
Of course they should be allowed to ban abortion in certain states, if this is what the majority want in that state. That's simply how democracy works isn't it. I didn't want Brexit to happen but apparently the majority of people did so it did.

If a state composed of 70% white racists, 20% white non-racists and 10% black people wanted to vote to reintroduce segregation, slavery and other measures to deprive the 10% black population of their rights to equality, would that be totally ok with you? It would be a majority opinion in that state of course. Free and fair elections for all voters in this state including all the black voters and all the non-racist white voters would nevertheless be outnumbered by the majority view.

Is this ok with you?

If not, why don't the reasons why not apply when the disadvantaged category being outvoted is a different group than black people?

If you all remember a few years ago Ireland finally lifted there ban, was so happy for them (I am pro choice as well) so sad that so many had to jump over to liverpool to be helped. The sad thing is though, I bet the majority of women will still come to liverpool, even though the ban has been lifted as soo many will be judged if they do decide abortion is their option-the same could happen in the US too. It is right or fair to dictate to women what they can or can't do with their own bodies