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!

How does a pregnant 15 year old move state? Moving is for people who have the means and employability to work wherever.

I'm hoping that the reports are incorrect and there's at least exceptions like medical grounds eg ectopic pregnancies and rape/incest. Considering that the Us is more anti benefits than UK there's going to be a lot of women and children damaged and suffering.

What is wrong with the current status quo? Pro lifers can have their babies if they want.

States shouldn't make these decisions because....

Bodily Autonomy. Is. A. Fundamental. Human. Right.

FFS.

But OP isn't taking on board any of the comments being made, but rather continuing with faux pondering, "well, perhaps this will galvanise feminists"? FFS, we were bloody galvanised to fight for abortion in the first place. What more must we do!?

Absolutely true.

This a million times.

Ugh, OP. Have a

People are forgetting about the what data are held about us

Location data
Period tracking data

Combine those together- someone will sell these data to make money using these data.

If safe abortion becomes illegal, then women seeking them in the US will be targeted. Laws can be implemented to prevent them from seeking help from lenient states?

Having recently rewatched the Call the Midwife seasons showing the devastation of 'backstreet abortions', I cannot believe that anyone would think this to be a positive step. Just how and why?

This. Faux innocence. Why can't women just move state because old white men want control over their bodies?

No, this would be a total nightmare.
Apart from the obvious, there is no required maternity pay or maternity leave in the US.
Abortion procedures are also needed to save women's lives in the event of septic miscarriage and haemorrhage and ectopic pregnancy. If you're dealing with that, it's a medical emergency - you need help immediately. Banning abortions in some states would kill women. It's like having a "ban on reviving heart attack patients" in some states.
Is that really so bad? YES.

Because they are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion (and anti-woman)

@allsorts1

The thing about framing your post with:

'Would it be a completely terrible thing for each state to decide on this, and then live with the consequences'

You are giving credence to the argument that reneging on Roe vs Wade wouldn't really be that bad.

You need to shut this 'pondering' down right now and be firm. We are talking about the rights of 10s of millions of WOMEN (not men) being taken away. This is not the time for philosophical pondering, it is time to nail your colours to the mast.

Yes it would be absolutely catastrophic if this were to happen, it would only affect women and disproportionately poor women and women of colour.

It is sexist, racist and retrograde legislation - end of. RBG is turning in her grave.

@JanisMoplin … and a powerful message from you that a “super nation” will be looking up to India in terms of women’s rights.

Roe v Wade wasn't 'handed down from on high'. It was a legal case. This time round the Supreme Court was asked to rule on a law made in Mississippi. I hate the idea that law and politics are some highfalutin pursuit that only elites care about. This is real people, real lives.

There are many people who can not leave their state, or not easily anyway.
Jobs, family support. Cost of living varies hugely by state. California, for instance, one of the most liberal states, is very expensive, while the more conservative states tend to be cheaper.

And having it dependent on state means it can change with each governance change. A federal right means that it's more likely to be a constant right, rather than one which can come and go depending on who is in power.

Agree. If these men cared about unborn children, they would surely support measures to a) prevent pregnancy (such as free contraceptives, compressive sex education etc), and b) ensure that poor women have every chance to raise their children (welfare etc). But they don't. So I refuse to believe they are pro-life, pro family or pro-child. They just want to control women.

Oh not for a moment suggesting that India does well in this area at all, but it's just very surreal to see how far the US has slid.

I understand what you’re saying OP. I’m also pro choice but I can understand the argument that the states need to decide rather the Supreme Court imposing legalised abortion. As you’ve said, Supreme Court rulings are always vulnerable to being overturned, so they don’t solve the problem.

I also agree with what you’ve said about access issues. If the current law allows states to make abortion impossible, it’s hard to see what will actually change in terms of the lives of the women affected. They’re already being forced to carry children they don’t want.

This needs to be a hearts and mind argument imo.

Erosion of rights is never a good thing and should never be supported.

CBA to read the whole thing but your OP sounds as though you want us to write your opinion piece for you.

You don't sound too pro choice to me if you think it's okay to take the choice away from other women.

It’s not just old white men. I was looking at voting statistics by state senators on some of these recent awful state abortion laws and there was definitely proportional representation of white women, non-white men and non-white women of all age ranges voting for abortion bans or further restrictions. It’s not a problem in the US that can be solved by simply not voting for old white men.

The only way that you can see abortion as something states should decide rather than it being "imposed" at a federal level is if you don't believe that abortion and bodily autonomy are human rights. And it's not clear to me how anyone who is pro choice (supposedly) doesn't believe this.

There are all kinds of things that states are not allowed to "decide for themselves" because they are considered fundamental. Abortion should be one of them.

By handing the power to states... 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.

You can't play a long game with this, especially considering Maybe this won’t happen is the likely outcome. It's not even worth considering taking thousands of social steps backward in the vague hope that some silenced minority might eventually emerge from an engineered decades-long social trauma and come out swinging.

"Interested to hear everyone’s thoughts!"

Aye, I bet you are.

While it is not unheard of for the court to make changes to an easier decision, it has always previously been in the direction of expanding rights. To have it happen in the opposite direction is absolutely extraordinary (in a terrible way).

And this, right here, is the absolute crux of the matter and so well put by an American who understands the implications of this, as a lawyer, better than any of us on this thread.
This is indeed extraordinary in the most terrible of ways... and I'm fairly certain, unprecedented in my lifetime.

That's fine for all the young liberals that you envisage moving out of those states that outlaw abortion.

No doubt, the sort of people who will cause a 'brain drain' can afford to up sticks and go where they choose and get another job where they decide to take themselves and their 'brains'.

Not so great for those women living in poverty in the same states, desperate because they've got another potential mouth to feed but they've got no money, no way of making any and can't afford to move to a more liberal state.

Have you actually thought this through OP.

Of course it's not up to the individual states to have that sort of control over women's bodies.

Clearly, you're pro choice for a certain section of the population. The poor part, that has no choice can just go back to back-street abortionists and death in your world it seems.

Just saying