What does it mean to “ban” abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

I’ve never understood this logic. If a husband hires a hit man to kill his wife we don’t say that only the hit man should be charged with murder. What’s the difference?

One big problem is the inability to tell the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage. If they decide to go after women for having abortions, it is certain that there will be a number of women who are punished for having a miscarriage. That is a horrible and frightening thought to many people.

Good God. Meanwhile, the boyfriend/husband gets to sit back and relax, legally free and clear, while his girlfriend/wife gets chewed up by the legal system.

Or have someone write a check for $1.6 million on his behalf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

This is incorrect. Some abortions are already illegal and women have already been charged.

Of course women would be charged for illegal abortions.

But what about rape victims who have been impregnated by their rapists?

A gift from god according to god-fearing nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

I’ve never understood this logic. If a husband hires a hit man to kill his wife we don’t say that only the hit man should be charged with murder. What’s the difference?

One big problem is the inability to tell the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage. If they decide to go after women for having abortions, it is certain that there will be a number of women who are punished for having a miscarriage. That is a horrible and frightening thought to many people.

Good God. Meanwhile, the boyfriend/husband gets to sit back and relax, legally free and clear, while his girlfriend/wife gets chewed up by the legal system.

Or have someone write a check for $1.6 million on his behalf.

Only losers pay taxes or face the consequences of unprotected sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

I’ve never understood this logic. If a husband hires a hit man to kill his wife we don’t say that only the hit man should be charged with murder. What’s the difference?

If your logic is that women who get abortions are murderers, then you are setting up a situation where every miscarriage (which is very common) would be investigated and women would face life in prison for a miscarriage that couldn't be proven. You'd be setting up a situation where women are scared to get prenatal care because what if they have a missed miscarriage and their doctor investigates?

Because most women who seek abortions are already moms, you'd have lots of motherless children, lots of women in prison.

If abortion is murder, as Republicans believe, then logically there is no difference between a hit man and an abortion “provider”. If there is a difference, then abortion isn’t really murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

This is incorrect. Some abortions are already illegal and women have already been charged.

Of course women would be charged for illegal abortions.

What women have been convicted of or plead guilty to a crime related to having an abortion in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade?

[Anonymous]

I fundamentally believe that every women should gave a right to decide what to do to her own body. I have been fortunate. I have never been faced with an unwanted pregnacy. I’ve been pregnant twice both planned and the first time I got pregnant easily and the second was a struggle. I became very, very ill in my first pregnancy and had to have an emergency c-section to save my life. My second pregnancy became high risk half way through and it was really scary knowing that my pregnancy, something I had hoped for, was threatening my life. It’s a very strange feeling to know and experience how dangerous pregnancy can be. That is why I fundamentally believe that every woman has the absolute right to decide whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term. I certainly never imagined that I would become so ill. I was lucky to have access to excellent care. Had I lived in another part of the USA or another country I might not still be here to write this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

I’ve never understood this logic. If a husband hires a hit man to kill his wife we don’t say that only the hit man should be charged with murder. What’s the difference?

If your logic is that women who get abortions are murderers, then you are setting up a situation where every miscarriage (which is very common) would be investigated and women would face life in prison for a miscarriage that couldn't be proven. You'd be setting up a situation where women are scared to get prenatal care because what if they have a missed miscarriage and their doctor investigates?

Because most women who seek abortions are already moms, you'd have lots of motherless children, lots of women in prison.

If abortion is murder, as Republicans believe, then logically there is no difference between a hit man and an abortion “provider”. If there is a difference, then abortion isn’t really murder.

Don't try to approach this rationally. The RNC won't try to criminalize women seeking abortions at first because it polls badly -- remember Trump tried that tactic and had to walk it back. You start by criminalizing the doctors performing them, and then wait until you get some really awful cases related to women attempting their own abortions (e.g., baby born alive but with severe injuries from a coat hanger), and *then* you can go after the women who have them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

What if a woman does the abortion herself with a morning after pill or a homemade abortion kit? Would she charged with a crime then since, technically, she was the abortion provider?

[Anonymous]

Kind of a moronic post, insofar as it indicates a lack of understanding or awareness of the constitution and federalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

This is incorrect. Some abortions are already illegal and women have already been charged.

Of course women would be charged for illegal abortions.

What women have been convicted of or plead guilty to a crime related to having an abortion in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade?

http://www.newsweek.com/next-roe-v-wade-jennie-mccormacks-abortion-battle-65831

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/14/tenn-woman-charged-with-attempted-murder-for-failed-coat-hanger-abortion/?utm_term=.0183d5d24b30

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/21/home-abortions-emails-secret-world

[Anonymous]

I feel like there is a lot of general talk of “poor” people. Maryland and other blue states would not outlaw abortion. Texas, Mississippi, and other southern states would. It wouldn’t be a “short bus ride” from Mississippi to the nearest blue state and the poor couldn’t afford the hotel stays.

This means the red states would have a ballooning of poor people. The very poor in these states are mostly black. That means the black population would explode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

You can look to Latin America to see what happens when abortion is banned. Middle class people can always have abortions. They just pay to travel to where it is legal. These laws only really affect the poor.

In many Latin American countries, it is a crime for doctors to provide abortions, so they don't in general. Some private clinics will provide abortions to rich people who can pay.

Poor people buy misoprostol illegally from a pharmacist or online. Most of the time, the pregnant woman can successfully abort the fetus at home. If there is a complication and she shows up at an emergency room, she risks prosecution. The real issue is when the medical professionals suspect an abortion when it was really a miscarriage. It is often not easy to tell the difference. There are several Central American cases where a women was accused of causing an abortion and she argued it was a miscarriage. Poor people often can't get adequate counsel to defend themselves, so there is a risk of an innocent person being convicted for having a miscarriage.

You also end up with the situation where a doctor, who is meant to help the patient, must turn her in to the authorities for a suspected abortion.

This.

Anti-abortion folk are monsters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

What if a woman does the abortion herself with a morning after pill or a homemade abortion kit? Would she charged with a crime then since, technically, she was the abortion provider?

Yes, but you first have to ask where she will get the morning after pill or "homemade abortion kit" (coat hangar?)

And remember, in some states even birth control pills, IUDs and Plan B will be outlawed if some moron decides they are "abortifacients" (they're not, but science is no longer relevant here).

[Anonymous]

It would be a war on women! Women should have the right to decide their own lives and what goes on with their own bodies. When women have control of reproduction, they are better educated and have better financial freedom. Having a baby in high school is a bullet train to poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-abortion laws typically focus on the abortion providers rather than the women obtaining them, so most likely the laws would criminalize providing abortions. Any such laws would probably at least initially provide an exception for rape/incest because that is still politically favored, but would require women seeking an abortion for such reasons to report the assault to police and go through an adjudication of whether a rape actually occurred before being authorized to obtain an abortion. But the practical effect would be that such adjudication would end up taking so long to obtain that most, if not all, women seeking them wouldn’t be able to get them until they passed a time threshold (probably moved up to end of first trimester) where all abortions are banned, so they still wouldn’t be able to get them.

This. Legislation would make it a crime to perform abortions so there won't be anyone performing them. This is how you ban abortion.

What if a woman does the abortion herself with a morning after pill or a homemade abortion kit? Would she charged with a crime then since, technically, she was the abortion provider?

Yes she would. Look at the woman in Indiana, Purvi Patel.

Which brings up the fact that women who have miscarriages could be investigated. Just look at that law the Georgia legislature tried to pass a few years ago.