If it were up to the states....? (Abortion)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I was surprised about Wisc.

I'm not. Except for the Madison area and a few scattered college towns, Wisconsin is a pretty damn socially conservative state. Even much of inner city Milwaukee is pretty socially conservative.

[danwxman]

Few states would ban it entirely.  Some southern states and Utah would restrict it to rape/incest, others like NM and PA it would only be first trimester.  The bulk of states would have it legal but restricted, with only a few liberal havens offering it on demand.

That's probably right for PA.  Thing is SE Penn Democrats and Republicans (minus the NE Philly delegation) would unite in Harrisburg and fight quite hard to keep it. 

Doesn't mean they would win. PA is a Pro Life state. Now sit back, take a deep breath and accept that.

I don't think some legislators want to alienate people within their own party.  There are a lot of pro-choice Republicans in SE Penn.  Likewise there are pro-life Democrats out west.  There would likely be a bi-partisan compromise.

Probably. Those who are saying abortion would be outright illegal in Pennsylvania clearly aren't taking a look at the big picture. We have a pro-choice governor, the state voted for the last four Democratic candidates who were openly pro-choice, and we have one pro-choice senator who is a Republican. Sure, there are a lot of Democrats in the southwest who are pro-life. But more importantly are the Philadelphia suburbs where theres a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice. The Southwest is becoming less and less important in state politics. Rendell beat Casey, Kerry beat Bush (Southwest PA trended huge towards Bush, but the Southeast still gave the state to Kerry).

Prominent Pro Lifers include: Bob Casey, Jr. (D - State Treasurer), Jack Wagner (D - State Auditor), Catherine Baker Knoll (D - Lt. Governor), Rick Santorum (R - U.S. Senator), Tom Corbett (R - State Attorney Gen.) a clear majority of our Congressional delegation...  Do I need to continue?

Sure do. I bet if a poll came out, it would be close, but a majority of Pennsylvania would be pro-choice. I think it would be legal, but with a lot of restrictions.

[Jake]

Few states would ban it entirely.  Some southern states and Utah would restrict it to rape/incest, others like NM and PA it would only be first trimester.  The bulk of states would have it legal but restricted, with only a few liberal havens offering it on demand.

That's probably right for PA.  Thing is SE Penn Democrats and Republicans (minus the NE Philly delegation) would unite in Harrisburg and fight quite hard to keep it. 

Doesn't mean they would win. PA is a Pro Life state. Now sit back, take a deep breath and accept that.

I don't think some legislators want to alienate people within their own party.  There are a lot of pro-choice Republicans in SE Penn.  Likewise there are pro-life Democrats out west.  There would likely be a bi-partisan compromise.

Probably. Those who are saying abortion would be outright illegal in Pennsylvania clearly aren't taking a look at the big picture. We have a pro-choice governor, the state voted for the last four Democratic candidates who were openly pro-choice, and we have one pro-choice senator who is a Republican. Sure, there are a lot of Democrats in the southwest who are pro-life. But more importantly are the Philadelphia suburbs where theres a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice. The Southwest is becoming less and less important in state politics. Rendell beat Casey, Kerry beat Bush (Southwest PA trended huge towards Bush, but the Southeast still gave the state to Kerry).

Prominent Pro Lifers include: Bob Casey, Jr. (D - State Treasurer), Jack Wagner (D - State Auditor), Catherine Baker Knoll (D - Lt. Governor), Rick Santorum (R - U.S. Senator), Tom Corbett (R - State Attorney Gen.) a clear majority of our Congressional delegation...  Do I need to continue?

Sure do. I bet if a poll came out, it would be close, but a majority of Pennsylvania would be pro-choice. I think it would be legal, but with a lot of restrictions.

Polls don't matter, legislators do.  Most Republicans would support a ban and I know of at least two democrats in my area who (Staback and Wansacz) would support at least a 2nd/3rd trimester ban, if not out an out right ban.

[danwxman]

Few states would ban it entirely.  Some southern states and Utah would restrict it to rape/incest, others like NM and PA it would only be first trimester.  The bulk of states would have it legal but restricted, with only a few liberal havens offering it on demand.

That's probably right for PA.  Thing is SE Penn Democrats and Republicans (minus the NE Philly delegation) would unite in Harrisburg and fight quite hard to keep it. 

Doesn't mean they would win. PA is a Pro Life state. Now sit back, take a deep breath and accept that.

I don't think some legislators want to alienate people within their own party.  There are a lot of pro-choice Republicans in SE Penn.  Likewise there are pro-life Democrats out west.  There would likely be a bi-partisan compromise.

Probably. Those who are saying abortion would be outright illegal in Pennsylvania clearly aren't taking a look at the big picture. We have a pro-choice governor, the state voted for the last four Democratic candidates who were openly pro-choice, and we have one pro-choice senator who is a Republican. Sure, there are a lot of Democrats in the southwest who are pro-life. But more importantly are the Philadelphia suburbs where theres a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice. The Southwest is becoming less and less important in state politics. Rendell beat Casey, Kerry beat Bush (Southwest PA trended huge towards Bush, but the Southeast still gave the state to Kerry).

Prominent Pro Lifers include: Bob Casey, Jr. (D - State Treasurer), Jack Wagner (D - State Auditor), Catherine Baker Knoll (D - Lt. Governor), Rick Santorum (R - U.S. Senator), Tom Corbett (R - State Attorney Gen.) a clear majority of our Congressional delegation...  Do I need to continue?

Sure do. I bet if a poll came out, it would be close, but a majority of Pennsylvania would be pro-choice. I think it would be legal, but with a lot of restrictions.

Polls don't matter, legislators do.  Most Republicans would support a ban and I know of at least two democrats in my area who (Staback and Wansacz) would support at least a 2nd/3rd trimester ban, if not out an out right ban.

How many Republicans in the Southeast are pro-choice? As a matter of fact, Piccola was pro-choice up until he flip-flopped to run for Governor. And Rep. Smith, who I've talked to before, is a pro-choice Republican from York county of all places.

Not to mention, we have a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, House of Representitives, a Republican President and a conservative supreme court...and nobody is trying to outlaw abortion (aside from a few wackos).

[Keystone Phil]

Few states would ban it entirely.  Some southern states and Utah would restrict it to rape/incest, others like NM and PA it would only be first trimester.  The bulk of states would have it legal but restricted, with only a few liberal havens offering it on demand.

That's probably right for PA.  Thing is SE Penn Democrats and Republicans (minus the NE Philly delegation) would unite in Harrisburg and fight quite hard to keep it. 

Doesn't mean they would win. PA is a Pro Life state. Now sit back, take a deep breath and accept that.

I don't think some legislators want to alienate people within their own party.  There are a lot of pro-choice Republicans in SE Penn.  Likewise there are pro-life Democrats out west.  There would likely be a bi-partisan compromise.

Probably. Those who are saying abortion would be outright illegal in Pennsylvania clearly aren't taking a look at the big picture. We have a pro-choice governor, the state voted for the last four Democratic candidates who were openly pro-choice, and we have one pro-choice senator who is a Republican. Sure, there are a lot of Democrats in the southwest who are pro-life. But more importantly are the Philadelphia suburbs where theres a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice. The Southwest is becoming less and less important in state politics. Rendell beat Casey, Kerry beat Bush (Southwest PA trended huge towards Bush, but the Southeast still gave the state to Kerry).

Prominent Pro Lifers include: Bob Casey, Jr. (D - State Treasurer), Jack Wagner (D - State Auditor), Catherine Baker Knoll (D - Lt. Governor), Rick Santorum (R - U.S. Senator), Tom Corbett (R - State Attorney Gen.) a clear majority of our Congressional delegation...  Do I need to continue?

Sure do. I bet if a poll came out, it would be close, but a majority of Pennsylvania would be pro-choice. I think it would be legal, but with a lot of restrictions.

Polls don't matter, legislators do.  Most Republicans would support a ban and I know of at least two democrats in my area who (Staback and Wansacz) would support at least a 2nd/3rd trimester ban, if not out an out right ban.

How many Republicans in the Southeast are pro-choice? As a matter of fact, Piccola was pro-choice up until he flip-flopped to run for Governor. And Rep. Smith, who I've talked to before, is a pro-choice Republican from York county of all places.

And how many Dems out west are Pro Life? It's a Pro Life state, dan. Get over it. By the way, I posted the new approval/disapproval ratings in the Gov. and Senate boards. Shouldn't we be arguing about those? 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If it happened as the map suggests how bad would that be? People who live in the anti-abortion states would be, at most, a one day drive from a state where abortion is legal. Someone in need of an abortion could still get one.

And everyone who needs an abortion always has a car, and 2 days to drive to get one?

[danwxman]

Few states would ban it entirely.  Some southern states and Utah would restrict it to rape/incest, others like NM and PA it would only be first trimester.  The bulk of states would have it legal but restricted, with only a few liberal havens offering it on demand.

That's probably right for PA.  Thing is SE Penn Democrats and Republicans (minus the NE Philly delegation) would unite in Harrisburg and fight quite hard to keep it. 

Doesn't mean they would win. PA is a Pro Life state. Now sit back, take a deep breath and accept that.

I don't think some legislators want to alienate people within their own party.  There are a lot of pro-choice Republicans in SE Penn.  Likewise there are pro-life Democrats out west.  There would likely be a bi-partisan compromise.

Probably. Those who are saying abortion would be outright illegal in Pennsylvania clearly aren't taking a look at the big picture. We have a pro-choice governor, the state voted for the last four Democratic candidates who were openly pro-choice, and we have one pro-choice senator who is a Republican. Sure, there are a lot of Democrats in the southwest who are pro-life. But more importantly are the Philadelphia suburbs where theres a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice. The Southwest is becoming less and less important in state politics. Rendell beat Casey, Kerry beat Bush (Southwest PA trended huge towards Bush, but the Southeast still gave the state to Kerry).

Prominent Pro Lifers include: Bob Casey, Jr. (D - State Treasurer), Jack Wagner (D - State Auditor), Catherine Baker Knoll (D - Lt. Governor), Rick Santorum (R - U.S. Senator), Tom Corbett (R - State Attorney Gen.) a clear majority of our Congressional delegation...  Do I need to continue?

Sure do. I bet if a poll came out, it would be close, but a majority of Pennsylvania would be pro-choice. I think it would be legal, but with a lot of restrictions.

Polls don't matter, legislators do.  Most Republicans would support a ban and I know of at least two democrats in my area who (Staback and Wansacz) would support at least a 2nd/3rd trimester ban, if not out an out right ban.

How many Republicans in the Southeast are pro-choice? As a matter of fact, Piccola was pro-choice up until he flip-flopped to run for Governor. And Rep. Smith, who I've talked to before, is a pro-choice Republican from York county of all places.

And how many Dems out west are Pro Life? It's a Pro Life state, dan. Get over it. By the way, I posted the new approval/disapproval ratings in the Gov. and Senate boards. Shouldn't we be arguing about those? 

All you ever argue is circular logic. I say one thing and you say "It's the other, get over it"

I'm dissapointed in the approval ratings. They are rather flat, nothing much to talk about. Rendell is looking safe though. I really don't think Swann could beat him. Santorum is also safe, unless Casey runs.

[Akno21]

If it happened as the map suggests how bad would that be? People who live in the anti-abortion states would be, at most, a one day drive from a state where abortion is legal. Someone in need of an abortion could still get one.

Depends where they live. If you live in the middle of LA or in the mountain west, it would be a very long drive.

[Keystone Phil]

Few states would ban it entirely.  Some southern states and Utah would restrict it to rape/incest, others like NM and PA it would only be first trimester.  The bulk of states would have it legal but restricted, with only a few liberal havens offering it on demand.

That's probably right for PA.  Thing is SE Penn Democrats and Republicans (minus the NE Philly delegation) would unite in Harrisburg and fight quite hard to keep it. 

Doesn't mean they would win. PA is a Pro Life state. Now sit back, take a deep breath and accept that.

I don't think some legislators want to alienate people within their own party.  There are a lot of pro-choice Republicans in SE Penn.  Likewise there are pro-life Democrats out west.  There would likely be a bi-partisan compromise.

Probably. Those who are saying abortion would be outright illegal in Pennsylvania clearly aren't taking a look at the big picture. We have a pro-choice governor, the state voted for the last four Democratic candidates who were openly pro-choice, and we have one pro-choice senator who is a Republican. Sure, there are a lot of Democrats in the southwest who are pro-life. But more importantly are the Philadelphia suburbs where theres a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice. The Southwest is becoming less and less important in state politics. Rendell beat Casey, Kerry beat Bush (Southwest PA trended huge towards Bush, but the Southeast still gave the state to Kerry).

Prominent Pro Lifers include: Bob Casey, Jr. (D - State Treasurer), Jack Wagner (D - State Auditor), Catherine Baker Knoll (D - Lt. Governor), Rick Santorum (R - U.S. Senator), Tom Corbett (R - State Attorney Gen.) a clear majority of our Congressional delegation...  Do I need to continue?

Sure do. I bet if a poll came out, it would be close, but a majority of Pennsylvania would be pro-choice. I think it would be legal, but with a lot of restrictions.

Polls don't matter, legislators do.  Most Republicans would support a ban and I know of at least two democrats in my area who (Staback and Wansacz) would support at least a 2nd/3rd trimester ban, if not out an out right ban.

How many Republicans in the Southeast are pro-choice? As a matter of fact, Piccola was pro-choice up until he flip-flopped to run for Governor. And Rep. Smith, who I've talked to before, is a pro-choice Republican from York county of all places.

And how many Dems out west are Pro Life? It's a Pro Life state, dan. Get over it. By the way, I posted the new approval/disapproval ratings in the Gov. and Senate boards. Shouldn't we be arguing about those? 

All you ever argue is circular logic. I say one thing and you say "It's the other, get over it"

I'm dissapointed in the approval ratings. They are rather flat, nothing much to talk about. Rendell is looking safe though. I really don't think Swann could beat him. Santorum is also safe, unless Casey runs.

You keep arguing that PA isn't a Pro Life state. It is. Get over it.

Atleast you admit that Santorum is likely to win unless Casey runs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The thing is, because the issue has been federalized and placed in the hands of the judicial branch, it’s hard to judge how the States would act if the issue were returned to the State legislatures.  There is widespread support for limiting abortion, but with Roe v. Wade in place, voters who favor limits but not prohibition have no need to distinguishe between the two positions in State races.  If Roe v. Wade were reversed shortly after a federal election cycle so that most State legislatures would have two full years to deal with it, we’d see a rash of anti-abortion legislation passed that would lead to more moderate Satte legislatures being elected which would over the next decade or so see these laws generally being toned down.

[dazzleman]

I think that few states would outlaw abortion outright.

Because Roe v. Wade removed illegitimately removed the issue from the political arena, it is generally cost-free to take an extreme position on this issue, knowing you won't have the opportunity or necessity to actually implement it.

Place the issue back in the political arena where it belongs, and there will probably be a durable compromise on abortion, which is what should have happened in the first place.

The good thing about Roe v. Wade is that it has preoccupied the feminist movement with a single issue, and has limited their ability to make problems in other areas.

[opebo]

Blue = illegal or restricted
Red  = legal

[Rob]

Blue = illegal or restricted
Red  = legal

You're overestimating the pro-lifers.

[Rob]

Red=Legal, Blue=Illegal.

[TeePee4Prez]

Red- Generally Legal
Grey- Mixed.  Legislative battlegrounds.
Blue- Opposed except life at stake and rape. 

[Alcon]

Just because a state is libertarian does not mean it is pro-abortion. Wyoming is not.

The same goes for Alaska and South Dakota.

[Keystone Phil]

Red- Generally Legal
Grey- Mixed.  Legislative battlegrounds.
Blue- Opposed except life at stake and rape. 

That's really wishful thinking when it comes to PA.

[cwelsch]

If the RATE of abortion relative to population is an indication, then this may be of some use:



CA, NV, FL, IL, NY, NJ, MD, DC, DE and others would find it hard to ban abortion, where it is QUITE profitable and widespread.  It's a little hard to tell from this image, but DC is the only one in the "over 56%" section - which means more pregnancies end in abortion than childbirth.  Trying to ban abortion in that place would be one tough cookie.

Texas would probably ban it, as would Louisiana.  Michigan would have a huge fight on it.  California wouldn't ban it, but then California would probably pass some weirdly out of place law on it because that's what California always does.  New Hampshire is less clear-cut than one might think, since both Senators from NH are routinely pro-life or very pro-life.

In the end, it would matter little.  There would still probably be over a million abortions annually, as there are now.  It would likely be reduced, though.

I don't see why it's any different than when the country was half-slave, half-free.  Half the country kills babies legally, half wouldn't.  Not much change, there'd be cross-border abortions all the time.  If you give a damn about life then murder has to be as universally illegal as slavery is today.

[Hitchabrut]

56%!

[Blue Rectangle]

56%!

That shocked me, too.  So much for the claims that Democrats want to make abortion a rare occurance.  Obviously, given where abortion rates are highest, their "attempts" to reduce the number of abortions is having no effect.  The only way you get a number like 56% is if many of the women are making no effort to use birth control.

[nini2287]

Red- Generally Legal
Grey- Mixed.  Legislative battlegrounds.
Blue- Opposed except life at stake and rape. 

That's really wishful thinking when it comes to PA.

In one of the Casey-Santorum polls, something like 55%  of PA voters said they would prefer a pro-choice senator.

[bgwah]

If the RATE of abortion relative to population is an indication, then this may be of some use:



CA, NV, FL, IL, NY, NJ, MD, DC, DE and others would find it hard to ban abortion, where it is QUITE profitable and widespread.  It's a little hard to tell from this image, but DC is the only one in the "over 56%" section - which means more pregnancies end in abortion than childbirth.  Trying to ban abortion in that place would be one tough cookie.

Texas would probably ban it, as would Louisiana.  Michigan would have a huge fight on it.  California wouldn't ban it, but then California would probably pass some weirdly out of place law on it because that's what California always does.  New Hampshire is less clear-cut than one might think, since both Senators from NH are routinely pro-life or very pro-life.

In the end, it would matter little.  There would still probably be over a million abortions annually, as there are now.  It would likely be reduced, though.

I don't see why it's any different than when the country was half-slave, half-free.  Half the country kills babies legally, half wouldn't.  Not much change, there'd be cross-border abortions all the time.  If you give a damn about life then murder has to be as universally illegal as slavery is today.

WTF. Source please.




When Washington State isn't busy electing terrorists to the Senate, we're getting the state government to fund abortions!

[Citizen James]

If the RATE of abortion relative to population is an indication, then this may be of some use:



CA, NV, FL, IL, NY, NJ, MD, DC, DE and others would find it hard to ban abortion, where it is QUITE profitable and widespread.  It's a little hard to tell from this image, but DC is the only one in the "over 56%" section - which means more pregnancies end in abortion than childbirth.  Trying to ban abortion in that place would be one tough cookie.

Texas would probably ban it, as would Louisiana.  Michigan would have a huge fight on it.  California wouldn't ban it, but then California would probably pass some weirdly out of place law on it because that's what California always does.  New Hampshire is less clear-cut than one might think, since both Senators from NH are routinely pro-life or very pro-life.

In the end, it would matter little.  There would still probably be over a million abortions annually, as there are now.  It would likely be reduced, though.

I don't see why it's any different than when the country was half-slave, half-free.  Half the country kills babies legally, half wouldn't.  Not much change, there'd be cross-border abortions all the time.  If you give a damn about life then murder has to be as universally illegal as slavery is today.

WTF. Source please.




When Washington State isn't busy electing terrorists to the Senate, we're getting the state government to fund abortions!

Though my statistics are a tad dated, they don't show quite as severe of a picture.

According to
The US centers for disease control
the abortion ratio (number of abortions per 1000 live births) peaked at 264 in 1984, and has gradually declined since.  The total number of abortions peaked in 1990, as aside from a small hiccup in 1996 has been steadily declining.  (both stats are from table 2). 

Since three states don't report abortion statistics (California, Alaska, and New Hampshire), it is plausable that the number is still over a million, but the general nationwide trend has been downward for the past decade.

The State with the largest abortion ratio reported would be Rhode Island with 345 abortions per 1000 live births in 2000 (meaning roughly 1 in 4 pregnancies ended in abortions.  (Yes, I know NYC and DC have higher rates - NYC being about 2 in 5, but they're not states). [Table 3]

I think the key (which I suspect has been gradually working) is to increase education to decrease unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If that map is accurate some new restrictions are needed urgently...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If that map is accurate some new restrictions are needed urgently...

How will you pay for the increased cost to society of forcing women to be baby making machines against their will?