Miers, Roe, SCOTUS, and a world without abortion ...

[Irvine511]

okay, this is NOT your typical FYM abortion thread.

let's consider the following:

[Q]Miers Once Vowed to Support Ban on Abortion
But Conservatives Still Question Nominee's Views

By Amy Goldstein and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 19, 2005; Page A01

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers once pledged that she would "actively support" a constitutional amendment banning abortions except to save a mother's life, participate in antiabortion rallies, and try to block the flow of public money to clinics and organizations that help women obtain the procedure.

Those 1989 written promises to an antiabortion group, made as she was campaigning for a seat on the Dallas City Council, came to light in documents that Miers delivered to the Senate yesterday. They emerged one day after she assured two senators that no one knows how she would vote on Roe v. Wade , the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide.

President Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Learn more about Miers's background and nomination.
Nominations to the High Court

Miers also disclosed that she was briefly suspended by the District of Columbia Bar recently for not paying her annual dues.

While providing the most definitive evidence to date that she has publicly opposed broad abortion rights, yesterday's disclosure did not appear to quell doubts among some conservatives that Miers, the White House counsel and a longtime friend of President Bush, is a sound choice to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for a pivotal seat on the nation's highest court. Her attitude toward abortion has become a central issue in the controversy surrounding her rocky nomination to the court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101800715.html

[/Q]


let's imagine, now, that Miers is confirmed. she joins the court. a few years from now, she and Roberts deliver on Bush's coded promises to "the base" and Roe v. Wade is essentially overturned, and abortion is now illegal in all 50 states except in the case where the life of the mother is in danger.

what are the consequences -- good or bad -- of making abortion illegal? what would this world look like? what would be different, what would be the same, and what would women do with unwanted pregnancies? how would they respond? if you are a woman, imagine yourself pregnant in a country where you cannot have an abortion. what would you do? would you have made different decisions, either before getting pregnant or aftewards?

i really don't want to get into an "abortion: right or wrong?" thread, but i am interested to know how people think of just how making abortion illegal would impact them personally.

both boys and girls. and homos.

discuss.

oh, a caveat: unacceptable responses would be -- "we'd live in a world where thousands of babies aren't slaughtered in a quotidian holocaust" or "women will be treated like cattle, bought and sold for their breeding capabilities."

 

[daygloeyes2]

Very interesting questions. I never really thought about these things before.

If I did wind up pregnant and found myself in a situation where I could not or did not want to carry the baby(though personally I don't think I could ever get an abortion), I would have to carry the baby. Or, I might possibly turn to more extreme measures such as terminating the pregnancy myself or getting an abortion performed illegaly.

 

[randhail]

I could both positive and negative things happening. First women who wanted abortions would either go to another country to have it done or do it through some back alley method. This would be terrible and put women at great risk. Making abortion illegal here, will not stop people that really want it done.

If people have abortions done, is that a crime? What would be the punishment? Just a couple things that come up too.

A positive I see would be people that hopefully take more responsibility regarding sex. Use condoms or some sort of birth control. I know that many people only choose abortion as a last resort, but there are some poeple that may see it as an easy way out.

 

[STING2]

okay, this is NOT your typical FYM abortion thread.

let's consider the following:

[Q]Miers Once Vowed to Support Ban on Abortion
But Conservatives Still Question Nominee's Views

By Amy Goldstein and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 19, 2005; Page A01

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers once pledged that she would "actively support" a constitutional amendment banning abortions except to save a mother's life, participate in antiabortion rallies, and try to block the flow of public money to clinics and organizations that help women obtain the procedure.

Those 1989 written promises to an antiabortion group, made as she was campaigning for a seat on the Dallas City Council, came to light in documents that Miers delivered to the Senate yesterday. They emerged one day after she assured two senators that no one knows how she would vote on Roe v. Wade , the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide.

President Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Learn more about Miers's background and nomination.
Nominations to the High Court

Miers also disclosed that she was briefly suspended by the District of Columbia Bar recently for not paying her annual dues.

While providing the most definitive evidence to date that she has publicly opposed broad abortion rights, yesterday's disclosure did not appear to quell doubts among some conservatives that Miers, the White House counsel and a longtime friend of President Bush, is a sound choice to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for a pivotal seat on the nation's highest court. Her attitude toward abortion has become a central issue in the controversy surrounding her rocky nomination to the court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101800715.html

[/Q]


let's imagine, now, that Miers is confirmed. she joins the court. a few years from now, she and Roberts deliver on Bush's coded promises to "the base" and Roe v. Wade is essentially overturned, and abortion is now illegal in all 50 states except in the case where the life of the mother is in danger.

what are the consequences -- good or bad -- of making abortion illegal? what would this world look like? what would be different, what would be the same, and what would women do with unwanted pregnancies? how would they respond? if you are a woman, imagine yourself pregnant in a country where you cannot have an abortion. what would you do? would you have made different decisions, either before getting pregnant or aftewards?

i really don't want to get into an "abortion: right or wrong?" thread, but i am interested to know how people think of just how making abortion illegal would impact them personally.

both boys and girls. and homos.

discuss.

oh, a caveat: unacceptable responses would be -- "we'd live in a world where thousands of babies aren't slaughtered in a quotidian holocaust" or "women will be treated like cattle, bought and sold for their breeding capabilities."

The United States as a country did just fine for the first 197 years of its history without having abortion be legal. Of course, many will say that there would be a rise in "Back Alley" Abortions and as a result more death to women seeking an abortion under unsafe conditions. This may be true to some extent, but at the same time, birth control is much more widely available than it was over 30 years ago and banning abortion will probably lead many to be more responsible when it comes to using birth control than current figures indicate. This could also lead to more protection from STDs as people seek to better protect themselves from pregnancies that cannot be aborted legally.

Also, RUA46 and other morning after drugs may become legally available in the United States or a large underground market for such drugs will expand.

Overturning "Roe v. Wade" in the 21st century United States would not be a complete return to pre- Roe V. Wade conditions prior to the early 1970s.

 

[indra]

I'd go to another country and get an abortion. No matter what the cost.

I guess if there was no way I could do that I would find someone here that would provide an abortion. I'm sure that for the first several years (at least) after becoming illegal there would still be doctors willing and able to provide such a service.

And then I would try to find a way to permanently leave this country.

 

[Sparkysgrrrl]

I'm dead tired and can't be arsed to type it all up again, but when I asked in another thread this -

A woman in her late twenties, with a long family history of depression/alcoholism. Is recently coming out of living in a homeless shelter for 2 years, has a job she enjoys, nice apt, still struggling but getting her life back together. Has no health insurance. Due to her family history, she has known her whole life, she never wanted to give birth to a child, or get married.

Is in a monogamous long term relationship, has been on birth control for 5 years, and yet STILL becomes pregnant.

What is she supposed to do in this situation?

I was speaking for myself and many others in similar situations. Sometimes it seems like people don't think of these things when an issue comes up. Like what would they seriously do if they were in that situation, when you come to a point you never thought you'd be in. I've known many 'pro-life' people who have had abortions, because when it comes down to it, they could not be faced with having another child.
It's not that far fetched a thing to happen, it's not some grand hypothetically question like "you're stuck on a raft with 5 family members, who do you eat first"

I don't even know how people don't think of this stuff.

 

[MaxFisher]

More sexual responsibility.

Which in turn would also lower the amount of STD cases in the US.

 

[BVS]

More sexual responsibility.

Doubt it. I think the percentage that has sex irresponsibly with the thinking they can just get an abortion is very very small.


Unfortunately I think poor sexual education would still exist.

 

[U2democrat]

More sexual responsibility.

Which in turn would also lower the amount of STD cases in the US.

But how would you enforce the sexual responsibility and make sure that people really are responsible?

 

[financeguy]

Well, abortion IS illegal here in lil' oul Ireland, so I think I can offer some perspective. It is possible to obtain information about abortion clinics abroad, also contraceptives of various forms are readily available, but abortion is illegal in all circumstances..... except where there is a threat to the life of the mother.

What we do effectively, is we export the problem to the UK. Of the (probably) hundreds of flights between Dublin and London every week, you can pretty much guarantee on many of those flights there is someone going over to have an abortion.

How Canada would hypothetically cope with a similar influx from the US, I have no idea.

 

[anitram]

There was actually a fairly long and well written article in a Canadian paper a couple of years ago about how American Fundamentalist groups would then turn their attention to revving up their base in Canada because it would be immoral that all women have to do is fly up to Buffalo or Seattle or wherever, cross the border and have a D&C, no questions asked.

 

[Sparkysgrrrl]

flying to canada for an abortion, eeks!

And I'll be damned if I'm going to Tijuana for an abortion.

 

[theblazer]

If Roe v Wade was overturned, it would simply mean that the individual states would decide if it is legal/illegal within their borders. But, being liberals, I'm sure none of you are really ever interested in facts. Just throw some shit up against the wall, and whatever sticks is the truth for you.

 

[BVS]

But, being liberals, I'm sure none of you are really ever interested in facts. Just throw some shit up against the wall, and whatever sticks is the truth for you.

Once again the troll brings light to the forum.

 

[yolland]

Well, abortion IS illegal here in lil' oul Ireland, so I think I can offer some perspective.

If I may pester you with a few questions then...

What exactly are the penalties? Do they apply only to the woman, or do they extend to anyone who helps her obtain an abortion? What's the moral logic behind making an exception for cases where the mother's life might be threatened? And what percentage of Irish women give their babies up for adoption?

**********************************
I agree with STING2 that an overturn of Roe v. Wade would not be tantamount to a return to the 1950s, though I don't share his optimism(?) about increased availability of RU486, nor about reliable access to effective, affordable contraception. In any case, there's no such thing as 100% effective contraception (voice of experience here...).

I find the notion of criminalization of abortion as an incentive to greater "responsibility" misguided. The implicit threat of "And we'll punish you [women] with a kid you don't want if you misbehave!" is a sadly ironic consequence--but an inevitable one--of framing unwanted pregnancy in terms of obligation to the state. As a parent and a human being, I'm all for greater sexual and procreative responsibility, but this starkly punitive approach does no justice at all to my moral reasons for supporting these things--on the contrary, it undermines them. It will not build care and compassion; it will not build respect for the institution of family; and it will not build reverence and gratitude for the wonder and privilege of bringing a new life into the world. You cannot legislate those things into being.

What I believe it will increase is fear, humiliation and embitteredness, just as I've already seen in a few girls I've known who were forced by their families to bear children their hearts (not their egos or wallets) could not be brought to welcome. I do appreciate that for some there is at least the negative rationale that it would prevent murder, but neither my religion nor my conscience accord with this view, and I can't accept as righteous or just a state that equates women who opt to resist an enforced pregnancy with those who kill out of hatred.

How an individual woman would be affected by having to bear (and most likely raise) an unwanted child depends on her life situation. Obviously, for most the best (i.e., least-worst) scenario would involve a securely committed relationship with a devoted and supportive partner, in a financial situation not burdened by debt, lack of insurance or sub-poverty-line income. Next best would be said financial stability, plus a devoted and supportive family--but this is unlikely, given the stresses placed on family bonds by the stigma associated with carrying an unwanted child outside a committed relationship.

Ultimately that supportive relationship, whatever form it takes, is the most badly needed thing: money will be needed too, of course, but the notion that purely monetary child support somehow constitutes "sharing the burden" is morally bankrupt bullshit.

But realistically, most women won't have any such luck, and will wind up walking the better part of this road alone, with whatever support friends can offer here and there. As anyone who's watched a girl or woman go through this situation can attest, it is a socially stigmatizing experience, not at all comparable to the exchanges of joyous anticipation which surround a woman carrying a *wanted* child, and which provide welcome compensation for the pains and--cloying pregnant madonna stereotypes notwithstanding--physical indignities of pregnancy.

Whether or not the adoption rate would increase if abortion were criminalized is an interesting question. I've seen no clearly pertinent statistics on this, but am inclined to suspect most women's sense of agency and destiny would be sufficiently altered by this experience that they'd feel psychologically unable to plunge back into their old lives as if nothing had happened--not to mention that friends, colleagues and relatives wouldn't regard them the same anymore anyway. It could even, I suppose, create a paradoxical, trapped-here-together kind of bond to the baby, with a corresponding opportunity to reimagine motherhood as a resistance to the whole cycle of forced submission (symbolically completed by giving the baby up for adoption after going through all that). But whether this would really be a good reason to keep a baby...I don't know. Doesn't seem like the sort of mother-child bond God intended, but that is not for me to judge.

Great thread idea Irvine.


~ Peace

 

[foray]

For those who've read the book:

What do you think of the thesis in Freakonomics (the book's website is www.freakonomics.com but I don't think the pertinent thesis is available online) about the legalization of abortion leading the drop in crime in the 90s?

foray

 

[Scarletwine]

 

[chickadee]

If they made it illegal here (which I don't think they'd dare) I'd take part in a protest and hope that the people who were responsible never found themselves in a situation where they might regret their decision.

 

[Irvine511]

great post, Yolland.

 

[yolland]

^ Thanks.

I'm a little surprised by the apparent lack of interest in this thread. There shouldn't be anything inherently inflammatory about imagining the experience of facing an unwanted pregnancy in a situation where abortions are unavailable.

I hope this is not because people are dismissing imagining this situation as irrelevant or "hey, not my damn problem"...?

If Roe v Wade was overturned, it would simply mean that the individual states would decide if it is legal/illegal within their borders. But, being liberals, I'm sure none of you are really ever interested in facts. Just throw some shit up against the wall, and whatever sticks is the truth for you.

Regarding the legal fate of abortion post-Roe...

There would be indeed be "decisions" made in some states, but only some. Many states, of course, still have unchallenged (pre-Roe) laws on the books banning abortion, and if Roe were overturned, they could and probably would simply go right back to enforcing them. They certainly would be under no obligation to undertake a post-Roe "decision."

Even in states where these bans had previously been challenged, no new court case would be necessary: as long as the ban had not been repealed, the state could simply move to vacate the court orders preventing enforcement. Similarly, other states have old *constraints* on abortion on the books--parental consent laws, trimester limitations, emergency contraception restrictions, etc.--and these, too, could and probably would be immediately re-enforced.

It should go without saying that "liberals" are not the only ones who have an interest in what level of government abortion is regulated at. It is hardly as if the pro-life movement has fought so long and so hard against Roe simply because they are passionate states' rights advocates who merely want the decision made by someone other than SCOTUS. Nor are they likely to rest on their laurels about what happens at the state level if Roe were overturned.

If anyone is interested in a state-by-state review of what laws are already on the books, the reproductive rights law "watchdog" Center for Reproductive Rights has a downloadable one at http://www/crlp.org/pub_bo_whatifroefell.html


~ Peace

 

[MadelynIris]

and a world without abortion

Would actually be a very cool thing.

Wouldn't it?

 

[Irvine511]

Would actually be a very cool thing.

Wouldn't it?

i'd say "a world without the need for abortion" would be a very cool thing.

 

[BorderGirl]

A world without abortion might just open up the doors for God to feel welcome.

 

[melon]

A world without abortion might just open up the doors for God to feel welcome.

Nah. Religious institutions are based on a culture of fear. We live in a world of unprecedented peace when compared to prior centuries, and they still act as if the world is going to hell.

And even if abortion was ended, it still would never be enough.

Melon

 

[BorderGirl]

Nah. Religious institutions are based on a culture of fear.
And even if abortion was ended, it still would never be enough.
Melon

I said "God", not religious institutions.

Churches help bring the Word of God to it's listeners.

Since laws are created by people, abortions will only stop when there is a change in our society, ie. people's hearts.

 

[financeguy]

Since laws are created by people, abortions will only stop when there is a change in our society, ie. people's hearts.

I would argue that your concept of God is also largely created by people. Although I have reservations about legalised abortion on demand, I prefer arguments from secular morality to religious dogma.

 

[melon]

I said "God", not religious institutions.

Churches help bring the Word of God to it's listeners.

But you experience "God" through the interpretation of religious institutions. And they will say that "God" is angry, no matter what. That's how they get their followers to do whatever they say and desire.

Since laws are created by people, abortions will only stop when there is a change in our society, ie. people's hearts.

I agree. Abortion will only end when individuals decide that it is no longer necessary. Of course, "religious institutions" have done a great job of attaching shame and stigma to pre-marital pregnancy; and this extends into the macro-level culture here in America. Until we can change this vengeful streak in our culture, abortions will continue, whether legally or illegally.

Melon

 

[MissMoo]

My thought is that the women who this would impact the most are those who don't have money to go elsewhere and have abortions. The women who don't have the money to have the children. But, will they give those children up for adoption if forced to have them? Will they abandon them in doorways? Will they go to "doctors" for herbs and unsanitary methods of abortion? Even if they have the children and attempt to raise them, how will that impact their lives? I would imagine it would make their lives harder.

 

[financeguy]

If I may pester you with a few questions then...

What exactly are the penalties? Do they apply only to the woman, or do they extend to anyone who helps her obtain an abortion? What's the moral logic behind making an exception for cases where the mother's life might be threatened? And what percentage of Irish women give their babies up for adoption?

Hi Yolland. I am posting an extract from a Wikipedia article on the subject, which appears accurate and hopefully will answer some of your questions:


" In 1983, the Republic of Ireland by referendum amended the Constitution of Ireland to add in what became generally known as the 'Pro Life Amendment', which asserted that the fetus/foetus had an explicit right to life equal to that of its mother, with the Irish state guaranteeing to 'vindicate' that right. In the referendum, the case for the amendment was argued by the main opposition party, the Roman Catholic Church, some Protestant church leaders and an pro-life lobby group called the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign (PLAC) (which had campaigned for the amendment, arguing that the Irish Courts could theoretically face their own Roe v. Wade court case) while the case against was put by a pro-choice lobby group called the Anti-Amendment Campaign, which included future President of Ireland, Mary Robinson. The arguments against the amendment were also put by the then Irish government, most mainstream protestant leaders and a minority of catholics. In the debate, no one actually advocated the legalisation of abortion.

While the 'Pro-Life Amendment' established the principle of the 'right to life of the unborn, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother' in Irish constitutional law, practical problems subsequently arose with its meaning. In 1992, a major controversy erupted over the issue of whether a suicidal minor who was a statutory rape victim, and who became pregnant, could leave Ireland for an abortion that is lawful in another country (Attorney General v. X, known as the 'X Case'). The Supreme Court interpreted the Pro-Life Amendment as giving a right to abortion in certain limited circumstances, in a judgment which came to be known as the 'X Case,' including when the mother's life was in danger.

Court injunctions issued in 1988 and 1990 under the 1983 amendment barred family planning groups and student groups from offering abortion counseling, information and aid in travelling to Britain to procure abortions. These injunctions grew increasingly unpopular, particularly after the 'X case.' Questions were also raised as to whether the bans on access to information violated provisions in the Maastricht Treaty. Two constitutional amendments were subsequently added in 1993 that guaranteed the 'right to travel' and the 'right to information' (a third amendment that would have defined when abortions could be considered legal was defeated). Due to questions about the constitutionality of the amendments, the changes did not come into force until 1995.

The issue of what form of constitutional prohibition on abortion Ireland should have (if any) has been revisited in a number of referenda, but no clear result or consensus has emerged, other than, whatever about the practicalities, in theory most Irish voters believe that a 'foetus' has a right to life equal to that of its mother, so excluding the option of choosing abortion, except in the limited grounds decided upon judicially in the 'X Case' judgment, which the Irish people in referenda have refused to narrow when offered that option.

It should be noted that, in theory, Abortion is legal in Ireland if there is a risk to the life of the mother. A provision exists in the Irish constitution to allow Dail Eireann to legislate on this, however no political party has risked it, and in the meantime, while it is legal in theory, the body that holds medical licences in Ireland considers it malpractice for any doctor to perform an abortion. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ireland

 

[VertigoGal]

financeguy: This may be a dumb question, but is abortion legal in N Ireland? I mean, why make the plane trip...

Anyway, I agree with Irvine that the best possible situation would be a world with no need for abortions, but I'm not getting my hopes up. In the meantime, I guess it's best to heed the advice my dad so very wisely gave me last night: "Don't get pregnant."