Without Roe v. Wade, Litigants Look to State Constitutions for Protection of Abortion Rights

Several state supreme courts already have recognized the right to terminate a pregnancy. Will more states join the list?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. But several state supreme courts have rejected abortion bans as inconsistent with state constitutional provisions, and current litigation over new restrictions seeks to enforce such precedents or create new ones.

Those lawsuits have met with some initial success in Michigan, where a judge ruled in May that the state constitution protects abortion rights, and Florida, where a judge said the same on Thursday. Some lawsuits do not claim constitutional protection for abortion rights but instead seek to delay implementation of "trigger" bans designed to take effect after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent that the Supreme Court repudiated in Dobbs. Here is a rundown of where things stand.

PRE-DOBBS DECISIONS

Alaska

In 1997, the Alaska Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state constitution "protects reproductive autonomy, including the right to abortion." The court cited Article I, Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution, which was adopted in 1972 and says, "The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed."

The justices concluded that "a woman's control of her body, and the choice whether or when to bear children, involves the kind of decision-making that is "necessary for…civilized life and ordered liberty." They added that "our prior decisions support the further conclusion that the right to an abortion is the kind of fundamental right and privilege encompassed within the intention and spirit of Alaska's constitutional language."

California

In 1969, four years before Roe established a constitutional right to abortion, the California Supreme Court ruled that a state law allowing a woman to obtain an abortion only when it is "necessary to preserve her life" was so vague that it violated the right to due process. It said "a definition requiring certainty of death," as urged by the government, "would work an invalid abridgment of the woman's constitutional rights," including "the woman's rights to life and to choose whether to bear children."

The justices reasoned that "the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children follows from the Supreme Court's and this court's repeated acknowledgment of a 'right of privacy' or 'liberty' in matters related to marriage, family, and sex." They noted that "none of the parties who have filed briefs in this case have disputed the existence of this fundamental right."

Florida

A 1980 amendment to Florida's constitution explicitly protects the "right of privacy," saying "every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life except as otherwise provided herein." That right, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1989, "is clearly implicated in a woman's decision of whether or not to continue her pregnancy."

Emphasizing that the Florida Constitution's explicit protection of privacy extends further than the provisions on which Roe relied, the justices thought it obvious that Florida's guarantee encompassed the decision of "whether, when, and how one's body is to become the vehicle for another human being's creation." In fact, they said, "we can conceive of few more personal or private decisions concerning one's body that one can make in the course of a lifetime." The court ruled that an abortion regulation can pass muster only if it is "the least intrusive means of furthering [a] compelling state interest."

That precedent could be at risk. Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, appointed three of the Florida Supreme Court's seven justices. Justice Alan Lawson, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott (now a senator) in 2016, is retiring in August, which means the court will soon have a majority appointed by DeSantis, who this year signed into a law a ban on abortion after 15 weeks. DeSantis has said he also favors a "heartbeat" law that would prohibit abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens around six weeks into a pregnancy.

The 15-week ban, which is scheduled to take effect on Friday, would affect less than 4 percent of abortions in Florida, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Planned Parenthood argues that the law nevertheless conflicts with the 1989 abortion precedent and the state constitution. John Cooper, a circuit judge in Tallahassee, said on Thursday he would grant the organization's request for a temporary injunction, although that may not happen soon enough to prevent the ban from taking effect.

Cooper said the abortion ban "is unconstitutional in that it violates the privacy provision of the Florida Constitution and does not meet the standards of the three Florida Supreme Court cases that have interpreted the effect of that constitutional provision on abortion in Florida." But the law may ultimately be upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, which could modify or reverse its 1989 decision.

Illinois

In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the argument that a right to abortion is protected by the state constitution's privacy clause, which says, "The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means." But the court concluded that "our state due process clause" provides "protections, with respect to abortion, equivalent to those provided by the federal due process clause" as interpreted in Roe.

Iowa

In 2015, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that state restrictions on drug-induced abortions, which prohibited prescriptions via telemedicine, were unconstitutional because they imposed an "undue burden" on access to abortion. It noted that the state "conceded a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy protected by the Iowa Constitution that is coextensive with the federal right." Three years later, the court concluded that a 72-hour waiting period for abortions "violates both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution because its restrictions on women are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest of the State."

On June 17, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned that 2018 precedent in a case involving a 24-hour waiting period. The court rejected "the proposition that there is a fundamental right to an abortion in Iowa's Constitution subjecting abortion regulation to strict scrutiny."

Kansas

In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution's Bill of Rights, which says "all men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," protects "a woman's right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy." It said the Bill of Rights "affords protection of the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one's own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination." That right, in turn, "allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy."

Massachusetts

In 1981, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed that abortion access is protected by the state constitution's guarantee of due process. It noted a 1974 decision in which "we held that a pregnant woman's husband had no right, whether constitutional or at common law, to declaratory and injunctive relief designed to prevent her from securing an abortion." In that case, "we emphasized the principle of personal autonomy inherent in these cases." The court also cited its 1977 decision overturning a local ban on abortion clinics, saying the government should take a neutral position on the issue, which "forbids the State to interpose material obstacles to the effectuation of a woman's counselled decision to terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester."

Minnesota

In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that "the right of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution encompasses a woman's right to decide to terminate her pregnancy." It said "both parties agree that women have a fundamental right to obtain an abortion before fetal viability under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions."

Montana

In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the "right of privacy" guaranteed by the state constitution protects "procreative freedom," including the right to obtain a pre-viability abortion. It said the Montana Constitution "broadly guarantees each individual the right to make medical judgments affecting her or his bodily integrity and health in partnership with a chosen health care provider free from government interference."

New Jersey

In 1982, the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized "the fundamental right of a woman to control her body and destiny," including "the choice to terminate a pregnancy or bear a child." It cited Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, which says, "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." That language, the court said, "protects the right of privacy," which includes "a woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to full-term or to undergo an abortion."

ONGOING LITIGATION

Arizona

A 1901 law, enacted when Arizona was still a territory, bans abortion except when necessary to save a pregnant woman's life. That law was enjoined after Roe but is still on the books, which has led to considerable confusion about whether it can be enforced.

John Keenan, legal director at the ACLU of Arizona, says "abortion remains legal in Arizona" as long as the pre-Dobbs injunction remains in place, but "providers have been forced to stop medical abortion care to avoid the risk of prosecution." Gov. Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich, both Republicans, disagree about whether the 1901 ban can be enforced: Brnovich says it can, while Ducey says it can't.

In March, Ducey signed into law a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of gestation except for medical emergencies. That law, which is similar to the Mississippi ban upheld in Dobbs, takes effect in September. It does not affect the vast majority of abortions: In 2019, according to the CDC's data, 95 percent of Arizona abortions were performed at 15 weeks or earlier.

The Arizona Constitution includes an explicit privacy clause: "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." In 2002, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that state restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortions violated the state constitution's "equal privileges and immunities" clause. But it did not affirm a lower court's ruling that the privacy clause protects a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, saying the case was "not about the right to an abortion."

Kentucky

On Thursday, a state judge issued a restraining order that temporarily blocks enforcement of Kentucky's "trigger" law, which took effect after Roe was overturned. That law, enacted in 2019, prohibits abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The only exception is for cases where an abortion is "necessary in reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death or substantial risk of death due to a physical condition, or to prevent the serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman."

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mitch Perry, whose order also covers a six-week ban enacted in 2019, was responding to a lawsuit by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. They argue that the bans violate the state constitution by "infringing on Plaintiffs' patients' rights to privacy and self-determination."

The lawsuit cites Sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky constitution. Section 1 says "all men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable
rights," including "the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties" and "the right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness." Section 2 forbids "absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen."

Perry's order does not address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, which Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron says have no legal basis. Cameron promises that "we will do everything possible to continue defending this law and to ensure that unborn life is protected in the Commonwealth." A constitutional amendment that will be on Kentucky's ballot this November says "nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion."

Louisiana

Louisiana's 2006 trigger law makes abortion illegal except when it is "necessary in reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death or substantial risk of death due to a physical condition, or to prevent the serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman." Another trigger law enacted this year added a few more narrow exceptions, which do not include pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

Those laws took effect immediately after Roe's reversal. But on Monday, a state judge issued a restraining order that temporarily blocked their enforcement. Orleans Parish Judge Robin M. Giarrusso was responding to a lawsuit by abortion providers who argued that the trigger laws are "unconstitutionally vague." They say the laws "fail to provide notice of what conduct is prohibited, what exceptions are permitted, and what penalties attach." Furthermore, they "do not provide notice of when any one of the Trigger Bans, or all of them collectively, are actually in force while simultaneously purporting to be immediately effective" after Roe's reversal.

"In a stunning state of affairs, the day Dobbs was issued, state and local officials issued conflicting statements about whether and which trigger laws were actually in effect and thus what conduct—if any—was prohibited," the plaintiffs said. "Due process requires more."

A hearing in the case is scheduled for July 8. Citing abortion law historian Mary Ziegler, The Washington Post says "the injunction on Louisiana's trigger ban will almost certainly be lifted."

Michigan

In May, responding to a challenge by Planned Parenthood, a state judge temporarily enjoined enforcement of a 1931 law that bans abortion unless it is necessary to "preserve the life" of a pregnant woman. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Elizabeth Gleicher said there was a "strong likelihood" that Planned Parenthood would prevail.

Gleicher thought it was clear that "the right to be let alone—the right to bodily integrity—was understood by the ratfiers of the 1963 Michigan Constitution as a fundamental component of due process." The right to bodily integrity, she said, includes a right to abortion.

"The link between the right to bodily integrity and the decision whether to bear a child is an obvious one," Gleicher wrote. "Forced pregnancy, and the concomitant compulsion to endure medical and psychological risks accompanying it, contravene the right to make autonomous medical decisions. If a woman's right to bodily integrity is to have any real meaning, it must incorporate her right to make decisions about the health events most likely to change the course of her life: pregnancy and childbirth."

Gleicher's injunction bars Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, the defendant, from enforcing the abortion ban. It also applies to "anyone acting under defendant's control and supervision." Nessel, a Democrat who was not inclined to enforce the 1931 law anyway, says that means "providing abortion care in Michigan cannot be prosecuted." The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs concurs.

Even the Republican-controlled legislature, which wants the ban to take effect, complains that Gleicher's injunction bars "the Attorney General and all county prosecutors" from enforcing it. But Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker and Jackson County Prosecutor Jerard Jarzynka, both Republicans, claim the injunction does not constrain them because they have independent authority, as locally elected officials, to enforce state law.

Ohio

In 2019, Ohio enacted a six-week ban that would apply to roughly three-quarters of abortions performed in that state. On Wednesday, the ACLU of Ohio challenged that ban in a lawsuit that argues the right to abortion is "guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution's broad protections for individual liberties."

The complaint cites the "due course of law" clause, which the Ohio Supreme Court has held "protects substantive as well as procedural due process rights." The ACLU notes decisions in which Ohio courts have said those substantive rights encompass "matters involving privacy, procreation, bodily autonomy, and freedom of choice in health care decision making." The lawsuit argues that the Ohio Constitution therefore guarantees a "fundamental right to an abortion." The ACLU says Ohio's abortion ban also violates the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection because it "discriminates against women."

Texas

A six-week ban, which evaded early judicial intervention by charging private litigants with enforcement, took effect in September. On Tuesday, a state judge issued a restraining order that temporarily blocks enforcement of a 1925 law that bans abortion except to save the mother's life. Harris County Judge Christine Weems said enforcing that law, which was deemed unconstitutional in Roe, would "inevitably and irreparably chill the provision of abortions in the vital last weeks in which safer abortion care remains available and lawful in Texas."

Weems was responding to a lawsuit in which abortion providers argue that the pre-Roe ban was "repealed expressly or by implication." They also argue that "the declaratory judgment in Roe that the Pre-Roe Ban is unconstitutional remains in effect unless and until the judgment is reopened and vacated." The complaint says allowing enforcement of the 1925 ban would violate the right to due process because "fundamental uncertainty" about the law's status "authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and fails to provide fair warning of whether its prohibitions exist so that ordinary people may conform their conduct accordingly."

Texas also has a trigger law, enacted in 2019, that bans abortion except when continuing a pregnancy poses a risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function." That law is supposed to take effect 30 days after Roe's reversal. Attorney General Ken Paxton says the countdown does not start until the Supreme Court issues its judgment (as opposed to its opinion) in Dobbs, which means the ban won't take effect until about two months from now.

Utah

Utah's 2020 trigger law allows abortion when it is necessary to save the mother's life or avoid "a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function." The law also includes exceptions for cases involving rape, incest, or a fetus with a "uniformly diagnosable" and "uniformly lethal" defect or a "severe brain abnormality" resulting in a "mentally vegetative state." Otherwise, abortion is prohibited.

On Monday, a state judge in Salt Lake City issued a restraining order that temporarily blocks enforcement of Utah's trigger law. Third District Judge Andrew Stone said the law "upsets the longstanding status quo on which Utah women and their families have relied for at least five decades." If the ban is enforced, he said, it "will force many Utahns to continue carrying a pregnancy that they have decided to end, with all of the physical, emotional, and financial costs that entails."

Stone was responding to a lawsuit in which Planned Parenthood and the ACLU argue that the abortion ban violates several rights guaranteed by the state constitution. They say the Utah Supreme Court has recognized that the state constitution protects "the rights inherent in family relationships," which the ban violates because it "prevents individuals from making fundamental decisions about how to arrange their family relationships."

The lawsuit also argues that the trigger law violates the right to equal protection because it "disproportionately limits women's bodily autonomy and liberty"; the "substantive due process right to bodily integrity," which is "violated whenever one's health and safety is imperiled without one's consent"; "the prohibition on involuntary servitude" by "forc[ing] people who become pregnant to undertake the mental and physical labor of pregnancy and childbirth against their will"; and "the right to privacy," which the Utah Supreme Court has said includes "those aspects of an individual's activities and manner of living that would generally be regarded as being of such personal and private nature as to belong to himself and to be of no proper concern to others."

[This post has been updated with information about Iowa abortion cases.]

Comments

[BestUsedCarSales]

A 1901 law, enacted when Arizona was still a territory, bans abortion except when necessary to save a pregnant woman's life. That law was enjoined after Roe but is still on the books, which has led to considerable confusion about whether it can be enforced.

How were other territorial laws handled? That seems like a straightforward question, but maybe not.

[JesseAz]

It is being superceded by a new state law.

Brnovich implied that Arizonans would be governed by the new 15-week law set to take effect 90 days after the Legislature ends its current session, likely to happen in the next several days.

[speedylee]

You guys need to step away. It's gonna be okay.

[SQRLSY One]

If the Every Sperm Which is Eternally Sacred is NOT protected... The Very Universe might implode!!! Man the battle stations, beware of vampires and Lizard People, and, fer Chrissakes... Fend OFF the Killer Rabbits!

[former libertarian]

Not after the Kangaroo Court upholds independent state legislature theory.

[Patrick Trombly]

Almost everyone who argues "my body = my choice" argues it only for his or her own body and choice.

It's easier to take a 2 day trip from Florida to New York to get a abortion than it was to move your business or job, and family, from New York to Florida, during the COVID "Life During Wartime" period, which ended ONLY because people IN New York WENT to Florida, SAW that people weren't just dropping dead for lack of restrictions, and called BS on Cuomo.

I'm done arguing bodily autonomy one choice at a time. Too many people pick and choose to try to get their choices protected while allowing the State to override other people's choices that they personally find distasteful.

You will never defeat President Snow unless all the districts band together.

When NARAL and PP support ending Selective Service, the War on Drugs, ALL controlled substance laws, the war on the sex trade, prohibition of consensual organ sales, all laws prohibiting consumption or sale of something to eat, drink, smoke or vape, the government's ability to impose contact tracing, stay at home orders, vaccine mandates even when the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, and, last but not least (not that I obey them) open container laws, I'll join up.

But those people don't just sit on the sidelines - they actively oppose these other choices that other people make with their bodies. Their position is NOT "my body = my choice." It never was.

The inability to come together - and the sheer lack of empathy that this demonstrates - is part of why it's come to this on abortion.

[creech]

Patrick, run for office. And best wishes; you'll find out that most Libertarian candidates, with those views, manage to attract about 1% of the voters. The rest, as you say, demand choice for me but not for thee.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Like the cut of your jib. Come back when you can.

[SQRLSY One]

"R" Party is Our Party is the GOOD party! The Party of the Sex Pistols and the Sex Postals, with which you may R-Party-ON, and go Sex Postal with your Sex Pistol, and rape or deceive ALL the young babes, your "binders full of young women", whose binders bind them to be womb-slaves, and then MAKE them carry to term, their Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells! All Hail the Every Sperm Which Is Sacred!

All Hail Lying Lothario and His Lied-to-Harems! http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc107315509

[I, Woodchipper]

patrick you are 100% correct.

[JasonAZ]

ENB hardest hit...

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Without Roe v. Wade, Litigants Look to State Constitutions for Protection of Abortion Rights

Wait, I thought we were going to be a Polish-speaking El Salvador by the weekend.

[Eeyore]

You didn't notice? Already happened.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland]

¿Que?

[Bill Falcon]

Privacy is a poor rational for legal abortions..makes no sense. You invited the growing human into your body (absent rape)..it is called responsibility.

[Davy C]

I mean, what "privacy" is there here? The right to have an abortion so that you don't "show", so people don't find out you had sex? And if the right to abortion is grounded in the right to "privacy" then doesn't the protection go away if you tell people about it (kind of like how you can waive your 5th Amendment rights by talking to the cops)?

[Nardz]

Privacy also wouldn't protect people who perform the procedure.

[bobodoc]

Right Nardz. The main "privacy protection" in Roe v Wade (as I've been told by lawyers...at least they said they were) was for the doctor and only therefore secondarily for the patient. If anyone knows better, let me know.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I mean, what "privacy" is there here? The right to have an abortion so that you don't "show", so people don't find out you had sex?

The Marshall court was in a corner. They couldn't argue "bodily autonomy" because despite the blue-check shrieking on Twittersphere, the Roe decision explicitly noted that a woman's bodily autonomy was not absolute and cited Jacobson v Mass and Buck v Bell. Having an abortion wasn't "free expression", no one would buy that, so they had to contort a right to "privacy" as its basis.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

It cannot be stated forcefully enough: It's literally the same political faction that claims a woman has a right to choose an abortion, also claims the state can strap your daughter to a gurney and forcibly sterilize her based on said state's "compelling interest".

The "bodily autonomy" argument has flown.

[BYODB]

I might agree with bodily autonomy in principle, but it's pretty obvious few people actually give a shit about that as long as it's them making the choices. Other people, well, other people must be controlled because they don't make the correct choices.

Both sides are pretty guilty of this bullshit too, so at this point I'd say it's just standard variety human behavior. I would imagine everyone is guilty of this in some form or fashion, even if it's well justified or rationalized.

[ThomasD]

" literally the same political faction that claims a woman has a right to choose an abortion, also claims the state can strap your daughter to a gurney and forcibly sterilize her based on said state's "compelling interest".

You really cannot expect the writers here at Reason to note this.

Mostly because they are a mix of older shameless political hacks and children who literally know nothing not spoon fed to them by hard left state school indoctrinators.

[Squirrelloid]

Neither of those decisions are worth upholding. Ug.

I'm 100% on-board with an absolute right to bodily autonomy. No war on drugs. No forced sterilization. No forced vaccines.

[ThomasD]

Yet Buck v. Bell remains the settled law of the land.

[TJJ2000]

Watch out smokers... The new narrative is if you smoke you'll be banned from cancer-treatment...

Cause Power-Mad bigoted dictators say so....

Wonder if smokers personal choices will be the only one's on the cruel and unusual punishment list... Everyone is sooooooooo in LOVE with those Gov-Guns of dictation...

[Ted]

In other words, you have nothing of value to contribute on this subject.

You’re starting to go full Hank Phillips. NEVER go full Hank Phillips.

[Tony]

If it's a person with rights, you can't kill it just because its father is a rapist.

[TJJ2000]

+100000... Only when it comes to 'abortion' do you make sense Tony...

It's almost like the world is so party divided they cannot even think for themselves anymore.

[WC46]

Amen! Privacy doesn't cover inter-familial child sexual abuse or spousal abuse and likewise, it should NEVER protect the cold-blooded, selfish murder of the pure, innocent, helpless unborn. Anyone who would refer to a developing baby as a parasite is sub-human trash who should not be allowed to even vote or have an opinion.

[TJJ2000]

Murder of the unborn is like tearing down an unmade house...
They're both figments of your wild imagination.

If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting FORCED reproduction...

[Dagny]

Except for rape, the woman chose to engage in sex, so took the chance that she would get pregnant. It doesn't matter if she used birth control because that isn't 100% effective. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex.

[TJJ2000]

Don't want a tyrannical dictative government? Don't push for MORE Gov-Guns!

[Bhagwad]

Don't want the risk of a tapeworm, don't eat food!

[I, Woodchipper]

This is so dumb.

Abortion will be legal in liberal states, if not expanded to "abortion while in labor" just to stick it to Texas.

Abortion will be restricted in many red states and going forward it will require an afternoon drive or a $100 plane ticket in order to get an abortion. Perhaps Texas might be the only place where a person who wants an abortion has longer than a 3 hour drive to go get one.

Big fucking nothingburger here.

[SQRLSY One]

Black women in the USA today get abortions at a high rate… “the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women”, from https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2008/08/abortion-and-women-color-bigger-picture . (Hispanics are intermediate here FYI). I’ll get back to this momentarily…

Say the following (which I regard to be true) and many conservatives will immediately agree: We can be OUTWARDLY “compassionate” while harming people. Minimum wages and rent controls come to mind! Of COURSE we are compassionate when we mandate higher pay and lower rent! Yet if we do these kinds of things to ANY significant degree, we “dry up” many of both the available low-wage jobs and the available apartments! Now go be jobless and homeless, ye victims of our “compassion”! Because businesses and landlords don’t want to lose money! Plain and simple!

Then WHY can’t conservatives see the similar dynamic when trying to be “compassionate” with other peoples’ wombs? Sure, we all love babies! But what happens to the victims, not just of “Lying Lothario”, but also of birth-control failures, and of genetic and developmental (in-the-womb) defects? “The rich will get richer, and the poor will have children”! More non-wage-earning babies and children in a family is a straight, unadulterated input contributing to poverty! It’s not what most people desire or admire, sure, but abortion is backup birth control. Our new USA move towards outlawing more and more abortions, in more states, will aggravate poverty among the poor, Blacks, and Hispanics, who can’t afford to travel for abortions, as easily as richer Whites can. We’ll be thwarting the “demographic transition” (https://populationeducation.org/what-demographic-transition-model/#:~:text=The%20Demographic%20Transition%20Model%20(DTM,as%20that%20country%20develops%20economically ) for poor residents of the USA! The rich yank the ladder out from the grasp of the could-be-climbing poor, with abortion laws, just as they do with minimum wages, rent controls, and excessive job-licensing laws!

[JFree]

That dynamic dates back forever. The first impetus for what later became single family zoning was the Victorian era opposition to boarding houses. Those were more than 25% of the housing stock in the late 1800's in every town, village and city. But people who lived in boarding houses were transient, new to town, young and probably immoral, not white, foreigners . Gotta keep those people out of town.

[Nardz]

I love it when progressives reveal their rabid racism without realizing it

[Dagny]

We're talking about human life, which is precious no matter if the parents are rich or poor. There are no unwanted babies; only reluctant parents. All those couples who wait to have their babies in their late 30's only to discover they have fertility problems won't have to resort to IVF to have a child. There will be babies to adopt.
There also are people who want to adopt but cannot afford the adoption fees (I was one of them). How about we make the adoption fees a reasonable amount so those people can afford to adopt?

[SQRLSY One]

Good point and thanks!

Sad to say, I just don't know... Are special interests (lawyers, regulators) perhaps part of the reason for the high fees? That is VERY common, also sad to say! Google "regulatory capture" and "concentrated benefits, diffuse costs" for more, if you're not familiar with those things offhand...

[former libertarian]

Pence already stated that the next step is a national ban on abortion.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

So what? Is Pence the president? Is Pence the governor of every state? What's your point other than to say something incredibly inane?

[Dagny]

I don't think that is legal. The Supreme Court rightfully said that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution so the Federal Govt. has no jurisdiction or say in the matter, per the 10th Amendment. It is up to the States to decide that.

[sarcasmic]

From the leftist point of view, anything short of free abortions equals a full scale ban.

[Tony]

Even if this ridiculous straw man were accurate, do you feel that gives you an excuse to use the power of the state to force people to give birth against their will?

Other people being hypocrites or radicals doesn't give you an excuse to do terrible things. I don't understand why this is such a widespread belief among rightwingers. Well, I do. It's typical tribal logic. "The rules don't apply to us."

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

No, it's very simple conceptually.

1. There are those that would like to have no government interference in women's bodies whatsoever. These individuals believe a women should have total control of the birth process and it is no one's business what she does as long as it is safe.

2. There are those who feel a conception yields a living creature after a certain milestone or time period has passed. Until then, that creature is not a viable being and can be done away with.

3. There are those who believe the being is viable from conception. They are not using power to force a woman to birth the child, they are using power to protect the second being. They believe if the person went through with the act, the majority, they assumed the risk of the outcome. Forced sexuality, though traumatic, could also be mitigated with the right medical assistance to care for both the victim and the child.

All are valid beliefs in each individuals heart and mind. What do you believe, Tony? Why do you fell compelled to discount others beliefs if they don't align with yours?

[Tony]

"There are those that would like to have no government interference in women's bodies whatsoever."

Sounds like basic freedom to me. Sounds nonnegotiable for a libertarian. Even if you think an unwanted zygote is a person, it's a person making a claim to your own bodily resources against your will. We don't get to demand kidneys from other people no matter how much it might save our life.

For a libertarian, this case is open and shut no matter how you look at it. The question is not the inane ontological debate you're talking about. It's about what everything in politics is about: for what reasons do you want to employ the government to harm people?

[NOYB2]

Even if you think an unwanted zygote is a person, it's a person making a claim to your own bodily resources against your will.

The woman took a voluntary action that implies a nine month commitment to another person to depend on her for their life. She does not have a right to just back out of it because she doesn't like the commitment anymore.

By analogy, if I invite you on my sailboat, I can't decide in the middle of the ocean that I don't like you anymore and push you overboard; that would be considered murder.

From a libertarian point of view, the key question is when personhood begins. Beyond that, the only wiggle room is if I didn't invite the person on the sailboat (analogous to rape), or if the presence of the person threatens my life.

[Vernon Depner]

"The woman took a voluntary action that implies a nine month commitment to another person to depend on her for their life. She does not have a right to just back out of it"

Why? People here keep repeating that but don't back it up with any reasoning.

[Dagny]

If the woman voluntarily had sex, she made the commitment to possibly have to be pregnant and bear the child. It's basic biology.

[Vernon Depner]

No, contract law is not biology.

[NOYB2]

We're not talking about either law or biology here, but morality.

If you make a commitment to me and I choose to place my life into your hands for the next nine months under that commitment, it is morally wrong for you to back out after a few months and let me die.

[Vernon Depner]

Uh, no, actually this article and comment thread was about the law. If you want to change the subject to morality you're going off topic.

[NOYB2]

Uh, no, actually this article and comment thread was about the law.

The law is crystal clear: this is a matter for state legislatures to decide, with state laws that are both constitutional and vary from highly restrictive to highly permissive. I don't see what there is to discuss.

The question we are discussing is what the law ought to be, and that is a question based on two things: precedent/analogy and morality.

Both by precedent/analogy and by morality, a woman assumes a responsibility for the fetus she carries. At the point at which that fetus gains personhood, both precedent/analogy and morality say that she can't kill the fetus anymore, just like she can't kill her child.

[TJJ2000]

"MY morally wrong = law over YOU"

I think the proclaimed stance by NOYB2 is the biggest part of the equation on this discussion. And most likely the only equation Pro-Life holds onto...

Puritan Dictation.

[Bhagwad]

This is like saying that if you eat food, you made the commitment to possibly get a ringworm, and now you shouldn't go to the doctor, because you should face the consequences of your actions.

[NOYB2]

Ringworm is not a person, so there are no moral issues with going to a doctor to have it removed. We are discussing:

Even if you think an unwanted zygote is a person, it's a person making a claim to your own bodily resources against your will.

If you make a commitment to another person, in particular a commitment that their life depends on, you need to honor that commitment. This isn't about "facing the consequences of your actions", it's about the obligations you take on to other human beings.

[NOYB2]

(Incidentally, you don't get "ringworm" from food.)

[TJJ2000]

lol... Is NOT ringworm a living thing??? Is it not in a human??? Therefor isn't it a human living thing??? You can't "murder" ringworm!!! It's a PERSON!!!! Maybe it's a Baby Ringworm or a Child ringworm, or an Individual ringworm....

De-assembling Pro-Life's argument: "murdering" people is illegal so our "morality" will cause us to pitch propaganda that [WE] mobsters get to call anything we ant a PERSON whether or not *reality* can present a PERSON or not.

[NOYB2]

Why? People here keep repeating that but don't back it up with any reasoning.

I did: By analogy, if I invite you on my sailboat, I can't decide in the middle of the ocean that I don't like you anymore and push you overboard; that would be considered murder.

Which part of that analogy do you think does not apply?

[Vernon Depner]

If I invite you on my sailboat
In that case I am a person who exists whom you can invite. When a woman has sex, no blastocyst yet exists to whom she can extend any invitation. Not to mention that the question of when that resulting offspring ought to be considered a person under the law.
I can't decide in the middle of the ocean that I don't like you anymore
Sure you can, and you may drop me off at the next port. You have a right to change your mind about who is welcome on your property.
and push you overboard
No, you may not do that, because it wouldn't be necessary to get rid of me. You could just drop me off and be rid of me.
that would be considered murder.
On the other hand, suppose, while we on the sailboat, I strapped you to a table and started draining your blood and drinking it. Should you escape and throw me overboard, that would not be murder, because it would be an act of self-defense. At that point I would be trespassing not just against your sailboat, but against your body. A woman's body is not a sailboat. Either you're incredibly stupid to not see the difference, or you're just being dishonest. Maybe even with yourself.

[NOYB2]

In that case I am a person who exists whom you can invite. When a woman has sex, no blastocyst yet exists to whom she can extend any invitation.

You can make binding moral and legal commitments for the future, so that's not a counterargument.

No, you may not do that, because it wouldn't be necessary to get rid of me.

It would be murder even if we are a month from shore, so that's also not a counterargument.

On the other hand, suppose, while we on the sailboat, I strapped you to a table and started draining your blood and drinking it. Should you escape and throw me overboard, that would not be murder, because it would be an act of self-defense.

That would be an act you presumably did not agree to as part of our transportation arrangement; that is why it is self-defense.

Not to mention that the question of when that resulting offspring ought to be considered a person under the law.

Indeed. And that's my point: the question of when abortion ought to be considered murder depends on when you assign personhood to the fetus. All other considerations are irrelevant.

A woman's body is not a sailboat.

Are you really such a moron that you don't understand what an analogy is?

[Tony]

Surely most women who get abortions didn't invite the pregnancy. The ones who did invite it get abortions for medical reasons.

You're not looking to maximize the birth rate of potential humans, you're looking for the state to punish women for having casual sex. No fetus is making any choices regardless of the circumstances, so if a fetus is a person, it can't matter whether the father was a rapist. We don't murder people for the crimes of their fathers.

Once again, there is a clear libertarian position on what role the state has to play in our own choices about our genitals. Then there's the patriarchal theocratic position. If that twain meets, libertarianism doesn't mean anything anymore and can be safely disposed of.

[Dagny]

Having sex invites pregnancy.

[Vernon Depner]

Having sex risks pregnancy. A woman does not lose her self-ownership when she becomes pregnant.

[NOYB2]

We're discussing Tony's premise:

Even if you think an unwanted zygote is a person, it's a person making a claim to your own bodily resources against your will.

Yes, the woman does not lose her self-ownership when she becomes pregnant. But if the "unwanted zygote is a person", there are two persons involved, and she does not have ownership of the second person.

You can agree or disagree with personhood of the fetus, but if you accept personhood of the fetus, then the "self-ownership" argument goes out the window.

[Vernon Depner]

No, it doesn't go out the window. If you consider the embryo to be a person, and the woman does not wish to remain pregnant, then the embryo is an intruder into her body against whom she may defend herself. That's not how I would want the law to see it, though. I would want the law to recognize that the relationship between a pregnant woman and her offspring is utterly unique in human relationships and therefore we need unique rules to cover that situation, rather that inappropriately trying to apply rules that cover other human interactions.

[NOYB2]

No, it doesn't go out the window. If you consider the embryo to be a person, and the woman does not wish to remain pregnant, then the embryo is an intruder into her body against whom she may defend herself. That's not how I would want the law to see it, though.

The term "intruder" implies that the fetus deliberately violated the woman's bodily autonomy, which is obviously false.

Except in cases of rape, the fetus is there for no other reason because the woman caused it to be there. And because she caused it to be there, she is responsible for it.

I would want the law to recognize that the relationship between a pregnant woman and her offspring is utterly unique in human relationships and therefore we need unique rules to cover that situation, rather that inappropriately trying to apply rules that cover other human interactions.

A woman is required by law to sacrifice time, effort, money, sleep, care, etc. after the birth of her child. There is nothing particularly special about requiring the same before birth.

[Dagny]

They aren't being forced against their will. Unless the woman was raped, she chose to have sex and therefore chose to possibly have to give birth.

[Vernon Depner]

Or, she may choose not to. If she is deprived of that choice, she is being forced.

[NOYB2]

If she is deprived of that choice, she is being forced.

Yes, in the same way that you are "forced" to feed your children, not to neglect them, and not to kill them. Your choice to have children implies massive obligations and restrictions on your life, that's just an inescapable fact.

The only question in the abortion debate is when those obligations start: at conception, in the first or second trimester, or at birth.

[Vernon Depner]

No, it's not the same. You children are not INSIDE YOUR BODY. It's bizarre that you can't see the significance of that.

[NOYB2]

No, I don't see the significance of that. Thanks to the US government, the COVID vaccine is in my body too, and unlike a baby, there's nothing natural about it, nor can I get rid of it after nine months.

Apparently, you piss on bodily autonomy, self determination, and individual rights unless you're pleading for a special exemption for women, who you apparently consider as lacking in agency or the ability to control their own bodies. And that's the problem with your position.

As I have indicated, I have no problem with legalizing abortion until birth. I do have a problem with the arguments authoritarian and misogynistic assholes like you make in favor of such policies.

[Ted]

No, we believe the power of the state should be used to protect people’s rights. That in,ides the right of babies not be murdered for the sake of convenience.

[Nardz]

Abortion rights aren't a thing.
Abortion privileges/allowances are.
If you think abortion is a right, you have no clue what inherent rights are.

[SQRLSY One]

Nadless Nardless the Nasty NAZI is the MASTER of Space, Time, Dimension, AND "what inherent rights are"!!! 'Cause Nadless Nardless the Nasty NAZI says so!!! All Hail, or die!!!

[TJJ2000]

Funny... Pre-Viable it's not just inherent it nature....
Hut hum.... Suicide...

[Ted]

You’re hysterical.

[Tony]

Inherent rights are whatever you say they are, correct? It's not a biological concept, so it must be the case that you're simply making it up out of thin air.

It's not a right to an abortion per se, it's a right to be free of the government forcing you to do things with your body. Maybe that's something we made up out of thin air. Like libertarianism. A set of principles about human freedom.

[NOYB2]

It's not a right to an abortion per se, it's a right to be free of the government forcing you to do things with your body.

No, the pro-choice movement doesn't just say that, they actually insist that government and the medical system has to provide the services necessary to have an abortion, including others paying for it. They also insist that the woman should be legally protected from discrimination for her choice.

The pro-life movement says that you are free to do with your body what you want, but that the fetus is a separate person/body and that the woman has made a binding, voluntary commitment to carry to term. You can disagree with the assumption of personhood up to a certain point in pregnancy, but beyond that, their argument is logical and fully consistent with libertarianism. Furthermore, there is no "right" for anybody to provide or pay for the procedure.

So, the libertarian position is that, up to some point between conception and delivery, a woman has the right to attempt to obtain an abortion. Nobody is obligated to provide it to her, and anybody is allowed to discriminate against her for making that choice.

[Vernon Depner]

"the woman has made a binding, voluntary commitment to carry to term."

Says who? How does that work? Back this up instead of just repeating the naked assertion.

[TJJ2000]

My unicorn has contracts... lol...
Never under-estimate people's imagination when Gov-Gun dictation is involved.

[Dagny]

It's basic biology. Unless she was raped, she chose to have sex and take the chance that she would get pregnant. That act of having sex is the commitment she made to carry the baby to term. She is not required to raise the baby; however. She can give the baby up for adoption.

[TJJ2000]

That act of having sex is the commitment she made to the State Gov-Gun Power-Mad dictators.

Hey man; You decided to be Jewish you made a commitment to the Concentration Camp.... /s

Give it up... The more you try to self-justify your Power-Mad dictation by Gov-Gun FORCE the worse you sound like a Nazi...

Rub a Pro-Life Republican and out pops a leftard Nazi.

[Ted]

Nothing more important than the right to commit murder if moderately inconvenienced, right?

[TJJ2000]

Pro-Life isn't about stopping murder... That's sooooo F'En simple.
State Law - Doctors cannot intentionally kill a fetus during removal...

Your stated excuse for MORE Gov-Guns does not match your claim.
Pro-Life is lobbying to use Gov-Guns to FORCE people to reproduce.

[Vernon Depner]

"That act of having sex is the commitment she made to carry the baby to term."

Why? Says who? To whom? By what instrument? People keep asserting this but don't back it up with any facts or reasoning.

[NOYB2]

Says who?

I quote: The pro-life movement says

How does that work? Back this up instead of just repeating the naked assertion.

I am stating the pro-life position, why do I have to "back it up"? I'm not defending it. I'm not pro-life. As I was saying So, the libertarian position is that, up to some point between conception and delivery, a woman has the right to attempt to obtain an abortion. The difference between pro-choice and pro-life is where that point is.

After the fetus has personhood (whether you think that is at concept, first trimester, or birth), killing the fetus is obviously aggression against another innocent person and hence violates libertarian principles. How difficult is that to understand?

[Vernon Depner]

So, you're just trolling. On mute you go.

[NOYB2]

Not being pro-life isn't the same as being pro-choice. I take the position that this should be left to the states. You know, the legal and constitutional position.

You argue the absurd position that there is a single morally and legally right choice, you hold it, and you want to impose it on the entire nation. You're an authoritarian asshole.

[Tony]

"Up to some point between conception and delivery"

Perhaps, and if that were the standard, we wouldn't have a controversy. That was already the standard under Roe and Casey. But it's important to keep in mind that it wasn't a declaration about the moral truth of when personhood beings, it's a standard about when the state can claim a legitimate interest in the matter.

As for whether healthcare should be state-subsidized, sure, I get that libertarians think the state should only subsidize property and war, and that's a different conversation.

[TJJ2000]

Funny; Liberals never seem to want to city-subsidize healthcare..
They always want to use National Socialism (Nazism).. Ya know; almost like they know they're full of sh*t but just want 'those' other people to pay for their selfish-greed.

[NOYB2]

But it's important to keep in mind that it wasn't a declaration about the moral truth of when personhood beings, it's a standard about when the state can claim a legitimate interest in the matter.

You are saying in effect that killing people is OK if "the state can claim a legitimate interest in the matter."

As for whether healthcare should be state-subsidized, sure, I get that libertarians think the state should only subsidize property and war, and that's a different conversation.

Libertarians think the state should not subsidize anything.

It's little fascists like you that think the state should subsidize property, war, and everything else, and that the state can kill people if the state can claim a legitimate interest in doing so.

[Nobartium]

Wait. You mean the democratic process is ongoing?

I was told that we'd be in handmaid's tail by now.

[SQRLSY One]

Handmaids don't have tails... But the Every Sperm Which is Sacred, DOES have a tail! Don't forget, birth control, AND masturbation, BOTH stop wiggling tails!!! Government Almighty protection of Wiggling Tails is PARAMOUNT here!!!

[Vernon Depner]

I'm not doing a search, but I would be amazed if there is not a porn film titled "The Handmaid's Tail".

[Ted]

No he’s not.it’s not porn, but Robot Chicken had an entertaining Handsmaid’s Tale sketch.

[I, Woodchipper]

Without Roe v. Wade, Litigants Look to State Constitutions for Protection of Abortion Rights

uhhhh that was literally the whole point of the decision.

[BYODB]

Indeed, the fact people are getting more local autonomy seems utterly lost on them.

Vote with your feet, or petition your state government. If you can't get the people in your state to all agree on a compromise, then move to a place where the people already mostly agree with you. As a bonus, you'll have a better life.

People seem able to do this when the issue is smoking pot, so figure your shit out if you feel like you're going to need a few abortions.

[TJJ2000]

Indeed, the fact people are getting more .... Gov-Guns controlled by other's stuffed in their PERSONAL LIFE'S.......

there fixed that for you...

[Ted]

You’ve lost any rationality on this subject.

[NOYB2]

I agree.

Recent years have revealed that a large percentage of libertarians want to impose libertarianism from the top down, whether the people want it or not. I think such "libertarians" are little different from communists/Marxists. In addition, they fail to see that libertarianism requires that individual liberties are coupled with individuals bearing the full risk and costs of their choices.

The only way libertarianism can succeed is if societies adopt it voluntarily, if it becomes part of the culture, from the bottom up. In the US, the best way to accomplish that is state by state.

[TJJ2000]

SCOTUS dismisses U.S. Constitutional protections for people to own themselves. The newly declared State 'slaves' looks to State Constitutions (with mostly the exact same provisions) and Honorable Justices of the State to protect a right to own themselves...

[Smithes99]

About 100 protesters were present when the decision was announced shortly after 10 a.m. Many said they did not expect the decision until next week and were caught off guard by the ruling announced in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the most anticipated and consequential opinion of the court’s term. Few police were present as the crowd swelled to a few hundred and began to group itself into dueling factions... course website

[Bubba Jones]

Loved the NJ text.

The right to privacy doesn’t seem to extend to cooking meth or building guns.

[ThomasD]

Or your bank deposits...

The list is endless.

"Right to privacy" is a sick joke.

[TJJ2000]

Yippie.... Everyone line up for their cavity search for meth and guns..
Not only is it not necessary a good equivalent argument.

Sh*tty policy isn't an excuse for more Sh*tty policy.

[Dennis]

I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money
on-line visiting this website.... https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are Americans who delegate abortion policy to Jesus going to consult Thor, Iron Man, Black Widow, and Dr. Strange for guidance on national defense, law enforcement, and transportation issues?

Carry on, gullible slack-jaws . . . so far as your betters permit, that is.

[Ted]

Jesus actually existed you sub normal buffoon. He also left behind some guidelines for being a decent person. Something you’re not.

[TJJ2000]

Judge not; That ye be not judged...

One just has to love how religious Gov-Gun toting mobs think their FORCING morality on the people by GUNS is a blessing from Jesus.

Something about a whore being tared and feathered by a self-righteous [WE] mob.

[The New Number Two]

Now, as in Roe, state supreme courts can pretend that nominal rights to privacy entail the absolute right to terminate your baby in utero until he or she reaches a certain, arbitrarily selected gestational age.

[TJJ2000]

Perhaps you'd like to claim that 'utero' as your own? Yeah; Sounds like your point to a T.... Dear Women; [WE] own your uterus!!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Anybody expecting state courts to secure abortion 'rights' is not thinking straight. State constitutions are, generally, relatively easy to amend, so anywhere abortion is unpopular enough for the state legislature to regulate it, it's unpopular enough to amend the state constitution to stop judges from banning regulation of it.

The courts managed to impose SSM on state after state, but they had to appeal to the federal constitution to do it, when they tried it with state constitutions, the people just changed the constitution.

The same thing will happen with abortion: The only places the state courts can protect it for any significant amount of time is where they don't need to.

[TJJ2000]

Will all Pregnant Women of your State be 'slaves' of the State and be forced to reproduce against their will????

I don't know; but I fear the day all Pregnant Women become 'slaves' of the Feds (well on it's way)....

I'm not sure Pro-Life people realize what they just did. Or maybe their golden unicorn (mythical creatures) indoctrinated propaganda is so ingrained they just don't care...

Pro-Life couldn't have copied leftard agenda better if they were purposely trying. It's freak-en funny leftards are fighting it though.. After all they ARE the party of slavery...

The word 'abortion' seems to mean, "Okay, Everyone on the Right go Left and everyone on the Left go Right."

[Ted]

Yeah, not murdering your baby because it’s inconvenient is the worst thing ever.

[TJJ2000]

Yeah, not murdering your fingernails because it's inconvenient is the worst thing ever...

Perhaps if BOTH weren't a 'part' of YOU; you'd have a point instead of propaganda....

If you cannot support ?baby? freedom... (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting FORCED reproduction...

Propaganda is all you stand on. Wild imaginations of mythical creatures (i.e. Unicorns) that you cannot bring into *reality*.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

It is interesting that extreme pro-abortion activists are worried about the rights of the woman, but disregards the rights of the child. The extreme anti-abortion activists are worried about the rights of the child, but disregards the rights of the woman.

To me we should be concerned about the rights of both the woman and the child. To me a compromise of reasonable restrictions such as the average restrictions in Europe of approx 15 weeks. By 15 weeks a woman should be fully aware that she is pregnant and have time to make a decision.

[NOYB2]

The European compromise is feasible because many people (myself included) believe that you cannot reasonably call the fetus a "person" in the legal or moral sense before around 15 weeks.

There is no "balancing of rights" involved there, and it is irrelevant when the woman becomes "aware that she is pregnant". As soon as the fetus has personhood, the woman has an obligation to carry to term, under both the NAP as well as any moral system I would accept.

That's because she made a voluntary commitment to keep another person alive; exceptions are only in case the sex was involuntary, or in case her life is at risk from the pregnancy. It's like inviting a guest on your yacht; you made a commitment not to throw them overboard in the middle of the ocean just because they are getting on your nerves.

[Vernon Depner]

"the woman has made a binding, voluntary commitment to carry to term."

When? How? To whom? Let's hear your argument.

[Ted]

I’ll make it very simple. Babies are defiantly humans. It is already illegal to kill another person just because they’re inconvenient to them.

[Vernon Depner]

I'll make it very simple. Pregnant women are definitely humans. It is not necessarily illegal to kill another person.

[Tony]

It's okay to kill people because their fathers are rapists?

If a father coerces his child into my house, am I cleared to kill the child? Feels like the child is a victim rather than a perp in that scenario. We're talking about an unarmed child who isn't a threat to my health, to keep it simple.

[NOYB2]

If a father coerces his child into my house, am I cleared to kill the child?

As far as I'm concerned, no. I'm simply saying that if you are pro-choice and you want to make exceptions for rape, you might be able to argue that in that particular case, the woman didn't make a voluntary choice.

See, the entire pro-choice/pro-life debate really just comes down to when you attribute personhood to the fetus.

After the point in pregnancy where you attribute personhood to the fetus, your own moral intuition tells you that the only remaining exception to abortion restrictions should be a serious risk to the life of the mother.

[TJJ2000]

My unicorn has rights ya know... /s
Like the right to enslave all pregnant women in the entire State.

If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting FORCED reproduction.

[TJJ2000]

To me a compromise of ..... making this "murder" the Anti-Choice keeps perching on illegal. Holy heck; How hard is it to make it illegal for doctors to intentionally "murder" a fetus???

Fetal Ejection. Liberate the Baby and the Woman. Sooooo F'En simple.

See but this debate apparently has nothing to do with the subject of discussion. Apparently it has everything to do with who's team your cheering for... And when the Battle Ground of team sports are GUNS (i.e. Gov-Guns) it isn't going to be pretty.

[Dagny]

Have you seen a picture of a 15-week fetus? It has an obvious human body; it is not a "clump of cells". To kill it is unconscionable.

[TJJ2000]

Set the human FREE!!!! It's not nice to keep humans locked up in itsy bitsy cages like that.... It's also not nice to poke GUNS at pregnant women and insist they reproduce MORE...

[Vernon Depner]

Have you ever seen a woman?

[NOYB2]

Several state supreme courts already have recognized the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Assuming facts not in evidence. There is no "the" right to terminate a pregnancy, meaning, such a right is not universally recognized.

"A right to terminate a pregnancy" would be a positive right, something libertarians do not recognize. Society and the medical profession is under no obligation to provide such a service to every pregnant woman.

At best, from a libertarian point of view, you can say that a woman "has a right to voluntarily cooperate with a medical provider to obtain an abortion, provided she can find such a provider and pay for i"t; that is assuming, of course, you deny personhood to the fetus. If a fetus has personhood, then the NAP says that the woman must carry to term (the "terminally ill violinist" analogy doesn't work because the woman voluntarily entered this commitment for nine months). And between those two positions, there is no agreement within libertarianism, and no principle in libertarianism can't resolve the issue.

Being a gay man, I have no dog in this fight, and I generally have no moral problem with women terminating pregnancies during the first trimester, and think that women murdering their fetuses right up to birth is outside the scope of the Constitution. But I have to say, the pro-choice people have turned out to be a bunch of assholes engaging in motivated reasoning and verbal trickery, and often using really ugly attacks on the other side. And their arguments frequently veer towards infanticide and/or eugenics.

Will more states join the list?

No doubt. And the best thing to do is for libertarians to stay out of this: the underlying moral issue can't be resolved via the NAP, the issue is needlessly divisive and of no practical importance to 99% of voters or people, and subsidiarity is the best way to resolve it in real life.

[Rob Misek]

Libertarians don’t recognize an inalienable right to life?

Might be part of the problem.

[Vernon Depner]

Libertarians don't recognize a right to seize someone else's body because it is necessary to your survival.

[Rob Misek]

Libertarians don’t recognize human reproduction?

[TJJ2000]

Not by Gov-Gun FORCE they don't...

[TJJ2000]

[phone] Well said....

[Ted]

It really isn’t. But you’ve been desperately grasping for rationalization of your position since Hobbs was handed down.

[Dagny]

The baby didn't seize anyone's body. The woman chose to have sex and possibly carry a baby in her body. Unless she was raped, she made the decision.

[TJJ2000]

And [WE] mob of tyrannical dictators are going to use Gov-Guns to make sure there is no escaping her accident.

So your wife wrecked her car and got injured huh? Yeah; Well F'You! She decided to drive and got in an accident so our [WE] mob will line the hospital entry-door with GUNS and makes sure she has to live with the consequences of your actions... Ya know; She could just have decided to walk to work.. It was her choice to drive... /s

Too much LOVE of those Gov-Guns of Dictation...

[Ted]

You should really take a break for a few days. You’re going to turn onto a crackpot like Hank soon if you don’t.

[NOYB2]

Libertarians don't recognize a right to seize someone else's body because it is necessary to your survival.

Under our system of government, children have large claims on the private property and time of the parents. Are you denying the validity of those claims as well? Do you think that parents have a legal and moral right to abandon their children when they don't feel like parenting anymore?

Fetuses and children do not "seize" anything; they aren't capable of that. Adults make the choice to procreate, and in doing so, they accept responsibility for their offspring. The only issue in the abortion debate is when those offspring acquire personhood, legally and/or morally.

[TJJ2000]

My unicorns have a right to life!!! /s

[Rob Misek]

Are you the libertarians brain trust?

[Ted]

No, but you’re a Holocaust denying anti semite.

[Namako]

It should have ALWAYS been a state's issue - SCOTUS had no business legislating from the bench in 1973, and all the whining we hear today is all about liberals having their cheese moved.

[Vernon Depner]

SCOTUS in 1973 should have struck down restrictive state abortion laws on the grounds that they violate the woman's right to bodily autonomy and self-ownership, rather than going out on a limb to extend the right to privacy. It was inevitable that the ramshackle compromise they attempted in Roe would be overturned.

[Dagny]

Where is that in the Constitution that the Federal Government has that power?

[Vernon Depner]

The 9th and 14th amendments.

[NOYB2]

No, it isn't, no matter how much you may wish it to be.

Not even SCOTUS in 1973 construed the 9A to mean that.

[TJJ2000]

What legislation???
Legislation that Legislation cannot ENSLAVE a pregnant woman???

Pretending SCOTUS legislates anything is just indoctrinated propaganda... SCOTUS upholds the U.S. Constitution and instructs legislative government on what they can and cannot do....

They block legislation if they find it appropriate to do so dumb*ss..

[Joseph Ducreux]

They're trying the same tired crap. Why don't they simply try and get legislation passed.

[TJJ2000]

Yeah..... [WE] Gov-Gun toting tyrants are so tired of this Constitution and the Judicial branch crap... /s MORE, MORE, MORE Gov-Guns on the People!!!!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The downscale states will flatter superstitious rubes (at least until another generation of replacement occurs).

Advanced states will not.

Time and the culture war (settled but not quite over) will sift this.

[LupeCooper]

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-49) 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

[JFree]

Abortion is a bit more consequential than masks. And state level too now.

You all are STILL on about masks - in someone else's state.

[Ted]

They’re obsessed with murdering babies.

[Nardz]

Tell us again how people should be denied access to medical facilities if they haven't taken an ineffective experimental drug that supposedly makes a flu slightly less severe.

[Rob Misek]

“Terminating a pregnancy” is violating the inalienable right to life of the unborn person.

Now that Roe has collapsed, the pertinent debate is the personhood of the unborn.

Are any of you murdering fuckwits up to it?

[Vernon Depner]

The Hitler apologist is calling other people "murdering fuckwits". Comical.

[debo10]

It’s amazing to see people fight to kill a potential child in the womb, yet don’t fight for better schools, education, and crime. They support the destruction of families, push sexualization of children, open borders, and a lack of respect for our first and second amendments that are actual rights! We have become a foolish people. We lash out instead of having logical conversations. These are the behaviors of children. Lastly, we have a president that disparages had s county’s laws to foreigners! Why does he push abortion? To hasten the destruction of the undesirables, as Hillary Clinton would put it. Nearly 20 million black babies have been killed by abortions, and many more with senseless murders! What has our government done? They call for defunding the police. As long as blacks are killing each other, it’s not a problem. The star f the union under democrats!

[Rob Misek]

Not up to it?

I didn’t think so.

[WC46]

Pull your bottom lip up over your head, swallow, and save the world your leftist contamination! Who cares what your camp thinks? Anyone defending infanticide doesn't deserve to even be heard.

[Vernon Depner]

"Anyone defending infanticide doesn't deserve to even be heard."

I agree. And anyone pretending they don't see any difference between a blastocyst and an infant doesn't deserve to be heard.

[Dagny]

The unborn child is only a blastocyst for 10 to 14 days, way before most women even know they are pregnant. At 4 weeks, the unborn baby has a body. So, are you arguing that abortion should only be legal during the blastocyst stage? Not sure what you are arguing for here.

[Rob Misek]

By advocating genocide for people who are different from you, how are you any better than the Nazi bogeymen of your vivid nightmares?

[Rob Misek]

It’s arguing that the developmental differences in the unborn persons age make murder okay.

[Vernon Depner]

By advocating Nazism, how are you any better than a Nazi?

[Rob Misek]

You’re a waste of skin liar.

If you can prove your claim that I advocate nazism, do so, now.

You know you can’t.

[Vernon Depner]

If you can prove your claim that I advocate genocide for people who are different from me, write your proof on a piece of stiff cardboard and shove it up your ass.

[Rob Misek]

You advocate abortion which is the legal killing at will of the group of people defined as the unborn.

That is genocide.

That’s called rubbing your face in it before shoving it up your ass.

[Rob Misek]

Insanity is a reality, truth disorder.

What inhibits or interferes with the recognition of reality? Disinformation, lying. Propaganda, which persuades people to accept lies. Coercion which intimidates people to accept lies. Censorship which prevents people from exposing lies.

All these are in full use at all levels of our society to give liars power through controlling knowledge.

How did we let that happen? Only by not criminalizing and persecuting liars.

Liars know what their victims don’t, that most people will never live long enough to recognize the truth. In that way making the insanity chronic and multi generational.

Criminalize lying now.