Roe vs Wade financial impacts, no politics

[QuarterMillionMan]

For me personally the year was in the 1990's when I got someone pregnant and she agreed to an abortion but couldn't afford it so I paid $500 for an abortion, I am lucky to have had that option because I was not ready for it. From a moral stand point though I can see the supreme courts decision to overturn it.

[james.hendrickson]

You know, I always thought that a federal system where states decided on important issues was a good way to handle controversial/difficult issues like abortion.

If southern people don't want to allow abortion, that's fine.

If progressive people in New York and California want to allow it, also fine.

[ua_guy]

I am not okay with undoing already settled decisions like this because of a change in political winds. Gay marriage was mentioned in the ruling, that it should be looked at again. My thoughts are with all the women who woke up today under assault of the conservative stranglehold. I know how it feels -- as a gay man, my life is going to be re-litigated again, too.

We were given the federal right to marry almost 10 years ago which affords us 1200+ federal protections like every other married couple. Now with significant net worth gained under married status we're going to have to preemptively structure our finances, create a trust and do many other things to protect ourselves in the event federal marriage law is overturned. Estimated cost: $10,000++

On the other hand, I just saved a bunch in postage and gifts. There are several people in our family who I plan on never speaking to ever again.

[kork13]

You know, I always thought that a federal system where states decided on important issues was a good way to handle controversial/difficult issues like abortion.

If southern people don't want to allow abortion, that's fine.

If progressive people in New York and California want to allow it, also fine.

That's generally my opinion as well. We have a very diverse country, and nobody will ever fully agree on controversial issues. The greater granularity that federated states enables is one of the great benefits (and challenges) of our country's structure. But I'm otherwise going to avoid the political fray...

As for the original question.... Roe v. Wade & related issues have never been a factor in my life financially or otherwise. I'm grateful for that fact, and hope that remains the case for me & my family in the future.

In general terms, I'm one to stay out of the personal lives, choices, and medical care of strangers. Although I hold a firm opinion & morality covering a wide variety of issues, I have no desire to force my will or morality upon others.

[jenn_jenn]

Financially? The only difference is that I will be making a few donations to help women impacted by this decision.

[Snydley]

For me personally the year was in the 1990's when I got someone pregnant and she agreed to an abortion but couldn't afford it so I paid $500 for an abortion, I am lucky to have had that option because I was not ready for it. From a moral stand point though I can see the supreme courts decision to overturn it.

'From a moral standpoint' the supreme court just told women they are nothing more than baby making machines, even if they are raped; hell, even if they are carrying dead fetuses, carry them anyway. IF MEN COULD GET PREGNANT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO ORDER ABORTION PILLS AT STARBUCKS WITH YOUR COFFEE. This is not about politics but basic human rights.

This was the stupidest thing the Republican party could have ever let happen and I hope it sinks them for good.

[disneysteve]

A great deal of the progress that women have made in this country over the past 50 years is specifically because of the safe and legal availability of contraceptive health care. Today's decision turns the clock back 5 decades on womens rights. You won’t see the impact in a week or a month but you will over the coming years. It will impact high school graduation rates which in turn will affect college enrollment and ultimately workforce participation by women.

Of course, the greatest impact will be in the lower class who don’t have the means to travel for their care. The well off, Democrats and Republicans alike, will still have easy access to necessary medical care. If they can’t get it in their home town, they’ll hop a plane to wherever they can get it. Millions of women, especially minorities, no longer have that option. Mississippi was already near the bottom of the pile economically. This will just make it that much worse there and throughout the states controlled by conservative extremists.

It’s a very sad day to be an American.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Economically it'll sink the lower classes. They will be unable to climb out of poverty. They will sink beneath the weight of oppression of the rich. We will become more like 17th century france when Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake". This was a rallying cry for the republicans who believed in church and it's teachings. You will find that life is going to get harder for them faster because most abortions are in that class of people who don't believe in contraceptions and pre-martial sex but engage anyway. They will sink lower and lower and republicans who believe in smaller government and less handouts will try to cut helping them. People actually believe they aren't on welfare with Obamacare and WIC but they totally are.

Economically you will find the divide greater than ever. Get pregnant and your parents are well-off? No problem we'll solve it with a pill or private clinic. We will segregate even more. I don't know how long until the blue collar white southerners realize that their lot in life is getting worse than it is. It already is bad where you can see income dictates how long you live. Wait until we cut obamacare and they get no healthcare.

Next up is contraception and gay marriage and gun control. You still have people like Ted Cruz saying the minimal gun control law passed in the senate is "disarming" lawful citizens and against the constitution. This after the supreme court just overnturned NY open carry gun laws.

This supreme court is power mad and determined to do it to their own personal beliefs. You want to dictate it's state's laws for abortion but gun control? No way. Funny how it is the state laws for stuff they don't like but stuff they want it's federal laws.

I'm hoping perhaps California will refuse to pay federal taxes and claim to pay only what the lowest minimum state pays. See how far we go when the blue states which typically pay more than get back start to refuse to pay more than their fair share.

People think they pay their fair share when they pay nothing. The federal tax credits for kids and the EIC is nothing but a handout to the poor. I'm fully supportive but I just wish all those people getting it realize they are on the government dole. It's not them against the "african american welfare queens,." They are taking just as much as those they judging.

Let's see what happens when more women have children they can't support and start going back on welfare. For those who oppose abortion buckle up the rise in costs to support these unwanted children will come due. Women will become less educated and participate less in the workforce, there will be a rise in domestic violence and abuse.

[Fishindude77]

Don’t really have a dog in this fight but I’m all for keeping the feds out of as much as possible and let states have the authority. Wish the feds would keep their noses out of a lot of other issues as well.

[myrdale]

Taking my moral opinions of the matter completely out of the discussion, it is a good ruling.

Roe vs Wade was a bad ruling to start with. My limited understanding about the case is it actually revolved around patient's right to privacy.

Based on the Fourth Amendment, you have a right to be secure in your person, house, personal papers, and effects. That doesn't mean you have the right to go to your doctor's office and smoke meth. Similarly the Fourth Amendment doesn't mean you have a right to have any procedure done which you desire. A similar example would be an 8 year old wanting a sex change surgery.

In this case abortion is 100% NOT illegal in the United States on a Federal level. If you want one, go to a state where they are offered.

Pregnancy is 100% avoidable. And to that end, I would be 100% behind the government paying for birth control.

The arguments about rape and incest together only account for around 1% of all claims.

If you want to make abortion legal on the Federal level then get Congress and the President to pass a law stating such. And to that end define, legally when a person is a person. The moment of conception? Heart beat detected? Brain waves? 1, 2, 3 trimester? The process of labor? Fully birthed?

The moment of conception doesn't make any sense at all, but then again killing a baby at 9 months during delivery is just... well.

[kork13]

I wish I could avoid politics, but I've wanted to ask this for a while to better make sense of a viewpoint that I just don't understand.

For perspective, I personally disagree with elective abortion for my own moral reasons... That said, I also see a major distinction between abortions for the sake of "I was irresponsible and/or don't want a child right now" versus abortions needed to protect the mother -- medical emergencies, rape/incest, fetal viability, etc. But as I said up-thread, those beliefs are my own, and I firmly believe that my morals & religious beliefs shouldn't (can't) restrict the freedom of choice for other people.

Honest question for anyone who wants to see abortion outlawed & restricted to the maximum extent possible:
Why is the availability of abortion services so offensive, if it has no impact on you or your family? If your family decides "We will not ever use our support abortion services" whether for moral, religious, or whatever other reason... Why does it matter if your neighbor has the ability to choose to have an abortion?

[QuarterMillionMan]

What about the argument of taking a human life? Remember I paid for an abortion in the 90's and didn't want the kid but morally I squashed the life out of a human life. Was that okay because it was perfectly legal? But when my time comes and I meet my maker who knows what bearing that'll have.

[myrdale]

Economically you will find the divide greater than ever. Get pregnant and your parents are well-off? No problem we'll solve it with a pill or private clinic. We will segregate even more. I don't know how long until the blue collar white southerners realize that their lot in life is getting worse than it is. It already is bad where you can see income dictates how long you live. Wait until we cut obamacare and they get no healthcare.

Next up is contraception and gay marriage and gun control. You still have people like Ted Cruz saying the minimal gun control law passed in the senate is "disarming" lawful citizens and against the constitution. This after the supreme court just overnturned NY open carry gun laws.

This supreme court is power mad and determined to do it to their own personal beliefs. You want to dictate it's state's laws for abortion but gun control? No way. Funny how it is the state laws for stuff they don't like but stuff they want it's federal laws.

The difference is the Second Amendment exist and states we have a right to own firearms. There isn't an amendment which gives you the right to terminate a life at any point you like.

As far as gay marriage goes, people fail to understand marriage in the United States isn't a holy union in the eyes of God, it's a legal / tax status.

Ted Cruz isn't too far off base. Its actually funny that you mention the proposed gun control law and gay marriage. The new gun legislation claims to close the "boyfriend" loop hole. This means domestic violence can apply to non-married couples just as well as married couples. That by itself is eroding away at the legal benefits of marriage. Also there is the claim it will prevent suicide. Maybe it stops someone from shooting themselves, but just maybe they drive headlong into another car at 80 miles an hour killing an entire family instead.

[Petunia 100]

You know, I always thought that a federal system where states decided on important issues was a good way to handle controversial/difficult issues like abortion.

If southern people don't want to allow abortion, that's fine.

If progressive people in New York and California want to allow it, also fine.

That was the same argument used to support slavery. So it makes sense that it is being used today, since a person who lacks authority over their own body is a fairly accurate description of both a slave and a woman living in a red state today.

[myrdale]

What about the argument of taking a human life? Remember I paid for an abortion in the 90's and didn't want the kid but morally I squashed the life out of a human life. Was that okay because it was perfectly legal? But when my time comes and I meet my maker who knows what bearing that'll have.

Or there is no maker and you never have to face repercussions. It's for us to decide our own morality and stand on that.

Morals are 100% relative to your location. Our society has embraced gay marriage but if you go to Saudi Arabia, they will cut your head off. In a universal sense, it is no more "immoral" in Saudi Arabia than it is in the United States, and it is no more "moral" in the United States than it is in Saudi Arabia. Nor is alcohol or meth consumption, of which you may meet a short in Saudi Arabia or China.

The personal decision is do we follow and enforce the laws based on societies morals, or do we stand on our own morals becoming outlaws and accept the consequences of that decision.