What Leaving Abortion Up to the States Really Means

Reproductive freedom initiatives are advancing toward November ballots, putting the matter of abortion access in voters' hands.

A funny thing happens when you leave abortion access up to each state: Voters start to show politicians how they actually feel. The loudest and most persistent voices are no longer the ones most able to influence policy. And—perhaps surprisingly to some—this has resulted in a wave of successful pro-choice ballot initiatives.

Since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, the abortion rights side has come out on top every time the matter has been up for a vote on state ballots (even in states such as Kansas, Ohio, and Kentucky).

It looks like the great protector of abortion access might be direct democracy.

Accordingly, activists across the country have been working to get reproductive freedom initiatives on fall 2024 ballots. And recently, they've seen some positive developments in several states, including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Montana—despite a lot of pushback from conservative authorities looking to thwart plans to put the matter directly to voters.

Who's Afraid of Direct Democracy?

Below, I'll get into what's going on in each of the four states I mentioned above. But first, I just want to bring up a couple of notable things about this whole process.

First: The push for voters to weigh in directly on abortion's legality is made possible by rules that allow voters to propose and collect signatures for ballot initiatives without first getting clearance from lawmakers. In places where lawmakers must start the initiative process, efforts to support or restrict abortion access keep being stymied.

"Wisconsin's legislative session ended without a state Senate vote on a measure that the House approved to ask voters to ban abortion after 14 weeks," notes the Associated Press. "A Louisiana measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution died in committee and one in Maine effectively died when it fell short of receiving the approval of two-thirds of the House."

The second—and more important—thing to observe here how is hostile conservative authorities have been to the ballot process. They're clearly scared of letting people have a direct say in their states' abortion policies.

We've seen conservative authorities try to thwart pro-abortion ballot initiatives in indirect ways, such as in Ohio, where they tried to raise the threshold for passing a constitutional amendment in order to make it harder for a reproductive freedom amendment to pass. (The threshold-raising initiative failed, and the reproductive freedom amendment passed.)

More frequently, we see it in direct ways. Republican attorneys general have been trying to disqualify these amendments—as was the case in Florida and Montana—or take other steps to discourage them, such as using biased ballot language.

Florida's Proposed Amendment 4 Overcomes State Challenge

In Florida, a proposed constitutional amendment concerning abortion made it all the way to the state's Supreme Court, where the state argued that it was deceptive and would confuse voters if allowed onto the ballot. Some justices didn't appear too fond of the amendment's content, but they still rejected Attorney General Ashley Moody's narrative of the measures being a wolf in sheep's clothing. "This is a wolf coming as a wolf," said Chief Justice Carlos Muniz, "The people of Florida aren't stupid. They can figure it out."

In a 4–3 decision on April 1, the court approved the proposed amendment's appearance on the ballot.

If passed, the amendment will stipulate that "except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider." (Article X, Section 22 relates to parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion.)

The state had argued, among other things, that the proposed law's title—"Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion"—was misleading because the amendment would do more than just "limit" government interference. The court disagreed. "The proposed amendment does not eliminate the government's ability to 'interfere' with abortion in all circumstance," the court pointed out. "Its reference to article X, section 22 of the Florida Constitution—which grants the Legislature authority to require notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before termination of the minor's pregnancy—explicitly provides for an instance in which the legislative authority to 'interfere[] with' abortion will be preserved in the event the proposed amendment is passed. And the proposed amendment would not prohibit the Legislature from passing laws 'interfering' with abortion after the point of viability and when the mother's health is not in jeopardy."

Getting the measure passed will require a vote yes from 60 percent of those who vote.

Anna Hochkammer of the Florida Women's Freedom Coalition talked to Politico recently about what it will take to get there. "You get to 60 percent in Florida by being really focused about who you're talking to, how you're talking about abortion access and getting people to understand that it's an issue that transcends politics," she said. "You basically have to give people who are independents and Republicans permission to agree with you on this thing, to disagree with their individual candidate or their party, and to split that ticket if that's what they feel they need to do."

"I don't know whether the bottom is going to push the top, or the top is going to push the bottom, but I certainly think that more people feel positively about access to abortion than they do about any particular political candidate," Hochkammer said.

Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights Can Start Collecting Signatures

After some legal wrangling, abortion advocates in Montana have been cleared to start collecting signatures to get an abortion rights initiative on the state's November ballot.

The proposed amendment—Constitutional Initiative 128—is being sponsored by Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights (MSRR), a coalition that includes the state branches of the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood Advocates. The amendment would state that "there is a right to make and carry out decisions about one's own pregnancy, including the right to abortion. This right shall not be denied or burdened unless justified by a compelling government interest achieved by the least restrictive means."

Most recently, the group was wrangling with the state over the proposed law's language. On April 4, the Montana Supreme Court ordered Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen to finalize the language, over objections from Jacobsen and Attorney General Austin Knudsen.

In March, the court overruled Knudsen's finding that the initiative was "legally insufficient." Knudsen is following what's quickly becoming tradition for GOP attorney generals in states where such initiatives are being circulated: to try to quash them by any means necessary.

Ironically, Knudsen's determination torpedoed a chance for Republican state lawmakers to officially express dismay over the proposal. "State law passed in recent years allows for a legislative review of proposed ballot initiatives after proposals are found to be 'legally sufficient' by the attorney general," reports the Montana Free Press. "That review allows a committee of lawmakers to vote on whether to support the proposal, a determination that is then attached to the petition circulated during signature gathering." But because Knudsen did not find it legally sufficient, lawmakers were not given that opportunity.

"MSRR has until June 21 to collect upwards of 60,000 verified signatures from registered voters across 40 state House districts and submit them to county election officials," adds the Free Press.

Arizona and Colorado

Arizona and Colorado have also seen momentum for abortion rights initiatives.

Even as Arizona's Supreme Court was deliberating on—and ultimately upholding—a Civil War–era law banning abortion, activists were working to put the matter of abortion rights up for a vote.

Arizona for Abortion Access—a coalition that, as in Montana, includes the state branches of the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood Advocates—announced this month that they have gathered enough petition signatures to get their proposed amendment on the November ballot. As of April 2, the group had collected 506,892 signatures—well above the 383,923 threshold required and probably enough to seal the deal even if some signatures are thrown out.

The idea is to pass a constitutional amendment declaring that "every individual has a fundamental right to abortion" and "the state shall not enact, adopt, or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice" that "denies, restricts, or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means." The amendment would also stop the state from interfering with "an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual," and from penalizing anyone "for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual's right to abortion."

The initiative may hold extra weight in the November elections in light of the state's now-total ban being allowed to be in effect. "I think it supercharges the ballot initiative and it supercharges the elections of all pro-choice candidates," Attorney General Kris Mayes—who has pledged not to prosecute abortion cases—told the Arizona Republic.

In Colorado, "Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom coalition announced it had secured more than 225,000 signatures, exceeding its goal of 185,000," notes The Hill. "The campaign needed 124,238 signatures to qualify."

That puts proposed Ballot Initiative 89 well on its way for a vote this fall, though the group still needs to collect some additional signatures to meet a requirement that signatures include 2 percent of registered voters in every Senate district.

The measure would amend the Colorado constitution to acknowledge "the right to abortion, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state and local governments from denying, impeding, or discriminating against the exercise of that right."

Colorado could face dueling initiatives if anti-abortion activists manage to get enough signatures. This measure—deemed Initiative 81—would ban abortion throughout pregnancy.

Abortion Initiatives Could Be on 7 Additional Ballots

At least two states have already secured a place for an abortion initiative on November's ballot. From the Associated Press:

MARYLAND

Maryland voters this year will also be asked whether to enshrine the right for women to end their pregnancies in the state's constitution in a ballot question put before them by lawmakers last year. The state already protects the right to abortion under state law and Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1. Abortion is allowed in Maryland until viability.

NEW YORK

New York lawmakers agreed to ask voters to bar discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, pregnancy outcome and reproductive healthcare as part of a broader equal protection amendment. It would also bar discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin and disability. The language of the constitutional amendment does not mention abortion specifically. Abortion is allowed in New York law until viability.

Activists in a number of other states are still working on getting the issue to voters this fall. This includes Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota. (Am I missing an abortion initiative in your state? Let me know! Write to [e-mail].)

Today's Image

Washington, D.C. | 2018 (ENB/Reason)

More Sex & Tech News

• On Friday, the House of Representatives passed the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, which reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But a proposed amendment that would have required federal law enforcement agents to get a warrant before searching American communications failed.

• "Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear signed a controversial bill requiring age verification for individuals seeking to use pornography websites," reports Reason's Emma Camp. "While the bill seeks to prevent minors from accessing explicit materials, the law will require a substantial invasion of adults' privacy."

• Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression president Greg Lukianoff reviews Jonathan Haidt's The Anxious Generation.

Comments

[Fetterman's Hump]

States will decide how to handle abortion laws.

That is exactly what the Dobbs decision means. I am OK with that. My expectation is that most states will allow elective abortions, constrained by gestational limits, i.e. 12 weeks or 15 weeks, etc.

[JesseAz]

Quite a few states have followed the normal democrat lie narratives to enshrine very broad abortion "freedoms" into state constitutions that are being used to even dismiss regulations for abortions on medical standards of care. Like in Ohio.

[Lester75]

Well, so far we have states with 6-week bans (which are really 2 week bans or 0 week bans because the 6-weeks are measured from your last period and many women have irregular periods).
We also have the new AZ near-total ban from the 1800s.

Most voters don't want this stuff. Only the evangelical and Catholic pseudo-Xtian state legislators from gerrymandered districts want this stuff. They are petrified of direct democracy. Yes we're a representative democracy but both the right and the left are guilty of this gerrymandering nonsense which makes the democracies very un-representative.

[mad.casual]

Well, so far we have states with 6-week bans (which are really 2 week bans or 0 week bans because the 6-weeks are measured from your last period and many women have irregular periods).

And also don't get pregnant *exactly* at the peak of their fertility cycle meaning, without knowing where their menses took place, whether they were aware of it or not, makes it more like a... 6-week ban, which is what's written in the name and is specific to the actual life and not the time since the last realignment, or not, of the magic birth canal, retard.

Unless, of course, the entire medical community is a bunch of religious nutjobs for doing things empirically rather than just relying on every last woman's "Uh... two weeks ago, I think. Maybe." intuition.

Jesus Fucking Christ, you people can't help but rob women of any/all agency when discussing this can you?

[Zeb]

Do they have a better way to determine the date of a pregnancy? I thought that last period was generally the assumed date. But I may be ignorant as this is not something I have had a lot of direct experience with. A lot of women can pretty much tell. But is there a reliable external way to determine when a pregnancy started?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

My wife can tell you date, hour, temperature (hers) and minute she got pregnant. Definitely not the last day of her period.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Typically it's an issue of record keeping. If a couple is trying for a child they may just be, well, screwing around trying to have a kid. Until the woman misses a period she has no reason to assume she is pregnant. Even then she may not be sure of exactly when her period was due and thus unsure of when it was missed. So yeah, a woman could be several weeks pregnant before she tests.

It's not like a tree where a core sample and ring counting can be done. The best you can say is when wad the last period and try to assume the ovulation schedule from that information.

Couples who are being more scientific may be able to know based on ovulation studies and by keeping track of vitals.

Of course those are cases where the couple wants a child. Those who don't want a child aren't thinking about it. They don't test until the possibility is made obvious. Physical symptoms such as nausea and vomiting can be a tell. But that may be 6 to 8 weeks after the likely ovulation that led to pregnancy. Some women just don't have physical tells. There are instances of chubby chicks having contractions as their first indication of being pregnant.

In short. No. You can't really test for actual time of conception. That's why a limit of less than 10 weeks is a practical ban.

[CLM1227]

Better sex education would help with much of this.

Birth control and the overly permissive sex culture without consequence has made women retarded about their bodies.

Signed,
A woman

[Vernon Depner]

Women don't realize that they lost the "sexual revolution".

[mad.casual]

Do they have a better way to determine the date of a pregnancy?

hCG levels in urine can resolve, commercially, as low as 10 days, blood/serum, it's even less, potentially less than a week. Which is still below, and more accurate than, the self-described quasi-random "4 week" retardation.

But, as I pointed out below, everybody has almost a "lightswitch" notion of conception rather than the more obvious counterpoint of death where, sometimes, people slowly lose blood over the course of a week while others have an aneurysm and die in a matter of seconds and once we take a pulse or their EKG stops for about 5 min. we *conceive* of them as irrecoverably deceased.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Yes, and a few will end up with outright bans, which will balance the few that will have no restrictions, 100% state funding, and drive-through services.

[Mockamodo]

If the "right" to abort your baby is handled like the 2nd, the only constitutionally guaranteed right to bear the words "shall not be infringed", it will just be another privilege the government can make you jump through hoops to access and even deny you.

[MWAocdoc]

Although coalitions are always a very iffy thing, it is frequently possible to put an issue specific majority together between libertarians (pro-choice on everything) and either liberals or women or conservatives, especially on initiatives and referenda. So-called conservatives lately seem to be totally clueless about how much self-inflicted damage they are doing to themselves by focusing on abortion and immigration and Donald Trump. Maybe it’s a political death wish?

[Incunabulum]

Libertarians aren't pro choice on everything. Murder, for example.

[MrMxyzptlk]

We can hope.

[bobby oshea]

Free minds, free markets, bodily autonomy for thee, but not for unborn humans.

[Liberty_Belle]

A body really needs to be autonomous , for it to have autonomy. I know that is a strange way of saying it, but it is true. As a parallel, ask yourself can conjoined twins really each have bodily autonomy from each other? I think not, as they are not individually autonomous. They can agree, but cannot by the nature of their existence be autonomous. This is a similar argument to abortion, future possible autonomy does not overwrite autonomy rights now.

[SQRLSY One]

Set free the womb-slaves!

[DaveM]

You use the word, “autonomy”, but you do not define it. I predict you will not be able to come up with a definition under which you would be considered fully autonomous.

The problem is a simple one: there's no such thing as autonomy. Autonomy is an emergent property, it's a description of how something is being used, not a description of the thing itself. "Autonomy" means "[acting with] Autonomy".

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

So, given that infants will die if left alone, i.e. not autonomous, then LB is probably OK with snuffing them too, if they inconvenience the mother.

[TJJ2000]

Where 99.9% of those instances would probably arise from FORCING motherhood. The obvious consequences are reason enough not to support FORCING motherhood let alone all the infringement on Individuality (owning one's self). There just isn't a single excuse but "feelings" left to sustain the Pro-Life cause.

[MrMxyzptlk]

While I doubt the existence of any studies of sufficient conservativeness to change your views I submit that a woman who wanted to kill her child in the womb but was stopped by faith, custom or angry activists waving pictures of aborted babies in her face is likely to still want the baby dead, especially when it get really annoying.

[Liberty_Belle]

I'll take a crack at it, since I brought it up. First, I disagree that is a description of how a thing is used. I think it is a description of how a thing / entity works.

Example:
Biological Autonomy - The quality of a organism or system of organic processes that allow a construct or entity to maintain basic life functions, without external assistance, that is self (autos) regulating (nomos = law).

Not to be confused with self-sufficient, which is what people immediately try to jump to as a gotcha.

[mad.casual]

Not to be confused with self-sufficient, which is what people immediately try to jump to as a gotcha.

In the future, you don't have to clear up, for the rest of us, the confusion that only exists in your own head.

[TJJ2000]

...and the bigotry enters the equation again. and again. and again. and again. Why it's almost like it's a Power-Mad [WE] mob. Oh yeah; it is.

[bobby oshea]

I think your initial point is the strongest one - the clear connection between mother and unborn child within the concept of autonomy is something for good faith debate. After that I think the analogy begins to breakdown. Conjoined twins are a rare developmental disorder/anomaly, they are identical twins, essentially clones - neither was involved in the production of the other, they can not alter that, and the condition is permanent (medical breakthroughs not withstanding). A baby in utero is the product of the mother's actions (with the only exception of rape), has its own unique DNA, and is a separate (though attached) individual human. Their attachment/joined autonomy, which is the product of the mother's actions, will end quite predictably in 9 months or less. Its a temporary state that the unborn human had no say in and is innocent of any insults to the mother's autonomy. The mother is responsible for any insults to her own autonomy.

[MasterThief]

Wish I saw your response before fumbling through trying to say the same thing

[MWAocdoc]

To extend that argument further, is the lung cancer that you caused by your own actions - i.e. smoking - and which is totally dependent upon you and may ultimately kill you something you may not "abort?"

[TJJ2000]

What; you thought it'd be okay with the State if you just took that living thing out of you and threw it in the garbage? Where's your humanity? /s

Well done on the counter-argument.

[MasterThief]

Can one head kill the other head in the case of conjoined twins? Do we recognize the humanity of a conjoined twin who has little personal autonomy and is reliant on their sibling? Your argument here that you can kill a child because it is reliant upon your body doesn't logically track. How much autonomy is required to consider someone a human with the right to life? My 5 year old is capable of a lot but certainly isn't autonomous. My 16 year old similarly lacks the knowledge, experience, and fortitude to be fully self-reliant.
Can I kill someone in a medically induced coma? Future autonomy isn't guaranteed. What if someone is merely sleeping? Your argument is that a temporary state (one that in most circumstances will improve if left to run its natural course) negates one's right to life.
I would say that in your specific example that there is far more justification for a conjoined twin to kill a parasitic sibling. Neither is the cause of the other's predicament. On the other hand, a child is only reliant upon the mother's body for a short time and it is the mother's fault that child is there in the first place.
How far does your preference to kill for convenience extend?

[JesseAz]

It is even simpler. Can a mother leave her 1 month old in the forest on its own or would she be criminally negligent? Don't need oddities. Just need to extend the claims used to defend abortion to simple examples just a month after the magic birth canal fairy.

[Vernon Depner]

She can turn it over to someone else to care for. She can't do that with an embryo. But you realize that, and are being disingenuous.

[mad.casual]

24 week waiting period for all embryo transfers. No transfers to/from people that would/could foreseeably lead to potential harm/death. Definitively no rights infringed. No potential humans die. Problem solved.

Unless, of course, you actually do care about rights and lives and the plain text of the English language. Then you'd just be a disingenuous shitbag that's totally cool with potentially sacrificing innocent lives for convenience while openly and flagrantly violating the clearly defined rights of other actual innocent people.

[TJJ2000]

Just as soon as your body spends 24-weeks creating something I want from you. Course it’s not slavery. It’s just a ‘waiting period’ until you get to own yourself again. No big deal right? After all; You're the one choosing to lobby for involuntary servitude. You deserve it.

[TJJ2000]

So don't 'kill' anything and don't leave anything in a forest.

Simply remove it from the Woman who has every right to decide what she will biologically contain of within the walls of a medical clinic.

The amount of imaginary fairy-tale that gets introduced into this debate.... Ironically; Pro-Life will be exactly the root cause of things being left out in the forest.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Can she? Yes, she is physically capable of doing so. A 1 month old won't do a lot of resisting.

Should she? No, there are a lot of safer options for abandoning a child. In most states just drop the kid off no questions asked at a hospital, fire station or police station. It's a lot better than using a duster or, as you recommend, the forest.

[TJJ2000]

Are you killing all the homeless by not supplying them your food, house and healthcare? Your very ‘kill’ definition is what’s out to lunch. What if the act of killing were removed from this debate and pre-viable ejection was the alternative? Does anything change? You can’t ‘kill’ what doesn’t have an inherent life to begin with.

As for co-joined twins. Why would such a personal crisis be handled by politicians? Why is it any of their F'En business? Then of course along comes all the [WE] mob of Karens who know nothing of the finer details but get that sense of POWER in barfing up wanna-be 'God' opinions trying to dictate someone else.

It all needs to stop. Get the Gov-Guns out of everything under the Sun. Historically these PERSONAL crisis was decided by closest family, personal will/testament or relatives. That is where they should remain.

[TJJ2000]

Or put in a way the emotional Gov-Gun wanna-be gods can't propagandize away. Rights are inherent. Pre-viable means exactly that there is no right to life to protect.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

So, punching your eight-months-pregnant wife in the gut is the same as punching you in the gut.

[TJJ2000]

8 months is way beyond pre-viable but both are violent acts none-the-less. One act of violence isn't anymore less-so than the other.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Assault. Very prosecuteable.

[mad.casual]

I know that is a strange way of saying it, but it is true.

Because that strange way of saying it is every bit as much fantastical as Sky Daddys, storks, and female penises.

Future potential autonomy absolutely overwrites current autonomy all the time. Libertarians used to regard this as a contract. Simply invoking a past-self as poor-decision maker or villain of future consequences was no excuse and couldn't be invoked without, metaphorically, nuking all autonomy.

[Ersatz]

interesting point ! never thought about it that way.

[Social Justice is neither]

Hey ENB remind us again who was screeching about the horror of Dobbs here at Reason? What this really means is that abortion restrictions and allowances in the extreme will both be pushed out rather than just listening to screeching harpy twats like you defending abortion up to and beyond birth.

Now if you want to claim Democrats have hidden their true aims (see multiple post birth abortion Bill's In a number of states) while Republicans have overreached in their new freedom then go ahead.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The screeching comes mostly from right-wing dumbasses who believe most of their fellow countrymen are cold-blooded murderers -- and reach that conclusion because they are afflicted by adult-onset superstition. believing (or at least claiming to believe) a fake man in the sky has made the call for them and for everyone.

[Sevo]

Fuck off and die, asshole bigot.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Ah, Christian charity and compassion.

[TJJ2000]

The 'horror' will show up exactly when the [WE] mob changes it's mind.

[DaveM]

Abortion isn't "reproductive", it's destructive. You aren't fighting for the right to have children, but the right to destroy them. This matters because if you can't be honest about what you're doing, you know in your heart that it's wrong.

[TJJ2000]

The condom corporation should be banned! /s
What about all those 'unborn' children being destroyed by LGBT?
Your preaching *your* imagination/belief and nothing else.

[Ersatz]

air-ball.... there was no human life involved in the latex barrier scenario.

[TJJ2000]

There's no inherent human life pre-viable.

[Ersatz]

wrong again, retake biology class
-maybe you want to say sentient human life...
but then define sentient

[TJJ2000]

So allow it to be set free if you're so sure. What's the problem?
The debate will never end until you grasp what's possible.

[Foo_dd]

actually, the women are frequently fighting for their right to have children. contrary to what the pro life crowd wants to pretend, the vast majority of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks when just about nobody has any problem with it. the abortions that happen after that.... the ones that all the pearl clutchers are aggressively trying to ban..... are ALWAYS due to medical reasons and frequently risk future fertility by forcing the doomed pregnancy to continue.

[Moderation4ever]

Well said.

[Dillinger]

>>A funny thing happens when you leave abortion access up to each state: Voters start to show politicians how they actually feel.

I'm willing to bet you spent your life defending Roe.

[Incunabulum]

What's interesting here is that ENB is now all for voters determining if abortion should be legal 2hen before she was upset that so many women wouldn't be able to forgo birth control if the Federal government didn't step in to 'protect' them.

'State's rights' and 'populism' are much more attractive when the sentiment is swinging your way, aren't they?

[TJJ2000]

^THIS. The very notion of putting a persons right to own themselves up to popular vote. Wonder who will be the next to go through this obvious violation of ensured Individuality.

[Zeb]

Yes, we already know what everyone thinks about abortion. But I guess everyone needs to make exactly the same points again that they always do.

[DaveM]

Here’s something new: left and right now both agree that it has been wrong for 50 years for the Supreme Court to have declared abortion off-limits to the democratic process.

I, for one, care little about the specifics of abortion laws, my concern is for hearts and minds. The law is so far downstream, it is almost an afterthought. Yes, I am very grateful that now we can continue to bring the moral case, but I don’t feel in any way that we have reached our goals as of yet.

It does take time for big societal changes to happen. Emancipation took well over 100 years, for example.

[TJJ2000]

Summary; Both left and right agree that the US Constitution that ensures Human Rights ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons" i.e. self-ownership) is dead and all future politics should revolve around 'our democracy' ([WE] mob RULES absolute!).

And anyone has to wonder why the nation is showing signs of being just another divided totalitarian regime like the middle east. How much longer before the endless civil wars start to show up?

[MatthewSlyfield]

.

The idea is to pass a constitutional amendment declaring that "every individual has a fundamental right to abortion"

Hmm, if a man has a fundamental right to abortion, does that mean he can force his wife/girlfriend to get one even if she wants to keep it?

[DaveM]

I presume "individual" is being used here because "woman" is seen as problematic? The whole logic of it just crumbles at the slightest touch. Can't say "woman". Makes no sense to say "individual". Guess we'll have to invent a word that means exactly what we don't want to say.

[JesseAz]

Can the man abort his financial responsibility?

[mad.casual]

Screw your traditional conservative fiscal restraint bullshit. If I can’t abort my girlfriend and/or trophy wives’ future distended stomach, sagging breasts, and stretch marks we might as well just kibosh the whole liberty idea.

[TJJ2000]

He shouldn’t have any responsibility in it unless a marriage contract was agreed to. Historically one of the very purposes of the contract of marriage. Child support laws are UN-Just “emotional” reactions that allow Women to enslave Men by shifting blame/responsibility from themselves. If I agree to let you ride in my car I don’t have a legitimate case post-ride to send you bill for tires unless a contract was made before hand. Just as a lawn company isn’t required by law to maintain a lawn just because the customer asked them to plant it in their yard.

But this line of UN-Just responsibility shifting history does make perhaps the best legitimate case on why Women don't get to own themselves. Their own entitlement history never seemed to pretend they own themselves.

[See.More]

If men can have the right to have babies, then men can have the right to abort babies...

[Longtobefree]

"What Leaving Abortion Up to the States Really Means"

Let me guess - - - -
It means 'Leaving Abortion Up to the States'?

[mad.casual]

Women wouldn't be able to figure that out for themselves. They need a strong feminist like ENB to mansplain it to them.

[TJJ2000]

Right. But since when did it become okay to put a Woman's inherent decision to reproduce "Up to the State"? Is every Woman property of the State?

Is there any concrete assurance left that State-Forced abortion cannot be passed when the left starts worrying about population control again? What human right exists anymore to prevent that?

Pro-Life is destroying self-ownership. Opening up the Power-mad gates we all know the Left will use to expand their totalitarian hell-hole. It's perhaps one of the dumbest things I've ever seen the Right do.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"Reproductive Freedom"

"Reproductive Rights"

Why is it that what ENB wants has nothing to do with reproduction?

[Zeb]

The freedom not to reproduce is part of reproductive freedom.
We can argue about whether that freedom extends past conception or whatever line you want to draw, but it's absolutely part of the question of reproductive freedom.

[mad.casual]

OK... Why is it that what ENB wants has nothing to do with reproduction?

conception

I don't think this word means what you think it means.

[Zeb]

What do you think I think it means?

Stopping the reproductive process by means of an abortion is definitely something to do with reproduction. And I assume that what ENB wants is abortion to be legal.

So what is your point?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

If I have the freedom to gamble at the local casino do I also have the freedom not to pay any losses?

[MrMxyzptlk]

Sure. Try it. I suspect the mobsters who run the casinos have, umm, colorful ways of dealing with such people.

[Vernon Depner]

If you gamble at a casino you are literally in a contract to pay the losses.

[mad.casual]

OK, you've got to be satire.

Do you have a copy of said contract? Can it be found in any 5th grade text book? You realize that, metaphorically, your position is the defense of facilitating pathological gamblers, right? That if you believed any woman or women had the slightest bit of agency beyond a gambling addict, the metaphor doesn't broadly apply, right?

[Vernon Depner]

https://www.freeadvice.com/legal/enforcing-gambling-debts-within-and-without-the-state/

I did not make any "metaphor".

[Zeb]

Uh, no, the freedom to gamble means you have the freedom not to gamble. It's not really that complicated.

[MrMxyzptlk]

You're trying to explain the negative rights implied in rights to people who think that the First Amendment means you can be any kind of Christian you want to be. Not that you can have no religion or a religion of a different type.

That and they don't give a shit about the constitution when it doesn't go their way.

[TJJ2000]

It's good that most voters don't want Gov-Gods to own their bodies.
It's bad that such a question even needs voters approval.

If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. fetal ejection)
You are supporting Gov-Gun Forced Reproduction.

No matter how much imagination/beliefs/faith/religion you have.

[Liberty_Belle]

The same moral reasoning for the Federal gov not to be able to force decisions on the State because each state is different and moral values have a right to be different ... also directly applies to why the State gov should not be able to force those same decisions on the individual . This really is an individual issue. It's just in this case, the Federal has to tell (actively force) the States to keep their respective noses out of it.

As stated above, when put to a direct vote without political manipulation by busybody politicians, they outcome has almost unanimously been pro-choice; even by folks who've stated they don't want it for themselves, but think it shouldn't be taken away from those that do.

[TJJ2000]

^Well Said. Though I'd change 'Federal' to Supreme Courts (where Roe v Wade resided) interpretation of the US Constitution for clarity.

[mad.casual]

The same moral reasoning for the Federal gov not to be able to force decisions on the State because each state is different and moral values have a right to be different … also directly applies to why the State gov should not be able to force those same decisions on the individual .

False, by your same retarded “women can only have autonomy if they have the autonomy to lack autonomy” oxymoronic idiocy above.

Unless you’re talking about your own state, you can fuck right the hell off with what you think other states should do by your own precepts of Federalism.

[TJJ2000]

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land - including all States that are part of the Union (precisely the reason the 14th Amendment was written). He may have missed the boat on calling it "Federalism" but his stance is correct.

If you've got beef with that lobby for a Constitutional Amendment (Which will never fly) or take it up with your God who as the 'creator' obviously granted the Woman an unalienable right to abort instead of giving that Power to 3rd-party Gov-Gun Power-mad dictators.

[windycityattorney]

If the anti-abortion crowd were really against abortions, then logically they would encourage people to use birth control so as to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. They would also support objective science based sex education in schools. But they don't generally support those things either.

I am therefore skeptical of their true aims as concerns outlawing abortion and don't trust that they would stop at abortion if they are successful in making the procedure illegal.

[TJJ2000]

"don’t trust that they would stop"
Running back history 50-years proves that. The Pro-Life mob (Republicans) wrote Roe v. Wade to allow Post-Viable State-Forced Reproduction but the Power granted wasn't enough so it had to be the Full ability for State-Governments to 'own' everyone's pregnancy.

It already is an example of Power corrupting Absolutely.

[shadydave]

The important thing for the Democratic party when it comes to abortion is for it to be "contested." If it were ever to actually get settled in most places, the electoral consequences for them would be disastrous. In recent years they have literally fought to have abortion bans on the ballot (knowing it will lose) in states where they are looking to win statewide elections; using said ballot initiative to drive turnout.

If this weapon goes away...

[MrMxyzptlk]

Fortunately for the Democrats the Republicans are too stupid to realize all it would take to end the DNC would be for them to say, "Fuck it. Ground not worth dying on."

[Vesicant]

Yeah, "reproductive freedom." You know the easiest way to tell that something is really, really wrong? It's when the immoral scum supporting it have to use euphemisms. You know, like final solution. "Reproductive freedom" is killing small people for your convenience.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Euphemisms? Like "Pro Life". Most supposed Pro Life voters are also Pro Death Penalty. They are almost all opposed to tax money being used to help support the Life of innocent children whose parents are in poverty much less helping the parents out. They also tend to be huge supporters of police violence against those living people.

They only want to protect Life with government force when it's an unborn life. After that... well not so much.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The abortion issue makes much more sense from the right-wing perspective once you realize that it is not about "pro-life", it is about enforcing their view of moral behavior.

So elective abortions are banned, because elective abortions are the result of slutty women making poor choices. (in their view)

But, abortions in the case of rape and incest, are okay, even though those abortions ALSO kill a baby (from the pro-life perspective), because the woman in this case was a victim of a crime, and therefore not acting immoral.

The death penalty is okay, because that is the ultimate punishment for criminals who acted very, very immorally.

It isn't about "life" or "justice". It is about plain morality.

[MrMxyzptlk]

It all comes down to their ideas of sin. They think when government forces you to not commit a sin that it's a greater good so the government force is justified.

[TJJ2000]

Just like how the 'armed-theft' part of communism and socialism is sold as delivering to the 'greater good'.

Maybe what made the USA exceptional was its Individual Liberty and Justice. NOT the 'greater good'.

[TJJ2000]

How come you won't allow the small people to be set free (fetal ejection) from their supposed 'killers'? It's almost like you're purposely trying to get them 'killed'. Or maybe you just live in a fantasy of BS delusions created by BS propaganda.

[AT]

I think this is a good thing. I think it's important for a community to know where their neighbors stand on these kinds of things. That's what helps build communities that can self-govern under similar worldviews.

So like, if you lived in a town where suddenly you discovery that most of your local voting body has a hard-on for intentionally butchering tiny humans that are declared (by someone else) to be inconvenient, that would naturally be a cue to get the heck away from them. Similarly, on the other side of the coin, if you find yourself disgusted by the fact that the majority of your neighbors are good, decent, moral people who value human life and human rights - you'd similarly take it as an indication that you should find a more like-minded community of people as awful as you.

This is what the Founders intended. It's the entire design of this nation. The problem is that most people - on both sides - want to have their cake and eat it too. They want (or don't want) abortions, for example, but they're not willing to pick up their lives in move in accordance with their values. They expect (via entitlement) what they want to instead come to them - over the protest of the majority more often than not.

That's not how this works. Nor should it, except in the case of clearly enumerated Constitutional Rights.

[TJJ2000]

enumerated Constitutional Right
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

How do you force a woman to reproduce against her will and dismiss it as not being involuntary servitude? Oh let me guess. Only arm and leg muscle in servitude counts or what? Which even that fails due to excessive weight.

[AT]

It's not against her will. 99999/100000 she PUT that bun in her oven by choice. She made the intentional choice to engage in the ONE action that would cause that to happen, and in doing so assumed a duty of care.

Kind of like when you feed a stray cat. You don't just get to kill it because you've made it rely on you, but it's suddenly deemed inconvenient to you. You can stop feeding it, I guess and let what happens happen. But you can't go shove a spike into its brain.

And anyway, laws against slavery do not magically create a right to intentionally kill whomever you (ludicrously) think is "enslaving" you.

[TJJ2000]

If its not against her will then what's the Gov-Guns (law) for?

Is the new legislation about not shoving a spike into its brain?
No. It's not. You know its not.

You're literally lying about what banning abortion legislation even states so you can lie about Forcing Women to reproduce against her will while you pretend her having sex justifies Gov-Gun Forced reproduction.

Maybe you should just face the nosy power-mad busy body demon causing you to lie all over the place and accept other people's pregnancy and reproductive systems is none of your business. Because guess what? What comes around goes around and you won't have a leg to stand on when FORCED abortion for population control comes around on the next pass. Oh. Now you want outsiders to butt out of your pregnancy?

[AT]

If its not against her will then what’s the Gov-Guns (law) for?

Because American society – and all its laws in EVERY state, going all the way back to 1776 – does not permit one human to decide the worth of another and intentionally kill them based upon their own unilateral determination. (As always, with the standard caveat of the psychopaths that apparently make up Vermont.)

Outside of a brief flirtation with eugenics in the years leading up to WW2, which is quickly denied and immediately memory-holed once everyone saw its actual implementation (ie. the genocide you probably know as The Holocaust, or possibly Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, or Obama’s “Fundamental Transformation”), this has been a staple of civilization for time immemorial – you DON’T get to kill other humans who inconvenience/upset you simply by virtue of their sheer existence.

I seriously don’t know why you struggle so hard with this. I want to believe it’s because you’re not a genocidal maniac, but you make it REALLY hard not to come to that conclusion.

[TJJ2000]

"does not permit one human to decide the worth of another and intentionally kill them based upon their own unilateral determination"

What might I ask is pulling life-support at the hospital by a doctor then who is probably under the guidance of closest family? Are you going to pump grandpa with oxygen until he's 900-years old?

You've allowed BS Pro-Life propaganda to distort basic reality. You can't 'kill' what has no inherent life to begin with. Are you killing all the homeless by not supplying them food, shelter and care? Are you a genocidal maniac every-time you pass a homeless person? Do you think its okay for me to use 'Gov-Guns' and FORCE you to donate your body organs when I need them?

You have nothing but bigoted BS propaganda ('kill children') supporting your opinion and it's not even close to a decent excuse to pull out 'Gov-Guns' and enslave others. What are you going to do when Ms. Pregnant Woman defies your demands? Shoot her? What are you gaining?

[TJJ2000]

“What are you going to do when Ms. Pregnant Woman defies your demands? Shoot her? What are you gaining?”

The point in that is you’re not defending a life. You’re trying to FORCE a Women to donate her reproductive organs/system against her will for *YOUR* (as a completely UN-concerned 3rd party) beliefs that don’t hold an ounce of water outside of flat out bigotry.

All the while destroying a human right for people to own themselves and "be secure in their persons". What-ever your beliefs and bigotry tells you the juice is FAR from worth the squeeze.

[AT]

What might I ask is pulling life-support at the hospital by a doctor then who is probably under the guidance of closest family?

A different subject completely that has nothing to do with what's being discussed.

You can’t ‘kill’ what has no inherent life to begin with.

Right, but we're talking about the in utero - so that argument doesn't apply here.

Are you killing all the homeless by not supplying them food, shelter and care?

No, but you're conflating two issues - intentionally preventing someone from existing, and assuming responsibility for their care once they do. A more applicable argument would be, "Are you killing all the homeless by intentionally killing them?"

To which the answer is obviously yes.

You have nothing but bigoted BS propaganda (‘kill children’)

I've not once said that. Or anything even close to it.

What are you going to do when Ms. Pregnant Woman defies your demands?

Same thing we do with any other killer. Innocent until proven guilty, tried by a jury of her peers, and put in jail if she did in fact do the deed.

You’re trying to FORCE a Women to donate her reproductive organs/system against her will

Again, it was her will 99999/100000 times. Tiny humans don't just magically appear in a woman's uterus. We know EXACTLY how it happens, how to prevent it from happening with 100% effectiveness, and we choose to make it happen whether we're doing so with intent or recklessness. Nobody forces anything on a woman. She does it all on her own. Willfully, voluntarily, and with full understanding of what she's doing and its potential consequences.

(And no, the 0.00001% doesn't somehow justify the other 99999.)

No different than buying a puppy. You might not appreciate what you're getting yourself into - but you DO get yourself into it. And, strangely enough, folks like you tend to get more worked up about intentional puppy murder than they do actual human murder.

It's kinda sick, actually. Like, in the head.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Yes, we get it. The woman sinned and needs to be punished for her ungodly act. She must be sentanced to life as a mother, no matter if she will just wind up on welfare and raise her child to be a worthless peice of shit. The punishment for the sin is the important thing.

[AT]

No, you apparently don't get it. By volition, it seems.

I even made it easy for you. Took the entire "human life" aspect/question out of the equation.

What you want to characterize as "sin/punishment" so you can flee down some anti-religion escape hatch - I took that away from you. It's not sin/punishment.

It's action/consequence. And accountability.

But you will go to great lengths to shove your head as far up your rear as humanly possible to avoid THAT kind of analysis, won't you.

Would you intentionally kill a puppy you took in realizing, after-the-fact, you're not fit/willing to spend X amount of years caring for a puppy that is only now under your agency because of your own choices? Would you defend anyone who intentionally killed a puppy - drowned it, spiked it, starved it to death, poisoned it, dismembered it, whatever - for such reasons?

And do you not see how monumentally screwed up you are, how utterly depraved you are and how broken your moral compass is, if you can reject that for a dog but rationalize it for a friggin' human being?

[TJJ2000]

See. You're still holding onto this 'killing' BS propaganda and won't let it go for nothing. Literally steering the entire discussion there and nowhere else. (bigotry) Tell me exactly what act during fetal ejection is an act of 'killing'? If you cannot determine exactly the act how are you painting the crime? There is absolutely not a reason under the sun you shouldn't support a right to fetal ejection and a ton of reasons you should support anyone's right to their own body.

[TJJ2000]

BTW: Puppies have inherent life; unless yours is on life-support. But nice try pull “emotions” into the debate but “emotions” and “guns” aren’t a good pair.

[AT]

Tell me exactly what act during fetal ejection is an act of ‘killing’?

When the unique and individual human being in utero dies because of the intentional actions you took against it.

Puppies have inherent life

And tiny humans don't? You're not a serious person.

[TJJ2000]

"When the unique and individual human being in utero dies because of the intentional actions you took against it."

- So all those intentional actions of driving by homeless people that you intentionally did not feed, shelter and provide healthcare for? Your answer here is !!!-Exactly-!!! what I've stated.

"And tiny humans don’t? You’re not a serious person"

- No they don't. The very definition of 'Pre-Viable' is that they have ZERO (literally ZERO) chance of having inherent life capability. Not even 1% which is far less than most metrics of pulling life-support and at least that act of pulling life-support is left to closest family NOT *YOU* and your Gov-Gun Power-mad dictation desires over fallacy excuses.

[TJJ2000]

Once all the indoctrinated BS propaganda and BS excuses of senseless Power-mad notions are pealed-away the most UN-deniable fact appears that even a 1st grader can figure out...

If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. fetal ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun *FORCED* reproduction.

+ You cannot 'kill' what has no inherent life to begin with anymore than I can 'kill' my fingernails which also have no inherent life.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Yea verily didst she sin and she must be punished for that sin. She shall be sentanced to life as a mother for her sins for the Lord doth say it to be true.

Shove you're bronze aged morality and join the 21st century.

[AT]

The sheer irony. I can't even. lmao.

Serious question MrMx - does the cognitive dissonance give you headaches? I mean, it has to, right?

[MrMxyzptlk]

The simplest methods are usually best when it comes to law. Keeps the lawyers from making too much money.

If a child is wanted by both parents then any actions that harm the unborn child are crimes that must be prosecuted. If the child is unwanted no law is going to force a pair of people to want the child so get the termination done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Why bring an unwanted and unloved child into the world? That's an act of cruelty.

[TJJ2000]

So CA wanted to ‘save’ people by passing rent laws that entitled the occupant to the property JUST LIKE Pro-Life. Now CA has squatters taking over ‘ownership’ UN-justly JUST LIKE Pro-Life.

Both are based in widling away the concept of ‘ownership’ though I’d rather lose ‘ownership’ of a house than ‘ownership’ of myself but frankly I find both a complete violation of everything this nation was built on.

[Moderation4ever]

What the Dobbs decision did was force people to think about abortion something they could avoid when Roe was in place. When people started to think about abortion, they realized that they did not want the government involved in women's healthcare.

[Zeb]

I wish that was what people thought. But an awful lot of pro (legal) abortion people are also in favor of government being more involved in everyone's healthcare.

[TJJ2000]

The hypocrisy on this subject (abortion) really doesn't get anymore thicker. Well said.

[Moderation4ever]

What most people want from government is to help people access health care. That is a little different that government denying women access to healthcare which is what Dobbs did.

[TJJ2000]

Funny how it has ended up doing exactly the opposite.
Remember that day healthcare didn't bankrupt everyone?
But don't let results get in the way of building a Nazi-Empire... /s

[JasonT20]

A funny thing happens when you leave abortion access up to each state: Voters start to show politicians how they actually feel. The loudest and most persistent voices are no longer the ones most able to influence policy. And—perhaps surprisingly to some—this has resulted in a wave of successful pro-choice ballot initiatives.

Substitute "gun control", "hate speech", "religious freedom", or anything else you might feel involves fundamental rights for "abortion access" and how does it change the perspective on leaving it "up to each state"?

The Constitution does not leave the question of what our rights are up to each state. The Bill of Rights guarantees our rights in all of the states and territories under U.S. jurisdiction. (via the 14th Amendment) Dobbs decided that abortion is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, thus the states can regulate it mostly as they choose.

I never got around to reading the full text of Dobbs, so I have some questions. One, states that have restricted abortion since that ruling have made exceptions if the woman's life is in danger. Do they have to? Or could they ban abortion under all circumstances and be consistent with the Constitution? Two, what punishments for violating these bans would be acceptable and when would they be excessive and violate the 8th Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment?

[Aspiring Statesman]

It would be interesting to see what SCOTUS would write about possession of firearms by minors. My guess is that regardless of what SCOTUS says about adults, each state will have some leeway on deciding at what age a minor might acquire that right.

Quite a few other liberties are likewise age-restricted.

[Bill Falcon]

So, can the father also have a say ENB? I mean you all expect the father to support the kid, right? Seems a bit hypocritical to not allow both parties who created a new human being to not have a say. Oh and "individuals" can't have abortion..only women can. Men can't get pregnant.

Abortion right up to a short time after birth is the objective for the Reason crowd. Abortion is such a non-issue compared to the debt, the war on the Bill of Rights by the left (and Reason), foreign interventionism, sexually mutilating mentally ill kids.

[Vernon Depner]

An unwilling father should not have to support the child unless he is married to the woman or otherwise contracted to do so. Since the woman has all the power over the situation after the man has made his gamete donation (as she should have), the man should not involuntarily be forced to go along with her choices.

[Aspiring Statesman]

Rather than propose one initiative at a time specifying some number of weeks / months at which a fetus gains some protection against abortion, each state should offer a referendum on the numbers 0-9 (months), vote for one. Then, instead of the most popular single number winning, take the *median* such that just over half of the voters support protection by that many months.

State legislators could further stave off having to reconsider the issue by having the same numeric question recur like clockwork with each Congressional election so that changing voter sentiment and experience can shift that number over time without legislative intervention.

[TJJ2000]

Or actually follow the US Constitution and ensure a Human Right to not be put in "involuntary servitude" by the State and a right to fetal ejection so one can "be secure in their persons".

Instead of putting every Woman's Personal Body at the mercy of a [WE] mob of Power-mad thugs like gang-rapists.

Or for craps sake at least actually address the concern head-on. If you think 'killing' is happening then make the *act* of killing illegal. Fetal Ejection has NO *act* of killing to it.

Is that really so much to ask of people?