In your opinion, will abortion be legal in all circumstances, in all 50 states 5 years from today?

[OmahaBlueDog]

Poll question: In your opinion, will abortion be legal in all circumstances, in all 50 states 5 years from today?

I'm not taking a position on the issue, and I'm not looking for the thread to become debate on the issue. Really, what I'm asking is where you think the country is/is heading judicially.

If you vote "no", I'd be curious what state you live in and if you think your state will allow abortions or move to outlaw them.

I edited because something was inferred from the original phrasing which was not intended.

[cynatnite]

1. TN is always trying to outlaw abortion...

Fortunately, the repukes keep failing. They were trying to force women to have ultrasounds and dropped it because they didn't have the votes.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. "Abortion-on-demand"?

The phrase "abortion-on-demand" is kind of like the mythical "partial-birth abortion." It tips your hand, whether you meant it to or not.

[tbyg52]

4. I thought that was interesting phraseology as well. nt

[noamnety]

7. Same here.

I'd explain further, but I'm off to go see my dentist, time for my teeth-cleaning-ON DEMAND. I'll be bringing my bullhorn and wearing my combat boots so as to be as demanding as possible about getting medical care.

:eyes:

[OmahaBlueDog]

5. If you have a more neutral phrasing, I'll edit

Really .. the question is intended to be posed neutrally. If I simply say "abortion", it raises the question "well what do you mean --in all cases? in some cases?. Would "on request" work better?

[RufusTFirefly]

12. Actually, I would've just suggested "abortion."

But if you think that "raises questions," how about "unrestricted abortion."

You may not have done so intentionally, but "abortion-on-demand" is often used to convey a kind of cavalier attitude toward a decision that is rarely made without incurring some emotional cost.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Guess he coulda said "drive-through abortion". Heh.

[OmahaBlueDog]

22. I think if I were as biased as was implied, I'd have said something like..

"Will the needless slaughter of innocent babies end in the next 5 years"

"Will states finally earn their rights to make their own laws regarding medical practice in the next 5 years"

"Will America finally stop turning its back on God and stop the murder machine"

Again, I respect those who are against abortion for personal and religous reasons. I would urge everyone to use responsible birth control and consider adoption as an alternative. That said, I don't see overturning Roe as solving anything.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Yup. And not saying it so strongly is how people stealth their way into reasonable-soundingness.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. Right. A bit like "sexual preference."

It's way easier to discriminate against folks when you frame their decision as something irresponsible or impulsive or describe the way they are made as somehow being a matter of choice, like preferring thin-crust instead of thick-crust pizza.

On the other hand, you can always let a particular interpretation of a particular translation of your particular religion's holy book do your thinking for you, thus letting you off the hook entirely.

[tbyg52]

3. It's all about control, and the people who want it aren't going to give up.

I'm in Texas, and I'm sure they'd *like* to.

[Selatius]

6. It's technically legal now per Roe v. Wade.

It's just a lot more difficult in states like Mississippi where I live.

[tbyg52]

10. And it's not just the government, per se

The current atmosphere, I understand, is causing a big drop in training doctors to perform abortions, especially late-term ones.

[OregonBlue]

8. So by calling it "abortion on demand" aren't you taking a position? Sorry but your bias is showing.

[OmahaBlueDog]

9. I edited, but I'm curious how that phrasing is biased?

[tbyg52]

11. Because of the way people who are against choice use it. nt

[Cerridwen]

14. It's the forced-birthers' talking point

It's frequently used to give the impression that any woman who obtains an abortion is just out for "shits and giggles" as she fucks her way around, gets "caught" by becoming pregnant, then blithely pops over to the local "abortion clinic" to casually discard the small inconvenience of an unintended, though probably "deserved", outcome of her "slutty" ways.

It's also used to imply that some pregnant women awake one morning and decide "just for the helluvit"; on a whim; or because they're PMSing that day, to pop on over to the local "abortion clinic" and do away with the "cause" of all their aches and pains.

There are other examples but I think you get the drift.

In short, it's a phrase used to diminish the myriad reasons women obtain abortions and to belittle the women themselves by making them appear vain, or selfish, or "slutty", or flighty, or ...


I hope this helps.


edit: spelling

[OmahaBlueDog]

18. I hear a lot of that here in the Heartland, but I've never heard A-O-D as a talking point..

I just see endless billboards with babies saying "I'm a child not a choice" and "Aren't you glad your mother wasn't pro choice" and "Choose Life" stickers and plate frames -- that kind of thing.

I have no illusions that laws will end abortions. Women with money will go to Canada or Mexico or Costa Rica or where ever. Women with no money will get butchered. Part of the problem with this issue is that fewer people have a memory of what life was like before Roe.

[Cerridwen]

21. Maybe it's more regional then.

Any time I've come across it, it's been a "code phrase" used to imply the ideas I stated in my previous post.

The history of life for women before Roe has been fairly well silenced. During the time, it wasn't much discussed because it was about an illegal operation so many didn't speak out; even afterward it still carried, and carries to this day, a taint to it.

Trying to get the history in front of people can be an exercise in frustration.

[OregonBlue]

29. That makes it sound like women can just walk in and DEMAND an abortion without

any restrictions. Actually, this is a very painful and often torturous emotional process for women. In many states, even though it is still legal, there are more and more hoops to jump through including being required to watch videos, get counseling, etc. Please don't make light of it by referring to it in those terms.

[Hekate]

13. It never has been. Roe vs Wade set the law in accordance with what was actually prevailing sentiment

... in this country at the time, and remains so to this day.

That is, in the first trimester (before "quickening" in other words) a woman should have the right to an abortion if she wants one. (I guess some people call that "on demand." Sounds kind of icky when you put it that way, and it is intended to.)

In the second trimester and beyond, it gets into a grayer area, but the State begins to gain some right to regulation. Medically, it also gets more dangerous for the mother, so that's reasonable.

In the third timester, the State has more right to forbid abortion. The fetus, if normal, becomes increasingly able to sustain life on its own. HOWEVER, before Roe vs Wade, throughout history in nearly every religion and culture including our own, and to this day, the prevailing opinion of normal people is that the mother's life, health, and sanity take precedence over that of her fetus. There are "unviable" fetuses. There are pregnancies that kill the mother. And so on. Normal humans recognize and have always recognized this and have preferred to save the mother above all. Roe vs. Wade recognized this.

Until modern times. Until the anti-abortion fanatics took off.

So no, I don't think there will be "abortion in all circumstances" or "abortion on demand" in this country in 5 years. Anti-abortion fanatics want to FORBID abortion in ALL circumstances -- including those of saving the life, health, and future fertility of the women involved in the equation. Abortion is already completely unavailable in most counties in the country. Rural and small town women must travel very far, often overnight, to obtain one.

In five years' time, unless we have a Democratic president, the Scalias of the Supreme Court will make that the law of the land, not only repealing Roe vs. Wade but making things far worse than they ever were before.

Hekate

[Rosemary2205]

15. snort

don't feel bad. I got attacked the other day IN THE LOUNGE for using the word "crisis".

You'd have thought I farted in the jacuzzi. :)

[OmahaBlueDog]

19. Those Loungers are vicious!

They make GD: P look civil ;-)

[AndyTiedye]

16. It All Hangs on the Next Presidential Election

If McCain wins, Roe v. Wade falls, and abortion will be banned in every red state.

[OmahaBlueDog]

17. I believe South Dakota is going to put a ban on the ballot again..

.. but this time with rape/incest/danger-to-life clauses that were missing when the measure was defeated last time out. This would automatically represent a very direct challenge to Roe if it is passed, and will obviously find its way to the SCOTUS.

[bobbolink]

24. Will many poor people live through the next five years?

Does it matter?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3237076&mesg_id=3237076

[uppityperson]

25. I'm ignoring the already posted replies, looking at the question.

If you mean will there be more legal restrictions on abortions in 5 yrs, it depends. A big part depends on who gets to be president, who they pick for SCOTUS, who gets on SCOTUS. I think that there will be further restrictions on a state by state basis, and less people providing legal abortions since it is getting more and more dangerous to do so.

Having worked with Family Planning (not PP though), it will be a constant battle to allow legal abortions of any sort to continue, esp state by state. If McCain gets pres, and puts another fundamentalist on the SCOTUS, there may be fed restrictions as well. This is 1 reason I have been helping youngsters register to vote. I don't care if you don't like the candidate, I remember what it was like in the late 60's/early 70's and don't want those times to return.

So, it depends. There will be more restrictions, and more battles over them, then less restrictions, and more battles to put more back on.

[Clear Blue Sky]

26. Even if Roe is overturned, the issue will then go to the states.

I suspect most states will allow abortion, although the restrictions will vary from state to state.

[Brigid]

28. No way.

Not with the Supreme Court we have now, which we will be stuck with for the next 30 years or more. Thanks a lot, George. :banghead:

[depakid]

30. The opposite will likely be true - abortion under NO circumstances will be legal

in certain states.

And in certain states, there will also be major restriction on birth control. Limited to married couples, for example.

Or perhaps in the fundiest places, banned outright.