Abortion

The Impact of Overturning Roe v. Wade Will Be Less Dramatic Than Abortion-Rights Advocates Fear

Abortion is likely to remain legal in most states, and workarounds will mitigate the effects of bans.

|

Last year, based on a scenario in which 22 states banned abortion, Middlebury College economist Caitlin Knowles Myers projected that the annual number of abortions in the U.S. would fall by about 14 percent. In Texas, which banned the vast majority of abortions last September and avoided early judicial intervention by restricting enforcement to private civil actions, the net impact seems to have been a drop of about 10 percent.

Americans should keep those surprisingly modest estimates in mind as they try to predict what will happen after the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, as a leaked draft of the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization suggests it will soon do. While many states are expected to respond by imposing severe restrictions on abortion, most probably will not. And even in states that ban elective abortions, workarounds will mitigate the impact of those laws.

Those options, which include traveling to clinics in other states and obtaining pills for self-induced abortions, will entail additional time, effort, cost, and in some cases legal risk. The new burdens will be prohibitive for many women, especially those with low incomes, inflexible work schedules, or pressing family responsibilities. But the net effect will not be nearly as dramatic as pro-life activists might hope or pro-choice activists might fear. "A post-Roe United States isn't one in which abortion isn't legal at all," Myers observed in an interview with The New York Times. "It's one in which there's tremendous inequality in abortion access."

According to a tally by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), "abortion will remain legal" without Roe in 21 states where abortion rights are protected by statute or by judicial interpretations of state constitutions. Bans seem unlikely in another seven states. While the CRR classifies 25 states as "hostile" to abortion rights, that list includes Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, all of which have pro-choice governors.

CRR says "Michigan lawmakers will likely try to prohibit abortion" and "Wisconsin lawmakers may try to prohibit abortion." But in both cases, they would need a two-thirds majority to overcome a veto. The same is true in Pennsylvania, where the CRR concedes "abortion will likely remain accessible."

Myers' projection was based on the assumption that 22 states will quickly move to ban elective abortions. (Her list includes Michigan but omits Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, another state that the CRR classifies as "hostile.") That would make abortion illegal in large swaths of the South and Midwest, plus several states in the West. Myers calculated that the average distance to an abortion clinic for women of childbearing age affected by the bans would rise from 35 to 279 miles. The upshot, according to her model, would be a nationwide reduction in legal abortions of "at least 14 percent."

One reason that number is lower than you might expect: The states that are likely to ban abortion already have relatively low abortion rates. But it is also true that increasing the distance to the nearest clinic, even as dramatically as Myers expects, will deter some but not all of the abortions that women would otherwise obtain. As Myers emphasizes, the burden will fall heaviest on women of modest means with the farthest distances to travel.

When Texas banned abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected (which typically happens about six weeks into a pregnancy), the number of abortions performed by clinics in that state fell by half. But many women traveled to clinics in other states or used pills to perform self-induced abortions. The upshot, judging from studies of both workarounds, was that the net reduction in abortions obtained by Texas women was roughly one-fifth the apparent decrease.

That experience may be misleading as an indicator of what will happen even in Texas after the Supreme Court overturns Roe. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma—all of which saw influxes of Texas women seeking abortions—are likely to ban the procedure once they are free to do so. But abortion is expected to remain legal in three other nearby states: Colorado, Kansas, and New Mexico. Women who live far away from such options—in southeast Texas and Louisiana, for example—will face the biggest obstacles.

The other major workaround is abortion pills. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of mifepristone and misoprostol up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy. The method has potentially broad appeal in the United States, where four-fifths of abortions are performed at nine weeks or earlier.

Last December, the FDA permanently lifted a longstanding requirement that abortion pills be dispensed in person, opening the door to prescriptions via telemedicine and home delivery. That decision is apt to accelerate a preexisting trend: Based on preliminary data, the Guttmacher Institute (which supports abortion rights) reports that "medication abortions" accounted for 54 percent of the U.S. total in 2020, up from 39 percent in 2017.

Texas and 18 other states already have restricted the use of abortion pills, requiring clinic visits and banning mail delivery. Texas recently went further, making it a felony to supply the drugs for unsupervised use. But enforcement of such bans will face obstacles even more daunting than the difficulties encountered by the war on drugs, since abortion pills will remain legal in most states.

Aid Access, which enables women to obtain abortion pills from abroad based on prescriptions written by a doctor in Austria, saw a huge increase in requests from Texas after that state's ban took effect. And Aid Access is by no means the only source of abortion pills, which can be obtained through various websites, purchased over the counter in Mexico, or received in states that allow delivery by mail after an online or phone consultation. Organizations such as Hey Jane and Abortion on Demand facilitate that last option.

There is no question that overturning Roe will reduce access to abortion. The obstacles created by state bans will impose real, sometimes prohibitive hardships on many women. But given the inevitability of those bans, abortion rights supporters who are venting their rage at the Supreme Court's expected decision would have a bigger impact by focusing their energy and resources on alleviating those hardships.

NEXT: Cops Who Arrested Man Over Fake Facebook Page Get Qualified Immunity

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. Maybe not, but it will push the electorate leftwards.

    1. Maybe. I don't think abortion is enough to get over historical inflation and a likely recession, not to mention transgender indoctrination, voter ID, the border, Afghanistan withdrawal, surging crime, CRT in schools etc.

      1. I didn't mean in the short term. I think the midterm elections are pretty much locked in. Past that, I think it will shift.

        1. Possibly, or it will revert to the state, and like the article states, it'll be a wash. It may impact some marginal districts but overall, I don't think it will mean much. It'll be low priority for most people, as most people (even pro choice) won't get an abortion and they really find the idea of abortion repulsive (despite all the push by some to celebrate their abortions, most people find that just weird). They'll see that it really didn't change much, other than Idaho and Utah don't allow abortion but Nevada Colorado, Oreton and Washington do. So, they'll shrug their shoulders and worry about something else.

          1. The birth rate has been in decline since the late 1950s. Kids today arent dating, not marrying, not having sex, and men are becoming women women while men are becoming xe/xer. At this rate our country will become empty in a 100 years.

            1. women womyn

            2. ^This ^ Also, once prog politicians realize that the tax revenue just isn’t there to fund their social programs because there aren’t enough young workers, they’ll probably start taxing abortions.

          2. "The new burdens will be prohibitive for many women, especially those with low incomes, inflexible work schedules, or pressing family responsibilities. But the net effect will not be nearly as dramatic as pro-life activists might hope or pro-choice activists might fear. " So it's okay that some already-marginalized and poor women will suffer and be forced either to travel far, lose work pay, go to other physical extremes and keep their chemical abortion secret --- OR carry an unwanted pregnancy to term -- as long as the "net effect" doesn't affect other people who aren't among that demographic. Good to know.... Forcing women back into the proverbial closet regarding their health care is unconscionable. Next time you need your Viagra refilled, let's ensure you must pass a gauntlet of anonymous veters about your sex life so that they can ensure your sperm (i.e., potential babies!) aren't wasted in the kleenex, unmarried sex, condom, etc., etc., etc. See that slippery slope?

      2. The fact is neither party can affect inflation, a recession or the border. Those are affected by a broad number of factors. People can directly affect state laws on abortion. So, in the end the voter can have a bigger effect on abortion than on most other things you listed.

        1. Yes parties can affect inflation. They aren't the sole cause but their monetary policies can easily influence it.

          Did you graduate high school?

          1. I did. Thet taught me to say "graduate from high school."

        2. Overspending, which devalues the dollar definitely impacts inflation. As does anti-fossil fuel agendas.

        3. And yes they can impact the border. Loose policies lead to more illegal immigration. Tough policies leads to less. As for a recession, inflation can lead to a recession and since government policies can lead to inflation then yes a government can cause a recession. In fact the very first recession as a country was caused by loose monetary policies that lead to inflation and a recession. So not a single thing you posted is correct.

    2. I dunno. Who is in the GOP tent solely for abortion? All the Catholics I know vote dem regularly while claiming to dislike abortion. But they shrug and support the baby killers anyhoo.

      There is definitely a burgeoning alt- evangelical leftist strain. But I would argue they were always going left just as the Catholics have, and abortion hasn’t changed it.

      1. Oddly enough, historically (ie before RvW) abortion was largely a Catholic issue. Protestants, including eg the Southern Baptist Convention, were largely neutral and indifferent on the issue. States with high catholic populations tended to be stricter than those with largely Protestant ones. Sort of like how Good Friday is "celebrated".

    3. I doubt it. Especially when it shakes out state by state and people see that most states have fairly reasonable restrictions rather than total bans.

      The crazies on either side will stay crazy and the more moderates won't see a reason to shift position.

    4. Roe v wade was based on a privacy argument. The question for me is what part of that privacy argument will be eroded. With the exception of maybe Heller, SCOTUS hasn't been too kind to individual rights and has re-affirmed immunity for police (and prosecutors).... who should have known better.

    5. Nah, it'll push em rightwards. Abortion will be even more rare, and those that do it will be rightly shunned.

      Millions of people will be spared murder. THATS a great thing for liberty.

  2. Few points:

    The exception for the life of the mother is very weak. Many doctors and hospitals will delay medically necessary abortions because they fear running afoul of the law. This is well documents. And Catholic hospitals have formal policy requiring committee approval for medically necessary abortions, which leads to delays and serious harm to the women.

    There will be many more criminal prosecutions of women who have miscarriages.

    And this is just abortion. The right wingers will turn to banning contraception access. That has already begun. Attacks on gay rights will also be given more vigor with this ruling.

    Abortion rights supporters need to turn their attention to reversing this and establishing abortion rights on a national level.

    1. There are very few cases where abortion is safer than induction of labor to treat life threatening cases. And in those cases, cesareans are actually safer than both.

        1. Someone doesn't understand the meaning of "very few cases"

          1. Ectopic pregnancy occurs at a rate of 19.7 cases per 1,000 pregnancies in North America and is a leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester.

            https://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0215/p1080.html

            They're just disobedient slutty women who got pregnant anyway! Subject them to the "shaming wand", I say!

            But can we PLEASE have religious freedom?

            What about religious exemptions from (alternatives for) the "shaming wand"? If our religious beliefs are "sincerely held"?

            http://www.churchofsqrls.com/sonograms/ for details!

            1. The opinion [in Roe v. Wade] fails even to consider what I would suppose to be the most important compelling interest of the State in prohibiting abortion: the interest in maintaining that respect for the paramount sanctity of human life which has always been at the centre of Western civilization, not merely by guarding ‘life’ itself, however defined, but by safeguarding the penumbra, whether at the beginning, through some overwhelming disability of mind or body, or at death. . . .

              From “The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government” by Archibald Cox, a collection of lectures delivered at Oxford University, published 1976

              1. "the interest in maintaining that respect for the paramount sanctity of human life which has always been at the centre of Western civilization"
                This position has never been held by either party.

                1. Depends on the topic, neither is consistent on its application but both at least play lip service to it.

          2. Another thing to add to the list.

      1. Surgeon General Koop was appointed by anti-abortion right-winger Reagan, yet he was more honest than you by far...

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2323405/

        "...the risk of death due to abortion had declined by 5 fold since the legalization of abortion, and pregnancy or childbirth is 25 times more likely to result in death of the mother than an abortion..."

    2. When was the last time a right winger banned “contraception access”

      1. Which countries do not have access to birth control?
        These countries are Mozambique, Chad, Cameroon, Kyrgyz Republic, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Sri Lanka.

        Human nature is the same in those nations as here! If power-pig fascists can triumph there... RIGHT NOW... They can do the same thing here! USA is NOT so special!

      2. Theyve actually pushed for OTC birth control, blocked by Democrats. More than once.

    3. The right wingers will turn to banning contraception access. That has already begun.

      I love this bit. The part where we lefties tell a scary lie.

      Conservatives have actually been trying to make the pill available over the counter without a prescription and the Democrats have been fighting that. But we'll try to frighten you anyway and hope you don't remember any actual facts.

      Boldfaced lying with no regrets because it's for a greater cause is the best thing about being a progressive and acting Blue.

      1. I see Sqrsly is trolling me yapping for attention on this thread and others today. I gray boxed him a long time ago. Because he doesn't say anything approaching reasonable or genuine debate.

        1. He has to protect the left at all costs.

        2. I, too, sneer from My Position On High, at the grey boxes! By ignoring them, I refute them! By ignoring the realities of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, I refute the Very Universe!

          1. Simmer down sarc.

        3. "...I gray boxed him a long time ago..."

          TDS-addled spastic asshole deserves nothing else.

        1. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/detroit-news

          Your source is in the center! It is NOT on the RIGHT side, like Alex Jones is! We can NOT believe your source! Nanny-nanny-boo-bah! Can't hear you! WRONG tribe-source; therefor, ye are REFUTED!!!!

        2. So? Some are for it, some others are against it. So since one or two are for it, that means they all are on board? That's a pretty asinine argument.

          1. You seem willing to be selective here, would you say the same when some far-left wing proposal is made. Or do you use a broader brush for progressive ideas.

            1. I posted the time a few years ago democrats rejected otc birth control. Need it again?

            2. Depends how popular and how hard they are pushing it.

            3. Banning birth control is hardly a mainstream conservative opinion.

              1. Thank Government Almighty for at least that much!

                However, things can change fairly rapidly! 3 years ago, staunchly justifying trumpanzees gone apeshit, in an endeavor to replace democracy with mobocracy (backed up by the mandatory-for-Trump-cultists "Big Lie" beliefs, of course) was ALSO "hardly a mainstream conservative opinion"!

                1. Now do Senator Markey (D).

        3. Where all of the GOP members say that they do not oppose contraception? Pretty damning.

    4. And Catholic hospitals have formal policy requiring committee approval for medically necessary abortions, which leads to delays and serious harm to the women.

      I'm... confused. I just spent the last two years getting harangued about the morality of withholding medical care to people based upon philosophical objections. Is this no longer de rigueur?

      1. I'm also confused. I thought he was one of the private corporations die hard. Yet catholic hospitals have to give him what he desires over their moral convictions?

        1. When someones "moral convictions" are denying critical medical care to women, I don't really care what they think.

          1. Except when it comes to denying care because someone is unvaccinated.

            1. That did not happen. Denying medical care to women does happen.

              1. No, but the left argued for it. If you refused the vaccine they argued that you should be denied care. A few hospitals even tried making it official policy but got to much pushback from the public.

                1. No. The argument was to prioritize vaxxed over non-vaxxed. But what happened was that hospitals ended up prioritizing the non-vaxxed because they were at higher risk.

                2. So if there were limited beds, who would get treatment over others. That was the debate. For this, the hospitals are denying care because they are pompous pricks.

                  1. Well this is a lie.

                    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/if-covid-vaccine-refusers-are-turned-away-hospitals-doctor-offices-ncna1277475

                    And also

                    Colorado hospital system will not perform transplants on unvaccinated patients in most cases

                    1. That has nothing to do with covid. That is a long standing policy to ensure that limited organs are given to people who can maintain the regime needed to keep the organs working.

                  2. Selective memory I see.

                  3. And like I said in almost every case, induction or cesarean is safer in late term than abortions are.

                  4. Several transplants were denied due to vaccination status. Glad those aren't medically necessary.

                3. Ah, "the left"! I see! I guess that means 1/2 the country argued for that soldier? I'm on the left compared to you - who isn't - and I didn't argue for that.

                  1. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
                    Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
                    Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
                    Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.

          2. It isnt critical medical care. It results in a death.

    5. They do that *now* so . . . What exactly changes? Same thing happens.

    6. "There will be many more criminal prosecutions of women who have miscarriages"

      Was there a pandemic of miscarriage prosecutions *before* RvW? No, there was not.

      "And this is just abortion. The right wingers will turn to banning contraception access. That has already begun. Attacks on gay rights will also be given more vigor with this ruling."

      So . . . Swallow.

      And how, exactly, do 'gay right' come into this here? Gays don't need abortions or contraception.

      1. Contraception access, gay rights, and other rights were based on the same privacy rights that Dobbs throws away. That coupled with the Republican SCOTUS's willingness to throw out decades of precedent to restrict rights is how it connects.

        1. Keep reaching.

          1. Most polling shows even the majority of conservatives don't support overturning those.

        2. Not restricting rights, ruling that it isn't a right. The "right" that wasn't actually a right until RvW said it was. Regardless of what you think about abortion RvW was based on bad law and finding justification for a desired outcome. It should have been overturned decades ago.

    7. A more interesting challenge to anti-abortion laws. If abortion law has exceptions for rape and incest, can it be said that the law is protecting the unborn? If not, is it an unfair law - targeting women?

      Without the exception for rape and incest, the support for anti-abortion laws drops to about 30% or less.

      And what about women that are raped but cannot or don't want to take it to trial.... does the rapist get visitation rights? I mean, he hasn't been found guilty of anything... BTW.... it has already been asked and answered, YES he does!

      1. It's kind of funny watching the R's implode on this issue. Imagine being a personsupporting the rights if incestuous relatives and violent rapists to force women to give birth with a straight face. The fall elections are going to be a disaster for them.

    8. "There will be many more criminal prosecutions of women who have miscarriages."

      Because when people die of, say, heart attacks, we frequently arrest people. If you have a stroke and die, also, somebody ALWAYS gets prosecuted. There is never a death in the country where somebody does NOT get prosecuted.

      "And this is just abortion. The right wingers will turn to banning contraception access. "

      Left has been making this claim since 2012 with no evidence behind it. You'd think SOMEBODY would have tried to ban it or limit it in the last 10 years or so.

      "That has already begun."

      No, it has not.

      "Attacks on gay rights will also be given more vigor with this ruling."

      Perhaps gay rights activists should seek a ruling with more Constitutional merit behind it than Obergefell? One can support something and still say that the decision was based on literally nothing.

    9. Point me to exactly which right wingers have suggested banning contraception.

  3. Official reason scoreboard:
    Articles about leaked first draft toe v wade by the Supreme court: 5
    Articles about the Biden administration actively implimenting a ministry of truth: 2

    1. Yeah. I mentioned that earlier today. And five stories and it isn't even 24 hours old, and it took them 48 hours to mention the MoT.

      1. I hear ENB is on suicide watch.

        1. Can we watch on pay per view or only fans? Ohhh watch to prevent it! I misread that at first

  4. the US will be a nightmarish Handmaid's Tale hellscape where women are treated as little more than mobile birthing pods owned by the male masters, living under an oppressive regime where ... abortion laws are still more liberal than literally every other European and South American country.

  5. OMG. The world is ending. A measured, thoughtful piece on the *actual* ramifications of overturn. And by Sullum.

    I guess he really did pay attention to how people dealt with the Texas law.

  6. Let's compromise, you can abort a progressive after birth at any time, even if they object to it.

  7. The fact is that abortion access is not a something people need every day, but it is something people have come to expect. When someone has to drive or fly with a daughter, family member or friend to get access they will notice and may well decide that state laws need to change.

    Conservative George Wills has many times pointed out that in the lead up to the Roe decision states were moving to legalize abortion. Gov. Reagan for example signed California's law to legalize abortion. Roe gave anti-abortion forces a focus. We may again see move to legalize on the state level.

    1. Abortion controlled at the state level where the constitution says it should be controlled?! Oh the horror!your a moderate in the same way Mao was a moderate

      1. Where in our Constitution does it say that abortion should be controlled at the state level? The fact is that abortion is a medical procedure and nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of medical procedures or care. Medical care at the time of the Constitution would have been treated as a private matter between a person and those providing care. This is consistent with those supporting abortion. It is a private matter between a patient and their doctor.

        1. asshole they won abortion rights SAYING IT WAS IN THE CONSTITUTION. then the same people say the 2nd amendment is not in the constitution

  8. Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management.

    Conducted, of course, as a joint meeting with Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

    Carry on, clingers.

    1. Murder of the unborn is enlightened.

  9. I can't think of any other context where Reason has said of a curtailed right, 'it's not that big of a deal.' But I guess since this pertains to poor women, it's sort of keeping with Reason's past few years of really driving home that it gives two shits about minorities.

    1. As with anything else, poor women will find ways to get an abortion if they want one. Maybe not at a clinic with a cocktail lounge and yoga studio, but they will find a way.

      1. What fantasy world do you live in and who do you think you are reading? Are you just some fat fuck Incel banging out nonsense in your room, smoking meth? Abortion clinics don't have yoga studios and cocktails. You are a loser who has no experience with real life, imagining what blue America is like.

        1. You're not gonna make it

        2. to bad your mother did not abort you and all the fat ugly lezzies marching today. also who would bang an ugly lesbian? they also hate men

  10. I’m not a fan of abortion but am much less a fan of government ordering what adults can and can’t do with their bodies.

    1. I like your comment. The fact is there are any number of things that governments or private groups could do to lower abortion rates. The easiest is to make sure that young people are well educated in the use of birth control and that access to birth control is easy. Statics tell us that countries with libel birth control policies have less abortions.

      Making abortion illegal is a fool's errand. Making it unnecessary is likely to be far more successful.

      1. Good thing Scotus isn't suggesting making it illegal then.

        1. No, but it is giving state legislatures full of old white men the power to make abortion illegal. How many of the justices voting to reverse Roe, said it was settled law?

    2. The issue isn't what a woman can or can't do with her body.
      When should homicide for hire be legal?
      Women have a right to deal with their unborn child as they see fit, but third parties do not have a right to commit and profit off of homicide.

    3. but recently people were ordered by the same communists marching saying this is MY body to get the kill shot. or are you to dumb to know what has happened in the last 2 years?

  11. You can paint all the signs you want and march in all the marches you want: you'll never be able to convince someone on the opposite side to change their mind. So why not sidestep and direct your energy into getting your state's legislature to fund FREE birth control to anyone who is capable of becoming pregnant and who wants it. And yes, I specifically mean including teens that are under the age of consent.
    Can't we all agree that giving females the means to prevent a pregnancy in the first place is a good way to prevent at least some of the need for abortions?
    And to those (particularly the religious right) who would argue that giving teens birth control would encourage them to engage in sexual conduct I have two answers. First: If the teen isn't your child, it's not your problem so butt out. Second: if the teen IS your child and if they feel ready to become sexually active when they are 13-14-15-16 then - SURPRISE! - you have already failed as a parent. That ship has already sailed. The time to worry about your child being sexually active as a teen was 5-10 years ago. You should have reared you children to have the self-confidence not to follow the crowd; to value themselves and their bodies; and that starts when they are very young.

    1. The problem isn't failing as a parent. The problem is biology. All our modern progress can't change the fact that at this point in our evolution we are still for the most part operating on primitive urges, which we can't legislate, pray, or rationalize away. Teens want to have sex because that's when it's prime time for human beings to procreate.

    2. No, we won't cave to these theocratic trogolodytes. R's may have won the battle int he SCOTUS but they will lose the war on women as their anti-women and anti-diversity, white male-dominated policies that exclude others become apparent.

  12. This is potentially a big win for third parties and non partisanship in politics.

    Voters have been told for years that they have to vote in favor of Republicans to end abortion. Arguably that “victory” may have already come. Abortion has been one of many issues that has behaved as the proverbial “carrot in front of the horse”. Removing that carrot gives people the “freedom” to vote elsewhere.

    If Republicans and Democrats could come to some sort of truce that they will just let this rest with the states and not force federal legislation nor try to overturn this decision, then we could move closer to unity in diversity. California gets to do California without Louisiana telling it what to do and vice versa; potentially making the federal election cycle just a little less obnoxious for everyone.

    Here’s to hoping!?

    1. Wishful thinking my friend. All politics is national and has been for some time. Hence why people who live nowhere near the Mexican border are the ones screaming the loudest to “build the wall”, and why rabidly pro-abortion people who live in blue states are freaking out about what happens in Texas. These drive money to the two parties who have an interest in keeping us divided. The big game is and will remain who controls Congress and the presidency.

    2. Why should 55% of texas be able to rob the individual liberties of 45% of the state? Isn't that why the forefathers chose to have a consitution rather just do a straight up small document that set up the branches of government and be done with it? Why bother with a bill of rights?

  13. Beyond the affect of the anticipated ruling, which will remove a court determined constitutional right from half the US population (at some time in their life) is the equally large issue of the enforcement of minority will on Americans by an illegitimate SC. All but 1 of the 5 majority justices were appointed by a president not elected by the people, but by the random winner-take-all electoral college. 2 of the 5 should not be there at all - Goresuch is in a seat which GOP senators (all of them) purposefully stole from a twice popularly elected president (they failed their duty to "advise and consent" to purposefully take away the president's right to nominate justices - no hearings were held, so while consent is not guaranteed by the constitution, "advise" is cleary intended to arrive at a suitable nominee), Barret was voted on after the election was already begun, and was nominated by a president everyone - including himself - knew was going to lose. Her seat should have been Biden's to name, based on the concept Republicans had claimed was the reason - bullshit - they held Scalia's seat open.

    In short, the SC is broken, it is intended to roughly represent majority will since the elected President names candidates. Instead, we have a bunch of loser picks who's religion they were raised in and/or claim now is officially opposed to abortion. It represents 20% of the US, 66.7% of the court, and 100% of this draft's majority.

    Don't tell us about the leak as if that were the problem. This court has no basis for respect from American voters, who it does not represent. Part of that is due to the fucked up winner take all (not in the constitution) EC randomness but 2 of the seats - deciding the court majority - were stolen from the Presidents Americans chose in the last decade.

    1. Your avatar's most remembered line was "just the facts", something you seem to not understand.

    2. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; the piece of shit deserves nothing else.
      Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
      Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
      Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.

  14. Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant Cambridge ? Check out this!

  15. While just 20% of Americans are Catholic, ALL five Supreme Court Justices who are conspiring to strike down Roe and Casey as unconstitutional are Conservative Catholics, who plan to impose their Pope's decree to make ALL American women's vaginas property/slaves owned and controlled by state politicians.

    This Puritanical court ruling would strike down and deny women's fundamental natural and human right to bodily integrity.

    While anti abortion extremists may be reveling now, this ruling could prompt the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November (in many US House, US Senate, Governors, State AG, State House and State Senate races), as the vast majority of voters in suburban swing districts strongly support women's right to abortion.

    If GOP candidates in swing districts and states want to win in November, they'd be wise to only support an abortion ban after 15 weeks ban, and exempt cases of rape, incest and mother's health.

    GOP candidates (in swing states and districts) who call for a total ban (or near total) on abortions are likely to lose to pro choice Democrats in November (as Democrats will make abortion their primary campaign issue).

    I now think Democrat Josh Shapiro will be PA's next Governor (because he said he'll veto any abortion ban enacted by the GOP controlled PA House and Senate).

    1. They're too stupid to support reasonable limitations on abortions, they're shooting for a pure theocracy and those 5 aren't justices, they're a cabal of likeminded theocrats. They don't care about the constitution or tradition or liberty.

  16. I can't get excited about the people currently screaming about bodily autonomy given they are perfectly okey dokey with a host of other draconian infringements of our personal liberties.

    With rights come responsibilities . . . right?

  17. when the US unleashed the niggers and white women in the late 60's after being brainwashed (with an enema) by the jews was the end of US society. fat ugly lesbians other fat women and the stupid young women conned by them. 100 years ago they be pulled back in the house smacked around and chained to the stove

  18. white girls have a problem cause they cant get remed by 10 niggers and have 10 abortions. gonna be a lot of mulattos around. also 5-600K criminal niggers will now be born a year. they already attacked cops injuring a few. lets see if they are treated like the Jan 6 guys when they storm the SC. and they will

    1. Fuck off, asshole.

      1. you talking to me jerkoff?

  19. I'm worried that Congress will get South Dakota v. Dole ideas and cut off funds to states with abortion laws not to their liking.

    Of course, this could go both ways. Unfortunately, SD v. Dole has never been used to expand freedom.

  20. when they asked AOC what she thought of roe vs wade she said those are the two best ways for messicans to cross the rio grande

    1. Ah the white supremacist has entered the chat.

      1. WHITE POWER!!!!

  21. It is darn near impossible to have a rational discussion of this matter circa 2022. For starters there is a relatively simple "solution" to the "abortion on a whim" issue - birth control: readily available, cheap. Yes, it demands that people act responsibly to be effective - so apparently to be considered a horrible burden. And surely there could/should be agreement on abortion for cases of rape, incest, welfare of the mother and even for horrendous birth defects. Much bluster will permeate the discussion, but alas it's only bluster.

    1. Haven't seen you handle before, but that's as good an argument as I've seen.
      +1

  22. Reason likes to think this is no big deal, but this is just the first body blow. Next comes outlawing interracial marriage, gay marriage, teaching of evolution in public schools, non-missionary style sex outlawed, etc. This has been the goal of evangelical groups like the Federalist Society for a long long time. This is beginning of a war on individual freedoms by the Magas. Joe Biden has a lot that he gets wrong but he got that dead on rights. They are dangerous and seek a totalitarian system dictated by Trump

    1. No one wants to ban any of these things, and the few nut cases who maybe (MAYBE) do are not taken seriously by the majority in and out of government.

      The greatest war against individual freedom was just waged, and is still being waged, by Joe Biden and his fellow tyrants on the Left, and you start plucking 1980s-style hyperbole out of thin air?

      Sit down.

      1. In order to overturn Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court has to get rid of the right of privacy on which Roe was based. This is, or should be, every libertarian's worst nightmare. Now, laws against sodomy, gross indecency, and same sex marriage will no longer be unconstitutional. The tyranny of authoritarian government has just been given a major boost.

        1. Where were these laws against privacy these past 2.5 years, then? Hell, since Roe v. Wade supposedly codified it (which it didn't). Our "right" to privacy is to a point guaranteed by the 4A and 5A, which protect us against unreasonable searches and seizures and against self-incrimination, which extends to the protection of private information. You can extend that further to same-sex marriage, etc. if you're so worried about it. Regardless, yours is ultimately a specious argument, given that our privacy is invaded every minute of the day, 24/7, and no one bats an eye.

  23. The author is very right that abortion rights will remain in many states once the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade. However, the author is very wrong to say "The Impact of Overturning Roe v. Wade Will Be Less Dramatic Than Abortion-Rights Advocates Fear." In order to overturn Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court has to get rid of the right of privacy on which Roe was based. This is, or should be, every libertarian's worst nightmare. Now, laws against sodomy, gross indecency, interracial marriage, and same sex marriage will no longer be unconstitutional.

    The Ninth Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That will now be swept away.

    Another poster said "The greatest war against individual freedom was just waged, and is still being waged, by Joe Biden and his fellow tyrants on the Left". That is 100% the opposite of reality.

    1. See my response, above, to your response.

      The right to privacy is nowhere codified in the Constitution, Roe v. Wade or no Roe v. Wade.

      And if you don't think forcing a medical procedure into a person's body against their will, which is what Joe Biden and his lackeys tried to do over the past year, isn't one of the greatest infringements of bodily autonomy, I don't know what to tell YOU as a supposed libertarian.

      Bodily autonomy is a given, government sanction be damned. I don't need the government to tell me that I have a "right" not to get a medical procedure, just as a woman doesn't need a "right" to tell her whether she should be forced to give birth or not.

      The problem is not whether Roe v. Wade will be overturned. The problem is you don't think far enough. The problem is government having authority over us, PERIOD.

  24. The merits of the Hobbs/Roe/abortion debate aside, the estimate that abortions would decrease by just 14% nationwide is predicated on a big and potentially unsound assumption: that abortion-hostile states won't pass legislation prohibiting its residents from obtaining out-of-state abortions. Whether such laws would pass constitutional muster is an open question, but it is far from certain that they would be struck down. On the other hand, I feel relatively certain that states will pass these types of laws.

  25. American women will be able to obtain abortions in Canada if the United States Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and returns abortion law to the state level, says Karina Gould, minister of families, children and social development.
    Gould’s remarks came after U.S. political news outlet Politico published a copy of an initial draft opinion written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a Republican appointee. That opinion suggests a majority of justices are prepared to overrule Roe v. Wade — the landmark decision that allowed legal abortions in the U.S. — and return the issue to state legislatures.
    https://worldabcnews.com/american-women-can-obtain-abortions-in-canada-if-roe-v-wade-falls-minister-says/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.