Could American women seek asylum elsewhere

[ChagSameachDoreen]

if pregnant and wanting access to an abortion?

Some of the laws in each state are so draconian that anyone who lends women money or helps to transport them in any way can be sued or even prosecuted. The state AGs can sue companies like Uber for access to customer's records if it is alleged that they have gone elsewhere for an abortion. Suit can be brought by anyone who claims to be the father or related to the father. Even disinterested persons in the state can bring suit against anyone alleged to have assisted a pregnant woman.

This has been extremely well thought out and approached from multiple levels.

It's been a darling threat of the left over females for a long time now: 'shut up and sit down, or wouldn't it be awful if you lost your abortion rights'.

We're not stupid. A lot of this has come directly from the whole removing of sex based rights because women aren't women, they're people (so that males can have whatever they want without barriers) and the gender ideology rise that says it's fine to take rights off females and monster them and dehumanise them and reduce them to body parts.

This has been helped to happen, and it was by people shouting love and kindness and throwing glitter. It was not caused by women demanding to retain sex based rights.

It will now have to be stopped by women rising up and demanding sex based rights, in never before seen numbers, and getting really, loudly, seriously pissed off until politicians start seeing the cost to themselves by fucking off half the electorate, their sons, their husbands, their fathers, and that the days of being good girls who put everyone else first and feminine self sacrifice for others went out with twin tubs and girdles.

And this time, no nice little veneer pretence that females have a few nice rights and now they have equality: no more a few token good girl MPs who were allowed to be there because they say and do what they're told and do nothing nasty like standing up for women. This time it's going to be actual equality, of the kind that is really going to piss people off, and it's time they learned to deal with it.

Facebook , Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley have said they will pay travel costs for their employees.

Whilst I expect many of their employees will be able to pay their own costs, and may prefer to do so, that is still a really important and welcome stand to make.

The problem seems to be that in the US trans rights and abortion rights are conflated. If you're pro-choice you have to be pro-trans-having-anything-they-want rights.

It's not like that in the UK.

Having spoken to an American friend yesterday who up until this point was yeah, oh well, shrug, can see why you're upset, when I talked about the issues for females. He is horrified by this, and is very well aware as a gay man that his rights are the next under the scope and whether or not his marriage is valid or his relationship accepted. This is going to have a major impact on his vote, and this is the first time I've seen him angry and wanting to do something about it.

He's certainly taking apart the liberal position at high speed, and very clear separating the gender identity and it's homophobia from the LGB interests as he's well aware that LGB will be joining female type uterussy cunty things under the bus.

I think the TQ+ lobby is in for a very rude shock as this dawns on the penis bearing thingies who have actual power, voices and are starting to see the downside for them now. And that all this lovely tolerance and lets dismantle this bit of language and lets wangle the definitions and lets all let go a few rights to benefit others and it's fine for unpopular people to get less well treated has led to this utter disaster.

No, they can't claim asylum, but where I see this argument going next is where the states that allow abortion are going to be spending more taxes on helping women from other states get to their state to get an abortion.

I can see arguments brewing of why people in certain states are paying high taxes to help women in other states. And that's particularly going to affect Republican low tax pro-choice voters.

I don't think this is going to be a barrier. For one thing, provision for people who cannot pay will be offset by those who can. I don't see states like California and New York turning Republican over the issue of fiscal support for abortion provision. And I think we are going to see quite a bit of corporate and non-profit support for access across state lines.

There was an African American man who tried to claim asylum in Canada a few years ago because of police shootings in the US, but it didn’t work. To get asylum in Canada, US women would have to meet the standard of a “well-founded fear of persecution due to: race, gender, ethnicity, religion…etc., etc.” Theoretically a woman facing prosecution for receiving or aiding an abortion could argue that and I think there is a good argument for it, but politically Canada would never declare the U.S. unsafe. What’s going to happen is wealthier US women who can afford it will seek abortion care in Canada, which in turn will put pressure on Canadian providers and will make poorer women in Canada have less access. So it’s also important that people support Canadian organizations in continuing to push for more funding and expanded care, and allowing no-touch prescription of the “abortion pill” which would take out more backlog.

Because in many states that are limiting abortion the woman, and the out of state provider, can be prosecuted upon return.
New York, Connecticut, and California are already pushing through legislation to limit or prevent cooperation with states who are choosing to do this.

There’s no need for that. Some of the reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision to revoke Roe v Wade has been ridiculously hysterical and shown a complete lack of understanding of how the US legal system works.

Abortion has NOT been banned in America. Access to safe, legal abortion will still be available in dozens of states including big important ones with excellent transport links, eg California, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Massachusetts etc etc.

Facebook , Citigroup Inc. , JPMorgan Chase & Co. , Bank of America Corp Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley have said they will pay travel costs.

Many of their employees are likely to be able to pay and/ or to keep it private but it's a very welcome public stand for them to take.

Even if those laws (allowing a state to prosecute someone obtaining/assisting an abortion in another state or country) are allowed to stand, which I think is highly unlikely, I think quite a few of those will be undetectable or not feasible to prosecute. An early in-home pregnancy test, a road trip or flight to the other state, a few days "vacation" and a trip home. And in other cases, the state where the abortion took place would have to cooperate with the prosecuting state to even prove that an abortion had occurred, which is very unlikely.

Later pregnancies and those sought for medical reasons not recognized in the woman's state will be much more problematic for many reasons, even if those laws are held to be invalid.

Facebook , Citigroup Inc. , JPMorgan Chase & Co. , Bank of America Corp Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley have said they will pay travel costs.

And good for them. I hope more follow their lead.

There's a growing list.

Disney, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Alaska Airlines , Starbucks, Tesla, Yelp, Airbnb, Netflix, Patagonia, DoorDash, Levi Strauss & Co, PayPal , Reddit and Condé Nast also.

Doubtful. It’s still widely available in the US.

Abortions are available in NI, but with a much shorter cut-off time.

Calling the area a “nasty little corner” is bigoted rubbish.