Alabama passes bill banning abortion


It is clearly a states’ right issue. Overturning Roe /= banning abortion.

Overturning Roe removes the moral weight that a, say, Alabaman might bear over tacitly supporting (via a court ruling, Roe) a Maryland mother’s decision to end the life of her child.

I know some wills scoff or sneer at that perceived moral responsibility, but again the Church has very deep roots in the US. Roots that are shared by many Protestants on the sanctity of human life.


No, at least Georgia has put a provision that those women will be legally liable, up to a life sentence I heard.


That may be, but that would be a Georgia law not a Federal one.

It’s important to remember that overturning Roe is NOT the same thing as banning abortion. Overturning Roe would not criminalize either the travel or the abortion operation should a woman choose to cross state line to receive the service.


It would probably make the more extreme versions of legalization of abortion and funding more easy to accomplish for states that wants it.


First of all, every anti-abortion law should include clauses saying every father is financially responsible to support their child (and the mother starting during pregnancy) and will face jail time for non-compliance. In general, a father’s name should be listed on each birth certificate. I have never seen any anti-abortion group address the responsibilities of the father. (I actually doubt any anti-abortion laws would pass if includes such clauses).

Next, I prefer abortion laws not to be drawn up at the state level for these reasons:
1)such states tend to try to eliminate all woman family planning support (including birth control/pregnancy prevention) in their attempt to eliminate abortion
2)so much confusion as each state draws up different rules which is a real mess when related to crossing state lines to try to punish the woman, doctor, and even the person transporting the woman to an abortion clinic.
3)such state laws can change radically every few years if not following the basic guidelines from federal level.

1 Like

Yes, overturning Roe would clear up much of the Federal rubble it created, and should give states more leeway.


Not to mention state law makers will feel the full force of the issue to address from their constituents now. Most democratic leaders treat it really as a 2nd tier issue because they have roe vs wade. They will be forced to bring it to the top once it becomes a state issue. If you’re pro choice, this is a win from this aspect.

1 Like

By the way, Roe v Wade is the single longest rabbit hole an American can wander down. Has been for at least 27 years, since the so-called Summer of Mercy protests that lit up the nation like Trump on steroids in 1992. Roe absolutely dwarfs discussion of the 2nd Amendment or climate change or just about anything else.

There is no end to the discussion. Both sides make very good points, and unfortunately human physiology has placed women (actual women) on the front lines of the battle. I suspect that even overturning Roe will not put out the conflagration - but it just might.


Wouldn’t there already be child support laws in place for each state? I always found it strange

Act of sex=equal responsibility and choice
Pregnancy=All responsibilities and choice is given to the women
After birth=equal responsibility again.


Too many people.

It’s a shame for the pro-choice brigade that Roe became a born again pro-lifer. Similarly, it’s no doubt troublesome for the God botherers that she ended up a lesbian.

Bottom line: too many people. And I have no plans to leave any time soon. Reducing population growth early on make sense to me. Termination by choice is hit and miss.


Again , there has to be a median , acceptable view . Each side seems to take an extreme view . Women should have the right , in most cases , to terminate a pregnancy IF reasonably early … not up to the point of delivery . Taking out the medical reasons … which some say … even if there are risks of mother and child dying … should still be no abortion …stupid , intransigence. So just a reasonable set of rules put in place please.


I meant like, banning it in one state and forcing people to travel, what does that accomplish?

Sure, for the record I personally wouldnt scoff at it. Id be pro choice, but not pro abortion.

woah, thats another level again


I used the term government broadly to include the Supreme Court. I didn’t say they could pass any law.


I see. You’re not alone. The half of the US that’s nuts these days also thinks it’s been taken care of. What people overlook is that cooking up some civil right to abortion (it’s actually masquerading as a right to privacy) without finding that language in the Constitution is not exactly taking care of it.

Roe has caused other headaches, too. For example, the popular rise of the Federalist Society has been one outcome of Roe. Conservative Americans observed as liberal Justices cooked up a civil right out of thin air, and concluded that going back to original language is the only way to keep American liberals from completely undoing/altering the US Constitution. This, too, has proven to divide Americans. Thanks to Roe the faction of Americans who favor “originalist” intent is growing - and seems to have endless energy.

In the US we like to say “the law’s the law,” but Roe is not law.


That’s what I love about the USA, the fact that different states can have different laws in the same country, this also makes it easier to settle down around more like minded people.

1 Like

This kind of thing could happen in the US?


A lot of people would point to countless babies being killed because it was inconvenient in horror and disgust. There would certainly be more cases to point at.


Oh yes.


Now that the Supreme Court is solidly 5-4 conservative, this is being done in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

This is Reason #1 why I opposed trump for president.

1 Like

Apparently it will depend on which state.
So-called elitist coastal states, not likely.