Abortion

A Post-Roe World Would Pave the Way for a New Black Market in Abortion Pills

Forget coat-hangers and back alleys. The future of illegal abortions is online pharmaceuticals.

|

BSIP/Newscom

The graphic was simple but gripping: a black background with a wire coat hanger floating in the middle over one all-caps phrase: THE END OF ROE. HuffPost's editor-in-chief Lydia Polgreen tweeted out the image on Thursday morning, one of a string of left-leaning media nods to the same conclusion: Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court is the beginning of a certain end to legal abortion access in America.

No one can say for sure how Justice John Roberts would go on either overturning or weakening Roe, and any number of hiccups could snag state plans to outlaw abortion, but there's a real chance that the Court opening created by Kennedy's departure will mean a rough patch for reproductive freedom, abortion access, and women's autonomy in this country—and, yes, perhaps even an overturning of Roe and the outlawing of abortion in some areas.

But in a modern world where abortion is outlawed, the coat hanger is probably an ill-fitting and anachronistic symbol. The availability of easy-to-administer abortion-inducing pills and the impossibility of stopping their flow from foreign pharmacies would create a situation unlike in previous eras when it was difficult or illegal to terminate pregnancies.

Right now, the U.S. allows women to obtain what are known as "medical abortions"—the kind induced via pharmaceuticals, not surgery—through the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, using the two-step drug combo of mifepristone and misoprostol. This kind of abortion makes up a growing share of total abortions in America (a number which has been declining more or less steadily since the early 1980s).

While the regulations regarding abortion pills vary by state, most require a physician to dispense the pill. But other than confirming pregnancy and determining gestational age, there's little (non-bureaucratic) reason why medical abortions require a doctor or even an office visit at all. Complications can certainly arise after taking the pill, necessitating further care in some cases, but these are pretty rare. For the vast majority of pregnant people who take the pill as directed, the process may be painful but can be undertaken at home.

If abortion were illegal in parts of the country, women these days would be much more likely to attempt abortion with black-market pills than coat hangers or other more dangerous measures. That's not to say that these pills wouldn't be without their dangers: Any drugs bought on the black market can pose quality-control problems. But with foreign pharmacies relatively easy to order from online, and abortion pills still legal in many states, opportunities to obtain legit abortion pills in an underground market may actually be pretty expansive.

In this way, pregnant women's options and outcomes in a post-Roe world might not be a grim or gruesome as they were in an earlier era. And efforts to actually eradicate abortion stand less of a chance than they ever have before, when the only reliable ways to terminate pregnancies involved invasive and dangerous medical procedures undertaken in specific locales. As it stands now, anyone with an internet connection and a little cash can pretty easily obtain the pills, and no special or sterile setting is required.

But this also opens up other frightening possibilities. A crackdown on either pharmaceuticals ordered online from foreign pharmacies or pills flowing between states could seriously step up the time-tested brutality and civil-liberties squelching capability of the drug war.

Many states already have criminal laws against illegally induced abortions, and women have been prosecuted under these (and anti-fetacide laws) for illegally obtaining and taking pills to induce abortion. In another instance, a mother was imprisoned for illegally obtaining the pills for her teenage daughter—and this is with legal abortion. In a country where abortion was illegal or inaccessible in some states, we could almost certainly expect to see more state laws targeting both women who self-induce abortions and (especially) people who assist them in doing so in any capacity.

We've already seen a recent weakening of protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal provision protecting internet platforms and publishers from certain legal liability for the speech of their users, or conduct resulting from that speech. As of this spring, websites and apps can be sued in civil court and criminally prosecuted by states if anyone uses them to facilitate or promote prostitution. It's not hard to imagine Congress carving out a similar provision for any website that somehow facilitated someone obtaining abortion drugs illegally.

The same goes for laws like the Mann Act, still in frequent use to punish people who drive other adults across state lines for "immoral purposes" (usually sex work). Under a slightly revised Mann Act or something similar, we could see whole new swaths of federal agents devoted to ferreting out and stopping people from helping women in states where abortion is illegal obtain abortions in other states.

With our current state of medicine and technology, eliminating abortion anywhere in the country could prove more difficult than the pro-choice side fears—a small consolation, but a consolation nonetheless. Meanwhile, the police-state antics, disastrous policy, and rising prison populations that come from outlawing abortion could prove every bit as devastating to American women and the general state of freedom in the country as any return to back-alley abortion doctors could be.

Advertisement

NEXT: Republican Governor Signs $15 Minimum Wage Bill in Terrible 'Grand Bargain'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “”The future of illegal abortions is online pharmaceuticals.”‘

    I think you’re right but from where? Places like the Backpage, or Silk Road?

    1. It’s easy enough to get illegal nootropics from Indian pharmacies, and boomers are always buying black market cholesterol meds & such online. The same avenues through which folks purchase these things?

      1. THEN WHY WAS NONE OF THIS IN THE BURN AFTER READING EDITION OF THE PRINT MAGAZINE? Or maybe it was. I don’t get the print copy anymore even though I’m a webathon donor of note. Things like this never happened when Welch was in charge.

      2. “”and boomers are always buying black market cholesterol meds & such online””

        Once government gets the bug up it’s ass to do something about it, they will. I agree that if roe was overturned that the black market will be around and newer tech in abortion will be around. However, government can make this cost high if you go that route driving it further underground. We often talk about things that chill free speech. The government putting the owner of Silk Road in jail for life with no parole serves as a warning to others.

      3. The quality and efficacy of those black market Indian pills is always a problem. I’m told.

      4. Oh please this is overwrought. Everyone know the argument is over term of fetus/gestation/unborn child for abortions with no medical reason. In Europe abortions are restricted at 24 some 20 some 18 some 14 some 12 weeks without anyone saying the sky is falling.

        92% of US abortions are performed at less than 14 weeks. The great majority of the rest have medical reason that wont be overturned.

        France has serious medical need restrictions after 12 weeks, Denmark is 12 weeks as well, Sweden 18 weeks
        in the UK the NHS doesn’t do abortion past 20 weeks without a certified medical necessity:
        https://tinyurl.com/ybuf7qus

        The US is effectively unrestricted in some states, moving that back a week or two is not going to put women back to using hangers.

        The US is by far an outlier with its lack of restrictions. Intelligent people know that this is more complex than Huff Posts absurd graphic

        1. I suspect that the overlap between intelligent people and people who take Huffpo seriously is very small.

  2. Everybody keeps talking about Roe v Wade as if its importance was solely about abortion.

    It has far wider implications than that. Roe v Wade was where the USSC openly acknowledges the ‘penumbras’ – ie that our right are most definitely not limited to the BoR but include . . . well, everything.

    Overturning RvW would affect a hell of a lot more than abortion rights – and I’d hope a libertarian magazine would be interested in pushing the bigger picture on this instead of spending a lot of words on how people who can’t handle using birth control need a final fallback.

    1. Roe v. Wade did not establish penumbras rights. That would be Griswald

      1. Even better.

        Those rights should be expanded to euthanasia by pill too.

        BUT WINGNUTS!

        1. “Those rights should be expanded to euthanasia by pill too.”

          You obviously don’t realize why the Court ruled the way it did in Griswald and overturned its previous holding in Buck v. Bell.

          It’s never a good look when Nazis defend their eugenic policies by citing an Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion

          1. “Griswold”, you clown.

            1. Yup, that was quite an embarrassing misspelling. Clearly, I am a clown

              1. Don’t take shit from that fucking welcher.

              2. A really good lawyer would have said “Of *course* I know how to spell Griswold. I was typing on a Dvorak keymap, and my left pinky finger just happened to slip and hit the ‘a’ instead of the ‘o’ 🙂

        2. It’s weird you’d advocating for euthanasia when you and other idiots use suicides to pump up gun deaths.

          1. not just pump up but invert trends. Gun homicide rates and gun fatal accident fatalities rates are less half of they were a generation ago, yet the gun ban/control nutz say we are in an epidemic by throwing in suicides (when access to guns doesn’t change that especially with the internet now full of self hanging instructions and self hanging and self asphyxia are massively increasing)

      2. Was that in the Christmas Vacation or the European Vacation?

        1. ‘Abortion Clinic Vacation’.

          1. So Vegas Vacation?

      3. Right, but any legal attack on Roe v. Wade will probably damage, if not eliminate, the “Right to Privacy” established in Griswold that Roe depends on. It might be possible to overturn Roe v. Wade without overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, but seeing as the hardcore activists asking for the former would also be happy with the latter (as well as the other consequences to taking out the Right to Privacy), I’m not sure why you should expect such a narrow ruling in the hypothetical case where it comes up.

        In short… sure, it might be possible for the court to disconnect Roe from Griswold in order to take out the former while leaving the later intact. But I’m not sure that, in the set of scenarios where Roe is overturned, that’s a likely one.

        1. Best post in this thread.

          1. Ones man’s best is another man’s histrionics.

        2. Not necessarily. Casey significantly overturned a good chunk of Roe’s holding and yet the “right to privacy” (which only ever seems to pertain to sexual matters, but literally nothing else) still exists. Even if Roe was repealed in full it would not result in a national ban on abortion.

          1. I didn’t say “necessarily”, I said “look at what kind of legal arguments the folks pushing this are going to push”.

            You gotta remember, the anti-abortion activists pushing these laws are the same ones that stood up in Hobby Lobby and said birth control was abortion. You think they’re suddenly going to rediscover the distinction?

            1. Nobody in hobby lobby said all birth control was abortion. Don’t have to lie.

            2. You’ve made that false claim before. Please cite or stop.

        3. The NSA, IRS, FBI, local cops, hacked credit card companies, Equifax, ATT, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, the Harris Corporation’s Stingray cell tower spoofer … laugh at a right to privacy.

          1. Which is entirely separate from the legal concept of “Right to Privacy” being discussed.

            1. you clearly have not read roe, some of the examples the other poster used are ninth amendment like roe

        4. I personally do not believe abortion to be murder, but if one were to successfully prove that it is, couldn’t RvW be overturned on the basis that “right to privacy” doesn’t extend to murder without having any implication for the broader right to privacy?

      4. Roger that, my mistake.

    2. Yes, it is libertarian blasphemy to be opposed to freedom of choice and the expansive rights of Roe.

      It practically started this “originalism” crap.

      1. Yeah, Roe is a shitty ruling in the legal logic involved. If we want to pass an amendment to the Bill of Rights codifying abortion then that’s great, but this is an area where Reason goes off the rails a bit in permitting some batshit means because they like the end.

        I’m all for us having a SCOTUS that requires us to pass amendments to change or add to the constitution rather than just make up shit and pretend it was the law all along. Roe being jettisoned would be a necessary corrective measure, but again, it’s easily replaced by actually having the states and the legislature do their damned jobs.

        1. You are advocating a position where the Constitution determines *what is allowed*. We don’t do that in our legal system. The Constitution exists to provide limits to what the government *can disallow*.

          .

          1. Which is exactly why it should be an amendment instead of just a precedent. One of those two things is way easier to overturn.

    3. I am not aware of a single case that ever relayed upon Douglas’ “penumbras” as its reasoning. Roe v., Wade was limited to its facts virtually from the day it was decided. And subsequent decisions regarding abortion rights affirmed the holding in Roe but never relied on its reasoning. So, I do not think overturning Roe would affect anything other than abortion rights.

      1. He is talking about the Right to Privacy (which Ron Paul and others said doesn’t exist).

        1. No he is not. The right to privacy comes from Griswald not Roe you fucking half wit. Don’t insult my intelligence and waste everyone’s time commenting on threads that are about things other than whatever partisan talking point you are cutting and pasting today. You are too fucking stupid and it just annoys and insults everyone.

          1. The right to privacy comes from. the 14th amendment specifically, and the 10th generally.

            1. I’ll say if a right to privacy existed, the amendment alllowing an income tax killed it deader than dead.

          2. Roe built on the Right to Privacy described in Griswold – you puss-soaked GOP tampon.

            1. You don’t know the basis for either ruling, so maybe sit this one out

              1. If you have some pedantic bullshit to spew out just do it.

                1. Like your spell check pedantic? Or a different pedantic?

                  1. Yes, like that. The irony is in being lectured by someone who can’t spell the primary name in the ruling.

                    Now go back to wingnut.com.

                    1. It’s wingnut.net, you clown

                2. Plug, we’re all very busy here. Maybe you should go eat some paste, or play with blocks, or something.

        2. Still obsessed with Ron Paul, Weigel?

          You are such a complete and total fucking loser. How does it feel to be getting your ass kicked day after day after day on issue after issue after issue?

          Suicide is always still an available option for you to end the misery if losing gets to be too much for you.

          1. Are you talking to yourself again?

    4. openly acknowledges the ‘penumbras’

      Except the way they constructed the argument left it open to attack. A defendant might be able to vigorously fend off an attack on RvW with a 9th Amendment argument and likely gain support from both Thomas and Gorsuch.

      1. Because Thomas and all “originalists” back into their opinions based on their personal feelings about something.

        In this case they just don’t want women to choose for themselves.

        1. oh stop.

        2. oh stop.

        3. Correct, we don’t want women to choose murder. That’s not a valid “choice”.

    5. No, it would not “affect a hell of a lot of more things”.

      First overturning RvW would finally restore the right to life for all human life.

      Second, it would have no affect on other rights, because this overturning RvW is strengthening rights.

      Third, we still have the Ninth Amendment.

  3. HuffPost and many on the Left are acting a little hysterical. The biggest change that would likely result from replacing Kennedy will probably be the US having abortion laws more in sync with the rest of the industrialized world. States will probably be allowed to restrict abortion to twenty or twenty four weeks, thereby making US abortion laws as “oppressive” as the laws in…..the UK. But, still more liberal than abortion laws in France, Italy, Spain and the vast majority of Europe.

    1. Do you agree, though, that abortion pills should be available over the counter without a doctor’s prescription

      1. Yes.

        1. At what point does it become murder is perhaps the important question there. I just find it weird how abortion pills are supposed to be on demand and over the counter but guns are somehow different. *shrug*

          1. Both guns and abortions should be available on demand and OTC. You act like there are no pro-gun-rights abortion supporters.

            1. I’m not acting like it if you’re capable of reading, merely pointing out that’s it’s an incredibly common double standard.

              Even if abortion is murder, balancing it against the natural rights of the mother is necessary given that it’s a fairly unique conflict of natural rights.

      2. Do you agree, though, that abortion pills should be available over the counter without a doctor’s prescription

        Progressives disagree, because that would mean that, heaven forbid, women would have to pay for it themselves.

        Of course, in much of Europe, abortion and birth control have to be paid for out of pocket.

  4. If states already make it illegal for a woman to induce an abortion without a physician being present, I don’t see how they could create more of a black market then already exists. The whole point of the pill is so that you don’t have to go to a doctor. Moreover, as long as the pills are legal in some states, such a law would not create a black market. It would just mean women would drive to the other states to get the pills.

    Abortion pills are not cigarettes. Just how many abortion pills do women need? Not enough to support much of a black market in selling them. I don’t think the mafia is going to start earning by smuggling abortion pills. There just isn’t enough of a demand for doing so to make any money.

    1. I think “black market” in this case basically = “Canadian pharmacy.”

      1. Or pharmacy in another state. I don’t think anyone is going to be cooking up these pills in their basement.

        1. Yeah, and nobody’s going to be buying them from guys name of Smoothie, Shifty, or D-Money, either.

          1. If your nickname is D-Money, how could you be anything but a drug dealer?

            1. You could be a stripper.

              1. That was not a suggestion, John.

            2. My nickname in coll…ah, never mind.

            3. John, Harvey Korma. Told me that it could also be a Count.

    2. Are you attempting to define the “black market” as only products that are high volume?

      1. No. I am defining “black market” as a market that operates illegally and thus outside the bounds of regulation and government control. Driving to another state and buying the pills legally there is not a black market.

        My point about the low volume is that the volume would be so low, no black market would develop and women would just drive to another state where they are available or order them from Canada as Citizen X points out.

        This is not a complex point. I don’t understand why you don’t get it.

        1. I don’t know John, When California had an extremely high tax rate on certain tobaccos many people went out of state for their personal supply but that was considered black market since they didn’t pay the tax. Another issue is having to go out of state in the first place can be a problem for teenagers since the pills need to be taken in a timely fashion, having the transportation, the time to travel if they are in school or work can make it difficult. I dont’ approve of abortion but the sometimes the pill is the best choice.

        2. First, let me say I oppose abortion generally, as it is my assertation that the unborn should be affored the same human rights as the rest of us.

          That out of the way, if these drugs are available easily in select states, or for hundreds of dollars via a black market, the end result will be that the poor in states where it is forbidden will be at a significant economic disadvantage to those in states where it is permissible and to the rich generally. Since children are a significant economic burden, the end result would be that women in states where it is forbidden would remain in generational poverty at higher rates than women in states where it is permitted precisely because they wouldn’t be able to afford the trip, or the black market markup, to acquire the pill.

          1. Maybe poor women shouldn’t be such sluts. I mean, uh, zygotes have rights! Yeah, that’s what I mean!

            1. Tony, we already know you hate babies, so you don’t need to make a thing of it.

            2. What are you doing here Tony? Shouldn’t you be drinking your Drano?

            3. Maybe poor women shouldn’t be such sluts.

              Are you saying that poor women are too stupid to use birth control?

          2. … anyone want to do the math to see what the current correlation is between abortion providers and poverty within states?

            ’cause abortion restrictions (even when they’re not outright bans) always hit the poorest hardest. So sure, if we already have a correlation (and I suspect we do), then it would probably get stronger, but I don’t think it would be a new correlation.

            1. You’re right. It wouldn’t be a new thing, just more of an existing thing.

            2. You’re right. It wouldn’t be a new thing, it would be more of an existing thing.
              Is there a minimum character count? This is the third time I’ve tried to post this.

    3. Just how many abortion pills do women need? Not enough to support much of a black market in selling them.

      No. of birth control pills – 1 or ~500.

      1. per woman that is.

      2. Grrr….

        (~500 – mos. of birth control) / woman

        that is.

    4. If states already make it illegal for a woman to induce an abortion without a physician being present, I don’t see how they could create more of a black market then already exists.

      You’re missing the point that the black market is created exactly because the “physician being present” option might be eliminated in the hypothetical. Whatever black market exists today is only because legal options are too costly or embarrassing or whatever. If legal options are unavailable, then naturally that would drive a larger black market.

      The government continues to operate under the false assumption that banning something that has a high demand leads to elimination of that something. In practice, it just drives it underground.

      1. In practice, it just drives it underground.

        I have yet to hear a good reason why I should care either way about abortion being easy or legal. What I do care about is that Democrats and progressive want to force me to pay for it, and that I do object to.

    5. Actually, it would mean people drive to other states, by the pills in bulk, and drive back – to sell them out of the back of the alley to anyone who wants them.

      Same as they do with cigarettes in high-tax jurisdictions. So, yes, there’d be a black market in them. It’d still be a better situation than with other drugs though.

    6. No, the whole point of the pill is so you don’t have to have surgery.

  5. That’s obviously a man’s hand in the picture, pushing pills on a nervous-looking young lady. Why must you empower the patriarchy with your stock photo choices, ENB?

    1. That’s obviously a man’s hand in the picture,

      IDK, while the 2D:4D suggests male, “his” nails look to be more manicured than hers. I’d go with mannish lesbian, then whether it’s an abortion pill or a roofie, it’s all good.

      1. What, a man can’t get his nails did?

        1. What, a man can’t get his nails did?

          *And* be a definitive/unquestioned part of The Patriarchy? No.

    2. It’s man-hands from Seinfeld.

  6. Well at least nobody is freaking out about it.

  7. “Unwanted Fetus Dies in Darkness”

  8. The difference between this and the drug war is that these abortion pills aren’t for stimulating pleasure in adults, but in causing death to unborn children.

    Obviously, the current bureaucracy and law-enforcement establishment puts its priority on preventing adults from getting high, rather than protecting the unborn.

    Also there’s a bureaucracy to stop untried (or insufficiently tested) medicines from reaching sick adults.

    But imagine a world with the opposite set of priorities – where protecting human life is more important than regulating adults getting high, or stopping experimental treatments for sick adults.

    Imagine the zeal which now gets used to restrict liberty being redirected to protect life.

    1. PS – Observe how the 4th Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights have already been trampled in the name of the Wars on Drugs, Terrorism, etc. – all while abortion remains legal.

      There’s no reason to suppose the enforcing abortion laws will make the Bill of Rights situation any worse.

  9. Now that Kennedy is gone people are imagining abortion going away. I won’t happen. Stop imagining impossible boogeymen in the closet. As long as you’re not in the third trimester or wanting the taxpayers to pay for it, you’re safe. The issue has long been settled in stone. No need to poop your pants over it.

    1. There needs to be some major cultural change, not just legal change.

      But if people can be persuaded that two dudes can get married, and the culture can shift that radically, why rule out a radical cultural shift to believing in the right to life of all human persons?

      1. “”There needs to be some major cultural change, not just legal change.””

        Precisely.

        1. It’s both/and.

      2. You may consider a fetus a human being, but a fetus definitely is not a person.

        And the whole issue is utterly tedious. I think Americans are generally simply tired of it either way. Flatter yourself by believing that you are a moral crusader saving millions of lives, I don’t care. Outlaw abortion or don’t outlaw it, I don’t care. Just don’t make me pay for either the abortions or the unwanted children.

    2. I don’t know. I think a lot of people here would poop their pants if Hillary was nominating Kennedy’s replacement and the impact of that choice on the 2nd Amendment

      1. You’re doing your abortions wrong.

      2. That might just be because there is a history of absolutely abhorrent jurisprudence on the 2nd amendment with much weaker protections in precedent than exist for abortion. As it sits right now no abortion case will ever make it to the SCOTUS because the lower courts will rely on existing precedent which gives abortion protections not afforded to literally any other enumerated or unenumerated right in the constitution. 2nd amendment cases get kicked up all the time because the precedent on gun issues is much weaker and more ambiguous so there are ample opportunities to eviscerate gun rights via the courts. There simply isn’t an analogous legal footing for abortion challenges.

        1. It is as if abortion was the most important right in the judiciary.

    3. Uh, even with Kennedy on the bench, there have been quite a few states that have been trying to effectively outlaw abortion in their states.

      What makes you think that, now that Kennedy is going away, they’ll stop trying to effectively outlaw abortion in their states?

      1. OTOH, the USSC has been consistently blocking that. With Kennedy gone, I’m not seeing any persuasive arguments that they won’t continue to.

        To be successful they’d have to

        a) get a case before the USSC. That ain’t easy.

        b) get a majority to agree that this is important enough to violate stare decisis. Short of loading the court with extremely devout Mormons, you’re going to have a hard time convincing even a Conservative judge to do that.

      2. What do you mean effectively outlaw? Seems to me they were looking to limit abortion, as is done in most of Europe and Latin America.

        Colorado had already legalized abortion with the approval of three physicians in 1967. I’d expect abortion would be legal in most states even if Roe were overturned.

        1. Effectively outlaw, meaning here to eliminate all legal options to have an abortion in fact, even if there were legal options in theory.

          For example, the states of Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming have only one abortion clinic each. And in those states, there have been attempts to regulate that one remaining clinic out of existence.

          1. I just did a quick googling of “abortion in Missouri” and came back with a hell of a lot more locations than “1”. How did you come to this conclusion?

            1. How did you come to this conclusion?

              Picked it up from a left wing blog filled with people as stupid as he is.

  10. And as long as we’re talking about the fruits of medical science, what happens when artificial wombs are available and the technology is invented such that any woman with an unwanted pregnancy can get the child transferred to the artificial womb?

    What excuse would then remain for abortion?

    1. While we don’t have the artificial womb yet, we’re pretty nearly already to the point where defending a woman’s right to choose a late(r) term abortion is akin to defending her right to throw herself and her unborn child in front of a bus. Both viability and detection have been pushed forward to the point that abortion advocates pretty much defending a woman’s right to wait until the child is a viable human being before killing it.

      It’s just not the argument that it was in the 60s, 70s, and 80s where you had to wait for a heartbeat before you knew anything for sure and/or could do anything about it.

      1. wait until the child is a viable human being before killing it.

        And putting themselves at highest/greatest risk.

      2. So when during a pregnancy do you think the woman’s rights to bodily integrity and autonomy (inherent to and embedded in the concept of human rights) should be outweighed by those of the fetus?

    2. What excuse would then remain for abortion?

      Individual liberty?

      Additionally, you couldn’t very well compel someone to pay for artificial gestation. So would you make this the role of the state, or would you force the poor woman at gunpoint to pay for the artificial gestation? Both options sound pretty authoritarian to me.

      1. Additionally, you couldn’t very well compel someone to pay for artificial gestation.

        Because you can’t very well compel taxpayers to cover abortion services? I think there are some rather obvious incentives for churches, corporations, and militaries to get in on the whole artificial gestation thing. They may not be the most moral incentives but we’re only talking about a lump of cells here.

        1. Those same incentives exist *right now*.

          Nobody – even the churches, who would rather use coercion – seem to think offering to pay is worth it to them.

          1. The very fact that blue states keep trying to close down prolife pregnancy centers calls attention to these privately-financed facilities.

            1. I know, they’re crazy.

        2. “Because you can’t very well compel taxpayers to cover abortion services?”

          I thought this was illegal, but could be wrong.

          Regardless, even if you did, it would require you under the threat of force to extract the zygote from the woman, potentially against her will. Square that with the NAP.

          1. I thought this was illegal, but could be wrong.

            Planned Parenthood, foreign aid, etc.

            Regardless, even if you did, it would require you under the threat of force to extract the zygote from the woman, potentially against her will.

            Either she wants the zygote in her for the term or she doesn’t. Just like with any other property or even data/information, when it’s in your possession, you get to say what can be done with it. Once you give or ask someone to take it from you, you don’t necessarily get to dictate what they do with it.

            1. Either she wants the zygote in her for the term or she doesn’t.

              You/they absolutely do not have the unfettered right to carry a fetus to just short of full term and abort, especially in the era of socialized medicine. My moral opposition to that situation is strictly of the economic/moral hazard variety.

              1. I never said anything about carrying to near full term. I could see how a woman early in pregnancy would want to abort rather than have the embryo extracted to live on. 1) it’s her body and I don’t know these things necessarily, but I would assume abortion early in the pregnancy is much easier than extracting an embryo. 2) it’s 1/2 her genetic material. Why does the state have a more compelling interest than she does to the her genetic material? Would you be the one to hold a gun to her head and force her to carry it or surrender it to the state?

                1. How about simply outlaw any method of extracting the fetus that makes the fetus die, and make it mandatory for the medical provider to place the fetus in the artificial womb? As long as this option isn’t technologically possible, I insist on keeping abortion legal. The moment it becomes possible to free the woman from pregnancy in a way not harmful to the fetus, it will become the moral duty of the state to ensure the fetuses’ survival, even if the costs are going to be high and taxpayer-covered.

      2. “force the poor woman at gunpoint to pay for the artificial gestation”

        No, I’m saying make abortion illegal. The traditional alternative to abortion is be giving birth, and an artificial womb would add another alternative. Doubtless philanthropists on both the prolife and prochoice side would chip in to pay for the artificial womb services, if we’re talking about a libertopia where people have more money to spend on charity in the first place.

        1. Force against the woman is still required. Even if you didn’t have to force her to pay for the womb, you would still be requiring her to undergo some procedure to remove the zygote. You would also be forcing her to submit her and the fathers genetic material to the custody of the state. Both of those presumably at the point of a gun right there in the clinic.

          1. Even if you didn’t have to force her to pay for the womb, you would still be requiring her to undergo some procedure to remove the zygote.

            Oh, fuck off. I just remembered that you’re a zealot on this issue. Another crackpot right-to-murderist operating under the assumption that 20-week abortions were banned decades ago and that an abortion at 10-20 weeks is wholly interchangeable, from any perspective, with an abortion at 39 weeks.

            1. I don’t believe I’ve ever discussed this issue on Reason, quite frankly. I believe that abortion is disgusting, abhorrent even. I also believe that the state holding a gun to the head of a pregnant, scared, woman is equally disgusting. In cases like that I would err on the side of individual rights, especially early in the pregnancy.

              I would tend to agree with you that there is some point at which the fetus is fundamentally different than the initial fertilized zygote and barely visible embryo. It’s a difficult issue, for sure. I think states should be allowed to define a point at which the fetus is human and has rights to life, but that is hardly the point that extreme measures are required to preserve the embryo, and should be long enough after pregnancy is normally detected to provide the woman some ability to make a decision.

              1. There needs to be a legal standard of personhood established. Viability of the fetus is not consistent, as advances in neonatal technology make that a sliding scale.

                1. There already is. It’s called the mother.

            2. Also… that escalated quickly.

              I wanted to also mention again the false assumption among ideologues that banning abortion is some magical thing that government can do to make it go away. The issue is that whenever there is a substantial demand for something, like abortion, drugs, cheap labor, that people will find a way to get what they want. If it’s coat hangers or black market clinics, then people’s lives and health will needlessly be at risk. If it’s black market pills then people will needlessly go to jail in an expansive drug war.

              That being said, things like artificial wombs are real game changers technologically. Reasonable alternatives that will reduce demand for abortion are win-win situations for everyone. BUT, the libertarian in me says that these options are just that… options that shouldn’t carry the full weight of government compulsion either on the women to comply with the procedures involved or on the taxpayers to pay for them.

            3. And at 39 weeks, we’re cool taking away a conscious woman or girl’s human right to bodily integrity and autonomy in favor of the fetus?

            4. Fuck off yourself. He’s right and it’s a valid point, regardless of whether it offends your delicate sensibilities. So answer the question: are you proposing we hold her down and surgically remove the fetus against her will? What’s the alternative?

          2. Agreed. This artificial womb shit has to be one of the dumbest fucking arguments I’ve heard in the last few years. But man, it sure is fun to watch a bunch of pro-lifers get momentarily excited about sci-fi, then have their heads implode when they realize seconds later what horseshit logic is involved with this kind of thinking. Having to explain to someone that this changes absolutely fucking nothing–unless you still plan to seriously violate the human rights of the women already carrying fetuses they don’t want–is borderline adorable, but mostly as pathetic as watching Homer Simpson try to read the back of his head by spinning around on the floor in a circle.

            “How are you planning on getting it out of her and into the lab? Strapping her down and cutting it out?”
            “Durrrrrrrrr, I dunno!”
            Cool.

            Not to mention that so many of these people think IVF is akin to genocide, but shoving a fetus in a plastic bag in a lab is rad. We’re living in intelligent times, y’all. I, for one, welcome our impending A.I. overlords and whatever comes with it, because I can’t anymore with these mouth-breathers.

        2. What, you mean like “philanthropists on both the prolife and prochoice side” are chipping in to pay the pregnancy costs for women and then adopting the babies, thus making sure that there are no babies in the foster care system?

          Those philanthropists?

          Yeah, there’s not enough of them when the costs are thousands of dollars. And there’s zero reason to think an artificial womb is going to be cheaper then a normal pregnancy.

        3. An artificial womb gives women who don’t want to be pregnant and are not already pregnant another alternative. For those already pregnant and desire a termination, you’re not getting that thing out of her without force.

      3. While we’re at it, we could sterilize women so they can’t naturally conceive, and therefore wouldn’t have any reason to pursue abortion, and would be forced to instead use artificial wombs. It’s what God wanted.

    3. Who is going to raise the child?

      Abortion is not ‘omg, pregnancy is so incovenient, I want to skip it so bad I’ma kill my baby’

      1. There’s usually a lot of would-be adoptive parents out there, and an article posted today said the sources of foreign kids are drying up…

      2. What I usually see is someone willing to abort the child b

        1. But still have the attitude “no way am I giving up my baby”

      3. Abortion is not ‘omg, pregnancy is so incovenient, I want to skip it so bad I’ma kill my baby’

        Good thing all of womankind has you to speak on their behalf as to their motivations. Fucking moron.

    4. Are you planning to force said woman to undergo surgery to transfer the fetus to the artificial womb against her will? If not, we’re back to square one. If so, you’re violating the concept of bodily integrity inherent to human rights.

  11. OK, that’s just stupid. Overturning Roe v Wade wouldn’t instantly make abortion illegal from conception to birth in all 50 states. It would simply return it to legislatures to decide.

    It’s unlikely any state would actually outlaw early abortion, and that’s the only sort of abortion that the pills are any good for. Second trimester abortions would probably be a lot more heavily regulated in most states, and post-viability abortions would become effectively illegal, again in most states, except for cases of non-psychiatric medical necessity. (Declarations of medical “necessity” based on psychiatric considerations, essentially “She really, REALLY wants the abortion!” have become a common abuse.)

    Anyway, while Roe v Wade really ought to be overturned, Doe v Bolton is actually the key ruling that needs to die. While Roe set up the trimester system, it DID largely permit regulation of abortion. Doe almost immediately rendered that regulation a joke by prohibiting any inquiry into whether a doctor’s declaration of “medical necessity” was pretextual. Which both undercut the very regulations the Court had claimed to be permitting, while corrupting the practice of medicine.

    1. What needs to die are the anachronistic people who think they should be able to tell women what to do with their bodies

  12. Oh god, I keep forgetting the HuffPost is a thing and then every once in a while somebody shares a headline on Twitter and I’m mad at the world for the rest of the day.

  13. I’m starting to think that OBL is not so much of a parody.

    1. Regarding the abortion hysteria anyway. Every libertarian knows that the ‘right’* to kill the unborn up to and including when it passes the birth canal is the most important ‘right’*.

      *Personally I think that abortion should only be legal 1) within the first trimester 2) rape/incest 3) to save the life of the mother. But, most importantly, you should pay for it your damned self.

      1. *Personally I think that abortion should only be legal 1) within the first trimester 2) rape/incest 3) to save the life of the mother. But, most importantly, you should pay for it your damned self.

        To me 2&3 are the least principled approach possible. The only logically consistent way to handle the issue is to define a point in gestation at which it becomes a life with rights and make it illegal to purposefully kill it after that point, and legal up until that point. That point can be anywhere between conception and birth. But to say it’s ok to kill the thing after that point because of rape or to save the mother’s life is akin to saying that it’s ok to kill a birthed human for those exact same reasons.

        1. I agree with this point on 2, but not 3.

          to save the mother’s life is akin to saying that it’s ok to kill a birthed human for those exact same reason

          We generally do this and, in the case of licensed, certified, and bona fide defenders of the public, obnoxiously and excessively so. To the point where even if the licensed and certified public servant winds up killing both the child and the mother, we still give them a pass.

      2. I’m ambivalent about point 2. While rape might be a good reason to remove the constant reminder of the event from the woman who endured it, I don’t see that incest automatically is. If the child is probably going to be healthy, I see no reason why the parentage of that child should be a factor in whether or not it gets to be born.

        The thing is, when does sapience begin? A quick google gives me this site, (and the google blurb says 18 months.) https://www.psychologytoday.com /us/blog/great-kids-great-parents /201211/self-awareness (Remove the two spaces.)
        Does this mean it would be okay to commit infantacide if the baby is less than 18 months old? That’s what they did in the old days.
        I’m religious, and believe in a soul that persists after death. Since I already believe in consciousness that doesn’t need a functional brain to persist, it’s a small step to accepting the possibility of a consciousness that is merely waiting on a functional brain to manifest. However, this is clearly a religious belief on my part, and I don’t get to tell you what you can do, or not do, based on my religious beliefs.

        1. In which instances of a woman becoming pregnant do you get to decide that the human rights of bodily autonomy for the fetus trump those of the woman carrying it?

    2. I have never been a parody. I have only argued that Orange Hitler colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from the most qualified candidate ever, and has been trying to turn this country into a combination of Nazi Germany and The Handmaid’s Tale. Unfortunately, events keep proving me correct.

      1. I know, right? Who does Drumpf think he is? Ted Kennedy? If he were a good progressive, like Ted, it would be ok, but not for him!

        And the only people that should be putting their boot on the neck of the American people are the democrat party right? Who else knows what is best for everyone? Not Drumpf, thats for sure.

        The one thing that concerns me OBL, is what the hell are you doing commenting? Rep. Waters has given the faithful their marching orders. So why aren’t you out following Drumpf’s people around?

    1. “The nefarious connection between the Federalist Society and the Russians”

      – NYT in about a week

    2. overwhelming evidence…colluded

      I don’t think “overwhelming” or “evidence” means what leftists think they mean as I have seen neither. Also, I don’t know what they mean by “collusion” and how it is illegal. Seeking or passing information is not, in and of itself, illegal. Tampering with ballots, however, would be illegal. Speaking of, whatever happened to that Michigan recount?

      1. It means exactly what they want it to mean. No less, no more.
        Unfortunately, the Republicans, (as distinct from the conservatives or the libertarians who sometimes stand under that umbrella,) are no better.

      2. And yet these same people have no problem with collusion between the Democrats and the network broadcast and print media.

      3. And yet these same people have no problem with collusion between the Democrats and the network broadcast and print media.

    3. This is the argument Democrats should use.”

      They are using this argument including everyone reporter on MSNBC

  14. How many abortions are we talking about not happening in the future?

    Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina . . .

    I don’t know whether saving the lives of however many unborn babies is better or worse than black market abortion pills finding their way into some of our least populated states, but if f Roe v Wade were overturned, it would probably be the worst thing that could happen to cultural conservatism. If being the last champions of segregation, homophobia, and teaching creationism in public schools weren’t enough to do them in, being principled in their insistence that women carry unwanted babies to term will probably do the trick.

    The progressives would just love it if they could make 2020 all about abortion–not that there’s anything culturally conservative about Trump. Is there some reason to think that Trump’s primary prerequisite for nominating someone to be an SC justice is their opposition to abortion?

    P.S. Reagan never so much as threw the cultural conservatives a bone either, and yet the left obsessed about him supposedly being a cultural conservative, too. Doesn’t seem to matter who the president is, so long as he enjoys wide support from registered Republicans, the left will see him as whatever they’re afraid of the most.

    1. “the last champions of segregation, homophobia, and teaching creationism in public schools”

      You are aware that Pope John Paul II called evolution “more than a hypothesis,” and that the Archbishop of New Orleans excommunicated Leander Perez for opposing the integration of parochial schools?

      Guess what their position was on abortion?

      1. Easy, Eddie.

        1. Politics is complicated and nuanced, is all I’m saying.

          1. I’m aware. And Ken overgeneralized there.

            You also forgot to mention the School of Salmanaca and their opposition to slavery and that Catholics were the main bloc of opposition to eugenics in the early 20th Century

            1. I can’t tell if you’re teasing, but sure, there is that.

              1. Not teasing

      2. Eddy: so what? You say you are a progressive. Progressives are the driving force in criminalizing drug use, alcohol prohibition, race based immigration policies and eugenics. In fact Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood advocated forced abortion for “lower races”.

        I don’t distill modern abortion issue into the sordid history of the pro choice racists and eugenicists and as a fellow atheist, I suggest you ought be careful of how much deep bigotry you exhibit conflating people on the other side.

        The vast majority of developed democracies are more restrictive on abortion than the US. Denmark and France only allow on demand abortion up to 12 weeks. Are those are reactionary countries? 92% of US abortions are before 10 weeks and something like 96% are before 14 weeks (Germany’s on demand cut off)

        how about this: WE ALL know it is messy and there are no bright lines, no clear constitutional lines, no clear ethical lines, no clear lines in biology instructing us on the subject.

        I am glad there are people on the side of choice pushing against prohibiting abortion even before 12 weeks; and I am glad there are pro-life people with ethical views pushing against on demand at virtually any gestation. Finding some hucksters, nuts or people just raising money for politics on both sides does not negate the majority of people on either side of this issue that are both right and both part of legitimate debate on this for however long humans are reproducing sexually.

        1. “You say you are a progressive.”

          I do?

          1. “as a fellow atheist”

            Are you sure about that?

    2. Yes, shameless Republican pandering to Christians for decades is all Democrats’ fault.

      1. I think Democratic bigotry toward Christians is their fault. The God of Abortion is a jealous god.

        1. Now that’s a better application of Ken’s paranoia. Of course part of their shameless pandering is painting Democrats as godless heathens who hate Christians. Despite probably 90% of elected Democrats being professed Christians, and the rest some other type of sky-god worshipers.

          You do have to hand it to them, as the party of serial cheaters, child fuckers, and with globally notorious lech Donald fucking Trump as their leader, that is some expert goddamn pandering.

          1. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-t…..ion-242550

            Pretty sure that Democrats do a pretty good job of leaving that impression

            1. I don’t suppose it matters that Sen. Feinstein is 100% correct and her concern is 100% American in character (we don’t want religious nuts governing us).

              If all you care about is forcing women to give birth against their will and are willing to tolerate all manner of inequity and misery to achieve that, I think the problem is with the Christians.

              But right-wingers are the snowflakiest snowflakes at all. Don’t dare ever criticize them for any goddamn thing.

              1. “is 100% American”

                From the US Constitution:

                “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

                You’re a bigot, no less than Feinstein and Trump with his previous proposal for a “Muslim ban”

                1. This is why single digit percentages of those who regularly attend mass vote Democrat. And why even Catholics who don’t attend mass are voting for Democrats in smaller percentages than they have in the past.

                  1. Democrats, like America, are fundamentally secular. That’s why I prefer them. I’m sure DNC HQ would be charmed to take your advice under advisement on how better to pander to people on a subject that should have nothing to do with governing.

                    1. Pretty sure this explains why the Democratic Party is a regional party now rather than a national party

                    2. Maybe I’m just being selfish in my appreciation that they chose to stick up for my basic human rights instead of pandering to vicious bigots who wouldn’t buy it anyway.

                    3. Basuic human rights?

                      the Democrats have been going full retard on gun control these past few years.

                    4. Of course you prefer a party that has no principles or morality, other than situational ethics. Thats why your party attracts rapists, murderers, bigots, etc.. It’s a haven for sociopaths and psychopaths. Ultimately, nothing is too vile for the DNC.

                      Not even you Tony.

                      I’m sure you get off on the murder of so many babies. And yes, after a certain point in gestation, they are babies. No matter how much a sociopathic infanticidal piece of trash like you says otherwise.

              2. (we don’t want religious nuts governing us)

                But don’t you DARE try to prevent jihadists from entering the country via a travel ban!!!

                1. Do you think it would be possible if, at some point when you’re ready, you rightwing nutjobs might be able to discuss a single fucking subject without strawmen or exaggeration or hysteria?

                  1. All of your remarks were unhinged statement?

                  2. Sure Tony, because you’re the reasonable one, right?

                    Please, your hypocrisy is beyond vulgar.

                  3. tony all your points strawman arguments and red herrings? Can you write without using them?

                    Are you saying you support say gender based abortion of female fetus at 8 months? Do you support the CDC looking into how much abortion is because people prefer a male child?

                    people who would forbid all abortion are a small minority. But your assertion that any and al abortion right up to birth should be allowed is also a tiny minority. unless you don’t believe that in which case you ARE yourself an advocate of limits on choice.

                    The fact is when you ask pro choice people (and I am one) if they support any limits, they virtually all DO. some of us are honest enough to say that there is an arbitrariness to it, a pollical tension mess, but compromise is best; and some are dishonest and claim they do not support limits on woman’s choice, when they do.

                    Do you support any limits at all? If yes you are not 100% pro choice either, an if no you are in like 2% of the US public opinion on this matter.

          2. Serial cheaters – like Bill Clinton and Weiner?

            Child fuckers – like Bill Clinton?

            globally notorious lech? Like Kennedy and Clinton?

            Face it man, your last ‘moral’ President was Carter.

            1. Unlike Christian conservatives, I don’t give a fuck, nor am I required to give a fuck, where people put their dicks. Try to keep up.

              1. That probably makes it easier for you to rape young teen boys, right chickenhawk?

              2. So you think the #metoo people are all either liars, and not a single one of them represents any instance ever of harassment or assault?

    3. Not…necessarily. I once listened to a high school girl give a very impassioned speech on abortion. Her sister was adopted, and she broke down in tears as she stated that, if her sister’s birth mother had opted for abortion, she would have never known her sister.
      Just imagine the generation of kids who can be told “You owe your very lives to us. Those people wanted to kill you in the womb, but we wouldn’t let them.”

      1. Funny because whenever a family member suggests I have some inherent obligation to do something for them, I remind them that I didn’t choose to be born, and probably wouldn’t have if I could.

        The dead and the never alive don’t have feelings, and we shouldn’t waste time caring about things that don’t exist.

        1. This explains so much.

        2. More proof that you’re a sociopath of the lowest order. And proof that your family will likely celebrate your death if you ever listen to reason and drink your fucking Drano.

        3. the never alive

          By all definitions an eight month fetus is ‘alive.” Whether you consider them a person depends on your philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, ethical views. to say never alive means you are as flat earth on the science as 6,000 year creationists.

        4. We all would have chosen that you not be born either, Tony.

          At last, something we agree on!

      2. Appeals to emotion are lame. Either be fact based or get the fuck out. Abortion is a personal choice and is as protected as the right to bear arms.

        1. I wasn’t appealing to emotion. It is a fact that I witnessed a highschooler give an impassioned speech in opposition to abortion, that was strongly influenced by her personal experience.
          From that I reasonably conclude that some people may be swayed to continue to support a policy that permitted them to live, or permitted others whom they value to live.

          It is a fact that some people are ruled by their emotions, I was only highlighting that fact.
          I was not making a value statement regarding abortion in that post.

  15. Don’t worry, Republicunts mostly want to abolish those abortions that are most medically precarious and most necessary (the ones that happen later in the pregnancy). Plenty of misery to dole out yet.

    1. You mean the abortions that no one outside of the enlightened nations of China, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea allow?

      1. I mean when women get later-term abortions, it means there’s a serious complication for the fetus or themselves.

        And guess what else. After Texas went The Inquisition on abortion, second-trimester abortions went up like 30% (because it took a longer wait for women to get them).

        1. I mean you just made a lot of declarative statements that have no basis in reality

          1. So maybe you should stay away from this issue if you have chosen to be so uninformed. If only a bunch of pandering hypocritical potato-shaped men in legislatures would do the same.

            1. I mean, platitudes with no basis in fact does not make you informed about this issue.

              1. So would you prefer:

                a) Fuck women. They all must give birth whether they want to or not,
                b) Government bureaucrats get to decide whether the 2nd trimester abortion is medically necessary or just the result of the woman being a lazy slut, or
                c) Get government out of people’s vaginas?

                1. Yup, those are equally insane talking points

                2. It’s technically the uterus. But I’d prefer c.

                  1. Sounds libertarian as hell to me. (And I have to exhibit ignorance of female anatomy or I lose street cred.)

                    1. “Libertarian as hell” was one of my nicknames in college. The other was “ignorance of female anatomy.” Some might say those were redundant.

                3. The one time Tony argues for less government is when it involves murdering babies. Or when it lets him fuck more young boys.

                  1. Have you also considered the fact that you are apparently arguing for MORE government in this case?

                4. @ Tony, you cant have a abortion in Denmark or France after 12 weeks without a doctor and “government bureaucrat” certifying it is necessity. In Germany 14.

                  You guys claiming that anything up to the moment of birth is ok and any concern for say 26 week abortion of viable fetus on demand is wrong, is just not supported by the vast majority of Americas or people in developed democracies.

            2. Tony, Media Matters talking points are in no way informative.

          2. Tony says
            After Texas went The Inquisition on abortion, second-trimester abortions went up like 30%

            n fact:
            1) Texas laws on gestational age and restrictions of no necessity abortion are less restrictive than France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden or the UK
            2) that 30% claim has been debunked I tis just completely made up

            1. Texas laws on abortion are stupid and their requirements were never fact based and instead are religion based.

              1. So as long as the *more restrictive* laws for France, Germany, Denmark, etc. are based on facts and not religion then it’s OK?

                I don’t follow…

    2. But Republicans in Congress will make sure their mistresses have access to abortion.

      1. I wonder how many Trump has paid for. I’m gonna say double digits.

        1. Probably a lower number than the sum of the boys you’ve raped.

      2. And Democrats like Mike Bloomberg threaten and insist that their pregnant employees have an abortion:
        http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/…..life/5349/

  16. I’m suffering a legitimate dilemma. I am fairly sure the vast majority of the women loudly protesting about abortion are also among those who want to violate my 2nd amendment rights. The principled stand says support their advocacy, and pursuit of freedom. The actual human in me says fuck em, they didn’t care when it mattered to me.

    1. they didn’t care when it mattered to me

      They still don’t and they will never draw the connection.

      1. Which is part of my issue.

    2. I am fairly sure the vast majority of the women loudly protesting about abortion are also among those who want to violate my 2nd amendment rights.

      At one point they were and many still are some of the loudest advocates for alimony and child support as well. Literally advocating that men should never be able to walk away from a pregnancy (until adulthood) without permission from the state while women’s right to abort should remain absolutely uninfringed.

      1. You have a choice not to put your dick in crazy

    3. Yeah. I’m very with you. On one hand, I actually do support legal abortion.

      On the other hand, I once tried to explain my passion for gun rights, in terms of the passion others feel for abortion rights, and was told to go fuck myself, there would be no empathy forthcoming, and in fact, something along the lines of “there can be no compromise, you must be destroyed”.

      So, yeah. The idea that the next SC justice might be pro 2A matters a lot more to me than the fact that the next SC justice might be anti-abortion. We didn’t have to be at odds. They chose to insist on devaluing my rights.

      1. I wonder why there is so much overlap between thoser who support abortion rights and those who support “common sebnse”, “sensible” gun laws.

        1. Why is there so little crossover between those who support gun laws but don’t support personal freedom to choose what you did with your own body? Bunch of illogical losers who just do what their preacher tells them instead of considering what liberty really means

          1. The argument on the anti-abortion side is that they want to ban what is being done to other people’s bodies.

    4. Completely orthogonal issues there are plenty of people who support both women’s rights and gun rights. There are at least dozens of us.

  17. …or states could just choose to legalize it.

    1. Yeah. I can see it now. Some nineteen year old girl hitchhiking to California for a legal abortion, because it’s not available where she’s from. I can also see that nineteen year old girl scrambling to establish and prove residency, so she can get that legal abortion. What a win for the homeless population of places like California.
      Her sister, however, will just give in to the inevitable and give birth to a child she can’t support, and wouldn’t if she had a choice in the matter. She’ll never claw her way out of poverty, and may even slip a little further toward it, or into it, than her parents were, (assuming she had two parents to begin with.) Her kid will get such a great start in life. The reading and math scores in that state would naturally go…down, into the gutter.

      Oh, and since adoptions are so hyper-regulated, these days, I don’t see the second girl giving up her child to have a better life somewhere else. Not once the glut in babies born who would have been terminated hits.

      While I disapprove of abortion, and have religious misgivings about ending a human life for the convenience of the mother, the economic fallout seems clear to me.

      1. “since adoptions are so hyper-regulated, these days”

        We may have a problem when adoption is regulated more closely than abortion.

        1. It’s always surprised me why the pro-choice and pro-life sides don’t join forces to make adoption easier for all parties involved.

          1. It’s a mystery. My suspicion is because the pro-choice crowd hangs with the government oversight crowd, and the increased efforts necessary to adopt a child are more in line with what they think all parents should have to do. That is, get permission to have kids.

            The other possibility is they want an all-or-nothing solution that forces people to choose between raising a kid and aborting it. If surrendering a kid to be raised by a loving adoptive family is seen as a viable option, they lose some of their punch.

            1. My suspicion about pro-lifers, at least, is that most of them don’t give two shits what happens to children after they’re actually born. They seem to imagine adoption working in the same magical way that the tooth fairy comes and takes your tooth out from under the pillow and exchanges it for a dime. A Pixar-animated family comes in and rescues all these kids and loves them forever. It’s so much easier to command a woman to live in the narrow view you have of the world, and then when she’s forced against her will to give birth and then abandon her child, you can just stick your fingers in your ears, go to church and feel good about yourself.

      2. I can also see that nineteen year old girl scrambling to establish and prove residency, so she can get that legal abortion.

        Huh? The only reason you might have to prove residency is to get the procedure or medication covered.

        Her kid will get such a great start in life. The reading and math scores in that state would naturally go…down, into the gutter.

        Something like 40-50% of the people walking the planet are the result of unintended pregnancies. In the US the number has been like 30% for decades. There is some evidence that abortion diminishes neglect and modestly improves living conditions but the idea that either one of these girls was going to be an astronaut, CEO, or President until they slipped up and accidentally got pregnant is laughable. Sure, a kid is still a pretty major life decision but people aren’t the ignorant slaves unavoidably bound to that decision like they were even 2 decades ago.

        1. Being clearer; “If only I’d had this kid 5-10 yrs. later.” is a pretty poor excuse for neglecting and/or failing to educate your kid. Plenty of people have kids unexpectedly or under adverse conditions and still manage to educate and/or not neglect them.

          1. Okay. Let’s back up one generation. Having and caring for a kid, that came at a time when she was still preparing for the world, puts the MOTHER on a lesser footing for seeking a better life for HERSELF, and also for her kid. My argument had nothing to do with ignoring the kid, but rather the effort the kid takes is effort that can’t be put toward securing a better job, with a higher income.
            That is, because the mom had a kid as a kid, the mom tends to be poorer.
            And because the kid is now growing up in a poor household, one where the things to do on a Saturday night are “get drunk and f*”, this perpetuates itself. Many a poor person has pulled themselves out of poverty, but it is a steeper climb, and one that might have been avoided in many cases, if Darwin’s Drive didn’t short-circuit their long-term planning skills for that crucial half hour.

        2. Unintended is not the same as unwanted, and you shouldn’t conflate the two.

          1. Unintended is not the same as unwanted, and you shouldn’t conflate the two.

            Because you say so? Without telepathic or even omniscient powers, how is anyone to avoid conflating the two? Even the experts in the field recognize unwanted pregnancies as a subset of unintended pregnancies (effectively conflating them).

      3. Are you saying irresponsibility breeds poverty? because that’s all I can see in that nonsense you vomited out.

        1. You know what? Irresponsibility does contribute toward poverty, but my argument wasn’t about that.
          My argument is, despite my preference for no abortions, doing that this article suggests will happen will breed poverty.
          If you want to say the government is the irresponsible one, be my guest.

          (Besides, I don’t know if anyone, in the throes of passion, can be said to be “in a sound state of mind”, at any age. Perpetuation of the species doesn’t really care about individual opportunities, or we’d all be counting our age in centuries. Those silly puritans, who presumably only “did it” to procreate, and never for pleasure, are probably the closest to being “in a sound mind” when engaged in coitus, but I’d not want to live as one of them.)

  18. a rough patch for reproductive freedom, abortion access, and women’s autonomy in this country

    If one defines the first and last of those very, very narrowly, I guess.

    Abortions, possibly – because Roe tried to force the whole country into a position that persuasion couldn’t … and we’ve seen the effects of that for decades.

    Will the US revert to an abortion-access mean comparable to Europe’s?!

    1. Europe has a while slew of laws from completely illegal to abortion available for entire 9 months how is that even a fucking comparison?

  19. Seriously?
    A Reason article about a Huffington Post (???) panic attack over a theoretical future possibility involving a Supreme Court case that does not yet exist?
    If only there were some other news to reflect upon – – – – – –

  20. the police-state antics, disastrous policy, and rising prison populations that come from outlawing abortion could prove every bit as devastating to American women and the general state of freedom in the country

    Do not underestimate how many think that’s a feature not a bug.

    As usual here – enormous numbers of women commenting on this issue.

  21. Here’s a point I haven’t seen anyone else raise:

    1. Legal non-surgical abortions are usually done with a combination of two drugs: Mifepristone (aka RU486), followed by misoprostol.

    2. But ILLEGAL non-surgical abortions are mostly done with misoprostol only.

    3. Misoprostol-only fails to cause an abortion in one out of five cases–more often if the women don’t know how to use it correctly–and although you can try again if it fails, women don’t always know that it has failed until later.

    4. AND (brace yourself), when it fails, it can cause the surviving fetus to be born with birth defects, including some very bad ones. We don’t know how frequently this happens–we don’t have reliable numbers for the risk yet. (We don’t know the chemical/physiological mechanism either, or even whether it’s a chemical or a physiological effect.) But there will likely be SOME uptick in birth-defect rates in states where abortion is banned.

    5. This small study suggests that one in twenty failed misoprostol-abortion attempts will cause birth defects.

    Misoprostol exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy: Is the malformation risk varying depending on the indication?

    Auffret M., Bernard-Phalippon N., Dekemp J, Carlier P., Gervoise Boyer M., Vial T., Gautier S.

    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Dec;207:188-192.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27865944

    1. Appreciate the link. Some very good points there.

      The two major risks in medical AB are bleeding which is mostly self limited and incomplete or failed AB. It is still undecided as to the relative risks of medical vs surgical AB from what I can see and either seem acceptable choices in the first trimester.

      I think many people believe that it is no big deal because just take a few pills and that is it. It is much more complicated and really needs to be done with medical supervision and follow up.

  22. Considering women have a dozen contraceptive options (not including condoms or sterilization), what excuse is there for an unwanted pregnancy arising from consensual sex?

    1. Plus the Day After pill.

    2. Yeah, this is where the whole defense of abortion falls apart. It’s spoken of as if the act of conception is completely involuntary. How does that work? Women don’t just trip on a sidewalk onto a penis.

      1. It’s just the same reasoning as deciding two months later that you didn’t like that hook up turns it into rape. Women don’t have to make those decisions at the time, they can defer them to later.

      2. I worked in many pediatric hospitals where social workers spend days coordinating efforts with police to track down serial fathers who move from one true love to the next when child support is due.Look up the word ‘seduction’ before you judge pregnant mothers stressing over child support.

      3. No, it really doesn’t. At which point do you believe the human rights of bodily autonomy of the fetus trump those of the woman carrying it?

    3. Because it’s her body and not some fucking judgmental assholes telling her what to do with it. If those judgmental assholes don’t want abortions the don’t get one, but get the fuck out of other people’s lives.

    4. Severe fetal anomalies, for one, or risk to the life of the woman carrying the fetus.

  23. I don’t think the mafia is going to start earning by smuggling abortion pills, there just isn’t enough of a demand for doing so to make any money.

    1. It will be like those of us in WA who get our friends to buy their limit on Tylenol 3 when they go to Canada.

      1. Say ‘hi’ to the nice officer who will be knocking on your door soon. Thanks for the confession.

  24. I would rather have one back alley murder than two legal murders.

  25. A Post-Roe World Would Pave the Way for a New Black Market in Abortion Pills

    Oh, stop the fear mongering. Restrictions on abortion are likely going to be along the lines of what you find in several European nations: if you want one, you have to pay for it yourself, and there are significant restrictions starting with the second trimester.

    Let’s also not forget what the libertarian position is: even libertarians who favor unrestricted on-demand abortions should hold to the following principles: (1) you want an abortion, you pay for it yourself; (2) nobody ought to be required to perform an abortion; (3) insurers, employers, landlords, and others can discriminate based on past abortions; (4) men’s liability for child support should depend on their input into the abortion decision, that is, a woman who carries a fetus to term against the wishes of the father should then bear the financial burden herself.

    “Keep Roe v. Wade, and also keep all the insurance, non-discrimination, and child support laws” is not a libertarian position.

    1. No, but it’s a liberalitarian position, and they’re taking over Reason, everywhere except the comment threads.

      We’ll know when the takeover is complete, because they’ll start censoring the comments.

    2. Not true it is a republican party plank to end Roe vs Wade as soon as possible and Trump promised he would only choose a nominee that promised to over turn Roe. We all know that with Kennedy leaving there is no longer a seeing vote now it’s republican judges vs Democratic judges and they vote the party line 90 percent of the time

      1. Not true

        What is “not true”?

        it is a republican party plank to end Roe vs Wade as soon as possible

        Yes, which would (1) return the abortion issue back to the states, where it belongs, and (2) result in restrictions on abortions in some states that at most are as serious as what is common in progressive Europe.

        We all know that with Kennedy leaving there is no longer a seeing vote now it’s republican judges vs Democratic judges and they vote the party line 90 percent of the time

        Even if true, so what? Why would I not want a Republican judge? Why would I object to a judge that overturns Roe v. Wade?

  26. “But other than confirming pregnancy and determining gestational age, there’s little (non-bureaucratic) reason why medical abortions require a doctor or even an office visit at all.”

    Like all prescription drug laws, it’s about enriching the rent seeking medical mafia.

  27. It doesn’t matter if it’s heroin, opioid pain meds, or birth control… PROHIBITION Doesn’t Work…

    The federal government has interfered with physicians treating of pain patients, now we find police finding 120 POUNDS of Fentanyl, enough to overdose over 20 MILLION people.

    So if you prohibit women from getting the birth control they need don’t worry, Mexican cartels have a great distribution plan from decades of smuggling drugs.

    Drug supplies are like a balloon, squeeze it in one place, and it pops out in another….

  28. Premise: Government’s biggest (only) reason for existence is prosecution of justice, which is necessary in cases of initiations of force.
    Premise: Murder is the worst initiation of force.
    ——————————————
    Conclusion: A government incompetent to define and prosecute murder is a government that shouldn’t exist.

    Please, show me where I’m wrong.

    1. Even if we all agree abortion is murder, the difference from other types of murder is that it usually leaves zero evidence. If you want to criminalize abortions, you have to make a choice: Do you want to pass a completely vague, unenforceable law, just for the sake of having the law? Or do you want to treat every single miscarriage as a possible crime, ending up with a significant number of wrongful convictions ( not that even one isn?t too many) of poor micarrying moms, like they do in the shithole that calls itself El Salvador? Or do you want a full-on totalitarian state that takes every single pregnant woman under 24/7 surveillance to make sure both abortion and a wrongful accusation of abortion is prevented?

      1. Really, really off the wall idea – the feds could butt out of ALL medical decisions.

  29. This is ridiculous. Nobody is repealing Roe v Wade. Trump would just rally the Democrats. You have to keep in mind the media is insane and exaggerates everything. He’s going to pick a Constitutionalist who believes in non-government-funded abortion.

  30. This is ridiculous. Nobody is repealing Roe v Wade. Trump would just rally the Democrats. You have to keep in mind the media is insane and exaggerates everything. He’s going to pick a Constitutionalist who believes in non-government-funded abortion.

    1. He had already said any judge he picked must promise him to overturn Roe v Wade at the first opportunity. Google it, it’s easy to find.

  31. This is ridiculous. Nobody is repealing Roe v Wade. Trump would just rally the Democrats. You have to keep in mind the media is insane and exaggerates everything. He’s going to pick a Constitutionalist who believes in non-government-funded abortion.

    1. Of course, a supreme court ruling cannot be ‘repealed’.
      Either the court itself has to overturn it based on a different case, or the legislature has to pass a law or amend the constitution to void the ruling.

      Of course, the left has to pick a really hot button hypothetical to whip up the base. However, thanks to Chuckles and the others, only a majority vote is required to confirm. So here it is, as inevitable as the sunrise; Trump makes a nomination, the left bitches and whines in public during the hearings of the judiciary committee, and the nominee is confirmed.

      Then it is rinse and repeat when the next of the old farts retires or dies at their desk.

    2. He already said he wouldn’t consider a judge that wouldn’t promise to overturn Roe vs Wade so you’re wrong right out of the gate.

    3. I can’t imagine that there are sweeter words to a determined politician than those from the lips of a docile, unambitious citizen who’s incapable of fathoming that he’ll pull off exactly what he says he will, or more.

      Whether Trump is this politician, I don’t know, but it’s dangerous thinking nonetheless.

  32. Funniest thing I heard on lefty radio is that the Trump pick will secretly pledge to overturn Brown V. Board of Education.

  33. Another reason to repeal FDR’s prescription laws of 1938. Give Americans back the freedom that they had before 1938 to take control of their health to the best of their abilities instead of paying doctors to do it for you at whatever price that they want to charge. Remember the AMA was formed back in 1846 with just that long term objective in mind. It took the AMA 92 years…

  34. The intervention by religionists into the practice of medicine should alarm any libertarian or anyone supporting separation of church from state. HR 586, the Sanctity of Life Act, says every human embryo, fertilized egg or clone is a life deserving Constitutional protection.Are MD’s and Nurse Practitioners consulted for advice abut HR 586?

  35. Black market abortion pills eventually have quality and purity issues. Black market abortion procedures have quality of abortionist issues and sterility of clinic issues.

  36. When the government makes something illegal, people who want to have that illegal something will find a way to do so. That’s why the War on Drugs has been a disastrous failure and why abortions should stay legal. Nobody is holding a gun to any woman’s head to make her get an abortion, but it is the choice some women choose to make. They should make that choice without government interference.

    While I’m pro-choice, I prefer not to pay for other people’s choices. So, women who choose to have an abortion, please cover the cost of such yourself, either through your health insurance or through your personal funds. For those women who choose to not have abortions, please have the courtesy to pay for your offspring. The rest us are not here to pick up the tab for your choices.

  37. Hear, hear.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.