arwalden
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:28 PM
Original message |
If Roe v Wade Was Overturned... What Would Be The REAL Effect? |
|
Does that mean that abortions would suddenly become 100% ILLEGAL throughout the US?
|
Balbus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:28 PM
Response to Original message |
1. It would be up to the states to determine. - eom |
arwalden
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Would A Resident Of One State Be Able To Cross State Lines... |
|
... for the sole purpose of getting an abortion? Or would they be governed and restricted by the laws of their home state?
|
Balbus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. If they could afford it they could travel to another state... |
|
If not, they would probably do it illegally in a less than safe environment.
|
cally
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
22. Some states have laws where it's illegal for a minor to |
|
cross state lines for an abortion. Anyone helping them is also committing a felony. Who knows if a state would pass a law that it was illegal for anyone to cross state lines for an abortion. Six years ago, I would have said that was impossible. Now???
|
NaturalHigh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
23. I think the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution... |
|
would prevent states from making it illegal for adults to cross the state line to get an abortion.
|
SoCalDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
43. Poor women would get their abortions from med students, and hacks |
|
women with some means would travel to places where it's legal..Medical insurance would not cover it (does it now??) Fertility would suffer, since you would be playing russian roulette and hoping that your "doctor" was good..
Nothing would change for the rich.. their daughters, wives, girlfriends, granddaughters have always had access to "appendectomies"
|
OmmmSweetOmmm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. And if they say that embryos are deemed |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 06:33 PM by OmmmSweetOmmm
full fledge human beings, then couldn't they then declare that to abort was considered homicide?
|
Balbus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. I really don't know what the difference between an embryo |
|
and a fetus is, but don't they declare the destruction of a fetus homicide at times? Like Lacy Peterson? I don't know what the exact ramifications would be, but it wouldn't be good.
|
insane_cratic_gal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-07-05 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
47. We thought medical marijuana |
|
was also a states issue, how long did it take them to over throw that? Federal Law now overrides State law.
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:29 PM
Response to Original message |
2. There would be a ton of protests and a lot of pro-choicers elected. |
|
You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
All those young "I'm not a feminist" women in their late 20s, early 30s would discover feminism really quickly.
TWO-FOUR-SIX-EIGHT, WE'RE the ones who ov-u-late!!!!
|
Extend a Hand
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:31 PM
Response to Original message |
|
in Red states get screwed. They loose options. Rich women will do what they did before Roe, go to the hospital for a D&C.
|
OmmmSweetOmmm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
9. Many are already shit out of luck. Even within their own state many have |
|
to travel hundreds of miles because so few GYNs perform abortions.
|
Kenroy
(768 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:31 PM
Response to Original message |
|
abortion would NOT be made illegal throughout the US.
Some states would try to ban it (but then the battles would be in the state courts and dealing with the state constitutions).
The most populous states would probably leave things as they are.
Politically, it would mean the end of GOP rule for a generation.
|
TalkingDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:32 PM
Response to Original message |
7. And the Blue states would most likely keep it. |
|
That means if you are rich, connected or have relatives in NY or CA then you might have access. But poor or lower middle class in the MidWest or South...forget it. And then Aid to Dependent Mothers and Welfare increases and the 'pubs get bitch about that some more.
Of course they could take the babies, put the mothers in the poor house....think of all that free labor.
|
Somawas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
18. Not quite. Several Souytheastern Red States, including NC, |
|
were pretty liberal about the circumstances under which abortion was legal, pre-Roe v. Wade.
|
TalkingDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
30. Interestingly, in part we have Jesse Helms to thank for that. |
|
Ol' Jesse was a staunch defender of the right to an abortion on demand. The only thing I can figure is he was of the Bill Bennett school of thought.
|
Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
36. I would think that pro-choice groups |
|
would have massive organizations developed to move poor people to states that allow abortions.
They better, or what use would they be?
|
nonconformist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-07-05 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
46. I think even a lot of blue states will get rid of it |
|
I wouldn't be surprised if my home state of Michigan, for instance, made it illegal. There will be large expanses of the country where it would be prohibited... perhaps everywhere but a few coastal states. Which means illegal and dangerous abortions and newborns in dumpsters. :(
|
ikojo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:35 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Considering that abortions are unavailable in quite a number |
|
of states...those states that currently allow abortion would probably continue to do so and those that don't never will.
|
Catchawave
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:38 PM
Response to Original message |
12. No, D&C's would increase, and back to |
|
doctor-patient privacy. As it should be, not a law!
|
ayeshahaqqiqa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:38 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Rape victims would be forced to have children born of rape |
|
However, I think the rape exception will still be in place-it was even before Roe v Wade, as was aborting to save the life of a mother.
What would happen would be that poor people would have unwanted children while rich people would go overseas where they could get abortions. Teenage girls would go to back alley abortionists or try to abort themselves--a certain number of them will die or become infertile.
Abortions, being illegal, will attract the Mafia (which is out to make money by any means) and it will strengthen crime families.
Women who are found to have had an abortion could, conceivably, be imprisoned, so that the rest of their lives will be wrecked.
|
Nobody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-07-05 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
45. Here's where the right to privacy comes in |
|
If Roe v Wade were overturned and the rape exception still stood, how would it be determined that the fetus was conceived by this act of violence?
Do we put the woman through yet another traumautic experience where she has to go before a judge or some board of approvers before she can get that abortion? How long would this take?
I can see there being a board of approvers, and the board being stacked with anti-choicers out there who can drag the approval process until....
Sorry, lady, can't grant you that abortion. You're in the third trimester.
If there are any excuses that the antis accept, it blows their whole "but it's a BABY" argument out of the water. There are acceptable (to them) reasons, so the thing to do is operate on the principle that all women seeking abortion are aborting for the so-called "right reasons". it isn't anyone else's business and no woman is required to enlighten them.
This is why I favor no restrictions. Because I can't dictate to another person why or why not, even though there are reasons I'd personally find reprehensible.
|
-..__...
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:42 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 06:43 PM by D__S
If the SCOTUS found as part of their decision that life begins at any time between conception and birth, then the result would be a Federal ban on abortion (I'm guessing under Section 1 of the 14th amendment)...
" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
If not they could rule in favor of States rights and leave it up to those legislatures to decide.
|
Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
37. The Fourteenth Amendment has been used |
|
for more crap.
It was actualy passed for a very specific reason.
The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made freed slaves citizens. The Fifteenth Amendment gave freed slaves (males) the right to vote.
Somehow this amendment has been used to justify everything from corporate personhood to the right to an abortion.
|
davepc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
38. Thus the double edged sword of broadly interpreting the constitution |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 11:38 PM by davepc
The same approach to the Constitution also got us the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act.
|
-..__...
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-07-05 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #37 |
|
Is the real one size fits all legal doctrine.
If they (the Feds), can't ban, outlaw, prohibit or regulate something any other way, just rule (even by the narrowest definition possible), that interstate commerce is effected.
Makes me wonder about the likelihood of the following scenario...
The SCOTUS takes the less controversial road and leaves the abortion question up to the States.
Obviously certain States will ban or severely restrict the procedure post haste.
Women seeking an abortion who reside in those states will have to travel elsewhere.
The "moralists" in the anti-choice states will be livid and attempt to close that particular "loophole". All it would take is just one State legislature to pass an (unenforceable), law prohibiting women residing in their State from traveling to a state where abortion is available.
It would become a major legal challenge and would work it's way up the appeals process until it reached the SCOTUS which could further regulate abortion under the Commerce clause.
Disclaimer: I'm hardly an authority on the US Constitution, so I could be way off base here. Although if they can rule that the seizing of property for private use is allowed under eminent domain, then any ruling is possible.
|
Generic Other
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:48 PM
Response to Original message |
15. There is already a network of trained women ready to defy the law |
pitohui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:54 PM
Response to Original message |
16. poor women couldn't get abortions...oh wait a minute |
|
that's the way it is now, isn't it
|
_ed_
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 06:59 PM
Response to Original message |
17. There are also second and third order effects... |
|
concerning the right to privacy. Roe v Wade was decided based on an implicit right to privacy that the justices found in the Constitution.
I don't have time to elaborate here, but I'm sure you can just imagine the repercussions.
|
melody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 07:19 PM
Response to Original message |
19. Poor women who needed abortions might be able to get them but... |
|
I think the real danger would be its turning the US into 50 warring nation states (even more than they are now). When someone goes from Georgia to New York for an abortion, is New York culpable for the "crime"? It wouldn't take many years for this to grow into immediate conflict between states.
|
Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
|
If a person goes from Alabama to Nevada and visits a legal brothel, he doesn't get arrested when he returns to Alabama. You have to follow the rules of the state you're in, and nother state can't areest you for breaking one of its laws if you weren't in that state. It would lack juristiction.
|
melody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-07-05 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #39 |
|
Well, I don't mean that specific instance - that was just an example - but the concept is the same. Right now we have DA's in Idaho and Alabama who would dearly love to prosecute adult websites in California and New York, but they can't due to the current Federal climate. Pretty soon the question of what equates to "real and certain" threat on the culture of various states would enter into the question. The values and opinions of one state will bump into the values and opinions of the others. Borders will be questioned and, pretty soon, we'll have a semi-feudalistic situation developing. Where we had a cohesive (if chaotic) system, we'll have 50 (at worst) warring tribes.
|
insane_cratic_gal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-07-05 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
|
If Gays can't pass State lines and be married, If you can't go to another country and bring back medications..I really don't believe States are going to open their doors for a medical procedure and a personal choice.
Women are left to suffer, while more clinics would be targets for terrorism because the radical fundies would believe their cause is just.
|
RagAss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 07:23 PM
Response to Original message |
20. The "Real" Effect.....would be |
|
that 51% of the population would wake up with 1 less right then they had when they went to sleep the night before......that tends to weigh heavily on the mind of an American.....
|
PowerToThePeople
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 07:25 PM
Response to Original message |
21. Back room abortions. n/t |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 07:25 PM by PowerToThePeople
|
DanCa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 08:55 PM
Response to Original message |
24. Prolife will be the national religion and fed religion will be state rep. |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 08:59 PM by DanCa
Prolife will be declared as a national religion with each state will vote as too which religion it should be. Think of it as kind of like a state bird thing. IE. Illinois might be a methodist state. Texas bapist you know what I mean. Abortion is just a foot in the door people. Science will take a back seat to theology and every medical procedure will have to be approved by the local church heads.
This is a nightmare scenario and not my wish for the country. Just fyi.
|
mshasta
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 08:56 PM
Response to Original message |
Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 08:58 PM
Response to Original message |
26. Nope. That is a common misperception. It becomes a state issue again. |
DanCa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
27. Than wouldnt if split the gop so that enough it will give us |
|
the majority voting block again?
|
Zynx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
29. The GOP would lose most of the moderate support they have now. |
|
Believe it or not, it's about the 8-10% of the electorate that gives the Republicans their current majorities and this section is generally moderate on social issues. If abortion became a state issue and the Republicans were on the side of making it illegal, then the Republican coalition would collapse.
|
DanCa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
31. Than its a catch 22 for the dems |
|
I do not i repeat donot want to see roe over turned. However it will back fire and give the dem party the kick in the ass it needs to get new voters in the system.
|
insane_cratic_gal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-07-05 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #29 |
50. I disagree on the collapse |
|
They'd still have the newest hot issue: Gay marriage, remember it was the trump card they played in 2004.
|
Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
41. Yes and that's why I think |
|
only 2-3 states would actually ban abortion.
Others would make laws around the edges like parental notification and waiting periods and mandatory counseling.
|
never cry wolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:06 PM
Response to Original message |
28. The Dems take control of state politics |
|
That is Springer's theory anyway. Without Roe v. Wade it becomes a state issue. Therefore everyone running for every state legislature will have to add where they stand on this issue to their platform, as will many statewide offices. Since the vast majority of people support choice Springer thinks this will kill the pukes on the state level.
|
countingbluecars
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:35 PM
Response to Original message |
32. I heard a discussion on C-span |
|
about this recently. I was only half listening, but the speaker said abortion was only part of the issue. Many other decisions/rulings/laws have grown out of or been based on Roe v Wade. Overturning Roe v Wade would tie up the courts for years.
|
spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:38 PM
Response to Original message |
33. People of means would continue to have 'private' abortions while |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 09:38 PM by spanone
the poor would revert to home/alley abortions. Just as before Roe.
|
Fescue4u
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:44 PM
Response to Original message |
34. It would become similiar to Gun Control |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 09:45 PM by Fescue4u
Still a divider of the people for decades to come.
Some states would embrace abortion freedom, while others would restrict or ban it outright.
|
yodermon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:59 PM
Response to Original message |
35. Would a Federal Abortion ban |
NNadir
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 11:37 PM
Response to Original message |
40. That depends on whether the court rules a fetus a person with full |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 11:38 PM by NNadir
constitutional rights.
They could also declare a carrot a person, by the way making certain stews illegal to eat.
You think it's not possible?
I think it's entirely possible.
The practical effect? Rich republicans get abortions in Europe. The poor provide lots of unwanted babies that "tough on crime" types can execute when they turn 16.
|
davepc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 11:49 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 11:52 PM by davepc
|
Pab Sungenis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-07-05 07:32 AM
Response to Original message |
48. We'd see new duty-free shops on the Ohio-Indiana border: |
|
One on the way into Indiana selling wire hangers, and one on the way into Ohio selling turkey basters.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 10:34 AM
Response to Original message |