That is NOT an answer. That kind of travel is not cheap. It can require drivers who miss work, hotels, gas, etc. on top of the abortion cost. Plus, states today are gearing up to go after women who do that - and those who help them. Remember that Texas has put a bounty on them, so neighbors can sue them for $20K or whatever. I agree here. Mom's get seriously overlooked, with people pretending that prosecutors and legislatures are to be used in enforcement of what is fundamentally a religious opinion of a woman's very personal healthcare.
In historic times, women weren't allowed to vote, were banned as religious leaders, were blocked from much of the nation's employment opportunities, were refused education, were denied recognition for MAJOR scientific contributions, were denied political leadership positions, etc., etc. And, yes. In those days an "unexpected pregnancy" had significant connotations, and still does today. Now, you heap more BS and go wildly off topic.
So what? Sounds like a bunch of Leftist Feminist talking points. What does any of that have to do with the topic? The point is, the vast majority of women in society apparently didn't need abortion back then. They got along without it. And indeed elective abortion would have been seen as unimaginable and reprehensible if you asked most women at the time. (Even Margaret Sanger didn't dare to publicly advocate for abortion) Are you trying to insinuate that women were "oppressed" back then because abortion wasn't viewed as an option, and thus there was a lot of pressure to keep sex confined to committed relationships?
You brought up American history concerning women. You are forgetting the horrors of illegal abortions. I'm pointing out that there were LOTS of restrictions on women in our history. Today, restrictions on abortion are degrading women's health care.
Surely we don't need to allow abortions-on-demand after fetal viability to prevent illegal abortions. What do you think? Do you care to attempt to try to explain how you think Maine's recent past restrictions on abortion (which were very mild and still extremely liberal) were "degrading women's health care"? The past law said she could abort at any time in the pregnancy if her life was in danger. And any time for any reason before viability. Pro-choicers do not think that was good enough? Apparently they do not. Do you see how many could view the pro-choice lobby as extremists?
When it is the legislature and prosecutors who are deciding if there is justification for a procedure, doctors lose out. They HAVE TO back away, as they could lose their medical licenses. In fact, today that is especially true, as laws passed in anti-abortion states leave doctors no way of being sure that they won't be prosecuted. The result is that OB/GYN care becomes worse and such doctors need to go somewhere else. In the case you mention, there is room for opinion on whether the woman's life is in danger. And, that becomes the guidance that prosecutors have. In the end, the risk to life gets decided in a court of law, where the doctor's license is at stake. From the other angle, you have not identified an actual damage being done by the new law, which gives decision making to the woman and her doctor - not prosecutors.
When it is all left up to the woman to decide whether abortion is justified, human fetuses lose out. No, scratch that, I'm going to say unborn babies here, because consider the gestational period that this new state law is about. There are other possible alternatives and solutions (already mentioned in this thread), but those aren't good enough for you or the pro-choice abortion crowd. You hold her "choice" as sacrosanct. And there is very little standing in the way of her abusing that choice. Sometimes the decision is more obvious. In other cases I suggested a bioethics council, to take a look at individual cases and give them speedy pre-approval. I think the majority of cases will be pretty obvious how the medical facts stand in relation to the law. It's very hard to identify specific cases of damages, because no information is being kept or made publicly available. Pro-choicers want to do everything they can to keep the woman's reasons secret. Or even exactly how many late-term abortions are going on. You want to talk about "damages", think of dead babies.
Now see, you're looking for a worst case and not wanting to discuss this rationally. Yes, travel from Nebraska to Colorado will cost you. From, lets say Omaha Nebraska to Sterling, Co. is 417 miles. An 8 hour drive. Awful. Horrible. IMPOSSIBLE and we haven't even gotten our sticker shock over a plane ride or a bus ride! Now, the nonsense about states putting a bounty on abortion seekers leaving the state is just nonsense. I don't know why these states are doing this, probably politics, but it isn't legal. A simple comparison; before Indian gaming became a thing, people traveled from all over the country to gamble in Las Vegas. Why, I remember the ads from airlines touting travel from say, Denver to Las Vegas. Here's the thing. Gambling in Colorado at the time was ILLEGAL. Gambling in Las Vegas is LEGAL. So following the Texas law at issue, anyone traveling from Denver to Las Vegas to (gasp) gamble! would be guilty of a crime in Colorado, and anyone helping them do that would also be subject to fines and sanctions and what not. But, no person has ever been charged, much less convicted, of such a thing. And won't be. Because, you see, the law is quite clear; you cannot make something illegal outside of your jurisdiction. Crossing the Line: Can States Regulate Conduct in Other States? - NFIB
As I explained to you in post #61, I believe you are incorrect about that. However, like I've kept repeating in this thread, if you all want to have a discussion about this issue, I think it is best to do so in a different discussion thread, possibly start a new one, and maybe leave the link here. Talking about abortion in the state of Maine specifically is a different discussion from talking about whether people can always go over state lines to do something that is not legal in their state of residence, without legal repercussions. While of course there is some overlap, it is going down another long rabbit hole and will be a very long discussion, going off on a separate tangent (as one example, you are trying to bring up the issue of gambling).
You need to make cogent arguments that focus on the real world. Idaho wants to make travel for the purpose of abortion a chargeable offense. They also want to charge those who aid, such as help with travel. They are also hoping to demand medical records from states where they suspect that Idahoans went to get an abortion. I also mentioned the situation it Texas. Your pictures prove you don't have squat.
The gambling comparison is just that. An example to make a point. Neither you or willreadmore are looking for an adult discussion in my opinion. The idea of charging someone in, say, Texas for something they did LEGALLY in another state that is ILLEGAL in Texas would create multiple legal catch 22's wouldn't it? I think what you are hoping for is to demonize anti abortion advocates because you do not agree with the basic issue. But don't believe me, hell, I'm not even an attorney. Ask a lawyer.
No, the point is that simply suggesting that there is a legal source of abortions doesn't solve the problem. First, the requirement to go out of state means that OB/GYN must be inadequate to start with. Abortion IS required as part of various health care problems. You need to examine what doctors say on this topic. Next, states ARE searching for ways to charge people for going to other states to get abortions that are legal there. I pointed out Idaho and Texas as two cases. You can't just say that Idaho and Texas don't count.
And Pro-Life states ALLOW abortion for most any life-threatening medical condition. In my opinion, that is mostly being used as a smokescreen. But that's mostly not what this is actually about. If you can get a room full of 10 random and impartial doctors and 9 or 10 of them agree that it was "absolutely necessary", then it's very unlikely the doctor who did it will be prosecuted. Pro-lifers, as a group, are not out to get doctors who performed abortions because they felt it was absolutely necessary to save life. In addition, pro-lifers also concentrate most of their efforts on doctors who operate out of clinics, not hospitals. And in these clinic settings, it is far less likely that an abortion will be carried out for emergency medical reasons. (95% of abortions in the U.S. happen in clinics) A doctor working out of a hospital is going to get a lot more credibility than a doctor running a for-profit clinic doing abortions every day back-to-back. Which also helps to make it much easier to distinguish between abortions done for emergency urgent medical reasons versus ones that were not urgently immediately needed. Where you might run into trouble is medical situations where there is disagreement about whether abortion is necessary. It should be pointed out that medical situations where abortion is absolutely necessary are pretty rare.
No, the anti abortion laws are very clearly damaging women's healthcare. That is NOT up for debate. You seem to be oblivious of the FACT that we don't have enough OB/GYN doctors as it is, and the rules that exist cause there to be FEWER such doctors in states where the laws prevent their training and practice of medicine.
How about you start another thread and show your alleged evidence of that, and then you can leave the link here. Then we can discuss it in another thread. I embrace OB/GYN doctors, but why do all of them need to do abortion? Especially in the more controversial situations. You do realize that probably the majority of OB/GYN doctors who recommend or suggest abortion refer the patient to someone else for the abortion? Your argument almost seems to be that any laws regulating abortion could interfere with women's health, so we shouldn't have any laws. Which is the mentality of most pro-choice activists, I would assume.
Why? It pertains to this thread and I'm given cases on this thread. YES. You need to recognize that this is an issue of personal bodily autonomy. Do you know what autonomy means?
I very much believe the Idaho and Texas laws are unconstitutional and will be tossed. I said in the beginning that all of this comes down to when life begins. If you believe life does not begin until birth, abortion is little more than removing some inconvenient cells. If you believe life begins at or shortly after conception then abortion is murder. So while you shout about how cruel those religious conservative rat bastards are for opposing abortion, try to keep in mind that they are fighting for lives that no one else will try to protect. The scotus decision I think saw the problem and put the issue properly before states.voters in the states will ultimately decide. So while you're championing abortion on demand at any time and no charge remember that there are other views as legitimate as your own.
Autonomy usually gets limited in cases involving minors. As Shutcie observed, it really all comes down to the controversial and problematic question of when does life begin. Although this type of new law in Maine obscures that. The change to the law obviously targets the late-term stage of pregnancy when most everyone agrees a new life has indeed begun. How precisely does one define "medically necessary?" And is the value of the life inside the woman weighed against the woman's "health" when deciding whether it is "medically necessary"? Of course the law gives no guidance there.
No, you are missing my position by MILES - and since I've stated it many times, my bet is that's totally on purpose. You need to consider the legitimacy of your methods, including how you make up crap and claim I believe it. The SCOTUS ruling was purely political. Read it.
I agree it is controversial. But, that doesn't void personal bodily autonomy. What the Maine law does is to ensure personal bodily autonomy. Remember that there are essentially zero abortions of late stage pregnancies where there aren't health issues that show up at a late stage. The idea that a woman would carry a fetus for nine months and only then get an abortion without real reasons is just not likely.
Except for the unborn child who has now barely has any legal protections at all. The claim that there is someone else in there is much less controversial when it is much later into the pregnancy, which is what this new change in Maine law concerns. Small children and unborn human beings cannot provide consent. That of course doesn't mean they should have no rights. What should "Pro-choicers" be called when they believe the woman should still have absolute choice even in the later stages of pregnancy? I think many would consider this new Maine law and the activists behind it to be extremist, if the full implications of the law were explained to them.
Putting lawyers, prosecutors, and politicians between a woman and her healthcare is absolutely NOT acceptable for reasons I and others have stated. There is good reason that your ideas are a minority opinion in the USA. It's even a minority opinion within most Christian denominations.
What stands between the mother and her unborn baby? Nothing? Her presumable best intentions? I'm seeing some double standards and imbalance in this situation.
You actually believe that? You have the audacity to believe most normal people would agree with you, if the issues were actually correctly explained to them and they understood the issue? Free late term abortions if you can find a doctor that says the abortion is necessary for any possible "health reason", vague and expansive as that concept can be. And no real accountability for the doctor. In my opinion, this is a ruse! These sort of laws are just a ruse to practically allow elective late-term abortions, but it's just done so in a way that doesn't seem obvious to the public. Gives the pro-choice side some cover and plausible deniability, so their position and implemented policy doesn't seem as extremist as it actually is. With this type of law it's very easy to find some trivial excuse to get the late-term abortion and then be able to claim compliance with the law. You might as well pass a law that says any white person can kill a black person if the white person determines it is "necessary" for reasons due to property or protection. That's what this is like.
