Roe V Wade overturned ending 50 years of Federal abortion rights. Good or Bad?

Question

Curmudgeon · Accepted Answer

GOOD, even though I am not anti-abortion. It is long since time to hash this out in the state legislatures, *where the issue belongs*, rather than reading into the Constitution what *just is not there*. The 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution ARE blatantly there, and they are clear that where the constitution is ambiguous, state law prevails. And no, I am not anti-abortion or "pro life". I am not keen on compulsory birth, but this issue needs to be hashed out in the states, where it properly belongs.

That goes for you too, who demand that "gay marriage" be called the same as marriage, whatever status it may merit, it isn't that, and nor is there anything in the Constitution that upholds it. Go fight for domestic partnership laws in your state as needed.

That said, for most, nay the overwhelming majority of women, it really will not make much of a difference. Why not? The dirty little secret about this whole issue is that for all the rights rhetoric (whether “right to choose”, or “right to life”), abortion is not an abstract "rights" concept. It is (1) a medical procedure (2) requiring a doctor willing to perform it.

In states where abortion is frowned upon - the states likely to ban or at least restrict abortion if Roe *is* somehow overturned - abortion providers are already incredibly rare. Vast swaths of these United States simply DO NOT have abortion providers as it is. Women seeking in those regions already have to make the long car or Greyhound Bus trip as it is, crossing another state line will not really matter much. This is not in some hypothetical world where Roe v. Wade didn't happen, this is the "boots on the ground" (or tires on the road, or fetuses in the womb) reality, *right now* already.

Suppose a woman in Idaho or Utah wants an abortion. Do Idaho and Utah even HAVE abortion providers? Or do those women drive or ride the Greyhound Bus over to Spokane or down to "Sin City" Las Vegas as it is already? This also goes for the rural Midwest and South even more so. All an overturning of Roe Vs. Wade would do is cause some people to change the car or bus trips, that they already have to make, a bit longer. The rural Nebraskan seeking an abortion might no longer have a provider in Omaha (if there is even one there now?), so she drives or takes the bus to Des Monies, Minneapolis at the most. As it stands, it's already a long trip for rural women seeking abortions, crossing a state line doesn't matter much.

Most abortion providers, understandably, prefer to practice in states where people support them and where clients are more likely to be, i. e., states where abortion won’t and will never be banned.

This reality means that however much energy is spent on Supreme Court nominee battles, a Roe reversal wouldn’t change the country’s total number of abortion providers much. In fact, a year after Roe is overturned, it would be the rare woman who would notice any difference in her life at all.

In their zeal to fight over the Supreme Court, though, neither side of the abortion debate has absorbed these numbers. Few pro-life groups realize they’ve fought a 50-year battle to put just a handful of doctors out of business. Pro-choice forces haven’t grasped that the millions they’ll spend lobbying to block certain nominees could be better spent tipping a lot of state and local legislative races. Or, for that matter, to build abortion clinics in solidly pro-choice states that are near the borders of states likely to enact or keep abortion bans.

And where I live in California, it's "Abortion Today, Abortion Tomorrow, Abortion Forever!" You can say that in your best George Wallace voice if you want to.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

My feelings on this issue are complex… everyone’s should be. Let’s get the (maybe unpopular) bit out of the way first… I don’t think abortions are right in most cases, and I especially don’t think abortions should be used as a means of avoiding parenthood, if a child is conceived.

It’s very much a morality thing for me. A lot of people in this world, despite their own beliefs, are selfish and lost… the decisions they make are rooted more in themselves than they are considering others or the repercussions of their actions or decisions… and I think this absolutely needs addressing… BUT… the government stepping in to regulate what people can or can’t do, is not the appropriate response either, I don’t think.

I want less government in my life, not more, and for others too. It is important that people have the ability to self-regulate in my opinion. The ultimate answer to this issue in my view is that WE NEED PARENTS.

Society needs quality parents in the home. Children deserve quality parents and to grow up in a loving household. I think the promiscuous nature of people is symbolic of the breakdown of the importance of families and a moral structure in our culture. Not exactly saying that sexual relationships are a “sacred” thing by any means, but people should be a lot more careful and responsible about them at the same time. If you are, great… and if you can handle it when or if things don’t go a particular way with another person, again, great… but how often do people just seek to serve themselves in these situations and leave someone hurt, or to carry a child they are not prepared to take care of?

All I’m saying is that ideally, I think sexual acts should only be committed if a man and woman are committed to each other, to the point where IF an unwanted or untimely child were to be conceived, the bond between the mother and father is already too strong to break. They are committed and prepared to responsibly care for a child… OR they could put it up for adoption, if they just couldn’t do it.

And I suppose there are maybe the rare cases where “women’s health” and “rights” do apply and an abortion may be necessary to save the life of the mother or something, I don’t know. I think that’s absolutely fair.

What I’m not a fan of is irresponsible people being irresponsible, looking for inconsequential ways out of risky behaviors… I’m sorry. Again, we need to strive to be better individuals and to be good parents to the next generation so we can bring up stronger generations going forward…

If people want to be able to have an abortion, I suppose that’s their own belief that they’re entitled to, and they will have to deal and live with their decisions, but is it the government’s place to decide? I don’t think so. I’m not judging the individual, if you’ve had or support abortions either, but the fact that this is such a big issue to a large number of people, again I think that just says a lot about the state of morality in our world… I just wish people had better heads on their shoulders is all, that’s what we need to push for. That’s all… I hope you all respect my opinion.

Smoke-n-Growls · Accepted Answer

The gender gap is the biggest indicator for me that this is a bad decision.

Men are the overwhelming majority of "good". Women are the overwhelming majority of "bad".

But (cis) men don't have the parts required to give birth. They are unaffected by this issue.

"But Growly, doesn't the guy deserve a say in whether the child is kept?" Yes, he does. BEFORE it's conceived. If you don't know that having unprotected sex will get you pregnant, DO NOT HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX.

If you're planning unprotected sex, THAT is the point at which the man gives his consent. If he's raw dogging and filling up someone who can get pregnant, he'd better damn well be committed to abiding by the birther's choice. That means talking about pregnancy before it's a concern.

If the guy wants a kid and his partner doesn't or isn't sure, then they need to use protection. If the guy doesn't want a kid, and his partner does, rhey still need to use protection - because it is the sperm that fertilizes the egg.

It is the women whose bodies are affected by this. We must have the final say. Because that's what bodily autonomy is.

And when the sex that doesn't share the parts legislates the sex that does, that's not freedom.

I'm not American, but it doesn't seem to me like America has freedom. I know there's that fragile white boy stereotype that feels like it's "been replaced" (lmao, SCOTUS, bitch, you're still there), but pulling everyone down isn't helping.

It's really weird to me that Americans don't really stand up to fight often. It's really disheartening - it's like the only people who have the free time and privilege to riot are already those who have nothing to really riot about.

SecretsofKB · Accepted Answer

This is bad. It sets the precedent that my body and the body of every other woman here is not valued by the government.

And this paves the way for other rights like gay relationships and marriage to be revoked.

In the future, it may again be illegal for me to love and marry my girlfriend.

I don't feel like a citizen of a great country. I feel like I'm not free anymore.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

Book? Tell me more!

I am against abortion as a method of birth control. The Supreme Court decision does not make abortion illegal; it leaves it to the individual states to make that determination. Some states will outlaw abortion. Others will maintain abortion on demand and it will become a booming business in those states.

Kaneki05 · Answer

Just America been America, I wouldn't even be surprised if they went ah yes human rights is now a state issue, and so is owning slaves and the rest. That should just be a universal law within that country. It's the same with guns to either all states should have them or none.
It makes 0 sense to have them be different in other states. Oh no guns were banned in my state welp time to get some illegally that have been smuggled in by the next state over.
Oh wow abortion has been made illegal welp time to travel to the next state to get my abortion.
How does that make sense? Then that hurts the people who cannot afford but want such things. So it's not as if it's just well they could still do that if they just move state. But there is plenty that could to.
Which in a way makes people have different laws based on the money they have to travel between states. Which again don't make sense.

The idea of states having their own laws has always and will always be a bad idea. It would be like if England had London just with different laws to other places within because reasons.
Which actually did happen by the way and I for one fully disagreed with it. Covid also made each city have their own weird views and laws when it should of been the same everywhere. It's like why should one city not wear masks but the other are highly forced to how's that fair? Is the set laws our government give us just subjective to whether a city wants to follow it or not? Because that's just dumb.

Also that can 100% lead to extremists with a certain area, if one place is just so happened to be ran by some racist than manages to warp the views and set his own to law within it even if he makes people "vote" he could of easily propaganda his ideals tricking people or even convicting people.
It's not a unknown fact that people have tribal sense of follow other's people's views. If you grew up around people who are racist that's what you will be most likely to be taught is okay to do.
Which is also why if you got a certain area in some place you will probably find more racist locals there or more gun lovers or whatever else because they all be feeding each other views.

It's just simple certain area's shouldn't just be able to govern themselves however they like. The more limits around what they change is actually a really good thing.
So my point here don't even matter whether your pro life or pro choice, it's more about how it's just never good optics to have certain area's governing themselves with more freedom to change laws as they see fit.
It's what cults want, it's what extremists want. It's what people who will use that to their high advantage want. That should be a sign of this is bad.

AviatorTom · Answer

Today's SCOTUS ruling will not eliminate abortion. It simply moves the question of its legality from the federal level to each of the states.

It also raises some interesting questions. The three dissenting judges said this...

“Today, the Court discards that balance... It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.”

“Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens... As of today, this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare.”

The ruling's justification also brings into question the legality of same-sex marriage and transgender rights, and it's likely that such future cases will be presented to the Court.

Time will tell whether today's ruling is good or bad.

MCheetah · Answer

Bad decision. It's not even about abortion (I already talked about why I think the pro-life argument is REALLY stupid and logic-less), it's about overturning Constitutional rights.

This is a REALLY bad precedent. If one Constitutional right falls, the rest soon will. No one with a brain should be celebrating this, even if you're pro-life. The same way liberals shouldn't have been celebrating clear and obvious election fraud. Just because one thing happens that seems like you'd like it, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Think about what this means for the future. This is a BAD sign for things to come. Not to mention, this is probably some "4D chess, but not really" play by the liberals/Democrats to get centrists pissed against the conservatives/Republicans and avoid the likely "red wave" that was incoming. With this happening and with the smug and annoying ones on the right (not all of them, the ones who are smug and annoying) celebrating, it probably means the Democrats are safe now at the end of the year.

Also, think about this... Since WHEN has the US government done ANYTHING positive for everyday Americans in the past few years? Do you think they're doing this to "protect dem babies" like the dumbest people out there think? ANYTHING major the government does nowadays, should worry you.

I'm sorry-not sorry, but anyone who's celebrating this is an idiot. If you're pro-life and think this is some kind of "victory" for you, then you truly can't see the forest for the trees. Once again, this is not even about abortion.

JamesDiaz11 · Answer

This was a good decision, but not because I necessarily think abortion is always wrong. Roe v. Wade made most abortion restrictions illegal because it was seen as an infringement on previously established USSC case law (stare decisis) involving privacy. In effect, however, it created NEW rights- which is not what a supreme court decision is supposed to do.
On a practical level, this does not mean that abortion is now illegal, but it is up to states, and us a people to decide what do we want to permit in our society? If we believe that an unborn baby/ fetus/ clump of cells, etc. is a human being at 3 months, or 6 months, or 8.9999 months, and take steps to prevent its termination/ murder, that is our decision.
However you word it, using euphemisms (eg fetus vs unborn baby), if the community deems that as a person, they will want to treat its life the same as anybody else- regardless if its elimination has any bearing on them. After all, I still think murder should be illegal, regardless if those murders kill anyone I know.
Lastly, this could be good as it may promote women to make better decisions, when they know they don't have a get out of jail free card.

SkyCastle90 · Answer

When most people think of abortion, they think of a careless woman having unprotected sex with no cares in the world; situations like that are true, but it's for everyone. Rape is a serious issue from spousal, incest, to statutory, etc. Then you have those who use protection, but the condom broke, or IUD failed, etc but they don't want or can afford another child.

They might as well re-do the foster care system, because there's going to be an increase of unwanted and neglected/abused children.

Anonymous · Answer

That is fine. The court did the right thing. And not because abortion should or should not be legal. Simply because judges should be guided only by laws and the constitution, not by their personal opinions and biases. The word "abortion" is nowhere mentioned in the American constitution. There is no such thing as the right to abortion. It just won't. So, everyone should welcome the decision of the Supreme Court - liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats. Because the court made the only correct and constitutional decision, and now this issue will return to the democratically and legally elected by the people authorities - Congress, governors, etc. If the people who support the right to abortion want to protect it - OK, let them do everything possible to change the constitution, to change the laws. But let them do it in a truly democratic and legal way - through elected authorities, not through judges not elected by the people. It is quite vile and undemocratic when some politicians try to pass legislation through the courts that they cannot legally achieve - for example, abortion, gay marriage and others. Judges do not have to be politicians. They need to protect the freedoms of Americans enshrined in the constitution, but they simply need to protect the rights enshrined in the constitution, not add to it with things that are not in it, such as the right to abortion or gay marriage. These are issues that need to be addressed by each state and by elected authorities.

strawberrybaby3 · Answer

I see this both sides to this. I do not agree with anybody using abortion as a method of birth control or having an abortion late in their pregnancy. To me that is murder. I know someone who’s had 4 of them just because she was irresponsible and didn’t use protection. I actually think those individuals should be charged. However, mistakes happen and sometimes it is just better to not bring a child into the world for whatever the case may be: low income, no support system, or if you’ve been raped or have a health condition. And to me, it would be ideal to end the pregnancy before the baby has a heartbeat. For me, I wouldn’t have the heart to do it afterwards unless I had a serious medical condition and had no choice.

KelleyNice · Answer

It should be up to each state. It should never have been a federal matter.

Literalbillionaire17 · Answer

This is such a step back for women and I’m extremely angry and sad. When you live in a country where guns have more right than women, you can just tell people you live in America instead. The crazy part is people talk so much shit about third world countries and how they treat their women but as far as rights go… we’re not too far behind.

KaylaD24 · Answer

Its stupid like people who are pro life are the same people who don't give two shits after you leave the womb its hypocritical to be pro life and at the same time not advocate for medical care for all they all like life is precious nobody should have the right to abort but the moment you come out the womb if you ever have a heart attack you going to hope that you don't survive because you will live a life in debt luckily I live in UK soo not a problem for me but it dont mean that it won't become a problem in the future also other countries tend to follow the lead on what others do if the US are like no abortions other countries will be inclined to follow the US are example setters when something that's a regression in human rights happens in America it will eventually trickle down to other parts of the world.

Oigit · Answer

Won't change a thing. Because we will see doctor still preforming them, illegal abortion clinics pop up, women attempting abortions on their own and fly by night hotel abortions preformed by people with next to no medical experience due to the money they can me made doing so. Simply because prohibition and the war on drugs have proven that you can't legislate anything away and attempting to do so only creates illegal industries and all the problems that come with them. No matter what side of the debate you are on, if you can't see that you are a fool.

Texasgal95 · Answer

You shouldn’t be forced to put your body in danger over it or you know you were raped but having abortion just because you don’t want kids yet you should’ve kept it closed I don’t know this whole mess is going to be horrible I hope each state does the right thing I think it’s bad because now women are just gonna get illegal abortions and they’re not gonna be safe women are gonna die for no reason just because probably some white man wants to control women and men I think if abortion is the best thing for your house especially if I get the babies not living anyway you shouldn’t be forced to put your body in danger over it or you know you were raped but having abortion just because you don’t want kids yet you should’ve kept it closed

FunkyMonkee · Answer

The biggest reason we had abortion was because of all the women and girls in the `60's and `70's, who were not legally allowed to get one back then but wanted/needed one, would risk their OWN lives by either having it done by shady characters or would just do it themselves with a coat hanger and, in both cases, would, quite often, either screw it up ruining their chances to ever have kids or, in embarrassment, would bleed to death! Better to let them have it done by a professional that knows what they're doing and can do it safely than to risk killing themselves over it!

Anonymous · Answer

The gender split here is telling...

1. It is not the government's job to codify one groups morality, but to protect the rights of it's citizens.
2. The Bible is not anti-abortion, if anything Numbers 5 is pro-abortion.
3. This ruling does not affect those who made it or who are making the laws (they can afford to fly their mistresses to states or even countries where it's legal.
4. This ruling will only affect those who can lt afford to travel for an abortion, let alone a child.5. This ruling will flood the already overburdened foster care system.6. This ruling (along with the others Clarence Thomas wants in his opinion) are only meant to control people and punish them (especially women) for being "bad" and having sex before marriage by saddling them with the "natural consequences" of being poor and horny.

lightbulb27 · Answer

It just "is"... an overreaction... go talk to your state rep, pray to god for a while. don't like the answer, you can always move to a place you are more happy... like californication, new yuck, or the coveted district of columbia... possibly the killing engine of the world? I doubt they ban anything... so you have nothing to worry about.

I don't even think coyotes kill their own babies and unborn... humans are a special breed. my cat would tear me to shreds attempting to go near her young, but a female human in some areas will dump her unborn or recently born in the trash can... in the not too distant future. I think there's a deeper problem. Maybe the threat will help change some behavior... but I doubt it.

good or bad, the answer is... yes

BCA6010 · Answer

It's not the role of the federal government to be involved in abortion at all, which means without an amendment to the constitution, it's an issue that belongs to states, like it or not. Roe v Wade was a bad ruling.

It's also worth mentioning that this probably wouldn't have been touched if the pro-abortion extremists weren't pushing for federally supported, taxpayer funded abortions up to childbirth, and that it wouldn't have even been arguable at the surpreme court if the legislature had passed it into law rather than relying on a supreme court decision that everyone knew was bullsh*t and could easily be overturned, as identified by even RBG.

TheFlak38 · Answer

I'm so sick and tired of the double standards women have. Not so long ago they were screeching autistically forcing vaccine mandates on everybody because that was the new trend, and it wasn't even a vaccine, it was experimental gene therapy that has caused serious health problems to thousands of people. Now screech "my body my choice". This is all about cheap lays and their right to murder their unborn babies and avoid the consequences of their actions. And just two days ago we had another dumb bitch here posting a question saying it's not true that women want to avoid responsibilities.

josephinelcajon · Answer

Call me crazy but hear me out. Democrats are so desperately scarred of losing control they had it overturned in hopes it would backfire on the Republicans. Their hope is ensured Democrats hate Republicans and vote blue. Also turn anyone on the fence to also vote blue! The constant war against Trump and the Republicans in every way possible in desperation! The timing of all of this is just way too good. They know they can reverse this easily as soon as they have secured power. If they do you will see a NWO of communism beyond anything we have ever seen!

Jessica405 · Answer

Bad decision. Seems like the courts are making laws, not the government.

Any erosion of rights is bad. Don't say what about the rights of a foetus. It is not lucid enough to know, or care, what a right is.

Roe V Wade overturned ending 50 years of Federal abortion rights. Good or Bad?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Roe V Wade overturned ending 50 years of Federal abortion rights. Good or Bad?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.