Life After Roe Would Not Be Simple

By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in News

Looks like the forces waging the war over Roe are digging the trenches for another (final?) battle. South Dakota is on the verge of all but banning abortion, a move that will almost certainly spawn a case that is appealed to the Supreme Court. To people like South Dakota State Representative Roger Hunt, this move is good and proper. But pro-choice groups are less than thrilled. Planned Parenthood has already started a fund to fight the law.

I am far from unconvinced this move will work for South Dakota. But let’s pretend for a moment that years of Republican machinations and court appointments finally do pay off and Roe is overturned. What then? A rash of states would follow in South Dakota’s footsteps. Others would rush to affirm the right to choose. And America would become a nation of quilted abortion rights where the well-located and well-off would still have access to the procedure but where the poorly located and poor-of-means would not.

The landscape in post-Roe America would be complex. Politicians who for years have railed against abortion would be forced to actually stand up and act. But those actions will have many unintended consequences. Will the welfare ranks swell in pro-life states as more and more babies are born to poor mothers? Will the prisons hold young mothers who broke the law by seeking back-alley abortions? Will these states respond with initiatives to reduce unwanted pregnancies and help mothers who have not the means to help themselves?

The strong, unyielding rhetoric of pro-life politicians may sound like leadership now, but how will it sound when the real consequences of an abortion ban are made clear? Will they have the fortitude to compassionately handle the swell of unwanted children?

This is not and has never been a black-and-white issue. For my part, I abhor abortion. But I am not at all focused on banning it. Instead, I focus my energies on considering means to reduce abortions. How do we 1) reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and 2) provide the societal incentives and community support necessary to convince mothers to carry their babies to term.

Roe has a divisive hold on the American mind. But freeing ourselves from its grip does not require overturning the case. Instead we must change our focus on this issue. We must stop treating abortion as if it were either a God-given right or the most-brutal of evils. It isn’t so simple. And the solutions will not come in a court room.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 28th, 2006 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

31 Responses to “Life After Roe Would Not Be Simple”

  1. Meredith Says:

    “The strong, unyielding rhetoric of pro-life politicians may sound like leadership now, but how will it sound when the real consequences of an abortion ban are made clear? Will they have the fortitude to compassionately handle the swell of unwanted children?”

    Ummmmmm . . . . . . . no. There are enough conservatives running around these days that have never had the fortitude to compassionately handle anything. Until conservative politicians decide that it should be a priority to help the sick, poor, indigient people in this country, it is absolutely silly to think that they would suddenly care about an increase of unwanted children. Instead, I predict that they will make more cuts in social and welfare programs.

  2. wj Says:

    The first bit of fun, should Roe be overturned, will be everybody scrambling to figure out what their current state law actually is. Because pre-Roe, abortion was being gradually legalized in various places. But who remembers what the law in each place was?

    And then there is the question of the impact of laws passed since. If abortion was illegal in your state pre-Roe, and you passed a law to restrict abortion since, does that law’s language amount to legalizing abortion, except for the specific instances it restricts?

    What fun!

  3. DosPeros Says:

    And the solutions will not come in a court room.

    Correct, the solutions will come at the ballot box.

    This is not and has never been a black-and-white issue.

    It is for the one getting aborted.

    But those actions will have many unintended consequences.

    Perhaps. But the consequences of the “act” of sex are pretty much known at this point.

    The strong, unyielding rhetoric of pro-life politicians may sound like leadership now, but how will it sound when the real consequences of an abortion ban are made clear?

    Yet another reference to consequences, this time with a “real” modifier. Granted, this is a complex issue, but the “real” consequences of having unprotected sex is illustrated for me at 2AM with mustard colored poopy diapers. It doesn’t get more real than that.

    How do we 1) reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and 2) provide the societal incentives and community support necessary to convince mothers to carry their babies to term.

    Pro-life advocacy groups and Christian/Catholic charities have been engaged in this form of non-legal, spiritual struggle for a long time.

    Roe has a divisive hold on the American mind. But freeing ourselves from its grip does not require overturning the case.

    Obviously it does require just that. If it didn’t, then it would have a “devisive hold” on the American mind. Either one has a constitutional right to an abortion or they don’t. The only way to break the devisive hold of Roe is to put abortion back were it should be — in the hands of voters.

    We must stop treating abortion as if it were either a God-given right or the most-brutal of evils. It isn’t so simple.

    Okay God, thank you for the clarification. I have a few other questions: What were you thinking when you designed the platipus?

    Will the prisons hold young mothers who broke the law by seeking back-alley abortions?

    They’ll only be mothers if the abortion wasn’t successful.

    And America would become a nation of quilted abortion rights where the well-located and well-off would still have access to the procedure but where the poorly located and poor-of-means would not.

    This doesn’t exactly correspond with the Red state – Blue State maps I have seen. But regardless, what does “well-located” mean? Abortion states? States with nice views?

  4. Meredith Says:

    Any laws that were in effect pre-Roe would have been repealed long ago, unless they remain current. Any laws that would be current when Roe is overturned would remain in effect, because if Roe is overturned, it will be up to individual states to decide how they want to handle it. However, if Roe is overturned, many states may write new abortion laws, in which case they will repeal all the old ones. The point is, we don’t need to worry about all the abortion laws of the past because that’s not the way legislation works.

  5. DosPeros Says:

    Until conservative politicians decide that it should be a priority to help the sick, poor, indigient people in this country, it is absolutely silly to think that they would suddenly care about an increase of unwanted children.

    Meredith — Are you saying that aborting the child is more “caring” then failing to provide social services to them?

  6. Meredith Says:

    Dos – Did I say that? No. What I’m saying is that there are many people in this country, who I have no doubt would fight for a child’s right to life all damn day long, but once they are born, they would not make sure that that child has adequate living conditions, such as medical care, food, shelter, etc. Oh, but I guess that’s the mother’s problem. Hooray for conservative pro-lifers who are saving babies!!!

  7. DosPeros Says:

    Hooray for conservative pro-lifers who are saving babies!!!

    I don’t just save the babies Meredith. I make them too! All pro-choicer’s can send there checks to:

    The DosPeros Puppies Foundation
    69 Fertility Lane
    Sweet Doggy Love City, Missouri 64114

  8. Booker Rising Says:

    Life After Roe Would Not Be Simple

    Life After Roe Would Not Be Simple
    Asserts Alan Stewart Carl, a moderate blogger, about South Dakota’s recent legislative challenge to the ruling: “The landscape in post-Roe America would be complex. Politicians who for years have railed against abo…

  9. Alan Stewart Carl Says:

    To clarify: well-off women who want an abortion in post-Roe America will have no difficulty getting one. If they live in a pro-life state, they’ll just fly to a pro-choice one. Poor women who want an abortion won’t have such convenience. If they live in or on the border with a pro-choice state, they’ll be able to get an abortion. If not? Well, they’ll be criminals for seeking one in their own state.

    That’s not to place a value judgement, just a statement of what will happen.

    As for the God thing–my point was merely that some people think it’s a God-given right, some people think it’s a brutal evil. I don’t think either view is conducive to actually moving forward on this issue.

    But I have no idea about what the thinking behind the platypus was.

  10. Blue Neponset Says:

    I have trouble reconciling the idea that abortion will be left up to the states if Roe is overturned with the fact that Congress has passed a ‘partial-birth’ abortion ban. If the Supreme Court upholds that ban what is to stop Congress from passing a South Dakota like law which practically eliminates abortion?

  11. probligo Says:

    How many remember the consequences when the Republic of Ireland banned all abortions? Those that could afford the airfare and the cost went to Liverpool. The rest went “backstreet”.

    There is the precedent.

    As for abortion itself, I make no secret.

    First trimester – no problem
    Second trimester – grey but medical emergency and gross fetal malformation acceptable
    Third trimester and PBA – NO! The technology exists to keep these babies alive from premature birth, abortion is therefore murder. (PBA – Partial Birth Abortion).

  12. Meredith Says:

    Blue,

    If the Supreme Court upholds the ban on PBA, that will be the law (although it would have to be decided if federal preempts state law). If Congress passes any more federal laws, the Supreme Court can decide if those laws are constitutional (if/when they take that case), and then there will be a federal vs. state battle to decide whether the federal abortion laws preempt state laws. That may be a question under the Commerce Clause. If it is determined that abortion falls under Congress’ power to regulate commerce, then the federal law will be supreme and will preempt state law. I’m sure there are other ways to argue that federal preempts state, but the Commerce Clause is the first I thought of. The point: It will be a LONG and VERY UGLY MESS!!!!!

  13. Dan Says:

    “South Dakota is on the verge of all but banning abortion, a move that will almost certainly spawn a case that ends up in the Supreme Court.”

    Oy gevalt. With all respect, Alan, it almost certainly will not end up in the Supreme Court. Here is what will happen:

    1. The governor will sign the bill.
    2. However, the law will never go into effect, because any of a variety of groups will file suit in federal court to block the law’s enforcement.
    3. The judge will issue an order blocking the law — as he/she must, because under current law, it is clearly unconstitutional.
    4. South Dakota will appeal this order.
    5. The appeals court will also block the law, because it is clearly unconstitutional. See step 3.
    6. South Dakota will appeal to the Supreme Court.
    7. The Supreme Court will turn the case down. Believe it or not, they do not hear every single case dealing with abortion that has ever been brought. The reason they usually accept cases is because the law is unclear, and they want to clarify it. Here, the law is clear — South Dakota’s law is unconstitutional.

    8. End of story.

    I’m certainly not suggesting that it’s beyond the realm of possibility that someday, the Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. But to suggest that they will do it all at once, and will do it with this case, is simply preposterous. The Justices are not revolutionaries; they make changes gradually.

  14. GN Says:

    Being a male I would never presume to understand what this means for the ladies tht will have to deal with it. I am pretty sure that one like Dos (who made a clear statement that it is better to withhold social services rather than abort) is simply going on ideals and religious belief. I can’t fault him for that BUT I can assure that there are plenty of Quote Pro-Lifers Unquote who don’t really giva a damn and will probably invest in firms that manufacture …. Hangers

  15. alan Says:

    Well the position in SD was laid out when they said a woman must carry the child of a rapist.

    Abortion will happen. It will probably be surprisingly safe. There will be an active underground as there is with gun owners and pot smokers, a new law to alienate millions from society and to be enforced hypocritically.

  16. CaseyL Says:

    Why is everyone assuming that a SCOTUS reversal of Roe will toss the hot potato back to the states? Roe legalized abortion nationwide; why wouldn’t a reversal also apply nationally?

    In 1991, the people of Washington State passed Initiative 120, which put abortion rights in the state legal code. The initiative was designed specifically in case Roe was overturned. If SCOTUS does leave post-Roe abortion policy up to the states, RCW 9.02 will keep abortion legal here.

    The point has been made, but bears repeating: In a post-Roe America, abortion will still be an option for anyone who can afford to go to Canada, or any state in which abortion is legal. It was that way before Roe ( in 1972, when I was in high school, I contributed to a fund to send a pregnant classmate to NY, which at that time had the most liberal abortion laws in the country) and it will be that way after Roe. The only people anti-Roe will affect are the people who most need legal abortion: the ones who can’t afford to go out and find it wherever it might be, or who don’t dare tell their parents. Those are the girls and women who’ll suffer the consequences.

    I have no sympathy or support whatsoever with the anti-choice crowd. Their Odes to the Fetus are scientific bunkum. They are as hostile to birth control as they are to abortion; and as hostile to programs to help involuntary mothers raise their unwanted children as they are to birth control. Their inability to understand the deep cruelty of demanding a girl or woman carry a rapist’s child to term is loathesome – as is their emphasis on punishing the involuntary mother, with nary a word about the father’s role or responsibility. The more they talk, the more it becomes obvious the real agenda of the anti-choice brigades is to punish women for their sexuality. (This is particularly grotesque in cases where the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.)

    I’m old enough to remember the pre-Roe days. The terror, the despair of being pregnant when you didn’t want to be, when an involuntary pregnancy would blight your life entirely, when it might actually endanger your health and life to carry it to term, when you had no idea if the “doctor” you were referred to for an illegal abortion knew what s/he was doing, was even a doctor at all, when the risks of bleeding to death, death by septicemia, death by massive infection, were so dire but you would risk them anyway, that’s how much you didn’t want to be pregnant…

    … damn you all to Hell who want to see those days return. Damn you smug, self-righteous, compassionless, hypocritical, misogynistic jackasses to Hell.

  17. Alan Stewart Carl Says:

    Dan,

    You are correct. I did not express that thought as clearly as I could have. I didn’t mean it would definitely be heard by SCOTUS only that it will almost surely be appealed to them. My comment that I am less than possitive that this will work for South Dakota was meant to convey that I don’t think this will be a silver-bullet case that kills Roe. But it is a great opportunity for conjecture.

    I’ve always thought Roe will die by a thousands cuts not one fatal blow.

  18. Bernie Says:

    Alan, Agree with the way you think. Stop unwanted pregnancies. I believe however that overturning ROE would be a good thing, for the very reasons you describe. This is an issue that should be decided by lawmakers that answer to the people, not by the courts. Hard line veiws on both sides would be ignored by everyone except the press and each state would develop a compromise that worked for them.

    The amount paid for 1 nationally run anti-Alito add could fly 500 women to have an abortion somewhere legal if needed. The amount paid for 1 nationally run Pro-Alito add could feed 100 new babies for a year. Stop contributing money to these groups and instead fund scientists working on improveing birth control, streamline adoption procedures, aid to new mothers, ect. End abortion the way we ended trepanning.

  19. Meredith Says:

    Casey,
    A Supreme Court reversal of Roe would toss the issue back to the states because in reversing Roe, the Court would be saying that the Constitution does not contain the right to an abortion – said another way – that the right to have an abortion is not constitutionally protected. Once this is said, individual states (or Congress) would be free to pass laws which outlaw abortion, and those laws could no longer be challanged as being unconstitutional.

    Bernie,
    The money from one anti-Alito add would pay to feed 100 babies for a year? How many babies could we feed with the money to fund the Iraq war? Answer: It doesn’t matter because that money would NEVER be allocated to feed new babies. If conservatives would start funding all these programs you mentioned NOW, I might be less skeptical. Conservatives are notorious for cutting funding for social programs, so I believe there is NO WAY IN HELL that they would suddenly be interested in helping indigent mothers care for all their unwanted children if abortion became illegal.

    Does no one really understand that the issue of abortion is just a tool that is used to stir the emotions of the conservative constituency? Everyone knows that if Roe was overturned, things would be a mess. Everyone knows that if Roe was overturned, conservatives would not allocate one more penny to help mothers or their children. That idea is absurd. If Roe were overturned, another emotion-provoking issue would simply spring up to take it’s place – I’m guessing that anything dealing with homosexuality would be the new abortion.

  20. Kim Says:

    Amen Casey L!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I resent any man to tell me and mine that we must carry a fetus to term if we chose not to. LET them develop the technology and allow them to get preggers. I bet we’ll see a big turn around when it becomes the men having to go through 9 month of an unwanted pregnancy. Planning will then be a positive force!

  21. Tim Says:

    “I have no sympathy or support whatsoever with the anti-choice crowd. Their Odes to the Fetus are scientific bunkum. They are as hostile to birth control as they are to abortion; and as hostile to programs to help involuntary mothers raise their unwanted children as they are to birth control.”

    Pretty broad brush there. You know, I was going to comment on Alan’s original post on how much I appreciated that someone else thought that we should look at the societal issues surrounding abortion rather than simply making it illegal. I want abortion to be irrelevant. But, CaseyL apparently thinks that I don’t exist, so I guess I’ll be quiet now.

    “Damn you smug, self-righteous, compassionless, hypocritical, misogynistic jackasses to Hell.”

    I’ll see you there. Wanna be roomies?

  22. Tim Says:

    Sorry, all. I cooled down a bit.

    What I should have said is:

    Not everyone who considers themselves pro-life is standing on the corner with six-foot tall photos of aborted fetuses. I consider myself pro-life in that I honestly think that abortion should eventually be made illegal. However, just making the act illegal doesn’t do anything. Abortions will still happen, it’s just that they will be made much more dangerous to the mother. I don’t see how such a society is better than the one we have.

    Instead, I want us to really attack the societal causes of the issue. What can we offer in terms of prenatal care, child care, adoption programs, food and diaper assistance, education opportunities, favorable laws for pregnant women, and so on.

    Will carrying a baby to term affect your college classwork? Fine. Let’s work on that. Will it deny you career opportunities? Fine, let’s work on that too. Can you not afford the doctor visits? The preschool? Is the father a deadbeat loser? Let’s remove all of these barriers that keep pregnant women from advancing and succeeding in life.

    I think that advocating for such changes can hardly be considered misogynistic.

    There. We’ll pretend that’s what I meant to say first.

  23. sleipner Says:

    One thing a lot of people have said is that the well-off women will just fly someplace where abortion is legal. However, I believe once abortion is illegal in a state, the next step will be to criminalize leaving the state to seek an abortion elsewhere. Harder to prosecute, but I’m sure they’ll try.

    If and only if the anti-choice crowd ever gets around to adequately supporting viable programs for universal access to and education about birth control, indigent pregnant mothers, unwanted children, daycare for poor parents, universal health care, school lunches for the poor (and schools themselves, for that matter), food stamps, and welfare, only then will there be the remotest possibility that abortion will ever be made unnecessary.

    Unfortunately all the money they could have used for those ideas has gone to tax breaks for the rich and corporations, and into funding a horribly mismanaged and overpriced war that never should have started in the first place.

  24. Brian in MA Says:

    The current abortion laws provide nothing for women.

    We keep talking a bout those poor women who NEED abortions.

    Yeah, taking 300 bucks instead of fixing poverty helps the poor.

    Abortion is simply the maintenence of the status quo. Pro-choicers don’t care about women, they just don’t want to deal with the causes of abortion and so they fight as hard as they can to try and keep it legal, lest they actually have to do something other then say: “Poor? Pregnant? Tough, get an aboriton and don’t bug me about fixing poverty”.

  25. Lynn Says:

    Nice argument, except that pro-choice Planned Parenthood’s primary business is providing birth control. Increased birth control helps “deal with the causes of abortion” by preventing it in the first place.

    The same interest groups that want to overturn Roe also want to keep Plan B out of pharmacies and focus sex education solely on abstinence. I believe there are sincere pro-lifers out there, but the people who speak for them are not sincere about saving lives, they are sincere about controlling women’s sexual behavior. And I don’t see Concerned Women for America, et al, all in knots about poverty, either.

  26. Alan Stewart Carl Says:

    Tim,

    Thank you for saying what I wanted to say.

    Casey,

    I hope you realize your self-righteousness and damnations do nothing to win over those you disagree with but instead just make them angry and more convinced that you’re wrong. Clearly you are passionate about this issue. As are many. But the issue is not black and white and trying to force it to conform to such a simplistic dichotomy succeeds only in silencing debate and ensuring the trenches stay exactly where they are.

    Some pro-lifers are crazy, this is true. But it is possible to be pro-life and compassionate.

  27. Meredith Says:

    Brian in MA,

    So pro-choicers don’t care about women, eh? And they also just don’t want to deal with the causes of abortion?

    Oh, of course. That’s why all these liberal groups are always ignoring issues of women’s rights, sex education and birth control. You’re right. You caught us. We just think it’s entertaining to kill babies.

  28. Jannia Says:

    Pro-choicers don’t care about women, they just don’t want to deal with the causes of abortion and so they fight as hard as they can to try and keep it legal, lest they actually have to do something other then say: “Poor? Pregnant? Tough, get an aboriton and don’t bug me about fixing poverty�.

    Most pro-choicers take choice seriously. We want women to have as many choices as possible, and that includes fixing a system in which having a child can effectively destroy their lives. Most of us think abortion is simply the lesser of two evils, and we’d be much happier in a world where everyone had access to 100% effective birth control, there were no rapes or foetal deformities, and every conception was intentional. And a lot of us work towards that goal, by supporting things like paid maternity leave, paid daycare, universal access to and education about birth control. All things, oddly enough, that many (many is not all, I realize there are exceptions) anti-choicers are also against.

    But implying that pro-lifers care about women is hilarous. “We realize that you find children revolting and that you haven’t had sex volontarily in a decade, and that you were raped by some stranger who broke into your house, that you’ve got medical conditions that make pregnancy debilitating and that you’re going to lose your job because it doesn’t provide maternity leave (and even if it did it would be for 12 weeks rather than the 24 you need), but your life will be so much better now that you’re being forced to carry your rapist’s offspring. You’re fulfilling your natural role! Aren’t we wonderful for preventing you from being able not to even though it’s what you want!”

    My stance in a nutshell:

    1st trimester: On demand
    2nd trimester: Health of mother, serious foetal abnormality
    3rd trimester: Foetal death, foetus that will not survive anyway (ie anencephaly).

  29. Brian in MA Says:

    “But implying that pro-lifers care about women is hilarous.”

    Pro-choice “aid”: “99% effective”* birth control. Pills, Condoms, Seminars, GADGETS!

    *rate not adjusted for incompetence of users, lack of mentioning that almost all unwanted pregnancies are caused by a failure of birth control, making it equally responsible for 90% of all unwanted pregnancies that PP says it wants to avoid. (the remaining 10% being caused by rapes etc.)

    Its been 30+ years people, the contraception programs are out there, but at 1,370,000 abortions per annum, thats 3750 unwanted pregnancies a day, and 3,375(90%) caused by BC failure.

    Furthermore there was an article about Ivy League schools having “sex ed” that included a panel of porn stars and lessons on how to strip. This is “comprehensive sex ed”? Sounds more like tittilation(excuse the pun) than education. Teenagers have no need to be told they have “options”, what they need is a authoritarian “don’t do it or your life is ****ed”. Sex ed should be run like philosophy, not wood shop(also excuse the pun).

    Pro-life “aid”: Crisis Pregnancy Centers offering material and emotional support and assistance in trying to get your life back together.

    Its funny how everyone bashes the pro-lifers for “not helping women” and then disasters like Katrina strike and nobody is complaining about those evil, selfish, medieval pro-lifers and their coming out en-masse in charity. Take a look at the soup kitchens in the neighborhood, who runs them? Certainly not the enclave of rich NARAL ladies.

    Jannia: The overwhleming majority of pro-lifers follow the adage “save two lives where one would otherwise be killed, save one where two would otherwise die”. Therefore, your implication that pro-lifers hate abortions done for true medical neccesity is unfounded. The line on rape is debated for precisely the reason that while rape is a crime, to kill a child who had no control over his father is not the automatic answer. “Rapist’s offspring”, do tell me, if the child were born, is the rapist going to come out of the shadow’s and claim his baby? Probably not. The sins of the father DO NOT belong to the son, and the offspring is EQUALLY the woman’s, who, btw. would be the one who ends up influencing the child’s life were she to give birth.

    But I suppose pro-choicers just prefer the knee-jerk reaction that comes with categorizing rape babies as “the rapist’s offspring”.

    I find it ironic you say you support 100% effective contraception, but then go about giving methods that cause nearly 100% of the unwanted pregnancies by NOT being 100% effective.

    You then state aboriton is the lesser of the two evils. Obviously the other evil must be the natural biological state of remaining pregnant, since parenting is not the only option available after birth. The LEAST of all evils is not having sex untill you are ready to deal with the biologically established realites of it. But then, that would cut into the government funds allocated for providing pills and rubbers.

    If the pro-choice groups spent half the funding on promoting the ideals you expressed Jannia, they would have gone somewhere by now. (I also find your paid meternity leave comment ridiculous. Pro-lifers are the one’s who “like pregnancy” remember? What do you care about maternity leave, you’ve got the choice of abortion already established.) As it stands we have the PDA(Pregnancy Discrimination Act) and the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act).

    Pro-choice is no longer about choice, it is about abortion. It has strayed far from the feminist ideals of Susan B. Anthony and has instead embraced the eugenics goals of Margaret Sanger.

  30. Jannia Says:

    The essence of the abortion debate is this: is murder worse than slavery, or is slavery worse than murder. Both are evil, it just becomes a matter of which evil you’re willing to live with. I think enslaving a fully realized individual is worse than murdering potential. You believe otherwise. And neither one of us can prove the other wrong.

  31. Voula Papas Says:

    This isn’t just about abortion or “saving babies” it is also about contraception, sex education and the Christian attitude towards sex. Most of all, it is about putting women back in “their place”.

    The people who want to ban abortion also want to ban IUDs, ECs and hormonal contraceptives. They may succeed in banning abortion but will they stop abortions from occuring? Those women with money will get safe abortions by travelling elsewhere, those who have no money will either self induce or have children they do not want. The result? More poverty, more childabuse and many more billion$ spent on welfare and prisons, in the long run American society will pay the price for the pro life folly. Forcing women to bear children they do not want is a fools errant.

    Poland banned abortion in 1993 and contraception is difficult to obtain. Yet Poland’s birthrate is one of the lowest in Europe 1.3%. In China where abortion and contraception are mandated by the state the birth rate is 1.7 %. In China, IUDs are designed to be tamperproof -with no string – yet Chinese women have figured out how to remove them so that they can have another child. If Chinese women can figure out how to remove “tamperproof” IUDs, I can’t see why American women should not be able to figure out how to obtain abortions when no doctor will be willing to perform one. What is needed is a good grasp of anotomy, hygenic conditions…

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: