What Would Really Happen If Abortion Was Left to the States
My eyes are rolling as I watch the cable channels and hear representatives of the John McCain campaign suggest that, even though McCain has consistently called for the overturn of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, his position simply means that the issue of a woman's right to privacy would go back to the states.
There are so many things wrong with this McCain-generated-campaign spin designed to appeal to moderate voters, so let's break it down in the following ways:
First, in order for the issue to go to the states, Roe would have to be overturned. (Details, details.)
Second, the reversal of Roe would clear the way for a Congress currently dominated by anti-choice politicians to ban abortion and thus override any state laws guaranteeing a woman's right to choose.
Here is a question for you, John McCain (and those of you who support him): In which states should the right to privacy exist and in which states should politicians have control over personal, private medical decisions? This question isn't out of the blue. Here is what we know:
Several states have near-total abortion bans already on the books that will become enforceable if Roe is overturned:
* 15 states currently have unconstitutional and unenforceable near-total bans on abortion already on the books, either from before Roe (13 states) or in the case of two states (LA and UT) from the early 1990s when they seized on a close vote in the Supreme Court to try to overturn Roe. These bans may become enforceable if Roe falls: AL, AZ, AR, CO, DE, LA, MA, MI, MS, NM, OK, UT, VT, WV, and WI.
Total states where abortion bans will be in effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned = 15
Some other states have "trigger" bans that will take effect if Roe is overturned:
* 4 states have laws that would impose near-total criminal bans on abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (sometimes known as "trigger" bans): LA, MS, ND, and SD.
That gives us two additional states not amongst those 15 states (from above) with near-total bans already on the books.
Total states where abortion bans will be in effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned = 17.
Several states have fully anti-choice governors and legislatures that could pass laws outlawing abortion if Roe is overturned:
* 13 states have anti-choice legislatures and governors and would likely outlaw abortion if Roe falls: AL, ID, IN, LA, MS, MO, NE, ND, RI, SD, TX, UT, and WV.
That gives us 6 additional states not amongst those with abortion bans.
Total states where abortion bans will be in effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned = 23.
Therefore, the total number of states where choice is at risk if Roe v. Wade is overturned: 23 states... or 46 percent of all states!
When John McCain, Sarah Palin (who opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest), other campaign operatives or conservative commentators attempt to soften McCain-Palin's extreme anti-Roe position by implying that overturning Roe is a simple exercise in states' rights, it really means that the right to privacy vanishes for many American women.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Donna Crane -- This is a great GREAT piece.
Yeah, but Bristol had a choice. Republicans want choice for those with the money to choose, not for the poor.
You mean they might favor the people that actually pay the bills in this country?
They steal the money and they
DON"T PAY THE BILLS!
IT"S ALL BORROWED FROM YOU!
We do have a very unique system where they preach free enterprise to the poor but practice socialism for the rich.
I know because everybody knows, if you're too poor to pay your bills, you should definitely be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Raising a child in poverty is definitely the way to go.
So, if you're rich we want you to have the ability to get an abortion, but if you are poor, we want to make sure that you and the possible child are what - destitute? What is the thought process behind bringing babies into this world that automatically will not have enough to eat, or be able to attend a really good school, or have decent health care?
As a nation, why do we want a set of people that society will torture all of their lives? This makes no sense. We should be throwing birth control pills, condoms, morning-after pills and yes, abortion services at people. I personally would be thrilled if every child born in this country was desperately wanted. A child planned for, longed for, and wow - paid for. if we don't want welfare, or to help each other out, can't we at least help everyone to avoid pregnancy. Oh yeah, knees together, right? Go tell it to the Taliban.
Bristol didn't have a choice. If her mother hadn't chosen to run for VP, maybe she would have had a choice. But she has become a poster-child for the anti-choice movement. She's being forced to not only keep a child, but marry her boyfriend because of a pregnancy that is the direct result of under-educating teens about safe sex. It's impossible to say that Bristol would have made different decisions if she wasn't under the media spotlight, but I do think it's a safe bet to assume that she had absolutely no choice in this matter. This decision was politically motivated to pander to the religious right. Bristol is an unfortunate pawn in a nasty game.
"Leaving it to the States to decide" is Republican code that has been used all the way back to slavery to mean "I really want it, but I'm not going to directly say it". It's the equivalent of saying "People say....*in
McCain pulled the same crap with the confederate flag in South Carolina in 2000 saying it was a "state issue".
He does the same thing when he says "the American people will make that judgement" when he's called on some smear. "People say...."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
