Over a Year After Dobbs, Abortions Have Increased Nationwide
Despite state-level bans, new data show around 46,000 more abortions were performed during the first six months of 2023 than during the same period in 2020.

New data from the Guttmacher Institute indicate that U.S. abortions have increased after the fall of Roe v. Wade, not decreased.
While the reproductive health policy group estimated that around 465,000 abortions occurred during the first six months of 2020, they estimated that about 511,000 occurred during the same period in 2023. The group's data only include legal abortions.
The change seems counterintuitive, especially considering that 15 states have outright banned abortion (though Indiana's ban was not in effect during the period studied) in the 14 months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. However, there are a few possible explanations for the unexpected uptick in abortions.
According to The Washington Post, in the year following the Supreme Court's decision overturning the national right to an abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 16 new abortion clinics opened in states where the procedure remained legal. Not only did this help pro-choice states bordering pro-life states absorb traveling patients, but it likely also allowed for additional abortions—such as those from women who live in a state where abortion is legal but had previously lived too far away from an abortion clinic to travel for the procedure.
Access to medication abortion—abortions that are performed in early pregnancy, typically by a woman taking a prescribed medication at home or in a doctor's office—also expanded following the fall of Roe. Following the Food and Drug Administration's 2021 decision to permanently allow abortion medication to be prescribed via telemedicine, it became much easier for women—especially those living far away from an abortion clinic or doctor's office—to obtain abortion medications.
COVID restrictions were likely not a factor in the increase between 2020 and 2023, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recorded roughly the same number of procedures during 2020 and 2019. (The Guttmacher Institute does not have 2019 data).
While the Guttmacher Institute did not provide 2023 estimates for 14 states that had banned the procedure, abortions unsurprisingly declined in states where it was banned or restricted. And not all women who would have obtained an abortion before Dobbs ended up traveling elsewhere. According to a recent study from Johns Hopkins researchers, Texas' six-week "heartbeat" ban resulted in nearly 10,000 more live births in the state over an eight-month period.
Notably, the Guttmacher Institute's data also estimates far more abortions than those calculated by the CDC's abortion surveillance studies, which recorded just 620,327 abortions during all of 2020. The Guttmacher Institute estimated 930,160, around 50 percent more. However, the CDC's data doesn't include California, Maryland, and New Hampshire, which—according to Guttmacher Institute data—performed almost 187,000 abortions in 2020, which would account for around 60 percent of the gap in estimated abortions.
The rest of the difference is likely due to the data-gathering method. While the Guttmacher Institute individually contacts all facilities known to have provided abortions to ask for their number of procedures, the CDC aggregates state-level data.
For pro-life advocates, this new data indicates an uncomfortable truth about post-Roe America. While access to abortion has plummeted in some states, it's also gotten much easier to obtain one in others, primarily as a direct reaction to state-level bans. This trend seems to have effectively canceled out the impact of recent statewide abortion bans, showing that, as long as abortion remains legal in a significant part of the county, it will be incredibly difficult to prevent women from obtaining one.
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.
Please
to post comments
Despite state-level bans, new data show around 46,000 more abortions were performed during the first six months of 2023 than during the same period in 2020.
Or because of bans... which might mean that if abortions-happening is the goal, the best thing we ever did was repeal federal abortion.
"Safe, legal, and
rarecommon!"....but Democrats do not support abortion without limits.
Ignore the laws they pass....
Maybe covid had something to do with it.
Everyone being locked in their homes and contact with strangers in social settings being banned reducing the need for abortions in her baseline year? Couldn't be.
I'm just shocked a leftist propagandist lied like this to make her point.
You already said “Leftist” no need to include ‘liar’. The Progressive Left is completely built on lies - even their version of “reality” is based on lies.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Yes, the most likely reason for this statistic. I'll not argue agin it.
Shocking that 2021 and 2022 data wasn't cited. It is certainly strange to only focus on half of 2 years out of sequence and then not provide that same data for years prior and between those highlighted. It has the distinct feeling of cherrypicked data to lie with statistics.
On a side note, I find it disgusting that Reason keeps pimping these stats to cheer abortion and frame more births negatively. That is pro-abortion and pro-death, not anything resembling "pro-choice." It also lines up in an awful way when coupled to their immigration stances (especially Emma.)
Framing abortion as 'pro-choice' was certainly a masterstroke of branding, one has to admit. It certainly has a better ring to it than 'ethnic cleansing' which is what abortion mostly turned out to do.
Of course, that is a feature that was used to sell abortion to the government in the first place so perhaps it shouldn't be so surprising.
The fact that the pro "choice" camp is anti choice on almost every other civil rights issue should have been enough. It amazes me how many people fell for the lie.
It's not suspicious. It often takes time to get comprehensive information. When some of the people responsible for reporting that information drag their feet or just flat out fail to do so it takes even longer.
Well maybe Reason shouldn't have reported things at all if the info isn't so comprehensive, right? Did that ever occur in your mind?
Camp's report is simply dishonest. Even the New York Times admitted that abortions decreased since Dobbs--lives saved according to the pro-life movement.
Certainly the incels here had nothing to do with it.
If you have a daughter, I feel really bad for her.
Says the guy who claimed he was against all that trillions of dollars of COVID spending when he really supported it. Could you be any more dishonest with how COVID was handled?
For pro-life advocates, this new data indicates an uncomfortable truth about post-Roe America. While access to abortion has plummeted in some states, it's also gotten much easier to obtain one in others, primarily as a direct reaction to state-level bans.
What about libertarian constitutionalists who always said that abortion should be handled by the states?
How is it an uncomfortable truth that abortions in 2023 were higher than the year we were all locked in our houses cowering from the coof?
Honestly, how is it an uncomfortable truth at all? It is only uncomfortable for Pro-Life people if their belief was solely utilitarian.
As a pro-life person, there is nothing uncomfortable about the fact that millions of Americans have been deluded into thinking that snuffing out a human life is not actually snuffing out a human life. It is regrettable, yes. It is something I would like to be changed, for sure. But uncomfortable?
This is what counts for editing in this rag. Not only do they parrot cherrypicked data that shows more abortions than a year when half the country was locked out of any medical facility. But then they have someone who is obviously Pro-Choice just try to play mind-reader for what those icky pro-lifers actually think.
It crossed my mind that there could very possibly (especially during covid) be what we in the statistical analysis field call "confounding factors".
And Ms Camp just asserts that there were "roughly" the same number of Abortions in 2020 as 2019. No data to back it up (again, this is where editors are important- to force you to write better). In fact when you go to the CDC surveillance data, you see that there was a 2% decrease in absolute abortions (and this is using their surveillance that doesn't cover states like CA, where we locked down FAAAAR harder than elsewhere). If you go to the CDC, you also find that 2019 - 2020 there was a 4% decrease in births that year (nationwide, not just the selected states in the abortion data).
So fundamentally, Ms Camp is telling us that COVID had no effect because the CDC data, which did not cover one of the largest COVID lockdown states, doesn't show a decrease (even though the data actually does show a decrease, and she is just rounding to her bias).
I find it uncomfortable that millions of Americans have been convinced of absolute untruths and pass them off without a thought. There are a lot of places that can go, none good.
I find the choice to snuff out 1million lives a year repugnant since most of that is for convenience.
Post-Modernism is built on lies and millions of American sheep are bleeting their way toward voting for that crap. The brainwashing taking place on MSM & Big Tech censorship sells the lies to the gullible.
Clearly they were greatly outnumbered by the anti-abortion extremists. Ya know, the ones who repeated that lie for years only to start calling for national restrictions and bans before the ink on the decision giving them just that was dry.
I've said for years that I was all in favor of fewer abortions but I didn't think greater legal restrictions were the best way to accomplish that. It's a bit too early to declare myself totally vindicated, but the evidence so far is on my side.
You'd be mistaken. The ones you call "anti-abortion extremists" actually find abortion permissible under multiple circumstances such as rape or if the pregnant female's life is at great risk. The ones you describe are actually very few in number. There's no outnumbering at all, not even remotely close.
Also on the contrary, the evidence is not on your side:
https://www.westernjournal.com/happy-birthday-dobbs-tens-thousands-babies-saved-last-year-stats/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/upshot/legal-abortions-fell-dobbs.html
Even the New York Times has admitted to fewer abortions--lives saved according to the pro-life movement. Camp is comparing the data to a year that was infested with COVID lockdowns--don't be deceived by such dishonest reporting.
Killings are up! Yay!
WomenBirthing persons are making increasingly bad life choices! Yay! Potential sex workers of the birthing person variety more able to please pregnancy-inducing employers! Yay!Anti-abortion absolutists -- who tend to be superstitious, prudish, authoritarian, obsolete losers -- are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Why you gotta make it about abortion? I can't just be a guy celebrating women's ability to make poor life choices. If you can't see the unbridled good in women being more available to please men sexually and participate in society more strictly as sex objects, that's on you, prude.
I would support Kirkland's mother having an abortion even today.
I support anything that puts an end to Arty’s oxygen theft.
Molech be praised!
Congrats, m.c, you've managed to make Artie look like the voice of reason. Just how often did your parents drop you on your head?
There's nothing reasonable about wanting pro-life people dead--it's actually more morally correct for a totalitarian like Artie to die over a pro-life person--if one of them had to be killed.
There's nothing wrong in wanting to see women (and men) become accountable and responsible for their actions out of their own free will. Artie does not believe in this, and neither do you.
Access to medication abortion—abortions that are performed in early pregnancy, typically by a woman taking a prescribed medication at home or in a doctor's office—also expanded following the fall of Roe.
By the way, I'm no doctor (or lawyer) but wouldn't this indicate that women (whoa, I should probably slow down here with the defined terms), when they are having abortions, are actually trying to relegate it to a time when the fetus (or Baby, if you prefer) are more accurately described as "a clump of cells"?
As one of the 75% of Americans who [supports abortion bans occurring after the end of the first Trimester], wouldn't this be a positive-ish development?
If you're going to terminate a pregnancy, it's certainly safer to do so as early as possible, so, yes, that would be a positive development.
Why the end of the first Trimester? Seems arbitrary.
Why not a week before that? Or 10 business days?
It's always tough when you get around the edges. Why not just as the head crowns during the birthing procedure? The first trimester is a rather internationally common standard for where to drop in some kind of restriction-- or "ban" as Reason often calls it on selective abortion.
And for the record, it's not that "arbitrary". If you're going to restrict something... anything, you have pick... legislatively when and where that restriction will take place. It's my guess that... anthropologically speaking-- for whatever set of complicated cultural and philosophical reasons that I couldn't possibly litigate here, that after the end of the first trimester (why do we even have "trimesters"?) is when things start to look a LOT more... baby-like and people naturally start to get kind of uncomfortable.
I don't know Di, still seems kinda arbitrary. Common standard or not, deciding a point of restriction at, "Uh... this kinda seems wrong now, like we're killing an actual person" suggests less rational process and more emotive mindsets.
And it flies contrary to an assumption we make for literally any situation except abortion (and, to a lesser degree, offing convicts). That assumption being that, when in doubt, the benefit of said doubt always* goes to life.
Anywhere else though, we assume life. Even when we're certain of death - like seeing and hearing an actual flatline - we'll keep banging on that body, electrocuting it, and trying to shove air down its throat in the name of preserving life. Weird right, that with the tiny ones we pick some point where we're like, "Eh, let's just assume that.... right here at this random point, that's not human life deserving of protective/preservation efforts."
(*Unless, of course, we're intentionally dehumanizing human beings for the specific purpose of killing/oppressing them en masse. Which humanity has a disturbingly established track record on doing.)
FWIW: Practically, I can get on board a train at a station relatively close to DRP, here.
I am about as pro-life as it comes. I can't see how you can deny human rights after conception, and I haven't been able to find anyone who can logically explain why abortion isn't at least aggravated assault in 90% of the cases where it is performed.
And yet this moral clarity is not the final word in a moral state. I see a State that is empowered to deny early term abortions as far more intrusive and unacceptable than a small handful of women who are morally confused performing a morally horrible act. Just as (morality of it aside) the Drug War's follow on effects of prohibition has created a far more morally repugnant State than any drug-addled addict could ever perpetrate.
> I see a State that is empowered to deny early term abortions as far more intrusive and unacceptable than a small handful of women who are morally confused performing a morally horrible act.
Is that your position on all crime? For example, is empowering the State to deny child abuse/molestation "far more intrusive and unacceptable" than a small handful of pedophiles who are morally confused performing a morally horrible act? How about rape? Most folks don't go around raping women, but yet the State sees fit to deny it when only a small handful of rapists are just morally confused and performing a morally horrible act.
Some people don't want to acknowledge it - but the very basis for law (and especially criminal law) at all IS morality. That is morally wrong, therefore we've made doing it illegal and punishable by the State.
Readers will also note the elision of any standard of morality. Enslavement requires the threat of deadly force of the sort that led Army of God mystics to murder doctors and blow up public spaces in places like Atlanta. The Colorado clinic-shooter Robert Dear need only mask as AT sockpuppet to make this embarrassingly evident.
Let me guess. You dismiss outright the notion that morality is objective.
Or, you lack the cognitive capacity to consider such an argument from a secular position.
Or, if it's subjective, that means it necessarily cannot be the basis for action/consequence standards set by the State.
Which is it?
Not sure what is more embarrassing for Libertariantranslator- the fact that he has to hearken back to bombings in 1997 for his examples of warriors or that he can speak so blithely of force without bothering to contemplate the decapitation of an innocent child when expectant women decide that life is inconvenient and cash in their threat of deadly force.
“is empowering the State to deny child abuse/molestation “far more intrusive and unacceptable” than a small handful of pedophiles who are morally confused performing a morally horrible act”
Yes. Absolutely. If that requires massive intrusion on our Civil Liberties to stop a repugnant but rare evil, yes. I am absolutely willing to see a less empowered state.
Child abuse is a perfect example. In the name of stopping the abuse of children, states have empowered Child "Protective" Services agents to visit terrible moral wrongs, on families and children- including high stakes interviews where parents can be stripped of their children without proper due process and even delivering these children to foster homes where they receive even worse abuse.
I also think murder is immoral, and will not signup for a State that promises to eliminate it if only I allow endemic totalitarian surveillance.
Nobody's talking about endemic totalitarian surveillance or bureaucracies empowered to defy constitutional rights.
We're talking about simple laws against certain activities.
A law against murder. A law against child abuse. A law against pedophilia. A law against abortion.
Should the law not be a reflection of the rights we value/protect? If we claim to stand for the inalienable right to life and liberty, doesn't it follow that we turn our justice system against those who would attempt to deprive people of it? How else do we ever encourage good behavior if there is zero consequence for bad behavior?
Being logically consistent, conception is the point where a new human life is created, exists, and rightfully endowed with human rights. Until people understand this and treat sex with that sort of reverence I can understand being more lenient on a policy level. Setting that arbitrary limit at around roughly 2 months after conception gives time for a woman to know she's pregnant and think it through. Beyond that point nothing beyond a legitimate medical reason is justifiable to me.
Ideally, people would stop using abortion as birth control and actually take responsibility for their own actions rather than violating the NAP for convenience. I would even be more comfortable with an increase in plan B usage despite it also being a violation (at a much earlier stage.)
Abortion proponents moving past the "safe, legal, and rare" position into outright celebration for ending innocent human life makes it a lot harder to find compromise or even hold a productive dialogue
I haven’t been able to find anyone who can logically explain why abortion isn’t at least aggravated assault
It's been explained repeatedly right here on these boards by myself and others, but those who are "about as pro-life as it comes" are thick as a brick on this subject. The arguments just bounce off.
Readers will note the oblique reference to Christian National Socialism in its efforts to breed for inherent gullibility into mystical altruism via Lebensborn programs. Hitlerites clawed at every pretext for enslaving anyone weaker or less well-defended. Naturally the loss of a second Fuhrer troubles them deeply.
Readers will note the batshit crazy of Libertariantranslator along with his pathological (and quite unlibertarian) need to collectivize everyone he disagrees with into unfavored groups so that he doesn't have to actually argue the case at hand. Note not one attempt to discuss the logic of abortion- just "You people are all sky-god worshipers! Ick!"
I’ve yet to hear a mainstream voice say this, but the reason we don’t talk about the arbitrary nature and hypocrisy of life is because the decision to abort has little to nothing to do with the mother’s beliefs about life. Women abort because they don’t want to or don’t think they can handle a child. I think the insanity we hear is spillover from the copium women inhale on the daily to rationalize their choice. Abortion is a selfish choice. It’s not that different from suicide in that sense. No matter your reasons, when you abort, you’re saying that your needs are more important than the life of the child. I don’t mean this in a pejorative way, but that is an inhuman answer. It violates almost everyone’s conscience, including these people who supposedly support abortion.
We’re mostly Libertarians here, so I’m not convinced we really need laws against abortion. We just need to maintain a culture where we call a spade a spade and criticize unnecessary, elective abortion. I don’t think something needs to be deemed a “right” to be legally protected. We know there are terrible circumstances where it’s more complex than a typical accidental pregnancy. Those situations are deeply personal and nobody wants govt involved in private life. The problem is that the best research available suggests that those scenarios comprise 1-2% of all abortions, leaving the remainder in question. If you include unreported counts, we probably abort 1M times each year. Why is that number so high? It’s not that hard to avoid pregnancy.
literally any situation
There's is no other situation like pregnancy. It's unique, and therefore unique rules are called for.
Also, much like the capital punishment debate (and the gay marriage debate, and the transgender debate...) one side *needs* the argument to reside in the margins.
I've always been a "heartbeat and brainwaves" guy specifically because it applies to virtually all mammals. But, of course, that makes me a religious nut because at 8 weeks you're conclusively stopping a heartbeat and brainwaves just as surely as if you'd put a bullet in Bambi's (Mom's) brain or knelt on George Floyd's neck.
It makes Hank’s ramblings all the more asinine when he blithely insists that anyone who even questions the pro-abortion sides arguments (even if they ultimately think it’s something the state should stay out of), is obviously a mystical girl-bully.
It's completely arbitrary. The historical standard was "quickening", that is once the mother could feel the child moving in the womb. That's roughly, albeit not exactly, similar to the more recent standard of viability when the child could survive outside the womb.
No, it really isn't arbitrary. The hard science points that life beings at conception--and there's also a point where they develop brainwaves and a heartbeat. These are objective.
The model was the Compromises of the 1850s. Slaveholding girl-bulliers and child-rapists were eager to use all manner of force and intimidation--including demands for Fugitive Slave Acts--in the 1850s. So why Kansas? Why admission of free states north of the Missouri border? Political wrangling. The real line is in the 13th Amendment, and the definition in the first three words of the 14th. The LP pioneered the compromise at 100 days and the Supreme Court tacked on a week to make it look less like plagiarism. (look it up later)
Read the replies above. It doesn't take "slaveholding girl-bulliers" to see women and men become accountable for their willful actions to create a child. Where's the "child-rapists" in any of that?
Repent of your lies.
Is there a reason that they compared to a period with three months of lockdowns? /s
Note that Ms Camp says, "COVID restrictions were likely not a factor in the increase between 2020 and 2023, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recorded roughly the same number of procedures during 2020 and 2019."
Of course she does not back up that claim with data. When we go to the actual CDC website, we instead see: “From 2019 to 2020, the total number of abortions decreased 2%”. We also find that “the abortion rate was 11.2 abortions per 1,000 women”, which is a decrease from 2019 by .2 per 1000.
We can also go to the CDC and find that “The number of births in the United States rose 1% from 2020 to 2021, following a decline of 4% from 2019 to 2020.” CDC doesn’t give any more recent birth data, but you can go check census and other sites that indicate 2020 had an abnormal dip in births, and that we have actually had INCREASING numbers of births since then into 2023.
So what Camp says is just not demonstrated by the data I can find. You can’t have an abortion if you aren’t pregnant. And all the data about births indicates that in 2020 there were FEWER people pregnant than in subsequent years. Is the abortion RATE higher? We don’t know and the fact that none of these advocates wants to give that more meaningful number probably means something.
You can’t have an abortion if you aren’t pregnant.
You bigot!
I’m sure the democrats plan on changing that soon.
"Despite state-level bans, new data show around 46,000 more abortions were performed during the first six months of 2023 than during the same period in 2020."
Man Abortions are up since 2020? Wow. It is amazing how the climate of fear and permissiveness has changed since 2020.
Guys, can you even remember what it was like during the first 6 months of 2020? Those carefree days when everyone was allowed to visit abortion clinics like they were restaurants or super markets?
This is a great time to have a baby, hon, I mean we're stuck at home anyway, and we're not paying for gas any more!
Impossible. I have it on good authority (CNN, NBC, WAPO, NYT, NPR, White House, etc.) that Dobbs made abortion impossible and chained all the pregnant women to the stove to serve as obedient incubators that spend nine months making sandwiches for the patriarchy.
"All is lost," they wailed, gnashing their teeth and promising revenge for the fall of Roe and the so-called loss of abortion access. Apparently not having the slightest clue what they were talking about.
Some of our own commenters have been lamenting the enslavement of birthing persons around the country.
Birthing person?
Only one kinda person that can do people birthing, Nate. She's the one with the lady parts.
Sorry, whenever I say that, assume I’m being sarcastic and mocking the people that go on CNN and MSNBC and say it with a straight face.
Nah, it's cool. It's hard to do good sarcasm in a world where Babylon Bee headlines regularly end up just being prescient reporting.
Ackshully, the Klan’s overreach in trying to reenslave women (who now have the vote despite Supreme malpractice in letting Comstock and Klan interpret the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), is the ticket for doing to the Grabbers of Pussy what was done to Federalist and Whig before them.
Hey look, there’s one in the wild.
Readers please note: Mystical brainwashees always find some justification for using superstition to justify ot at least apologize for the initiation of deadly force.
Indeed. Like "my body my choice."
And again, we have the notion that humans have an inalienable right to life is mere "superstition".
It’s good to be superstitious, I take it. Okay then!
Nobody tell Emma that blue states under Dobbs can have partial birth abortions.
It's too much to ask Reason to do more than Emote.
It's almost like the babykillers were wrong about the supreme court "banning" abortion, isn't it?
All that stealing and leaking of confidential documents, marching here and there, wailing and gnashing of teeth, assaulting pregnancy centers, and propaganda blitz in the 'mainstream' media was just so much bullshit.
All that happened was that the decision was put in the political field, at the state level, where it belonged all the while.
The State has no part in my body autonomy decisions regarding abortion any more than it has in my body autonomy decisions regarding flu shots nor covid vaccinations.
....yet blue states exercised such control over your autonomy.
And you applauded the efforts.
"OPPRESS ME, BIG DADDY!"
I'll sign up for that as soon as you accept that you have no part in the body autonomy decisions of any other human being, including one in your womb.
^ + >9000 ^
Fetal Ejection. Your narrative doesn’t fit the subject at hand.
There is absolutely no requirement to have a part in the body autonomy of any other-whatever while it is in one’s womb only that it get removed.
And P.S. a Pre-viable pregnancy doesn’t have autonomy else it wouldn’t be required of the woman to keep reproducing.
And P.S. The Pre-viable pregnancy is the only subject Dobbs addressed so your entire premise is BS.
What Dobbs really accomplished was handing over body autonomy decisions to the State for every woman who is pregnant. Just as well stamp them with a label of Womb of the State Property.
...or more fitting stamped with the label "State Owned Incubators."
English, do you write it?
"There is absolutely no requirement to have a part in the body autonomy of any other-whatever while it is in one’s womb only that it get removed."
Perhaps you should spend some time reading about the practice of abortion, because this is 100% wrong.
"a Pre-viable pregnancy doesn’t have autonomy else it wouldn’t be required of the woman to keep reproducing."
Sure it has autonomy. A fully born baby is dependent on SOMEONE or it will die. Does that mean it doesn't have autonomy? If not, then does that make it ok for whomever the baby is dependent on to kill it? Your logic is kind of off here, TJJ
Perhaps Dobbs should've established the body autonomy right to at-will fetal ejection and stopped giving government the power to force women to reproduce.
All post-born birthing people please line up for you State induced rape. After all; it's for the "unborn" that depend on your bodies.
No sorry; Your logic is off. It is tyrannical to pimp out peoples bodies just because a "potential" life would depend on it (the complete BS in Dobbs). You're essentially saying mandated body organ donation must also be A-Okay.
And P.S. the State doesn't have the power to literally gov-gun force a mother to supply for her baby even after birth because of the 13th Amendment.
And that's not even the worse part of it. This would infer the fetus was post-viable. No; The current Pro-Gov-Gun mandated reproduction gang club is mandating it for a pregnancy that doesn't even have an inherent right to life. It is exactly the same as mandated State pimping.
But fools have been indoctrinated into claptrap phrases about killing babies where babies only exist in their power-obsessed imaginations. And they know it; that's why they can't allow fetal ejection.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (fetal ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun forced reproduction.
Your logic is 100% inline with the left.
Enslave those ‘icky’ people for universal healthcare to save life’s.
But it's even worse; It's not just labor/$ it's peoples body functions.
One of the most massive violations of individuality ever imagined.
It's NONE of YOUR F'EN business.
All that stealing and leaking of confidential documents, marching here and there, wailing and gnashing of teeth, assaulting pregnancy centers, and propaganda blitz in the ‘mainstream’ media was just so much bullshit.
Wait, are you saying they arrested people praying outside abortion clinics because they really don't give a shit about anyone's bodily autonomy or any other rights, born or unborn, and are really just using abortion as a talisman or stalking horse in order to sanctify the bludgeoning their political enemies?
The People's reproductive system and Pregnancies are State Level property?
The government's duty is to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It's not wrong to see people become accountable for their acts of their own will and not end any lives in doing so.
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/07/abortions-surged-state-bans
Abortions surged in states near those with new bans: study
With maps. Just FYI, for those who may actually care about FACTS instead of emotions such ass self-righteous OUTRAGE...
I am OUTRAGED!!!! These state borders getting in the way of My Precious Punishment Boner?!?!? COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT will fix it all!!! NUKE THE ENTIRE USA FROM ORBIT!!! Ass punishment for these SINNERS!!!! It is the ONLY way to be sure!!!!
>>medication abortion
if they're adding new ways of murder to the count of course the count will go up ... also, how sad the count went up
Over a Year After Dobbs, Abortions Have Increased Nationwide
Abortionists Snatch Clumps Of Defeat From Birth Canal Of Victory!
Abortions are up, and Emma is still trying to order a sea breeze in a bar.
So, Emma, are abortions bad but a tragic necessity or something to applaud?
"The Fall of the House of Dixie" is apropos literature for tracking the propensity of mystical racial collectivists to enslave other humans. Planter aristocrats and their quadroon ball enablers drew authority to buy and sell, rape, kill and christianize Africans from the hand of Jesus and God. Ready and malleable and useful to opponents of tariff protectionism, rednecks described in "Dred" and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" have simply shifted to reproductive enslavement to prevent race suicide as advocated by Teedy Rosenfeld of the Progressive Party. See National Socialist coercive eugenic race suicide fears (https://bit.ly/3ylIixV)
Yet it is the pro-abortion activists who insist that a there exists a class of human which is outside of the protection of law and is merely property to be disposed of as its owner sees fit.
Yeah; Kinda like fingernails. Oh the horror! /s
The Pro-Life mob brings a whole new meaning to the Karen’s.
Only Gov-Gods packing 'guns' can birth babies! /s
The government's duty is to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The left does not believe in this.
Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis proves conclusively that life begins at conception. Follow the science.
Enter prohibition exhibit #456486182. Just leave people alone with their personal life already!!!!
The Pro-Life movement could destroy the Republican Party if they let it. Then again; maybe that was the mastermind plan all along. After all the movement was founded by the Catholic religion at a time over 80% of Catholics were Democrats.
Poll after Poll showed even Republican citizen majority supported Roe v Wade. This movement is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen Republican politicians embrace and sadly at a level only matched by their Power-Mad rivals.
The Pro-abort movement could destroy the Enlightenment understanding pf human rights and ultimately human civilization if we let it.
The "enlightenment understanding of human rights" that every pregnant women will become property of the state and be forced to reproduce for the state. Wow.... What a complete BS 'enlightenment' of human rights.
That's only true if we're all property of the state. If you think the government protecting all human beings from the denial of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" makes them a property of the state, then I got a bridge to sell to ya.
Your statement just doesn't hold up.
So just pearl clutching and crocodile tears.
But Dobbs ended abortion, or so I was told.