Abortion Thread with a Twist

[David Floyd]

OK, I know we already have an abortion thread, but what never gets discussed by the "pro life" crowd is what to do with the babies that would otherwise been aborted, not to mention their mothers.

So, here's what I want to discuss:

1)How do you provide for the additional hundreds of thousands of babies each year, many of whom are born addicted to drugs or who have serious physical or physiological defects?

2)How do you support the hundreds of thousands of single mothers, who are suddenly unable to work, and many of whom are unable to rely on the support of their families?

3)What about the thousands of babies that will simply be abandoned?

4)How do you combat the unsanitary and unsafe underground abortion network? Coat hangers in alleys would no longer be a joke, so much as it would be a fair approximation of reality.

Ben, and others, solve those problems satisfactorily, and then we can see about actually banning abortion.

[Boris Godunov]

The day I see wealthy religious people like Elizabeth Hasselbeck going out and spending their money adopting fetuses to spare them from abortion is the day I'll take their "prolife" convictions seriously.

Not entirely relevant, but it had to be said.

[David Floyd]

That's true, and the corollary of that argument is "Who wants to adopt a HIV positive baby addicted to heroin?"

[DinoDoc]

If 'Roe' were overturned
By Laura Vanderkam
So far, most senators are withholding judgment in the battle to confirm Judge John Roberts, nominated by President Bush to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, but that hasn't stopped everyone else from trying desperately to discern the nominee's views.

Pundits are making a mini-scandal over whether Roberts was ever a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way, is fretting over Roberts' "sparse public record." James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, told supporters, "We need to be in prayer that Judge Roberts' true colors will become apparent before a final confirmation decision is reached."

The real issue at hand

On both sides, people talk broadly about wanting to know Roberts' views because the next judge will shape the "direction" of the country, but let's not mince words. Most of this angst is about one issue: abortion. Liberal groups are terrified that Roberts will bring the court one vote closer to overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that overturned state laws banning abortion. Pro-life groups hope, fervently, that he will.

I don't know whether the Supreme Court, with Roberts, will overturn Roe. I do know it won't matter much if it does.

You see, for all the rights rhetoric, abortion is not an abstract concept. It's a medical procedure requiring a doctor willing to perform it. In states where abortion is frowned upon — the states likely to ban abortion if Roe is overturned — abortion providers are already more rare than purple Volkswagen Beetles. Most abortion providers, understandably, prefer to practice in states where people support them, i.e., states where abortion won't be banned.

This reality means that however much energy is spent on Supreme Court nominee battles, a Roe reversal wouldn't change the country's total number of abortion providers much. In fact, a year after Roe is overturned, it would be the rare woman who would notice any difference in her life at all.

In the past year, as passionate people on both sides have dug their Supreme Court battle trenches, a few pro-choice organizations have attempted to rally supporters with reports on which states would ban abortion if Roe fell. Shortly before the 2004 election, for instance, the Center for Reproductive Rights announced that 21 states were highly likely to ban abortion and nine somewhat likely.

The problem with these calculations is that they tend to include pre-Roe abortion bans still on the books. Roe superseded these laws in practice. In theory, some bans would immediately become law if Roe were overturned. But this theory implies that legislators and voters in these states wouldn't be able to debate and pass laws saying otherwise.

Given the split in U.S. politics, many would do just that. Of the 21 states the Center for Reproductive Rights claims are most likely to ban abortion after Roe, seven have Democratic governors. These governors would not be able to preside over new post-Roe abortion bans without risking a party revolt. Of the other 14 states, one (Rhode Island) votes consistently Democratic in presidential races. Though not all Democrats support abortion, it's unlikely that the 60% of Rhode Island voters who chose Sen. John Kerry last fall would be inspired to support a ban.

Another state, Ohio, is too much of a political tossup to count in the ban camp. Colorado might vote "red," but the state's recent election of a Democratic senator and new Democratic majorities in its statehouse implies that the politics are pretty split.

That leaves us with 11 states. According to data from The Alan Guttmacher Institute, these states had 122 abortion providers in 2000. That's less than 7% of the 1,819 abortion providers — a fluid number, to be sure — in the USA. Most of those 122 providers (65) are in Texas. If pro-choice forces can hold on to Texas (not unlikely, given the feisty Democratic minority's tendency to flee to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum when its members are miffed) we're down to 57 providers. If the Democrats controlling the Alabama and Arkansas legislatures decided to act like Democrats, not Dixiecrats, that total could fall to 36. Spread across eight vast states, that's low enough to be useless to an average woman seeking an abortion.

In Mississippi, Kentucky and the Dakotas, 98% of counties have no abortion providers; in Missouri and Nebraska, 97% lack them. In these Roe-unfriendly states, women already have to travel hours to obtain abortions; in a post-Roe world of crossing state lines, that story wouldn't change.

Even if all three of the only "somewhat likely" states with Republican governors, legislatures and voting tendencies (Indiana, Idaho and Georgia) banned abortion, that would affect just 48 providers. In a "worst-case scenario" (for pro-choice types) that included a Texas ban, overturning Roe would affect a maximum of 170 providers, less than 10% of the U.S. total.

What are they fighting for?

In their zeal to fight over the Supreme Court, though, neither side of the abortion debate has absorbed these numbers. Few pro-life groups realize they've fought a 30-year battle to put just a handful of doctors out of business. Pro-choice forces haven't grasped that the millions they'll spend lobbying to block Bush's nominees could tip a lot of legislative races in places such as Kentucky and Texas. Or, for that matter, build a lot of clinics near the borders of states likely to enact or keep abortion bans.

Instead, over the next few years, the two sides will fight the political equivalent of World War I trench warfare — bloody contests over 6 inches of turf. Millions will be spent. Nominees will suffer the same "Borking" fate as Judge Robert Bork did in the 1980s. The filibuster might melt with the "nuclear option."

Yet in the end, a post-Roe world will look a lot like a Roe world — except we'll like each other a lot less, thanks to the battles.

New York City-based writer Laura Vanderkam is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-26-forum-roe_x.htm

[OzzyKP]

Lots of false assumptions in there. Just addressing your false assumptions would take more effort than I care to spend, and that wouldn't even address your main points (if you have any non-troll points).

So I'll just add one thought: we can't assume that every abortion today will be a born child post-abortion. Lacking an abortion fail-safe will encourage a lot more couples to use contraception.

[Boris Godunov]

That's true, and the corollary of that argument is "Who wants to adopt a HIV positive baby addicted to heroin?"

I suppose Christians should.

In practice, however, it seems that gay couples are more likely to do so, if it's allowed.

[David Floyd]

DD,

I'm not just talking about overturning Roe. I rather suspect that wouldn't be enough for most Pro-Lifers. I'm talking about an out-and-out ban, or, if you prefer, classifying abortion as the same thing as infanticide.

[DinoDoc]

Overturning Roe allows for such bans and the editorial dealt with such an eventuality. Sp the answer to your question is that not really a whole lot would change for most women.

[David Floyd]

I read the article, and I think you're missing my question. It's a hypothetical.

Premise: BK and other Pro-Lifers get their wish. Roe is overturned, AND abortion is considered murder. How we get there is unimportant. Perhaps full Constitutional protection is extended from conception. Again, who cares? Let's say it happens.

Questions: See my first post.

The point is, I want pro lifers to explain how they will deal with the very likely consequences of their ideal scenario.

[HalfLotus]

From http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

[Elok]

Yawn. Immoral acts do not cease to be immoral because they have socially-desirable effects for the (remaining) populace. Killing all the homeless would solve a lot of problems too. But my general answer would be a massive contraceptive initiative to largely do away with the need for abortions. It's the idiotic fundamentalist position on condoms and the pill that keeps many of them "necessary."

[David Floyd]

Yawn. Immoral acts do not cease to be immoral because they have socially-desirable effects for the (remaining) populace. Killing all the homeless would solve a lot of problems too.

Granted, but not the point.

But my general answer would be a massive contraceptive initiative to largely do away with the need for abortions.

I agree, but we both know that lots of people, especially kids, won't use condoms, and lots of people, like the poor/homeless/drug addicts can't afford condoms.

It's the idiotic fundamentalist position on condoms and the pill that keeps many of them "necessary."

I agree; many Pro Lifers will not.

[Theben]

But my general answer would be a massive contraceptive initiative to largely do away with the need for abortions. It's the idiotic fundamentalist position on condoms and the pill that keeps many of them "necessary."

ftw

[Darius871]

Premise: BK and other Pro-Lifers get their wish. Roe is overturned, AND abortion is considered murder. How we get there is unimportant. Perhaps full Constitutional protection is extended from conception. Again, who cares? Let's say it happens.

And what if my uncle had pedals and wheels, would he be a bicycle? What if I had a permanent kegger attached to the top of my head?


It's a pointless discussion when the counterfactual you propose is absurd in the first place. The only thing remotely within the realm of possibility is 1) a 2-3 seat shift in the Supreme Court overturning Roe plus 2) roughly half of the states adopting their own bans. Then women in those states who aren't scared into contraception by the changed legal situation hop a bus over to the nearest blue state (or Canada for Mexico if closer) for their marginally more expensive carvejobs. Meanwhile Ben et al of course aren't fully satisfied, but at least see their states doing the best they can without federal intrusion and don't go quite as ape-**** as they are now. Everybody wins.

[Ben Kenobi]

Catholics are fundamentalists? Who knew?

BTW Elok your Orthodox mates don't accept Contraception either.