Disaster! (Justice Kennedy Resigns)

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

No comment on the choice between "Pro-life on the national level" versus "sending it back to the states".

As I wrote in the previous thread, some people are so wedded to the combination of choice AND national that there is to be no discussion of alternatives even in the face of needing to discuss the alternatives.

[Primula Baggins]

I think most pro-choice people are more pragmatic than that.

[Frelga]

Yeah, I think the priority is less "state's rights" and more "will the state I live in make sure that I don't survive my pregnancy."

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I think most pro-choice people are more pragmatic than that.

I don't see much evidence of that.

[yovargas]

I have heard literally zero prochoice people suggest that national pro-life laws would be preferable to allowing it in some states.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I have experience with plenty who say that national pro-choice is the only option and daring to say sending it back to the states is a horrible thing to say.

[Primula Baggins]

National pro-choice is no longer an option and may not be for decades. If the only option is national pro-life with no state-level option, that would be horrible; women would die every year trying to abort themselves.

They would also die if states were allowed to set their own standards. This is because in anti-choice states, many women trapped by unwanted pregnancy would have no resources or ability to travel hundreds of miles to a state that might allow them an abortion. Some at least would take the illegal route, or try to do it themselves.

And, please don't tell me it's their fault for having an unplanned pregnancy. I had one, despite being married and doing everything possible to avoid it. It has happened to many—actually, most of the married women I know. Most of us were able to take it in stride. In my case, it was simply earlier than we had planned; we wanted the baby; just, six months later would have been easier (and boy oh, boy, would it have been easier). The point is, it doesn't just happen to irresponsible people.

And even if it does—do we deny medical care to people who have car accidents that are their fault?

[yovargas]

I'm pretty sure that CG is pro-choice, Prim. I don't think you need to convince him that abortion should be legal.

[Primula Baggins]

I do think he needs to better understand how women think about this. It’s not some political principle; it’s directly personal for us.

[Frelga]

I always enjoy Prim's perspective and I'm glad she posted regardless of anyone else's opinions.

[Primula Baggins]

[River]

And even if it does—do we deny medical care to people who have car accidents that are their fault?

Or to anyone else who fell victim to their choices (like smokers with COPD, over-eaters with metabolic syndrome, cyclists who crack their heads because they weren't wearing helmets, and so on)? For some reason, these sorts of "Well you shouldn't've" and "I don't want to pay for..." statements only pop up when it's women's reproductive health on the line.

Regarding state level regulations: those are already bearing some fatal fruit. Texas enacted some rather intense restriction on abortions and the facilities that provide them. As a result, many shut down. Currently, Texas is losing new mothers at rates that resemble developing countries. Texas public health officials won't say if there's a causal link between the loss of women's health facilities and the deaths of new mothers, but it's a little spooky, isn't it? I'm not sure how you can be pro-anything and accept what's happening to women in Texas. If it's really all about babies, well, babies need their mamas.

[Frelga]

Also, it's not just botched, illegal abortions that kill women. It's also being unable to terminate a pregnancy, planned or not, that turns out to be a threat to women's life and health for reasons that may not have been apparent before the pregnancy.

And that's not even mentioning the states that mandate unnecessary procedures or prohibit safer and less expensive options.

How Arkansas dealt with a near-total ban on abortion

Originally passed in 2015, Act 577 effectively bans medication abortion, more commonly known as the abortion pill, which is commonly used for abortion at or under ten weeks after the first day of a person’s last period. The law requires doctors who offer the abortion pill to have a contract with a backup provider with admitting privileges at a hospital — despite the safety of medication abortion. It makes patients in Northwest Arkansas travel a 380-mile round trip for abortion care in Little Rock Family Planning Services, which provides surgical abortion, to get any abortion care whatsoever.

Act 577 has been through a long legal battle. After it was passed, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland challenged it in court and it was temporarily halted. Last June, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction and Planned Parenthood appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear the case last month, which resulted in the law immediately going into effect. A 14-day injunction again halted the law.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm pretty sure that CG is pro-choice, Prim. I don't think you need to convince him that abortion should be legal.

No, C_G is pro-states-rights. It is impossible to be "pro-choice" and to also believe that individual states should be able to have the option to ban abortion.

[yovargas]

Um, no it's not, but okay.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Um, yes it is. Pro-choice means that a woman gets to choose. If a state gets to decide for her that by definition is anti-choice. There is no "if's" "and's" or "but's" about it.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

There are several ifs, ands, or buts, which I'm fairly certain you already know.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not trying to be difficult, yov, but there isn't. I'm not saying that abortion is not a complex issue; it is. It is at best a heart-wrenching decision for anyone (or should be), and I understand that some people absolutely believe that life begins at conception and ending that life is wrong. However, that does not change the fact that what the term "pro-choice" means is that you believe that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body, and that the state does not have the right to choose for her. If you believe that a state can ban abortion, you can't be pro-choice.


Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal in some states, and illegal in others. Abortion has never been banned by the U.S. federal government (though at one point is was illegal in every state). If the Kavanaugh court reverses Roe, it will not be banned throughout the U.S. (unless Congress passes legislation banning it, which isn't going to happen in any foreseeable future). But states like Texas will certainly ban abortion, and for all practical purposes, many poor women will have no access to safe abortion procedures. You can say that you are in favor of allowing that to happen but are still pro-choice, but you would lying (to yourself, as much as to anyone).

[yovargas]

I find that argument so obviously absurd that I feel ridiculous for even having to explain why. I am hoping that someone besides me or CG is capable of seeing why. I'm hoping that there are people on this board who can understand the position of people they disagree with without thinking them liars. Is anyone here still capable of that?

[Túrin Turambar]

I think there is an obvious distinction between having views on an issue and having views on how that issue should be decided within the legal/political system. Whether you believe abortion should be decided by the Supreme Court or the state or federal legislatures is different to being personally pro-choice or pro-life. In the alternative, anyone who believes abortion should be decided on a state-by-state basis can’t be either pro-choice or pro-life, because they’re accepting the possibility (or certainty) that some states will legalise abortion and some will ban it.

ETA: x-posted with yov.