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!

The problem is that the states want to ban people that go to other states for an abortion and give them jail sentences. So it's not really the same.

This is sinister.

It's not just about individual states, apps and trackers could be used to track period data and the movements of individuals

mobile.twitter.com/nandoodles/status/1521581893438754817

Thanks, this is helpful as it’s not the understanding I had as an outsider. It doesn’t seem to be the way it’s working in practice though, as it is about to be overturned.

They don't even understand what an ectopic pregnancy is ffs why should we be supportive of them banning legal abortion when they can't even get the basics right

How about the US allowing women the independence of their own bodies?

If every woman who lived in those states voted in favour of a ban on abortion then I'd say it would be reasonable to go ahead. That's never going to happen though. The problem with saying 'if a state wants to...' is that the state is not a sentient being and so it doesn't it doesn't have an opinion on abortion, nor does it feel the impact of whether or not they are available. These bans are being driven by men who hold power (and some conservative women too no doubt whose views have been shaped by living in a patriarchal society). Ensuring that safe, legal abortions are available protects women against further marginalisation. Don't forget that in the USA pregnancy and childbirth attracts a hefty healthcare bill and there's very little welfare support for women who may struggle to support their children. The pro-life movement doesn't challenge this - they seem quite happy for many of the babies they fight to bring into this world to be brought up in abject poverty.

I’m pro legalised abortion in that I believe abortion should be safe and legal up to birth. I’m pro choice in that I don’t think women should have to give any reason or justification for seeking abortion, or face any stigma or shame for doing so. ‘I do not want to continue this pregnancy’ is all a woman should have to say.

I don’t believe that abortion is a human right. I’ve never heard that as a prerequisite for being pro choice. Holding a particular view doesn’t have to mean that I think those that disagree are evil.

Don’t any of these examples use contraception?

I am American and believe abortion must be safe and legal and the law needs to be consistent across all States.

I also believe Roe v Wade was a flawed decision and was based on the idea that the end justifies the means. Congress should act.

The problem in the US is that, much like proposed gun laws and proposed voting laws, the suggestion of putting any governance at all around abortion will be seen by a vocal minority as a mechanism meant to prevent it completely. The people that want AR-15 rifles to be legal; the people that believe asking anyone to produce ID to vote; the people that believe abortion should be legal up to the moment of birth. They have more in common with one another than they do with most Americans.

Even if it were feasible for everyone to move to a state that supported their personal stance on abortion (which its clearly not for reasons explained by PP), it wouldn't be desirable imo - the US already has a highly polarised political culture (unfortunately increasing polarisation seems to be a feature of Western democracy) and polarisation feeds off insularity of views. Whatever political persuasion you are, it's good to have exposure to views outside your bubble. Federalism pulls itself apart if it's allowed to devolve into silos.

I do not see how this would be possible under US law.

We are allowed freedom of movement and a state cannot govern what someone does outside of their own boundaries. There is no mechanism for that.

Don’t any of these examples use contraception?

You do realise that:

1. Contraceptives fail


2. American conservatives have pushed for abstinence only sex education for years?

As a woman living in a blue state in the US that has already protected abortion rights and is pretty much past child bearing age, this thread makes me want to scream. You can't have a philosophical discussion about taking away a fundamental right that the overwhelming majority of Americans support - and that's red states, blue states and everything in between. A small group of fundamentalists have been working towards this for years and took advantage of bad political systems (hi Mitch McConnell) to stand in the way of democracy. And this is where we end up. A slippery slope towards the removal of civil rights. Want to marry someone from a a different race? Want to marry someone of the same gender? Want access to contraception? All of those rights are at risk now.

I wonder what would happen if every women (and men who wish to in solidarity)who disagreed with this law change left those states that plan on banning safe abortion to stay in one that still allows their right to choose.

Even if it was for a week it would make a point that this is unwanted. They could stay with women in those states. A way of showing solidarity.

It would give employers food for thought if half the workforce left.

I agree with you. Abortion doesn’t have to be a “constitutional right” to be accessible and legal - see UK, NZ, Australia, EU…

The Supreme Court made abortion a constitutional right in the US, but this has always been on shaky ground and depends entirely on the makeup of the US Supreme Court.

• taking abortion away from politics means that abortion rights supporters have never had to win public opinion in the US, so there has been no natural evolution in law like in the UK, NZ etc
• Pro-lifers feel that they have never had a democratic say and therefore feel a powerful grievance - this has backfired IMO as we see a huge surge in this group in the US vs other western states.
• I read that c.80% of Americans support access abortion in some form - from relaxed to limited cases.
• politicians courting the pro-life vote have so far been able to make wild promises about legislation to win votes - legislation which if passed would probably be pretty unpopular (eg the trigger laws to totally ban abortion).
• The repeal of Roe v Wade might just call them on their bluff and let them all be voted out once voters see the reality of a total ban on abortions as some states promise/at least force them to enact laws that please the majority of voters, you know, like politicians usually do.

I hope the draft ruling doesn’t turn into the final ruling, I really do. However there is a potential for it not to be the end of the world in the long term.

My abortion was after rape. I was a teenager. I wouldn't have had the means to relocate.

ChildDLA there’s no nhs providing free contraception. Even if you have health insurance providers don’t have to cover contraception.

Abstinence sex education.
Issues like access to clinics, poor public transport, few employment rights/no annual leave.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/29/us-abortion-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

This link outlines some chilling impact in the event RvW is overturned.

this specific extraction leads on from the ability for crime agencies to track evidence of those who may also have assisted someone to seek an abortion.

More than 2,000 police agencies across the US have already purchased “mass extraction” technology that allows them to download, organize and archive a phone’s entire contents. The technology is sometimes called a “window into the soul”. This digital evidence has then been used to identify search queries for abortion pills, including in the prosecution of Latice Fisher, a mother of three in Mississippi.
Fisher gave birth to a stillborn child. The child was pronounced dead at Fisher’s home by emergency responders. Prosecutors used Fisher’s cell phone records to show she had searched for abortion pills online before her child was stillborn, and brought charges against her twice.
Prosecutors dropped the first case amid criticism of an archaic test used to determine whether an infant is born alive. Prosecutors then tried to indict Fisher again, but a grand jury refused to indict her when presented with scientifically accurate information.

Do you think the opinions of people who 'understand' American politics and law carry more weight than those who don't? The choices women have over the body they alone inhabit, transcends politics. You make it sound so easy to up sticks and away, it's a very naive world view. Have you never read the Grapes of Wrath? & it's not the 'state' that lives with the consequences is it?? It is women and children who will suffer and we all know who good American society is at extending compassion and support to those in suffering. Americans have a bizarre relationship with life and death; not so pro-life when it comes to the criminal justice system. God forbid any more of their fucked up 'values' make it over here.

But those examples aren’t civil rights. Civil rights include the right to vote and the right to free speech. It’s up to us as a society to use our vote to create the society we want - including laws that allow same sex marriage, contraception etc. These things are elements that make a great and fair society for all, but they aren’t rights in the same sense.

How have the UK, NZ, much of Europe etc managed to pretty much take abortion off the table in terms of a political issue? Abortion isn’t a “right” in any of these places. It’s something that society has worked towards acceptance based on evidence and logic about the harm that abortion bans cause.

Maybe it’s still such a galvanising topic in the US because they haven’t been able to go through this process.

To the PP claiming I’m being “faux innocent” for considering this, maybe you should check your own misogyny that you would use a sexist girlish trope to shut down a discussion.

Well it was certainly one of the factors I got the hell out of NI as soon as I was able. And many of my friends did the same. I'm not saying it was the only reason but it was certainly one of them. So you don't know what you are talking about.

I’m so sorry that this happened to you and I am thankful that you were able to access abortion.

The point is that the argument that the surprise court is making is that because abortion is not in the constitution, it's not a right. The right to marry who you want, the right to contraception are not in there either. That's why they are at risk. What would you describe them as if not civil rights?

Can't believe this thread and some of the suggestions. Which yes are faux innocent. That's misogynist but suggesting that women move en masse to other states is not? Lol. As for the ppl who suggested contraception words fail me.

Why not just say you don't care about poor women and just want to make academic points to sound clever?

God MN is infested wt MRAs these days.