Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

336 replies

allsorts1 · 04/05/2022 08:34

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!

OP posts:
Ahgoonyegirlye · 04/05/2022 09:07

‘ Obviously I am completely aware this will have a huge negative impact on women in poverty ‘
and there you have it.
You’re talking about a lot of very conservative states where proper sex education isn’t taught, where health care and access to safe contraception is either limited or too expensive, where women are abused by family members, men and little is done about it. Where teen pregnancy rates are enormously high - which is what happens when you don’t teach proper sex Ed to teens.

they won’t be banning abortion, they’ll be banning SAFE abortion. But the men in charge really don’t care, they think their power, and their beliefs, give them more rights over a woman’s body and health than the women themselves have a right to.

Comedycook · 04/05/2022 09:07

If they must go ahead with this hideous idea and women in certain states won't be able to access legal and safe abortions, then surely they should improve their healthcare system so that all women have free and easy access to contraception?

Moancup · 04/05/2022 09:08

I don’t understand how someone pro choice can write your post. I feel sick reading it.

Oh and I’ve studied American federalism but don’t have the energy to engage in some intellectual pondering in the circumstances.

QuebecBagnet · 04/05/2022 09:10

terrible Idea Too many right wing states which would ban it given the option. That’s not pro choice.

Wheresthebeach · 04/05/2022 09:10

SpiderVersed · 04/05/2022 08:36

It won’t prevent abortion. It will outlaw safe abortions.

Women and girls will die.

This...in spades.

ElBandito · 04/05/2022 09:10

The laws won't just ban abortions. They will also make it illegal to travel for an abortion so they can still prosecute women when they return home.

CapMarvel · 04/05/2022 09:13

No, of course they shouldn't.

Lack of access to safe abortion costs lives, it doesn't save them. Pro-lifers can just fuck off.

PurpleParrotfish · 04/05/2022 09:13

Fine if you’re happy to sacrifice the majority of women who can’t uproot their lives. Those who most need the right to safe legal abortion are the least likely to be able to move.
It’s a basic human right. People who don’t believe in abortion have the right not to have one themselves. They should not be enabled to take that freedom of choice away from others.

Clymene · 04/05/2022 09:14

It will kill women and girls.

RafaistheKingofClay · 04/05/2022 09:14

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

Many of them have tried to. IIRC some if those states may have legislation that is currently on hold having been referred to various levels of courts.

Original poster
allsorts1 · 04/05/2022 09:14

AntsMarching · 04/05/2022 09:05

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.

Thank you for this and that definitely puts the just move option into massive perspective. I stand corrected!

I agree that banning abortion is fundamentally bad. I am pro choice all the way and think access should be free, easy and safe.

However, from your perspective - what about the option that people use their political power to lobby their representatives to increase access to abortion in their state? Is the US not a democracy? Or is this just completely out of the realms of possibility in some states.

OP posts:
Wnikat · 04/05/2022 09:15

well, maybe, but that will force the United States to face up to who they really are: several vastly different constituencies crammed into one nation state.

I think the Republicans will lead to the break up of the Republic going down this road, and then we will all be in a lot of trouble.

Original poster
allsorts1 · 04/05/2022 09:15

AntsMarching · 04/05/2022 09:05

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.

Thank you for this and that definitely puts the just move option into massive perspective. I stand corrected!

I agree that banning abortion is fundamentally bad. I am pro choice all the way and think access should be free, easy and safe.

However, from your perspective - what about the option that people use their political power to lobby their representatives to increase access to abortion in their state? Is the US not a democracy? Or is this just completely out of the realms of possibility in some states.

OP posts:
Georgeskitchen · 04/05/2022 09:18

This is a shocking backward step for nation that is supposed to be a world leader.
I note that so many anti abortionists (certainly in the UK) appear to men.
A big fat WTF? to that!!

Original poster
allsorts1 · 04/05/2022 09:19

AntsMarching · 04/05/2022 09:05

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.

Thank you for this and that definitely puts the just move option into massive perspective. I stand corrected!

I agree that banning abortion is fundamentally bad. I am pro choice all the way and think access should be free, easy and safe.

However, from your perspective - what about the option that people use their political power to lobby their representatives to increase access to abortion in their state? Is the US not a democracy? Or is this just completely out of the realms of possibility in many states, do the pro-lifers really have so much power?

OP posts:
Horizons83 · 04/05/2022 09:19

I do get the point you are trying to make OP. You could substitute it with any other controversial topic e.g. the death penalty, gun control etc (which do have similar federal provisions/court decisions limiting the scope of what the States can do).

On a philosophical level maybe it is an appropriate thing for the States to have control over such decisions. I'm sure some people on this post who are outraged by it are also outraged when Westminster makes law which they feel their devolved government should have control over - it's essentially the same thing.

I guess the difference with abortion rights is that it will disproportionately affect poor women, and there is a ticking clock in play when the situation arises... gun control laws don't have this, even the death penalty doesn't (years and years of appeals).. but a woman effectively has a matter of weeks to access a safe abortion.

One thing it may do, is strengthen the position of Democrats in those states, if women feel that strongly about it. I'm not sure enough do though.

loveisanopensore · 04/05/2022 09:19

Clymene · 04/05/2022 09:14

It will kill women and girls.

But they don't care about killing poor women.
Their wives, mistresses and daughters will always be able to access abortions.

lljkk · 04/05/2022 09:20

ElBandito · 04/05/2022 09:10

The laws won't just ban abortions. They will also make it illegal to travel for an abortion so they can still prosecute women when they return home.

That.  It's a zero tolerance strategy.
Original poster
allsorts1 · 04/05/2022 09:20

AntsMarching · 04/05/2022 09:05

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.

Thank you for this and that definitely puts the just move option into massive perspective. I stand corrected.

I agree that banning abortion is fundamentally bad. I am pro choice all the way and think access should be free, easy and safe.

However, from your perspective - what about the option that people use their political power to lobby their representatives to increase access to abortion in their state? Is the US not a democracy? Or is this just completely out of the realms of possibility in many states, do the pro-lifers really have so much power?

OP posts:
Herecomestreble1 · 04/05/2022 09:21

You're not pro choice if you don't agree with allowing ALL women, regardless of where they live, access to that choice. Just so you know....

motherofthelittlescreamingone · 04/05/2022 09:22

Well, I suppose you could use the analogy of education for women and girls in Afghanistan.

The loss of it has raised awareness of how important it is. It has mobilised some very brave people. In 30 years' time it may become clear objectively to everyone in power that it was a massive retrograde move for the country's progress. The international and domestic objections are prompting discussions about the kinds of fudges that might give women a few rights back.

BUT the religious nutters will never care about the objective reality and a whole generation of women lose their oppprtunities and right of self determination. So overall it is a total tragedy.

Herecomestreble1 · 04/05/2022 09:22

You're not pro choice if you don't agree with allowing ALL women, regardless of where they live, access to that choice. Just so you know....

Musomama1 · 04/05/2022 09:22

No, nope and no again. It's not the state's choice, it's a woman's choice.

Banning abortion will only serve women who might be pressured into an unwanted abortion, which I imagine is only a tiny figure.

Also, as a side note, is this a blanket in all abortions, regardless of foetus health? Is it a ban over a threshold of gestation time or just a complete 'at no stage abort'?

The US already have shitty women's rights and imo women over there should all do something about it, but so many reject feminism. They have no maternity pay, there's still big pay disparity between men and women, they seemingly have little grassroots groups for defending single sex spaces and the public refused to have a female president. I mean, they were more open to having a black president in spite of the terrible history of slavery, civil rights and racism.

All the famous women have been good at slagging off Harvey Weinstein on twitter though. Sorry it's not very sisterhood, but I'm frustrated by the lack of concrete women's rights over there and it's not all down to the men.

AbleCable · 04/05/2022 09:23

*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.*

How well do you think this same concept worked out for the women of the UK? Specifically, for the women of Northern Ireland? Who have only been permitted to legally have an abortion in NI since 2019.
Do you think that it was OK that they have had to endure the trauma of being forced to travel to in order to access basic healthcare that was readily available throughout the rest of the UK? Should they have 'just' moved over to Great Britain - instead of having free, safe, legal, local abortion in NI?

Because that is what you are arguing in favour of for the US.

Discovereads · 04/05/2022 09:23

Abortion is a human rights issue so should not be left to the States to decide. The right to a safe abortion should be legislated in an amendment to the Constitution and therefore apply nationwide.

Imagine if the US Federal government had decided to leave it up to the States as to whether women can vote or not? This is no different except not being able to vote wont kill you whereas no legal right to an abortion can kill you.

The Supreme Court ruling- if made official- is a disgusting cowardly act that will deny millions of American women a basic human right. And it’s not that easy to move between States especially since the ones that are most liberal regarding abortion- New York and California have the highest cost of living, whereas the ones that are heavily restricting abortion and likely to ban it outright are the poverty stricken States with low cost of living. To think ordinary people can just move from say Mississippi to New York is ridiculous. It’s like saying an ordinary person in Blackpool can easily move to London.