proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Even if Roe v Wade gets overturned which I seriously doubt , it's not going to be back to back alley dirty illegal a******ns .... It will just go back to the States and let's them decide ... And I'm pretty sure that states like California , New York and other big states will continue letting women having a******ns ..... So I don't understand what's the big hoopla all about Roe v Wade being overturned ,which like I said at the beginning doubt will happen . ..

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Fear mongering is a common tactic in politics...

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Yes,so it seems . ..

Kevyn

A right to choose is always available to women of means. If a******n is banned and one of Trumps little princesses finds herself “in a family way” after pulling a train for the lacrosse team during a night a night of blow fueled drunken debauchery, she can simply hop on daddy’s jet and head to the “spa” in the Netherlands and her little mistake is discreetly taken care of. Make no mistake the attack on reproductive rights is an attack on the right of poor and working class women. The woman it will effect is a 48 year old housewife in Utah who’s husband lost his job and they are having a hard time supporting the 5 kids she already has and finds herself unexpectedly and unwanted lay pregnant. The 16 year old in Phoenix molested by a cousin. As it is these women are subject to loudmouth nutters screaming at them when they visit planned parenthood. The forced motherhood crowd simply wants to control these women and force them to follow their dogma rather than make important decisions for themselves.

maryjane

As a woman long, long past worrying about a******n, I would be happy if Roe vs Wade were to be re-visited and either of the following happened: 1. Return this issue to the states where it should have always been. 2. Restrict all a******ns to the first trimester, except for the few cases of serious danger to the mother.

Kevyn

😺

maryjane

As a woman, I am actually in favor of legalized a******n, BUT in exchange I want women to take responsibility for themselves when they choose to engage in sex. If you do not want to be pregnant, then take steps to ensure you do not. BUT, if you do get pregnant, it is your responsibility to immediately use the morning after pill or get your a******n before the end of the first trimester. This business of a******n after the baby could live outside the womb and even at the moment of birth is just wrong. And I do not believe a******n is a right of anyone. And, for heaven's sake, do not be do irresponsible as to use a******n as birth control. Women who have several a******ns under their belts are simply irresponsible people, who should never ever be parents.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Who cares anyway? If you don't like the idea of a******n, don't get one.

While folks are in a tizzy about that, the US continues to experience third world levels of maternal and fetal morbidity, due to lack of proper and timely medical care. To me, if folks were REALLY concerned about saving fetuses.......................... they'd be all over this and demand action, saving far more unborn babies than are ever at risk of being electivly aborted.

The well trained folks respond to those same dog whistles every time........................keeping them distracted so they ignore REAL issues.

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

I agree with you

kemmer

Exactly. Wh**ever the laws are, wealthy women have ALWAYS been able to get a******ns whenever they wanted them. Poor and middle class women, not so much.

Rose42

The death cult you belong to doesn’t want people to know the fact that the vast majority of a******ns are for convenience.

Your death cult ignores the right of that unborn child to life. Simply for convenience. Its depraved

SSDD

Uncertain, While ACB IS pro-life, I have not researched all justices and so therefore could not begin to calculate whether or not they would have the v**es to overturn Roe v Wade. Additionally, ACB decided in one case against a pro-life group whereas when it comes to protesting outside a family planning clinic, how aggressively they can perform that protest.



Edit: Forgot to attribute the article quoted, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearings-a******n-roe-v-wade/



From this, one can argue that she, should it be brought before SCOTUS, she would most likely be inclined to v**e to overturn Roe v Wade.



IF Roe v Wade were to be overturned, you are correct, it would be left to the states to decide. As for "it's not going to be back to back alley dirty illegal a******ns .... ", in many cases it WILL BE "back alley dirty illegal a******ns" as several states have shown a willingness to resort to Draconian laws regarding a******n rights.



I believe that you are correct in assuming "blue states" will likely maintain liberal a******n rights but that you may or may not be right concerning the "safety" of the Roe v Wade decision.


As for "pro-life"/"pro-choice", the very party most concerned over the lives lost to "pro-choice" have not always been so "pro-life". It would seem that "pro-life" didn't even make it onto the Republican party platform until 1976 and even then there was little difference in the views of the typical Republican v**er and any other v**er where a******n rights was concerned prior to 1988. Even as recently as 2015, as many as "40 percent of Republicans supported legal a******n." (quoted from article on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_Republican_Party#A******n_and_embryonic_stem_cell_research).

While it would be awesome if more people considering their options, would look more closely into adoption, the simple fact remains that there are certain subsets that will likely still choose a******n due to not wishing anyone to know they even got pregnant in the first place (Teenagers and c***ting spouses come to mind). We must also take into consideration the effect such an increase in "kept to be adopted out" children may have on adoption agencies and possibly the foster programs, will they be fully capable to handle such an upsurge?

We must also bear in mind that as suggested in last paragraph, some subsets will, for their own reasons, be unwilling to carry to term and IF a******n isn't legal where they live, they WILL resort to far less safe methods of termination. The end result will be the same for the fetus, much more dire for the otherwise-would-be-mother. For those "otherwise-would-be-mothers" that live through the ordeal, there would be legal ramifications that can and may ruin their future lives. A really good college education would likely be nothing but a fading memory for one thing, relegated to a community college rather than a more prestigious college they would perhaps have gone to otherwise. Also, they may ruin their ability to start a family when the time is right due to a botched back-alley a******n or a home-a******n they or someone they trusted performed (think rusty coat hanger).

Another consideration is possible over-population, consider the situation in China. There are some religious sects that promote reckless procreation practices, they shun sexual education in ANY form, they shun the use of any form of birth control, shun a******n and promote the virtues of having lots of children and extremely large families. If we disallow sex ed, disallow anything that might cut down on potential pregnancies and disallow a******ns, especially with some religions/religious sects promoting the virtues of overly large families, some of which are quite popular, we may just face a population explosion that could create many detrimental issues in our very near-ish future.

All these aspects must be taken into full consideration in my opinion, before making any final decisions in regards to "family planning" concerns, ie, sex education, birth control options and a******n rights.