If Abortion goes back to the States to decide on, how bad will that be?

[Quixote1818]

I see it creating a whole new crime problem the states will have to deal with. Illegal underground abortion clinics will be pooping up all over the place and the prisons will be filled with offenders of this new crime. As if the police don't have enough to do!

Also, the poorest people in Red states will have to spend a lot of money traveling to a state that provides it. It seems it could be devastating for the very poorest people. Wealthy people won't be effected at all as they can fly to the nearest state where it's legal. I just don't see what good it will do for the Pro-Lifers? People who need one will still do it one way or another. It will just cost more money and time and inconvenience for everyone.

What problems do you see unfolding? Are their any pro's to the states deciding?

[Extend a Hand]

1. the main problem

is that all U.S. women will not be guaranteed the right to make the most basic decisions regarding their own bodies.

why don't we just let the states decide if they want to allow slavery?

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Hey- how bad would it be if the states could criminalize birth control?

Hey, fuckit. I mean, we have close to a million people in prison for smoking a relatively harmless plant.. how bad can that be?
If states (or a pro-life SCOTUS) decide to declare a fertilized egg a human being the second after conception, hey- how bad could that be? I mean, you know, besides the birth control pill being a controlled substance, and women with IUDs being arrested for "carrying a concealed murder weapon"... How bad could that be?

I mean, people pretty much don't have control over their own bodies as it is- just get seriously injured or terminally ill, and try to get adequate pain management without your doctor living in fear of overzealous DEA agents.. hey, how bad can that be? So, if the government (or certain state governments) start forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.. how bad could that be? After all, look how reasonable some of your state legislatures are- after all, Indiana wants to make it a crime for people to have babies outside of wedlock or for anyone (particularly gays) to have babies via technology like IVF.. You know, all things that those ACLU crazies file under that pesky-ass "right to privacy" which the right would like to do away with along with Roe... how bad could that be?

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants the death penalty for abortion doctors.. wanna bet women who have them aren't far behind? How bad could any of that be? States could hold women in protective custody if it was believed they 'intended to harm' their fetuses, including by traveling to another state or abroad for an abortion.. how bad could that be?

Get the point, yet? How bad could it be? Pretty fucking BAD.

[Erika]

8. Good Point. The GOP would become the Taliban

state by state and eliminate all women's rights. Coburn, Brownback, Santorum, etc would have the theocratic rightists give them millions upon millions to promote the theocratic far right wing agenda.

[Quixote1818]

12. Did you even read my post?

I was asking for people to bring up all the problems. I knew the list would be long and scarry. I am afraid this could be a reality we may be presented with in the near future and I am interested in hearing everyones opinions as to how bad it could get. I wasn't making light of the problem as several posters seemed to read from the title.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Sorry, yes, I did read it, however others have made the "so what" argument

usually combined with exhortations about how we have to "accept reality" on choice or gays or separation of church and state so we can win over these "values voters". It gets a little tiresome, that's all.

You wanted some of the negatives, I gave you a few- I wasn't trying to be too sarcastic, really. No offense intended.

Peace.

PS: Here's a little known movie (like "The Handmaid's Tale) which examines some of the implications-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105215/

[Kenroy]

3. Well, what if half the states outlawed hospitals altogether?

It wouldn't be a big deal, right? You'd just go to another state when you're sick or injured.

There IS no choice if there's no availability. A lot of women don't have the money or time to travel to another state for an abortion - and they shouldn't HAVE to.

[napi21]

4. I think a lot will depend on how the individual states decide.

If the decision is a referendum on the ballot, the fundies might be shocked! Sure, the likely candidates will all vote NO, like SC, Al, Ga. but I'm not so sure about all the rest.

If it's a vote in the State legislatures, well, that's another story all together!

[Quixote1818]

9. Good points. nt

[niyad]

5. you ARE joking, right? surely you understand what will happen--or maybe

you don't live in a vehemently anti-choice state, as I do.

[tyedyeto]

6. The poor will not be able to afford to travel

to a state in which abortions are legal. I see 'coathanger' abortions and women's lives being lost due to the fact that the poor will not receive abortions which are done in a clinical atmosphere resulting in deaths to many.

[Erika]

7. A woman's right to choice should not be state by state

The right to privacy should apply to all American women.

[proud patriot]

10. It won't stop there and that IS the problem

:-(

[Betty]

11. Democrats should be pushing for an amendment to the Constitution

expressly stating that women have the right to choose whether or not they want to continue a pregnancy. It's the only way to circumvent the religious right's packing the supreme court.

[tyedyeto]

13. Not necessarily the right to choose whether they want to continue

a pregnancy, but the right of any individual to determine what happens in their own life. That goes for the right to choose for a woman or the right to die with dignity.

[Yupster]

14. All you would need is

two-thirds of the house, two-thirds of the senate and three-fourths of the state legislatures.Worth wasting your resources on?

[I_Make_Mistakes]

15. Just my opinion, but let's say a pregnant woman decides to not

eat to feed the baby, are they going to have the right to force feed her. We have to think beyond the initial response.

I would say that rapist should be castrated (yes, rape is not necessarily a sexual act, but, a woman should not have to endure a pregnancy from a repeat offender).

The MEN (and let's be honest) who make these decisions should also be responsible for their participation in the process. Somehow, this has became a woman's effort, but there are two required to make the issue.

I love children, however, I believe that need to be wanted, loved, nurtured and provided for, or they will become negative agents in our society.

I think we should think beyond the Roe vs. Wade issue, to the things like force feeding, castration, etc. (Lot's of etc's).

[Gloria]

16. I sure hope NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood will put together

funding for travel to other states for women in evil places.

By the way, Bill Clinton--how about a domestic iniative to make abortion
access available to all?

The best way to deal with this is to go around these bastards and shove it back up their butts. We get the "abortion rights underground" going and challenge them.