New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West

[Psychstache]

I wonder, with 100M people potentially being in states with women's rights catastrophes will there will be a mass migration? Any of you moving if Roe is overturned? Too bad the census already happened.

It goes back to 2016, folks - anybody who did not vote because "two S#!& sandwiches" and hates this ruling can sit back and reflect on that choice.

The rich won't move bc they can ignore any personal impact by flying to a blue state if needed. The poor won't move because they are often stuck because...well they're poor.

[sui generis]

Yeah, even inasmuch as 1 in 4 (or more by some estimates) of women will have an abortion in their lifetimes, I don't see people moving to be closer to accessing that care.  And while some of the most strident (like me) might think of moving on principle, I don't think that will factor in for many people at all, even if it was easy to move, like it would be for me.

I won't actually need to move - my state actually just convened a council and released a report full of recommendations on how to effectively serve this need in the current and post-Roe circumstances: https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2021/12/california-abortion-newsom/

[GuitarStv]

So, it's pretty much a done deal at this point right?  Roe is all but certain to be overturned?

[sui generis]

I think the Supreme Court's ruling today on this law is a very bad sign.  SCOTUS allowed for some narrow suits to go forward in TX to stop this law, but I'm not sure if there's ever been a case (before this) where they did not grant an injunction against a nearly 50-year constitutional right being so obviously violated.  It would be like if some a restaurant had a Whites Only sign and refused to serve Black people, and the court not only did not issue an injunction, but also refused to allow the restaurant to be sued.

I'm not in the prediction business and people often caution against taking comments at oral argument as an indication of the final outcome, but I think the real question right now is how bad their decision in Dobbs (MS case) will be.  Will it just move the viability line? Will it leave it to the states to decide whether women have bodily autonomy or not (again, think of "leaving it to the states" to decide if restaurants are allowed to refuse to serve Black people) or will they go so far as to prohibit abortion nationwide?  I doubt the latter, but it's certainly not impossible.  But each of the different pathways for an "anti-Roe" (or really just anti-woman) decision can look very different. 

I mean, it's all bad.  Things weren't great under Roe, but it's hard to imagine things don't get worse.

[CodingHare]

I brought this question up with Mrs. TallTexan--who often votes Republican for economic reasons, although she believes in choice--but we are surrounded by the Trigger law states (SC and Tennessee already have them; Virginia no longer seems safely Democratic). I think her approach is simply one of banking resources to be available if our daughter needs help, but otherwise accepting that this is just how some places are run as our daughter passes through her teenage and young adult years.

Many of the women in those states have economic or family ties that would make moving difficult. If they are heads-of-households, then they already have a delicate balance of childcare and work that locks them in, especially if it includes relying on nearby family. If they are partnered, their jobs are a result of solving a "matching problem" with that partner, so moving is difficult there as well.

It boggles my mind to be pro choice and think that any amount of economic or fiscal policy outweighs the expense of having to travel out of state (perhaps past several states with trigger laws).  But I also am skeptical of Republicans actually being fiscally responsible in their policies, so I know I am biased.

I live in a very blue state.  I have no plans to move to a red state.  Even though cost of living would be better, my right to choose is more personal and impactful than even an earlier retirement date.  And I just don't want to live surrounded by people who are against my right to self determination on reproducing.

I can only hope that the backlash to this implodes the anti choice party in my lifetime.  And keep making donations to Planned Parenthood, of course.

[PDXTabs]

I brought this question up with Mrs. TallTexan--who often votes Republican for economic reasons, although she believes in choice--but we are surrounded by the Trigger law states (SC and Tennessee already have them; Virginia no longer seems safely Democratic). I think her approach is simply one of banking resources to be available if our daughter needs help, but otherwise accepting that this is just how some places are run as our daughter passes through her teenage and young adult years.

Many of the women in those states have economic or family ties that would make moving difficult. If they are heads-of-households, then they already have a delicate balance of childcare and work that locks them in, especially if it includes relying on nearby family. If they are partnered, their jobs are a result of solving a "matching problem" with that partner, so moving is difficult there as well.

It boggles my mind to be pro choice and think that any amount of economic or fiscal policy outweighs the expense of having to travel out of state (perhaps past several states with trigger laws).  But I also am skeptical of Republicans actually being fiscally responsible in their policies, so I know I am biased.

I too only vote for pro choice candidates and find this pattern of voting and belief a little weird.

I live in a very blue state.  I have no plans to move to a red state.  Even though cost of living would be better, my right to choose is more personal and impactful than even an earlier retirement date.  And I just don't want to live surrounded by people who are against my right to self determination on reproducing.

Does that include living out of the country in places with more restrictive laws than blue state America?

I can only hope that the backlash to this implodes the anti choice party in my lifetime.  And keep making donations to Planned Parenthood, of course.

I think that the party might implode, but for a myriad of reasons and this will only be one of them.

[talltexan]

So, it's pretty much a done deal at this point right?  Roe is all but certain to be overturned?

I suppose nothing is certain. From everything I've seen about the Roberts, he likes to have some kind of outcome that he can disguise so as to maintain a veil of gravitas around the Court so as to not appear partisan. A penumbra, if you will.

[CodingHare]

...

I live in a very blue state.  I have no plans to move to a red state.  Even though cost of living would be better, my right to choose is more personal and impactful than even an earlier retirement date.  And I just don't want to live surrounded by people who are against my right to self determination on reproducing.

Does that include living out of the country in places with more restrictive laws than blue state America?
...

Sorry, not quite parsing the question correctly.  If you mean, would I move to a country with more restrictive abortion laws, then no, definitely not.  I have plans to move to Canada, which has better abortion protections, either.  For better or worse, I'm settled with my husband here.  It would take Washington state turning full Red and passing restrictions for me to consider immigration (and I'd probably look into sterilization instead.)

If you meant living in the more red leaning parts of my state (Eastern WA), then I also have no interest living there for the reasons noted above.  Social shunning for getting an abortion is still a thing, but not so common in metro Seattle I've found.

[talltexan]

I suppose that--in considering mobility--we should also think about the next generation, and how likely they are to take advantage of a life-change like going to college to move. States have tried to implement programs to retain their most talented students (I'm thinking of the Florida Bright Futures program, or Georgia's program guaranteeing scholarships for solid-B students). I could imagine rational female students seeking out-of-state education for those years as a natural way of leaving the state.

[jrhampt]

On the note about colleges, I moved away from Texas to attend school in Connecticut (free ride to any state school as Nat Merit Scholar) and would never move back to Texas, certainly not now.  Connecticut has abortion protections.

[PathtoFIRE]

I've lived in Texas since 1989, and will be moving summer 2022. We had considering moving a few years back to somewhere with a moderate climate, and while that is still one of the primary reasons that we picked our new location, the timing and actually enacting a plan is directly related to the political climate.

[PDXTabs]

...

I live in a very blue state.  I have no plans to move to a red state.  Even though cost of living would be better, my right to choose is more personal and impactful than even an earlier retirement date.  And I just don't want to live surrounded by people who are against my right to self determination on reproducing.

Does that include living out of the country in places with more restrictive laws than blue state America?
...

Sorry, not quite parsing the question correctly.  If you mean, would I move to a country with more restrictive abortion laws, then no, definitely not.  I have plans to move to Canada, which has better abortion protections, either.  For better or worse, I'm settled with my husband here.  It would take Washington state turning full Red and passing restrictions for me to consider immigration (and I'd probably look into sterilization instead.)

Canada is top-tier for access to abortion since it is one of the few countries on the planet with 24 week (or longer if necessary) abortions that also happen to be funded by the government. I think that the UK is also in that club.

[talltexan]

On the note about colleges, I moved away from Texas to attend school in Connecticut (free ride to any state school as Nat Merit Scholar) and would never move back to Texas, certainly not now.  Connecticut has abortion protections.

Congratulations on the Nat'l Merit Scholarship. Many states have programs that provide funding to many more students than the NMSQT-based programs, in some cases 40% or more of HS graduates are eligible for these funds.

[sui generis]

So, it's pretty much a done deal at this point right?  Roe is all but certain to be overturned?

I suppose nothing is certain. From everything I've seen about the Roberts, he likes to have some kind of outcome that he can disguise so as to maintain a veil of gravitas around the Court so as to not appear partisan. A penumbra, if you will.

He has a lot less power now than when it was a conservative 5-4 court, though.  Now that it's 6-3, he's a lot less relevant (not to say that that makes him irrelevant).  Kavanaugh seemed like potentially the most moderate of the 5 conservatives that could control this with his "leave it to the states" idea (again, imagine SCOTUS saying it's left to each state to decide whether restaurants could choose to serve "Whites Only").  That's not a very moderate position.  Assuming Barrett is at least as immoderate as that, then I think the best Roberts can do is join the majority and write the opinion himself to try to control some of the language and framing around it, while keeping at least 2-3 other justices with him.  The math is a little confusing here, but if he could keep 2 other justices with him on this "immoderate moderate" decision, and the three liberals dissent and the other 3 are more extreme (one of Gorsuch or Barrett, Alito and Thomas), but the 6 conservatives together are effectively ruling in favor of MS, then the narrowest decision controls (where there's no majority behind any one opinion), which would be the Roberts opinion with presumably more fig leaves for the court to hide behind. 

I think it's very likely Roberts will try to have influence in that way, but again when the most moderate possible thing people are contemplating at this point is where abortion becomes illegal in half the states in America....the stench, as Sotomayor put it, is pretty intense.

Maybe they'll just move the gestational age/viability to 15 weeks, but since even Kavanaugh didn't seem onboard with that, it's hard to imagine getting the votes for it.  I should listen to my own words about not predicting based off of oral argument, but also the Federalist Society didn't spend a few decades grooming and training these recruits just to have them move viability by 9 weeks.

[sui generis]

I live in a very blue state.  I have no plans to move to a red state.  Even though cost of living would be better, my right to choose is more personal and impactful than even an earlier retirement date.  And I just don't want to live surrounded by people who are against my right to self determination on reproducing.

Does that include living out of the country in places with more restrictive laws than blue state America?

I would potentially live in a country with more restrictive laws (in the sense of gestational limits) because there's a lot more to it than that.  If this is in reference to European countries, for instance as opposed to let's say Saudi Arabia which, no I would never live there.
 

Because often it's paid for like any other health care in that country.  There are typically not 48-72 hour waiting periods where the person has to take off nearly a week from work sometimes to have the procedure done.  Never traveling across the entire continent like people do travel from NV to DC or SC to CA here in the US (I understand there is some travel between countries based even on their laws, but still the distances are not as great).  So people can get the abortions when they need them and not end up at 16 or 25 weeks before they are able to get a combination of the legal permissions, costs (some cost as much as $20,000 if you are high risk), childcare for your existing children in place and time off from work to go have it done, all together at one time.  I'd love to see a place that made it a lot easier to get an abortion and THEN happy to talk about what a fair timeline is to all parties.

[Hash Brown]

a nearly 50-year constitutional right

Therein lies the flimsiness of the Roe ruling.  The U.S. Constitution in no place explicitly discusses anything resembling abortion.  Rather, the argument for the court's decision was something or rather about "privacy".  The fact that abortion proponents have doubled down endlessly on the shakiness of Roe is how we got to this point.  It was always inevitable, given the capriciousness of the nomination process, that a conservative majority would come to sit on the court. 

It's unlikely that any state is going to completely outlaw abortion.  Instead, it'll be one of those state-by-state quirks like casino laws, sports betting, alcohol, marijuana, etc.  The way the NPR crowd predictably flipped out over this is playing directly into the Republicans' hands. 

[sui generis]

a nearly 50-year constitutional right

Therein lies the flimsiness of the Roe ruling.  The U.S. Constitution in no place explicitly discusses anything resembling abortion.  Rather, the argument for the court's decision was something or rather about "privacy".  The fact that abortion proponents have doubled down endlessly on the shakiness of Roe is how we got to this point.  It was always inevitable, given the capriciousness of the nomination process, that a conservative majority would come to sit on the court. 

As I said above, Roe has not been great and Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself reglarly derided the basis for the Roe decision, which should have been simply based in the 14th Amendment.  However, undermining the privacy doctrine in the US Constitution is not so simple, just because the word "privacy" (or any other word, like "abortion") doesn't appear in the Constitution.  While Roe is just under 50 years old, the privacy doctrine on which it is based is a lot older and there are other decisions protecting what have been deemed Constitutional rights under this same theory that would have to be overturned as well, if Roe is overturned based on the opinion of the Court that a right to privacy does not exist.  I do not think the court will go that far at all. 

Other things that would be undermined if the right to privacy was overturned could be things like parental decision-making for minor children, use of contraceptives, gay marriage, sex and lots of rights that we might take for granted about refusing or accepting medical care.

It's unlikely that any state is going to completely outlaw abortion. 

You are unaware that many states have laws on their books *right now* that abortion is completely outlawed in their state if and when Roe is overturned??

[PDXTabs]

However, undermining the privacy doctrine in the US Constitution is not so simple, just because the word "privacy" (or any other word, like "abortion") doesn't appear in the Constitution.  While Roe is just under 50 years old, the privacy doctrine on which it is based is a lot older and there are other decisions protecting what have been deemed Constitutional rights under this same theory that would have to be overturned as well, if Roe is overturned based on the opinion of the Court that a right to privacy does not exist.  I do not think the court will go that far at all. 

I'm a layperson, but I really don't know how anyone can read the bill of rights and not see a constitutional right to privacy. What do you think the 4th amendment is there for if it isn't a right to privacy? If there is no right to privacy where does that logic stop? Attorney-Client privilege? I don't think the average conservative wants to see that happen.

[former player]

Also, isn't forced pregnancy a form of slavery?

Even if not, isn't bodily autonomy an inherent necessity of the right to life?  The right to life has to mean more than just a right to have a heartbeat and working lungs, doesn't it?  As a minimum it has to include autonomy over our own bodies.

[PDXTabs]

Also, isn't forced pregnancy a form of slavery?

I like the US/UK 24 week term limit but I'd be reluctant to call Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Norway slave states just because they have a 12 week term limit (which is more or less the European standard).

[RetiredAt63]

Also, isn't forced pregnancy a form of slavery?

I like the US/UK 24 week term limit but I'd be reluctant to call Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Norway slave states just because they have a 12 week term limit (which is more or less the European standard).

Is that for all pregnancies?  Because for genetic abnormalities you don't generally even test until around then, and then there is a wait for results.

[PDXTabs]

Also, isn't forced pregnancy a form of slavery?

I like the US/UK 24 week term limit but I'd be reluctant to call Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Norway slave states just because they have a 12 week term limit (which is more or less the European standard).

Is that for all pregnancies?  Because for genetic abnormalities you don't generally even test until around then, and then there is a wait for results.

It obviously varies by country, I found a better document here: http://www.spdc.pt/files/publicacoes/Pub_AbortionlegislationinEuropeIPPFEN_Feb2009.pdf

Eg, Germany has "No Limit To avert danger to life of woman [or] To avert the danger of a grave impairment of the physical or emotional state of health of the pregnant woman (The mental health risks for the woman include the ones caused by foetal malformation, and general health risks caused by adverse socio-economic conditions.)" while Portugal has a 24 week limit for "If there are substantial grounds for believing that the child would be born with a serious or incurable disease or malformation."

[RetiredAt63]

Also, isn't forced pregnancy a form of slavery?

I like the US/UK 24 week term limit but I'd be reluctant to call Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Norway slave states just because they have a 12 week term limit (which is more or less the European standard).

Is that for all pregnancies?  Because for genetic abnormalities you don't generally even test until around then, and then there is a wait for results.

It obviously varies by country, I found a better document here: http://www.spdc.pt/files/publicacoes/Pub_AbortionlegislationinEuropeIPPFEN_Feb2009.pdf

Eg, Germany has "No Limit To avert danger to life of woman [or] To avert the danger of a grave impairment of the physical or emotional state of health of the pregnant woman (The mental health risks for the woman include the ones caused by foetal malformation, and general health risks caused by adverse socio-economic conditions.)" while Portugal has a 24 week limit for "If there are substantial grounds for believing that the child would be born with a serious or incurable disease or malformation."

That is better than a 12 week limit.  And takes all sorts of issues into consideration.

[NaN]

Also, isn't forced pregnancy a form of slavery?

I like the US/UK 24 week term limit but I'd be reluctant to call Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Norway slave states just because they have a 12 week term limit (which is more or less the European standard).

Is that for all pregnancies?  Because for genetic abnormalities you don't generally even test until around then, and then there is a wait for results.

It obviously varies by country, I found a better document here: http://www.spdc.pt/files/publicacoes/Pub_AbortionlegislationinEuropeIPPFEN_Feb2009.pdf

Eg, Germany has "No Limit To avert danger to life of woman [or] To avert the danger of a grave impairment of the physical or emotional state of health of the pregnant woman (The mental health risks for the woman include the ones caused by foetal malformation, and general health risks caused by adverse socio-economic conditions.)" while Portugal has a 24 week limit for "If there are substantial grounds for believing that the child would be born with a serious or incurable disease or malformation."

This was an interesting article about Denmark: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/  They seem to test a lot, particularly in high risk cases and no crazy laws like the ones in five states that ban abortions solely off of prenatal screening results alone: https://lozierinstitute.org/overview-legislation-litigation-involving-protections-against-down-syndrome-discrimination-abortion/

My wife and I did an NIPT test for our daughter to test for Down. There was no question - my wife was all on board with abortion if it came back with a third chromosome. You know what, that's her choice and right for carrying the fetus. To force her to carry a fetus, who's condition itself has a 80% chance of miscarriage and wildly broad spectrum capabilities post-birth, to me is a form of slavery. Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, North Dakota, and Louisiana won't be on my list of states to live anytime soon, especially if we consider another kid.

While I don't think going to another state to get an abortion is all the hard for someone with resources, the lunacy bin will expand to all sorts of social constructs in those states.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Also, isn't forced pregnancy a form of slavery?

I like the US/UK 24 week term limit but I'd be reluctant to call Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Norway slave states just because they have a 12 week term limit (which is more or less the European standard).

Is that for all pregnancies?  Because for genetic abnormalities you don't generally even test until around then, and then there is a wait for results.

It obviously varies by country, I found a better document here: http://www.spdc.pt/files/publicacoes/Pub_AbortionlegislationinEuropeIPPFEN_Feb2009.pdf

Eg, Germany has "No Limit To avert danger to life of woman [or] To avert the danger of a grave impairment of the physical or emotional state of health of the pregnant woman (The mental health risks for the woman include the ones caused by foetal malformation, and general health risks caused by adverse socio-economic conditions.)" while Portugal has a 24 week limit for "If there are substantial grounds for believing that the child would be born with a serious or incurable disease or malformation."

This was an interesting article about Denmark: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/  They seem to test a lot, particularly in high risk cases and no crazy laws like the ones in five states that ban abortions solely off of prenatal screening results alone: https://lozierinstitute.org/overview-legislation-litigation-involving-protections-against-down-syndrome-discrimination-abortion/

My wife and I did an NIPT test for our daughter to test for Down. There was no question - my wife was all on board with abortion if it came back with a third chromosome. You know what, that's her choice and right for carrying the fetus. To force her to carry a fetus, who's condition itself has a 80% chance of miscarriage and wildly broad spectrum capabilities post-birth, to me is a form of slavery. Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, North Dakota, and Louisiana won't be on my list of states to live anytime soon, especially if we consider another kid.

While I don't think going to another state to get an abortion is all the hard for someone with resources, the lunacy bin will expand to all sorts of social constructs in those states.

That article is an important point of information. Thank you for posting it.

[RetiredAt63]

My wife and I did an NIPT test for our daughter to test for Down. There was no question - my wife was all on board with abortion if it came back with a third chromosome. You know what, that's her choice and right for carrying the fetus. To force her to carry a fetus, who's condition itself has a 80% chance of miscarriage and wildly broad spectrum capabilities post-birth, to me is a form of slavery. Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, North Dakota, and Louisiana won't be on my list of states to live anytime soon, especially if we consider another kid.

While I don't think going to another state to get an abortion is all the hard for someone with resources, the lunacy bin will expand to all sorts of social constructs in those states.

I know someone whose sister, in her 70s, is still caring for her Down syndrome daughter who is in her 50s.  Small child in an adult body.  Adult diapers, temper tantrums, the whole bit.  It truly has been lifelong servitude for this woman, the lifetime of her child.

It is interesting how attitudes change.  When my mom was pregnant (she had health issues which may have contributed to this) her doctor and nurse implied that if there was something really wrong with me or my sister, we would just be fed sugar water and basically die in the hospital nursery.  Because there was no abortion, and no testing for these things, and caring for a severely handicapped child would have killed her.  When I was pregnant with DD, I had a whole phone conversation with the public health people about genetic risk - this was standard.  And because I was older, I had the amniocentesis.  They asked first if I would have an abortion if the results were bad, because they wouldn't waste the resources on someone who would keep the pregnancy anyway.  There was no pressure to have the amnio and then to have an abortion if the results were bad, it was totally up to me.  Same for DD, she had risk factors, no problem having an amnio, and the abortion was available if the results were bad.  Luckily they weren't and Mango is fine.

To me this restrictive attitude harks back to the 50s, but I can't see a doctor and maternity nurse starving a severely handicapped baby these days, that ethic has gone.  In my deep dark thoughts I wonder if it would come back if maternity wards started seeing a lot of really damaged babies?

And I also think of all the genetic diseases where there are tests.  If a couple are both carriers for it, their odds are 1 in 4, every pregnancy, of having a baby with something really bad - sickle-cell anemia and Tay-Sachs are 2 obvious examples.  Before genetic testing a lot of couples chose not to have any children, because the odds were too high and the diseases were too bad.

"the lunacy bin will expand to all sorts of social constructs in those states."  I would guess a lot of those constraints will be even more restrictive access to birth control, and both men and women being even more restricted in having the relevant tubes tied.  Because the basic attitude seems to be that women are on earth to have babies, and men are on earth to impregnate them, and nothing can be allowed to interfere with that, even if those concerned don't want to.

If you haven't guessed yet, the whole things massively pisses me off.  ;-(

[NaN]

That article is an important point of information. Thank you for posting it.

It really is a good article. It covers a lot of aspects to the situation. But bottom line for me is I agree with the one person they talked to - Down syndrome is pretty low hanging fruit in regards to tests. Some of the other tests for genetic disorders get a little trickier with how accurate they are, on both sides. The false negative situation for Down where the mother stayed unnamed was very intense.

I know someone whose sister, in her 70s, is still caring for her Down syndrome daughter who is in her 50s.  Small child in an adult body.  Adult diapers, temper tantrums, the whole bit.  It truly has been lifelong servitude for this woman, the lifetime of her child.

Luckily we were in that category where didn't have to make the choice after the test, but this is exactly what we do not want.

I found this quote pretty descriptive of the anti-abortion movement right now, which is acting like if they just didn't have to fight abortion anymore they could devote their attention to actually providing resources for women.

Some who oppose abortion say the next step is to create more of a safety net for poor mothers. “There has never been enough alternative help for women,” said Chuck Donovan, who has worked in the anti-abortion movement for decades, now as president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. “It’s something pro-lifers could agree to, even if it frustrates spending conservatives.”

Yeah right.

[RetiredAt63]

Some who oppose abortion say the next step is to create more of a safety net for poor mothers. “There has never been enough alternative help for women,” said Chuck Donovan, who has worked in the anti-abortion movement for decades, now as president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. “It’s something pro-lifers could agree to, even if it frustrates spending conservatives.”

Yeah right.

Yeah, right, exactly.  For poor women, if there is no social support then abortion looks like a good option even if they would otherwise have the child.  Or a family with 3, 4, 5 etc. children just can't manage another.

I read someplace that in countries with liberal abortion laws there are actually not that many abortions, because they also tend to have liberal access to contraceptives.  And it is definitely preferable to not get pregnant in the first place if you can manage it.  Unfortunately the opposite also tends to be true, so contraceptives and abortions are both hard to manage.

At least historically, in parts of the world, a woman who didn't want marriage and children (the 2 went together) could join a nunnery.

[gaja]

Also, isn't forced pregnancy a form of slavery?

I like the US/UK 24 week term limit but I'd be reluctant to call Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Norway slave states just because they have a 12 week term limit (which is more or less the European standard).

Is that for all pregnancies?  Because for genetic abnormalities you don't generally even test until around then, and then there is a wait for results.

For Norway: No questions asked until 12 weeks. Between 12 and 18 weeks there is a tribunal, where basically everyone gets an abortion if they say they need one. 18 to 22 you need to have a slightly better reason, but the tribunal will still almost always say yes. Above 22 weeks it has to be due to very serious issues with the fetus or mother, since that is the limit for when the fetus is theoretically able to survive. But overall; women who need an abortion get an abortion.

The tribunals are currently under discussion. Some women who have had to go through the process found them supportive, others found them oppressive. There is now a political majority in parliament to remove them up to week 18, but the ruling parties have one for and one against, so it might not come up for voting for a while yet. One major argument against the tribunals is that the Swedes don't have them, and their abortion numbers are the same as in Norway, except they have fewer late abortions than us (very logical, since the tribunals delay the process).

The abortion numbers in Norway have been steadily falling for many years, and have never been lower than today. We are currently at about 9 abortions per 1000 women, compared to about 11 in the USA. Particularly the youngest women get very few abortions, probably due to very good access to contraception. Almost all abortions are before week 9. Only 508 went to tribunal last year, and of these 498 were immediately granted (a few more were probably granted in the second round).   

[OtherJen]

So, it's pretty much a done deal at this point right?  Roe is all but certain to be overturned?

That's been true since Amy Coney Barrett was appointed. I have personal experience with her cult version of Catholicism. They will throw just about anyone/anything else under the bus and vote for the most awful people if they can make abortion illegal.

[sixwings]

Maybe they'll just move the gestational age/viability to 15 weeks, but since even Kavanaugh didn't seem onboard with that, it's hard to imagine getting the votes for it.  I should listen to my own words about not predicting based off of oral argument, but also the Federalist Society didn't spend a few decades grooming and training these recruits just to have them move viability by 9 weeks.

I dont think the federalist society actually cares about abortion. They care about putting pro-business judges on the bench who will grant more power to big corporations and the very wealthy, their biggest wins is stuff like citizens united. The Koch bros don't give a single shit about abortion, it's a wedge issue they use to get evangelicals to show up to vote for people who will expand their power because no ones going to show up to vote for citizens united.

[GodlessCommie]

I dont think the federalist society actually cares about abortion. They care about putting pro-business judges on the bench who will grant more power to big corporations and the very wealthy, their biggest wins is stuff like citizens united. The Koch bros don't give a single shit about abortion, it's a wedge issue they use to get evangelicals to show up to vote for people who will expand their power because no ones going to show up to vote for citizens united.

Yes, but also why would Republican base stick with the corporate wing if the corporate wing doesn't deliver on one of the very few issues the base truly cares about? They have to deliver, or all has been for nothing.

[sui generis]

I dont think the federalist society actually cares about abortion. They care about putting pro-business judges on the bench who will grant more power to big corporations and the very wealthy, their biggest wins is stuff like citizens united. The Koch bros don't give a single shit about abortion, it's a wedge issue they use to get evangelicals to show up to vote for people who will expand their power because no ones going to show up to vote for citizens united.

Yes, but also why would Republican base stick with the corporate wing if the corporate wing doesn't deliver on one of the very few issues the base truly cares about? They have to deliver, or all has been for nothing.

Yeah, agree with the above.  It depends on what you mean by "really care".  Some really care because they think babies are being murdered.  Some really care because they are against the social dynamic and economic freedom it has brought to women, who clearly should not be wielding that freedom. Some care because of the political power it brings them.  I find all of their reasons to be pretty shitty, but have to admit they did a really good job putting their noses to the f&%$ing grindstone and powering through for a long time.  Not something that I have seen on the other side of the political spectrum since the hard won achievements of the 60s.

[RetiredAt63]

  Not something that I have seen on the other side of the political spectrum since the hard won achievements of the 60s.

Pendulum swings.  I wonder if the next 20 years in the US will look like the 60's, getting voter rights for minorities and rights for women?  Those were not easy times, btw, there was violence as well as rhetoric.  MLK looked good to authorities because he was balanced by the Black Panthers.

[PDXTabs]

  Not something that I have seen on the other side of the political spectrum since the hard won achievements of the 60s.

Pendulum swings.  I wonder if the next 20 years in the US will look like the 60's, getting voter rights for minorities and rights for women?  Those were not easy times, btw, there was violence as well as rhetoric.  MLK looked good to authorities because he was balanced by the Black Panthers.

In all seriousness, I'm not sure that the US will exist in 20 years. Between the makeup of the Senate and the increased political polarization (and the right moving further and further right) I don't see anything getting fixed. I personally think that peaceful Balkanization is our best bet. Or, to bring it back to this thread, NYT: We’re Edging Closer to Civil War.

[RetiredAt63]

  Not something that I have seen on the other side of the political spectrum since the hard won achievements of the 60s.

Pendulum swings.  I wonder if the next 20 years in the US will look like the 60's, getting voter rights for minorities and rights for women?  Those were not easy times, btw, there was violence as well as rhetoric.  MLK looked good to authorities because he was balanced by the Black Panthers.

In all seriousness, I'm not sure that the US will exist in 20 years. Between the makeup of the Senate and the increased political polarization (and the right moving further and further right) I don't see anything getting fixed. I personally think that peaceful Balkanization is our best bet. Or, to bring it back to this thread, NYT: We’re Edging Closer to Civil War.

That is behind a paywall for me.  And I am Canadian, so I am a (horrified) spectator in all this.  The US is huge and unwieldy anyway, maybe a split would be a "good thing".  But not for a lot of people who would be even more stuck in bad locations.   

In the short term, how will people react when the number of back-street abortions goes up?  The number of deaths goes up?  And the more sensible young women in those states stop having sex with their boyfriends?  Are the boyfriends going to step up and get married if they get their girlfriends pregnant?  That was what happened in the "good old days".  There were stories in residence at University about girls who dropped out and got married (late 60s, early 70s, so imagine the 50s and earlier).  Good reliable accessible birth control was the start of the sexual revolution, and reasonably easy abortion was the next step. 

And of course married women are in the same boat, that next baby could mean a major health risk, or having to leave their jobs (especially because childbirth and daycare costs are unreal there), or not being able to manage financially.  Make the price for sex too high for women and and many won't be willing to pay the price.  And girls in "good families" will find it a lot harder to cope if all the neighbouring states are just as bad.  Where do they get birth control?  How far do they have to go, and how much time do they lose, if they need an abortion?  Will many of them opt for university in states that are more liberal, and never go home again ->brain drain?  And the girls who marry young, what happens to their education and job prospects and future?  No money of their own, they are trapped if the marriage is bad - I heard the stories from older family and friends.

Seriously, I watched "Call the Midwife", and it is really good at depicting the 50's and 60's in London.  Including the botched abortions.  And the mothers with way too many children. 

My room-mate in the maternity ward was 17, she and her boyfriend were totally uneducated about sex and so had no idea about what they were doing - so yes, of course she got pregnant.  She had just finished high school, was about to head to CEGEP (Community College) and was taking a year off to have the baby and be home with it for the first year.  I often wonder if she ever went back to school. And this was the late 80s.

Sometimes it sucks being old and seeing people make the same mistakes over and over and over and over . . .

[Abe]

California may write a similar law except for gun control. I hope 20 million lawsuits get filed within a week and just drown the NRA.

I'm not anti-gun, but am anti-NRA for sure.

[boarder42]

California may write a similar law except for gun control. I hope 20 million lawsuits get filed within a week and just drown the NRA.

I'm not anti-gun, but am anti-NRA for sure.

Yep said this the other day to a friend and low and behold a democratic state comes out and says it.  Pretty easy line to draw the SC would be setting a very scary precedent as it relates to the US govt's ability to enforce the constitution moving forward by upholding the texas law.

[GodlessCommie]

That is behind a paywall for me.  And I am Canadian, so I am a (horrified) spectator in all this.  The US is huge and unwieldy anyway, maybe a split would be a "good thing".  But not for a lot of people who would be even more stuck in bad locations. 

I agree that bad things are coming, but I don't see how a split between urban and rural is possible.

In the short term, how will people react when the number of back-street abortions goes up?  The number of deaths goes up?  And the more sensible young women in those states stop having sex with their boyfriends?

People will predictably fall into 2 camps. One will say "it's their own fault", the other will react like we do.
The latter will never happen, at least not at scale. Can't beat one of the most basic drives we all have.

[GodlessCommie]

I find all of their reasons to be pretty shitty, but have to admit they did a really good job putting their noses to the f&%$ing grindstone and powering through for a long time.  Not something that I have seen on the other side of the political spectrum since the hard won achievements of the 60s.

Amen to this. For all the hype about lefty/progressive grassroots, right-wing grassroots has stamina the left can only dream of. Also, the activist billionares on the right are orders of magnitude more effective, and keep their eyes on the ball longer.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

California may write a similar law except for gun control. I hope 20 million lawsuits get filed within a week and just drown the NRA.

I'm not anti-gun, but am anti-NRA for sure.

Yep said this the other day to a friend and low and behold a democratic state comes out and says it.  Pretty easy line to draw the SC would be setting a very scary precedent as it relates to the US govt's ability to enforce the constitution moving forward by upholding the texas law.

As someone who disagrees with pretty much everyone on this thread on the general topic, the Texas law is insane,  and if it is approved by the SC, the implications are profound and will only lead to further divisions in the US that we really don't need.

[talltexan]

I can't help but believe that Brett Kavanaugh--who has thought deeply about precedent--has some secret reasoning that will allow him to join the ideologues on the court in overturning any kind of California ban on guns. There are conservative donors who've spent a lot of money getting the Court they want, they're not going to be thwarted.

[Hash Brown]

People will predictably fall into 2 camps. One will say "it's their own fault", the other will react like we do.
The latter will never happen, at least not at scale. Can't beat one of the most basic drives we all have.

Well there are 10+ types of contraception out there, several of which are very cheap and readily available everywhere in the United States. 

Sure, some children are conceived by rapists, and some diseases can be detected in utero, but the overwhelming number of abortions occur because people lack self-control in a modern world where modern, safe contraception is plentiful and inexpensive. 

[Dee18]

I live in a red state and am moving to a blue state.  I rented there for 5 months this year and realized i prefer  living in a state that believes science and uses its tax dollars to promote things I like (such as electric vehicles, preservation of natural places, and excellent state parks) instead of things I disagree with (such as more and more jails and prisons in part because of archaic laws that keep poor people locked up for ages pending trial). My sister and her husband moved from their red state to France. I’m also donating to to a nonprofit in my red state to provide funds for those in need of abortions.  I’m grateful I never had an unwanted pregnancy and decided I can well afford to provide the money so some unknown woman can make her own choices.

[PDXTabs]

I find all of their reasons to be pretty shitty, but have to admit they did a really good job putting their noses to the f&%$ing grindstone and powering through for a long time.  Not something that I have seen on the other side of the political spectrum since the hard won achievements of the 60s.

Amen to this. For all the hype about lefty/progressive grassroots, right-wing grassroots has stamina the left can only dream of. Also, the activist billionares on the right are orders of magnitude more effective, and keep their eyes on the ball longer.

I'm just going to write from personal experience for a minute, but I caucused for Sanders and I voted for Warren (in the primaries). I gave money to both of them. But what did the party do? They closed ranks to get HRC the nomination and then somehow Biden was the right candidate for the job. But no one loves Biden. Lefties in particular shouldn't love his tax and fiscal policies. Meanwhile it really doesn't matter as long as the Senate is the Senate. So why should I care anymore? Hell, I wrote Obama begging him to let the Bush tax cuts expire and he didn't even return my letter. Thanks Obama!

Why should I ever spend another dime on national politics when it will just result in more tax cuts for well off, brought to you by both parties? I'd rather send my hard earned dollars to Virunga National Park or some other organization that will actually put them to good use.

EDITed to add: also, Sanders championed a carbon tax for decades before basically abandoning it because poor people like driving cars too. We are doomed.

[former player]

California may write a similar law except for gun control. I hope 20 million lawsuits get filed within a week and just drown the NRA.

I'm not anti-gun, but am anti-NRA for sure.

Yep said this the other day to a friend and low and behold a democratic state comes out and says it.  Pretty easy line to draw the SC would be setting a very scary precedent as it relates to the US govt's ability to enforce the constitution moving forward by upholding the texas law.

As someone who disagrees with pretty much everyone on this thread on the general topic, the Texas law is insane,  and if it is approved by the SC, the implications are profound and will only lead to further divisions in the US that we really don't need.

I can't help but believe that Brett Kavanaugh--who has thought deeply about precedent--has some secret reasoning that will allow him to join the ideologues on the court in overturning any kind of California ban on guns. There are conservative donors who've spent a lot of money getting the Court they want, they're not going to be thwarted.

My best guess is that the conservatives on the Supreme Court are leaving the Texas law in place for the time being to cover the stretch up to fully revoking Roe v Wade in the Missisippi case and then when Texas comes back up to the Supreme Court will knock it down on the grounds that it is contrary to federal principles, by which time Texas will have been able to use the Missisippi judgement to enact a new anti-abortion law that doesn't need to use the batshit crazy vigilante mechanism any more.

[RetiredAt63]

Well there are 10+ types of contraception out there, 1 several of which are very cheap and readily available everywhere in the United States. 

Sure, some children are conceived by rapists, and some diseases can be detected in utero, but the overwhelming number of abortions occur because 2. people lack self-control  in a modern world where modern, safe contraception is plentiful and inexpensive.

1. Are they truly easily available everywhere?  From what I have read, states that are anti-abortion also tend to make access to birth control difficult to extremely difficult, not to mention the morning-after pill.  And please what are the 10 methods?  I can think of condoms and diaphragms (barrier methods), various birth control pills (which are a prescription drug, more blood clots than the worst Covid-19 vaccines), various IUDs, which are not appropriate medically for a lot of women, long-term hormone implants (again not medically safe for everyone), morning-after pill, and various tubes tied.

Men's contraception (condoms) is cheap and somewhat reliable.  Everything else means the woman gets to spend money, sometimes a lot of money, and for almost all of them she needs a doctor.  And a lot of them are medically risky.  So what cheap and easily available methods are you thinking of other than condoms?

2.  Have men improved their behavior that much since the time I was dating?  No more stories of blue balls?  No more pressure that their girlfriend has to prove her love by "going all the way"?  What a utopia.  No more husbands reassuring their wives they will be "safe" when they are anything but?  And marital pressure is more insistent than relationship pressure. 

Colour me old and cynical.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

California may write a similar law except for gun control. I hope 20 million lawsuits get filed within a week and just drown the NRA.

I'm not anti-gun, but am anti-NRA for sure.

Yep said this the other day to a friend and low and behold a democratic state comes out and says it.  Pretty easy line to draw the SC would be setting a very scary precedent as it relates to the US govt's ability to enforce the constitution moving forward by upholding the texas law.

As someone who disagrees with pretty much everyone on this thread on the general topic, the Texas law is insane,  and if it is approved by the SC, the implications are profound and will only lead to further divisions in the US that we really don't need.

I can't help but believe that Brett Kavanaugh--who has thought deeply about precedent--has some secret reasoning that will allow him to join the ideologues on the court in overturning any kind of California ban on guns. There are conservative donors who've spent a lot of money getting the Court they want, they're not going to be thwarted.

My best guess is that the conservatives on the Supreme Court are leaving the Texas law in place for the time being to cover the stretch up to fully revoking Roe v Wade in the Missisippi case and then when Texas comes back up to the Supreme Court will knock it down on the grounds that it is contrary to federal principles, by which time Texas will have been able to use the Missisippi judgement to enact a new anti-abortion law that doesn't need to use the batshit crazy vigilante mechanism any more.

I think you're spot on. I feel like people are quick to pile on the SC justices as if they are completely unhinged. I don't think they are irrational, and I'm confident that they have at least some finger on the pulse of everything and realize that it will look absolutely horrible for them to allow the law in Texas and nullify similar ones in California. Much easier to just bide their time and see what they can come to a consensus on for the Mississippi case and decide upon it based on that. Then they don't even have to deal with it at all. I don't think talltexan is wrong that it could be done (I might even say would be done if it had to happen to accomplish the goal), but it's not necessary, so I seriously doubt it will be used.

I also am probably in the minority on this thought, but I feel like they'll likely simply move the line to Mississippi's gestation timeframe. It's looked like the SC would overturn Roe v Wade before, and it hasn't happened. I doubt it will this time either.

[GuitarStv]

Well there are 10+ types of contraception out there, 1 several of which are very cheap and readily available everywhere in the United States. 

Sure, some children are conceived by rapists, and some diseases can be detected in utero, but the overwhelming number of abortions occur because 2. people lack self-control  in a modern world where modern, safe contraception is plentiful and inexpensive.

1. Are they truly easily available everywhere?  From what I have read, states that are anti-abortion also tend to make access to birth control difficult to extremely difficult, not to mention the morning-after pill.  And please what are the 10 methods?  I can think of condoms and diaphragms (barrier methods), various birth control pills (which are a prescription drug, more blood clots than the worst Covid-19 vaccines), various IUDs, which are not appropriate medically for a lot of women, long-term hormone implants (again not medically safe for everyone), morning-after pill, and various tubes tied.

Men's contraception (condoms) is cheap and somewhat reliable.  Everything else means the woman gets to spend money, sometimes a lot of money, and for almost all of them she needs a doctor.  And a lot of them are medically risky.  So what cheap and easily available methods are you thinking of other than condoms?

2.  Have men improved their behavior that much since the time I was dating?  No more stories of blue balls?  No more pressure that their girlfriend has to prove her love by "going all the way"?  What a utopia.  No more husbands reassuring their wives they will be "safe" when they are anything but?  And marital pressure is more insistent than relationship pressure. 

Colour me old and cynical.

Condoms are surprisingly often misused leading to all sorts of problems.  I've always felt that men should have a mandatory vasectomy at 16, and then have it reversed later if they want to have children.  Would be a sensible masculine coming of age ceremony.


( FWIW - the 'blue balls' thing is real and can be quite painful.  Obviously it should never be used as a way to pressure someone into a sexual situation - God gave every man dutiful Wristina and Palmela to self-correct should it become an issue. )

[Hash Brown]

1. Are they truly easily available everywhere? 

There are these things called gas stations.  Walgreen's.  CVS. 

So what cheap and easily available methods are you thinking of other than condoms?

Birth control pills.  Under $500/year.  A shot or shots.  Under $500/year.  Low-income people can probably get them for free.  The Planned Parenthood clinic near my house has a giant bucket of free condoms sitting on the front counter.

2.  Have men improved their behavior that much since the time I was dating? 

Well women in their 30s are still pulling that stunt where they tell their boyfriends they don't want kids or they can't have kids and OOPSIE now they're a daddy. 

People on this website like to gloat over people having no control over their finances - tons of emotional purchases, etc.  Yet you're the bad guy if you call out people who can't figure out how to avoid unplanned pregnancies.