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!

This is the truth

the only thing that would be banned is women’s right to choose a safe abortion

Agreed.

The thing is, “relocation” is a simple word - but actually doing it costs tens of thousands and serious upheaval for school/work/friends/life etc.

The thing is that when an abortion is needed, it’s urgent. It can’t wait for a relocation. And people are not going to relocate just in case they might need one in the future. And they won’t usually relocate on principle either - due to the reasons above.

”Just move” is zero use to poor people, especially poor black people who face the constant threat of being gerrymandered out of meaningful votes anyway, when they are even allowed to vote in the first place.

This is a decision being made by an oligarchy of highly privileged, wealthy white people to protect their power and money in the face of a growing white religious right. “Just move” is not the solution to wholesale dismantling of rights. It’s not going to stop at abortion.

Would a single mum who is struggling for money and has no support be able to nip to the nearest state to have a termination

of course not she will attempt it herself or use the known local person both these situations are extremely dangerous

it’s utterly appalling this is happening

Of course yabu.

Obviously I am completely aware this will have a huge negative impact on women in poverty as they have less options

OK - so everyone just moves State. They leave their homes and their jobs and families and just move. Good luck teenage girls I’m sure you’ll be fine. Cheerio ladies on welfare. Au revoir rape victims.

I want to make it clear that I don’t think banning abortions is a good thing.

I was hoping for some law/political/sociology philosophers to reply with some perspectives on the difference with the US states system and the impact that this issue being handled by the Supreme Court vs left to individual states to decide (in a democracy fyi) has had on the discussion around this in the US.

That perhaps the shift to individual states would take some of the heat out of the argument for pro-lifers as a lot of their outrage appears to be due to it being “decided by the Supreme Court” rather than the states themselves.

Perhaps AIBU wasn’t the place for a balanced philosophical chat. Lesson learnt.

I'm a Christian and I don't agree with you at all op. Women should not be forced to carry children they don't want and there are many good reasons to have an abortion - rape, incest, viability of the pregnancy. For most women it's not an easy decision, but a necessary one.

This is going to be so awful for lots of women and tragic things are going to happen as a result.

Also the US is so hypocritical. Force women to have children because every child is a gift from God and then do absolutely nothing to help those children or their parents when they are born. I would have more respect for the anti abortion stance if it came with financial and emotional support for those families. It never does though.

Even if it did result in large numbers of people moving states (which it won’t), I’m not sure the small number of mainly powerful white men who would be responsible for making the legislation would care too much about any brain drain.

As long as it doesn’t affect them they don’t see it as their problem.

It isn't only young women and liberals who need safe abortion. Apologies if that's a deliberate misreading of what you have said but regardless, I completely disagree that overturning Roe vs Wade would in any way be a good thing.

The trouble with banning abortion is the mindset it encourages - it's hard enough psychologically in many of those states to have a perfectly legal abortion because it's seen as evil. If it's illegal, that just hammers it home.

A poor woman in the South won't be able to travel to an abortion state. It's too far, costs too much (bus fare, airfare, petrol, hotels), and takes too long. Even if she can get past the stigma in her own mind, she'll need support, which will be harder to come by. So she'll have the baby.

It's already too hard to get an abortion in many of those states.

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think it's the right approach. Anti-abortionists need dragging, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century and need to learn that they have no rights over the bodies of other people.

Roe vs. Wade is federal law which supersedes state laws.

Now it looks like Roe vs Wade is going to be toast, there are 22 states with laws banning abortion in the pipeline.

Poor women and girls who need parental permission to travel are the most disadvantaged.

“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.”

The ‘huge negative impact on women in poverty’ is death.

All that will happen is that those states with larger religious influence and right leaning legislatures will ban abortion and those with centrist or left leaning politics will not. Women trapped in right leaning states, which trend towards higher levels of deprivation anyway will be trapped with no means to access out of state healthcare.

If you earn below minimum wage and have no health insurance in Louisiana abortion being legal in California New York or Oregon might as well be the other side of the world.

I think you are immensely privileged if you think a significant number of people will just be able to up sticks and move state because of this.

Do you understand that "living with the consequences" means people will die accessing unsafe abortion?

It's the thin edge of a very wide wedge.

Do we want USA to end up like El Salvador where not only have desperate women been jailed for procuring a backstreet abortion, a few have also been jailed after spontaneous miscarriage?

There was also an attempt (thankfully unsuccessful) in I think Ohio to make it an offence to remove an ectopic pregnancy without reimplanting it in the uterus. Something which is medically impossible!
Thanks Ohio - I'd be dead under such legislation

I actually think a discussion around what America will look like if Roe is overturned is a good thing because it may make people who are on the fence about it really think it through.

The impact will be huge. If 1 state bans abortion, poor women there will be stuck with the choice if children they didn't want / can't afford, husbands / partners they can't leave and health issues they can't afford to take care of or an unsafe, illegal abortion which may cause untold physical and psychological harm plus could potentially end in criminal charges and prison.

If they're lucky, they may be able to get some help to get to the next state for their safe abortion - but if the next state (or 2/3/4 etc) also ban abortion, even that option is gone.

Moving state seems like a logical choice but practically - if you can't afford to go to the next state for an abortion, chances are you can't afford to move from one state to another. Plus people build their lives where they live for good reason - how many people on this site choose to live near work, good schools or a support system to make their lives workable?

All of that and it doesn't even come close to considering the impact on the children who will end up in the care system, which is already massively underfunded in most places.

I also wonder if this would be the first domino - so many of the old rich white men supporters of abortion ban seem to want to go back to a time when men were the head of the household and women exist to support and serve so it makes sense to consider what would be next?
My guess would be that if Roe is overturned, in the next few years there will be moves to make contraception harder to access (and it's not easy or cheap now), remove the 'safe haven' laws that allow babies to be left at hospitals / fire stations / churches without consequences and a change to curriculum to remove any sort of useful sex education (which only exists in more liberal places now anyway).
Terrifying stuff when you think about it.

But there’s absolutely no need for a ban. There’s already a perfectly simple system that works - if you want an abortion have one, and if you don’t then don’t. And if you haven’t got a womb it’s really not something you need to get involved in.

Pro choice can mean pro life if that’s what the individual chooses. Isn’t liberty and freedom supposed to be the American way?!

Thank you this is the kind of different perspective I was after. I’m not pro overturning Roe v Wade. But V V TRAGICALLY it does appear that it might happen.

A big negative for sure is that it being illegal will increase the stigma. And Roe v Wade helped drag these states into modernity and a forced acceptance of women’s rights. Which on balance is a good thing, but does appear to have ruffled a lot of feathers. I think in the UK it’s hard to grasp the difference there with the states system vs federal law.

However, when you look at states like Texas, it appears that they have already been able to limit abortion access to almost nothing with Roe v Wade in place anyway?

Is it possible that these “trigger” laws in place in states to ban abortion if Roe v Wade was overturned, we’re actually just a nice political win at the time, for republicans politicians who never thought Roe v Wade would be overturned.

Maybe the practical implications of actually implementing the trigger laws will mean that some access is given in these states if it comes to that? That every red state becomes what Texas currently is?

If they were so keen to ban abortion completely why haven’t all these states already gone the Texan route?

What's also concerning that there are certain groups who are very anti abortion, and they are also against sex education in schools. So increasing the likelihood of unplanned unwanted pregnancy

An edict from Biden through Congress can be defeated by filibuster and Biden cannot make filibusters unconstitutional because no-one would support that, Republican or Democrats.

Both sides have a history of finding filibusters very useful.

Making abortion illegal doesn't mean people move to another state. The idea that people would move thousands of miles away, away from their job, family, support system and everything they know because of a law is ridiculous.

What would happened would be someone would need an abortion, if they couldn't afford to go out of state, they'd turn to an illegal and unsafe backstreet abortionist.

Laws against abortion don't stop abortion, they just move them underground to dangerous environments.

According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), unsafe abortions kill more than 47,000 people every year, with five million hospitalised for complications such as bleeding or infection.
WHO data also shows that banning abortions has little or no effect on abortion rates throughout the world.

By banning abortion, all you are doing is handing a death sentence to women in poverty, women who have been raped, etc. Banning abortion doesn’t stop people getting abortions, it just makes them deadly. It seems those who press for banning abortion have no regard for women, which is hardly surprising as it’s pushed by the very religious who don’t have a great track record in that regard.

I'm from the US. I think saying just move shows you don't understand the size of the US. I'm from the deep South, a red state. The states that would ban abortion are red states, which tend to be poorer. The states that would keep it legal are wealthier and much more expensive to live in. Moving to an abortion state would mean moving hundreds to thousands of miles away. Your family might remain in the red state and you are now geographically isolated from your support system in a more expensive area.

There is a lot of poverty in the red states. Removing abortion there will affect the poorest and put them in a position of having to carry a child they can't afford and when that child is born, the benefits available in red states are not great. The Republicans are constantly trying to remove social safety nets and people that are on welfare are deeply stigmatized. Removing abortion will have a cyclical effect on the poor, a negative cycle of not having the money for food, medical, etc and then shaming them for having so many children they can't afford.

Banning abortion whether as a whole or state by state will have a detrimental effect on women.