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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.