What would actually happen if abortion laws were left to the states?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

By the way, I DON'T actually expect shrubco to do anything to repeal Roe v. Wade, as they benefit from the actual TENSION to string along fundie votes, I think that actually FOLLOWING THROUGH would be much to their disadvantage. The retirement of two justices has simply forced a "moment of truth" upon them.

Let's say America became a patchwork quilt of states where abortion was legal and illegal.

Would the doctors in the "legal" states who perform abortions be subject to much more concentrated death threats, picketing etc., driving them out of the business and making abortion de facto illegal by making it largely unavailable everywhere? (I realize that some of this has actually happened already, to a small degree)

Would there be any movement of people to the "legal" states? Or would people simply drive/fly to one of those states to have their abortion when they wanted it? Would the "illegal" states make it illegal for women to GO to a "legal" state to get an abortion?

[pecwae]

1. In the early 70's

it was legal in NY and many of the girls I went to HS with in central KY (where it was not an option) whose parents could afford it flew them up for the procedure. Emphasis on 'afford it.'

[HockeyMom]

8. They won't be satisfied with overturning Roe

Because far too many states won't ban it, especially not entirely. They all know this. Yes, it was legal in NY before Roe. It was also ILLEGAL in NJ. Money to afford to fly to another state? Hell, how about just a bus or a PATH train across the river? It caused a LOT of friction between the two states back then.

As with the FEDERAL PBA law or Parental Notification, this is how they will attempt to FORCE their views on un cooperating states.

[alfredo]

38. I remember we'd take up collections for girls who

"got themselves in trouble."

[The Doctor.]

2. I seriously doubt

that anti-choice people would go out of their way and into another state to intimidate doctors. I also do not believe that in-state anti-choicers would change their behavior in any significant way.

It would be most likely that people requiring the procedure would simply drive to the nearest pro-choice state.

If I thought voting was clean, I would be all for allowing individual states to decide whether they were pro-choice or not simply for the sake of watching the subsequent statistics on poverty, education, and over health.

[The Doctor.]

5. Oh, and of course no 'choice' thread is complete without

pointing out hypocrisy;

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

"In 1990, in the Boston area, Operation Rescue and other groups were regularly blockading the clinics, and many of us went every Saturday morning for months to help women and staff get in. As a result, we knew many of the 'antis' by face. One morning, a woman who had been a regular 'sidewalk counselor' went into the clinic with a young woman who looked like she was 16-17, and obviously her daughter. When the mother came out about an hour later, I had to go up and ask her if her daughter's situation had caused her to change her mind. 'I don't expect you to understand my daughter's situation!' she angrily replied. The following Saturday, she was back, pleading with women entering the clinic not to 'murder their babies.'" (Clinic escort, Massachusetts)

[DawnneOBTS]

3. There would be a lot of "for sale" signs in red fundie states n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. Women will follow the law

but I am wondering, for example, I have a local HMO. If I couldn't get it here, I wonder if they would pay for it??

[Zynx]

6. It would be such a mess that Republicans would be thrown out of office.

In northern states, Republicans would be split such as here in Wisconsin between the moderate pro-choice elements of the Milwaukee establishment Republicans and the rabid fundamentalists in the Fox River Valley region and to the north. The same would be true in many other states. The split would destroy the Republican coalitions in these states and would probably bring many moderate states into the Democratic fold.

However, states in the deep south and plains may well completely outlaw abortion, possbily with no exceptions since political consequences in those states are actually harsher for those who support even some legalized abortion. Women in these states who are unable to afford to travel to nearby, or not so nearby, states will be forced into the back alleys and secret rooms again with potentially unsafe practices.

[ozymandius]

9. one more element to outlaw

Fundie states would criminalize transportation of anyone to another state in order to obtain an abortion.

[Zynx]

12. That might get thrown out in court.

That is so difficult to enforce that they only way to enforce it would be a massive invasion of privacy.

[MountainLaurel]

14. And dictating that a woman give birth isn't

A massive invasion of privacy?

[Zynx]

17. Depends on your definition of privacy.

I'm not saying pregnancy isn't a privacy issue because it is, but some right-wingers would argue that because a "life" is at stake it isn't a privacy issue. However, keeping an eye on people as they move between state lines and perhaps asking them to present a mission statement as to why they are crossing state lines would be seen by all as an invasion of privacy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Don't See The Basis For A Law That Can Mandate How A Person Acts In

Another State...

[ozymandius]

21. True, the Constitution guarantees freedom of mobility and association

The test of this matter is based on the condition of pregnancy. For example: Let's say Georgia has a law like the one I described on the books. A woman living in Georgia who is known to be pregnant travels outside her home state's borders. She returns to her home state no longer impregnated. What happened to the fetus? Or in another case, a blastocyst? This is often the basis for application of these laws.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Prostitution Is Illegal In Georgia

If I am a Georgia resident can I be prosecuted if I visit Nevada and take advantages of the services of a prostitute?

[ozymandius]

31. no

The laws are attached to the 'condition of pregnancy' and the welfare of the potential life of the embryo. These laws assume stewardship of that life as long as the mother is a resident of that state.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. So-All She Has To Do Is Move...

eom

[Zynx]

26. See, if the woman is good at keeping her pregnancy a secret during the

first tri-mester with her close friends and relatives being the only ones who know, she may be able to avoid these laws. Of course, afterwards it becomes a more significant issue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. A Law That Dictates What An Adult Resident Of One State Can Do In Another

Will Never Pass Constitutional Muster...



If we think it will then the whole debate is moot and that essentially makes any state's law the law of the land at least for members of that state...

If Roe was reversed the only restrictions a state could pass that would exten to other states is a restriction on abortions for minors...

[ozymandius]

33. Overturning Roe v. Wade would make it a reserved powers issue

Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Exactly...

A state would have the right to regulate abortion within the boundaries of their state but they can't prevent a citizen from going to a state where it's legal to have an abortion....


What if the person wanted to move to a state, have her abortion, and remain there?

[ozymandius]

47. great question

That's a huge hypothetical. But it would seem reasonable that if that person were a permanent resident of that state then that would be okay. Mind you - the person subject to this kind of law would be a minor. These laws are always written to affect people below the age of 18.

[ozymandius]

20. This stipulation has already been legislated.

States that have placed conditions on abortion (such as notifying parents if the mother is under 18) have attempted to attach this limitation to overall bill. Invasion of privacy is no matter to the fundies that also seek to outlaw certain types of sex among consenting adults, also to include sexual positions and accouterments.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. That Would Be Unlawful On It's Face..

They can't arrest me in Florida if I go to Nevada to gamble....



You are not the property of the state...

[ozymandius]

22. That is why these provisions have been stricken.

It is unlawful. But when the word 'unconstitutional' have any bearing on laws that fundies want enacted?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. The Best They Can Hope For Is A Return To The States...

I guess if you assume the Supreme Court will totally ignore the Constitution there's not much we can do...

[delete_bush]

18. damn, there goes my idea for a start-up business,

Abortion Airlines.

[supernova]

7. Would hurt poor women more than anyone

Any reasonably middle-class or well-off woman would simply travel to the nearest legal state.

Those who would be hurt the most, be stuck with "pro-life" aganinst their will, would be those women without the time and money to travel.

If the ardently prolife ever see their policies enacted, they'll find they create a larger, more desperate underclass. While every one is precious to God, we are not all equally precious to each other.... sadly.

edit: The first rule of creating economic prosperity is to give women the means to control their fertility. But, wealthy repubs wouldn't have an interest in sharing economy prosperity, now would they?

[wellstone_democrat]

10. they have made this plain for years

all that "national" money would go to the states one by one to end "murder" there---they believe it their duty. Birth Control pills are "murder" as well and used to be spoken of as such openly---that rhetoric has calmed down in the last ten years and its ALL strategy.

My mother and my sister are (or Mom "was" before she died) very active at the *national* level of Nat Right to Life. They want nothing less than to stop *murder* which is anything that interrupts the development of the sperm joined to the egg. Once that litte event happens its all a "baby" whether its 60 seconds or 9 months----believing that most of these people really believe in rape or incest exceptions is naive. The bar to proving such situations (and "life of the mother") will be impossible to clear. In the 80s they were much more straightforward about all this but learned to tone it down. As I said elsewhere, I knew about and talked about the movement of "conscience" with pharmacists a couple of years before it hit the news.

Part of that is building public opinion, part is establishing restrictive laws that can "creep" ----

[AnnInLa]

16. I agree

The national groups who are pro-choice would probably establish a "system of transport" for poor women to take them to states where abortion remains legal, but the national anti-choice movement would concentrate their resources on all of the pro-choice states until they have whittled away at choice or eliminated it all together.

If we keep in mind that the true purpose of "anti-choice" (pro-life) is to CONTROL women by eliminating their reproductive choices, it is easy to see that the anti-choice movement will just redouble their efforts in pro-choice states. When you CONTROL half the population, you CONTROL the economy, the social mores, and support the domination of the male. You get a return to the "good old days," which is what the RW longs for.

IMHO

[OnionPatch]

11. I'm wondering if the morning-after pill

will make it different than the 70's. I remember the 70's and women going to New York. Also, we had a local doctor who would unofficially "fix you up" on a weekend when the office was closed. But I would think these days, the morning-after pill or the abortion pill (what is it RU486?) would become very sought-after in those states that outlaw abortion. It would be a lot cheaper than flying to NY. I bet there would be an underground market and I wouldn't doubt even underground women's advocate groups who would help women by bringing those drugs in.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. RU486 induces abortion without requiring surgery.

This is why the anti-abortion folks have so VEHEMENTLY opposed its use in the United States. (Drug developed in France initially). Difficult to picket a woman in her home or apartment, when she just got the prescription for RU486 from her normal GYN's office, and the abortion occurs at home.

I'm sure the criteria for who can use RU486 are different from having an abortion in a clinic as I've not read up on it, but I'm not sure in what way.

[colinmom71]

46. You'll see an internet RU486 pharmacy develop business...

very swiftly. That pesky interstate commerce clause strict constructionists love so much will undo some of their damage to abortion access rights. Provided of course the woman realizes she is pregnant by 7-9 weeks (generally considered the "cut off" time when RU486 can be used safely).

Some info on RU486 from Religious Tolerance.org - http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboru486.htm

[JDPriestly]

24. My predictions; Many states will outlaw abortion and, as a result,

1) Doctors will be required to report every dilation and curettage ("D&Cs') or similar procedure that they perform. Women will balk at this extreme intrusion on the privacy of their medical records. A D&C can be done for many reasons including the presence of scar tissue from an unhealed cesarean, just some natural problem, or, I believe, a miscarriage -- anything, for example, that causes abnormal bleeding. I believe it may also be used to determine whether an abnormal growth is present. (I'm not a doctor. This is based on my experience and reports from friends.)

2) It will mean the establishment of a huge bureaucracy similar to the DEA that monitors women's reproductive lives from the ages of 13 to 50 something. Dealing with mens' (unwanted) ogling, sexual fantasizing and aggressiveness is difficult (and often intimidating) enough for women between 12 an 50 something, women certainly don't need the government looking down their vaginas. Keep out, thank you. And, I'd rather you didn't spend my tax money on this. Also, I don't want to see doctors going to jail for administrative infractions like not properly reporting or categorizing a procedure. The investment our society makes in educating doctors is huge. I don't want to see it wasted.

3) The numbers of disabled babies born will increase. This could have a good side if it brings society together to support parents and the disabled. Given the current hateful, irresponsible ,conservative, money-worshiping, tax-despising mood of the country, it will mean disaster for many parents and disabled children who will be neglected and abused by parents who are unable or unwilling to provide for or care for them. This will result in many tragic stories -- more child abuse -- and, of course, more policing of parents, more criminal investigations of child abuse, more prosecutions of child abuse, more convictions and imprisonments and other punishments for child abuse.

4) The gap between the incomes of men and women will increase, with women, on the average, getting an even smaller slice of the pie. Of course, fewer women will finish higher education and even fewer will be able to focus on their careers. Fewer women will rise in fields like law and medicine and academia which require the devotion of many years to study and career development in the mid-twenties.

4a) Poverty will increase overall for single mothers (especially for them) and many traditional families. The biggest change will be that, overall, statistics will show women having children at earlier ages, and more of them. This will lower the standard of living for many, many people including young men and children because many young women will be unable to contribute to the family income when their contribution is most needed to build up a nest egg before having children.

5) The good side will be that our society will focus a lot more on children and providing for them. That is because some of today's childless will be having children.

6) Our population will increase, as will overcrowding, poverty, crime, infectious disease, you name it.

[LizW]

36. Excellent analysis

And I think the Extreme Religious Right will be just fine with every point you mention.

[JDPriestly]

37. I don't.

It's not my well educated, thoughtful, liberal daughters who are having unwanted pregnancies and abortions. They were too busy with various activities and getting ready for college and graduate school to get pregnant.

It's the girls who don't have other opportunities and who go to my sister's evangelical church who will pay, who will end up submitting their lives and reproductive futures to the quack's knife. My heart goes out to them. I remember pre-Roe.

Mind you. I do not favor abortion as a method of birth control. I support programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies before they happen. I also support programs to make sure every woman gets pre-natal care, including dental care. I just don't want to see abortion criminalized.

[Burning Water]

27. I disagree with

your statement that the Rs will do nothing about RvW because they benefit from the "tension". They know they will suffer terribly if the base feels betrayed on this issue. If voting R for 40 years gains them nothing when the opportunity finally arrives, well, there are other parties, or one can be started. They know that without Ross Perot, Bush 41 would have been re-elected and Bill Clinton would have been a footnote in history books. And they have plenty of other issues that divide us on which they can run. Immigration, tax policy, national security, gay marriage, etc., etc. & etc.

[Zynx]

29. They can ill afford to lose moderates on this issue.

The Republicans get about 30% of the pro-choice vote. Without it, they cannot win national elections. There simply aren't enough votes elsewhere. Overturning Roe would drive those moderate voters away and they might never go back to the Republicans.

[Burning Water]

35. Nevertheless,

If pro-choicers have been voting for Rs, then they are fools. Or else, perhaps, they are not single issue voters. If they betray the base, they will be in far worse trouble than if the pro-choicers leave. And even if they leave, that is no assurance they will come to the Dems. Politics is always a guessing game until the votes are counted, but I stand by my analysis. We'll see.

[Zynx]

41. Pro-choicers vote Republican because they don't think the Republicans

will do anything. These voters are usually the libertarian kind of Republican and not religious fanatics.

[OnionPatch]

42. Yes but I also think

pro-choice Republicans are more likely to say "Oh well, just fly to another state." They aren't exactly the type to care about how these laws will affect poor people. I wouldn't count on them getting riled up about the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

[Burning Water]

43. if they

don't think the Republicans will do anything, then they are fools.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Two Points

None of the issues you cited with the possible exception of gay marriage is as stark as abortion and Clinton would have beat Papa Bush with Perot in the race or without Perot in the race...


If you want I can link polls to the 92 race that that prove my point...

[nvliberal]

34. If the USSC returned abortion back to the states,

Griswold v. Connecticut would be next, for that is the decision which Roe v. Wade was based upon.

I don't think the high court would ever overturn Roe because of how potent the issue is for the Republicans to swindle their base.

But if abortion were reverted back to the states, then yes, some states would have restrictive laws while other states would have more liberal laws.

And the fight over abortion would be far more contentious than it is now.

[Hamlette]

32. issue will remain to rally social cons until it is illegal in all states

turning it over to the states won't shut up the fundies. It may well split the economic cons who want states' rights (its cheaper to buy a state legislature than congress) and social conservatives who do not care about states' rights.

[McCamy Taylor]

39. Some of the "Red" states would turn "Blue" next election.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

40. Which states would even make it illegal?

There's quite a few red states that are pro-choice. Which ones would actually risk losing seats to pro-choice candidates by making abortion illegal?

Looking at the list below you'll notice that it wouldn't be difficult to drive to a neighbor state that supports choice.

There are only 12 states which are Anti-Choice

Alabama
Arkansas
Idaho
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Dakota (Tie 47%)
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah

Red States That Are Pro-Choice

Alaska
Arizona
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Wyoming

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyState.htm