If Roe v. Wade was overturned....

[DoNotRefill]

and abortion became outlawed, how would you view physicians who illegally continued to perform abortions? Would they be bottom-feeding scum who exploit women, or would they be heros?

I'd vote for hero...

[warrior1]

1. I think what your would see

is a lot of fucking people waking up from their deep sleep, red states especially.

[DoNotRefill]

2. Yeah, but how would you think of doctors who continued....

to perform abortions while they were illegal?

[Maraya1969]

6. I'd say they would have a lot of guts - I find it hard to use the word

"hero" because even though I am pro-choice, abortion is a sad thing for most women who have them. I'm one of them.

[Junkdrawer]

47. Yep. The Republicans have a problem:

For years they’ve been touting the Christian Fundamentalists as the base of their party and the key reasons they win election after election. Now, the “Fundies win Elections” line may well be true, but not because “they comprise 45% of the electorate”, but rather, because right-wing extremist Christian billionaire Howard Ahmanson founded both ES&S Vote and what would become Diebold Election Systems. Fundies, last time I heard, comprise about 18% of the electorate.

So, about 18% of the country supports an extremist agenda while the vast majority (usually about 70% in polls) support a woman’s right to choose, the separation of church and state and stem cell research. Here’s the rub: that 18% is very politically active while the 70% majority is largely apathetic. And that apathy is based on the fact that abortion clinics are currently open, no one is shoving a Bible down their kid’s throat in public school and research continues, albeit hobbled.

Now, here’s the Republican problem. That 18% has been working their collective asses off for Republicans in the past few decades and, aside from pretty speeches, they’ve seen little change. They want action. But that ‘action’ (read repealing Roe v. Wade, promoting Bible Studies in public school, etc) might just awaken the sleeping majority.

So what will the Republicans do? My guess: they will propose radical solutions and make sure the Democrats successfully stop them at every turn. I see a long streak of ‘victories’ in our immediate future, followed by another ‘shucks, you lose again’ midterm election. Now, I’ve always hated ‘fan the flames of discontent’ type politics, but maybe, just maybe, we should be thinking along the lines of ‘give them enough rope’.

[undeterred]

3. In the past women found ways to perform abortions on each other

My feelings about abortion doctors would not change because the law changed. Some of them put up with an awful lot of crap even now.

[kliljedahl]

45. "awful lot of crap "

You mean like being murdered by "pro-lifers"?


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

4. Those with money will ALWAYS be able to find a competent MD

to perform an abortion, particularly if it is for genetic defect, rape, incest or a teenage girl who made a mistake.

Those without money will suffer the most and resort to some tragic and hideous methods to end pregnancies.

I won't view them as hero or villain...simply brave, sane and compassionate.

[Inland]

8. Those with money can take a bus to a prochoice state.

Those with money can fly to London for a long weekend.

Banning abortion will never be meant to ban abortions for people with cash. You can expect that there would be a generation of republcian office holders who would be taking the fifth on whether they or their girlfriends or wives or daughters had abortions, just as Bush puts his drug and alchohol use in the "youthful indescretion" category.

[DoNotRefill]

26. Not necessarily....

Remember, US nationals can now be criminally prosecuted for doing something overseas that is legal there but illegal in the US.

[Inland]

35. But that for SURE isn't going to happen.

The INTENT, not merely the effect, of the republican's anti-abortion strategy is to keep it available for the right price.

That's why nobody has submitted a Human Life Amendment to the constitution since 1973. That would put an end to abortions nationwide, make abortion an act of murder. Every pro life politician is looking for the way out of the logical end of their rhetoric, by a SCt allowing a state by state means by which they can always get an abortion of their own.

Gee, come to think of it, why aren't those gosh darn Bushites asking for teh HLA along with the anti gay amendments? Because they might want to terminate a pregnancy, and don't want to be gay.

[DoNotRefill]

40. Never say never...

given the events of the last 5+ years, do you REALLY want to say "That could never happen"?

We're pretty far through the looking glass, if you know what I mean...

[hector459]

29. Those with money will get their insurance to pay for it under the old D&C

cover that rich, white, Christian women have been using all along. All they need is a pap smear result with "atypical cells" and it's a done deal.

Ask me how I know....I come from a family of physicians and Ph.D.'s.

[DoNotRefill]

31. Female medicine isn't my thing...but I thought...

a "D&C" resulted in the sterilization of the patient....is this incorrect?

[shimmergal]

32. That's incorrect.

It's a minor surgical procedure used to diagnose and often cure various gynecological ailments that aren't too serious.

[DoNotRefill]

39. OK, good to know....

but WAY outside of my areas of expertise!!!

[CTyankee]

5. We would have "abortion tourism" in CT

and other prochoice states. Overturning Roe would put the decision of whether abortion would be legal back onto the state legislatures. Ours has codified Roe (but of course without eternal vigilance that could be overturned by our state legis.)

[Guckert]

7. would the Repukes dare make the 16 year old rape victim go to trial

for MURDER???? these hypocrites will go after the Doc and leave the one who is carrying the "baby", drives to the doc,pays for the procedure, gets in the stirrups, and says thank you.
This would be the downfall of the GOP if Roe v. Wade was overturned.

[Mr.Green93]

9. If it was overturned

The majority of the states would still allow abortion.

[MemphisTiger]

10. I'm personally against abortion, but I understand that's my

personal view and not right for all others. That being said, I think it depends on the doctor. If he/she did it because the believe this is right and want to help the patient, hero; but if they just want some easy money, scum. I see alot of Canadian doctors setting up practice on the border if it were to ever happen. I think we need to address the points John Kerry pointed out in the debate about abortion. We need to address the reasons women feel the need to have one. Do they have healthcare, job, and I would add adoptions laws need to be reviewed. IMHO, that is what the debate needs to be centered around.

[bleedingheart]

13. where there is a gap it is always filled by the opportunists

when liquor was outlawed by the US government, the moonshiners and the Canadians made a mint. By the time the US finally figured out it was a dumb idea to outlaw liquor the mob had become very powerful with all the money they made from running booze around the country...so in essence we helped create a bigger problem outlawing it.

Abortion will be the same, the wealthy will have their connections and their daughters, wives and mistresses will all have access to the best healthcare. The poor will be screwed...they will have to get loans to pay for abortions from the better doctors....and or they will risk dying if they get a med-school dropout or someone with no medical experience.

[DoNotRefill]

25. a licensed physician opportunist is far better in my book...

than a Joe Sixpack opportunist. To use your alcohol analogy, there were established alcohol distillers outside of the US who winked at the booze smuggling trade. The booze you got from them was a far different proposition than the booze you got from some guy who literally made it in his bathtub or in his lead radiators.

[KharmaTrain]

11. Back Alley Abortionists Would Be Heroes

Maybe I'm missing your point here, but if a woman lost her right to choose (women don't get abortions, they have them...if the wingnuts can play with the language, so can I) I doubt any reputable doctor would stand up to the wrath that would follow. At least openly.

Consider that if the right wing got their way and your worst case scenario happened (turning back the clock to 1960), the big money doctors won't want to risk losing their licenses, going to jail and their nice incomes by openly opposing the law.

Women with the money and means will always be able to have an abortion...and there will be quality doctors for them...all on the QT, but for the vast majority, it will be back to the back alleys again and a serious health and safety threat to women we thought had been eradicated will be back with us.

Let's hope there's still a tad of sanity left in this country.

[DoNotRefill]

15. this came up in another thread...

about a licensed physician who, in the early 1970's, before Roe v. Wade, in a state where abortion was still illegal (NJ, of all places) performed illegal abortions, got caught, was convicted of a felony, lost his license to practice medicine, and went to prison.

Some people said that such a conviction made him a bad person. I wondered what the rest of DU thought about it.

[bleedingheart]

12. We could start "Mother Daughter Tours" and find places in Europe

Canada and Mexico that women could go for safe abortions and have a nice vacation on top of it all. Because it would be privately owned we could overcharge my rich clients so we could offer substantial discounts to the poor....

[DoNotRefill]

27. The only problem with that....

is that you need to read up on what they did with the "kiddie sex tourism" industry. They made it so if a US national went overseas to do something legal there but that was illegal in the US, they could be prosecuted for it when they came home. And so could the people who arranged the trip.

[tavalon]

14. While I'm not a physician

I am a nurse who specializes in women's health. If Roe V. Wade is overturned, I will learn how to safely do abortions and I will be part of the underground.

So, of course, I vote for them being heroes.

Edited to add: And I would do them for a minimal contribution and I would teach and teach and teach.

[CitrusLib]

16. We'd end up with some of both

My experience with physicians (did my days with big pharma) is they run the gamut of ethics and morals like any other group of people. There are some who are in it for the money only and I could see some doing back alley abortions soley to exploit the need. I know other physicians who would do it to ensure women had a safe place to go. I would call those doctors heroes and the former bottom-feeding scum.

[DoNotRefill]

17. Here's the thing...

a licensed physician who is performing abortions only for the money is going to be a LOT safer than, say, a true "back alley" abortionist who has very little medical training of any kind, and is performing abortions instead of, say, selling drugs to make money. You can't get through med school without taking at least some SERIOUS anatomy courses, right? Plus, the licensed physician has a LOT more to lose than a novice, right? There's the whole medical license thing, right?

People who have no medical background and say "I'm going to perform abortions because there's less chance of getting shot than if I'm dealing drugs, and the money's the same" would be the scum-sucking bottom feeders in my book.

[Zynx]

18. Roe v. Wade being overturned DOES NOT outlaw abortion.

Most state legislatures would undoubtedly allow some rights to abortion still. Of course states like Alabama and Oklahoma would probably go off the deep end.

[DoNotRefill]

20. I think you'd be surprised....

at which states would quickly vote to outlaw abortions...

I don't have anything to back that up, because it's an opinion, but for what it's worth, there it is....

[Zynx]

22. What states do you have in mind?

If state legislatures in moderate states voted to outlaw abortion altogether, the elected officials in those states would be thrown out of office so fast your head would spin.

[DoNotRefill]

24. I'd suggest you look at the states that had no provision....

for legal abortions in their law prior to Roe v. Wade becoming the law of the land.

[Yupster]

36. My guess

would be two states would outlaw abortion totally. They would be Utah and one other unknown state - maybe Idaho or Louisiana.

Every other state woudl still have abortion in at least some cases, which would span the entire spectrum from pretty limited to completely open access.

[jmowreader]

46. I don't think a *total* abortion ban would stay around long

The reason? Ectopic pregnancies. These little beauties are two percent of all pregnancies, and are 100-percent lethal to the mother if not aborted before the growing embryo blows out the side of the Fallopian tube.

Okay, so check it out: Utah, Wyoming and Idaho (the three states with the highest percentage of Mormons) would pass total abortion bans. After a few "mother of three dies from ectopic pregnancy" stories on the front page of the newspaper, the politicians would open a special session to amend the abortion ban to cover threats to the mother's life.

In reality, you'd probably see "no abortion except when the mother's life is endangered" laws in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, life-and-health exceptions in Louisiana and Oklahoma, rape exceptions in Texas and Georgia and fetal abnormality exceptions in the Carolinas.

I think the wingers could construct a "model abortion ban" that would pass 45 state houses if they provided exceptions for the following: life and health of the mother, gross fetal abnormality, and rape and incest. Washington, New York, California, Connecticut and Massachusetts would continue to have abortion on demand for any reason because...well, maybe 15 really is too young to have your second child. ('Course, if the fucking fruitcake wingnuts would mellow out about this "if we teach them about birth control they'll just start having sex" shit, we wouldn't be seeing girls getting pregnant in junior high.) The only problem with this model abortion ban is that it really wouldn't cut down on abortion all that much because those are why most abortions are performed. Your winger would have you believe that thousands of women every day are lining up to get their unborn child's brains sucked right out of him because they're eight months pregnant and Macy's is out of formal maternity gowns in burgundy satin. Uhh...thing I've noticed is that most women are not that vain. They know going into this pregnancy thing that the selection of Caroline Herrera maternity wear is just a bit limited. ('Course, if you're rich enough to buy that kind of clothes, you're also rich enough to have formal maternity wear made for you. What uber-rich woman buys pret-a-porter anyway?)

[happyslug]

19. Roe vs Wade overturned? That would be a mess.

And a bigger mess for the GOP than the Democrats. Since Roe vs Wade the GOP has had a free ride on abortion, and reversing Roe vs Wade will end that free ride.

To understand what I am aiming for you must understand all political parties are coalition of small groups. In the GOP the coalition has been between social and economics Conservatives (With the Economic Conservatives in charge). While the Economic Conservatives run the GOP and get their program through Congress, they can only do so with the cooperation of the Social Conservatives. Without each other neither group can defeat the Democrats.

This is where abortion comes to play within the GOP. The Economic conservatives care less about Abortion, knowing it is legal under Roe vs Wade. This gives the GOP a free ride on attacking Roe vs Wade to keep the Social Conservatives happy. Failure to overturn Roe vs Wade is blamed on the Democrats. Thus the Social Conservatives end up supporting the Economic Conservatives at little REAL costs to the Economic Conservatives.

With Roe vs Wade overturned this cooperation starts to have real costs for economic Conservatives, they will no longer be able to access abortion. Economic Conservatives (Who tend to be Upper Middle class suburbanites) will start to look at the Democrats to protect their option of having access to abortion. In many ways you saw this in operation in Eastern Pennsylvania where Kerry did better than any Democratic candidate has ever (Suburban Philadelphia has been a stronghold of economic conservatives for decades).

Social Conservatives will also make some gains, for example Western Pennsylvania had the heaviest vote for a GOP Candidate in decades in the 2004 Election (Western Pennsylvania is a lot more socially Conservative than Eastern Pennsylvania, but while Socially Conservative is Economically liberal, and Kerry's failure to address economic issues hurt him in that area of the State).

My point here is the worse thing that can happen to the GOP is for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. Right now economic Conservatives can vote for Social Conservatives knowing most of the Social Conservative Agenda will NOT pass constitutional muster, thus the cost of their alliance with Social Conservatives is small. If the Court reverses Roe vs Wade, than the cost to economic Conservatives of their Alliance with Social Conservatives increases to a level that I believe will be unacceptable to the Economic Conservatives. Now I do NOT see either group leaving the GOP, but you just will NOT see new Abortion laws in many states as the Economic Conservatives ally with the Democrats to defeat such laws, dividing the GOP into two warring factions.

This will leave the Democrats in Control. Either by being the largest minority of the three power groups (Democrats, Social Conservatives and Economic Conservatives) or by having the Social Conservatives enter the Democratic Party (I see the Social Conservatives entering the Democratic Party for once they realized this Social Agenda can not be passed, then they will look at their economic situation and most Social Conservatives are in fact economic liberals, they like their Social Security, unemployment compensation, aid to education, the public School System, it is the Economic Conservatives who hate these program).

Now you will say I heard this social conservatives say he dislike social Security and the Welfare state and you will be right, but people who speak this way tend to be economic conservatives first and Social Conservatives second. Most Social Conservatives are Social Conservatives first and economic liberals second. Thus the GOP to keep their vote emphasis social issues and try to portray economic issues in social terms (The line that taxation to help the poor is theft not charity for example).

My point here is the reversal of Roe vs Wade will force the Economic Conservatives to show their real face to the Social Conservatives, i.e. they hate the Social Conservative agenda more than the Democrats do. It will be the start of the fall of the ruling GOP coalition and something the GOP will do everything it can to stop (provided it can be done in a way to blame the Democrats).

Gun Control is used by the GOP in the same way as Roe vs Wade, it is used to convince basically rural economic liberals to vote GOP because the GOP is the only "party to protect their rights" i.e their guns. A ruling by the Supreme Court on what the Second Amendment means is the last thing the GOP wants for once such a decision comes down, gun control ceases to be an issue that the GOP can use to gain the vote of otherwise economic liberals (I foresee any Supreme Court Decision saying most restrictions as to rifles and Shotguns are unconstitutional, but that the states can abolish someone's ability to own a handgun, such a decision is the worse thing that can happen to the GOP, rural voters will no longer have to worry about their rifles and shotguns but large cities could still ban pistols).

My point here is a reversal of Roe vs Wade is NOT in the best interest of the GOP, most states would pass restrictive abortion laws but some will not (California and New York comes to mind). Some of these states will outlaw abortion but not enforce the laws (Some of the Southern States which are while known NOT to fund anything the Feds don't fund). Once these laws are passed people will see how restrictive their are and demand repeal or modifications to ease the hardships. The Democrats will support reasonable modifications and while this will be opposed by the Social Conservatives the Economic Conservatives will support the Democrats.

Thus a reversal of Roe vs Wade, together with a ruling on the second Amendment, will long term end the present GOP hold on the Country. Short term you will see some restrictive Abortion laws, but long term (5-10 years) Democrats returning to control the states and the Federal Government.

[tx_dem41]

21. Good analysis, happyslug! n/t

[DoNotRefill]

23. And the women who wish to obtain an abortion during those 5-10 years...

should just keep their legs crossed? 5-10 years is a LONG time to be unable to secure reproductive services...

As for the Second Amendment, they've been dodging it for years. Despite what Thomas said in his famous footnote, they're going to keep dodging it, because as soon as they address it, it's going to become Incorporated, and then all hell will break loose.

[happyslug]

30. My point was the GOP have been dodging both issues for decades

And will continue to do so for as long as possible. Thus I do NOT see the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs Wade, for it is the first step to wrecking the ruling GOP Coalition. The GOP prefers the way things are.

Now if Roe vs Wade is overturned, yes many women will have a more difficult time getting an abortion, but most of the states where abortion will be outlawed do not have any abortion clinics today (so in effect no REAL change). The key will be the states that do NOT outlaw abortion. Some will do it by legislation (i.e. I do NOT foresee California outlawing abortion) other will do it by Constitutional interpretation of their own State Constitution (North Carolina is often cited as a state that will go this route). Some will pass a law and than not enforce it (Various Southern States).

Thus I do NOT foresee a COMPLETE ending of abortion in the US during the time period after the Supreme Court reverses Roe vs Wade. Most of the states that will pass drastic anti-abortion laws have for all practical purposes ended abortions within their state under existing law (Thus will cost the legislators no political capital to pass such a law).

Now some of these states will try to make it illegal to cross state line while pregnant. I do see the Federal Courts accepting such restrictions. I do not even see Congress permitting such restrictions to exist for any length of time (The complications are to many to mention here but let us say Texas passes such a law, will the Courts says that law applies to a women in the Military who is transferred while pregnant? No way will such restrictions be permitted given the need of business and Government to have people be mobile).

In my opinion, yes you will have additional restrictions imposed on abortions, but the restrictions on a national level will not be much more than it is right now. On a state by State level you will see additional restrictions, but the REAL effectiveness of such restrictions will depend on how easy it will be to go to a state where abortion will be legal. I foresee easy movement of people and thus limited effect on woman's ability to get an abortion.

[Yupster]

37. You're right happyslug

The best case scenario for the GOP is for abortion to be legal, but they have side issues like parental notification or partial birth abortion to hammer the other side with.

[theboss]

28. No all physicians would be doing it illegally

If Roe v. Wade was overturned, a lot of states would still have legal abortions. And I'm sure there would be organizations set up to get women trapped in central Nebraska to California.

So, I don't think there would be a lot of these physicians out there.

Anyway, how I would view them would depend on how they behaved: they could be exploitive or heroic. Depends on the person.

[megatherium]

33. There'd be no abortion clinics in Alabama instead of only one clinic. nt

[Horse with no Name]

34. I will say this and I believe it to be true

Doctors as well as other health professionals, will perform legal services, including abortion, as long as it is legal.
I think if it were to become illegal--in our litigious society--you would NOT be able to find a practitioner to do this as you did in past times. He would be too afraid of being sued for complications.
You will, however, see increased suicides, and increased botched abortions with coat hangers, stomping on stomachs, etc.
It will be like something out of the middle ages.

[DoNotRefill]

38. Ummm....in one word...."NO".

IF a doctor was performing illegal abortions, he or she CANNOT be sued for complications. Why? Because it's part of an illegal transaction. If you get ripped off in a drug deal, you can't sue the dealer, because, to use a "maxim of equity", your hands are not clean. Same deal with an illegal medical procedure...you can't sue, because you went in for an illegal procedure. The only remedy would be criminal sanctions, and since the person who had the abortion would also be guilty of violating the law, that ain't gonna happen.

That's kind of messed up, isn't it? But hey, that's the law...

[Horse with no Name]

41. In one word, yes.

If a woman dies during a procedure, and women do die from infection, blood loss, complications, etc., her family will sue. I doubt physician's will risk anything for this.
However, like one of the posts above, you are likely to find activist nurses who would be willing to perform them.

[DoNotRefill]

42. I don't disagree with the "women sometimes die during abortions" part....

but if a woman dies of a complication of an abortion, and abortion is illegal, her family CAN NOT bring suit against the doctor, because she was a willing participant in a criminal act. ANYTHING stemming from that criminal act cannot be a subject of a lawsuit between the participants or the participant's heirs.

Let me put it to you like this: Suppose two drug dealers are engaging in a drug deal. Both are parties to the same illegal act, yes? Now let's say that one of the drug dealers shoots the other, and steals the money or drugs or whatever. The heirs of the dead drug dealer DOES NOT have the ability to sue the drug dealer in civil court for damages, because the dead person was an active participant in an illegal transaction. The police can still arrest him for murder, the State can still prosecute him for murder, but the heirs of the dead drug dealer are completely without recourse, because the person who died (and therefore the heirs) did not, in the words of the legal maxim, "have clean hands".

[Horse with no Name]

43. The state medical boards won't care about that when they take his license

and I believe they could make a case for malpractice.
I don't know for sure--but, I believe I don't want to find out.

[salin]

44. I also think that most practitioners will not

perform abortions - not out of liability fear - but out of legal fear. You can bet that if RvW was reversed the penalties for performing an abortion would be horrendous. Thus all said above (increased suicides, botched abortions, and other horrors) would likely follow.

[Bouncy Ball]

48. All the stuff girls and women used to try.

Coat hangers will make a HUGE comeback. And we've seen how well THOSE work (botched abortions, brain-dead babies, punctures in the uterus, leading to the woman bleeding to death, infections causing death, all that lovely stuff).

[Swamp Rat]

52. Yeah, those little weenie, right wing knuckle dragging fundies

want to take us back to the 11th Century.

Hey Bouncy Ball, this would be a good opportunity to show pictures of what happens when men try to control, or even pretend to be concerned about women's rights. Got any coat hanger pics?

I'll start with the New Fundie System of Justice... so, you want reproductive rights? You want men to stay the fuck outta the decision process?

"She's a witch! BURN HER!!!"

[Bouncy Ball]

49. Mmmmm, tasty bait!

[Cleita]

50. In my twenties before Roe vs. Wade and when abortion

was illegal, the truth was you didn't know whether they were bottom-feeding scum or heros. Abortions then could cost anything from $500 to several thousand. Still price did not guarantee quality. Women I knew heard of abortionists by word of mouth, but still it didn't guarantee anything. It was totally a crapshoot and a very scary environment.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

54. That only took about three years or so

[Swamp Rat]

53. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's about time!!!!!!! :rofl: :party: in the Lounge! :D

[DistressedAmerican]

55. This Whole Thread Strikes Me As VERY ODD!

Why the bipolar options. Is there no middle ground as you see it? I guess that is my problem.

What makes you ask the question like that?

Trying to lump us all into one extreme view or another?

I do not think it is all that black and white. If you see it that was it makes me wonder...

Is it just ME?

[DistressedAmerican]

56. Well I Guess I Shouldn't Wait Around For DoNotRefill To Respond...

Buh By!

Apparently it wasn't just me.