it’s actually saying that power to the states isn’t as bad as people thought it would be.
Is that because you didn’t read the article or are you having difficulty interpreting the data?
The women in the states that banned abortions are getting them by travel to states where abortion isn’t banned. How would that work against Democrats that champion the idea of a woman’s ability to chose what to do with their own bodies? Do you think that the women that traveled to another state preferred the travel to getting treatment in their own state?
Other articles point out other massive detriments to abortion restrictions, like mothers dying from childbirth 62% higher in states with abortion bans. source.
“To compare maternal death rates (deaths during pregnancy, at birth, or within 42 days of birth) in states with abortion bans or restrictions to those without, we examined the most recent three years of data.7 We found that maternal death rates were 62 percent higher in 2020 in abortion-restriction states than in abortion-access states (28.8 vs. 17.8 per 100,000 births). Notably, across the three years presented in Exhibit 4, the maternal mortality rate was increasing nearly twice as fast in states with abortion restrictions.”
So pro-force-birth folks are successful in killing more mothers. Great success?
How does any of this play worse for Democrats wanting the right for a woman to choose?
By giving power to the states, you will always have some states that allow abortions and some that do not, hence why we have the problem to begin with. Since each state is part of the same country, access to abortions will always be available, albeit at the cost of traveling to a nearby state.
There was a lot of fear of people going to jail or getting in trouble for doing this, which hasn’t happened.
We’re too big of a country to not take a more tribal approach to laws. Imagine if the tables were turned and we could decide which states had access to guns. I would think many would be in favor of this.
By giving power to the states, you will always have some states that allow abortions and some that do not, hence why we have the problem to begin with.
That was the same defense used 200 years ago for justifying slavery in the USA. It was a bad argument then, and its a bad argument now when you’re casually dismissing the rights and control of someone’s own body.
Since each state is part of the same country, access to abortions will always be available, albeit at the cost of traveling to a nearby state.
And those that cannot afford to travel to another state? The poor. They are forced to bring to term children they don’t want (and possible cannot afford). I appreciate you raising this point as it underscores and argument of mine against abortion bans.
Abortion bands are bans only for the poor. The rich can travel out of the country without a thought. The middle class could do the same with a 2nd mortgage on the house. The poor are the only ones without assets to tap of any kind that could get them to a safe abortion.
There was a lot of fear of people going to jail or getting in trouble for doing this, which hasn’t happened.
We’re too big of a country to not take a more tribal approach to laws.
And yet we have a system that establishes laws at a Federal level to grant basic freedoms that overrule state laws. Are you arguing that all federal laws should be repealed because they aren’t tribal enough?
Imagine if the tables were turned and we could decide which states had access to guns. I would think many would be in favor of this.
We’re not even enforcing the WHOLE 2nd Amendment today at the state, local or federal level. Which part of “As part of a well regulated militia…” are school shooters a part of?
Slavery is the same as abortion pills? Wow. Regarding rights, more than half of the US is women. Many women also don’t support abortions. They have the same right to voting for what they want in the state they live.
Mail order abortion pills.
Nobody will have to travel out of country for an abortion. That’s a moot point based on fear mongering.
I was indeed incorrect about people being jailed related to abortion bans. Those laws and cases are stupid. Their laws should only apply to access and not after-care.
I’m suggesting we could take a more granular approach to some laws at a federal level. Not all.
The 2nd amendment was not intended for only militias, but also individuals. Point being, would you not find power to the states appealing in that regard?
I think people have relied on the federal government to protect them too much and let their individual states become radicalized. Now they have to be involved in effecting change within the state they live. In the long term I think this is a good step toward more progressive state governments.
Nice strawman. Try again. I said you’re arguing a person’s freedom should depend on what state they are in. Slavers argued the same.
Regarding rights, more than half of the US is women. Many women also don’t support abortions.
And no one is forcing those women to get an abortion. They are free to live abortion free for their entire lives. No one is going to arrest them if they choose to not get an abortion.
Mail order abortion pills.
Nobody will have to travel out of country for an abortion. That’s a moot point based on fear mongering.
I cited a specific case above where a woman was arrested in their own state for having abortion pills. Clearly the abortion bans are oppressing those women too and putting them at legal risk.
I was indeed incorrect about people being jailed related to abortion bans. Those laws and cases are stupid. Their laws should only apply to access and not after-care.
I agree that abortion bans are stupid.
I think people have relied on the federal government to protect them too much and let their individual states become radicalized. Now they have to be involved in effecting change within the state they live. In the long term I think this is a good step toward more progressive state governments.
So things like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 shouldn’t have happened because it forced specific states to allow fair voting for racial minorities even though state laws in those targeted states were supported by the state residents?
Abortion should be legal federally. It is not and we’re beholden to the Supreme Court. If the majority of the country wanted abortion to be illegal, we’ll be begging for states’ rights.
If you mean at the Federal level, I agree with this statement, but that appears to be a radical shift from your position in this conversation up to now. What caused this change in your stance?
It is not and we’re beholden to the Supreme Court.
Not exactly, but more right than wrong. Congress could pass a law making it legal, however there are hundreds of examples of this where rights derived from the Constitution arrive as judgments in court instead of an explicit law. Its been working pretty well up to now.
If the majority of the country wanted abortion to be illegal, we’ll be begging for states’ rights.
I’m not following you here. Give more context to your hypothetical. Which of these are you saying:
“If abortion was legal at the Federal level and the majority of the country wanted abortion to be illegal, we’d be begging for states’ rights”?
Or
“If abortion was not defined at the Federal level which is the current case and the majority of the country wanted abortion to be illegal, we’d be begging for states’ rights”?
I’ve always felt it should be federally legal, but much of the country doesn’t so not possible now and state laws are a protection. Congress could do things to make it legal but really it’s up to the Supreme Court and not much power there.
Throughout history implementing power to the states has been a stepping stone towards nationwide laws. We could see a time when the government decides to make abortion illegal across the country. In the event that happens, power to the states is a good thing until the majority sentiment shifts towards making it federally legal again.
Is that because you didn’t read the article or are you having difficulty interpreting the data?
The women in the states that banned abortions are getting them by travel to states where abortion isn’t banned. How would that work against Democrats that champion the idea of a woman’s ability to chose what to do with their own bodies? Do you think that the women that traveled to another state preferred the travel to getting treatment in their own state?
Other articles point out other massive detriments to abortion restrictions, like mothers dying from childbirth 62% higher in states with abortion bans. source.
“To compare maternal death rates (deaths during pregnancy, at birth, or within 42 days of birth) in states with abortion bans or restrictions to those without, we examined the most recent three years of data.7 We found that maternal death rates were 62 percent higher in 2020 in abortion-restriction states than in abortion-access states (28.8 vs. 17.8 per 100,000 births). Notably, across the three years presented in Exhibit 4, the maternal mortality rate was increasing nearly twice as fast in states with abortion restrictions.”
So pro-force-birth folks are successful in killing more mothers. Great success?
How does any of this play worse for Democrats wanting the right for a woman to choose?
By giving power to the states, you will always have some states that allow abortions and some that do not, hence why we have the problem to begin with. Since each state is part of the same country, access to abortions will always be available, albeit at the cost of traveling to a nearby state.
There was a lot of fear of people going to jail or getting in trouble for doing this, which hasn’t happened.
We’re too big of a country to not take a more tribal approach to laws. Imagine if the tables were turned and we could decide which states had access to guns. I would think many would be in favor of this.
That was the same defense used 200 years ago for justifying slavery in the USA. It was a bad argument then, and its a bad argument now when you’re casually dismissing the rights and control of someone’s own body.
And those that cannot afford to travel to another state? The poor. They are forced to bring to term children they don’t want (and possible cannot afford). I appreciate you raising this point as it underscores and argument of mine against abortion bans.
Abortion bands are bans only for the poor. The rich can travel out of the country without a thought. The middle class could do the same with a 2nd mortgage on the house. The poor are the only ones without assets to tap of any kind that could get them to a safe abortion.
The facts would disagree with you:
And yet we have a system that establishes laws at a Federal level to grant basic freedoms that overrule state laws. Are you arguing that all federal laws should be repealed because they aren’t tribal enough?
We’re not even enforcing the WHOLE 2nd Amendment today at the state, local or federal level. Which part of “As part of a well regulated militia…” are school shooters a part of?
Slavery is the same as abortion pills? Wow. Regarding rights, more than half of the US is women. Many women also don’t support abortions. They have the same right to voting for what they want in the state they live.
Mail order abortion pills.
Nobody will have to travel out of country for an abortion. That’s a moot point based on fear mongering.
I was indeed incorrect about people being jailed related to abortion bans. Those laws and cases are stupid. Their laws should only apply to access and not after-care.
I’m suggesting we could take a more granular approach to some laws at a federal level. Not all.
The 2nd amendment was not intended for only militias, but also individuals. Point being, would you not find power to the states appealing in that regard?
I think people have relied on the federal government to protect them too much and let their individual states become radicalized. Now they have to be involved in effecting change within the state they live. In the long term I think this is a good step toward more progressive state governments.
Nice strawman. Try again. I said you’re arguing a person’s freedom should depend on what state they are in. Slavers argued the same.
And no one is forcing those women to get an abortion. They are free to live abortion free for their entire lives. No one is going to arrest them if they choose to not get an abortion.
I cited a specific case above where a woman was arrested in their own state for having abortion pills. Clearly the abortion bans are oppressing those women too and putting them at legal risk.
I agree that abortion bans are stupid.
So things like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 shouldn’t have happened because it forced specific states to allow fair voting for racial minorities even though state laws in those targeted states were supported by the state residents?
Abortion should be legal federally. It is not and we’re beholden to the Supreme Court. If the majority of the country wanted abortion to be illegal, we’ll be begging for states’ rights.
If you mean at the Federal level, I agree with this statement, but that appears to be a radical shift from your position in this conversation up to now. What caused this change in your stance?
Not exactly, but more right than wrong. Congress could pass a law making it legal, however there are hundreds of examples of this where rights derived from the Constitution arrive as judgments in court instead of an explicit law. Its been working pretty well up to now.
I’m not following you here. Give more context to your hypothetical. Which of these are you saying:
Or
I’ve always felt it should be federally legal, but much of the country doesn’t so not possible now and state laws are a protection. Congress could do things to make it legal but really it’s up to the Supreme Court and not much power there.
Throughout history implementing power to the states has been a stepping stone towards nationwide laws. We could see a time when the government decides to make abortion illegal across the country. In the event that happens, power to the states is a good thing until the majority sentiment shifts towards making it federally legal again.