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!

So from a strictly philosophical view, trying to look impartially at all sides, maybe removing the much hated top down ruling of Roe v Wade, which seems to be seen very much as “elite liberal interference” would take some heat out of it in a political sense for the deep red states and allow them to formulate their own laws, which could end up being more balanced and a bit like Texas plus.

Nope. It would just be caving to the malignancy of radical states and perpetuating America's radical right, a force hellbent on eroding women's rights and therefore human rights. The minority rule (evangelical asswipes) have gained the upper hand, radicalising America, giving strength to the voices that were, in my childhood, the voices of the nutty fringe element but have now gained so much momentum, they are side sweeping and worse, silencing the majority voice. We American women may as well use the pages of Our Bodies, Ourselves as bog roll. It is a clusterfuck what is happening in America.
Balanced is a word that doesn't even belong here, OP. There is nothing balanced about 26 states banning abortion with several others following suit in the next 12 months.

Balanced like Texas is a wonderful oxymoron!

Texas considers itself its own republic, always hollering 'federal rule!'
Well, just take a look at its power crisis in 2021. It relies on its own deregulated power grid, rather than the national ones in place. That Texas power crisis is a perfect example of why you can't just hand individual states total federal rule... and what a disaster it would be to do this with regards to abortion laws.

You suggest it might take the heat out politically but have you considered how much this would crank it up by several notches socially?

If states want to ban abortion, then they also need to provide full healthcare for the mother, at least up to a year post partum, and for any related issues for life, including any therapy. Full healthcare for the child until they reach adulthood. A year's paid maternity leave. Full time childcare to allow the mother to still work. Additional benefits to cover the cost of housing, feeding, clothing the child. They also need to offer free contraception, and make big changes to the law around rape, so that it is actually a deterant.

Until they're prepared to do all that, they can fuck off.

Thing is, safe abortion is a basic human right for women. I’m all for allowing local discretion where possible but not in these cases where basic/ fundamental rights are involved- there has to be a baseline below which no one state can sink which is protected by the government, even where public opinion may differ. Otherwise where does it end- if a state decided to cull all disabled people, or people over a certain age, would we be fine with this on the basis that those groups of people could “just move”?

Kelly’s pregnant, she’s 15. She doesn’t want to continue her pregnancy but she knows her mom who is pro life would not be supportive of her ending this pregnancy. She goes to her local clinic, receives counselling and has a termination she decides not to tell her mother about
But if Kelly lives in a state that bans abortion, it’s not going to be easy for her to fly/drive out of state and access an abortion privately so likely she’ll be torn between attempting to end the pregnancy herself or continuing with a pregnancy she doesn’t want.

the same goes for Shirley who lives with an abusive partner who claims to be pro life

Then there’s Betsy who is a single parent of five children and works three jobs. She can access the clinic round the corner but getting childcare and leave for a trip from Alabama to the nearest state with legalised abortion is near impossible.

or there’s Ruby who took her first job at age 21 in a state that has criminalised abortion and then found herself unexpectedly pregnant. She has the money to access another state for abortion but not the leave in a new job in a fire at will state.

these are the women at risk and this is why federal law needs to guarantee abortion rights.

The whole point of Roe v Wade is that it supersedes any state ban on abortion and secures a woman's right to choose on a NATIONAL level. Weakening or reversing it altogether would undermine 50 years of progress and women's rights. Giving power back to the states is exactly what Republicans want, and is very dangerous, slippery territory.

This move is one of the most shocking and terrible things I have heard in a very long time. This is a western country in the 21st century. It is truly abhorrent to take away a fundamental human right of a women to have control over her body

This

Oh fuck the fuck off and fuck off some more.

take your goady “just thinking out loud” thread and piss off.

Don you really need strangers on the internet to tell you what a decimation of women’s rights this is?

go back under your stone.

Restricting abortion rights affects everyone. The shitty restrictive law that Poland brought in has meant not only that Polish women are forced to give birth but also that Ukrainian women who've been forced to flee their homes are struggling to access abortion. I'm not even mentioning the war rapes (ok I am) because I don't believe in a 'rape exemption' - the criterion for abortion should be, does the woman want one, is it medically achievable? But for some people women are allowed more rights if they have been tortured first.

I guess when law is handed down on high, like in the case of Roe v Wade, it makes it very vulnerable to the whims of particular judges. Hot topics get shifted from political debate to the space of “human rights” and debate shut down altogether. The religious right is outraged and galvanised. They lobby for their own representatives on the Supreme Court. The consequence is that the judiciary is made political and this is bad news for everyone.

By handing the power to states, in the short term this will be absolutely disastrous and a tragedy for women. In the long term there is the potential for a strengthened political movement to change hearts and minds in red states and increase access to abortion through democracy. Maybe this won’t happen. But on the ground, in places like Texas, poor women already struggle to get abortions anyway. At least by repealing Roe v Wade the issue will be made very clear, and perhaps feminists rather than the religious right will be galvanised.

Or perhaps we are heading to New England.

My sister lives in Texas with my niece. If my niece gets pregnant tomorrow and travels to a neighbouring state, what liberal neighbouring states would allow an abortion? Oklahoma? Nope. Arkansas. Nope. Lousiana? Nope.

So she has to trek to California or Massachussetts?

I saw a map recently which showed support for making abortions illegal isn't above 30% in any of the 50 states. So realistically, no states should be making it illegal at all.

this kind of attitude is why we can’t have nice things like a healthy non-polarised democracy.

If they’re so pro-life why don’t they ban guns🤷🏼‍♀️?! Would have a much greater impact.

Abortion is illegal in NI, I have not seen a mass exodus of women moving from there?

Actually, our country of origin is India, so if my niece gets pregnant my sister in Texas will be taking her back to India for an abortion which she can get up to 24 weeks. If India is doing better than you in giving rights to women, you really need to take a good long hard look at yourself.

If this figure is correct then citizens in every state can use their political power to lobby for abortion rights. In the UK, abortion isn’t along political lines, our Conservative party just increased access to abortion. Perhaps the Roe v Wade ruling has simply meant that the US wasn’t able to evolve on this issue - all the focus has been on the Supreme Court ruling rather than democratic process and changing hearts and minds.

Well YANBU to ask, and to want to get more info, think it through, and to consider the options.I'm with you there as I want to too. But some things are so fundamental that they should cross state boundaries and apply everywhere, in every country. The only question for me is where to draw the line as far as dates is concerned - is under 20 weeks reasonable? IDK.

You are not “very much pro choice”but this thought even entered your head.

@allsorts1 what if a woman/girl is raped and ends up pregnant? What if the unborn foetus is deformed and will have life limiting disabilities, causing it pain and dying young? What if the pregnancy will kill the woman? What if the abortion takes place before the embryo is viable outside the womb? I’ve never had one, but we shouldn’t ban abortion.

Even if they do get to a state that does still do abortion - they won't be set up for any new influx of women from state who suddenly don't - they won't suddenly have additional capacity - so waiting times for all women would increase. That was a fear being suggested last night by campaigners.

PurassicJark

Yeah you're wrong. Very wrong.

yep, this ^

Equally some states could choose to have mandatory vasectomies for men and those who object to that could also just move to a different state.

Absolutely. It's crazy. Also if they're so concerned about quality of life they can stop enforced marriages for children - young, poor girls in places like Alabama being given as wives to older men. It's disgusting. This and the abortion control is only about male power over women's bodies.

Phew! For a minute I thought you wanted to ban abortion - but because you said liberal, young women with money can just move state it totally makes sense. 🙄