So what can be done to circumvent or undermine the likely abortion rollback coming soon from the Supreme Court?

It seems very likely that Roe v Wade is about to be either overturned by the SCOTUS or severely limited by it in the next few months due to a Mississippi law that is challenging Roe, and because Republicans have waged a very successful, decades long, campaign to change the courts so that they can remove the constitutional right to an abortion from women all over the country.

With that context out of the way I see two ways to undermine any ruling made. First, the long term and far more firm strategy of changing state constitutions legally to protect abortion rights regardless of what the Federal government does and to do this in as many states as possible. It's basically the same as what's happening with cannabis throughout the country.

Second thing I see is absolutely flooding the country's access to abortion pills, legal or otherwise. Now this is a tactic I haven't really seen discussed, but much like weed being easily available for many people before it was legal, it could help make the case that its completely ridiculous to keep something so easily available, illegal. With the ability to send anonymous packages to people via mail, it shouldn't be difficult to accomplish with abortion pills either. The real goal would to make these as cheap as possible for the people who need them. I'm sure this idea will be an upsetting one for people with the current goal of keeping abortion legal at the federal level, but I think it's time we seriously begin to discuss it.

Do you guys see any other options that I haven't discussed? What do you think about the options that I laid out?

The only surefire way is to pass a constitutional amendment. The odds however are not in favor of the pro-abortion camp.

I don't foresee any overturning. I think there will be a very narrow, surgical, address of their perceived issue.

It will probably be referred to the states to make their own abortion laws as the voters mandate.

You actually think politicians listen to the voters?

Joke's on them I'm forever alone so I won't have kids either way.

@Stevo_the_gamer: do you mean a constitutional ammendment at the federal level? Because that's generally not functional option. It's been almost 30 years since one was passed so I don't see how that's a realistic option.

I guess, ultimately, I'm not looking for "surefire methods" if it means the better part of a lifetime to accomplish. I'm looking for effective methods that keeps a person's constitutional rights functionally in tact, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

I guess you could always try personal responsibility. Just a novel new idea.

Pretty sure abortions are not a constitutional right.

Who in their right mind would take drugs anonymously mailed to them?

I don't think this works the way you've laid it out here. States can't override federal laws normally, and the reason cannabis laws are working the way they are is because the federal government has largely decided to no longer enforce those laws. But they could, which is what's relevant here.

scary thing is what will they go after next now that they allow the government to assert control over a women's bodies.

They are right now. They might not be come June.

Yes, if not you vote them out of office. The public is starting to realize the power they actually have.

So easy access to condoms among other things and improved sex ed?

Yea, like the personally responsible actions of safe sex education, medication, and accessibility to condoms and procedural birth control.

Oh no never mind, yall don't want any of that on the farm. Seems the "personal responsibility" argument is just a lame excuse to exert impersonal control and rob people of agency. Who would have thunk.

Assuming that it's overturned, there will be a race in all state legislatures to enshrine 'effective abortion bans' like these, or put forth state level pro-choice legislature. There's no way a federal level amendment would ever pass, there's way too many state governments controlled by evangelical mouth breathers. There will then be more apparent differences between Blue and Red states.

I'm guessing Roe v Wade will likely be struck down, validating everyone's fear that Trump's pick were liars, thus ignoring precedence on the matter (funny they were all asked this during their confirmation hearings). Long term effects will undoubtedly show that pro-choice states will continue to have fewer teenage births and lower infant mortality rates than their pro-birth counterparts. The divide will only deepen with time unfortunately. This is what happens when you let religious zealots govern.

Condoms are literally everywhere. So is plan B and other preventive medicine. Just go to your nearest gas station and you'll almost certainly find one of them. If not, go onto Amazon right now and for $45 you can buy 24 condoms, 1 dose of Plan B, and 10 doses of VCF. Have a monthly delivery if you want.

Funny thing is, it's actually cheaper to throw birth control at kids for free than deal with a rise in unwanted pregnancies. So if you're argument stems from a cost control point of view, I have some bad news, it's bunk.

Why are we talking about kids? If that's the argument, young adults are having less sex than ever, so I don't think that's the main concern.

Uh...kids are the end result of pregnancies. I'm actually astonished you'd ask such a question in a topic regarding abortion.

Edit: My post referred to younger sexually active people as 'kids' if that's what you meant. Either way, the cost argument favors free birth control.

You were obviously talking about sexually active kids (i.e. young adults) since you mentioned "throwing birth control at them". Don't be disingenuous

I edited my post. But again, if your argument is based on cost, then providing free birth control is the cheaper route to take. It's easy, cheap, and effective. So why exactly would you balk at it?

Condoms are sold in every pharmacy, grocery store, or convenience store around the country, and aren't very expensive. Access has always been incredibly easy.

Where in the constitution does it say this?

Feel free to donate some free birth control. Nobody is stopping you. Start a charity that provides it. Nothing is stopping you from doing that either. Or did you expect to force the rest of the nation to pay for it?

@eoten: I direct you to the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade and the right to privacy it is based on.

You're pretty lazy today. Feel free to log off and take a nap.

I'm suggesting something that would also SAVE you money. I've never seen such resistance to a practical and effective way to SAVE MONEY.

It's not going to save me money because I'm not going to be the one paying for your kid's clothes, or putting them through college. You are.

You are going to increased social costs which translates to more taxes. Enjoy.

@LJS9502_basic: it won't contribute to taxes if we don't vote for Democrats

its like talking to a wall with some people

You do realize that Birth controls save quite a bit of taxpayer money? According to this study some procedures save 7 dollars per dollar of investment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661445/

Oh, you adhere to this ridicilousness. "If people only did X, Y, Z we wouldnt be having these issues." You know who else does that argument? Tankies trying to defend Communism.

Let's discuss actual solutions. Not Loaded Language in an attempt to avoid proven solutions. Many which just happen to contradict the policies you disingenously defend.

Seriously how many issues have been solved by "Personal Responsibility" rhetoric?

Oh but you will. As long as programs exist for the poor you will continue paying more for these unwanted pregnancies. Much more in fact. That's the reality of the situation.

Step 1 of GOP policy: Increase societal costs/problems through misguided socially conservative policies.

Step 2 of GOP policy: Refuse to address the issues created by their own policies.

Can we find step three in this thread? Let's see here.... Ah!

Step 3 of GOP policy: When people mention the failures of those policies, deny accountability by citing personal responsibility.

Another disingenuous argument. Kids have always costed society money, whether they're parents meant to have them or not.

Thing is, kids grow up to be tax payers themselves.

It's not disingenuous. The problem here is that is doesn't fit your narrative. Unwanted pregnancies by and large happen to lower income individuals and help perpetuate a cycle of poverty. This is in contrast with pregnancies that are generally planned or 'wanted'. One scenario costs society quite a lot more in terms of money due to subsidation and other numerous externalities. If we look at countries that have much lower teen pregnancy and unwanted pregnancies they are generally much better off than their counterparts that score higher in both categories. Much like women having control over their reproductive rights, these categories are hallmarks in modern societies.

If, however, your argument relies on some form of moral authority so be it. Let that be the hill you die on. At least then you won't have to rely on numbers to back up your claims.

Step 4 of GOP policy: Ignore rape and incest in all argument as if they do not exist.

It's not a likely option, but it is relatively probable. Majority of Americans tend to support *some* leeway for abortion, so it's not completely out of the realm of possibility. It is unlikely because of political gridlock and partisan gameplay though.

I know this is slightly off topic because this thread is more about the political/legal argument than the philosophical one (though I suppose you could make the case they are on the same level), but...

...how can you be anti-vaccine yet pro-life?

How can you want to ban abortions and think life is precious, but then on the flipside be OK with people not getting vaccinated, and in turn contributing to the deaths of millions across the world?

And no, it's not an "apples and oranges" comparison; you can't promote bodily autonomy for vaccinations ("my body, my choice!") in one thing, then do the opposite in another ("life is sacred, abortions bad!").

Can you make a legal case for hypocrisy? Like, if policy was made to support people's right to choose to get vaccinated or not, can you make a legal case for abortion?

@mrbojangles25: It's because outlawing abortion isn't about protecting life. It's about controlling women and dictating what can and can't do with their own bodies. It always has been.

@horgen: That would be a good start.

@mrbojangles25: Flip that, how can you be in favor of the vaccine stating that it's because you want to save lives yet you also want to kill innocent babies by the thousands, the hypocrisy lives deep within you and the left.

The argument I was making was based on bodily autonomy, not saving lives necessarily (though that is part of the equation).

People generally don't think beyond their families when it comes to the greater good, so I decided to build the argument over a person's own body. You're not going to convince someone to take the vaccine because it might save someone's life in the next town over *shrug*

With that said, if we take the argument by your merits, we enter into the territory of "is a fetus a life" and it overcomplicates things.

So no I'm not the hypocrite nor is the left, we are consistent and logical as **** 😜😁

Exactly.

You are wrong when you say other externalities cost more money for impoverished kids, especially in Dem controlled areas. When it comes to education, counties in states like Washington, Connecticut and California have meticulously gerrymandered school districts by income, so the wealthy ones get far more money per student than poor ones. Poor people in general also get less police protection, infrastructure maintenance etc. THIS is what perpetuates the cycle of poverty, NOT the fact they were an oops baby. Fixing these issues at the state level would do a hell of a lot more to alleviate poverty than giving poor people handouts and free contraception.

Is that what you have to tell yourself to convince yourself your argument is the benevolent one? That you're the one on the side of good vs evil? You're deluding yourself, and that's why your arguments on the matter are disingenuous. You set up a narrative, attribute to those who disagree with you, then use it to prop up your own. Why should anyone waste time trying to have any discussion on it with you if that's how you go about things?

Who here is anti-vaccine?. That's a silly argument. But even for those who are against vaccinations in general, it's still a completely unrelated issue. They can absolutely use the "my body, my choice" argument, because once a child is conceived, it is there body. It has it's own DNA, it's own brain, it's own heart. But just like people like you would like to force someone elses decision upon them, you too would like to force needles into other peoples arms as well. So I can see why you're on the side that you are for both topics mentioned.

Abortion ends a life. Not being vaccinated only has a fraction of a percentage of a chance of resulting in a death a Covid shot would have prevented. If you think these two are the same, then there's no hope for you. And the bottom line is, we get the choice whether or not to have it. Does the child get that courtesy?

Can't enjoy killing people if they're never born.

Simple. There is a variable when in comes to Covid: you can survive. In fact, there is a very good chance you will survive. Abortion always ends in death.

EDIT: Another variable is that you can still die from Covid after taking the vaccine