Abortion is Declared Illegal- Then What?

Inspired18 · #1 May 12, '12, 7:21 am

I hope I posted this in the right place. Sorry if I didn't! Still getting used to the forums...

Some say, change hearts, not laws. I can't say I agree with that, but say we win that battle, and abortion is declared illegal again across the 50 states. What is next? How is that crime handled? I have no answers for this. Is the mother prosecuted? The doctor? I need to work this out in my head. Maybe we won't know fully until we cross that bridge, but I would love to talk about this.

**GEddie** · #2 May 12, '12, 8:04 am

There were state laws against abortion prior to 1973. I imagine those laws would be reinstated.

ICXC NIKA

Brendan · #3 May 12, '12, 4:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GEddie

There were state laws against abortion prior to 1973. I imagine those laws would be reinstated.

ICXC NIKA

Iffy, since it is the Supreme Court that would have to do it.

If they declared (correctly) that a human in utero was entitled to the same human rights that apply under the law, that would automatically preempt any state or local laws.

Godmachine · #4 May 12, '12, 7:51 pm

Even tho I am not Catholic, I think I understand why the church takes the stand it does against abortion. I think the OP asks an excellent question. Let's say abortion is declared illegal tomorrow. Would such a law end abortion? Would such a law remove the element of choice? Would the number of abortions decrease as a result of such a law? Would a law against abortion do any good whatsoever? My answer to all of these questions is "NO". To support my answer with credible data, let's use our current laws against the the production and use of illicit drugs for comparison. Have laws against drug use ended drug use? No. Have laws against drug use removed the element of choice of from drug use? No. Has the number of drug users decreased as a result of laws against drug use? No. Have laws against the use of illicit drugs done anything good for our society? In my honest opinion, NO. I wonder what makes anyone think laws against abortion will be any more successful than laws against illicit drugs?

LeafByNiggle · #5 May 12, '12, 8:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godmachine

Even tho I am not Catholic, I think I understand why the church takes the stand it does against abortion. I think the OP asks an excellent question. Let's say abortion is declared illegal tomorrow. Would such a law end abortion? Would such a law remove the element of choice? Would the number of abortions decrease as a result of such a law? Would a law against abortion do any good whatsoever? My answer to all of these questions is "NO". To support my answer with credible data, let's use our current laws against the the production and use of illicit drugs for comparison. Have laws against drug use ended drug use? No. Have laws against drug use removed the element of choice of from drug use? No. Has the number of drug users decreased as a result of laws against drug use? No. Have laws against the use of illicit drugs done anything good for our society? In my honest opinion, NO. I wonder what makes anyone think laws against abortion will be any more successful than laws against illicit drugs?

You don't need to resort to an analogy with doubtful connections to abortion to decide the question. You can look at abortion itself. In times and places where abortion is against the law, abortion rates have historically been lower. There is no doubt that since 1973 the number of abortions per capita in the US has exploded. Using drug policy to analyze what might happen to abortion is of questionable accuracy because there are factors at play in the drug scene that are not at play for abortion and vice-versa.

Godmachine · #6 May 12, '12, 8:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

You don't need to resort to an analogy with doubtful connections to abortion to decide the question. You can look at abortion itself. In times and places where abortion is against the law, abortion rates have historically been lower. There is no doubt that since 1973 the number of abortions per capita in the US has exploded. Using drug policy to analyze what might happen to abortion is of questionable accuracy because there are factors at play in the drug scene that are not at play for abortion and vice-versa.

I use the comparison because these are both hot-button contemporary moral issues. The fact that one is legal and the other is not helps give a sense of contrast. Personally I find it the epitome of hypocrisy when killing and unborn child is labeled a "choice" and smoking a joint is labeled a "crime". But that's just me.....

Perhaps you could provide some data to support your claim that abortion rates historically have been lower in times and places where abortion is illegal.

LeafByNiggle · #7 May 12, '12, 9:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godmachine

I use the comparison because these are both hot-button contemporary moral issues. The fact that one is legal and the other is not helps give a sense of contrast. Personally I find it the epitome of hypocrisy when killing and unborn child is labeled a "choice" and smoking a joint is labeled a "crime". But that's just me.....

Perhaps you could provide some data to support your claim that abortion rates historically have been lower in times and places where abortion is illegal.

I'm sure that if there was evidence to the contrary you would have confronted me with it.

NFP1Kate · #8 May 12, '12, 11:15 pm

To the OP

I think the only real answer is ....we would help those pregnant women. If the billions of dollars weren't going into their demise, it could be used to help them get secure. Slowly, there would be fewer illegal abortions.

At least that is what I would hope for.

Godmachine · #9 May 13, '12, 12:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

I'm sure that if there was evidence to the contrary you would have confronted me with it.

In other words you have no evidence to support your claim.

I believe I have given a valid reason to support my claim that a law against abortion will not reduce the demand for or the number of abortions. If you can show that the demand and/or number of abortions was significantly less per capita before abortion became legal in the US, I will change my mind. Until then, I will stand by what I have already said.

PumpkinSeed · #10 May 13, '12, 10:44 am

Then we be prepared to deal with people protesting, complaining, and backstreet abortions.

Its a messy situation either way. Stay strong.

THP · #11 May 13, '12, 7:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godmachine

In other words you have no evidence to support your claim.

I believe I have given a valid reason to support my claim that a law against abortion will not reduce the demand for or the number of abortions. If you can show that the demand and/or number of abortions was significantly less per capita before abortion became legal in the US, I will change my mind. Until then, I will stand by what I have already said.

Its actually not a very good analogy because we have no idea what the drug use rate would be if we suddenly made all drugs legal. I really don't think it would go do down or even stay the same. It is really a meaningless comparison.

We also have no idea what the illegal abortion rate was prior to 1973. We do know that in 1973 there were like 744,000 abortions done legally. The peak year was 1990 with 1.6 million abortions. I highly doubt there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions being performed per year in 1972. Clearly legalizing abortion led to an increase and clearly making it illegal would lead to a decrease. (see attachment)

CMatt25 · #12 May 12, '12, 7:58 pm

Some states could keep it legal and safe while further working towards rare. Others would enact there own laws. I'm not sure if a woman could cross state lines to choose a safe and legal abortion based on her own personal faith and beliefs, following prayer and consultation witn her dr or not. If not, abortion will not go away. Some women might be forced to resort back to unsafe abortions or those backalley ones as before 1973.

TheRealJuliane · #13 May 13, '12, 8:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMatt25

Some states could keep it legal and safe while further working towards rare. Others would enact there own laws. I'm not sure if a woman could cross state lines to choose a safe and legal abortion based on her own personal faith and beliefs, following prayer and consultation witn her dr or not. If not, abortion will not go away. Some women might be forced to resort back to unsafe abortions or those backalley ones as before 1973.

That's so 39 years ago, Matt. "Legal, safe, and rare" hasn't worked yet, and it never will. The legal part happened, but safe? Hardly. And over 50 million abortions later, I think the rare isn't going to happen either. By the way, those "back alley" abortions didn't happen in the numbers thrown about at the time. Dr. Bernard Nathanson is the man who inflated the numbers, and he recanted and explained the fiction after he stopped performing abortions.

Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist

"The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalisation."

THP · #14 May 13, '12, 7:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

Iffy, since it is the Supreme Court that would have to do it.

If they declared (correctly) that a human in utero was entitled to the same human rights that apply under the law, that would automatically preempt any state or local laws.

Overturning Roe v Wade would mean that you would no longer have a constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion. It would speak nothing to its legality. If anyone still believes in the 10th amendment, it would then fall to the states to decide if they wanted it to be legal or illegal.

Brendan · #15 May 13, '12, 8:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by THP

Overturning Roe v Wade would mean that you would no longer have a constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion. It would speak nothing to its legality. If anyone still believes in the 10th amendment, it would then fall to the states to decide if they wanted it to be legal or illegal.

That would depend, again, on what the Supreme Court said when it overtured RvW.

If the Supreme Court declared that abortion was illegal because it deprived the infant of Life without due process, then no state could enact constitutionally effectively enact an abortion law. It would involve the infant being tried for capital crimes by a grand jury.

The 10th Ammendment would no more apply than it would if a state attempted to create a law that allowed for double jepordy or a denial of Miranda rights.

In other words, the infant would have the same Constitutional protections that we all do, including a right to life.

The 10th Ammendment would not change that, as it applies to the regulation of rights not otherwise granted by the Constitution.