Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat

Posted by: NW Ponderer

Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 02/01/19 04:10 PM

This is not hyperbole. Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat (Slate). Roe could effectively be overturned on Monday. This is a direct result of conservative gerrymandering of the judiciary. It could, in fact, be the beginning of the end of civil rights in the United States. Again, that is not an exaggeration.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 02/01/19 04:41 PM

When you give in to fascist rule you often give up certain freedoms and liberties. Those who chose this fascist regime are cheering wildly at the thought of overturning Roe vs Wade.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 02/02/19 05:04 AM

Supreme Court temporarily halts Louisiana abortion law (politico). No reason to celebrate, yet.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 02/02/19 05:21 PM

Quote:
No reason to celebrate, yet.


So who's celebrating? It was a minor skirmish in a long war.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 02/08/19 04:44 PM

In a move that surprises exactly no one Brett Kavanaugh Just Declared War on Roe v. Wade (Slate). It is good that the full court did not take the 5th Circuit's challenge to its authority lightly, and kept the stay in place, but given Chief Justice Roberts' previous dissent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (link, PDF), it may just be a year before Roe is overturned, or at last effectively so.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 02/08/19 06:22 PM

Don't conservatives start with God as their source for legal opinions? The Constitution is always a distant second for these folks. Imagine how they would fell if there was a large Muslim footprint in political power and their inspiration was the Quran.

I am partial to public beheadings. Who knows maybe it would catch on with the Christian fundamentalists.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 02/09/19 01:56 AM

Is that "by" or "of"?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 02/09/19 02:04 AM

levity is a necessity in times like these

ill let you choose ... but choose wisely
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 05/08/19 06:31 AM

Georgia did it: They signed into law a bill that says any fetus with a heartbeat (about 6 weeks) is a citizen of the state with all rights of every other citizen.

Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion

Women who get abortions will be charged with murder. Men who pay for abortions will be charged with murder for hire. People who help a woman go to another state for an abortion will be charged with accessory to murder. All natural miscarriages will result in murder investigations to see if the woman did something to promote the miscarriage.

On the lighter side, all pregnant prisoners will have to be released from jail. It's illegal to keep a citizen in jail when they have not been charged with a crime, so those fetuses have to be freed. It may be illegal to have sex with a pregnant woman, because of close proximity to the fetus!

It will be interesting to see how many woman decide it's too risky to stay in Georgia, since even if they were not sexually active they could still be raped. It will also be interesting to see how many businesses decide to leave. Georgia is about to become a lot poorer because of Republican overreach.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 05/08/19 04:17 PM

But at the same time Georgia will become richer in unwanted children.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 05/09/19 01:40 AM

Good for pedophiles, I suppose. I'm not sure if anybody else benefits.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 05/10/19 04:34 PM

This is a female problem and men are driving it. The American female seems to go about 30 years between actually supporting themselves and just sitting back and letting it happen. On the other hand the people going after Roe are 'Christian' men. I remember a friend of mine who was a good Christian Catholic who was against abortion. He gave the organization against a lot of money so he was invited to high level meetings. He said he was just standing against a wall listening to all the talk. Two Christian men were talking. One said to the other; "We are getting close to victory here", his friend replied; "Yah, then we are going to have to do something about them damned Papists!".

My friend left and never gave them another dime. My point is that these people don't sleep on their laurels. They keep it up, 24 hours a day, every day, no breaks. Its what they do. Unless women do that they are going to lose. Its that simple. I have always wondered. Men are, obviously, the ones really driving the anti-abortion thing yet they are rarely actually called on it in any real public way. I have always found it a bit odd.

Oh, I may have told this before, if so, apologies..............
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 05/18/19 10:44 PM

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 05/19/19 06:56 PM




Conservatives want 12 year old Suzy to birth a baby if her bad uncle knocks her up. How sick is that?!? crazy
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 05/19/19 06:59 PM




Also, let's see how Conservatives feel if their precious mail-order bride gets raped by a black man and gets preggers. I'm sure there will be an automatic exception granted there. Hmm
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 05/20/19 04:21 AM

I think 'bama may be a special case: If they let girls abort all their incest babies, the population would decline rapidly!
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 05/25/19 04:26 AM

Interesting piece. Apparently the pro-choice/pro-life issue is now a deal breaker for some women.

Why These Women Dumped Men

Quote:
We did not go on that date,” said Kaylee, who, like other women in this piece, asked to have her last name withheld to protect her privacy. “I told him why I’m pro-choice. In response, he said it wasn’t ‘his fight to get into’ and then mansplained about how the government works.


What with all the assaults on reproductive rights these days, the logical position is "No choice, no sex." I wonder if lots of young men are going to reconsider their position!
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 05:20 AM

I had an interesting epiphany: The abortion issue is essentially dead, because of RU-486. Even a reversal of Roe vrs Wade can't do anything about it. It may not be legal in some states, but neither are heroin or meth and millions of people manage to get those any time they want. All that needs to happen is for drug dealers to start carrying RU-486 pills. Women would have abortions on demand, and for a lot less expense than actually going to the doctor to get it.

A very small percentage would have complications that required medical intervention, but here's the rub: They can't tell the difference between an RU-486 abortion and a natural abortion, AKA a "miscarriage". God is the Great Abortionist! So many pregnancies end in miscarriage, authorities would soon be overwhelmed by investigating every miscarriage on suspicion of intentionality. All they need do is investigate one politician's wife after a miscarriage and the investigations would stop from the bad press.
Posted by: Mellowicious

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 01:00 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
This is a female problem and men are driving it. The American female seems to go about 30 years between actually supporting themselves and just sitting back and letting it happen.


This is not just a female problem. The bumper-sticker answer is that every abortion is caused by a man. Men are indeed driving the suppression of abortion but that's been true for hundreds of years.

Could you please elaborate on your rather flippant remarks that women just "sit back and let(ting) it happen?” I do realize I'm quoting a May post and it may no longer be, well, viable.

Pondering, regarding pills that allow self-prescribed medically-induced abortions - pharmacists are now able to refuse prescriptions they don't want to fill, on the basis of "Waaah!" Which puts said pills squarely in the black market, which is not an acceptable solution.

Abortion has been around for a very long time. To say that it's women's job to keep it legal would show an astonishing level of irresponsibly, had it not
not ceased to be astonishing a very long time ago.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 05:36 PM

The sad thing is that so many people continue to vote for office seekers who then do their best to make abortion illegal, when over 70% of Americans do not want it illegal. Either that's some sort of logical disconnect or abortion does not matter that much to them. My point was that in spite of this, individual women will be able to access a very safe means of aborting in the future.

If you look at the actual numbers, legal surgical abortion is six times safer than carrying to term. But medical abortion (RU-486) is almost infinitely safer because it has almost zero mortality risk. So any law that permits abortion when the mother's life is at risk actually should allow all abortions!
Posted by: Greger

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 05:40 PM

Quote:
Abortion has been around for a very long time.
Almost as long as birth itself. Some animals go full term, deliver a litter and eat it if raising it is inconvenient.

More babies than you could ever count have been gently placed outside the tent in the snow because they threatened the lives and well being of the mother, parents, or family.

It's never pleasant and it tears at our hearts whenever it happens. But it happens. It's always happened. Midwives have known for years which herbs and poisons will kill the fetus but not its host. Or how to remove one with a rusty coat hanger. Women driven to extremes like this don't really care if they live or die. This pregnancy to them signals the end of their lives anyway.

Roe vs Wade saves lives. But it's not really about lives, or babies, or men or women. When Roe vs Wade passed it was a blow to conservatives. They were strictly against it on moral and religious grounds. Even though sometimes their own daughters might die, religion and morality must hold sway over all else.

Conservatives are sore losers and have never gotten over it. They'll continue to send their daughters and mistresses away for secret abortions while fighting tooth and nail to make it illegal(but still available if you have enough money) and impossible to get for a poor college kid whose entire future depends on not being pregnant right now. Nothing really matters to them more than "owning the libs"
Roe vs Wade was the libs owning them and they cannot let it stand.

I've been wanting to write that rant down for a long time, thanks for pulling the thread back and Welcome Home Mellowicious!
Posted by: Mellowicious

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 06:16 PM

The legality of Roe (40 years now) is moot if access is denied, as it is in the state of Missouri, parts of Texas, and other states where care is geographically remote.

Administration going back some have upheld gag orders overseas, where organizations lose federal funding if they so much as mention abortion, I heard part of an NPR story just moments ago that said Planned Parenthood is facing a similar loss of funding on the 19th due to a similar ruling for Title X.

The implementation of Roe vs Wade has always been precarious at best.

(Glad to oblige, Greger, although I didn't know I was.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 06:25 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Don't conservatives start with God as their source for legal opinions? The Constitution is always a distant second for these folks. Imagine how they would fell if there was a large Muslim footprint in political power and their inspiration was the Quran.

I am partial to public beheadings. Who knows maybe it would catch on with the Christian fundamentalists.

No, they don't. That you even think that they do shows how little you about conservatives. Unfortunately the lack of knowledge about conservatives seems to quite common here on the Reader Rant.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 06:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
No, they don't. That you even think that they do shows how little you about conservatives. Unfortunately the lack of knowledge about conservatives seems to quite common here on the Reader Rant.

Ah, yes... what is a Conservative these days? Thank you for putting some definition on your particular stripe, but it is one of a great many that I have seen. In fact, it is quite popular for the Regressive Conservatives to declare that Republicans are not true Conservatives - and they believe that King Kon is a True Conservative, to boot.

So you see, some of us may have a lot more knowledge of the range of Conservatives than you do, since your definition appears to be fairly specific and exclusive. This is a glitch in the functionality of discussions, if a word carries more than one meaning.

Trying to discuss socialism (small 's') is fraught with many of the same pitfalls and traps... we can't really discuss a thing without agreeing on definitions first.
Posted by: Mellowicious

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 07:37 PM

I see the old rule about sticking to the point has faded away.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 07:45 PM

Regressive Conservatives?
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers..." Pres. Calvin Coolidge speaking at a celebration on the 150th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence.
To conserve the the ideas of our Declaration of Independence is not regressive. What is now called being a Progressive is actually to be regressive. The (so called) Progressives are the real regressives, because they want to regress to governments that are run by elitists not the average citizen.
Who the hell is "King Kon"? If I've never heard of this person I cannot have any opinion of him or her.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 08:00 PM

Quote:
shows how little you about conservatives
Strange indeed.

For a number of years all I listened to was Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity in that order, and all I saw on TV "news" was Fox, and almost everyone I know was a conservative then and is a Trump supporter now. Do I understand "conservatives"? Yeah I think I have a pretty good idea of who they are and how they think, and I suspect I am right on in understanding Trump supporters (at least in my neck of the woods).

The facts are many if not all so called "conservatives" in Congress have at one time or another stated their allegiance was in order God, Party, and Country. So when I say they start with Christianity for their primary source of legal opinions, I think I am very close to the mark. This always amazed me because they spit nails if anyone mentions Sharia Law.

These folks can not afford to alienate the religious right. Mr Trump can do whatever he wants, even be the anti-Christ, but he is their voice and their path for their religious agenda. All the rest of these so called "conservatives" have to toe the line and pledge ... God above the secular Constitution.
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 11:00 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
shows how little you about conservatives
Strange indeed.

For a number of years all I listened to was Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity in that order, and all I saw on TV "news" was Fox, and almost everyone I know was a conservative then and is a Trump supporter now. Do I understand "conservatives"? Yeah I think I have a pretty good idea of who they are and how they think, and I suspect I am right on in understanding Trump supporters (at least in my neck of the woods).

The facts are many if not all so called "conservatives" in Congress have at one time or another stated their allegiance was in order God, Party, and Country. So when I say they start with Christianity for their primary source of legal opinions, I think I am very close to the mark. This always amazed me because they spit nails if anyone mentions Sharia Law.

These folks can not afford to alienate the religious right. Mr Trump can do whatever he wants, even be the anti-Christ, but he is their voice and their path for their religious agenda. All the rest of these so called "conservatives" have to toe the line and pledge ... God above the secular Constitution.

The conservatives you know live in what is euphemistically known as the Bible belt. While there is a strong contingent of conservatives who are Christians first and conservatives second there is also a large number of conservatives who are atheists. Conservatives like me. These conservatives do not support the religious right. We strongly agree with what Sen. Goldwater said about the religious right. This what Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, had to say about the religious right.
""The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
--Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/14/19 11:24 PM

It's nice to remember Barry Goldwater.
He was indeed a relatively sane and principled conservative.
Sadly, he would be drummed out of the GOP today.

I'll never forget his little note to Dole:
"You and I are the liberals of the Republican Party now, can you imagine that?"


His final salvo however, was telling:
"Do not associate my name with anything that you do. You are extremists and you have hurt the country more than the Democrats ever have."
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/29/19 02:21 AM

One of the reasons Roe v. Wade is on shaky ground is that it was a poorly written decision. A better written decision would have made it more difficult to overturn it. If the Supreme Court does decide to reconsider Roe v. Wade it might deliver a better written decision that keeps abortion legal. For the record my position on abortion is that it is a decision for a woman to make. The only time I have a voice in that decision is I am the father. At my age that is highly unlikely to happen.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/29/19 04:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
One of the reasons Roe v. Wade is on shaky ground is that it was a poorly written decision. A better written decision would have made it more difficult to overturn it. If the Supreme Court does decide to reconsider Roe v. Wade it might deliver a better written decision that keeps abortion legal. For the record my position on abortion is that it is a decision for a woman to make. The only time I have a voice in that decision is I am the father. At my age that is highly unlikely to happen.


Yes, it might deliver a better written decision that keeps it legal.
Or not. But the one thing that will not happen if Roe is overturned, is cessation of abortions. That is guaranteed to not ever happen.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/29/19 04:37 PM

Quote:
the one thing that will not happen if Roe is overturned, is cessation of abortions.


Making things illegal or unavailable legally doesn't make them go away. Nobody on this planet thinks abortion is a good thing, but only a fool would think you could stop them.

The very same people who have made an unwanted pregnancy into a life destroying ordeal(Christians, Republicans, and other fanatics) are the ones who want to turn abortion into a life destroying ordeal instead of a simple medical procedure.

Perhaps it's too forward thinking, but maybe when there is an issue such as this it should be put to a vote, put on the ballot and settled.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/29/19 07:19 PM

I actually think the entire 'debate' is crazy. The right to lifers insist the pregancy comes to term. Then they cleverly walk away from everything as their job is done. I you travel in latin America you will notice that there are a LOT of abandoned children around. Goto Brazil and they beg at every outdoor table whilst you eat, etc. This is the result of the Catholic church doing its duty and making sure every child gets to term before they just abandon them.

My point is, basically, that what they are actually doing is making sure we have lots of unwanted children. There is some evidence that legal abortion has actually contributed to a lessening of crime. Seems that unwanted children have serious problems. I have often wondered what would happen if there was a law that any child produced that was unwanted was taken by the right to life folks which would support, love, feed and educate said unwanted child through college. I suspect I would have a slightly different thought about Right to Life folk. I also know they are certainly not going to do that as that would interfere with their important stuff.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/30/19 05:58 AM

What would all the pedophiles and child pornographers do if there were no unwanted/abandoned children for them to prey on?
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 08/30/19 08:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
One of the reasons Roe v. Wade is on shaky ground is that it was a poorly written decision.

The Conservative majority that wrote that decision in 1973 wrote a poorly written one? gobsmacked
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 09/01/19 08:02 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
One of the reasons Roe v. Wade is on shaky ground is that it was a poorly written decision.

The Conservative majority that wrote that decision in 1973 wrote a poorly written one? gobsmacked
Just because the Burger Court was Conservative does not mean they were not human and incapable of making mistakes.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 09/01/19 08:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
One of the reasons Roe v. Wade is on shaky ground is that it was a poorly written decision.

The Conservative majority that wrote that decision in 1973 wrote a poorly written one? gobsmacked
Just because the Burger Court was Conservative does not mean they were not human and incapable of making mistakes.

You wrote it, not me. smile
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 09/05/19 11:25 PM

Everyone makes mistakes. I only make one a day, when I get out of bed.
smile
Posted by: Snarky_Politics

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 09/08/19 06:12 AM

Conservative because you QUESTION authority...??

More like you crave an authoritarian above you, as a Conservative...
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 09/08/19 10:21 AM

Well hello Snarky_Politics, welcome to the rant.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 10/04/19 02:59 PM

Supreme Court Revisits Abortion With Louisiana Case (npr).
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has jumped headlong back into the abortion wars. The court said Friday that it will hear arguments in a case from Louisiana that is nearly identical to a Texas case decided by the court three years ago.

Like the Texas law that the court previously struck down, the Louisiana law requires any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital; it also requires that clinics that provide abortions be, in effect, mini-hospitals, with everything from wide corridors to expensive equipment.

The Supreme Court said in the Texas case that neither was needed to protect women's health and that both requirements imposed "a substantial burden" on a woman's right to abortion.

Louisiana has conceded that its law is virtually identical to the Texas law. The difference between then and now is that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the decisive fifth vote in the 2016 Texas case, has retired and been replaced by Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh, who has indicated his willingness to undermine or discard the 2016 decision.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 10/04/19 10:38 PM

The ultra right are winning for now.

Progressivism will eventually prevail as it has always done throughout history.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 10/05/19 05:36 AM

How many millions will be devastated until then?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 10/05/19 10:30 PM

I wonder how Kavanaugh really feels about abortion. The usual drunken frat-boy attitude is: "Whew, I'm glad that's over." whenever unexpected pregnancy rears it's ugly head. But maybe that only applies to their own girlfriends.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 10/06/19 03:36 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I wonder how Kavanaugh really feels about abortion. The usual drunken frat-boy attitude is: "Whew, I'm glad that's over." whenever unexpected pregnancy rears it's ugly head. But maybe that only applies to their own girlfriends.


My dear friend you just answered your own question.
Of course it only applies to THEIR girlfriends.
The number of offshore abortions by wealthy folks was record breaking pre-Roe, and plenty of them were rock ribbed conservatives and their girlfriends, wives, etc.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat - 10/06/19 08:05 PM

I have not read all of this thread so this may duplicate some. I have always been a bit confused about roe vs wade. I just read it all again and it makes little sense to me. The decision was one of privacy of the pregnant and, in addition, the ruling was under the 14th amendment is: Known as the "Reconstruction Amendment," it forbids any state to deny any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, Roe vs wade, basically, rules on privacy based on the 14th amendment. This has become known as the decision that legalizes abortion. I just don't get it. Seems tenuous at best.

I am, incidentally all for abortion. I would be willing to temper that if those against (right to lifers) would, under law, be forced, at their expense, to care for and educate, through college, the otherwise unwanted children forced to term by the right to lifers.

I would also add that there are apparently, right now, fewer teenage abortions than normal. This is based, not on abortions but the easily accessed birth control pills which, it seems, a good portion of the right to lifers also want to restrict access to.

One last. There are reasons to believe that the ability to have abortions, and access to birth control, has not only reduced illegitimate births but crime as well. Seems unwanted children tend towards crime. Basically, abortion and birth control tend to control social expenses which we all pay end the end.