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. This all day long

OMG, are you actually serious???? YES, it WOULD "really be so bad" for ANY state, let alone multiple states, to ban abortion. I'm so flabbergasted and angry I don't even know where do begin.

@newyorker74 okay sorry, I totally see your point there now re: gay marriage and other Supreme Court rights. I hadn’t thought that far ahead. Feck.

You are being both unreasonable and ignorant.

As has been said before, you cannot ban abortion, only safe and legal abortion.

Women will die, don't be an advocate for that..

Yes it is bad. Banning abortion is about control, not about life, because if life actually mattered outside the womb the red states would not be so vehemently against affordable (let alone free at point of use) healthcare, vaguely relevant periods of maternity leave and employment rights/living wage. All of which affect the life of the child once born... Might also be nice if women didn't risk bankruptcy to pay for maternity care...

A child's life is supposedly super important in the womb but once the child is born, if they get a childhood cancer, they're not important if their parents can't afford the substantial copays or don't have insurance?

How is the life of an unborn child more important than that of a 2 year old with leukaemia? In a moral sense to a "pro lifer" who the opposes other things that improve the life of children once born...

So it must be about controlling lower income women - as those who are well off have the ability to travel as required...

Glad to have you on board! Of course the irony is that the constitution doesn't mention guns or the filibuster or how many supreme court judges there should be but the Republicans won't touch those non constitutional rights...

I don't know a single woman who left Northern Ireland due to the abortion laws. Pretty much all the ones I know are still in Northern Ireland. One is in Scotland and one in the Republic after years of living in London.

Jobs, university courses and relationships are the main drivers for people leaving Northern Ireland for other parts of the British Isles.

Abortion isn't one of them for a clear majority.

Is there a mass exodus of women leaving Northern Ireland due to abortion laws?

Well, I've seen no empirical evidence for that.

imo ALL rights must be defended at all costs. At no point should we allow any right to be taken away - temporarily or otherwise.

Growing up, I thought the rights that had been fought for were safe and could not be taken away again; that the world I lived in would keep evolving. The last few years have shown me how naive I was. Rights can always be taken away and there are always people waiting to do so. The world can devolve as well as evolve and we should never take anything for granted.

American banning abortion will give credit to theose in other countries wishing to do the same. Just as voter supression through mandatory ID there has led to people here paving the way to do the same.

It's comforting to think we would never allow that here, or that no one here would want to do that. But I no longer think that is true. If this passes in the US, then it's an illustration of how rights can be supressed even when doing so has minority support.

The whole US setup seems a little odd to outsiders I imagine. Roe vs Wade wouldn't have happened in the UK (at least not in the same way) as we don't a written constitution to measure people's (women's) rights against. The situation in NI has always been an anomaly but that was masked by the relative ease of seeking an abortion elsewhere in the UK.

The US States often seem resentful of Federal laws - and it's weird (IMHO) that there's disparity on the death penalty (which is allowed by Federal law) between states.

Then again it seems illogical that many of the same far right nutjobs declaring abortion bans are about "the right to life" also support the death penalty.

It's very obvious that if Federal law is reversed it's a step backwards - and it appears illogical as a constitutional position - the parallel with the handmaids tale is scary.

Well as I already said, it was certainly one of the drivers of why I left NI in the 90s and never moved back, and I know quite a few others who did too. I also know people who had babies they didn't want and ended up stuck in locations and situations they didn't want. But certainly quite a few of my friends who 'got the boat' as they used to say, got the fuck out of there after graduating and never went back. So we must have mixed in different circles. Obviously if you stayed in NI, you aren't going to know so many of the people who chose to leave as someone who did move away would. Obviously this is all anecdata though.

Savita Hallapanavar. Enough said. Philosophical erudite discussions about abortion while women die. Highly educated well off women at that. As for the poorer ones....

@allsorts1 I think your original
post is viewing this from a place of privilege. Ultimately this will effect vulnerable and deprived women the most, who don’t have the option of ‘just moving’

I don’t believe that abortion is a human right. I’ve never heard that as a prerequisite for being pro choice.

No, but bodily autonomy is, I believe, a human right. And abortion is, ultimately, about bodily autonomy.

I'm not sure why "faux innocence" is considered a misogynist term - will have to look that up. But I stand by my comment that all these so-called questions don't really ring true to me from someone who is genuinely pro choice.

I cannot believe what I just read.

What you're arguing for is that that only women in half of US States have access to safe abortion. Well, those women and the ones in Republican states who are rich.

The US is not a democracy insofar that we have gerrymandering which leaves millions of voters voices unheard and voter suppression which actively targets the votes of minorities.

And most importantly we do not govern by popular vote. Donald Trump LOST the 2016 election in that more people voted for the other candidate. He then nominated 3 justices - 3 of the 5 or 6 who are voting to outlaw abortion. The first of those justice nominations was supposed to be Barack Obamas, but again minority rule decided out of nowhere that he couldn't do so in an election year. The 2nd of those judges is a rapist. The 3rd? Replacing a judge who died 2 months before the election and yet, conveniently, the Republican party forgot their OWN RULE about no nominees in an election year.

You seem to be under the illusion that only anti-choice people live in Red states which is completely untrue. Millions of women will be affected and of course they don't all have the option of just moving to another state! The answer to the abortion issue is simple - if you don't like abortion, don't get one.

Signed, a liberal, pro-choice doctor in a red state.

Yes the set up seems needlessly complicated and doesn’t appear to be doing them any favours as far as I can see! I too am seeing parallels with the flashbacks in the Handmaids Tale - eg going to a “abortion clinic” which turns out to be a pro life organisation giving you pamphlets, which already happens in certain US states right now.

Contraception can fail including in those who are careful. Never assume it won’t happen to you or someone close to you, despite using contraception. I hate this assumption that if you use contraception you’ll never accidentally get pregnant. Those who fall pregnant without contraception have a right to choose too. This is about choice and rights over your own body.

Fair @Hellospring22

Also adding to that, it is a deliberate tactic of (some) abusive partners is not to use contraception: to use pregnancy and children as form of control over their partners. Futher ties to deter them from leaving.

I’m not arguing that, I’m wondering whether returning this issue to democracy and leaving it up to voters to decide, with their feet or with their actual votes, could be a better thing long term. Especially given what you’re saying about the calibre of the Supreme Court nominees!

If most of the American population are against overturning Roe and in support of abortion rights in some form, then perhaps it might be cleaner, and better in the long term, to just remove the constant spectre of Supreme Court nominees for or against Roe, and let the American population decide directly whether abortion should be legal where they live?

It would be great if Roe v Wade wasn’t overturned after all - but my fear is that if the US avoids it this time it might just be kicking the bucket down the road and delaying the inevitable. Won’t the next republican president just nominate even more conservative justices than they have now?

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

It's WOMEN who will live with the consequences, not the states. What about the 15 year old who can't just move to a different state? The actually much wanted pregnancy but there are serious complications? The woman who loves living near her family who help support her three kids under 5, but has just found out she's pregnant again and knows she cannot cope with another baby?

@Cinnabomb I accept that criticism and your point about moving, especially in the short to medium term.

But over time, if a state has a regressive abortion ban, is it not possible that they could experience a population migration out of their state to more progressive states and suffer economically for it?

Eventually this might mean than their bans are not politically or economically viable.

@AuntieMorag I hear you. I was referring to the political consequences on state politicians of enacting an unpopular policy that they have only so far had to threaten to gain the pro life vote. Having to actually implement it might result in the loss of everyone else’s votes.

States are often the size of a country.

If England banned abortions realistically how could everyone move to Scotland or Wales?

I live a a liberal state that will keep abortion rights, in a sea of states that will ban them.
Wealthy women will just fly or drive here. The most vulnerable will not.
Overturning access to abortions will impact the most vulnerable women the hardest.

In time some states may soften their anti abortion laws but how many women will die trying to manage their own abortions in the meantime?

Because as I said, states are NOT only made up of the one party that is in charge. If 100,000 registered voters live in State A, and 51,000 vote for the Republican nominee, that leaves 49,000 people with no voice and therefore no right to abortion.

And remember this isn't a referendum on abortion, people will vote on all kinds of issues. The big ones are gun rights and Christians being 'persecuted' - the Republican party has spent decades pretending Democrats are anti gun and pro persecution. People - especially men and those women not affected by an abortion ban - will vote Republican for THOSE things and not care that it means the raped teenager cannot access abortion because it doesn't affect THEM.

On the other side of this, for Republicans who live in Democratic states, should Dems there be allowed to force a republican into an abortion? If enough democrats live in the state to vote for that, would that be ok? Of course not and yet you're advocating for that to happen to other women.

We need to codify the right to an abortion in Federal law. It NEEDS to be a right for every woman, not just those lucky enough to be born in one area.

And we also need to stop caring about the EXACT WORD of the Constitution which was written hundreds of years ago by old white men who had slaves and raped the women around them, but that's an argument for another day.

@allsorts1 again, gently, but that view is one of immense privilege.

why don’t the women of other oppressed countries just leave/ emigrate? In places like the DR of Congo, or Venezuela, where rape is a weapon and means of control, and there is abominable healthcare….. why don’t they just leave?