Yay! Clothes hanger abortions shall return!  :D >:(

Yay! Clothes hanger abortions shall return!  :D >:(


Well at least there WILL be less abortions.  No way to spin that.

Remember, overturning Roe vs. Wade only lets the states handle it.  No question the northeast will allow partial birth on demand abortions, but at least we can rid ourselves of this crap in the south and midwest.

Well at least there WILL be less abortions.  No way to spin that.

Remember, overturning Roe vs. Wade only lets the states handle it.  No question the northeast will allow partial birth on demand abortions, but at least we can rid ourselves of this crap in the south and midwest.


yup, much better that a woman die in a back alley somewhere, killing both possible child and mother, than to allow one to live.

If they make it a states right issue, people who want them will just cross state lines.  In other words, no real victory whatsoever.  Actually, there's likely to be less interference at clinics in the northeast, which would make it safer for the women. Abortion clinics have succeceded in allowing women to get in safely and discretely for years now due to the actions of the anti-abortion activists.

yup, much better that a woman die in a back alley somewhere, killing both possible child and mother, than to allow one to live.

If they make it a states right issue, people who want them will just cross state lines.  In other words, no real victory whatsoever.  Actually, there's likely to be less interference at clinics in the northeast, which would make it safer for the women. Abortion clinics have succeceded in allowing women to get in safely and discretely for years now due to the actions of the anti-abortion activists.

Regardless, he shouldn't say there will be less abortions, he should say there will be fewer abortions. 
Contrary to what one may expect, abortion was largely unavailable in Massachusetts prior to Roe v. Wade.  My state was the first to enact legislation making abortion a criminal offense in the 1800s.  By the 1960s, like most states, Massachusetts only permitted abortion to protect the physical health of the mother.  In the years preceding Roe v. Wade, only four states--New York, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii--allowed a woman to make the choice entirely on her own.  Thus, if a woman in Augusta, Maine, needed an abortion in 1972, she had to travel all the way to New York City. 
I don't want to return to a time when a fifteen year old, poor, alone, and desperate, will resort to measure that cost her her life because she is terrified of the authorities, and she doesn't have the resources to travel hundreds of miles.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html
I believe I am like most people who are pro-choice.  I don't like abortion.  I have ambivalent feelings about it.  However, I want to leave the choice up to the woman.  I do believe in "safe, legal, and rare." 
The numbers of abortions have gone up since Bush took office.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2851283
That's because economic privations have increased.  More poverty sets the stage for more abortions.
It bears pointing out yet again the the hypocrisy of the Right.  Anti-choicers portray themselves as "pro-life," but they always want to slash medicaid and public assistance to needy families.  Anti-choicers are not "pro-life," they merely have a fetus fetish and care nothing for the well-being of children outside their own social circles.  Conservatives with their "traditional values" are always bellyaching about the poor having more children than they can afford--but that itself is a traditional value.  The pious and the rich have always ranked on the poor and blamed them for problems caused by unjust economic policies.
Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority discovered in the '70s that abortion was the perfect issue to raise hysteria among the faithful.  Falwell and other conservatives understood that if they could anchor the Republican party to the "anti-abortion" cause, they could inspire millions to vote against their own economic interests.  The whole "pro-life" movement was created as a strategy of class warfare.

Women of means will always be able to get abortions.  If the wife or daughter of a rich Republican wants to terminate a pregnancy, she will.  The Lynne Cheneys and Ann Coulters of the world know this, and I wouldn't be surprised if both of those women had abortions at some point.  There may be millions of working and middle class people in the "pro-life" movement who are earnestly against abortion.  The power elites, however, know the abortion issue as a political ploy and would never apply such strictures to their own privileged class.

If they make it a states right issue, people who want them will just cross state lines. 


No question.  Fireworks is an example I often use, illegal in Georgia, but legal in Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee (every state around Georgia.)  People just drive over the line, load up, pay taxes in the other state, and drive on back, but there will always be a good percentage who want them who won't bother to go through the trouble (though I believe fireworks should be legal.)

Abortions will be the same.  Some will simply run to California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, and the northeast, but you gotta think; how many won't? 

And as with the death penalty, it's more of a "not in my state" type of thing.  Usually when a murderer kills someone in the most recent example, Wisconsin (where the death penalty is illegal) and the people want the guy put to death, then they simply make it a federal case and since the federal government allows the death penalty, they can kill the guy, except it won't be in Wisconsin.  Same with abortion in a way, the mother may get the abortion, but the people of the state will be happy it took place in another state, and made the mother go through a whole lot getting plane tickets or gas money and going, and all that good stuff.

Well at least there WILL be less abortions.  No way to spin that.



You think there will be fewer abortions?  I think not, and there will be no way to tell, since they will not be reported or recorded.  If, that is, the supreme court does what you expect, which is itself problematic.

As a British male who runs his own business for monetarial gain (I ain't no commie!), and has watched a number of friends suffer from miscarriages and had a friend choose to have an abortion I have seen the pain it causes. I think we can be fairly certain that the decision to have an abortion is never an easy or casual decision to take for either a lone woman or a woman with the support of a husband or family. Here in Britain the right of a woman to seek counselling and, if she so chooses, to have an abortion carried out in an NHS hospital for no charge is always going to enshrined in law regardless of the cries of the religious right and pro-life movement. The reason for this is that we never want to return to the days of the backstreet abortionists, even the sympathetic ones as portrayed in the movie Vera Drake.

I feel that the decision as to whether a woman should have an abortion is entirely her decision alone and should be supported by the society within which she lives and that she should have access to all the information and counselling necessary for her to make an informed decision.

One question that always fails to be answered in this debate is - what happens to the children? The unwanted children of unwanted pregnancies? If we could feel sure that our society was capable of providing for these children, allowing them the resources to develop into fully-formed, capable adults then perhaps the pro-lifers would have a stronger case. As it stands, in even the richest countries of the world, we allow children to live and die in squalor and neglect; we care that the child is 'born' into the world but then, feeling our work as an interfering society is done, we turn our backs on it and say "It's the parents responsibility". We allow post-birth abortion to happen on our streets every day and yet we never see protests to Washington or London about this because it isn't such a simple problem to solve; we can't take a stance and feel morally superior to any other side because we are all equally culpable through our ignorance.

But what do I know about the debate in the USA? Very little except what I've picked up from internet discussions and I realise it is a fiery issue in your country. I do however believe strongly that it is the woman's individual choice and should the pro-life movement ever start making waves in the UK I will do what little I can to support that right to choose as I am fully aware how difficult that 'choice' is to make for the woman in question without the barracking of hordes of people attempting turn her into criminal.