Is it possible for someone to tell me (WITHOUT DEBATE!)...

[raidermatt]

Just how do the anti-choice folks think things would work once they get their way and abortion is illegal?

This will not generate a productive discussion anymore than somebody asking how "anti-life" folks feel about murdering babies.

But of course, you knew that already.

 

[cardaway]

I have never thought about it before in that way, but cardaway is very right. If abortion is illegal, how do you prosecute someone for it? You'd have to have their medical records. In order to get their medical records, you'd have to bring probable cause to a judge to get a subpeona. What constitutes probable cause? How do you prove someone was pregnant in the first place to prove they aren't any longer and why?

Or worse. In a situation where it becomes common place for records to be opened, the solution is avoiding the medical system all together.

Think about it. Who is going to monitor if somebody gets pregnant? Who's call is it going to be whether the baby was miscarried or aborted?

 

[Maleficent13]

Apparently some feel this is an inappropriate hijacking of the OP. I didn't intend it to be, so I'll go now...sorry.

BTW, the original post did not mention minors at all. That was a tangent added by the OP later.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Hmm--and this helps the OP understand....HOW?

(ETA: Not directed at Maleficient--we posted at the same time and I didn't quote Cardaway, but that is too whom I was directing my comment)

 

[cardaway]

This will not generate a productive discussion anymore than somebody asking how "anti-life" folks feel about murdering babies.

But of course, you knew that already.

True, but I would have to use the term anti-choice three times a day for it to add up to the number of times I've seen people use the word murder in these discussions.

I refuse to call people pro-life when the majority of time it isn't true.

Is there an accepted term other than pro-life?

Anything else to add Matt, other than a shot at me?

 

[Florida_Mom]

The Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to legislate specific things that are itemized. Everything else is left to the individual states. No where in the Constitution is the Fed Gov given the right to dertermine what a woman can do with her own body (this is where privacy concerns come in).

This is correct. According to Article 1, Section 8, James Madison did a pretty thorough job of enumerating what the government got to do.

Then in 1791 we got the Bill of Rights which enumerated our rights. This gave us the 9th Amendment which essentially says that there are other rights people have and rights that cannot be deined that are not specified by previous amendments and articles, such as the right of privacy.

With regard to the issue of parental notification, the concern is that a teen would have to notify a parent that was abusive, or had committed incest, or would harm the teen in some way if they knew she were having an abortion.

The problem I see with tossing the right to privacy? It's a slippery slope. It opens the door to further regulation of sexuality and pregnancy. If a state can make a law outlawing abortion, they might also have the right to mandate pregnancy, or at least ban birth control. Both are currently outlawed based on the right to privacy.

Yes, and not just sexuality/pregnancy issues, but property issues, as well. Forget about those subpoenas other posters have mentioned. Without privacy, they wouldn't be needed really.

This always brings me back to another question I never see answered. Just how do the anti-choice folks think things would work once they get their way and abortion is illegal?

This is a good point. Personally, I hate abortion. I wish women wouldn't have them. But outlawing them most likely will not make the problem go away--it will criminalize women who have them, and put them in potentially life-endangering situations both medically and in abusive homes situations. I would suspect that illegal, back alley abortions would rise to pre-1973 levels and above. Is there a better solution? One that would bring about the goal that I think both pro-choice and pro-life proponents have on this issue, which is to reduce the number of abortions in our country?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

True, but I would have to use the term anti-choice three times a day for it to add up to the number of times I've seen people use the word murder in these discussions.

I refuse to call people pro-life when the majority of time it isn't true.

Is there an accepted term other than pro-life?

Anything else to add Matt, other than a shot at me?

Well I am pro-life--don't like to be called anti-choice.

And I actually reached to find out an answer to the OP--whereas some on here chose to take a different approach.

 

[raidermatt]

But if you do want a straight answer, my guess is the focus would be more on the doctors performing abortions rather than on tracking down women who have had them.

Of course, there are lots of unknowns. Since it would take a Supreme Court reversal of sorts, the first question is would they actually state that abortion is unconstitutional, or would they simply put the decision back into the hands of the states.

From there it could go any number of ways, including different states having different laws with different penalties. But again, ultimately, I believe the focus would be on those who perform the abortions.

 

[mickeyboat]

I have never thought about it before in that way, but cardaway is very right. If abortion is illegal, how do you prosecute someone for it? You'd have to have their medical records. In order to get their medical records, you'd have to bring probable cause to a judge to get a subpeona. What constitutes probable cause? How do you prove someone was pregnant in the first place to prove they aren't any longer and why?

In order for abortion to become illegal, a state or federal statute would have to be passed making it a crime. Proof of a violation of that statute would be obtained and presented just as in any other criminal adjudication. For undisputable proof of an abortion, the medical records would need to be subpoenaed. Probable cause for the subpeona could be shown by eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, etc. - just as in the investigation of any crime. A more interesting thought is that because probable cause is a subjective evaluation, and abortion is such a hot button moral issue, how many judges would be willing to issue a subpoena?

Denae

 

[cardaway]

For a child who seeks to get one--whole other ball of wax and a doctor should not perform any procedure unless it is lifesaving at that moment (i.e.--an emergency) or there is parental consent or a court appointed person. A minor cannot give informed consent to anything and that is why they cannot go and get shots, seen for a cold, or a whole host of other things that require parent/guardian signature without consent from the parent.

My understanding of the conflict is that even though it's true that minor children must get consent for procedures, there is direct conflict with doctor/patient priviledge. I understand that some parents would say there should be no such thing when it comes to minors, but as I understand it, the laws in some areas say otherwise.

I believe the same problems exist when dealing with psych issues with minors.

 

[raidermatt]

True, but I would have to use the term anti-choice three times a day for it to add up to the number of times I've seen people use the word murder in these discussions...

Anything else to add Matt, other than a shot at me?

Again, I put the question back to you. Who are you attempting to engage in conversation? Those that that throw the murder charge at you, or those that attempt to engage in a more reasonable and civilized discussion?

Is there an accepted term other than pro-life?

Probably the most accurate terms are pro-abortion and anti-abortion (though even those are not perfect). Neither group is truly anti-life or anti-choice, and using the pro side of those terms is really just inflamatory, though certainly not as inflamatory as using anti-life, anti-choice, pro-murder, etc.

 

[cardaway]

Well I am pro-life--don't like to be called anti-choice.

Just like others don't like the word murder used until the laws are changed.

 

[cardaway]

Again, I put the question back to you. Who are you attempting to engage in conversation?

The other folks in this thread who have replied, which was going fine until your shot.

 

[VSL]

Interesting..

Just to add my piece, I know of at least two girls who have had abortions (I'm only 20 - one was my age, when she was 17 and the other is now about 23, and she had her abortion at about 18), and I am pretty conflicted about how I feel about abortion - I don't really know whether I am for or against it - but I do know that I would only ever have my (future) child aborted if it were life-threatning to me or was putting me in danger.

 

[cardaway]

Is there a better solution? One that would bring about the goal that I think both pro-choice and pro-life proponents have on this issue, which is to reduce the number of abortions in our country?

Morning after pills. Some believe they cause abortions as well, but that is a religious opinion on when life begins rather than a medical opinion. IMO it's no different than any other kind of birth control, including NFP.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Morning after pills. Some believe they cause abortions as well, but that is a religious opinion on when life begins rather than a medical opinion. IMO it's no different than any other kind of birth control, including NFP.

I have to agree..It takes time for the sperm to reach the egg..Up to 2 days even.The morning after pill is supposed to prevent the egg from being fertilized.. This is not abortion

 

[scubamouse]

Think about it. Who is going to monitor if somebody gets pregnant? Who's call is it going to be whether the baby was miscarried or aborted?

I kid you not there was a bill in VA that would have required all women to report ended pregnancies to the police in an effort to tally abortions. I think the swamping of emails from women like me who've miscarried made them pull the bill.

 

[Florida_Mom]

Morning after pills. Some believe they cause abortions as well, but that is a religious opinion on when life begins rather than a medical opinion. IMO it's no different than any other kind of birth control, including NFP.

Exactly -- I agree. I think it was Reagan's surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, that said that this type of decision would ultimately be between a woman and her pharmacist.

 

[jodifla]

To the OP: I think privacy also comes up because of the way abortions were handled pre-Roe. Oftentimes, in many states, women had to go before hospital boards and justify, (read BEG) for abortions. Roe put it back between a woman and a doctor.

I predict that if Roe goes, you'll see the political landscape change quite a bit, and not in a good way for all those Christian conservatives out there. Once people get a clear picture of what a woman's life will be like without the abortion option, there's going to be quite a backlash.

And will abortion disappear? Uh, of course not. Besides California and other liberal states that will keep in legal, there are all those other countries that have legal abortion. (Like Canada and England, among many others.) Women of any kind of means who want them will just leave the country to get them.

 

[scubamouse]

Personally, I hate abortion. I wish women wouldn't have them. But outlawing them most likely will not make the problem go away--it will criminalize women who have them, and put them in potentially life-endangering situations both medically and in abusive homes situations. I would suspect that illegal, back alley abortions would rise to pre-1973 levels and above. Is there a better solution? One that would bring about the goal that I think both pro-choice and pro-life proponents have on this issue, which is to reduce the number of abortions in our country?

emphasis mine and I completely agree. this is the thing that drives me nuts about the debate from both sides. all the discussion is on roe v. wade!! if politicians on boths side really wanted to have a productive discussion about abortion, it would focus on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and resultant abortions instead.