Roe v Wade

Is no more

A terrible day in US history.


I am gutted.

1 Like

I can’t put into words how I feel :face_with_symbols_over_mouth::frowning:


Was just going to come and post. I’m absolutely heart broken, doublet so as a midwife. I still can’t even get my head around a 50 yrear step back in time for women’s rights :cry:


I’m struggling as well, this is medieval - many states have laws on their statutes that trigger immediately should Roe v Wade ever be overturned so they have all clicked into operation - often without even medical exigency exceptions, people are already worried that women who are diagnosed with cancer will be denied abortions that would allow them to undergo chemotherapy, women with ectopic pregnancies will be denied life saving surgery because it is thought of as an “abortion”.

There are already accounts of women who have had miscarriages coming under suspicion and even being convicted of manslaughter.

Welcome to the Republic of Gilead.


Before this subject becomes too emotive I would like to draw attention to some relevant facts.
Firstly, in the 49 years that have passed since the Roe v Wade decision, no American Federal Administration has passed any Federal Law to enshrine the consequences of the Roe v Wade decision into substantive and binding law across all of the states of the USA. This is probably due to the fact that the abortion issue is not exactly seen as a vote winner by either of the mainstream US political parties, and so the matter has been left to one side in circumstances that enable the Supreme Court to change their previous decision if they so wish.
Secondly, I don’t see how today’s decision in the case of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization can be seen as a total reversal of Roe v Wade. In the Dobbs case the Supreme Court has supported the state of Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks. The outcome of Roe v Wade was to effectively provide a right to abortion during the first trimester (three months) of pregnancy. Three months is of course 14 weeks, so surely one has to ask the question as to whether the Mississippi state ban after 15 weeks actually changes that much.

The Supreme Court has given its verdict in relation to one specific piece of State Legislation that only applies in one state. The decision will embolden other States to follow suit with similar enactments, but even this is not the total ban on abortion that some people seem to be trying to suggest that the Supreme Court has imposed. It is of course extremely regrettable that the whole abortion issue has become so politicised within the USA, and that some political figures have more interest in using the issue to garner votes than in seeking that which is best for women.

Fortunately in relation to this particular subject, in a country where the majority of legislation is enacted at a State rather than Federal level, there are invariably ways to circumnavigate those laws which are felt to be inappropriate. Not all States will change their laws to outlaw abortion, and also one should not forget that State law does not apply to Federal Land, or indeed to land that is under the control of the original indigenous population of the USA. Women will still be able to obtain the services and help that they need, but some will have to travel a greater distance than before in order to obtain it. Our European view may well be that such travel of itself disadvantages women in need, but we should perhaps not lose sight of the fact that Americans are much more accustomed to traveling across State borders in order to be able to purchase goods and services they need. We need to remember that the USA is in very many ways not one country at all, but rather that it is, as it’s very name confirms, a Union of separate States that exist in the American continent, and that it is the very concept of “States Rights” that restricts the Federal Government from being able to govern in the way that we are accustomed to on the eastern side of the Atlantic.

1 Like

That’s just whataboutery isn’t it. In fact getting an abortion is going to be impossible in about half the US and it’s precisely the people who need them most who aren’t going to be able to go off somewhere else. It is appalling. It is the thin end of the wedge. It is such a restrictive and retrograde step.


FFS….getting an abortion is not having a jolly day out “purchasing goods or services”! We are talking about people, sometimes sick, sometimes young, sometimes traumatised but just about always distressed having to travel away from their home area for a medical procedure. And then travel back again, sometimes in discomfort. And travel is never free so of course it disadvantages poorer people.


Given that the annual number of abortions in the US is over 630K that ‘some’ will actually be tens of thousands of desperate women.

Whichever way you cut it the decision is a massive step backwards.


Indeed it is likely poorer women who need abortions.

If you live in Houston, Texas you will find abortion banned in all states to the east - that means a journey of some 740 miles to Albuquerque which is likely the closest place that you can legally have an abortion.

1 Like

Thank you for a reasoned and sensible post Robert. Am I the only person that is amazed that this is characterised as a right v left wing option?

I can hardly be accused of being of the right, but what I really object to is the screeching about women’s right to choose, without any reference to the right to life of the unborn thousands.

Of course there are many circumstances where it is advisable, or even essential, to terminate a pregnancy but the way this issue is being presented is that any woman can choose on a whim to rid their bodies of an inconvenient incumbrance. In many, probably the majority, of cases the right to choose has already been made, at the point of conception without protection.

So to my mind a blanket right to end a viable life is simply wrong, and I hope that Robert is correct in his statement that

but even this is not the total ban on abortion that some people seem to be trying to suggest that the Supreme Court has imposed.


The decision is a set back for women’s rights. No doubt about it.

The problem as I see was that action wasn’t taken since Roe v Wade to ‘shore up’ the law. Roe v Wade seemingly wasn’t ‘good law’ but people chose to let the sleeping dog alone.

Administration after administration have not wanted to tackle an emotional and divisive issue that might cost them votes. So it was a issue that lay in wait. All it took was someone (for whatever motivation) to poke the stick and give the courts a decision to make.

Roe v. Wade: Yes, Overturn Bad Law | National Review

“The case against Roe is not that abortion is a great evil. The case against Roe is that it is bad law. That is all the Supreme Court is bound to consider.”

“Roe v. Wade may be the rare Supreme Court decision that most Americans can name, but it’s also one of the few that many volubly disparage - and not just anti-abortion activists who want to get rid of it altogether. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a staunch advocate of access to abortion but an open critic of the reasoning behind Roe.”

Yes, it’s a dreadful day and a decision that sets us back, but it has been coming. I’m hopeful that women’s rights groups in the many states that will face restrictive laws are able to mobilise not just to help women with unwanted pregnancies but also to fight the law at state level. I would be supportive of their actions.

1 Like

Don’t even go there David, seriously.


But why not? Yes in cases of rape, ectopic pregnancy and abnormalities abortion makes sense but when I see placards saying ‘My body,my choice’ I just think ‘you did have a choice and that was not to have unprotected sex/get pregnant’. I admit I know nothing about the US - is it difficult/expensive to get birth control?

1 Like

It is right vs, left in 2 ways I think. First, you have to get away from the idea that political right and left views are about economic policies or blue-prints (eg. capitalism vs communism) - they’re not. The differences in such economic and social plans are underlay by the more profound difference that the left believes human beings capable of organising themselves on a rational basis - it believes in reason, evidence, etc - while the right believes in authority (of tradition, religion, ruling class, sex, race, etc). So the left will tend to look for a rational balance between the rights of women and unborn children - usually expressed in weeks of pregnancy - based on evidence about the human and social consequences of intervention. But the right will be much more inclined to rely on the authority of religious etc absolute prohibitions.

But secondly, in the particular context of the US, the right has over a long period deliberately politicised abortion for other ends: it saw a large constituency of evangelical christians that were not very engaged in politics, nor very right-wing, and set out to find and promote an issue that would enlist them in favour of a rightist agenda - an agenda that doesn’t really care much about abortion in fact - more about votes.


To deep for me Geoff. As far as I am concerned it is a moral question the right to life of an unborn child while recognising, as @rendi60 says, that there are important exceptions to be made.

Even with rape I think there is a possibility of delayed contraception, but not sure about that (the so-called ‘morning after pill?’) so I will leave it aside.

But @vero There is no doubt that for centuries women have faced awful and unjustified descrimination, something I have opposed all my thinking life, but to say

Don’t even go there David, seriously.

smacks very much of the opposite, a discrimination against men to effectively accept a gagging order. I oppose discrimination in all its aspects and this is not acceptable to me.

1 Like

No contraception , apart from total abstention, is 100% effective, I conceived 1 of my children whilst using the birth control pill, so no I did not choose to be pregnant at that time and that is the case for many women. Very few women decide to have an abortion just because they feel like it, it’s often a very difficult and painful choice that can and does affect many for the rest of their lives and frankly insulting to assume they make that choice on a whim.


I agree with you Debby, but I did not say that, what I said was that was the way it was being presented. Which is what I objected to.

You were also assuming the majority of women chose unprotected sex and so had no right to choose to abort a fetus. We will disagree but as far as I’m concerned only a women has a right to decide what happens to her body, you can see it as gagging or discriminating, that’s your right.


If you accept that it is ok in those cases then by forbidding it in other cases you aren’t exercising an ethical judgment you are just punishing women.

It is simple, if you don’t approve of abortion don’t have one. But accept other people can.

Birth control can be expensive, difficult to get access to, misused through ignorance etc.

It is paradoxical that these products of pregnancy are only precious while they are unborn, isn’t it. Once they have been born there’s no help or support or obligation for the father to do a proper job. Funny that.