Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

[Warrigal]

Help me understand something...if an individual state legislates that Abortion in first trimester is NOT a crime, will that legislation stay in place?

I would think so because the decision is effectively saying that it is a matter for state legislation and that federal law no longer applies. Not likely to happen but some states could legislate for mid term abortions under certain medical circumstances while others could make abortions totally illegal and like Texas criminalise assistance for a pregnant woman to travel to another state to secure one.

In Australia decriminalisation of abortions happened one state at a time until agreement was made to make the laws uniform. Now they happen in general hospitals and are covered by medicare.

We don't have a Bill of Rights. All such matters including abolition of the death penalty are subject to legislation by the states unless we hold a referendum to transfer power to the Commonwealth. In the end, the people have the final say but the bar is very high so it doesn't happen very often.

 

[StarSong]

Some states that plan to remain abortion-friendly are already talking about providing free ground transportation for women in the nearest state that decides to limit the criteria for abortions or prohibit them altogether.

Here's another wrinkle that I've been hearing more and more about. States that make abortion illegal may also pass laws making it illegal to their citizens to travel out of their states to get abortions or for others to "aid and abet" them. Missouri is already discussing it. If they pass such a law, other states will be close behind.

Can't even wrap my head around any US state attempting to restrict travel within the US for any reason.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions

 

[mellowyellow]

Should men “have a say” in a woman’s decision to have an abortion? No way.

 

[Nathan]

Quite frankly, reproductive education and responsible choices could make the whole issue [largely]moot. A vasectomy is a simple procedure, doesn't have potentially harmful side-effects like female birth control. One time, lost cost, no drama.

 

[Nathan]

Can't even wrap my head around any US state attempting to restrict travel within the US for any reason.

Have to be vigilant, the fascists are going to make another run for the brass ring in 2024.

 

[Murrmurr]

Here's another wrinkle that I've been hearing more and more about. States that make abortion illegal may also pass laws making it illegal to their citizens to travel out of their states to get abortions or for others to "aid and abet" them. Missouri is already discussing it. If they pass such a law, other states will be close behind.

Can't even wrap my head around any US state attempting to restrict travel within the US for any reason.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions

Yeah, I don't see that happening. Maybe a state could charge a woman with the "crime" of crossing state lines to commit abortion, though. The Supreme Court's gonna have to take this kind of thing into consideration.

 

[SeniorBen]

About as funny as a crutch, as we used to say.

We used to say: funny as a rubber crutch.

 

[SeniorBen]

I agree with you, but it's not up to me and we live in a democracy. Finding the best possible compromise would be good for both sides.

Examples of possible compromise:

• If the pro-choice people could give up on federal funding for abortion I think that might bring some of the anti-choice people a bit of comfort. Not me, I think the government should treat abortion just like other medical procedures, but that's going no where. It helps with the choice argument.
• We could decide on some arbitrary line in time, 2nd semester, or whatever it would at least give women some certainty as to what they could do and not have to worry about what tomorrow's legislation would bring. Again if it were up to me I'd draw that line at live birth, but it ain't.
• In return for concessions like these the anti folks would need to accept that within these rules they cannot control what a woman does with her body.

Not what I want, but the kinds of things we will have to be prepared to give on if we are ever to have resolution...

Of course not, but this is a democracy, and I get as many votes as you do. If we are to get to any resolution we need to consider the opinions of both men and women. Besides I think you and I are more or less on the same side here.

It's already illegal to use federal funding for abortion. The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.

As far as this being a "democracy," we may all just have one vote, but some people have more power than others. For example, Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California (both have 2), even though California has a population of nearly 40 million while Wyoming only has about a half million people, which gives individuals in Wyoming far more power than those in California.

 

[Alligatorob]

"democracy,"

You are right of course, we are a republic, not technically a democracy. And our representation is not equal. Guess I use the term democracy in a more general sense, we pretty much all can vote.

 

[Warrigal]

StarSong, as did the mother! Both could have avoided the pregnancy if they chose to! Are you really not aware of that?

But only one of them could actually fall pregnant and suffer any consequences.

 

[mrstime]

It's already illegal to use federal funding for abortion. The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.

As far as this being a "democracy," we may all just have one vote, but some people have more power than others. For example, Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California (both have 2), even though California has a population of nearly 40 million while Wyoming only has about a half million people, which gives individuals in Wyoming far more power than those in California.

Every state has 2 senators, congress on the other hand is dependent on population. So California has many more congresspersons than Wyoming.

 

[senior]

I think it's the inevitable step backwards that was being plotted in recent years with changes to the court. Don't you think? I believe in my body my choice across the board with no exceptions. This is not a welcome stance these days I know.

All the Supreme Court is saying is it will be up to to each state, which, I don't see a problem with that. In other words it will be a state issue rather than federal.

 

[senior]

The current generation which many of you bore and raised taught them to be strong, independent, “my body“ “my choice“ people of today. So why is this such an issue?

Because it is murder, when is it ok to murder an innocent baby. Most abortions are used as birth control.

 

[senior]

Sperm and egg are living tissue and can combine to make a fetus. A fetus is living tissue and can develop and result in a live birth. I do not believe that the sperm, egg, or fetus is a human life in the same sense as a living breathing person. And as such should not have the rights of a living breathing person.

We have to draw this line somewhere, this is where I believe it should be drawn. And as I said I do not think I am alone in this belief.

Given recent advances in cloning technology any live cell in our bodies has, or may soon have, the potential to produce a live birth.

How about when there is a heart beat, do you consider it live then?

 

[senior]

Sounds like the UK is moving in one direction, while the US is moving in another, sad to say.

Pepper, I think compromise has been a part of the equation all along. What about the last trimester? Let's say a woman decides, in her ninth month, that she doesn't want to have this baby after all. Could she get an abortion? I doubt it; at least, I hope not!

But in the early part of pregnancy, the other side has to give a little, too. And the staunch "pro-lifers" consider an egg that was fertilized one day earlier a full human being. That's also ridiculous, in my mind.

I agree with Carol, by the way. I don't understand, with all the kinds of birth control available, why so many abortions are needed.

Very well said.

 

[senior]

If Roe is overturned, the answer is Yes.

Wrong, it will be left up to the states.

 

[senior]

Women are not brood mares. Fathers have no legal say until a child is actually born.

And neither should the woman, until the child is born.

 

[senior]

I have never heard anyone say that.

A fetus is human tissue and under the right conditions capable of one day creating a living breathing human. That is true no matter the semester. In fact with cloning and related technology so are many of the cells in our body. I believe the fetus is a part of the woman's body, not yet person, and not entitled to the same rights as a living human.

But that is what you are actually saying

 

[ohioboy]

Wrong, it will be left up to the states.

Marie5656 said: Help me understand something...if an individual state legislates that Abortion in first trimester is NOT a crime, will that legislation stay in place?

I answered, if Roe is overturned, yes, so I am not wrong.

 

[ElCastor]

I agree with you, but it's not up to me and we live in a democracy. Finding the best possible compromise would be good for both sides.

It is not the Supreme Court's role to seek politically acceptable solutions. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution -- period. It seems they have already done that, but if in retrospect they determine that their initial interpretation was wrong, then it is time to reinterpret. If in the end we decide we don't like the original meaning of the Constitution, then there are procedures for amending it.

 

[ohioboy]

It seems they have already done that, but if in retrospect they determine that their initial interpretation was wrong, then it is time to reinterpret.

About 200 times already.

 

[chic]

All the Supreme Court is saying is it will be up to to each state, which, I don't see a problem with that. In other words it will be a state issue rather than federal.

Yes, I know but I don't see what was wrong with having abortion available to all women in every state no matter what. It just adds to a woman's troubles at an already troublesome time when time is short and decisions must be made with speed.

 

[Alligatorob]

It is not the Supreme Court's role to seek politically acceptable solutions. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution

Of course, the Supreme Court is not the place to look for compromise or solution, just interpretation.

 

[Alligatorob]

How about when there is a heart beat, do you consider it live then?

A good question. I would say after a natural or semi-natural live birth and unassisted breathing.

Not sure why the heart beat has anything to do with it.

My views on this are not an outlier, many people more or less agree with me.

Because it is murder

There in lies the problem. I know you believe that abortion of a fetus is murder, problem is a lot of people do not. Very different after what I call a live birth, that is when we have a pretty much complete consensus as to murder.

From my view some of the anti-choice people are trying to force their interpretation of what murder is on others who do not agree. And the people who do not believe this is murder represent a fair portion of the population.

 

[HarryHawk]

There in lies the problem. I know you believe that abortion of a fetus is murder, problem is a lot of people do not. Very different after what I call a live birth, that is when we have a pretty much complete consensus as to murder.

From my view some of the anti-choice people are trying to force their interpretation of what murder is on others who do not agree. And the people who do not believe this is murder represent a fair portion of the population.

So based on that criteria, sounds like folks are on board regarding the long standing custom in China of routinely aborting unborn females. It is a routine procedure that a fair portion of the Chinese population support.