Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Reproductive Freedom

Here's What Abortion Laws in a Post-Roe World Might Look Like

A pro-life group's model legislation hints at how extreme enforcing abortion bans could get.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 6.30.2022 2:10 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Pro-life balloon drifting | Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@mcoswalt?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText">Maria Oswalt</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a>
(Photo by Maria Oswalt on Unsplash )

Model legislation from the anti-abortion group National Right to Life provides a sobering look at where some prominent pro-lifers think U.S. laws should go.

The group's vision includes a sweeping criminal enforcement apparatus targeted at people who perform abortions and entities that enable them, including website purveyors, web hosting companies, and anyone else providing abortion information.

"Police state. Very much police state. Not even subtle about it," Thomas Lecaque, a history professor at Grand View University, commented on Twitter. "I mean seriously. Full blown surveillance state stuff."

Model legislation is just a policy wish list, of course. But anti-abortion groups have a good track record of getting model bills proposed and enacted. And James Bopp, general counsel for National Right to Life, told CNN that the group would aggressively push its model laws across the U.S.

To begin with, the group's new model legislation would ban abortion from fertilization, with the only exceptions being when a pregnant woman's life is jeopardized.

Performing an abortion would be criminalized, of course, as would "conspiring to cause, or aiding or abetting, illegal abortions"—activity which the group would define very broadly.

Aiding and abetting an abortion would "include, but not be limited to: (1) giving instructions over the telephone, the internet, or any other medium of communication regarding self-administered abortions or means to obtain an illegal abortion; (3) hosting or maintaining a website, or providing internet service, that encourages or facilitates efforts to obtain an illegal abortion; (4) offering or providing illegal 'abortion doula' services; and (5) providing referrals to an illegal abortion provider," explains National Right to Life.

Criminalizing such things would obviously raise some First Amendment concerns.

National Right to Life also wants new criminal laws against helping a minor obtain an abortion and against "trafficking in abortifacients." In addition, it would be a felony to use telemedicine "to prescribe, sell, or distribute an abortifacient."

Stopping drug-induced abortions—also referred to as medical abortion, medication abortion, or chemical abortion—is going to be a big focus of pro-life groups going forward. "Chemical abortion is the fight we're going to be having for the next decade, probably longer," Jennifer Popik, National Right to Life's federal legislation director, told attendees at the group's convention earlier this month. (Meanwhile, Attorney General Merrick Garland says Food and Drug Administration approval of such drugs may mean that states cannot ban them.)

To enforce these new abortion laws, the group wants state attorneys general—not just local district attorneys—to be given prosecutor authority. This is in case some local prosecutors refuse to enforce a state's abortion prohibitions—as is already happening in Texas and elsewhere.

National Right to Life also urges governments to rely on not just criminal penalties but also civil penalties and licensing rules. "Traditionally, abortion laws relied on criminal enforcement to make pro-life laws effective in protecting unborn life. However, current realities require a much more robust enforcement regime than reliance on criminal penalties," states an introduction to the model legislation.

If National Right to Life's legislation passed, state and local governments, as well as relatives of women who receive abortions, would be able to bring civil lawsuits against any person or entity "that violates any provision of the abortion law." Winners of such suits would be entitled to damages and to stop the provider from further action.

In addition, "wrongful death of an unborn child" suits could be brought by "the woman upon whom an illegal abortion has been performed, the father of the unborn child, and the parents of a minor."

The model legislation also proposes Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)–style statues, which could bring enhanced penalties for anyone found to be part of an illegal abortion enterprise.

Some activists are already getting excited about the chance to "use RICO to punish the docs," as Florida Family Policy Council's John Stemberger put it.

Such laws could potentially be used to target far more people than abortion doctors, however. They would be aimed at anyone who "is employed by or associated with an entity known by the person to engage is a pattern of illegal abortion activity" (defined as two or more illegal abortions), anyone who "knowingly or intentionally receives any proceeds" from such activity, anyone who "maintains" property engaged in such activity, and more.

National Right to Life's model legislation doesn't mention birth control, but the fact that it considers abortion to begin at fertilization—not implantation—could be used to go after some forms of contraception. Those opposed to emergency contraception have long complained that it could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Under National Right to Life's model statutes, this could be considered an abortion.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Supreme Court Limits EPA's Ability To Impose Costly Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Reproductive FreedomAbortionCriminal JusticeFree SpeechFirst AmendmentLaw enforcementPregnancyBirth ControlContraceptionLegislationActivism
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (96)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. damikesc   3 years ago

    Maybe y'all should have accepted compromises over the last half century.

    1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

      Would allowing people to make their own choices about which magazines to buy, for themselves, without compulsion... Would THAT be one of the issues where we could compromise?

      Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
      How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?

      Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

      So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!

      “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
      Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)

      (Etc.)

      See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/

      1. LupeCooper   3 years ago

        I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst I’ve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (res-56) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home.

        Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
        .
        >>>> http://payout11.tk

        1. DesigNate   3 years ago

          Hahahahaha, perfect reply to SQRLSY.

    2. NOYB2   3 years ago

      Or maybe Democrats should have just passed the Freedom to Choose Act in 2009; Obama said it was going to be "the first piece of legislation he would sign", but then in 2009 said "it was not high priority". They could have passed it without any Republican votes.

    3. JFree   3 years ago

      Be careful what you ask for...

      1. Joe Biden   3 years ago

        What the fuck?

        Even Im not THIS SENILE!

        "REPRODUCTIVE freedom?"

        Killing babies isnt reproduction.

  2. rbike   3 years ago

    MOVE. Choose the Freedom of North Korea or China.

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      Nothing defines a right so much as letting the state choose when you get to exercise it.

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        Well, if you wish to have that particular right guaranteed, move to one of the many states that guarantee that right.

        At the federal level, this right simply doesn't exist. If that bothers you, work towards a constitutional amendment.

        That's how a nation based on the rule of law works.

  3. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Can someone summarize? Is it worse than the period tracking take?

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      What difference, at this point, does it make?

    2. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      It's pretty normal. It's now easing in that Roe is overturned and so now Reason is basically making arguments to beware the passage of pro-life legislation.
      Which is to be expected, it is now in the realm of legislation and thus these debates make sense. I just disagree with their underlying premise, and I have doubts about the likelihood of the outcome they are suggesting. This is now the realm of debate though. Let it ride.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        So leaving it up to debate. That's a bad thing?

        1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

          STOP THE PRESSES! HOT NEWS FLASH!

          INSSSSIGHT (Infallibly Noble, Succulently Scientific SQRLSY-Survey Intelligently Gathered Hot Takes) has conducted in-person surveys of almost 10 million Democrats very recently, and here are the findings! Today’s USA Democrats identify or agree with the below statements at the following rates (please ignore sum total mismatches with 100% due to rounding errors):

          ‘A) 0.15%: “Marxism is the One True Way, and North Korea is Utopia on Earth!”

          ‘B) 0.25%: “Antifa, the Lizard People, and BLM are the ONLY ones properly qualified to teach CRT to all of Our Children, all of which MUST be embraced by ALL schools!”

          ‘C) 0.65%: “The Republican Party must be outlawed ASAP, because they are grooming innocent young people to become Republicans! Also, chimpanzees and monkeys that have been grooming each other need to be prevented from performing ANY further grooming! Everyone knows that grooming is horrible!”

          ‘D) 2.3%: “Religion (especially Christian religion) must be kept out of the schools and public policy debates! However, the ironclad, unquestionable revelations to Democrats concerning the Earth Mother Gaia, and the facts that higher minimum wages don’t cause unemployment, and that forced-lower rents don’t cause homelessness, may NOT be questioned, because they are compassionate and self-evident, and do NOT come from God, so they are NOT religious beliefs.”

          ‘E) 17%: “I know that higher minimum wages cause more unemployment, and that forced-lower rents cause homelessness among the poor, but I get SOOOO much pleasure out of punishing the evil Republicans, that I consider the punishment inflicted on the poor, by these Democrat policies, to be just a bit of ‘collateral damage’. And WHY do the Republicans deserve punishment? As revenge for the damage that they do to the poor, by using statist womb control to force them to have larger families. Republicans thus thwart the ‘demographic transition’ for the poor, through policies that encourage ‘the rich will get richer, while the poor will have more children’. So we must PUNISH the Republicans for this! Revenge is ours!”

          ‘F) 30%: “I know that higher minimum wages cause more unemployment, and that forced-lower rents cause homelessness among the poor, but I can’t find any Democrat politicians that will vote my way on these issues, and I can’t bring myself to vote Republican or Libertarian, because most of them are so pro-life that they want to take over my womb, my wife’s womb, or my girlfriend’s womb.”

          ‘G) 50%: “I would LOVE to see a Grand Compromise whereby Democrats stops punishing the poor with higher minimum wages AND excessive licensing laws which ultimately cause more unemployment, and with forced-lower rents that ultimately cause homelessness among the poor, and Republicans cease and desist with anti-abortion and anti-birth-control laws that ALSO punish the poor! ALL statist policies that yank the ladders of success away from the poor should be removed! However, Republicans are fanatics who won’t listen to reason. So for now, I’ll keep on voting “D”, and the poor will keep on having more and more children, they’ll vote “D”, out-vote the “R” fanatics, and THEN we can perhaps finally get to a sensible-policies-place!”

          “Give a little to get a little”, said a materialistic slutty girlfriend of mine way back when. See https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/love-language-youre-more-likely-170236564.html “If This Is Your Love Language, You're More Likely to Divorce”… Couples treasure the following items, or express their love in the following ways, says this article: ‘1) gifts (presents), ‘2) quality time together, ‘3) acts of service (AKA work… Do the dishes already!), ‘4) words; I love you, etc., ‘5) physical touch (affection).
          Beware of #1!!! Materialism, gifts, status symbols, conspicuous consumption!.. Designer this and designer that! “I spent more money on you than you spent on me!” A quick way to fights, broken relationships, and divorces! Achtung, Baby!

          Well, I digress. “Give a little to get a little” can make a LOT more sense in politics!!!

          Hey, look, assholes, see what the above polling data says!!! Combine categories E, F, and G, and 97% of Democrats would be open to having Republicans give a little, to get a little! “Team R” gives up being “compassionate” with other peoples’ wombs, and “team D” gives up being “compassionate” with other peoples’ money! Only self-righteous assholery stands in our way!!!

        2. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

          Nope. Though I have a side in the debate.

      2. Ben of Houston   3 years ago

        I think the argument looking at the extreme is poor. Pro-life political groups have a good track record because they don't ask for too much. This is asking for the moon.

        I think it more reasonable to look at the "strictest abortion regulation ever proposed", the Oklahoma one. You have until 6 weeks of development to abort without cause, plus there is an exception for rape after that. For being "absolutist" is actually has a lot of leniency.

        There is a concern for very young girls who aren't raped, but are coerced, and do not yet have consistent knowledge of their periods, so they could easily miss the signs until 8 or 10 weeks along.

        However, most laws are of the Dobbs type, allowing open abortions up to 15 weeks or so. There is not a significant operational difference than with Roe.

      3. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

        Enslaving women is NOT pro-life. It wasn't in 1860 and it isn't today.

        1. DesigNate   3 years ago

          Telling someone they can’t kill their offspring isn’t slavery.

          There’s a rational, libertarian argument for allowing abortion, at least to a point. It would be nice if anyone would make it instead of fallacious bullshit.

          1. Vernon Depner   3 years ago

            The woman's self-ownership IS the libertarian argument.

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

      If you like state governments violating the First Amendment in the name of stopping abortion, you'll love what's coming next!

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Jeff adding bad takes seems to not be helping.

        So jeff. Let's see how consistent you are. We're you outraged by states outlawing discussing gay conversion therapy?

    4. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   3 years ago

      It's the new normal hysterics about what might happen in some alternate universe. Handmaiden's Tale, massive government snooping, that kind of thing.

      1. Squirrelloid   3 years ago

        I'm not so sure, it doesn't sound so hysterical when it's quoting what an activist organization actually wants instead of making shit up.

        I mean, should we call it hysterics to worry about, say, a marxist group openly calling for marxism? Especially if they have significant political traction?

        1. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

          Germany's nationalsocialists openly demanded peace, disarmament and freedom. These demands were vociferously repeated and defended by American Silvershirts, Bundists, Father Coughlin and huge mobs of Christian Conservative Republicans. The U.S: ambassador who lived in Germany and actually understood the language reported differently. Nazi officials demanded the U.S. government silence him.

        2. DesigNate   3 years ago

          I think it would depend on how likely it is for the Marxist group to gain control of the levers of power.

      2. b_e_d_D   3 years ago

        It's also not really hysterics. Poland's maternal mortality rate has increased, because a not-insignificant number of abortion procedures are chosen by women who want their babies, but some horrible medical shit went down and they are unable to continue with the pregnancy. For example, preterm rupture of membranes, especially before 22 weeks; not uncommon, but occasionally very severe, and the only course of action is abortion, because the mom and the baby are at high risk of severe infection and the baby can't survive outside the womb (at 22 weeks, its an under-10% chance). Of course, now in Poland a lot of women die from sepsis, because doctors were not allowed to perform an abortion until the sepsis actually kicks in and kills the baby and the mom. This is just one example of why blanket bans on abortion are stupid and cause women to die.

    5. NOYB2   3 years ago

      I suspect the vast majority of people hyperventilating about this sort of thing have no need of period tracking: they are either not persons with a uterus or they are persons with a post-menopausal uterus.

  4. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    Another thing they might look like.
    Exceptions for rape & incest, only taking effect 15 - 22 weeks after pregnancy, allowance for medical opinion, permission to kill the baby up until it is born, or a few weeks after.
    All will vary by state, and at this time, why this speculation when the state laws are already on the books?
    Unless, of course, you are a statist fascist and have a deep need to dictate every aspect of every citizen's life.
    The supreme court has ruled, it is the law of the land that the feds need to butt out.
    You lost.
    Deal with it.

    1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      Yep.

    2. JFree   3 years ago

      Deal with it how?
      Now that Libertarians have agreed that there is no libertarian view of abortion - and they have no capability of doing anything at the state level.

      Apparently the first outcome of Mises caucus take over is to encourage Libertarians to join the D's or R's if the person is concerned about this issue.

  5. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

    Well. So the recently proposed bill in South Carolina is just a copy-paste of this NRLC model legislation. Makes sense.

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Has anything else anywhere in the country been proposed. Or is this the only proposed law this year.

      Or have you not had any recently updated talking points?

      1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

        We should all tremble in fear of legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional based on its restraint of free speech and its restraint on interstate commerce? With dozens of precedents at hand including the ones regarding blueprints for guns?

        Is ENB this dumb, or does she think her readers are?

        1. Stuck in California   3 years ago

          Is ENB this dumb, or does she think her readers are?

          Yes.

        2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

          Both.

          Her projection here is strong. It's the progressives that are censoring their opponents, but let's make shit up about icky conservatives and Republicans. She cannot even find a tweet from some low ranking Republicans or unknown conservative to support this non-sense.

        3. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

          We should all tremble in fear of legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional based on its restraint of free speech and its restraint on interstate commerce?

          Were you not here for the utter right-wing freakout over the Disinformation Governance Board? They way they interpreted it, it too would have also been blatantly unconstitutional. It didn't stop the freakout though.

          Now I don't think anyone should be freaking out, but I do think we should be calling out the authoritarians on both sides who want to trample on liberty.

          1. DesigNate   3 years ago

            The difference of course being that the legislation hasn’t passed yet and Biden actually appointed someone to run the board and only shitcanned it when became clear how massively unpopular the move was. Also, you can guarantee that they’re working on a back door solution to the board.

    2. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

      Dry law fanatics and the pharmacist cartel circulated "model" laws their lobbyists leveraged into the Harrison and Volstead acts, both of which made production and trade into crimes on the way to a planned economy. The resulting Crash and Depression actually accomplished this in Germany. These States exported laws against trade there and imported smuggled German heroin and cocaine over here. German and U.S. banks crashed in June 1931, as pharma became a "planned economy" in both countries.

  6. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

    "Police state. Very much police state. Not even subtle about it,"

    So like now, only targeting pro-choicers.

  7. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    LOL! ENB has literally gone full-jeffy.

    https://reason.com/2022/06/30/california-accidentally-leaked-the-personal-data-of-thousands-of-licensed-gun-owners/?comments=true#comment-9574455

    I can imagine she requested that others maintain the round-up this week so she can devote herself full time to writing about the Abortopocalypse.

    Didn't Mel Gibson direct the movie?

  8. Char Weaver   3 years ago

    So, not much different from now.

  9. Char Weaver   3 years ago

    Same old police state.

    1. NOYB2   3 years ago

      Nope, it's not. It's 50 states, some of which may end up being police states, and others which don't.

      That's a hell of a lot better than if any one political ideology gets a hold of the federal government and imposes its will on everybody.

      1. Joe Biden   3 years ago

        Thats MY JOB!

        Dont anybody horn in on my action!

  10. Patrick Trombly   3 years ago

    Gee, some of this sounds like the way they enforced COVID lockdowns. Remember contact tracing and DeBlasio's tip line? Remember stay-at-home by executive decree? Remember arbitrary determinations as to what was an "essential" reason to leave your own house?

    Come to think of it, the enforcement will, even in a Handmaid's Tale nightmare scenario, be less stringent than enforcement of drug and other controlled substance laws.

    Meanwhile, I'm registered for Selective Service, as all non-menstruating people are.

    Look, I'm completely behind "my body = my choice" but you can't carve that up into different choices for different bodies and assign some higher value to others, or fight the battle for choice one choice at a time. When you do that, you imply acceptance that this is a policy matter, rather than a matter of the choice being nobody else's business simply because it's nobody else's body.

    And that's all Alito did - decide that this choice was a policy decision.

    Just like SCOTUS did with vaccine mandates for government workers, and lockdowns, interceding only when the rules related to how many people could attend church or temple.

    I'm sick of defending the freedom of people who don't defend mine - in fact, who openly cheer when my freedom is curtailed.

    The issue is not abortion. It is bodily autonomy. I'm done fighting or arguing for choice for other people who view my choice with disdain, and label it "free-dumb."

    When NARAL and PP and the other Leftist hypocrites get behind bodily autonomy for EVERYONE, not just for themselves, I'll be sure to join in.

    This issue is a prime example of my political maxim:

    There is no ideological divide.

    Everyone is a libertarian.

    It's just that almost everyone is a libertarian only when it comes to what he or she wants to do.

    1. RoninX   3 years ago

      I wish there were more people who believe "My body, my choice" consistently -- whether talking about abortion rights, vaccine mandates, the War on Drugs, or conscription.

      By supporting abortion rights, you're not just supporting the rights of the progs who mocked "freedumb", but of all women who might want to get an abortion.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        The difference being that abortion involves 2 bodies...

    2. NOYB2   3 years ago

      There is no ideological divide. Everyone is a libertarian. It's just that almost everyone is a libertarian only when it comes to what he or she wants to do.

      You're confusing libertarianism with a bag of policy preferences. That makes you not a libertarian.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

        You're confusing libertarianism with a bag of policy preferences. That makes you not a libertarian.

        So... we're BACK in agreement that Reason is no longer a libertarian magazine?

    3. Tony   3 years ago

      So you're in favor of the government forcing people to give birth against their will because liberals are hypocrites? Do you guys ever arrive at a moral position based on its actual worth as a position, or do you only react to what you perceive other people are doing?

      FTR, I think the government should not force women to give birth against their will, and I think government should mandate certain hygiene measures during an airborne pandemic. I can justify both positions comfortably from my own political worldview. Is that enough to convince you to think for yourself?

      1. DesigNate   3 years ago

        “Look, I'm completely behind "my body = my choice"”

        It helps if you actually read someone’s post.

  11. NOYB2   3 years ago

    Looks like conservatives have learned from the masters of the Overton window.

    In practice, this won't make any difference. Some states are going to pass strict legislation like this, most states will pass something more moderate, and a few will have abortion until birth (sorry, California, no post-birth abortions under the Constitution).

    This is all empty fear mongering by progressives.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      (sorry, California, no post-birth abortions under the Constitution).

      If Mao could do it, why not California?

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        They can do it after they leave the union. Sad as it is, we shouldn't fight another civil war over Democrats oppressing minorities.

        But maybe we can help the Pacific Plate to slide away from the North American Plate a little faster. That would be good for everybody.

  12. Bramblyspam   3 years ago

    The worst of scenarios is where we alternate between the extreme pro-life regimen (described in the article) and the extreme pro-choice regimen (abortion on demand until the moment of birth) every four years.

    My expectation is that we'll eventually settle on a compromise where abortion is available on demand up to 15-20 weeks, and heavily restricted after that. I don't know how we'll get there, but both extreme positions look unsustainable to me. And as the saying goes, "If something can't go on forever, it won't".

    1. NOYB2   3 years ago

      The worst of scenarios is where we alternate between the extreme pro-life regimen (described in the article) and the extreme pro-choice regimen (abortion on demand until the moment of birth) every four years.

      There is not going to be any national abortion legislation as long as there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. They have made that clear.

      My expectation is that we'll eventually settle on a compromise where abortion is available on demand up to 15-20 weeks,

      My expectation is that this is going to be left to the states. Until the union breaks apart.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

        There is not going to be any national abortion legislation as long as there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. They have made that clear.

        Why not? Now, a nationwide abortion ban would just have to pass the rational basis test. And be justified under the Commerce Clause. Those seem like two easy hurdles to pass.

        1. NOYB2   3 years ago

          If that's what SCOTUS had wanted, they could simply have determined that a fetus is a person. They were clear that they consider this a state matter. So, it is unlikely that you could construct an argument that would convince them otherwise.

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

      Agreed. The extremes will ultimately have to settle for the middle. Those that can't can find a home in a state that reflects their views. In a few years the issue will not be on the national radar screen. If not for Roe it would have happened 40 years ago.

    3. justme   3 years ago

      please explain how protecting the unborn children is "extreme"?

      1. DesigNate   3 years ago

        The extreme isn’t just arguing about protecting unborn children, they’re talking about stupid shit like making contraception illegal and outlawing Plan B.

    4. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

      The only thing "pro-life" about mystical girl-enslavers is that their fervent activists--Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, Scott Roeder, Shelley Shannon, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, Robert Dear and many others--committed arson, vandalism, some even murdered doctors, clinicians, bystanders and even a cop in order to get life sentences in prison at taxpayer expense. Libertarians, who wrote the original plank emancipating women in 1972, are pro-rights, and without rights, there is no life.

  13. Poorgrandchildren   3 years ago

    Will the laws prohibiting the murder of unborn children be more draconian than the laws prohibiting the murder of adults?

  14. Inquisitive Squirrel   3 years ago

    This will be interesting to see how it plays out. The right is currently ramping up the ban wagon. Looks like 21 states have banned or heavily restricted abortions. It also looks like Republican groups have drafted up and are looking to impose banning people from traveling out of state for abortions.

    Just some totalitarian absurdity now. But, my guess is in time all these bans and draconian restrictions will start to give way so that the US will mostly consist of European level allowance with some states begrudgingly holding on to draconian bans and other states holding on to draconian allowance up to and including birth.

    Still amazes me how out-of-control this issue is in this country.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      Still amazes me how out-of-control this issue is in this country.

      If only an activist court hadn't rammed through a bullshit ruling in 1974 that even they didn't believe in, and maybe if the "ice pick to the back of the head as the infant clump of cells crowns" crowd would take a back seat, we probably could have a much more European-looking, relatively uncontroversial abortion regime in this country.

      1. Inquisitive Squirrel   3 years ago

        It's true. It really does appear that the SCOTUS ruling in Roe did nothing but make the issue extremist and highly ludicrous.

    2. justme   3 years ago

      yea turns out that crossing state lines to commit murder is a crime.

      1. Inquisitive Squirrel   3 years ago

        Yet, none of these states charges the same offense for terminating a pregnancy versus murdering a human who has been born. I wonder why that is?! Hmmmm, maybe your hyperbole is too much? Just food for thought.

    3. Nardz   3 years ago

      "Just some totalitarian absurdity now."

      Now???
      Jfc

      1. Inquisitive Squirrel   3 years ago

        Calm down Nardz.

  15. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    With our "remarkably stable consensus" on abortion, what... really are the chances of many of these passing legislatures?

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

      The consensus has always been that grown up women and their significant others need to be responsible for their actions and deal with comes after. Morning after pills and abortion pills are readily available and if you still don't have your shit together we'll give a full 15 weeks. Rape, incest, serious health issues with mom or baby we will not judge you for. But don't ask us to sign off on the murder of a healthy six months gestation fetus because another three months is inconvenient.

      1. Tony   3 years ago

        Late-term abortions only happen when serious medical complications are in play.

        I'm really goddamn tired of people who don't seem to know the first thing about how human reproduction works making laws about how they think it should.

        1. Ersatz   3 years ago

          paging Dr. Gosnell.... you're wanted in your dirty operating room
          .

  16. Chip D   3 years ago

    If prolife advocates try and start reaching across state lines and blocking free speech then this will be a pretty big nightmare.

    1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      The word you're looking for is Unconstitutional.

    2. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

      Girl-bulliers are violent thugs so similar to Antifa communists and Trumpanzee rioters one suspects they are rented actor troupes in different costumes and makeup. Both absolutely demand the initiation of force to suppress the rights of existing individuals. FDR warned us "The Trojan Horse, the fifth column that betrays a country unprepared for treachery. Spies, saboteurs and traitors are the actors in this new tragedy." This in a fireside chat 26MAY1940.

    3. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

      The only ones pro-life are the ones seeking to restore the rights of individuals. Bullying terato-worshippers now force women at gunpoint to labor on behalf of siamese twins, pinheads and acephalic victims of mutation. Observe that they have penetrated the Supreme Court as they did earlier--in time to legitimize National Socialist eugenic experiments in the name of positive Christianity and altruism.

  17. Mr. Bumble   3 years ago

    Hey ENB, here's an idea.

    If you are going to engage in male femal vaginal intercourse and don't want a baby grow up and take the necessary precaution to mitigate the chance of pregnancy thereby negating the need for an abortion.

  18. NOYB2   3 years ago

    And please remember, my daughter, having control of your body doesn't begin at pregnancy.

  19. justme   3 years ago

    why is it when the law is enforced that the left calls it a police state? not it won't be a police state, but the state's laws will be enforced and it's about time the unborn children has someone protecting their precious lives. the primary and most important purpose of government is to protect it's citizens, especially the most vulnerable.

    1. Joe Biden   3 years ago

      Because were fucking hypocrites.

      But were in charge!

    2. Tony   3 years ago

      If you have never attended a funeral for a miscarriage, you don't actually believe a fertilized egg is a person, you blinking simpleton.

      1. Ewald Von Kleist   3 years ago

        lol

      2. NOYB2   3 years ago

        Many people bury the remains of their miscarried children. There are special small caskets. Cemeteries have special sections for them, and there are special prayers for them. So, yeah, pro-life people are pretty consistent about this.

        1. Joe Biden   3 years ago

          you think im A fucking retard, look at Tony.

  20. Tony   3 years ago

    At least conservatives have been good enough not to wait until they got forced birth enshrined in law before they made it clear that they have every intention of passing laws meant to suppress gay and trans people too, not to mention purging libraries and punishing parents for raising children in an ungodly manner. Just let it all out in time for the midterms. I want specifics.

    What do you want the government to do to women, minorities, and people who speak in a state-unapproved way, specifically?

    1. NOYB2   3 years ago

      that they have every intention of passing laws meant to suppress gay and trans people too, not to mention purging libraries and punishing parents for raising children in an ungodly manner.

      Yeah, spreading FUD and misinformation like that is really the last hurrah of the progressives, after running everything else into the ground.

      Just let it all out in time for the midterms. I want specifics.

      Oh, you can bet on Republicans telling you what they are going to do, on abortion and gay marriage; in most cases, it will be "nothing at all". And in states where they are going to promise to restrict abortion or teenage castration, you can be sure those are going to be states where that resonates with voters. But the simple fact is: most people just don't give a f*ck.

      They will also tell you what they are going to do on subjects people actually care about: inflation, the stock market, education, illegal immigration, homelessness, crime, etc.

  21. johngray0   3 years ago

    Yes there is going to be some extreme on the right. It's going to take some time before public opinion takes this away from the extremists. And we get policy that reflects what most people want.

    But, eh hem. Are there no extremists on the Left, hmm? Wanting to abort at 8 months and 29 days cause you decided you don't want to change diapers? That's mainstream? Have you looked at any of the 7,000 polls over the past 50 years on this issue?

    Reason is supposed to be nuanced. Don't see it here. Pathetic.

    1. Ewald Von Kleist   3 years ago

      National Right to Life didn't just unveil the model legislation mentioned in the article?

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        Yeah, so? Organizations on both sides stake out maximalist positions to shift the Overton window.

        1. Ewald Von Kleist   3 years ago

          how does reporting what National Right to Life just disseminated and what the consequences would be if/when this becomes law in Jesus states an example of a lack of nuance?

          1. Ewald Von Kleist   3 years ago

            err, how "is".. still working on first cup of coffee

      2. DesigNate   3 years ago

        This has been NRTL’s main goal for nigh on 50 years.

  22. Sansos   3 years ago

    I dunno given that prolife people view abortion as murder these seem to be very sensible laws other than the the first amendment violations

  23. aipssecurity   3 years ago

    The AIP Services is a leading security services provider in India with diverse solutions across the security spectrum.
    https://aipservices.in/

  24. TJJ2000   3 years ago

    Thirst for Gov-Gun Power-Mad dictation never ends...
    Gov-Gun Power should've never been granted in the first place...

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

RFK Jr. Denigrates Privately Funded Medical Research

Joe Lancaster | 5.28.2025 3:55 PM

Can Trump Yank Harvard's Remaining Federal Funding?

Emma Camp | 5.28.2025 3:30 PM

A Federal Judge Lists 8 Ways That Trump Violated the Constitution by Punishing a Disfavored Law Firm

Jacob Sullum | 5.28.2025 3:15 PM

Elon Musk Is Right. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Is a Bad Deal.

Eric Boehm | 5.28.2025 1:00 PM

Is Buying OnlyFans Content Now Illegal in Sweden?

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 5.28.2025 12:18 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!