So what happens if Roe v Wade is overturned?

[Geist]

It seems to be a big issue here, but I’m curious, what happened if you got your way?

Generally the poor get abortions, so their now non-terminated kids will put an increased load on an already breaking system.

Also, its fairly safe to assume the reason someone is getting an abortion is because they don’t want the kid. So, who takes care of all these kids? How is it paid for?

It seems people have this idea adoption is the solution, but lets be realistic, thats not going to work for more than a limited percentage of children. Many kids don’t get placed now as it is. How would adding more help?

I’m trying to understand the mindset of pro-lifers and this may give me some good clues. Very curious to see what people relaly think will happen if they got their way and ifthey factor in real world factors?

I was raised to be pro-choice and in all honesty never agreed with the idea of abortion as a convenience or even as a “right”, but never really got any exposure to the other side of the argument which is why I ask this.

 

[Speedypizza]

For me the real issue is one of the value of human life. What if the system decided is was okay to kill your child up to age 10 if they annoyed you? I cannot say to kill a child simply because the mother does not want it anymore. So for me the main issue is that this is a human being, not worth any less then you or me.

 

[Nate13]

It seems to be a big issue here, but I’m curious, what happened if you got your way?

Generally the poor get abortions, so their now non-terminated kids will put an increased load on an already breaking system.

Also, its fairly safe to assume the reason someone is getting an abortion is because they don’t want the kid. So, who takes care of all these kids? How is it paid for?

It seems people have this idea adoption is the solution, but lets be realistic, thats not going to work for more than a limited percentage of children. Many kids don’t get placed now as it is. How would adding more help?

I’m trying to understand the mindset of pro-lifers and this may give me some good clues. Very curious to see what people relaly think will happen if they got their way and ifthey factor in real world factors?

I was raised to be pro-choice and in all honesty never agreed with the idea of abortion as a convenience or even as a “right”, but never really got any exposure to the other side of the argument which is why I ask this.

Your correct. All the worlds problems are not solved once abortions stop. That is just a step on the road back to reigniting true virtue in the hearts of American’s. Abortion is intricately tied to contraception in that because of the contraceptive attitude that is prevalent in society it makes abortions necessary. People need to remember the value that marriage deserves as well as the importance of saving sex till marriage. Too many babies are born out of wedlock, which in turn creates more poverty which weighs down the nation. In other words we need a revitalization of religion in America. A republic cannot operate if there is a lack of virtue in its people. If we do not see a resurgence of virtue and people taking religion seriously we will most likely fall into despotism and America will get a refresher course in why the founders of this country thought the way they did.

 

[brotherknight]

The poor do get a majority of the abortions. It’s no secret that Planned Parenthood is heavily promoted in the inner city. However, it wasn’t that long ago that I was in college and remember Planned Parenthood fliers and representatives of PP going around to the dorms and sorority houses talking about the free or low cost “healthcare” they offered college students that were scared and away from home. I know a couple of girls that received the “healthcare” and now are absolutely devastated by the choice they made.

The bottom line is that it’s human life. That’s why the ultrasound initiatives are making a huge impact in the abortion industry. I pray for the continued success of the ultrasound initiative daily.

 

[Leegal]

It seems to be a big issue here, but I’m curious, what happened if you got your way?

Generally the poor get abortions, so their now non-terminated kids will put an increased load on an already breaking system.

Also, its fairly safe to assume the reason someone is getting an abortion is because they don’t want the kid. So, who takes care of all these kids? How is it paid for?

It seems people have this idea adoption is the solution, but lets be realistic, thats not going to work for more than a limited percentage of children. Many kids don’t get placed now as it is. How would adding more help?

I’m trying to understand the mindset of pro-lifers and this may give me some good clues. Very curious to see what people relaly think will happen if they got their way and ifthey factor in real world factors?

I was raised to be pro-choice and in all honesty never agreed with the idea of abortion as a convenience or even as a “right”, but never really got any exposure to the other side of the argument which is why I ask this.

Prior to 1973, abortions were legal in this country in some states and by condition – life of mother, rape, etc. What Roe did, wrongly, was make abortion the law of all 50 states, in violation of the 10th Amendment.

If Roe were overturned, the feds would have no abortion authority and that power would revert back to the states to each decide, as it was before 1973 and as called for in the 10th Amendment. It would not end the issue with the overturning or Roe, but it would take it back to the state level where, depending on the state, it may not be taken up again, passed by legislature for that state, or voted by referendum. The states would decide separately whether to allow abortion or outlaw it – so Roe would go away, but abortion would not.

Abortion by State pre-1973

Do not take this as my opinion on abortion but merely as what I think would happen if Roe were overturned by the USSC. What’s missing here is that Roe is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, but the USSC will never take a case which, effectively, admits that they were wrong. the USSC sees each holding as the sum of all its history, and basically irreversible.

And, yes, the adoption system in this country is abysmal. The issue would not go away, but to fracture the foundation, it would require that the USSC overturn Roe first.

Honestly, we would have to step up to the plate and take care of those children. Many people want to adopt, so they go out of the country because we make it near to impossible for couples to adopt the babies we have here. And, yes, the state would have to support those children, not let them languish. For Catholics, that might mean that being “open to life” is also being open to adopting a child who would have otherwise been aborted too.

Those really concerned, as parents and educators, also need to emphasize chastity and the benefits of waiting until marriage – not as some punishment but as the reward of being in a marriage – whether Catholic or not – because marriage is a vow. Respect for one’s body and the body of the other person – until marriage. Unfortunately, given just the TV commercials I see, I don’t see much of that happening.

 

[Personanongrata]

The poor do get a majority of the abortions. It’s no secret that Planned Parenthood is heavily promoted in the inner city. However, it wasn’t that long ago that I was in college and remember Planned Parenthood fliers and representatives of PP going around to the dorms and sorority houses talking about the free or low cost “healthcare” they offered college students that were scared and away from home. I know a couple of girls that received the “healthcare” and now are absolutely devastated by the choice they made.

The bottom line is that it’s human life. That’s why the ultrasound initiatives are making a huge impact in the abortion industry. I pray for the continued success of the ultrasound initiative daily.

Only the poor will be affected if Roe v Wade is overturned. Rich women will continue to obtain safe abortions.

Women will never allow Roe v Wade to be overturned.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Prior to 1973, abortions were legal in this country in some states and by condition – life of mother, rape, etc. What Roe did, wrongly, was make abortion the law of all 50 states, in violation of the 10th Amendment.

Yep, this is correct.

 

[vsedriver]

Only the poor will be affected if Roe v Wade is overturned. Rich women will continue to obtain safe abortions.

Women will never allow Roe v Wade to be overturned.

neither will men… it’s a huge plus for men to convince women to get abortions. All play and no pay. Men never have had it so good.

 

[VeronicaRebecca]

If Roe v. Wade is overturned our world will be very blessed. The Blessed Mother and our Lord Jesus Christ always take care of their children.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I’d imagine that if Roe v Wade was overturned, and that a large number of states banned abortion, the initial result, for at least the first 5-10 years, would be a big jump in the rate of babies born out of wedlock, as well as a lot of news stories about women dying from illegal abortions (I’m not saying there would be an epidemic of women actually dying from illegal abortions, but there would certainly be an epidemic of news stories about it).

As long as the abortion legislation was followed up by welfare reforms, then after a couple decades there would be some gradual improvement. While things would be bad for a while, I think you’d eventually see a point where people started seeing the necessity of taking a little responsibility for their actions. The unwed birth rates would drop, while marriage rates would increase out of necessity.

I’m not saying it would cure all of society’s ills, but I think it would eventually lead to a more rational, traditional approach to sexuality and procreation.

 

[hsmomforlife]

Only the poor will be affected if Roe v Wade is overturned. Rich women will continue to obtain safe abortions.

Women will never allow Roe v Wade to be overturned.

*Women will never allow Roe v Wade to be overturned.

---

You have to give up the life you planned, to find the one that’s waiting for you. *

OMGOSH, that is just the perfect oxymoron! Please explain how you have BOTH in your signature! Hopefully I have misquoted!!

 

[TimothyH]

If Roe v Wade is overturned, there will a decrease in sin and more people will get to Heaven.

-Tim-

 

[Bobby_Jim]

It seems people have this idea adoption is the solution, but lets be realistic, thats not going to work for more than a limited percentage of children. Many kids don’t get placed now as it is. How would adding more help?

Is this true? I think the majority of kids that don’t get placed for adoption are older kids in the foster care system. That’s sad in and of itself, but separate from what you’re talking about.

As far as I know, there is a quite an unmet demand for parents who want to adopt infants. This is why you see so many foreign adoptions - there just aren’t that many babies put up for adoption in the US. Probably because so many are aborted. I also wonder if this, to some degree, increases the demand for IVF. Perhaps if it were easier to adopt a baby, fewer parents would choose IVF. Quite separate from the fact that the Church is agains IVF, my understanding is that IVF is very expensive and quite an unpleasant thing to go through, but I think some couples run the numbers and say that $20K for a couple of rounds of IVF, versus $50K in legal & other fees for a foreign or domestic adoption, and they go for IVF.

 

[LilyM]

I dunno - it just may mean that those women and men who previously would have aborted would instead simply be much more careful about contraception, resulting in fewer unplanned pregnancies in the first place.

Miracle of miracles, they may even be less inclined to jump into bed at the drop of a hat of the stakes are that much higher.

 

[vera_dicere]

It seems to be a big issue here, but I’m curious, what happened if you got your way?

Generally the poor get abortions, so their now non-terminated kids will put an increased load on an already breaking system.

Also, its fairly safe to assume the reason someone is getting an abortion is because they don’t want the kid. So, who takes care of all these kids? How is it paid for?

It seems people have this idea adoption is the solution, but lets be realistic, thats not going to work for more than a limited percentage of children. Many kids don’t get placed now as it is. How would adding more help?

I’m trying to understand the mindset of pro-lifers and this may give me some good clues. Very curious to see what people relaly think will happen if they got their way and ifthey factor in real world factors?

I was raised to be pro-choice and in all honesty never agreed with the idea of abortion as a convenience or even as a “right”, but never really got any exposure to the other side of the argument which is why I ask this.

Say there’s a poor woman with five kids, she finds herself pregnant. How would you help her? WOuld you say “How about I kill this two year old? You told me the other day that he’s unruly, going through a “stage” and is a little terror. Or perhaps we kill the eldest two, because they eat more, and need a bigger bed, and are going through a growth stage?”

She would be repulsed, would she not? Well, abortion is the same answer to that question.

Because America doesn’t really keep good stats on your abortions its hard to say “only poor women are getting abortions”. Are poor women having larger families? Or is it the rich woman with the rich husband and the multiple degrees between them having the one or two children?

The thing is the pro-abortion mindset is very short sighted. We’re probably in this mess recession wise because of teh 50 million consumers missing from the economy. More kids. More hospitals needed. More nurses. More doctors. More teachers. More roads et cetera. More jobs.

As it stands, capitalism is a dog’s breakfast in way of economic sustainability. But killing children isn’t the answer.

I mean, what did they do about this “problem” before Roe? Surely we can take stock of our grandparents and see what they did when they were faced with a surprise.

Subsquently, how much stuff in your house do you actually need? I know parents who buy their 4 year olds cell phones, who’s 6 year olds have ipads, who’s 10 year olds have tvs and computers and playstations in their rooms. Those are thousands of dollars writh of stuff right there. PErhaps if we got back to what was really required, not just the shiney new device that we want, we wouldn’t be in such a mess.

People need to stop living beyond their means, as 50 million dead babies are a testament to that stupidity.

 

[Chiltepin]

It seems to be a big issue here, but I’m curious, what happened if you got your way?

Generally the poor get abortions, so their now non-terminated kids will put an increased load on an already breaking system.

Also, its fairly safe to assume the reason someone is getting an abortion is because they don’t want the kid. So, who takes care of all these kids? How is it paid for?

If we got “our way” some of the things you mention may happen, but the ends cannot justify the means in this matter. I recently read an article(probably linked from this website) that compared abortion to slavery in the United States. Many people would not join the abolitionists for the same sort of reasons you mention above. They worried about what would happen to the country if all those people were suddenly free after living that way and what would happen to the people themselves. That doesn’t mean that freeing them wasn’t the right thing to do. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who says in retrospect that we should not have freed the slaves.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

They worried about what would happen to the country if all those people were suddenly free after living that way and what would happen to the people themselves. That doesn’t mean that freeing them wasn’t the right thing to do. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who says in retrospect that we should not have freed the slaves.

That’s a very strange way of thinking about it and hardly equivalent.

People are afraid of Overpopulation, of too many poor kids, of sickness and diseases (eugenics), and of women feeling trapped and scared, too many of one race, etc.

That’s what they are afraid of. It’s a spiritual plague, far worse than slavery. Demonic, in fact.

Slavery was terrible, but those people were not plagued by demons like people involved in abortion. Abortion is the worst of evils, because it will not allow people the ability to live, which is the root of freedom.

In fact, Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenics proponent, who thought black populations should be controlled. Martin Luther King, Jr. (God bless him)'s niece, Alveda King talks about this quite frequently. To this day, the black population has the highest amount of abortions relative to their population due to this push via media, etc. Racism is still alive and well in America. It’s just sneakier.

 

[_Abyssinia]

It seems to be a big issue here, but I’m curious, what happened if you got your way?

Generally the poor get abortions, so their now non-terminated kids will put an increased load on an already breaking system.

Also, its fairly safe to assume the reason someone is getting an abortion is because they don’t want the kid. So, who takes care of all these kids? How is it paid for?

It seems people have this idea adoption is the solution, but lets be realistic, thats not going to work for more than a limited percentage of children. Many kids don’t get placed now as it is. How would adding more help?

I’m trying to understand the mindset of pro-lifers and this may give me some good clues. Very curious to see what people relaly think will happen if they got their way and ifthey factor in real world factors?

I was raised to be pro-choice and in all honesty never agreed with the idea of abortion as a convenience or even as a “right”, but never really got any exposure to the other side of the argument which is why I ask this.

There are already many pro life organizations which already help women who need financial resources to take care of their child.

There are pro life organizations which provide a home to homeless, pregnant women.

I am not sure if all dioceses have this, but The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis has a life fund which provides emergency money to women in need to help look after their baby.

If abortion is outlawed, adoption rates will likely go up. Think of all the parents who currently want to adopt but go overseas to adopt because there are not many babies to adopt in the US, I think most people who want to adopt would prefer to have a baby.

 

[Geist]

Prior to 1973, abortions were legal in this country in some states and by condition – life of mother, rape, etc. What Roe did, wrongly, was make abortion the law of all 50 states, in violation of the 10th Amendment.

If Roe were overturned, the feds would have no abortion authority and that power would revert back to the states to each decide, as it was before 1973 and as called for in the 10th Amendment. It would not end the issue with the overturning or Roe, but it would take it back to the state level where, depending on the state, it may not be taken up again, passed by legislature for that state, or voted by referendum. The states would decide separately whether to allow abortion or outlaw it – so Roe would go away, but abortion would not.

This is all new information to me, with the myriad pro-life groups focusing on Roe v Wade almost exclusively, I have to ask, are they aware of this?

It seems to me like they view overturning that decision as a magic bullet that will cripple the abortion industry, it appears it would just turn some states into abortion destinations by shifting access to a few different states while doing nothing to decrease the demand for the service.
vera dicere:

Because America doesn’t really keep good stats on your abortions its hard to say “only poor women are getting abortions”. Are poor women having larger families? Or is it the rich woman with the rich husband and the multiple degrees between them having the one or two children?

I didn’t say “only poor women” I said “generally poor women”. It is true the poor have larger families and are more likely to have abortions. I understand abortions ticked up during the Great Recession due to financial pressures on those who were just getting by before everything crashed.

politicsdaily.com/2011/01/16/economics-of-abortion-recession-and-contraception-among-key-fac/

The new data comes from the Guttmacher Institute in New York, which periodically surveys U.S. abortion providers. Researchers found that in 2008, there were 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. While this is significantly below the 1981 peak (29.3 abortions for every 1,000 women), it is virtually unchanged from the 2005 rate (19.4 abortions). Likewise, the total number of abortions in 2008 (1.21 million) was essentially unchanged from 2005.

While there are many possible causes for this latest trend, the chief suspect is the recession that hit in 2008, which altered the economic calculations (and savings accounts) of many American families.

The answers to my question have been very interesting and enlightening.

 

[Leegal]

This is all new information to me, with the myriad pro-life groups focusing on Roe v Wade almost exclusively, I have to ask, are they aware of this?

It seems to me like they view overturning that decision as a magic bullet that will cripple the abortion industry, it appears it would just turn some states into abortion destinations by shifting access to a few different states while doing nothing to decrease the demand for the service.

The answers to my question have been very interesting and enlightening.

Yes, they are. There’s a “10th Amendment Center” that watches out for potential violations which are nothing more than a federal power grab. Justice Byron White hinted at a 10th Amend. violation in his dissent, part of which appears in the link. When presented as a federal usurpation of states’ power, Roe takes on a different light. Anyway, it’s obvious if you read the actual decision that the decision was written forced to get to the result.

Think of the USSC as working like the Vatican because they work in very similar ways. They do not view themselves as a body of 9 but a history, just as the present Pope is part of a history of all who held the Chair before him and all its teachings before him. The USSC views each decision as its own – even for those present 9 who may not have been present. Decisions are sacrosanct as they form the body of the Court.

And like the Vatican, they speak when the choose to speak. No one can force the Pope or the Magisterium to take up an issue.

The USSC can take or reject cases with no reason given – the same as when the Pope said he would never consider allowing priests to marry. So, the USSC would just not hear any case that touched upon Roe, just as the Pope will not hear arguments for him to lift the ban on priests marrying.

Yes, if Roe could be overturned, initially, as the states decided whether to take up the issue of abortion, place new laws on their own books, or put it to a referendum to the people – that would make some states “abortion” states. But you asked what would happen if Roe were overturned – that power or reversal (should it even be possible) would never make abortion go away, it would place it in the hands of the states, which the states individually would have to decide how to handle. And where the people would then take the fight – to each individual state.

The last possibility which I don’t see ever happening is that the USSC entirely reverses itself in a decision that makes abortion outlawed everywhere – also in violation of the 10th Amendment. But they NEVER reverse themselves. That would be the same as the Pope declaring a previous infallible teaching now fallible. But Roe is bad law. If Roe was good law, Congress could take up the question but as you see they have not. They know they could never actually pass federal legislation legalizing abortion, especially now. It would have the same effect as the Federal Defense of Marriage Act which the Justice Dept. has admitted was Unconstitutional and will no longer attempt to waste resources defending this federal law. The feds have no jurisdiction over marriage.

tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/07/11/roe-v-wade-a-nullification-issue/