So what happens if Roe v Wade is overturned?

[cornbread_r2]

[snip]

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.

[snip]

I disagree.

The USSC has a legal obligation to uphold the Constitution; it does not have any legal obligation to uphold the principle of stare decisis. Additionally, this court would not be admitting that it got anything wrong, since it is not the same court that decided Roe v Wade in the first place. Finally, this court has already demonstrated that it is fully capable of sweeping aside established precedence when it ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. (It is interesting to note that in this case, three justices, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas, voted with the 5-4 majority to overturn precedence even after all three had testified in their confirmation hearings that they supported the principle of stare decisis.)

 

[Chiltepin]

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.

I didn’t say it was equivalent. I just said that the article compared the situations. Abortion is OBVIOUSLY far more evil. I just thought it was an interesting perspective that may or may not ressonate with people on the other side since so few of the sensical arguments we make seem to work.

 

[Castello]

Believe it or not, in 1972 there were not packs of unwanted children roaming the streets. People were not falling over the piled up bodies of women who died from illegal abortions.

There were homes for unwed mothers, families pitched in and cared for children who were born out of wedlock or to a married woman who could not care for her children.

And this woman will do everything in her POWER to see abortion made illegal in all 50 states.

Oh, one thing that will be different, we will see more people with downs syndrome and dwarfism and other genetic conditions that make people “not perfect” because 90% of them won’t be killed in the womb!

 

[Geist]

Oh, one thing that will be different, we will see more people with downs syndrome and dwarfism and other genetic conditions that make people “not perfect” because 90% of them won’t be killed in the womb!

How do you get to decide a family must raise a disabled child whether they want to or not? I have one special needs child, its a serious challenge. Not everyone is up for it, it cracks alot of people and breaks alot of marriages.

Group homes/state homes are often nightmarish hellholes of physical and sexual abuse. I told my wife neither of us can die because we have to take care of our kid probably her entire life.

Also, rendering abortion illegal, like drugs or prostitution does not make it vanish overnight.

In actuality it just adds a criminal element, like how prohibition gave us organized crime. With drugs being illegal we have drug gangs/narco-terrorists and prostitution has pimps which inflict great misery on their “property”.

Countries with more liberal drug laws or prostitution laws have much lower rates of crimes associated with those vices.

 

[Nate13]

How do you get to decide a family must raise a disabled child whether they want to or not? I have one special needs child, its a serious challenge. Not everyone is up for it, it cracks alot of people and breaks alot of marriages.

Group homes/state homes are often nightmarish hellholes of physical and sexual abuse. I told my wife neither of us can die because we have to take care of our kid probably her entire life.

Also, rendering abortion illegal, like drugs or prostitution does not make it vanish overnight.

In actuality it just adds a criminal element, like how prohibition gave us organized crime. With drugs being illegal we have drug gangs/narco-terrorists and prostitution has pimps which inflict great misery on their “property”.

Countries with more liberal drug laws or prostitution laws have much lower rates of crimes associated with those vices.

Since an abortion is no different than a normal murder, that person continually has the choice to choose to murder if they so wish to whether their child is in their womb or outside of their womb. Since in this country we acknowledge the inherent right to life everyone has, they will be prosecuted as such if they choose to murder their child within the womb or outside the womb. We always have a right to choose, but we must be prepared to accept the consequences of our actions. Everyone had a chance to choose when they had sex. After that point their DNA within that person’s sperm or egg was no longer owned by them and is not their property to choose to do with as they will.

 

[Geist]

Since an abortion is no different than a normal murder, that person continually has the choice to choose to murder if they so wish to whether their child is in their womb or outside of their womb. Since in this country we acknowledge the inherent right to life everyone has, they will be prosecuted as such if they choose to murder their child within the womb or outside the womb. We always have a right to choose, but we must be prepared to accept the consequences of our actions. Everyone had a chance to choose when they had sex. After that point their DNA within that person’s sperm or egg was no longer owned by them and is not their property to choose to do with as they will.

Again, I’m fairly certain murder has been illegal for awhile here, yet it keeps happening.

since in this country we acknowledge the inherent right to life everyone has,

If this were the case, whoever “we” is would not even be having this conversation since that would be the current model as you use the present tense.

Also, this country does not recognize person hood until birth, traditionally here (and in other religions like Judaism), the fetus is an extension of the mother, not a separate being, but a soon to be being. This is why a woman can have an abortion here over the objections of its father; he doesn’t count. Its not the same as a “normal” murder in *any *justice system on Earth actually.

Only four nations totally outlaw abortions; Chile, El Salvador, Malta and Vatican city. None of those prosecute the mother for murder, solely the act is prohibited.

Under your view, is a miscarriage a negligent homicide then? Drinking a glass of wine before you even knew you were pregnant giving alcohol to a minor? Is going past the due date a hostage situation? Bring out the forensics team for a stillborn? Does having triplets violate the maximum occupancy as set forth by the local fire department?



These are legitimate points btw. This is why the personhood bill in Mississippi failed; it creates serious legal ramifications like those above.

Criminalization is not a panacea. Far better to reduce the need for abortions in the first place. Of course, that involves birth control, so you’re back to square one.

 

[Khalid]

Criminalization is not a panacea. Far better to reduce the need for abortions in the first place. Of course, that involves birth control, so you’re back to square one.

No, it involves men and women changing their behaviour so that even the whores of 1850 wouldn’t shun them in disgrace.

 

[YADA]

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

Ha ha … Safe abortions … are they"safe" for the Children … FACT: in an abortion there is nearly a 50% death rate … nearly 100% of the children that die … there is the occasional survivor … sadly even with your “safe” abortion a few mothers will also loose their life as well …

If Roe is overturned the legality of abortion becomes a state issue …

Yes - Women who have bought the lies may continue to seek abortion - espcecially those who are intimidated by the sperm donors and others who are free to offer their thoughts on whats “best for them” … be they rich or poor … even a poor man will find the funds necessary to provide this if they want avoid the responsibility … a sad commentary on our society …

Women will never allow Roe v Wade to be overturned.

More likely - its the abortion industry [abortion is big business and big buck] and the men -who are by far the greatest beneficiaries of abortion on demand - [all the benefits of committed married life with out the responsibilities or the need to even pretend there is] …

Its too bad the innocent children have no voice … I wonder what they would say …

What many people fail to acknowledge is that many women [especially those in poorer communities] who seek and obtain an abortion will get pregnant again a short time later - and bring that child to term - often times out of a since of loss … in an attempt to right the wrong … sadly this cycle is often repeated by the person several times …

 

[Nate13]

Again, I’m fairly certain murder has been illegal for awhile here, yet it keeps happening.

If this were the case, whoever “we” is would not even be having this conversation since that would be the current model as you use the present tense.

Also, this country does not recognize person hood until birth, traditionally here (and in other religions like Judaism), the fetus is an extension of the mother, not a separate being, but a soon to be being. This is why a woman can have an abortion here over the objections of its father; he doesn’t count. Its not the same as a “normal” murder in *any *justice system on Earth actually.

Only four nations totally outlaw abortions; Chile, El Salvador, Malta and Vatican city. None of those prosecute the mother for murder, solely the act is prohibited.

Under your view, is a miscarriage a negligent homicide then? Drinking a glass of wine before you even knew you were pregnant giving alcohol to a minor? Is going past the due date a hostage situation? Bring out the forensics team for a stillborn? Does having triplets violate the maximum occupancy as set forth by the local fire department?



These are legitimate points btw. This is why the personhood bill in Mississippi failed; it creates serious legal ramifications like those above.

Criminalization is not a panacea. Far better to reduce the need for abortions in the first place. Of course, that involves birth control, so you’re back to square one.

If I accidentally shoot you and it was really an accident I will not be punished for it. If I accidentally shoot you because of my own negligence then yes I should be punished to some degree if that can be proven. Do you think a pregnant woman who is on meth while pregnant should not receive someone punishment for her crime against her child? A glass of wine is a silly example and you know it. If a woman drank herself to black out drunk night after night though in an attempt to kill the child in her womb though would you not wish some punishment be brought down against that woman?

Also birth control is the cause of a good chunk of abortions.

The Guttmacher report shows “54 percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method *usually condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.” These figures are similar to those of a report in Spain showing abortions doubling despite increased family planning promotion.

The Guttmacher institute is a pro-Planned Parenthood group as well.

50% of abortions are occurring when people mess up using contraceptives or the contraceptives themselves fail. I believe there is another part that goes along with this poll that shows that of that 50%, 80% of the people were experienced using contraceptives. This is not a conundrum.

The solution is:

1. Teaching people not to have sex before marriage.
2. Promoting the institution of marriage as a life long commitment.
3. Teaching people the value of life from conception till natural death.

• Teaching NFP goes along with this.

Planned Parenthood has the ultimate business model right now. They hand out contraceptives that they know are going to fail eventually either by human error or machine error and they are right there ready to provide the service to take care of it when they fail. Its a con especially since they are handing out those contraceptives for free on yours and my dime.

 

[Geist]

If I accidentally shoot you and it was really an accident I will not be punished for it. If I accidentally shoot you because of my own negligence then yes I should be punished to some degree if that can be proven. Do you think a pregnant woman who is on meth while pregnant should not receive someone punishment for her crime against her child?

I think I see the problem here. In my last post I wasn’t sharing what I think,. but rather what it is, i.e. no nation prosecutes mothers for abortion, etc. Thats just how it is in the real world.

Of course I think such a mother should be punished. However, legally, she cannot be, because legally that unborn child isn’t a person. If laws were changed to change that, I am aware the near impossibility of prosecuting and enforcing would make it effectively a pointless legal nightmare. Also I am generally very leery of government involvement in personal matters.

Maybe its one of those ideas that are better in principle than practice?

I made this thread to explore what people think would happen in a post Roe v Wade world, and see if its realistic or overambitious. So far its been 50/50.

A glass of wine is a silly example and you know it. If a woman drank herself to black out drunk night after night though in an attempt to kill the child in her womb though would you not wish some punishment be brought down against that woman?

Again, personhood raises very sticky legal issues. Many women dont know they’re pregnant until they miss a period, or even two since some women are irregular. So lets say a woman is two months along, doesn’t know she’s pregnant, gets bombed alot because she’s a party girl, and the kid has fetal alcohol syndrome, now what?

Can you prove intent? How would you?

In the case of “black out drunk night after night though in an attempt to kill the child in her womb” intent is just as impossible to prove. What if she always drinks like that? Also that’s a silly way to terminate a pregnancy, anyone can whip up an effective abortifacient by scrounging along any highway or field for wormwood.

The Guttmacher institute is a pro-Planned Parenthood group as well.

50% of abortions are occurring when people mess up using contraceptives or the contraceptives themselves fail. I believe there is another part that goes along with this poll that shows that of that 50%, 80% of the people were experienced using contraceptives. This is not a conundrum.

I’m very hesitant to believe this, but if I take it at face value, what causes the other 50%?

The solution is:

1. Teaching people not to have sex before marriage.
2. Promoting the institution of marriage as a life long commitment.
3. Teaching people the value of life from conception till natural death.

• Teaching NFP goes along with this.

Can’t say I disagree on principle, but its my understanding the Catholic church has had a very difficult time getting NFP to be accepted even amongst the faithful, do you forsee NFP thus being adopted by society at large?

Planned Parenthood has the ultimate business model right now. They hand out contraceptives that they know are going to fail eventually either by human error or machine error and they are right there ready to provide the service to take care of it when they fail. Its a con especially since they are handing out those contraceptives for free on yours and my dime.

Well, I remember in my days as an Army medic sometimes handling STD cases(I seemed to get that duty whenever I pissed off my platoon sergeant, think there was a connection?), and I was educated on the std’s, as well as safe sex and all since I was supposed to counsel the patients too. We also gave out free condoms.

Tip: Condoms are great for keeping a rifle clean by sticking it on the barrel during field exercises.

What I learned:

1. Birth control should be effective 99% of the time assuming instructions are followed. typically the error is on the part of the user, not the drug or device. I found this to be true in IT as well.
2. Counseling was utterly pointless. Saw the same people constantly. This taught me alot about human nature.

 

[Nate13]

I think
Again, personhood raises very sticky legal issues. Many women dont know they’re pregnant until they miss a period, or even two since some women are irregular. So lets say a woman is two months along, doesn’t know she’s pregnant, gets bombed alot because she’s a party girl, and the kid has fetal alcohol syndrome, now what?

Can you prove intent? How would you?

I thought about it more and I think most punishments for these kinds of things would be counter productive. In the case of meth, babies are already taken away from their mother’s at birth if meth addiction is obvious. I think some policies are applicable, but the most effective ones would probably be ones geared towards preventing women from doing things that could hurt their children. The natural instinct mothers have is far more effective than any law would be at protecting children.

In the case of “black out drunk night after night though in an attempt to kill the child in her womb” intent is just as impossible to prove. What if she always drinks like that? Also that’s a silly way to terminate a pregnancy, anyone can whip up an effective abortifacient by scrounging along any highway or field for wormwood.

I think you could for sure prosecute a woman who was pregnant if you could prove she took a known abortifacient. The act of taking it would be proof enough of intent.

I’m very hesitant to believe this, but if I take it at face value, what causes the other 50%?

Haha it seems unlikely Planned Parenthood would brag about how contraceptives do not work and get people pregnant… The other 50% are probably young people who are having sex outside of marriage or at least that would be my guess on the bulk of them.

Also go this link:
onemoresoul.com/contraception/risks-consequences/the-connection-between-contraception-and-abortion.html

and scroll down to this section:
“Frequently, aborted pregnancies are planned”

RESULTS: Forty-six percent of women had not used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, mainly because of perceived low risk of pregnancy and concerns about contraception (cited by 33% and 32% of nonusers, respectively). The male condom was the most commonly reported method among all women (28%), followed by the pill (14%). Inconsistent method use was the main cause of pregnancy for 49% of condom users and 76% of pill users; 42% of condom users cited condom breakage or slippage as a reason for pregnancy. Substantial proportions of pill and condom users indicated perfect method use (13-14%). As many as 51,000 abortions were averted by use of emergency contraceptive pills in 2000.

Can’t say I disagree on principle, but its my understanding the Catholic church has had a very difficult time getting NFP to be accepted even amongst the faithful, do you forsee NFP thus being adopted by society at large?

NFP has been received and used effectively in certain parts of the World.

prolife.org.ph/news/index.php/2009/03/the-patroness-of-nfp/

Its reasonably popular in Brazil and India as well.

Well, I remember in my days as an Army medic sometimes handling STD cases(I seemed to get that duty whenever I pissed off my platoon sergeant, think there was a connection?), and I was educated on the std’s, as well as safe sex and all since I was supposed to counsel the patients too. We also gave out free condoms.

Tip: Condoms are great for keeping a rifle clean by sticking it on the barrel during field exercises.

What I learned:

1. Birth control should be effective 99% of the time assuming instructions are followed. typically the error is on the part of the user, not the drug or device. I found this to be true in IT as well.

1. Counseling was utterly pointless. Saw the same people constantly. This taught me alot about human nature.

NFP is also 99% effective when the instructions are followed, but we live in an imperfect world. Teenagers are the last people on Earth who need to be having a child, yet they are the most unreliable and irresponsible generally. If a plan is based on getting them to listen and use something effectively to the tune of 99% your kidding yourself. Not to mention you distort the true meaning of sex when you separate it from marriage, and continually propagate the problems that causes when you do not firmly stand opposed to it.

 

[ProVobis]

I disagree.

The USSC has a legal obligation to uphold the Constitution; it does not have any legal obligation to uphold the principle of stare decisis. Additionally, this court would not be admitting that it got anything wrong, since it is not the same court that decided Roe v Wade in the first place. Finally, this court has already demonstrated that it is fully capable of sweeping aside established precedence when it ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. (It is interesting to note that in this case, three justices, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas, voted with the 5-4 majority to overturn precedence even after all three had testified in their confirmation hearings that they supported the principle of stare decisis.)

You are right. They don’t have to uphold stare decisis, (short for stare decisis et non quieta movere (loosely translated, “maintain what has been decided and do not alter what has been established”)). However, that wouldn’t bode very well for stability of the court in general as down the road another set of justices would have no hesitancy in promoting a decision with potentially worse consequences than the original decision.

I agree with those who say the 10th Amendment has been violated in Roe vs Wade. The states are fully aware of this and many have already started passing restrictions. Effectively they overturn the Roe vs Wade, not completely, but a little at a time without jeopardizing the stability and predictability of the SC. That’s why elections at the state level are as equally, if not more, important in the fight against Roe vs Wade.

Incidentally, the same principle holds true in the Senate where super majority rules. A majority at the start of a session can undo this rule but both parties are well aware of the consequences of undertaking such a move.

 

[Geist]

I thought about it more and I think most punishments for these kinds of things would be counter productive. In the case of meth, babies are already taken away from their mother’s at birth if meth addiction is obvious. I think some policies are applicable, but the most effective ones would probably be ones geared towards preventing women from doing things that could hurt their children. The natural instinct mothers have is far more effective than any law would be at protecting children.

I think we see eye to eye here.

NFP is also 99% effective when the instructions are followed, but we live in an imperfect world. Teenagers are the last people on Earth who need to be having a child, yet they are the most unreliable and irresponsible generally. If a plan is based on getting them to listen and use something effectively to the tune of 99% your kidding yourself. Not to mention you distort the true meaning of sex when you separate it from marriage, and continually propagate the problems that causes when you do not firmly stand opposed to it

You know, my first daughter was born before my fiancee and I married, a few people pressured us to get married before our daughter was born, but we didn’t because we weren’t ready. We married the day after her first birthday and I think we were a better couple for not being rushed. We now have four kids and our marriage is great. We were married in the Catholic church (shes Catholic, I was an atheist), and the priest was actually totally kind and accepting, which gave me a very good introduction to Catholicism, which I am now in the process of joining.

Also having a kid on the way really lit a fire under my butt and I got my act together quick, we do very well financially now.

So, you never know how things turn out.

So based on my own personal experience, I can’t say marriage was the abortion-stopper because we just never considered it as we wanted our kid. I’ll never forget that first ultrasound! She was like a gummy bear (due to the arms and legs just being buds at that stage) and a heart beat.

Perhaps I am a minority but now that I am somewhat older and hopefully wiser I am inclined to agree for many people casual sex (which I never did partake in) is a major moral problem leading to other problems, like the possibility of deciding to have an abortion.

 

[Nate13]

You know, my first daughter was born before my fiancee and I married, a few people pressured us to get married before our daughter was born, but we didn’t because we weren’t ready. We married the day after her first birthday and I think we were a better couple for not being rushed. We now have four kids and our marriage is great. We were married in the Catholic church (shes Catholic, I was an atheist), and the priest was actually totally kind and accepting, which gave me a very good introduction to Catholicism, which I am now in the process of joining.

Also having a kid on the way really lit a fire under my butt and I got my act together quick, we do very well financially now.

So, you never know how things turn out.

Thanks for sharing your story

So based on my own personal experience, I can’t say marriage was the abortion-stopper because we just never considered it as we wanted our kid. I’ll never forget that first ultrasound! She was like a gummy bear (due to the arms and legs just being buds at that stage) and a heart beat.

Perhaps I am a minority but now that I am somewhat older and hopefully wiser I am inclined to agree for many people casual sex (which I never did partake in) is a major moral problem leading to other problems, like the possibility of deciding to have an abortion.

I think you implied something here from what I said that I didn’t mean to be implied. Stopping sex before marriage is not about stopping abortions although it would definitely work to stop that as well. Having a baby before getting married is one of the number causes of poverty aside not finishing high school. Those two often times go hand in hand with each other. So even if none of the teenagers who get pregnant choose to abort, you are still left with the fact that those teenagers will probably end up spending most of life living off the taxpayer dime and being held back from their full potential.

To avoid poverty, do three things: finish high school, marry before having a child, and produce the child after you are 20 years old. Only 8% of people who do all three will be poor; of those who fail to do them, 79% will be poor.

And a Brooking’s Institute study in 2009 found that only 2% of people who do those things ended up poverty and those that do them will have an average income 77% higher than national average.

 

[Khalid]

I thought about it more and I think most punishments for these kinds of things would be counter productive. In the case of meth, babies are already taken away from their mother’s at birth if meth addiction is obvious. I think some policies are applicable, but the most effective ones would probably be ones geared towards preventing women from doing things that could hurt their children. The natural instinct mothers have is far more effective than any law would be at protecting children.

What is all of this about meth(adone) addiction? Most women who are on it were previously heroin addicts and are cleaning up their lives, and may be on it for 5, 10, or 50 years - do you think that because they’re in treatment, just because they were once a junky, they shouldn’t be allowed to keep their children, or have children because the baby will need to be medically treated for withdrawal?

“Addiction” to it occurs in all people in treatment, and is generally obvious, as records from the treatment center are shared with the hospital. I agree the situation is different if the mother is an actively-using junky, but for one in treatment - that’s harsh, and I disagree.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pro life resources already exist to help women when roe vs wade is overturned.

Excerpt from article ‘Pro-lifers don’t help people after birth? Nonsense.’

In the United States there are some 2,300 affiliates of the three largest pregnancy resource center umbrella groups, Heartbeat International, CareNet, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA). Over 1.9 million American women take advantage of these services each year. Many stay at one of the 350 residential facilities for women and children operated by pro-life groups. In New York City alone, there are twenty-two centers serving 12,000 women a year. These centers provide services including pre-natal care, STI testing, STI treatment, ultrasound, childbirth classes, labor coaching, midwife services, lactation consultation, nutrition consulting, social work, abstinence education, parenting classes, material assistance, and post-abortion counseling.

Religious groups also provide crucial services to needy mothers and infants. John Cardinal O’Connor, the late Archbishop of New York, famously pledged to assist any woman from anywhere experiencing a crisis pregnancy, and the current Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, recently renewed Cardinal O’Connor’s pledge. The Catholic Church—perhaps the single most influential pro-life institution in the United States—makes the largest financial, institutional and personnel commitments to charitable causes of any private source in the United States. These include AIDS ministry, health care, education, housing services, and care for the elderly, disabled, and immigrants. In 2004 alone, 562 Catholic hospitals treated over 85 million patients; Catholic elementary and high schools educated over 2 million students; Catholic colleges educated nearly 800,000 students; Catholic Charities served over eight-and-a-half million different individuals. In 2007, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development awarded nine million dollars in grants to reduce poverty. And in 2009, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network spent nearly five million dollars in services for impoverished immigrants.

The Catholic Church is far from the only pro-life religious group that assists the needy. At the Manhattan Bible Church, a pro-life church in New York since 1973, Pastor Bill Devlin and his congregation run a soup kitchen that has served over a million people and a K-8 school that has educated 90,000 needy students. Pastor Devlin and other church families have adopted scores of babies, and taken in scores of pregnant women, including some who were both drug-addicted and HIV positive. The church runs a one-hundred-and-fifty bed residential drug rehabilitation center and a prison ministry at Rikers Island. All told, the church runs some forty ministries, and all without a government dime.

No major pro-abortion group or institution has taken on a comparable commitment to vulnerable Americans. Pregnancy resource centers devote significant resources to supporting women who have already decided to have an abortion, but abortion advocates offer no similar support to women who wish to continue their pregnancies. Indeed, they often devote their resources to shutting down the services provided by pro-lifers. NARAL Pro-Choice America reports spending twenty thousand dollars on “crisis pregnancy centers” in Maryland in order to “investigate” and publicly smear such centers for demonstrating a bias for life. (One might point out that the same bias once motivated the entire medical profession.)

If pro-life Americans provide so many (often free) services to the poor and vulnerable—work easily discovered by any researcher or journalist with an Internet connection—why are they sometimes accused of caring only for life inside the womb? Quite possibly, it is the conviction of abortion advocates that “caring for the born” translates first and always into advocacy for government programs and funds. In other words, abortion advocates appear to conflate charitable works and civil society with government action. The pro-life movement does not. Rather, it takes up the work of assisting women and children and families, one fundraiser and hotline and billboard at a time. Still, the pro-life movement is not unsophisticated about the relationship between abortion rates and government policies in areas such as education, marriage, employment, housing, and taxation. The Catholic Church, for example, works with particular vigor to ensure that its social justice agenda integrates advocacy for various born, vulnerable groups, with incentives to choose life over abortion.

 

[Nate13]

What is all of this about meth(adone) addiction? Most women who are on it were previously heroin addicts and are cleaning up their lives, and may be on it for 5, 10, or 50 years - do you think that because they’re in treatment, just because they were once a junky, they shouldn’t be allowed to keep their children, or have children because the baby will need to be medically treated for withdrawal?

“Addiction” to it occurs in all people in treatment, and is generally obvious, as records from the treatment center are shared with the hospital. I agree the situation is different if the mother is an actively-using junky, but for one in treatment - that’s harsh, and I disagree.

They take children away at birth that are born with a meth addiction, and make sure the mother gets treatment. When the mother gets her act together she can be reunited with her child. If the baby is born fine then there is no problem. Its very obvious though when a baby is born if the mother was using drugs.

 

[Khalid]

Yes, but methadone is legally prescribed, dispensed strictly, only to addicts who are already in treatment - it’s proof that one is receiving treatment, and not still a street addict. (If the mother is using illegal drugs, I fully support the state taking ownership of the child, or if she is demonstrably unstable, but past addiction shouldn’t disqualify one from ever being a mother, if one is in medical treatment for it now, any more than being in the twelve-steps should - unless all mothers who have a record of addiction have their children transferred to the state? I don’t see that as valid, but given the effort required to screen which ones are actually getting straight and which ones are constantly relapsing, I can see it being done from a utilitarian point of view.)

Doctors would be aware of it from the moment the pregnant woman was first seen or treated, due to disclosure of medical records; it’s not illegal or grey-area in any sense, any more than receiving a heart medication is. If an addict gets pregnant, the first thing a doctor does is to get the woman on to methadone (as there are long waiting lists due to the restrictions). Babies can be born addicted to antiepileptics, and pretty much any other medication, too, in the sense of dependent upon (as of course a baby couldn’t have the compulsion of addiction, and almost all medications cause physical dependence).

 

[Chaplain777]

If Roe v.Wade is overturned abortion does NOT become illegal. It basically allows the states to pass legislation to allow or outlaw abortion in that state. Everything else is wishful thinking…but it is a step in the right direction. It will probably always be legal in California, and the Northeast.