Roe vs Wade possibly to be overturned

[Sibley]

A draft opinion was leaked from the Supreme Court, indicating that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. For those who don't know, Roe vs. Wade was the court case that guaranteed access to abortions in the US (imperfectly, but still).

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

I know there's a lot of disagreement and emotions about abortion, but here's a fact. Without the legal option to get an abortion, women will die. Maybe they'll be desperate enough to try to abort their unwanted pregnancy and it'll go wrong, maybe they'll be killed by their abusive partner (it's a real thing, look it up), maybe they'll die because of preexisting or new medical conditions. Whatever. Women will die. Not men. Women.

You don't have to like abortion. I don't like abortion - but I firmly believe that the only person who decides what to do with a woman's body is the woman herself. If woman wants an abortion, I support that. I very much prefer if we could prevent that pregnancy in the first place through comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives of all types, but accidents happen, rape happens, birth control failures happen. And abortion must be an option.

I don't know how many women will die before abortion access is protected again. And even without Roe in place, not every state will ban abortions. But enough will.

If you're ok with your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter, your female friend, or any random woman DYING because she can't get a safe abortion, then there is something very lacking in your soul.

[ysette9]

Death is a very real side effect of lack of access to comprehensive medical care, but it goes so much further than that. You only have to wander over to the baby and pregnancy chat thread on this forum to read some hair-raising stories of what happens to women who live in states that have restricted access to healthcare. Traveling out of state secretly and paying cash for an abortion where her husband wasn’t allowed past the locked and guarded steel doors for everyone’s safety. Women who have fetuses die or diagnosed with abnormalities that are incompatible with life given no options on how to proceed.

I had my first two pregnancies end in fetal death well into the second trimester. That was one of the most painful and emotionally traumatizing experiences of my existence. The ONLY saving grace was swift access to compassionate medical care where I had a CHOICE how to proceed. Did I want to end the pregnancy being induced in labor and delivery, or have a surgical termination? The choice of death by fire or death by hanging might seem like a false choice, but for those in the thick of it that mesure of control is immensely powerful. I read accounts of women who didn’t even have that choice in catholic hospitals due tô their backwards policies about women exerting autonomy over their own bodies. Personally I could imagine nothing more traumatizing in that situation that being forced to be induced to deliver a dead fetus surrounded by normal woman giving birth to live babies.

I always was pro-choice but that personal experience of profound vulnerability as someone so privileged made me unwavering and committed to abortion and full choice over all range of health care decisions as a fundamental human right. You cannot be a full autonomous adult enough the freedoms this constitution supposedly guarantees if you don’t have the right to bodily autonomy and self determination. It doesn’t get more fundamental than that.

[Chaplin]

There will be many people far more knowledgeable than me on these matters, and with first-hand experience, so I'll only add two points I've seen in what I've been reading:

1. In addition to the effects that @Sibley and @ysette9 have listed, it's not likely to stop at this. Certain people and groups have their eyes set on further restricting birth control, LGTBQ+ rights and trans rights, and this ruling puts those in reach. Other rights, less obviously related, are perhaps at risk too.

2. We should all take the lesson that no rights are every fully secure, regardless of where we live. I imagine that most Canadians don't think it could happen here, but I think it certainly could, and this will make us the new front in that war. The stuff coming out of some of our more "right" parties and political figures is already deeply troubling.

A tangential point is that this is yet another thing that this must occupy many people's attention at a time when we should be 100% in on climate change. A dark day for many reasons.

[PDXTabs]

I would add that people of means will always have access to abortion. If Roe v Wade is overturned it will mean that poor people do not have access to abortion but the top half of earners still do. My friends and family for example will still be able to fly to literally any country on the globe if that's what it takes.

[Little Aussie Battler]

Is there a simple explanation for us non-Americans as to why the Federal government doesn’t just pass legislation to protect this right?

I assume that Republicans would try to block it, but don’t the Democrats control both houses?

[jim555]

Is there a simple explanation for us non-Americans as to why the Federal government doesn’t just pass legislation to protect this right?

I assume that Republicans would try to block it, but don’t the Democrats control both houses?

In the US Senate you need 60 votes to close debate.  The Senate makes rules on itself.  They could remove the "filibuster" rule by simple majority, but the votes aren't there to do this.  They can do some things relating to the budget by simple majority via reconciliation.  Reconciliation can't be used to create new law or the Parliamentarian will rule it out of order.  When you barely have 50/50 (VP breaks ties) and 2 now are not even on board for most of your agenda you can't do much.

[Morning Glory]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

[RetiredAt63]

Canadians take it for granted now, but it wasn't always so for us.  Read up on the legal battles of Henry Morgentaler.  The feds finally realized the people (i.e. the voters) were on the side of choice.  It seems to need a more secular society - the Catholic Church is still anti-birth control, and as Quebec went from a very religious to a very secular society the birth rate plummeted.

But yes, our Conservative parties seem to be modelling themselves on the US now, so it is a case of vigilance is ever needed.  And we have a leadership race - which way it goes will be very telling.

And Sibley and Morning Glory are right, it is a question of control - so birth control is right there on the list - I gather many US states make it hard to get?  Sex Education is already under attack, how many classes are of the "just say no"  variety?  And permanent measures seem very difficult to get unless you in your 30s or already have children.

[OtherJen]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

[chemistk]

Is there a simple explanation for us non-Americans as to why the Federal government doesn’t just pass legislation to protect this right?

I assume that Republicans would try to block it, but don’t the Democrats control both houses?

The only means of truly protecting abortion at the federal level would be to enshrine it in the Constitution, which requires a majority in both houses of Congress as well as a subsequent 3/4 majority of states to ratify.

Any other federal law enabling access to abortion would be at risk of being dismantled or tossed out with enough political will.

-----

Despite expecting it to happen, this still feels surreal. One of those things that everyone talks up but never changes and then - suddenly - it changes. 'Suddenly' is kind of a bad choice because the pieces have been in motion for years, but no matter how prepared you are for it to happen it still makes you stop and consider it.

-----

There will be many people far more knowledgeable than me on these matters, and with first-hand experience, so I'll only add two points I've seen in what I've been reading:

1. In addition to the effects that @Sibley and @ysette9 have listed, it's not likely to stop at this. Certain people and groups have their eyes set on further restricting birth control, LGTBQ+ rights and trans rights, and this ruling puts those in reach. Other rights, less obviously related, are perhaps at risk too.

2. We should all take the lesson that no rights are every fully secure, regardless of where we live. I imagine that most Canadians don't think it could happen here, but I think it certainly could, and this will make us the new front in that war. The stuff coming out of some of our more "right" parties and political figures is already deeply troubling.

A tangential point is that this is yet another thing that this must occupy many people's attention at a time when we should be 100% in on climate change. A dark day for many reasons.

These are all excellent points, and I've been seeing the same things. I think the next logical battle would indeed be birth control, and although LGBTQ+ rights are at risk more than a few internet commenters have noted that it would be particularly challenging to fully dismantle gay marriage.

Another one I've been seeing is that it might be within the realm of possibility that some states would seek to prosecute their own residents who get abortions out of state. To get around that pesky 'interstate commerce' clause, the potential legislation would prosecute women based on the intent to receive an abortion, which would be just the most terrible precedent to set.

-----

For all the bad about Amazon, there's at least this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/amazon-to-reimburse-us-employees-for-abortion-related-travel-costs/ar-AAWRVPR?ocid=BingNewsSearch


I don't think that's new news and there are other companies which also offer similar reimbursement, but it would be wildly interesting to see Texas/Florida and other states try and fight Amazon on this. This is that one instance where I think Amazon would be able to out-lawyer any potential prosecution, and would be a bellwether for a real-time party ideology flip should conservatives go after big business (along with the Disney debacle).

[Imma]

And Sibley and Morning Glory are right, it is a question of control - so birth control is right there on the list - I gather many US states make it hard to get?  Sex Education is already under attack, how many classes are of the "just say no"  variety?  And permanent measures seem very difficult to get unless you in your 30s or already have children.

It's true, the scary part it's not about "life" it's about "control". Control of women specifically.

I'm 100% pro-choice but that doesn't mean I think abortions are great. They're the least bad option in many situations. In my own country (the Netherlands) our abortion rate is very low. Why is that? Because very few unwanted pregnancies happen, as a result of sex education, wide availability of contraceptives, and financial support for parents. This also means that our adoption rate is extremely low. Very few women end up in the desperate situation where they feel giving up their child is the best option they have.

Contrary to the stereotype of the lazy teen mum and the deadbeat dad, unplanned pregnancies often happen in the 30+ age category who already have families. Financial support for parents, such as parental leave, child benefits, subsidized childcare and generally affordable healthcare, mean that in my country, many of those parents are able to raise an extra, unplanned baby. In countries where there is much less support for parents, the cost of raising one extra child could put the other existing children in jeopardy and parents might be forced to consider abortion because they simply can't afford to continue with the pregnancy while being financially responsible parents to the children that are already born. I can't imagine how stressful that situation must be.

The fact that easier, cheaper, more humane options aren't chosen to reduce the amount of abortions, reveals what the true intent behind this legislation is.

@chemistk as sad as it is, I do indeed believe that Amazon is one of the few business that could actually afford to (and may already be expecting and planning) to fight that type of legislation. I'm not a fan of big companies using their power like this but at least they're using it for something more important than avoiding taxes.

[Sibley]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

Its not Christianity. It's a need to dominate and control women. That has nothing to do with religion, though of course religion can used as an excuse. Let's not sugar coat this. These people are perfectly ok with murdering women. That is about as unChristlike as you can get.

[partgypsy]

I have no words. Deciding to keep a pregnancy or not is such an incredibly personal (as well as medical) choice, a decision that has far reaching and long term impact on that individual and their family, that I don't understand anyone who would support inserting the government into this. I firmly believe the best way to have happy, healthy, safe kids is to have them born by a woman who is (emotionally, physically, safety-wise) ready to bear that child.

[Moonwaves]

Is there a simple explanation for us non-Americans as to why the Federal government doesn’t just pass legislation to protect this right?

I assume that Republicans would try to block it, but don’t the Democrats control both houses?

There's a documentary on Netflix called Reversing Roe that I found very informative. I feel like I also watched something on youtube around the same time I saw that which tied it somewhat. Possibly the Fundie Fridays episode on Jerry Falwell Snr.

[waltworks]

Thanks a lot, RBG.

_W

[DadJokes]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

Its not Christianity. It's a need to dominate and control women. That has nothing to do with religion, though of course religion can used as an excuse. Let's not sugar coat this. These people are perfectly ok with murdering women. That is about as unChristlike as you can get.

It's not that at all, and arguing that is arguing in bad faith. At least attempt to see things from their point of view instead of painting them as evil woman-hating people. For the most part, people aren't evil. They usually view themselves as doing the right thing, even if things don't always look that way from the outside. Spreading hate on the internet doesn't do anything helpful.

Christians (for the most part, but probably others as well) on the pro-life side of the issue fully believe that life begins at conception, not birth. It follows that they believe intentionally killing a fetus is murder. It isn't just men who are against abortions. I don't know many women here in the south who are pro-choice, either.

Unless we can unequivocally establish when life actually begins (good luck doing that when the Bible trumps science for most of those folks), their viewpoint isn't likely to change. The best we can do is to fight to keep guardrails and use the new ruling to do good.

1. I don't think many on the right would disagree with this, but it's important to ensure that abortions when the mother's life is in danger are still allowable.
2. Fight to ensure that abortions in the event of rape/incest are still allowable.
3. Take their belief that life begins at conception to the extreme. If life begins there, why can't we start requiring child support beginning at conception? The father should be at least partially responsible for any medical costs.
4. Donate to causes that help women travel for abortions.

[waltworks]

Agreed with Dadjokes that complaining about how stupid/evil/etc the prolife crowd is won't be useful.

IMO advocating for a more pro-natal set of policies could actually work, though:

-Tax benefits/free healthcare starting at conception
-Better maternity/paternity leave policies
-Reinstate the higher child tax credit/make it fully refundable
-Better preschools/more money for school
-More money for adoption/foster care
-etc, etc

These things all dovetail to at least some extent with the interests of prolife folks.

For me personally, with 2 young daughters, I'm not sure I can stay in Utah (which will automatically make all abortion illegal as soon as the ink is dry on the Roe V. Wade reversal). I'm sure others are thinking the same way, so this may cause even more sorting by politics than we already have.

-W

[partgypsy]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

Its not Christianity. It's a need to dominate and control women. That has nothing to do with religion, though of course religion can used as an excuse. Let's not sugar coat this. These people are perfectly ok with murdering women. That is about as unChristlike as you can get.

It's not that at all, and arguing that is arguing in bad faith. At least attempt to see things from their point of view instead of painting them as evil woman-hating people. For the most part, people aren't evil. They usually view themselves as doing the right thing, even if things don't always look that way from the outside. Spreading hate on the internet doesn't do anything helpful.

Christians (for the most part, but probably others as well) on the pro-life side of the issue fully believe that life begins at conception, not birth. It follows that they believe intentionally killing a fetus is murder. It isn't just men who are against abortions. I don't know many women here in the south who are pro-choice, either.

Unless we can unequivocally establish when life actually begins (good luck doing that when the Bible trumps science for most of those folks), their viewpoint isn't likely to change. The best we can do is to fight to keep guardrails and use the new ruling to do good.

1. I don't think many on the right would disagree with this, but it's important to ensure that abortions when the mother's life is in danger are still allowable.
2. Fight to ensure that abortions in the event of rape/incest are still allowable.
3. Take their belief that life begins at conception to the extreme. If life begins there, why can't we start requiring child support beginning at conception? The father should be at least partially responsible for any medical costs.
4. Donate to causes that help women travel for abortions.

I'm sorry, this is not enough. For whatever reason a minority believes personnhood is bestowed at conception. That minority opinion does not give than minority the right to dictate what other, reasonable people do with their bodies. It just doesn't. The US was formed not just freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. I don't care what you believe. But what you personally believe should not infringe on my rights on my body autonomy and my family planning.

[PDXTabs]

Is there a simple explanation for us non-Americans as to why the Federal government doesn’t just pass legislation to protect this right?

I assume that Republicans would try to block it, but don’t the Democrats control both houses?

The only means of truly protecting abortion at the federal level would be to enshrine it in the Constitution, which requires a majority in both houses of Congress as well as a subsequent 3/4 majority of states to ratify.

Any other federal law enabling access to abortion would be at risk of being dismantled or tossed out with enough political will.

This. It's not like Ireland where we could have a popular referendum for the amendment and change the constitution in less than a year.

[partgypsy]

If we are going to go down that path (that a glob of cells that may develop into a sentient creatures is = to person, I personally believe all already existing sentient creatures have personhood to be granted immediately. That they have rights and should have legal representation to protect their rights. we can start with the great apes, elephants, all cetaceans, and work our way down from there.

[jeninco]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

Its not Christianity. It's a need to dominate and control women. That has nothing to do with religion, though of course religion can used as an excuse. Let's not sugar coat this. These people are perfectly ok with murdering women. That is about as unChristlike as you can get.

It's not that at all, and arguing that is arguing in bad faith. At least attempt to see things from their point of view instead of painting them as evil woman-hating people. For the most part, people aren't evil. They usually view themselves as doing the right thing, even if things don't always look that way from the outside. Spreading hate on the internet doesn't do anything helpful.

Christians (for the most part, but probably others as well) on the pro-life side of the issue fully believe that life begins at conception, not birth. It follows that they believe intentionally killing a fetus is murder. It isn't just men who are against abortions. I don't know many women here in the south who are pro-choice, either.

Unless we can unequivocally establish when life actually begins (good luck doing that when the Bible trumps science for most of those folks), their viewpoint isn't likely to change. The best we can do is to fight to keep guardrails and use the new ruling to do good.

1. I don't think many on the right would disagree with this, but it's important to ensure that abortions when the mother's life is in danger are still allowable.
2. Fight to ensure that abortions in the event of rape/incest are still allowable.
3. Take their belief that life begins at conception to the extreme. If life begins there, why can't we start requiring child support beginning at conception? The father should be at least partially responsible for any medical costs.
4. Donate to causes that help women travel for abortions.

I'm sorry, this is not enough. For whatever reason a minority believes personnhood is bestowed at conception. That minority opinion does not give than minority the right to dictate what other, reasonable people do with their bodies. It just doesn't. The US was formed not just freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. I don't care what you believe. But what you personally believe should not infringe on my rights on my body autonomy and my family planning.

This. Your religious beliefs have no business determining my medical care. Especially when your religion deliberately ignores or misstates biological and medical facts. Plus, if your religion cares about women, how about teaching about consent and the proper use of birth control? (That could limit the ability of adult men to sexually abuse children and teens, though..)

This feels like being told "hey, you're not a full-fledged citizen, as you don't have the right to determine what happens to your own body." 
Sorry, gents (and, boy, it didn't take you two long to speak up, did it!), but when there's a "conflict" between rights, my rights as an adult (or near adult) human to physical autonomy being absolutely trump the rights of any potential maybe-person who is dependent on my body to survive.  And last I checked, a RAPISTS FAMILY in Idaho can now sue to prevent an abortion. (here's a link, since I know you're going to mansplain me to ask: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/idaho-abortion-planned-parenthood-texas-b2039330.html)

And, for everyone who's all "money, and time, blah blah" note that at 6 weeks many women don't even know that they're pregnant.  6 weeks is barely one missed period for some women.

One legislative solution, The Equal Rights Amendment, is languishing, having passed enough states now, but not being moved forward because "it's been too long" or some such bullshit. Full text: (The 2014 House of Representatives version is slightly different.)

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

[chemistk]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

Its not Christianity. It's a need to dominate and control women. That has nothing to do with religion, though of course religion can used as an excuse. Let's not sugar coat this. These people are perfectly ok with murdering women. That is about as unChristlike as you can get.

It's not that at all, and arguing that is arguing in bad faith. At least attempt to see things from their point of view instead of painting them as evil woman-hating people. For the most part, people aren't evil. They usually view themselves as doing the right thing, even if things don't always look that way from the outside. Spreading hate on the internet doesn't do anything helpful.

Christians (for the most part, but probably others as well) on the pro-life side of the issue fully believe that life begins at conception, not birth. It follows that they believe intentionally killing a fetus is murder. It isn't just men who are against abortions. I don't know many women here in the south who are pro-choice, either.

Unless we can unequivocally establish when life actually begins (good luck doing that when the Bible trumps science for most of those folks), their viewpoint isn't likely to change. The best we can do is to fight to keep guardrails and use the new ruling to do good.

1. I don't think many on the right would disagree with this, but it's important to ensure that abortions when the mother's life is in danger are still allowable.
2. Fight to ensure that abortions in the event of rape/incest are still allowable.
3. Take their belief that life begins at conception to the extreme. If life begins there, why can't we start requiring child support beginning at conception? The father should be at least partially responsible for any medical costs.
4. Donate to causes that help women travel for abortions.

Specifically to the bolded, I have Catholic and Evangelical family and family friends who believe, in their heart, that if the mother's life is in jeopardy and/or either the mother or baby die, it was God's will. They died to glorify God through the promulgation of more life. They actually believe it's a noble and worthy way to die (the unironically held belief is fraught with irony, given that they're all still here living and breathing).

To the second bolded point, the same family and family friends also believe that even in the case of rape or incest, the creation of that life was all part of the greater plan and that it's their lot in life to find joy though that pain and sorrow.

It's opinions such as these that will ensure, for as long as the modern Republican/conservative movement exists in its current form, that the end goal will always be an outright ban on abortion.

Are these beliefs extreme, ridiculous, and downright dangerous? Absolutely. But to your point, when you feel as though you have the moral high ground and that your actions and beliefs are justified against the greater cause, how can you possibly expect to effectively counter those arguments?

[Sibley]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

Its not Christianity. It's a need to dominate and control women. That has nothing to do with religion, though of course religion can used as an excuse. Let's not sugar coat this. These people are perfectly ok with murdering women. That is about as unChristlike as you can get.

It's not that at all, and arguing that is arguing in bad faith. At least attempt to see things from their point of view instead of painting them as evil woman-hating people. For the most part, people aren't evil. They usually view themselves as doing the right thing, even if things don't always look that way from the outside. Spreading hate on the internet doesn't do anything helpful.

Christians (for the most part, but probably others as well) on the pro-life side of the issue fully believe that life begins at conception, not birth. It follows that they believe intentionally killing a fetus is murder. It isn't just men who are against abortions. I don't know many women here in the south who are pro-choice, either.

Unless we can unequivocally establish when life actually begins (good luck doing that when the Bible trumps science for most of those folks), their viewpoint isn't likely to change. The best we can do is to fight to keep guardrails and use the new ruling to do good.

1. I don't think many on the right would disagree with this, but it's important to ensure that abortions when the mother's life is in danger are still allowable.
2. Fight to ensure that abortions in the event of rape/incest are still allowable.
3. Take their belief that life begins at conception to the extreme. If life begins there, why can't we start requiring child support beginning at conception? The father should be at least partially responsible for any medical costs.
4. Donate to causes that help women travel for abortions.

You're ok with women dying. Noted.

[RetiredAt63]

Going back a bit, historically a lot of abortions were chosen by women who had children and could not support another one.  Especially when birth control was difficult to access and not very effective.

So much US policy is really anti-woman.  Horrible maternity leave policies, horrible day-care policies, tax policy (joint filing seems to be a financial weapon).

I have to say here, Canada looks good because we compare ourselves to our neighbours.  If our neighbours were the Scandinavian countries we would look bad.  So I am definitely not boasting about Canadian policies or attitudes, we could be so much better.  But the US is often so much worse.

[waltworks]

You're ok with women dying. Noted.

I don't know how you took that from what DadJokes posted, which appeared to me to be an explanation of why the standard prochoice arguments aren't useful here. Prolife folks use completely different assumptions/framing when considering this issue and do NOT think of themselves as wanting to control women or promote patriarchy or whatever.

They just think fetuses are people with souls. Full stop. If you thought that, you would be pretty strongly opposed to abortion too.

Just to be clear, before someone attacks me for explaining the prolife position again, I think abortion (and free contraception) should be legal in most cases.

-W

[OtherJen]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

Its not Christianity. It's a need to dominate and control women. That has nothing to do with religion, though of course religion can used as an excuse. Let's not sugar coat this. These people are perfectly ok with murdering women. That is about as unChristlike as you can get.

It's not that at all, and arguing that is arguing in bad faith. At least attempt to see things from their point of view instead of painting them as evil woman-hating people. For the most part, people aren't evil. They usually view themselves as doing the right thing, even if things don't always look that way from the outside. Spreading hate on the internet doesn't do anything helpful.

Christians (for the most part, but probably others as well) on the pro-life side of the issue fully believe that life begins at conception, not birth. It follows that they believe intentionally killing a fetus is murder. It isn't just men who are against abortions. I don't know many women here in the south who are pro-choice, either.

Unless we can unequivocally establish when life actually begins (good luck doing that when the Bible trumps science for most of those folks), their viewpoint isn't likely to change. The best we can do is to fight to keep guardrails and use the new ruling to do good.

1. I don't think many on the right would disagree with this, but it's important to ensure that abortions when the mother's life is in danger are still allowable.
2. Fight to ensure that abortions in the event of rape/incest are still allowable.
3. Take their belief that life begins at conception to the extreme. If life begins there, why can't we start requiring child support beginning at conception? The father should be at least partially responsible for any medical costs.
4. Donate to causes that help women travel for abortions.

I'm sorry, this is not enough. For whatever reason a minority believes personnhood is bestowed at conception. That minority opinion does not give than minority the right to dictate what other, reasonable people do with their bodies. It just doesn't. The US was formed not just freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. I don't care what you believe. But what you personally believe should not infringe on my rights on my body autonomy and my family planning.

All of this. I'm an atheist. If someone chooses to believe in a god and apply that belief to their own life, great. Do not apply that to my or others' lives.

[Jim Fiction]

I try to stay out of political threads, and I'm probably going to regret wading into this one.

In my mind, life begins at conception. You can have every bit of research pointing in the other direction (not the case), but I was a father the moment that my wife became pregnant. My dog began to defend my wife while she was pregnant in the same way she does for the child now, because dogs knew that a new life is present. Attempting to frame the topic as a matter of a woman's choice is absurd and will never sway those who know that an unborn child is a human life.

That doesn't mean I am opposed to abortion. If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent? What quality of life would that child have? He/she would be just like many other children that I see going through my wife's classroom that are ignored by their parents. I would be willing to guess that they don't go on to be productive members of society or particularly happy with their life (huge jump to a conclusion there). Killing them while still an embryo would be a mercy. Add to that concerns about overpopulation, and I just don't see a problem with it.

DadJokes prior thoughts on the subject....

[Sibley]

You're ok with women dying. Noted.

I don't know how you took that from what DadJokes posted, which appeared to me to be an explanation of why the standard prochoice arguments aren't useful here. Prolife folks use completely different assumptions/framing when considering this issue and do NOT think of themselves as wanting to control women or promote patriarchy or whatever.

They just think fetuses are people with souls. Full stop. If you thought that, you would be pretty strongly opposed to abortion too.

Just to be clear, before someone attacks me for explaining the prolife position again, I think abortion (and free contraception) should be legal in most cases.

-W

"Just to be clear, before someone attacks me for explaining the prolife position again, I think abortion (and free contraception) should be legal in most cases. "

The cases where you don't think abortion should be legal could result in a woman's death. Which means, you are also ok with women dying. Noted.

[partgypsy]

I try to stay out of political threads, and I'm probably going to regret wading into this one.

In my mind, life begins at conception. You can have every bit of research pointing in the other direction (not the case), but I was a father the moment that my wife became pregnant. My dog began to defend my wife while she was pregnant in the same way she does for the child now, because dogs knew that a new life is present. Attempting to frame the topic as a matter of a woman's choice is absurd and will never sway those who know that an unborn child is a human life.

That doesn't mean I am opposed to abortion. If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent? What quality of life would that child have? He/she would be just like many other children that I see going through my wife's classroom that are ignored by their parents. I would be willing to guess that they don't go on to be productive members of society or particularly happy with their life (huge jump to a conclusion there). Killing them while still an embryo would be a mercy. Add to that concerns about overpopulation, and I just don't see a problem with it.

DadJokes prior thoughts on the subject....

to be fair, I agree with Dadjokes that, just bc you are biologically capable of conceiving, doesn't mean you are going to be a good mom (or dad). Agree about overpopulation. Disagree people choosing not to have kids makes them bad,irresponsible people; in fact they could have very moral ethical reasons for not having kids. That said Dadjokes makes assumption that being a good parent is all or nothing thing. I would NOT have been a good parent in my teens,early 20s. However I think being allowed to grow up and mature, also career-wise get started before getting pregnant, made me a much better mom, and a more stable life for my kids. Moms in general want the best for their kids. They will FIGHT for that. Give women the benefit of the doubt in them knowing when to start a family or not. Please.

[bacchi]

Another one I've been seeing is that it might be within the realm of possibility that some states would seek to prosecute their own residents who get abortions out of state. To get around that pesky 'interstate commerce' clause, the potential legislation would prosecute women based on the intent to receive an abortion, which would be just the most terrible precedent to set.

Missouri is trying to do this.

Texas is considering extradition for residents of other states who help Texas citizens get an abortion. (I expect California to tell Texas to pound sand.)

For all the bad about Amazon, there's at least this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/amazon-to-reimburse-us-employees-for-abortion-related-travel-costs/ar-AAWRVPR?ocid=BingNewsSearch


I don't think that's new news and there are other companies which also offer similar reimbursement, but it would be wildly interesting to see Texas/Florida and other states try and fight Amazon on this. This is that one instance where I think Amazon would be able to out-lawyer any potential prosecution, and would be a bellwether for a real-time party ideology flip should conservatives go after big business (along with the Disney debacle).

It'll be done. It's scorched earth for more votes.

[sonofsven]

To me it does not matter what any persons thoughts, feelings, morals, etc are regarding abortion and conception.
Denying women safe access to abortion/healthcare means that women are second class citizens, at best.
No freedom for women.

I *love* the outrage on the right of "the leaker", it's almost like there's no "right to privacy", eh?

[jnw]

It disgusts me the states who have trigger bans in place which don't account for the cases of incest or rape.  I don't like abortion but I think it's between God, the doctor and the woman; not a bunch of politicians.   There are going to be massive protests if this ruling passes.  I see there being huge turnout this midterm.

[EvenSteven]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

Its not Christianity. It's a need to dominate and control women. That has nothing to do with religion, though of course religion can used as an excuse. Let's not sugar coat this. These people are perfectly ok with murdering women. That is about as unChristlike as you can get.

It's not that at all, and arguing that is arguing in bad faith. At least attempt to see things from their point of view instead of painting them as evil woman-hating people. For the most part, people aren't evil. They usually view themselves as doing the right thing, even if things don't always look that way from the outside. Spreading hate on the internet doesn't do anything helpful.

Christians (for the most part, but probably others as well) on the pro-life side of the issue fully believe that life begins at conception, not birth. It follows that they believe intentionally killing a fetus is murder. It isn't just men who are against abortions. I don't know many women here in the south who are pro-choice, either.

Unless we can unequivocally establish when life actually begins (good luck doing that when the Bible trumps science for most of those folks), their viewpoint isn't likely to change. The best we can do is to fight to keep guardrails and use the new ruling to do good.

1. I don't think many on the right would disagree with this, but it's important to ensure that abortions when the mother's life is in danger are still allowable.
2. Fight to ensure that abortions in the event of rape/incest are still allowable.
3. Take their belief that life begins at conception to the extreme. If life begins there, why can't we start requiring child support beginning at conception? The father should be at least partially responsible for any medical costs.
4. Donate to causes that help women travel for abortions.

I would like to believe this, but it seems like a pleasant fantasy that I can't square with what Republicans around me are trying to legislate. Republicans in my state are trying to outlaw the termination of ectopic pregnancies.

[jnw]

Btw, Roe vs Wade was won with a majority of republican justices voting for it and also historically the Catholic church supported abortion.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-roe-vs-wade-was-decided-by-a-republican_b_581fbd44e4b044f827a78f87

"The vote on Roe vs. Wade was 7-2. Those justices supporting the case’s pro-choice outcome were as follows, including the president nominating each and the president’s party affiliation:
Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
William Douglas (FDR, D)
William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)
Lewis Powell (Nixon, R)"

[DadJokes]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

Its not Christianity. It's a need to dominate and control women. That has nothing to do with religion, though of course religion can used as an excuse. Let's not sugar coat this. These people are perfectly ok with murdering women. That is about as unChristlike as you can get.

It's not that at all, and arguing that is arguing in bad faith. At least attempt to see things from their point of view instead of painting them as evil woman-hating people. For the most part, people aren't evil. They usually view themselves as doing the right thing, even if things don't always look that way from the outside. Spreading hate on the internet doesn't do anything helpful.

Christians (for the most part, but probably others as well) on the pro-life side of the issue fully believe that life begins at conception, not birth. It follows that they believe intentionally killing a fetus is murder. It isn't just men who are against abortions. I don't know many women here in the south who are pro-choice, either.

Unless we can unequivocally establish when life actually begins (good luck doing that when the Bible trumps science for most of those folks), their viewpoint isn't likely to change. The best we can do is to fight to keep guardrails and use the new ruling to do good.

1. I don't think many on the right would disagree with this, but it's important to ensure that abortions when the mother's life is in danger are still allowable.
2. Fight to ensure that abortions in the event of rape/incest are still allowable.
3. Take their belief that life begins at conception to the extreme. If life begins there, why can't we start requiring child support beginning at conception? The father should be at least partially responsible for any medical costs.
4. Donate to causes that help women travel for abortions.

You're ok with women dying. Noted.

What in my post said that I'm anti-abortion or pro-women dying? Being able to understand the mindset of someone doesn't mean I agree with them.

I literally gave actionable steps on how to move forward in the new landscape. Painting people who disagree with me as evil does nothing to advance the cause. It only further divides.

[Sandi_k]

For all the bad about Amazon, there's at least this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/amazon-to-reimburse-us-employees-for-abortion-related-travel-costs/ar-AAWRVPR?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Nope. To file for reimbursement, other staff need to know that you got an abortion. Which means there's an accounting database in it with people's names. Which can be turned over to state legislators for prosecution in, say, TX.

It's bullsh*t. We should need "benevolent" employers to access medical care. Nor should we need to disclose our medical conditions to co-workers.

[seattlecyclone]

Is there a simple explanation for us non-Americans as to why the Federal government doesn’t just pass legislation to protect this right?

I assume that Republicans would try to block it, but don’t the Democrats control both houses?

The only means of truly protecting abortion at the federal level would be to enshrine it in the Constitution, which requires a majority in both houses of Congress as well as a subsequent 3/4 majority of states to ratify.

Any other federal law enabling access to abortion would be at risk of being dismantled or tossed out with enough political will.

This. It's not like Ireland where we could have a popular referendum for the amendment and change the constitution in less than a year.

To go into more detail, the American constitution was intended to create a limited federal government that isn't supposed to be able to legislate on every topic. Though more power has accrued to the federal government over time, states still have quite a bit of leeway in setting their own criminal laws. There's no one nationwide law defining murder or arson or theft or any number of other things, nor would it likely be constitutional for Congress to pass such a law. Prior to Roe v. Wade abortion was seen as part of the state's right to define its own crimes and punishments (so long as they don't run afoul of the constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment").

The Roe v. Wade decision, from all I've heard from lawyers on either side of the ideological divide here, was far from a masterwork of judicial reasoning. There were three concurring opinions written (these are opinions written by justices who vote with the majority but for different reasons). The leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is right that there's no explicit protection for abortion in the US constitution, and you have to make some pretty far-reaching inferences about the intentions behind different parts of the document to find an implicit one. So, this opinion seeks to push this issue back to the states. I don't agree with the effect of this decision one bit. A lot of women in red states are going to suffer needlessly, and will continue to do so until they elect state legislatures who would protect abortion rights. The legal interpretation behind it makes sense to me though.

[bacchi]

For all the bad about Amazon, there's at least this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/amazon-to-reimburse-us-employees-for-abortion-related-travel-costs/ar-AAWRVPR?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Nope. To file for reimbursement, other staff need to know that you got an abortion. Which means there's an accounting database in it with people's names. Which can be turned over to state legislators for prosecution in, say, TX.

It's bullsh*t. We should need "benevolent" employers to access medical care. Nor should we need to disclose our medical conditions to co-workers.

Some Texas legislative members are already threatening Citi.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/business/citigroup-abortion-texas-warning.html

Being in an urban area (Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston) might not help either.

Mr. Cain also vowed to propose legislation that, if passed, would authorize district attorneys from anywhere in the state to prosecute a company that violated the abortion law if the local district attorney did not take action.

[chemistk]

For all the bad about Amazon, there's at least this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/amazon-to-reimburse-us-employees-for-abortion-related-travel-costs/ar-AAWRVPR?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Nope. To file for reimbursement, other staff need to know that you got an abortion. Which means there's an accounting database in it with people's names. Which can be turned over to state legislators for prosecution in, say, TX.

It's bullsh*t. We should need "benevolent" employers to access medical care. Nor should we need to disclose our medical conditions to co-workers.

I agree, especially that it's not actually going to be used frequently by those who would need it most. And worse yet, the internet-commenter consensus seems to be that Amazon is pledging to offer this simply because it's cheaper to sponsor a single medical procedure & travel than it is to pay for parental leave and healthcare for an infant.

But that being said, I would still argue that restricting access to abortion is probably generally bad for business on the aggregate, if for no other reason than the costs that businesses incur with women leaving the workforce and/or women (and men) seeking parental leave and the extra healthcare costs.

[PDXTabs]

The Roe v. Wade decision, from all I've heard from lawyers on either side of the ideological divide here, was far from a masterwork of judicial reasoning. There were three concurring opinions written (these are opinions written by justices who vote with the majority but for different reasons). The leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is right that there's no explicit protection for abortion in the US constitution, and you have to make some pretty far-reaching inferences about the intentions behind different parts of the document to find an implicit one. So, this opinion seeks to push this issue back to the states. I don't agree with the effect of this decision one bit. A lot of women in red states are going to suffer needlessly, and will continue to do so until they elect state legislatures who would protect abortion rights. The legal interpretation behind it makes sense to me though.

It was also based on a strong right to privacy back when the GOP believed in such things. The majority opinion included two Nixon nominees (Blackmun, Powell) and two Eisenhower nominees (Brennan, Stewart).

[CodingHare]

Not really enjoying being proven right about Republican's wanting to dismantle Roe Vs Wade.  Where are all those people who vote R for the "economics" who were saying abortion rights would never actually be repealed, because it was "just" a ploy to get the religious vote?

I live in Washington State, but if Roe is repealed there is a path for a conservative majority congress to nationally outlaw abortion.  You think they are going to give a f*ck about needing 60 seats for a "mandate"?  They're going to get 50 Republican senators and a VP and ram this up our uteruses.

I am strongly considering getting the copper IUD at my next doctor's appointment.  You want to talk about FIRE on a FIRE forum?  Think about the financial implications of having an unplanned, unwanted child at 30.  Bye bye good health (pregnancy fucks most women over permanently).  Bye bye early retirement, time to buy diapers and put unwanted Timmy through college.  Oh, you don't want to raise him?  Tough, you owe child support.  You adopt him out and sign away your rights? Congrats, your family won't speak to you since you are a horrible, non-maternal person who won't raise her own blood.  Enjoy your retirement then.

[Chaplin]

Canadians take it for granted now, but it wasn't always so for us.  Read up on the legal battles of Henry Morgentaler.  The feds finally realized the people (i.e. the voters) were on the side of choice.  It seems to need a more secular society - the Catholic Church is still anti-birth control, and as Quebec went from a very religious to a very secular society the birth rate plummeted.

But yes, our Conservative parties seem to be modelling themselves on the US now, so it is a case of vigilance is ever needed.  And we have a leadership race - which way it goes will be very telling.

And Sibley and Morning Glory are right, it is a question of control - so birth control is right there on the list - I gather many US states make it hard to get?  Sex Education is already under attack, how many classes are of the "just say no"  variety?  And permanent measures seem very difficult to get unless you in your 30s or already have children.

I remember the Henry Morgentaler days. In thinking back about it now I realize just how much the media contributed to vilifying him. Perhaps not intentionally in all cases, but I don't think they had the words or the understanding of how to report on it with any degree of distance or neutrality.

As you point out, and others as well, if you want fewer abortions you get it with better education, health care, access to contraception, supports for parents, etc. If don't want any of those, and you don't want abortion, it says something very different about the underlying reasons and goals.

[PDXTabs]

For all the bad about Amazon, there's at least this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/amazon-to-reimburse-us-employees-for-abortion-related-travel-costs/ar-AAWRVPR?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Nope. To file for reimbursement, other staff need to know that you got an abortion. Which means there's an accounting database in it with people's names. Which can be turned over to state legislators for prosecution in, say, TX.

It's bullsh*t. We should need "benevolent" employers to access medical care. Nor should we need to disclose our medical conditions to co-workers.

Not quite. The benefit is for "$4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments" which "effective to Jan. 1 retroactively, applies if an operation is not available within 100 miles (161 km) of an employee's home." Reuters: Amazon to reimburse U.S. employees who travel for abortions, other treatments

[Michael in ABQ]

Btw, Roe vs Wade was won with a majority of republican justices voting for it and also historically the Catholic church supported abortion.

The Catholic Church has NEVER supported abortion. Period. Full stop.

Please show me where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or any other doctrine that is the case?

Catholics believe that life should be protected from conception to natural death. The Church encourages a culture of life and there have been volumes written on the sanctity of life. Here are some examples from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops - the official US representation of the Church. As well as one of the many writings from Pope John Paul II who wrote extensively on life.

https://www.usccb.org/prolife/abortion
"God loves each human life from the instant of his or her conception and entrusts this gift to the protection of a mother and father. Abortion ends the life of a child and offends God. It also deeply wounds the women and men involved."

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law" (No. 2271).

Evangelium Vitae: The Value and Inviolability of Human Life , Pope John Paul II, March 25, 1995
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

"The present Encyclical, the fruit of the cooperation of the Episcopate of every country of the world, is therefore meant to be a precise and vigorous reaffirmation of the value of human life and its inviolability, and at the same time a pressing appeal addressed to each and every person, in the name of God: respect, protect, love and serve life, every human life! Only in this direction will you find justice, development, true freedom, peace and happiness!"



If/when the Supreme Court officially overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion will default to the state level as enumerated in the 9th and 10th amendments. New York, California and many other Democratic controlled states will allow abortions while Wyoming, Utah, and other Republican controlled states will likely ban it entirely. Other states will fall somewhere in that spectrum.

[PoutineLover]

This is a fucked up situation and really solidifies that women are second-class citizens in America.
I had to have a D&C to remove a deceased, very much wanted fetus after 12 weeks. I cannot imagine being told that I had to wait for it to pass naturally and risk infection instead of giving me the choice to make the best medical decision for myself. And there are much worse situations waiting to happen if protections for abortions are gone. Men (or anyone really) trying to control or justify control of women need to back the fuck off. America should not be a christian dictatorship, and that's what this decision leads towards.
Women's rights are human rights.

[bacchi]

For all the bad about Amazon, there's at least this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/amazon-to-reimburse-us-employees-for-abortion-related-travel-costs/ar-AAWRVPR?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Nope. To file for reimbursement, other staff need to know that you got an abortion. Which means there's an accounting database in it with people's names. Which can be turned over to state legislators for prosecution in, say, TX.

It's bullsh*t. We should need "benevolent" employers to access medical care. Nor should we need to disclose our medical conditions to co-workers.

Not quite. The benefit is for "$4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments" which "effective to Jan. 1 retroactively, applies if an operation is not available within 100 miles (161 km) of an employee's home." Reuters: Amazon to reimburse U.S. employees who travel for abortions, other treatments

No one has to be told. If Amazon doesn't have a exclusion for abortions, it is liable. All it takes is one nosy, taliban, neighbor to notice that pregnant Jane left "for work" and came back not pregnant (there's a 4 year statute of limitations on being able to sue).

[CodingHare]

This is a fucked up situation and really solidifies that women are second-class citizens in America.
I had to have a D&C to remove a deceased, very much wanted fetus after 12 weeks. I cannot imagine being told that I had to wait for it to pass naturally and risk infection instead of giving me the choice to make the best medical decision for myself. And there are much worse situations waiting to happen if protections for abortions are gone. Men (or anyone really) trying to control or justify control of women need to back the fuck off. America should not be a christian dictatorship, and that's what this decision leads towards.
Women's rights are human rights.

Not to mention all the trans and nonbinary folks out there who would experience traumatic gender dysphoria if forced to continue a pregnancy.  But Republicans give zero damns about mental health in general, so that tracks.

[OtherJen]

Not really enjoying being proven right about Republican's wanting to dismantle Roe Vs Wade.  Where are all those people who vote R for the "economics" who were saying abortion rights would never actually be repealed, because it was "just" a ploy to get the religious vote?

I live in Washington State, but if Roe is repealed there is a path for a conservative majority congress to nationally outlaw abortion.  You think they are going to give a f*ck about needing 60 seats for a "mandate"?  They're going to get 50 Republican senators and a VP and ram this up our uteruses.

I am strongly considering getting the copper IUD at my next doctor's appointment.  You want to talk about FIRE on a FIRE forum?  Think about the financial implications of having an unplanned, unwanted child at 30.  Bye bye good health (pregnancy fucks most women over permanently).  Bye bye early retirement, time to buy diapers and put unwanted Timmy through college.  Oh, you don't want to raise him?  Tough, you owe child support.  You adopt him out and sign away your rights? Congrats, your family won't speak to you since you are a horrible, non-maternal person who won't raise her own blood.  Enjoy your retirement then.

I'm 44 and still have regular periods. Pregnancy is unlikely (given my history of infertility) but not impossible, and at my age, it would be a super-geriatric pregnancy with a high risk of complications. Not liking those odds, especially as I live in a state with a trigger ban.

I think it's time to take permanent preventative measures to avoid being arrested for a spontaneous abortion (i.e., miscarriage) or other condition requiring a D&C or similar procedure (my mom had that done a couple of times for uterine fibroids) or being denied lifesaving health care to prioritize a fetus. Tubal ligation seems safest.

[jrhampt]

CodingHare mentioned something that I hadn't been concerned about previously...I live in a blue state with abortion rights protected by law.  But of course GOP is only for "states rights" when the state in question agrees with their position.  If Roe gets overturned, what's to stop Congress from outlawing abortion at the federal level? 

I left Texas in my teens and would never move back there for many reasons, including the precarious state of reproductive freedom there.  But if abortion were outlawed at the federal level, you'd see a lot of people traveling to Canada for medical tourism reasons.

I'm glad I'm in my mid-forties and won't have to worry about this for too much longer (direct personal consequences, that is...unless contraception comes under attack eventually as well, which is not out of the realm of possibility), but I'm not out of the woods yet.  If I were to become pregnant now, while unlikely, it would by definition be a high-risk pregnancy with many ways it could go wrong.

[dividendman]

Chief Justice Roberts just verified that the opinion is authentic, it looks like federal abortion rights will not exist in a few months when the opinion is officially delivered.

As usual, poor people will be the only ones really screwed by this.

However, I do agree with seattlecyclone that the original Roe opinion was flimsy at best and this one (overturning Roe and Casey) has much better logic. That's little consolation to all the poor women who will die/have their lives ruined by this decision though.