The Unenforceability of abortion bans

[The Original Tree]

The biggest problem I see with those on the anti-abortion side is that they never tell you how they are going to enforce a ban on abortion.

Lest, we forget, the main reason why the Court (including 5 Republicans) voted to end abortion laws in the US is because they were being routinely ignored by women and their health care providers. The court was merely recognizing the reality the prudes failed to admit.

If anyone doubts this, we only need to look at the birth rates for the 1970's.

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

The following table shows the number of live births and the birth rate in the United States between 1910 and...

www.infoplease.com

1970​	3,731,386​	18.4​
1971​	3,555,970​	17.2​
1972​	3,258,411​	15.6​
1973​	3,136,965​	14.9​
1974​	3,159,958​	14.9​
1975​	3,144,198​	14.8​
1976​	3,167,788​	14.8​

There was no sudden drop in the live birth rate because abortions were now available. In fact, it leveled off in 1973.

Why? Because abortion laws were being routinely ignored. Despite all the horror stories told by the abortion rights side about coat hangers and Lysol, most women were ending unwanted pregnancies in the comfort of their OB/GYN's office. Women were never arrested for having abortions, and providers were rarely prosecuted unless some kind of negligence that injured the women was involved

So you get the laws on the books you want in half the country, what happens? Abortions will simply move from abortion clinics back to OB/GYN offices.

if anything, an abortion ban will be harder to enforce in 2022 than in 1973, because more states WILL keep it legal now, because it will be much easier to cross state lines, and because the option of pharmaceutical abortions will be available.

Laws only really work when you have universal agreement there should be a law. If you don't, police won't investigate, prosecutors won't file charges, and juries won't convict.

The first prosecution for a woman for having an abortion will be a lightening rod of unpopularity. The only time I remember Trump ever backing down from saying something really stupid ws when he said that women should be punished for having abortions, and then immediately reversing himself.

Donald Trump retracts call for women who have abortions to be 'punished'

Republican frontrunner tells MSNBC there needs to be ‘some form of punishment’ for women, though he later disavowed controversial remarks

www.theguardian.com

Are you now worried that the Planned Parenthood Extermintaion Genocide Centers will no longer be able to sell baby body parts for a profit?

SS Schummer and Heil Shitler are.

Long live EmperorShitzHizPantz!

 

[martybegan]

Let's say Allito crafts a legal argument that abortion isn't an enumerated right and isn't in the tradition of the country. Further says that his job isn't to take controversy in consideration but simply to apply the Constitution.

Than he follows that up be stating that this ruling is narrowly about abortion but doesn't apply to other things previously covered under the 14th amendment. Things like for instance contraceptives

Do you believe he has made a good legal argument here?

I've read the opinion and it looks good to me, of course I'm an Engineer and not a Lawyer.

Roe was based on bullshit, nothing more or less. This is just fixing that mistake.

 

[forkup]

I've read the opinion and it looks good to me, of course I'm an Engineer and not a Lawyer.

Roe was based on bullshit, nothing more or less. This is just fixing that mistake.

So constitutionallity, is in the eye of the beholder? At the moment not counting the times it's been upheld Roe vs Wade has had 11 judges say its constitutional and 7 say it isn't.

A legal opinion that has to immediately limit when and how it is applicable is almost by definition a bad opinion.

 

[martybegan]

So constitutionallity, is in the eye of the beholder? At the moment not counting the times it's been upheld Roe vs Wade has had 11 judges say its constitutional and 7 say it isn't.

A legal opinion that has to immediately limit when and how it is applicable is almost by definition a bad opinion.

Evidently by our system it's in the eye of the Supreme Court, at least for counting as part of our 3 part system.

I actually think broad sweeping opinions are worse, it's what leads to extrapolation and expansion of ruling into areas the Constitution doesn't tread.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

So, then it is safe to assume you support mass murder charges for couples that use IVF and then have the remaining frozen embryos destroyed after they are successful in having a child?

If it happens in a state that presses murder charges on all women who murder their babies then that would qualify.
Those embryos absolutely deserve the same rights as the other babies being murdered

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If it happens in a state that presses murder charges on all women who murder their babies then that would qualify.
Those embryos absolutely deserve the same rights as the other babies being murdered

Is it legal to keep babies frozen?

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Is it legal to keep babies frozen?

Didn't you bring up frozen babies? Obviously, it is legal now

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Didn't you bring up frozen babies? Obviously, it is legal now

But should it be? If RvW is done away with would you support it being illegal to keep an embryo frozen?

 

[HandleTheTruth]

The voters will have the last say on this.

 

[DukeU]

Otherwise, stay out of other people's bidness

You first.

 

[Jets]

The voters will have the last say on this.

No doubt

 

[BluesLegend]

If you give Dems an inch they take a mile. We would not be discussing this issue today if the baby killing Dems had not kept pushing for later and later term abortions. FACT! This is true of any issue, gun control, taxes they are constantly scheming for MORE no matter how much we compromise. So now we need to bitch slap these scumbags.

 

[Flash]

So constitutionallity, is in the eye of the beholder? At the moment not counting the times it's been upheld Roe vs Wade has had 11 judges say its constitutional and 7 say it isn't.

A legal opinion that has to immediately limit when and how it is applicable is almost by definition a bad opinion.

The Supreme Court in 1973 said a woman had the Constitutional right kill a child for the purpose of birth control. It was done at that time to kiss the ass of the Feminazis. It was bad law back then and now this Supreme Court is correcting bad law. That is a good thing.

 

[Indeependent]

If you give Dems an inch they take a mile, they have zero self control. We would not be discussing this issue today if the baby killing Dems had not kept pushing for later and later term abortions. FACT! This is true of any issue, gun control, taxes they are constantly scheming for MORE no matter how much we compromise. So now we need to bitch slap these scumbags.

Emotionally Disturbed Scumbags.

 

[struth]

The biggest problem I see with those on the anti-abortion side is that they never tell you how they are going to enforce a ban on abortion.

Lest, we forget, the main reason why the Court (including 5 Republicans) voted to end abortion laws in the US is because they were being routinely ignored by women and their health care providers. The court was merely recognizing the reality the prudes failed to admit.

If anyone doubts this, we only need to look at the birth rates for the 1970's.

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

The following table shows the number of live births and the birth rate in the United States between 1910 and...

www.infoplease.com

1970​	3,731,386​	18.4​
1971​	3,555,970​	17.2​
1972​	3,258,411​	15.6​
1973​	3,136,965​	14.9​
1974​	3,159,958​	14.9​
1975​	3,144,198​	14.8​
1976​	3,167,788​	14.8​

There was no sudden drop in the live birth rate because abortions were now available. In fact, it leveled off in 1973.

Why? Because abortion laws were being routinely ignored. Despite all the horror stories told by the abortion rights side about coat hangers and Lysol, most women were ending unwanted pregnancies in the comfort of their OB/GYN's office. Women were never arrested for having abortions, and providers were rarely prosecuted unless some kind of negligence that injured the women was involved

So you get the laws on the books you want in half the country, what happens? Abortions will simply move from abortion clinics back to OB/GYN offices.

if anything, an abortion ban will be harder to enforce in 2022 than in 1973, because more states WILL keep it legal now, because it will be much easier to cross state lines, and because the option of pharmaceutical abortions will be available.

Laws only really work when you have universal agreement there should be a law. If you don't, police won't investigate, prosecutors won't file charges, and juries won't convict.

The first prosecution for a woman for having an abortion will be a lightening rod of unpopularity. The only time I remember Trump ever backing down from saying something really stupid ws when he said that women should be punished for having abortions, and then immediately reversing himself.

Donald Trump retracts call for women who have abortions to be 'punished'

Republican frontrunner tells MSNBC there needs to be ‘some form of punishment’ for women, though he later disavowed controversial remarks

www.theguardian.com

um the court didn’t vote ban abortion or end all abortion. laws in the united states

if the draft is true, then nothing happens to abortion laws in each state that is on the books. They are still valid

 

[Blues Man]

In many states if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with two murders, so you are full of shit.

There is no law federal or state that grants any fetus Constitutional rights.

PERIOD.

a charge of murder can be levied for causing a miscarriage is unconstitutional. If it was ever taken to the Supreme Court you might not like the ruling.

 

[Blues Man]

That is the same status that black people had early in our country's history. That was just as wrong.

The difference being the Black people were already born.

Or did you miss that part?

A fetus does not have Constitutional rights and if you think it should then you have no appreciation for the slew of consequnces that you would usher in.

For example a pregnant woman could be charged with fetus abuse for eating a poor diet, not getting "approved" medical care and the state would have every right to forcibly incarcerate her until the fetus was born.

The state could prevent a pregnant woman from traveling to any other state where abortion is legal ( Some state governments already want to enact laws to prevent women from having abortions in other states)

The state could require all women undergo regular pregnancy tests so they can "protect" any fetuses that may have been conceived.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Blues Man]

The State doesn't have to grant it personhood to protect it, they just have to pass laws restricting abortion. I am giving you the REASON, why abortion is a unique case.

It isn't a unique case.

It is an elective medical procedure.

A fetus does not have any Constitutional rights therefore it has no Constitutional protections and the state has no right to intervene in any woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy

 

[Jets]

• 16 states (including four with two different bans) have attempted to ban abortion before viability but have been stopped by court order. Several of these states still have bans in effect at a later point in pregnancy.
  • 3 states attempted to ban abortion throughout pregnancy.
  • 8 states attempted to ban abortion at 6 weeks LMP, based on the presence of a fetal heartbeat.
  • 1 state attempted to ban abortion at 8 weeks LMP.
  • 1 state attempted to ban abortion at 12 weeks LMP.
  • 3 states attempted to ban abortion at 15 weeks LMP.
  • 2 states attempted to ban abortion at 18 weeks LMP.
  • 2 states attempted to ban abortion at 20 weeks LMP (18 weeks postfertilization in state law).
  • 1 state attempted to ban abortion at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks postfertilization in state law).
• 44 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
  • 2 states ban abortion at six weeks LMP.
  • 22 states ban abortion between 13 and 24 weeks LMP.
    • 1 state bans abortion at 20 weeks LMP (18 weeks postfertilization in state law).
    • 16 states ban abortion at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks postfertilization in state law) on the unscientific grounds that a fetus can feel pain at that point.
    • 5 states ban abortion at 24 weeks LMP.
  • 20 states impose a ban at viability.
  • 1 state imposes a ban in the third trimester (25 weeks LMP onward)

State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy

www.guttmacher.org

For information purposes.

 

[Blues Man]

There are Constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms.

There is no Constitutional right to jaywalk or (now) to kill a child for the purpose of birth control.

A fetus has no Constitutional rights.

As far as the law is concerned a fetus is not a person until it is born.