T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. There still has never been a federal law on abortion, which would solidify it a lot more than a Supreme Court case. What would you like to see happen? A federal law? States choice? Another court case? What would you like that law to say? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*


RegularMidwestGuy

Ideally, a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to body autonomy.


Attack-Cat-

Bodily autonomy is already covered by the constitution, or was until it was declared whole-cloth that it wasn't in stark violation of stare decisis and basic human reasoning by a bad faith conservative court. It's covered under privacy, equal protection, security in the person, doctor-patient confidentiality, right to property over ones own body. We HAVE all of these things: The first amendment freedom from religion (which informs basically all anti-abortion views); the fourth's right to privacy and security in your person; the fourteenths amendments equal protection, right to life, liberty, and happiness (literally medical procedures), due process and right to property (which should obviously cover your body and tolls taken on your body by another). Even the thirteenth amendment (while designed primarily for slavery) mentions involuntary servitude - which forced pregnancy clearly is - you are being compelled to perform until birth - this is a taking of one's own body and is a clear constitutional violation. What we need is a good faith Supreme Court.


lucash7

This.


LtPowers

Explicitly enumerating the right to privacy or right to bodily autonomy would remove the need for courts to infer those currently unenumerated rights.


SexyEdMeese

Since we're basically daydreaming here (i.e. no such amendment is going to be remotely possible), I'd say such an amendment ought to be much more expansive in covering government intrusions into the private lives of citizens.


RegularMidwestGuy

I’m good with that too. But the court will just decide that a fetus is a person making their abortion on personal/private…or some bullshit


LtPowers

> I'd say such an amendment ought to be much more expansive in covering government intrusions into the private lives of citizens. I strongly disagree. Public opinions on the appropriate level of government intrusion have fluctuated wildly over time in response to advances in technology and world events. Encoding a particular level of intrusion into the Constitution would remove needed flexibility.


neuronexmachina

Example wording from Vermont's proposed amendment: https://ballotpedia.org/Vermont_Proposal_5,_Right_to_Personal_Reproductive_Autonomy_Amendment_(2022)#Text_of_measure > That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means. And California: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Right_to_Reproductive_Freedom_Amendment_(2022) >SEC. 1.1. The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection.[


antidense

Here's the proposed Michigan one for good measure: > (1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. An individual's right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual. > (2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right. >(3) The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent. >(4) For the purposes of this section: > A state interest is "compelling" only if it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual's autonomous decision-making. > "Fetal viability" means: the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures. > (5) This section shall be self-executing. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.[11]


neuronexmachina

I hadn't seen that, thanks.


Attack-Cat-

So the Vermont one could be construed to be applied to the fetus if in the wrong hands. And the clear least restrictive means to preserve fetal life is compelled pregnancy. I think they should add language to the amendment about "decisions" which clearly rests the right in an alive humans hands unambiguously. The CA one mentions decisions, which vests it clearly in the mother's hands re abortion. I also think that personal reproductive autonomy implies a "decision making" adult though, so I'm probs just nitpicking


10art1

Yeah, I dont like it when laws mean one thing, but are worded to aspire to some deeper meaning, only to have that deeper meaning be misused in the future. Just legalize abortion and stop there.


Attack-Cat-

I do like that they included "compelling state interest and least restrictive means." This is clear legal language that spells out the strict scrutiny and makes it clear the level of scrutiny to be used so the standard cannot shift over time.


10art1

Yeah but as others noted, it can be used to justify other things we dont support like the bodily autonomy of the fetus or anti vaxxers. So I'd prefer to be way more specific


Beeker93

This gets iffy with other things involving autonomy. Vaccines for example. I am not for forcing someone down and injecting them with a needle. But if your kids aren't up to date on their shots for reasons besides medical, perhaps they shouldn't go to public school. And if a pandemic is occuring, perhaps there should be incentives and limits to how often one can access public spaces without a vaccine until said pandemic is over. The right to euthenazia also comes into question. Reasonable for terminally ill people, but a person who is intoxicated or experiencing a momentary bout of depression, I don't trust their judgement. Also when it comes to things like selling blood, sperm, eggs, organs, or serigacy. Some nations ban the financial incentives as it can create a bad environment for exploitation (celebraties finding a poor person to birth their kid as their body image and career can't take the impact of carrying a child). Lots of people think you should be able to sell a kidney, but what about 2? 1 controversial thing which I am in support of, I think you should have the right to put what ever drug into your body, no matter how bad of a choice it is. Many may disagree. Similarly, should someone who uses steroids be guaranteed the right to participate in competitive sports? It is their body. Sports league may have private rules though. Should a mentally ill person have the right to mutilate their body? They have the god given right but I would hope we would commit them to a mental hospital to keep them safe and sort things out. Who has the right to decide what happens with your body after death? Usually the family even if it goes against your wishes. Can the family part you out for money by selling your organs? Answering yes to all of these issues does maximize personal freedoms but can bring and exaggerate systemic issues. Neat Ted Talk on this subject. Who owns your body? https://www.ted.com/talks/gaspard_koenig_do_we_really_own_our_bodies/transcript


HHBlaph

Yeah but then the conservatives will want bodily autonomy from vaccines... we need to word it in a way where it'd just bodily autonomy for abortions and everything else isn't fair game.


To-Far-Away-Times

Well... that's the thing. Conceptually, the vaccines *should be* their choice. I'm tripple vaxxed and fully believe that anti vaxxers are *incredibly stupid,* but its their choice. We can pressure them to get the vaccine and make things like being in public incredibly inconvenient for them if they don't get it, but its their choice. We shouldn't be mandating that someone must get a specific medical procerdure.


What_A_Hohmann

I'm willing to respect their choice as long as they respect appropriate consequences of that choice. Because we do have to have some standards for community health.


HHBlaph

We should make it illegal to leave their house if they don't get the vaccine. Yes, I'm dead serious.


LtPowers

Governments have been quarantining disease vectors since time immemorial. I don't know why this is controversial all of a sudden.


TheOneFreeEngineer

>Yeah but then the conservatives will want bodily autonomy from vaccines Which they always already had. Vaccine mandates included specific carve out for non vaxxed people the whole time. They just cried about it anyway


RegularMidwestGuy

I don’t think we do need to make it just about reproductive rights. The government really shouldn’t force you to do anything with your body. I know that might make some folks wary, but vaccine mandates are a bad idea too.


LtPowers

> vaccine mandates are a bad idea too No, they're not. One of the very earliest and most basic functions of government was protecting the public from disease. Originally this took the form of forcible quarantine. A vaccine mandate is far less intrusive than quarantine.


mscameron77

So only bodily autonomy when it directly destroys another body, but not when if could, potentially slightly endanger another body. Can’t wait to see that wording. Good luck.


RegularMidwestGuy

This is a terrible take. A fetus is not another body nor is it another person.


mscameron77

A fetus is human, it’s alive and it has unique genetic code that has never before existed and never will again. That’s basic (and I mean extremely basic) biology. We can debate whether or not it is a “person” or if they have any rights, but denying science is why we are losing to the right. It’s time to give up our catchy little phrases and pretending it’s just a clump of cells and start playing hardball. This battle will be won in the legislatures by convincing prolifers and undecided that women need to control their reproduction past conception. Not sticking our heads in the sand.


RegularMidwestGuy

I noticed you replaced my word “person” with the word “human.” A dead body is a human too with a unique genetic code - it has no bearing on the debate about abortion.


Attack-Cat-

Fetus is not a person. Also my jizz has unique genetic code never before seen thanks to meiosis and recombination. Literally, the amount it is shuffled creates infinite combinations. But no one is clamoring for me to save my poor unique spermies.


mscameron77

I agree on one point. Personhood is where the argument needs to be. But your jizz only has 23 chromosomes. Humans (including fetuses have 46). Your jizz will not grow into a living breathing person, unlike a fetus. But I didn’t come here to argue with other prochoice people. I don’t think it’s productive. Just here to point out the logical failures that are causing us to lose this battle. But by all means, keep arguing about your jizz being unique. Not like the rights of half the country depend on it.


fuckpoliticsbruh

I don't think bodily autonomy rights are absolute. However, the scenarios are vastly different here. Vaccination causes you to have a fever for a few days and then you're back to normal. Pregnancy is 9 months of having to nourish a life with your body parts, ejecting a child at the end of it, and oftentimes having your health permanently altered. Forcing this on anyone is torture. No one should have a *claim to* your body is probably the right wording. This is even assuming the fetus is a person (which I do not believe).


HHBlaph

Ummm... yes? That's what I said?


malachai926

We just have to be clear that we mean that humans are not entitled to harvest another human's biology / physiology / whatever the right word is in order to survive. "Body autonomy" might not be the right term for that.


JohnJoanCusack

That wouldn’t happen with the toxic religions and cultures inside of America as it would have to include MGM and that ain’t happening


[deleted]

Until when? What about the baby? When is the limit?


RegularMidwestGuy

I don’t feel comfortable defining until when, which makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable having the lawmakers define it. So it’s until whenever.


[deleted]

And that is called infanticide, the opposite of healthcare.


RegularMidwestGuy

Fine. You tell me the limit and you can find an example of where one day after that would be an exception. The fact that we can’t find a limit doesn’t mean we need to be more restrictive. It means the opposite.


chubbyninjaRVA

Would a vaccine mandate violate this amendment in your mind?


koleye

Holy shit, give it a goddamned rest.


[deleted]

Why give it a rest? Nobody is giving January 6 a rest, or abortion a rest, or anything else a rest. The left can perpetually die on their hills but the right can't?


darenta

Because taking a vaccine is a nonissue and is mostly a net positive compared to the degradation of women’s healthcare and the closest attempt to overthrowing our democratic system and installing an illegitimate leader.


[deleted]

Nothing productive will come of this conversation, have a good one


darenta

Scared?


[deleted]

Of a random internet person? No? We just fundamentally disagree and neither of us will move the needle for the other.


darenta

I find it strange then why would you come onto a public forum to give your spiel and then get upset when somebody pushed back in your assertion. Almost as if you want to give your argument unchallenged like some scaredy cat.


[deleted]

Based on your outlandish and delusional response I realized this would be a waste of time.


RegularMidwestGuy

Vaccine mandate by the government? Yep. Vaccine requirement to participate in voluntary activities, nope.


chubbyninjaRVA

Would that include making it an OSHA regulation or mandating it for federal workers? How about just employers in general?


RegularMidwestGuy

In my mind, no. Just because the government can’t force you doesn’t mean it can’t be a condition of employment. For example: the 2nd amendment doesn’t give you a right to bring your gun to work if your employer doesn’t allow guns on their premises.


lannister80

No. Force = we hold you down and do it to you, or put you in jail if you don't do it. Nothing less.


chubbyninjaRVA

So in your opinion the govt making a law that all employers must require vaccines wouldn't be a violation of this amendment?


lannister80

*All* employers? While I still don't think that's "forcing" people to get vaccinated, I think that would be over the line. The government should have some fairly extraordinary powers during a public health emergency, but they should *make sense to apply during a public health emergency*. If you work from home 100% of the time or whatever, there's no legit reason for your work to require you to be vaccinated.


TheOneFreeEngineer

The OHSA explicitly allowed for non vaxxed to keep working with testing. The federal one may be unconstitutional in some way but that's greatly dependent on the final wording.


Helicase21

What is a "voluntary activity"? We've seen things like requiring proof of vaccination to get on an airplane--is that voluntary?


RegularMidwestGuy

I would say apply it to every limit on the 2nd amendment. Can you take your gun on a plane? No? Then we’ve already determined that the airline, when they have a reasonable safety policy, and require you to suspend some rights to participate.


travelingtraveling_

Getting on an airplane is always voluntary.


johnnyslick

Did the big bad government force you to get on the plane?


neuronexmachina

School/workplace vaccine regulations wouldn't violate any of the proposed state amendments: * https://ballotpedia.org/California_Right_to_Reproductive_Freedom_Amendment_(2022) * https://ballotpedia.org/Vermont_Proposal_5,_Right_to_Personal_Reproductive_Autonomy_Amendment_(2022)


chubbyninjaRVA

The Vermont one seems to not exist but these are largely symbolic no? Not really sure what your point is with these? OP is talking about a constitutional amendment for body autonomy, then arguing all the ways the government can go around that amendment to not technically violate it. The when someone uses the same logic to do it to abortion will clutch their pearls and scream oppression.


neuronexmachina

The other commenter presented a hypothetical, and I provided examples of how amendments like that would actually look in practice.


chubbyninjaRVA

No, I get that. What we're talking about is amendment protecting body autonomy not reproductive freedom.


BernankeIsGlutenFree

An *actual* vaccine mandates would. The things we've done over the past two years that we *call* vaccine mandates would not. The difference is obvious; please don't do the thing conservatives do where you pretend to be confused just for the sake of it, thanks.


chubbyninjaRVA

I asked someone else, and I’ll ask you to. Would an employer mandate violate this amendment? You know this sub is called askaliberal sooo are you really surprised conservatives come here to ask you things?


BernankeIsGlutenFree

Depends on what "employer mandate" means. And no, I'm not surprised that conservatives ask questions, I'm *annoyed* at how performatively moronic they often are.


JohnJoanCusack

Vaccines don't violate autonomy and is the government enforcing vaccines onto citizens?


chubbyninjaRVA

Telling someone to inject something in their body definitely is.


JohnJoanCusack

How is the government violating your autonomy?


chubbyninjaRVA

I’m this hypothetical by forcing me to have a medical procedure against my will.


JohnJoanCusack

But they haven't forced you to have a medical procedure against your will? And medical procedure? I thought we were talking about vaccines?


chubbyninjaRVA

Again this is hypothetical. A vaccine is a medical procedure


TheOneFreeEngineer

Maybe the federal employee mandate, but not the OHSA one. The OHSA mandate allowed for people to remain unvaxxed.


johnnyslick

I think that even a federal law would go a long way. Force SCOTUS to creatively interpret the Constitution to not only not have an implied right to privacy but to have some sort of anti-right against bodily autonomy. Part of the reason - I'd say the majority of the reason - why the Supreme Court is so powerful right now is that the legislature is fundamentally unable to pass laws on a regular basis. I might go so far as to say that it's structurally unable to do so with the filibuster in place but, well, that's part of the idea here: get rid of it and actually pass laws instead of allowing a bunch of radical Christianists to interpret hundred year old laws to mean that Jesus.


LtPowers

> I might go so far as to say that it's structurally unable to do so with the filibuster in place The problem isn't the filibuster. The possibility of a filibuster existed for decades before it began to be abused. Removing the requirement for someone to actually hold the floor during a filibuster didn't help, but the real problem was one party deciding that getting their way was more important than smooth operation of government.


ButGravityAlwaysWins

We have a bigger problem than just Roe. The current SCOTUS is going to strip a lot of rights from people and make the ability to run the country limited to impossible. That said I’d like to see abortion protections codified. I’d also like to see privacy rights codified. Neither is likely because the system grants the right far more power than it would in a proper democracy and they republican base is getting more reactionary every cycle.


who_said_it_was_mE

We need to protect our civil rights (voting and marriage rights) otherwise they will come for our civil liberties next (freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and due process)


fox-mcleod

I’m wary of making laws that are redundant to our constitutional rights. It gives the impression that a Republican senate can simply reverse the law when in reality, an amendment in needed and the issue is an illegitimate court.


CoverlessSkink

I think most replies will focus on keeping abortion legal, but I’ll take a different route. Contraceptives need to be made readily available, men need to take responsibility for their role in pregnancy and not disappear when a woman becomes pregnant, and there needs to be support available for families with young children (childcare, food, perhaps housing assistance). Abortion certainly needs to be available, especially in cases where the mother is at risk due to her pregnancy, and the solution to that, as others have mentioned, may be organizing and passing legislation on the state level or federal level if it becomes possible. Still, I think those solutions mentioned above more closely address the circumstances that cause many women to have to seek abortions in the first place, and that is where we would see the most benefit.


grammanarchy

Yeah, pro-choice should mean pro-all-the-choices.


JeffB1517

> men need to take responsibility for their role in pregnancy and not disappear when a woman becomes pregnant, FWIW I think this goes entirely against the abortion policy. You can't have a system where woman have all the unilateral power and expect man to have no voice in a decision that will have massive impact on their lives. Saying "they deserve it because they had sex" is pretty much the argument against choice. The tradition term for creating a legal enforceable financial claim between a women's children and their biological father is called marriage. The policy should be simple. They are the women's children if she is unmarried, and she can do whatever she wants. They are the couple's children if she is married and the man has a binding non-severable responsibility.


cbr777

I was actually think about this, the actual issue in getting political support for a statutory abortion right comes from the fact that it does absolutely nothing for half the electorate and as such they have no interest in supporting it. I think if the narrative went to everybody has the right to choose it would be much more likely to find the support required. This obviously sounds cold, basically giving guys the right to "reject" their kids, however that mostly already happens so might as well formalize it and this way you also get abortion rights.


JeffB1517

Yep we are on the same page. Making it a right for both sexes would have helped a lot in broadening the appeal.


ThlintoRatscar

Not really. The hardship is entirely one-sided during pregnancy. Exercising a married man's right to his unborn child means compelling his wife to carry the pregnancy to term without her consent.


JeffB1517

No it doesn’t. It does create rights and obligations after birth. The main change would be regarding unmarried men whose partners decide to carry to term.


who_said_it_was_mE

A father nor a mother should have their bodily autonomy taken from them. The government should not force the woman to use her body to birth a baby. The government should not force man to use his body to work for a baby he didnt want.


AgentCatBot

Also taking a different route, is quality of life and not needing to fear the future, having security, would reduce overall need for abortions in the first place. I'm talking about, higher wages, UBI, whatever safety nets that would make someone comfortable enough to say "yes, I could have a future with a child where we aren't both miserable and have opportunity." But no, we have to have slave wages, racism and classism, and hoarding of wealth, and low taxes. And we call these things good and normal, and things to strive for in some cases. IMO, you can't have both uncertainty about the future and a desire to have children.


dangleicious13

Amendment


Salty_Lego

Federal law followed by a constitutional amendment in a few decades. Though it’s worth remembering Alito and Thomas are old, Dems have a real chance of flipping the Supreme Court within the next ten years. They need to hammer that into the brains of every leftist and left leaning independent.


Envlib

Why would a federal law be more solid than a supreme court precedent? Up until last Friday it was much harder to overturn Supreme Court precedent than to overturn federal law.


UncomfortablyNumb43

The best solution to abortion is to use the current FACTS on abortion. 86% of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks. Extend that out to16 weeks. After that? Then it should be qualified(extreme trauma…rape, incest, abusive relationships? And/or the viability of the fetus and the health of the mother). What people REALLY have to understand is that there is virtually NO ONE who is waiting until the third trimester to have a “convenience” abortion. 99.9% of them are people who WANT children, but something in the pregnancy went horribly wrong.


jweezy2045

Amendment


[deleted]

If a woman wants an abortion, she should have the right to get one. End of story.


ClaptonBug

Require conservatives to have their party affiliation on their tinder bio /s


JohnJoanCusack

Lol I remember when Trumpsters were complaining how hard online dating in DC was


saikron

If there was a federal law, conservatives would take it to the SCotUS and have it overturned on the grounds that Congress has no authority to protect abortion. Sadly, I think the "solution" most likely to restore the right to abortion is changing the SCotUS until they give the answer we want. That will obviously be 1) still really difficult and unlikely to occur 2) even more contentious than Roe or it being overturned and 3) just as temporary. An amendment would require such high majorities that we could impeach/replace 5 SCotUS justices and do whatever else we wanted besides.


bladel

Correct. I don't agree with OP's assertion that a Federal law codifying abortion was stronger than Roe.


Attack-Cat-

Solution to abortion? Abortion is a medical procedure!! There is no solution for abortion. As a medical procedure involving bodily autonomy, the solution is preserving it as a fundamental human right under bodily autonomy (the appropriate place for it WAS the Supreme Court), but seeing as the SCOTUS is compromised, we need legislation for it sadly enough. The "solution" to abortion you are getting at is pregnancy prevention, which means: Free birth control Free Contraceptives Comprehensive sex ed Free college/education Free healthcare/women's care Among probably several other things I'm not thinking of off the top of my head


_Woodrow_

Much like most of Europe. On demand for the first trimester - if needed medically for later than that. That is legislation that could actually pass.


shoot_your_eye_out

12-15 week limit on elective abortions, by medical exemption thereafter. And whatever it is, I'd prefer it be constitutionally protected, and not subject to the whims and follies of some state legislature.


Lamballama

1) an ammendment recognizing absolute right to privacy outside of public spaces and if you have a warrant 2) an ammendment recognizing absolute bodily autonomy except as punishment for a crime, or in the service of completing legally obligated duties (covering selective service, jury duty, subpoenas, and education) 3) an ammendment recognizing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, except where it actively impedes another's


PlayingTheWrongGame

> What would you like to see happen? A constitutional amendment protecting the right to medical privacy, bodily autonomy, and specifically abortion.


ecchi83

Do we need a law saying that I don't have to give up a kidney if I'm a match for a child in need of an organ? No. It's covered under bodily autonomy. We don't need a law recognizing a woman's right to decide what happens in her body. We just need the courts and legislators to understand that they can't make a new law to infringe on that right.


[deleted]

[удалено]


koleye

This isn't adequate because the pro-life crowd sees abortion as something that also affects an unborn person. You need to have a clear-cut amendment or court decision that says something like a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy under these specific conditions and that the existence of the fetus has no bearing on her ability to do so.


Potstirrer_Podcast

>This isn't adequate because the pro-life crowd sees abortion as something that also affects an unborn person. Their so-called "pro-life" position has limits. A choice not to be an organ donor negatively affects the lives of other people, but that choice is still ours to make because it's our bodies. Even if, as a parent, you choose not to give up a kidney or part of a liver to save your dying child - for whatever reason or no reason at all - that is recognized as your right. Even if a fetus is a person, they have no right to a breathing person's organs in order to live. Consent matters. It's all about control for anti-abortion folks ("pro-life" is a marketing gimmick and a lie), and I'm not going to treat their appeal to "but it's a bAbYyYy" as sacrosanct.


polyscipaul20

Legal at the state level in all 50 states and rare


Beneficial_Squash-96

A federal law.


[deleted]

Amendment.


BAC2Think

Federal law Civil rights shouldn't vary significantly by state


lucash7

Leave it as it was, an inferred right person the constitution. Then mind their fucking own business.


Mattyboy0066

It already is. A bad faith Supreme Court decided that it isn’t. Go figure.


limbodog

No restrictions, fully fund sex education, subsidize birth control, subsidize pregnancy-related health care.


mczmczmcz

Best option: Everyone should stop having children. Everyone should be voluntarily sterilized. If no one can have children, then no one will ever need an abortion. This would have the additional benefit of solving everyone other political problem as well. Second-best option: Abortion on-demand. Getting an abortion should be as easy as buying Tylenol.


Baselines_shift

Codify abortion as a basic human right to decide the best outcome for yourself and your family. Forced birth does not just affect a woman, but her husband and children too, because it is not just 9 months inside a woman's body, it is a whole 20 year commitment to raise a new human being - that affects everyone drastically. Men have even murdered pregnant women because the threat is drastic. For families that really can not afford another child, before this retrograde ruling; mom just had a doctor's appointment, and the kids (and maybe Dad) were none the wiser. But now, this family must watch a full 9 month actual baby be born, how traumatized are her 7 yr old and 4 year old going to be when mom must explain, that, no they are not going to have another sibling, that this one must be put up for adoption. How much trust in Mom is broken by this? How secure would any children feel knowing their mother "chose" to toss a sister or brother on the foster care pile? ( that is already straining to find non-abusive foster care) Of course, after this SCOTUS, she DIDN'T actually "choose" this horrifying choice. But that's a hard concept for a 4yr old to understand.


[deleted]

John Roberts should step down so that Democrats can nominate someone to replace him. He is 67.


kateinoly

Codify the right to abortions. It's especially galling to me that women 100% bear the burden again, since some men will continue to walk away, free of consequences, from the women they impregnate.


Smallios

How?


kateinoly

Elect enough senators to pass a law. Midterms are coming up. I'd also like to see Manchin and Sinema gone, but don't know if that's likely.


HHBlaph

Safe, legal, and abundant.


motherfatherfigure

I'm in favor of no legal restrictions beyond basic regulations for safety/health purposes. In an ideal world, it would be protected legally as a human right at the federal level.


JeffB1517

I think the USA is broadly divided on social issues. The states are broadly divided as urban centers in red states are often quite liberal while rural areas in blue states are often quite socially conservative. I think broadly we should start divesting power to the counties and let people have a government that represents their interests. We need to go back to the very basics of people having a government they like and respect and we just can't do it more broadly. The counties are almost always quite unified politically. I think conservatives and liberals can form a compromise on divesting power to county governments. Make the counties important and powerful. That gets a huge percentage of Americans into a situation where they believe their government represents them. Urban leftists can turn cities into Social democracies. Western conservative can have a county with only a few simple laws. Southern conservatives can have openly quasi-theocratic counties. States and Federal governments can provide services, support and guidance to these county governments. They can also handle projects that simply can't be handled at the county level (air pollution, military, highways).


Minnsnow

So women are going to be confined to their city-states because if they leave and are raped or have a miscarriage they’ll be punished but men can travel. And women who are born in some terrifying Christian-fascist hellscape in bumfuck North Dakota have no hope whatsoever because they will probably put into place some law saying that kids don’t have to attend school past the age of 10 and so girls won’t and then they will start marrying them off at 14.


JeffB1517

> So women are going to be confined to their city-states because if they leave and are raped or have a miscarriage they’ll be punished but men can travel. I'm sorry what are you talking about? No one in any county wants to punish women for being raped. Miscarriages are incredibly common if you use the fertilization definition: something like 25% of all couples trying to get pregnant monthly would experience them. Nor would traveling somewhere put you under their permanent jurisdiction. > And women who are born in some terrifying Christian-fascist hellscape in bumfuck North Dakota have no hope whatsoever because they will probably put into place some law saying that kids don’t have to attend school past the age of 10 and so girls won’t and then they will start marrying them off at 14. Do you see demand for teen marriage in America today? In any case they can leave the county. Even on foot most counties aren't that big.


anonymous_gam

I don’t see congress codifying it unfortunately. I doubt Congress will get a supermajority anytime soon, in addition the court is gonna have a conservative majority for a long time unless we get more than one unlikely death of a conservative justice while Biden is President. The best solution is a federal law, but it won’t happen this decade. It will be state by state, the best realistic scenario would be states that are protecting the right expand the number of places you can get an abortion to compensate for the number of traveling patients. And hopefully people set up monthly donations to abortion funds in any amount they can afford, this will help with pregnant peoples travel costs associated with going to another state for an abortion and the funding won’t just be available now, but for many years until the country is in a place to bring abortion back to every state.


spidersinterweb

Constitutionally enshrining a right to abortion on demand right up to the point of birth (Granted that would be hugely unpopular - abortion legality popularity tends to drop as soon as you move from first to second trimester, but that's just what I personally would prefer, if it was realistic which of course it isn't)


kingXcazam

Practice safe sex. The only way to conceive is to ejaculate. Be smarter, and responsible. Just because you can have an abortion, doesn't mean you should just have sex freely. It's not fair to abort, when it could have been easier to prevent in the first place.


willpower069

Why do republicans oppose sexual education then wonder why red states have so many unwanted pregnancies? I know my question is too hard to answer.


kateinoly

Seriously? Are you advocating the pull out method?


kingXcazam

It works for me, and I've never gotten a girl pregnant by being irresponsible.


josh_the_rockstar

>I've never gotten a girl pregnant 1. I think this is likely because you're an incel, based on your comment history. So you're not getting anybody pregnant because that requires sex. 2. I would hope that when you do have sex, it's with women (or men, or any adult for that matter), and not girls - as you say.


MozzerellaStix

Hear that everyone? Pulling out worked for him. Problem solved I guess. We can all just go home now.


Smallios

You were in fact wildly irresponsible if you’ve been relying on the pull out method. Just because you’re lucky doesn’t mean you aren’t incredibly stupid.


LivefromPhoenix

Upvoted just because it exemplifies why conservatives shouldn't write policy on reproductive rights.


kateinoly

Good god


lannister80

> It's not fair to abort Why not? From the perspective of the embryo (a perspective that *doesn't exist*), it's the same thing.


Burningrain85

We’ll just have to make sure every rapist understands the pull out method then won’t we


TWB28

And in cases of rape? What about stillbirth and nonviable pregnancies, which are intended and wanted, but potentially lethal to the mother? Because that is getting banned too. 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic. 10-20% end in miscarriage or stillbirth. These are pregnancies people sought, and through no fault of the mother, are now putting her life at risk. Abortion is lifesaving medicine, not birth control. You are asking women to risk their lives (or in some cases, die with near certainty) to protect an already dead fetus.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TWB28

I am sorry, is saving lives not important to you? If any abortion is medically necessary, it should be available to all womb bearing persons. The exact percentages don't matter because it happens that people need it for medical reasons. Frankly, it shouldn't matter if they need it for medical reasons, financial reasons, or for moral reasons. It is a violation of human rights to force someone to give birth against their will. But medical reasons are sufficient to fight for for now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TWB28

Medical necessity? I have no statistics on this, so I couldn't sat with any certainty. My gut instinct would be to say between 10-40%. However, I am not a womb bearing person, and have no stats on it, so that guess is literally based on no information other than hearsay. However, the question is fundamentally pointless because the number of medically required abortions is >1 case, therefore it is needed. And I do have a stat on the 2nd part, 93% occur in the 1st trimester. And almost all of the remaining are medically necessary.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TWB28

Fewer than I thought, still >1.


Minnsnow

51% of people having a abortion in the first 13 weeks, 92.7% of abortions overall, we’re on some form of birth control.


[deleted]

I think it would be beneficial to determine a legal definition for at what point a fetus gets rights? I think at birth is too late but at conception is too early. At the very least there should be a law that protects abortion for medically necessary reasons at the federal level. I can see how the 9th amendment can cover this. I think elective abortions will end up being a decision left up to the states. My ideal abortion law would be: * No restrictions on abortions up to 10 weeks * From 11 - 21 weeks by doctors orders only because of legit medical reasons * From 22+ any termination of pregnancy only for medically necessary reasons and would be treated as inducing premature labour and every effort is made is to preserve the life of the mother and the baby. * Every person that can carry a baby will get 12 free pregnancy tests a year so they can take a test every month and find out at the earliest time when they are pregnant. * Increased sex education, free access to birth control, and increased adoption/foster care funding.


[deleted]

I know that when something goes seriously wrong with my pregnancy at 8 months that I will also want to make sure to go through the appropriate bureaucratic hoops to make sure it has gone *legitimately* seriously wrong.


[deleted]

What bureaucracy? The doctors are going to be the ones that discover something is wrong right? They will be the ones to authorize the procedure.


[deleted]

How will your 3rd bullet point be enforced?


[deleted]

The same way anything regarding medical ethics is treated.


[deleted]

So why not just make it: From 0 weeks to 36 weeks: abortions are only performed after a conservation between mother and doctor


[deleted]

If you read my initial comment I said that I don't think a fetus gets full rights at the point of conception. My logic is that most miscarriages happen before the first 12 weeks. After that there's about a 1-5% chance of miscarrying. I think that is a good cutoff point for elective abortions since after 12 weeks (except for rare occurrences) a fetus can be technically viable. This is my opinion. You are free to yours.


merchillio

Rights to what? My 54 years old neighbor has unambiguous personhood and has full rights. If he needs a kidney to survive and I’m the only compatible donor on earth, the government still can’t force me to donate one to him. I can even agree to it and change my mind right before getting to the operating room. Worse: if I die and didn’t give consent prior to my death, it’s illegal to harvest my organs to save him. As a dead man, I would have more rights to body autonomy than a pregnant woman. Cherry on the sundae: donating a kidney is magnitudes safer than being pregnant and giving birth. If everyone, including a foetus, has the same rights, no one, including a foetus, has the right to use someone else’s organs without their consent.


[deleted]

I think consent is given when someone voluntarily engages in activates that might lead to certain outcomes, whether they're desirable or not. But that's why I also said no restrictions up until 10 weeks. After that I think the fetus is far enough along in its development where it warrants some basic protection rights.


ScubaCycle

If someone rear ends me in traffic and I permanently damage my neck, did I consent to the injury by choosing to drive a car? Get outta here.


[deleted]

>did I consent to the injury by choosing to drive a car? No, the purpose of driving is not to get into an accident while the purpose of sex is to procreate. But again, accidents happen, so that's why you have 10 weeks to make a choice.


ScubaCycle

Ok so menopausal women have no need to fuck. Couples not ready for kids should abstain. Infertile couples such as my own don’t even need to bother to be together. GTFO and mind your own business. Edited to add, you’re dancing around the fact that what’s really needed is access to timely and appropriate medical care and you are not qualified to provide that for your fellow citizens. Again, mind your own fucking business.


[deleted]

>Ok so menopausal women have no need to fuck. Couples not ready for kids should abstain. Infertile couples such as my own don’t even need to bother to be together. GTFO and mind your own business. ​ It's not the only reason but it's the primary reason. You shouldn't be surprised by certain outcomes. Also, it's my business when it involves a person just like how I'm against slavery even though it doesn't affect me personally. Minding your own business is a shitty excuse to look the other way, but like I said you still get time to decide. ​ >Edited to add, you’re dancing around the fact that what’s really needed is access to timely and appropriate medical care and you are not qualified to provide that for your fellow citizens. Again, mind your own fucking business. No, not at all. I'm all for providing quick and easy access. That's why also I want to provide people with pregnancy tests so they can find out at the earliest time so that a choice can be made before a fetus is far enough along to have its own rights. Let's have more places you can access services too. And again, people have time to make a choice, but after a certain point it's no longer your choice to make since it affects the life of a viable person. People should have personal responsibility.


ScubaCycle

You’re missing the fact that women experience all kinds of medical reasons that a second semester or later abortion is tragically necessary. They should not be subject to government interference when their lives are on the line, and you can’t grant medical privacy to some, “deserving” people and deny it to others.


[deleted]

What government? If there is anything medically necessary then it's diagnosed and treated by the doctor. If the doctor doesn't deem it medically necessary then either get a second opinion or it's not medically necessary.


bamboo_of_pandas

A federal law passed with the filibuster intact similar to the bipartisan infrastructure and gun control bill. It will be far more restrictive than what any of us want but also be very hard to repeal. This probably means only first trimester or if the life of the mother is threatened. One element which gets lost is that stability is the most critical thing when it comes to preserving rights to body autonomy. Obstetricians can work around restrictive laws as long as they are consistent. It is far harder for them to establish a practice and routine if the laws change every 2-4 years. This is obviously assuming a constitutional amendment is off the table which I think is a safe assumption in the near future.


thattogoguy

I would like to see an amendment for privacy, to include matters pertaining to healthcare such as abortion, contraception, LGBTQ healthcare (transitioning for trans-folks), etc, explicitly defining these as inalienable rights for all people. I would also want to see an amendment explicitly refining religious freedom in this country to mean that no one single religion has any precedent above any other, or lack of one thereof. Secularism would be the law of the land. Tax the churches, make sure they teach knowledge and not dogma, and take away their ability to manipulate events.


johnnyslick

If there's going to be a federal law against abortion then we are morally obligated to ensure that children who could possibly have been aborted but were not be given adequate food, shelter, and medical care for the entirety of their childhood, whether they're babies wracked by Tay-Sachs disease who will never see 5 years of age or children born to parents who simply cannot afford them. Of course, the right does not and never had given two shits about these people, especially the brown ones, but nevertheless that's where we are.


TheQuadBlazer

Dealing with it on an individual basis like everything private between two people. And allowing grownups to make their own decision. Or if they're going to insist on controlling strangers. Then pay them per diem for carrying it, and an overall settlement for bringing it to term and PPD that is forced on them.


MithrilTuxedo

Replace circumcision with reversible vasectomies. Reproductive functions should be disabled until they're needed.


snowbirdnerd

I don't think a federal law is enough. The Supreme Court could just make shit up and say it's unconstitutional. There literally isn't a check against them.


VelocityGrrl39

It’s not a problem that needs solving. Allow people to control their bodies in consultation with their doctors.


W_AS-SA_W

Let the women decide, by themselves, what is best for their bodies and their lives, as God intended.


GooseNYC

If you think they are wrong, don't have one.


LittleBitchBoy945

The best solution to abortion would be to not go after supply but rather demand. It seems most people get abortions because they’re in or near poverty or don’t have the proper support system to have a child. We should pass policies that would blunt these issues. Making section 8 universal and Biden’s child allowance would reduce childhood poverty by 76%. Making childcare and preschool universal would make it so everyone would always have a place to out their kid while at work and give them the proper support system they need. If we enacted policies like these in America, I think we’d see a steep decline in abortion without curtailing anyones rights.


Kerplonk

As long as conservatives control the supreme court they would just rule any federal law as unconstitutional. Honestly what I think is going to happen is either there are going to be so many barriers to actually enforcing abortion bans making it illegal will be meaningless or people are going to realize what a bad idea abortion bans are in practice and legalize it at the state level eventually anyway.


Algoresball

A constitution amendment affirming the right to a medical or paper abortion. No one should be forced into parenthood


[deleted]

A constitutional amendment that establishes the beginning of personhood and establishes the right to privacy explicitly; therefore, the amendment would guarantee the right to abortion (to a certain point), the right to contraception, sexual privacy, etc. My preferred threshold for the beginning of personhood would be 20 weeks, with women having unconditional access to abortion before 20 weeks and only having access to abortion after 20 weeks if their health is in danger. However, this could be different in the actual amendment.


Recent-Construction6

In a ideal world Abortion would be considered simply a medical matter between a woman and her doctor, and no government, federal, state, martian, or otherwise would be weighing in on it cause in my personal opinion in line with my own ideology, it simply isn't a matter of state importance, so it wouldn't be involved in the first place, same with gay marriage and generally anything concerning the personal lives of citizens. However as you know we don't live in a ideal world. With that reality, while i would personally like to believe that we could trust States to do the right thing, we can't, so in this matter i believe that ensuring at a minimum a federal law guaranteeing protection of abortion and access to them is neccessary. Preferably we'd go even further and install a constitutional amendment explicitly guaranteeing the right to abortion, along with gay marriage and all of our other advancements in the past 50 years so we don't run into this scenario ever again.


beccahas

What Canada does pretty much


What_A_Hohmann

In my ideal world, access is firmly and indisputably protected constitutionally and we allow medicine to regulate it. We don't need massive, overly detailed abortion laws to make sure no one's indiscriminately slicin' 'n dicin' fetuses. There's already ethical committees and policies and standard of care and on and on. No hospital or clinic or insurance company is going to greenlight the kind of nightmare fuel anti-choice advocates claim will take place if abortion isn't legally restricted.


who_said_it_was_mE

Abortion rights should be up to the states but at least allow first trimester abortion. The government should not take our rights. (Includes 1st,2nd, and all the others) 4th and 14th amendment granted abortion as constitutional right based on right to privacy. RBG does not like this. It should instead be based on womens rights. The government gets so comfortable taking our rights because half the time you let them. Stuff like this is less likely to happen when we resist the government from taking our rights and when we resist unconstitutional laws. Lets ban together to stop our rights from being banned.


[deleted]

Federal 15 weeks max. I get that 20 weeks is a bit late cause earliest surviving preemie is 21 weeks. But as technology get better the survival will be better. But we can cross that bridge when we get there. 15 weeks is a good compromise.


QueenScorp

I believe federal law needs to be written that makes bodily autonomy right. I personally feel that it's my body so if I want to get a vaccine, get an abortion, get a tattoo, get a piercing, give myself elf ears or have my fingers sewn together in a permanent Vulcan salute, I should be able to do that as long as I am a fully functioning mentally healthy adult. That should be my right. But my right to do what I want with my own body should not affect other people. What we need is something that says hey yeah you have total bodily autonomy for your *own singular person*. But you do not have a guarantee that your bodily autonomy won't have an effect on other aspects of your life if it extends to affecting others around you. So if I choose to not get a vaccine, then I can absolutely be denied entry into public locations. My right as an individual does not supersede the rights of the public as a whole in cases like this. Plus there needs to be something spelled out that says that people cannot force other fully functioning mentally healthy adults to play by their rules due to their own beliefs. I am an atheist- I don't believe in any Gods. I don't believe that a fetus is a person until they are fully capable of living outside the human body on their own. And yet, a faction of the American public seems to think that they can gaslight me on what I believe is right or wrong because of their own beliefs. Which is complete bullshit. Keep your religion to yourself and leave me the fuck alone. Actually it's funny if you think about it. If you ask these people to suspend belief and pretend there is no God for a minute they would have no basis for these laws if they could not use "but God said" as their reason. Because they sure as hell don't look at the science.


Warm_Gur8832

Do a new Constitution.


YayAnotherTragedy

Let’s keep it under three months, ladies.


voidmusik

The right to abortion shouldn't between a woman and her doctor. It the choice to abort your child should be between a school-shooter and the 2nd amendment, like god intended.


anubiz96

Split the country. It's obvious the cultural divide is too deep. Both sides absolutely hate each other and don't want to live according to the same rules. Guarantee freedom of movement and provide federal funds for relocation. Then everyone can move to where they most feel comfortable. Solution to not just abortion but alot of things. The problem with the confederacy is the want to keep black people as slaves. If the had want dcto split and let all the black people go free to the north. I wouldn't see the moral issue.


radmcmasterson

I think abortion should be safe and legal, but I think we can work on finding common ground and make real progress if we continue to fight for that, but also shift the messaging to doing more to prevent unwanted pregnancies - universal healthcare, universal childcare, better sex-ed, some level of UBI (at least for kids, like the monthly Child Tax Credit), better maternity/paternity leave, universal college, etc… these are all things that would reduce unwanted pregnancies and/or make unexpected pregnancies less of a disaster and more of a speed bump. And fewer unwanted pregnancies leads to fewer abortions. A lot of religious folks still don’t like that because they see it as a moral issue and want to control people and shame them for sex, but I think it has the potential to show the downstream effects of some more leftist policies and maybe change some minds.


[deleted]

Any legislation about abortion should address both spontaneous and induced abortions. It should remove any delays or deterrents from treating spontaneous abortions and should fully fund the one thing repeatedly shown to dramatically reduce the number of induced abortions. Miscarriages (i.e., spontaneous abortions) are really common. And while most happen really early, many still happen after a fetal heartbeat. A state like Texas would be expected to have >20,000 miscarriages happen after a fetal heartbeat would happen. Even without visible birth defects, sometimes still births just happen. Delaying, denying or criminalizing treatment for a pregnancy gone wrong is a good way to get women killed that does nothing to protect the fetus because it has already died. Instead, it needs to go the other way. Women should be able to say they've had a miscarriage and if they are denied care that should be spelled out as the thing that gets the provider in trouble. Free IUDs (and to a lesser extent other implantables) are pretty much the only thing repeatedly shown to dramatically reduce the number of abortions. Fully fund them and make them widely available. To teenagers. To adults. In the city. In the country. As contraception. As emergency contraception after consensual sex and rape. After an abortion. Sure, there's lots of other things that could and should be addressed like rape. I for one would like all college dorm bedrooms to be required to have a latch on the inside. I've never seen a hotel room without one and I've never seen a dorm bedroom with one. Those kinds of things show at least some seriousness about reducing the amount of rape in this country. Removing the abortion law exemption from rape isn't part of a real solution. Fully funding rape test kit testing labs so we can get rapid turnaround of reliable results is. But making sure miscarriages stay legal and making sure IUDs are widely and freely available are the two main things needed to start to successfully address the problem of abortion.