40th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade Decision Legalizing Abortion

[Frodo]

I ask because over the last several decades, despite Americans' nominal support of abortion rights (I suspect mostly in the abstract), it seems as if abortion throughout most of the country is legal in name only.  

This is in stark contrast to the progress abortion rights advocates were making in making access to abortion services legal and safe up through 1973, even in the South. 

[Franzl]

How could they possibly have lost more than they gained? Abortion has been legal nationwide for 40 years.

[DC Al Fine]

How could they possibly have lost more than they gained? Abortion has been legal nationwide for 40 years.

[dead0man]

it seems as if abortion throughout most of the country is legal in name only.

cite?

[afleitch]

Unlike most other countries that decriminalised abortion at around the same time, the USA has turned it into a religious and political issue in order to give religion weight and capital which it otherwise would not have had. As a result evangelical and protestant churches rushed to oppose it when previously they held rather different views on the matter.

This is worth reading;

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/

[Franzl]

it seems as if abortion throughout most of the country is legal in name only.

cite?

I imagine this might be the background:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2009/06/02/no-choice-87-of-us-counti_n_210194.html

Which is a problem, although "legal in name only" is an exaggeration.

[Frodo]

How could they possibly have lost more than they gained? Abortion has been legal nationwide for 40 years.

All the momentum since the decision has been on the side of those seeking to restrict access as opposed to expanding it -which was not the case before.   Abortion may be legal -but it has gotten to the point that it has become merely technically legal for most of the country.  On the ground, it is as if the decision was never rendered.   

[Franzl]

How could they possibly have lost more than they gained? Abortion has been legal nationwide for 40 years.

All the momentum since the decision has been on the side of those seeking to restrict access as opposed to expanding it -which was not the case before.   Abortion may be legal -but it has gotten to the point that it has become merely technically legal for most of the country.  On the ground, it is as if the decision was never rendered.   

But how is this worse for abortion rights than if it were still illegal and we were fighting to have it legalized?

That's like saying capitalists should ask themselves whether they've lost more than they've gained because a one-sided debate launched by a socialist minority wants to change things.

[dead0man]

it seems as if abortion throughout most of the country is legal in name only.

cite?

I imagine this might be the background:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2009/06/02/no-choice-87-of-us-counti_n_210194.html

Which is a problem, although "legal in name only" is an exaggeration.

Can we assume since they used "percentage of counties without" and not "percetage of women living in counties without" the numbers are nowhere near as bad as 87%?

[Franzl]

it seems as if abortion throughout most of the country is legal in name only.

cite?

I imagine this might be the background:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2009/06/02/no-choice-87-of-us-counti_n_210194.html

Which is a problem, although "legal in name only" is an exaggeration.

Can we assume since they used "percentage of counties without" and not "percetage of women living in counties without" the numbers are nowhere near as bad as 87%?

I'm sure that's true, but a large number of women have difficulty accessing abortion services, I think it's fair to say. Whether that number is 30% or 87%.

[dead0man]

ahhh, yes, only 35% of women live in a county without an abortion doctor. 



Now I'm not saying that isn't a problem, especially for the dozens of women every year that this damages, but it's clearly not one of the great problems of our nation.  Like the bloated govt, prosecution of victimless crimes, corruption, political apathy, excessive debt, etc.

[TNF]

How could they possibly have lost more than they gained? Abortion has been legal nationwide for 40 years.

From a political standpoint, they lost a lot. Had abortion rights been legalized at the ballot box rather than by the judiciary, they'd be on a lot more stable footing and wouldn't even be a political issue at this point.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Uh, no. Abortion has been legal in this country for 40 years! I don't see what they have "lost".

ahhh, yes, only 35% of women live in a county without an abortion doctor. 

Now I'm not saying that isn't a problem, especially for the dozens of women every year that this damages, but it's clearly not one of the great problems of our nation.  Like the bloated govt, prosecution of victimless crimes, corruption, political apathy, excessive debt, etc.

Why? I know I'm biased, but even from a pro-choice perspective, the question is only if the "choice" in question is legal; that is, if an abortion can be performed without penalty. The position of "oh, but it's only actually a free choice if they can walk two blocks to get one" is one that I reject. And if that were considered a problem, what would you want--force every county to have an abortion "doctor"?

[dead0man]

I agree with you for the most part, but I can certainly imagine a scenario where it is a legitimate problem for some women.  At least dozens a year.

But it's certainly not a problem looking for a new law to fix it, just like most problems.

[angus]

40th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade Decision Legalizing Abortion

ah, so that's why there has been so many stories lately.  I noticed on PBS and in the on-line newspapers there have been lots of abortion stories.  I guess I wasn't paying attention to the 40th anniversary part. 

Before that decision the laws varied by state and after that decision they still vary by state.  According to a recent Pew Research poll, the majority (57%) of those polled in the 18-29 age group do not know what the Roe decision was about, although most of the over-30 crowd knows what it was about.  Also, before Roe, 17 states had relatively liberal abortion laws, and 40 years after Roe 17 states still have relatively liberal abortion laws.  Moreover, in 1973 about 800 thousand legal abortion were performed nationwide.  40 years later about 1.2 million were performed.  As a fraction of the population, it's not very different.  They're always calling it a "sweeping" decision, but I'm not sure the impact justifies the term. 

Nevertheless, I think the answer to your question is probably no.  You can walk into a clinic in downtown Dallas and for 300 dollars terminate a pregnancy safely and cleanly.  Prior to Roe, it would have cost much more and it would have been done surreptitiously, or you'd have to get on a bus and travel to New York to do it legally.  Either way, the cost and risk would have been much greater.

[Beet]

I think the answer is no, but I do think abortion rights advocates should adjust their strategy. Publicizing stories of real abortions, working to reduce the need for abortion in non-coercive ways and then calling out 'pro-lifers' who won't cooperate to do that, and reaching out to the younger generation to lead the fight are all necessary.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I think the answer is no, but I do think abortion rights advocates should adjust their strategy. Publicizing stories of real abortions, working to reduce the need for abortion in non-coercive ways and then calling out 'pro-lifers' who won't cooperate to do that, and reaching out to the younger generation to lead the fight are all necessary.

The argument that abortions are "needed" (with the exception of life-of-mother) is a false premise and a red herring.

[Franzl]

I think the answer is no, but I do think abortion rights advocates should adjust their strategy. Publicizing stories of real abortions, working to reduce the need for abortion in non-coercive ways and then calling out 'pro-lifers' who won't cooperate to do that, and reaching out to the younger generation to lead the fight are all necessary.

The argument that abortions are "needed" (with the exception of life-of-mother) is a false premise and a red herring.

Says you. Some people believe there are multiple legitimate reasons that one might "need" an abortion.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I think the answer is no, but I do think abortion rights advocates should adjust their strategy. Publicizing stories of real abortions, working to reduce the need for abortion in non-coercive ways and then calling out 'pro-lifers' who won't cooperate to do that, and reaching out to the younger generation to lead the fight are all necessary.

The argument that abortions are "needed" (with the exception of life-of-mother) is a false premise and a red herring.

Says you. Some people believe there are multiple legitimate reasons that one might "need" an abortion.

Maybe. But it's not only a disagreement on what abortions are needed. The position of "reducing the need for abortion" is then used to justify the legality of all abortions (as if those two things are related), including those that are not considered "needed". (Unless all abortions are automatically assumed to be needed.)

[7,052,770]

It is extremely difficult to have an abortion in Mississippi, and may soon become totally impossible.  The single clinic is always on the verge of closing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It was by no means clear that abortion rights would be anywhere near as extensive they are today without Roe. Before Roe, most of the states that passed laws allowing abortion were for limited circumstances, or only at the beginning of pregnancy. New York passed an abortion law in 1970 that was almost as extensive as Roe, but it would have been repealed in 1972 if not for Rockefeller's veto.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Abortions are becoming safe, legal, and rare. Morning after pills becoming norm and other contraceptives, also abstinance.

[Gamecock]

How could they possibly have lost more than they gained? Abortion has been legal nationwide for 40 years.

One can make the argument (which I believe to be correct) that by going through the courts and making a highly dubious Supreme Court decision instead of going through the normal legislative process the abortion rights groups made their newly acquired "rights" seem illegitimate to a large part of the electorate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not a fan of the idea that a court is to settle the debate over abortion. This should be a job for the people's representatives, not for constitutional judges. However, provided that the representatives of the people (reflecting their constituents) are assholes who hold abhorrent views on the subject, on a practical level, I'm happy for this decision. Hopefully, this arrangement is only temporary and abortion right will eventually be set in legislative stone, as they should.

[Indy Texas]

How could they possibly have lost more than they gained? Abortion has been legal nationwide for 40 years.

From a political standpoint, they lost a lot. Had abortion rights been legalized at the ballot box rather than by the judiciary, they'd be on a lot more stable footing and wouldn't even be a political issue at this point.

I agree. Without Roe, most of the country would likely have legalized abortion by referendum or ballot initiative or statute within the next decade or so. The whole rise of the Christian Right in the mid- and late-70s may never have happened.

But more importantly, Roe v. Wade led Conservative America to believe they couldn't trust the Supreme Court anymore. It fed into this notion that they were and are a persecuted minority (majority?) constantly being picked on by elite institutions (SCOTUS, government agencies, elite universities, the MSM).