Abortion - Where do we go from here? (Policy and politics, not law) (1 Viewer)

[The Z Machine]

With Roe overturned and the authority to regulate fully returned to each state, what will happen?

Will we see a hodgepodge of laws in wach state from the trigger laws that ban all abortions regardless of mitigating circumstances to laws that allow abortions up to the second of delivery from the womb?

Will there be a push to codify at least some access to abortions for all residents?  Maybe a bill that allows access to pharmaceutical abortions or maybe up to the first 8 weeks?  Or will Congress continue to abrogate their responsibilities?

Is this issue so profitable for all politicians and political parties and constitutional lawyers that they want to continue the slap fight indefinitely and have a social wedge issue continue to inflame the masses.

How many political campaigns will make this the #1 issue? The #2 issue?

Which the GOP threaten to filibuster any federal laws regarding abortion? Can they close ranks effectively? Can the Democrats unite their party to do something?

 

[moleculo]

My speculation: nothing happens at a national level.  I don't think it will ever be possible to get 60 senators on either side.  Both sides are too far dig in.

We will have a mismatch of regulations across our 50 states.  Some States will have free-for-all, some will have nothing allowed whatsoever.

Following that, we will see boycotts of events along ideological lines.  Some organizations will pull all events from pro-choice states and others will pull out of pro-life.  This will lead to further fragmentation and divide us further.

At some point, people will move to geographic regions matching their beliefs.  Like, my wife says we could never live in an anti-choice state (even though we currently do), and would encourage our daughters to do the same (fortunately we live 3 miles from a pro-choice state).

 

[The Z Machine]

My speculation: nothing happens at a national level.  I don't think it will ever be possible to get 60 senators on either side.  Both sides are too far dig in.

We will have a mismatch of regulations across our 50 states.  Some States will have free-for-all, some will have nothing allowed whatsoever.

Following that, we will see boycotts of events along ideological lines.  Some organizations will pull all events from pro-choice states and others will pull out of pro-life.  This will lead to further fragmentation and divide us further.

At some point, people will move to geographic regions matching their beliefs.  Like, my wife says we could never live in an anti-choice state (even though we currently do), and would encourage our daughters to do the same (fortunately we live 3 miles from a pro-choice state).

That sounds like a terrible course for this nation and society.

 

[BladeRunner]

My speculation: nothing happens at a national level.  I don't think it will ever be possible to get 60 senators on either side.  Both sides are too far dig in.

We will have a mismatch of regulations across our 50 states.  Some States will have free-for-all, some will have nothing allowed whatsoever.

Following that, we will see boycotts of events along ideological lines.  Some organizations will pull all events from pro-choice states and others will pull out of pro-life.  This will lead to further fragmentation and divide us further.

At some point, people will move to geographic regions matching their beliefs.  Like, my wife says we could never live in an anti-choice state (even though we currently do), and would encourage our daughters to do the same (fortunately we live 3 miles from a pro-choice state).

Uhm....we already do.  Like, for literally tens of thousands of STATE laws you currently live under.   Why is this one so different?  Why does it need to be a federal law?  The States can govern themselves just fine. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My speculation: nothing happens at a national level.  I don't think it will ever be possible to get 60 senators on either side.  Both sides are too far dig in.

We will have a mismatch of regulations across our 50 states.  Some States will have free-for-all, some will have nothing allowed whatsoever.

Following that, we will see boycotts of events along ideological lines.  Some organizations will pull all events from pro-choice states and others will pull out of pro-life.  This will lead to further fragmentation and divide us further.

At some point, people will move to geographic regions matching their beliefs.  Like, my wife says we could never live in an anti-choice state (even though we currently do), and would encourage our daughters to do the same (fortunately we live 3 miles from a pro-choice state).

This is all probably right, but with the exception of ideologically-inspired boycotts (which agree are ugly and uncivil), this is all healthy.  So I disagree with Z's assessment of the situation.  We needed to turn the volume way down on abortion.  Trying to impose a single, maximalist policy regime on the entire country was not creating a consensus or settling anything.  All it did was disenfranchise a huge chunk of the country, completely poison everything associated with judicial nominations, and pretty much blew up the entire senate.  And every other term we got yet another SCOTUS case challenging Roe directly.  It was long time to rip off the bandaid and let states handle this own their own.  That's what states are there for.

 

[John123]

On this issue, I think a national policy that is reasonable would be nice.   Absent that, we're going to see wide variations in laws state to state just like we do with gun control.  While there are some extreme laws coming out right now, I'd like to think that in states with extreme restrictions it would be a political issue in future elections in those states and more reasonable laws/restrictions would win out.  That may take some time though.  If there is a state that, even after a couple of elections, still has state representatives that keep extreme restrictions in place, maybe that's what that state wants.  For a long time I've lamented the loss of states rights.  The feds are supposed to have extremely limited rights but have seized much more control over this country than I believe our founding fathers ever intended. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Also, while people will be mad about this ruling for a little while, most people are going end up living under an abortion regime that they're at least more or less okay with.  I know this is kind of a bold take on a Sunday morning 48 hours after Dobbs came down, but my prediction is that abortion drops off quite a bit in terms of national salience.  When some jerk in Texas proposes stopping women at the state line to make sure they're not travelling to any abortion clinics in Colorado, Twitter will get all excited about it, but otherwise it's not going to be top of mind.

Why do I think that?  Because Texas did effectively ban abortion in direct defiance of Roe, and the courts let them do it, and after a week or so everybody just moved on.  I expect this will be kind of similar once it sinks in the the court did not discover a constitutional right to life or any other Roe-like ridiculousness.  

 

[Desert_Power]

 (fortunately we live 3 miles from a pro-choice state).

I wouldn't count on this being durably true. Cooper is only around for another 3 years and the GOP could easily regain a supermajority this year given how tilted the map is.

 

[shader]

My speculation: nothing happens at a national level.  I don't think it will ever be possible to get 60 senators on either side.  Both sides are too far dig in.

We will have a mismatch of regulations across our 50 states.  Some States will have free-for-all, some will have nothing allowed whatsoever.

Following that, we will see boycotts of events along ideological lines.  Some organizations will pull all events from pro-choice states and others will pull out of pro-life.  This will lead to further fragmentation and divide us further.

At some point, people will move to geographic regions matching their beliefs.  Like, my wife says we could never live in an anti-choice state (even though we currently do), and would encourage our daughters to do the same (fortunately we live 3 miles from a pro-choice state).

No one is going to move because they can’t get an abortion lol. Can’t think of a more ridiculous reason to move.  Especially when you can just travel to a state that allows it.

 

[jm192]

I think/hope we'll see some refining of state laws over the next several years until most people are generally happy.

I'm in KY, and think we can do a lot better.  Basically all abortions are banned except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.  I'd like to see provisions for rape and incest.  I'd like to see provisions for an unviable pregnancy.  I think these are huge failures.  But I think with time we'll do better.  

I worry that it's become THE topic at the Federal level.  And while it's a tremendously important issue, there are certainly other issues that warrant their time.  I worry that nothing is going to get done for the remainder of the Biden presidency because this becomes the priority.  I don't think it will happen, but as sides become more and more divided, I could see President Biden saying he's not going to sign ABC or XYZ until Roe is codified.  Get me a bill with abortion rights or get me nothing.  

I also worry that the push to pack the courts is going to intensify, which is it's own pandora's box.

 

[jm192]

No one is going to move because they can’t get an abortion lol. Can’t think of a more ridiculous reason to move.  Especially when you can just travel to a state that allows it.

I think some people will move.  I don't think it'll be a lot.  But I don't think the number is zero.  It's not about the actual access to the abortion.  It's about not wanting to live where you feel your rights have been stripped away.  

And maybe people have kids or are planning on having kids, and they don't want their little girls to live in a place that they feel is removing their agency over their body.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think some people will move.  I don't think it'll be a lot.  But I don't think the number is zero.  It's not about the actual access to the abortion.  It's about not wanting to live where you feel your rights have been stripped away.  

And maybe people have kids or are planning on having kids, and they don't want their little girls to live in a place that they feel is removing their agency over their body.  

There’s already plenty of self-sorting for politics, this will just accelerate it.

 

[shader]

I think some people will move.  I don't think it'll be a lot.  But I don't think the number is zero.  It's not about the actual access to the abortion.  It's about not wanting to live where you feel your rights have been stripped away.  

And maybe people have kids or are planning on having kids, and they don't want their little girls to live in a place that they feel is removing their agency over their body.  

Kinda ironic to use the “I want my little girls to be in a safe state” - where they can abort their unborn children.

That makes no sense logically, which is why people won’t move because of this.  People move because of jobs, family, friends, economy, cost of living, weather, amenities, entertainment, scenery. Abortion isn’t and won’t be a factor. 

 

[moleculo]

Kinda ironic to use the “I want my little girls to be in a safe state” - where they can abort their unborn children.

That makes no sense logically, which is why people won’t move because of this.  People move because of jobs, family, friends, economy, cost of living, weather, amenities, entertainment, scenery. Abortion isn’t and won’t be a factor. 

1. It's not ultimately about abortions, it's about being treated with dignity, including the ability no not have very personal medical decisions imposed by the State.

2. People may not move because of right to choose.  But, if they are going to move anyways (work, retirement, etc), something like this can absolutely factor into the decision as to where.

 

[Stoneworker]

Kinda ironic to use the “I want my little girls to be in a safe state” - where they can abort their unborn children.

That makes no sense logically, which is why people won’t move because of this.  People move because of jobs, family, friends, economy, cost of living, weather, amenities, entertainment, scenery. Abortion isn’t and won’t be a factor. 

Disagree (to an extent). On its own, abortion will rarely be a primary factor in deciding where to live. But on the margin, it will indeed have an impact.

All those lifestyle attributes you list tend to cluster together (jobs, weather, culture, amenities, etc.)

For example, after recreational weed was legalized in CO it immediately catalyzed an in-migration from many millenials. But other than hardcore stoners no one was actually coming just for the weed itself. But legal weed fit in seamlessly with the rest of the lifestyle and indeed was a catalyst.

You'll see similar moving trends with abortion where it is an even bigger catalyst for people who otherwise would just stay put.

 

[moleculo]

There’s already plenty of self-sorting for politics, this will just accelerate it.

Yeah.  There is another thread on how the US dissolves.  The problem is our politics are mixed geography.    Long term, I see this being a step in that direction.

I'm not talking about 5 years now, more like 50-100.  It's gonna take a while.

 

[ekbeats]

Hopefully states become reasonable and enact sensible laws where women can get abortions prior to viability, and where fetus’s are protected after viability.  This “abortion up until birth” push by Democrats is barbaric.  And the “no abortions ever” position isn’t sensible.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

There’s already plenty of self-sorting for politics, this will just accelerate it.

Yeah, relatively few people are pick up and move just because of abortion.  But abortion laws are going to correlate very strongly with a whole bunch of other stuff that all breaks along red-blue lines.

 

[Stoneworker]

The most interesting migration stories are going to be places like Boise, ID and Rapid City, SD, where you've recently seen a ton of libs moving from Cali and coasts to strongly-held conservative areas due to cost of living and outdoor amenities.

Gonna be increasing number/intensity of dustups btw the tenderfeet and 2nd amendment locals in those places.

 

[FairWarning]

The most interesting migration stories are going to be places like Boise, ID and Rapid City, SD, where you've recently seen a ton of libs moving from Cali and coasts to strongly-held conservative areas due to cost of living and outdoor amenities.

Gonna be increasing number/intensity of dustups btw the tenderfeet and 2nd amendment locals in those places.

I agree

 

[CletiusMaximus]

There’s already plenty of self-sorting for politics, this will just accelerate it.

It might be best for social / religious issues like abortion to be regulated at a municipal level. So much of the politicial/social divide these days seems to be rural/urban, it might make sense to have more local control over some of the larger issues out there. 

 

[The Z Machine]

It might be best for social / religious issues like abortion to be regulated at a municipal level. So much of the politicial/social divide these days seems to be rural/urban, it might make sense to have more local control over some of the larger issues out there. 

I had a similar thought.  Can municipalities make more restrictive laws than the state regarding abortion access?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I had a similar thought.  Can municipalities make more restrictive laws than the state regarding abortion access?

I think it would depend on what the state law says.

 

[FairWarning]

What is the percentage of pregnancies that are aborted?  

 

[Nugget]

What is the percentage of pregnancies that are aborted?  

Ballpark, 15-20% in the US. 

 

[FairWarning]

Ballpark, 15-20% in the US. 

Any idea because of the health of the fetus or mother?  

 

[Nugget]

Any idea because of the health of the fetus or mother?  

No. I’m not a doctor, so it isn’t any of my business. 

 

[zoonation]

No one is going to move because they can’t get an abortion lol. Can’t think of a more ridiculous reason to move.  Especially when you can just travel to a state that allows it.

If only it were that easy.  I’d encourage you to listen to the Daily episode that did a deep dive into this argument and quickly showed how it had no validity whatsoever. Especially (and predictably) in poor and marginalized communities.   

 

[RCon]

Hopefully states become reasonable and enact sensible laws where women can get abortions prior to viability, and where fetus’s are protected after viability.  This “abortion up until birth” push by Democrats is barbaric.  And the “no abortions ever” position isn’t sensible.

In the short term, I don't see your hope as realistic.  Over the next 12 months, certain red states are going to compete with each other to see which can be the most restrictive.  Hell, we've already seen it, where Missouri's AG was proud of them for being the first to put its trigger law into effect.  This may ease up over time as red states realize that "no abortions ever" isn't tenable (especially for health of the mother when those same states have "stand your ground" laws).

 

[RCon]

On the topic of stand your ground laws, could a woman reasonably use such a law as a defense?  Many of the states that will be most restrictive on abortion also have the most emphatic stand your ground laws.  Pregnancy and childbirth always involves some risk.  Would it not be possible for a woman to suggest they had a reasonable fear for their own safety?

 

[timschochet]

I am fascinated with the question of how this will affect the November elections. I have read so many differing opinions on this: from not at all to it will have a decisive effect. 

And while one would reasonably expect that predictions of this sort would break down along partisan lines (with conservatives arguing it won’t matter because inflation will be the dominant issue, and liberals arguing the opposite) that isn’t always the case. I have read of several on the right who are really concerned about this (including, of all people, Donald Trump), while I have read plenty on the left who cynically think it won’t make a bit of difference. 

As a general supporter of the Democratic Party, I obviously hope it will stem the tide. But hope doesn’t equate to reality. The truth is I have no idea and neither does anyone else. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I think ultimately this changes almost nothing as far as real life actions. 

People will yell and scream about men controlling their bodies or whatever other talking point they use, but mostly nobody plans on needing an abortion. 

The concept of OMG i need to uproot my life so I can live somewhere that I can get an abortion whenever I want, isnt going to be a common thing.

If the GOP gets ultra crazy and starts coming for contraception and actually passes bans so people would have to go out of state every month, you would then see a change. 

If people truly care about it the way they are acting right now, the senate and house will be dominated by democrats come midterms and we will easily see an abortion law passed. 

 

[MrJimiT]

I am fascinated with the question of how this will affect the November elections. I have read so many differing opinions on this: from not at all to it will have a decisive effect. 

As a general supporter of the Democratic Party, I obviously hope it will stem the tide. But hope doesn’t equate to reality. The truth is I have no idea and neither does anyone else. 

My initial thoughts prior to last weeks SC decision, were that the Democrats in November were in some jeopardy of losing seats partly due to current economic situations and issues, etc. Now I am wondering IF the recent decision will ignite some fervor and determination for Democrat voters in November?

 

[jm192]

My initial thoughts prior to last weeks SC decision, were that the Democrats in November were in some jeopardy of losing seats partly due to current economic situations and issues, etc. Now I am wondering IF the recent decision will ignite some fervor and determination for Democrat voters in November?

Possibly.

But the same decision may ignite a similar fire under conservatives.  Abortion was the conservative holy grail.  The Republican party finally delivered.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The concept of OMG i need to uproot my life so I can live somewhere that I can get an abortion whenever I want, isnt going to be a common thing.

Yesterday I was talking to my aunt who is a NY liberal.  According to her, some of her friends who have high school age children have now eliminated red state colleges from consideration.  
 

This is totally anecdotal and I have no idea how widespread it is or even if it’s true. 

 

[RCon]

Yesterday I was talking to my aunt who is a NY liberal.  According to her, some of her friends who have high school age children have now eliminated red state colleges from consideration.  
 

This is totally anecdotal and I have no idea how widespread it is or even if it’s true. 

I know parents who have said exactly the same thing.  Like a lot of other thoughts and opinions expressed, of course, this is an immediate, heat-of-the-moment declaration.  It remains to be seen if it will hold over time.

 

[glvsav37]

Like it or not, the strength of this country was built on states rights. When people would ask me "What made America so great to begin with?" I would say that we have the freedom to pick up and move to any state that we want that matches our political views and best for our lifestyle/family—be it climate/terrain, tax rate, location to work or other people, etc. You cant say that about other many other countries. 

IMO, we are too big of a nation to make everyone happy, and thats why we are in this politically charged discord we have today. Views on gun rights to people in Texas is vastly different than NYC. Abortion in the bible belt is looked at differently then in California. It's just what it is as a nation. 

I'm in favor of returning most laws back to the state level. The fed should be about security, transportation, commerce/the dollar and global relations, thats it. I would cringe when in presidential debates, topics like abortion came up. Its not the president's responsibility and it is only asked to help put people into respective voting buckets. 

One of the other reasons I am so in favor of state's rights is that in most communities, you have direct access to your representation. I'm on the board of my Chamber of Commerce and we always have at least 1 local politician at every meeting, be it a town councilman or a state senator. They are there for you to go talk to about anything you like.  Let me know when Joe Biden or Trump are going to be at your local library for a conversation like that. If you want action and change, think local, dont yell down the empty hallway that is the national media and fed. 

 

 

[glvsav37]

Yesterday I was talking to my aunt who is a NY liberal.  According to her, some of her friends who have high school age children have now eliminated red state colleges from consideration.  
 

This is totally anecdotal and I have no idea how widespread it is or even if it’s true. 

OK, thats fine and their right. They can even go and write letters to those colleges explaining why they missed out on having their kid as an alumni. Maybe that would cause the college to lobby in their state and maybe change the law. 

Because thats how it's done. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I know parents who have said exactly the same thing.  Like a lot of other thoughts and opinions expressed, of course, this is an immediate, heat-of-the-moment declaration.  It remains to be seen if it will hold over time.

This would make the game we used to play of eastie, sorority girl, or both? less enjoyable. 

 

[[icon]]

IMO: 

Telemedecine will render this verdict way less of an issue than it is being made to be. 

In restrictive red states, there will simply be a huge push by Telemedicine Abortion Pill providers like Plan C.  Simply order through an online pharmacy, or use a mail forwarding service to get past legalities... voila.

Problem solved and the ProLife crowd is effectively impotent to stop it.  

 

[[icon]]

If people truly care about it the way they are acting right now, the senate and house will be dominated by democrats come midterms and we will easily see an abortion law passed. 

Let's be honest.... pretty much anyone for whom Abortion rights was a single issue was already a Democrat anyway.  I think this effect is being wildly overstated. 

I'm massively Pro-Choice and have been vocal about my distaste for this ruling, but the Democrat's stance on Gun Rights (and a couple other issues) preclude me from ever voting Blue. 

 

[moleculo]

Let's be honest.... pretty much anyone for whom Abortion rights was a single issue was already a Democrat anyway.  I think this effect is being wildly overstated. 

I'm massively Pro-Choice and have been vocal about my distaste for this ruling, but the Democrat's stance on Gun Rights (and a couple other issues) preclude me from ever voting Blue. 

It's not about changing affiliation, it's about getting out the vote.  If this finally motivates that 18-30 segment of voters into the booth, it will be a big deal.

 

[[icon]]

It's not about changing affiliation, it's about getting out the vote.  If this finally motivates that 18-30 segment of voters into the booth, it will be a big deal.

Perhaps.. I don't think it'll be an issue, or will be more than offset by Independents shifting right, or by all non-dem voters coming out for misc other issues Economy, inflation, gun rights. I'm independent/libertarian and I'll be aggressively voting anti-blue in local elections for that reason alone. Previously usually didn't vote in locals. 

We shall see! Going to be an interesting Fall. 

 

[glvsav37]

It's not about changing affiliation, it's about getting out the vote.  If this finally motivates that 18-30 segment of voters into the booth, it will be a big deal.

so there is nothing wrong with voting based on single issue politics?? 

 

[moleculo]

so there is nothing wrong with voting based on single issue politics?? 

Not sure how you got that out of my post.

 

[[icon]]

so there is nothing wrong with voting based on single issue politics?? 

I think voters have the right to use whatever criteria they wish to determine their vote. Single issue, multiple issue, hairline, smile, whatever  

 

[moleculo]

Perhaps.. I don't think it'll be an issue, or will be more than offset by Independents shifting right, or by all non-dem voters coming out for misc other issues Economy, inflation, gun rights.

We shall see! Going to be an interesting Fall. 

Oh I don't think there will be a blue wave.  Economy overrides everything else.  Inflation is much more tangible.

 

[glvsav37]

Not sure how you got that out of my post.

[icon] made the statement that most pro-abortion voters are already democrats. 
you replied: It's not about changing affiliation, it's about getting out the vote.  If this finally motivates that 18-30 segment of voters into the booth, it will be a big deal.

so the way that sounds to me, is that you hope that the abortion topic is enough to get people to vote (blue, not said but implied) regardless of any other issues or candidates they put up. 

If I read it wrong, I apologize, but thats how it sounded to me. 

 

But for me, thats why topics like this are so grounded in passion and faith (on both sides) should remain within states rights. Likewise, I also feel that Democratic lawmakers never intended on making topics like abortion law b/c if they did, then they would lose one of their biggest "are you with me" platforms each cycle. But there was never a court that would consider over turning it, until now.  

 

[JIslander]

[icon] made the statement that most pro-abortion voters are already democrats. 
you replied: It's not about changing affiliation, it's about getting out the vote.  If this finally motivates that 18-30 segment of voters into the booth, it will be a big deal.

so the way that sounds to me, is that you hope that the abortion topic is enough to get people to vote (blue, not said but implied) regardless of any other issues or candidates they put up. 

 

and to me, thats why topics like this are so grounded in passion and faith (on both sides) should remain within states rights. Likewise, I also feel that Democratic lawmakers never intended on making topics like abortion law b/c if they did, then they would lose one of their biggest "are you with me" platforms each cycle. But there was never a court that would consider over turning it, until now.  

Don't follow this at all.  I mean a key to RvW getting over-turned WAS all the one issue voters pushing for it year after year and I'm sure a good bit held their nose voting for Trump, but he did what they wanted --

 

[Sleestak]

Telemedecine will render this verdict way less of an issue than it is being made to be. 

In restrictive red states, there will simply be a huge push by Telemedicine Abortion Pill providers like Plan C.  Simply order through an online pharmacy, or use a mail forwarding service to get past legalities... voila.

Problem solved and the ProLife crowd is effectively impotent to stop it.  

I'd like to read more discussion on this.  I'm assuming that the red states will try to find ways to block this.  What ways will they try, and and are they likely to be effective?

For instance, can they mess with the mail, or is that federal domain where the states have no rights?  What other angles are there?  We aren't quite Russia yet so they can't block certain websites, I assume.