Roe vs Wade financial impacts, no politics

[myrdale]

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.

I am pretty sure no one is going to hang a woman for taking a bus across state lines.

[kork13]

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.

But isn't that a moral choice for the mother/father to make, not for our society to force upon them?

[Petunia 100]

I am pretty sure no one is going to hang a woman for taking a bus across state lines.

I didn't say otherwise. But since you mentioned it, I wonder how long it will be before men in red states are required to take a bus to a different state to receive medical care. Probably a really, really long time.

[QuarterMillionMan]

To me it seems wrong to snuff out a life but I did it so I am the last person to say prolife or prochoice.

[jenn_jenn]

IF MEN COULD GET PREGNANT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO ORDER ABORTION PILLS AT STARBUCKS WITH YOUR COFFEE.

I resonate with this deeply.

I don’t think you can truly appreciate or predict how you’ll react to such a life changing event, unless you’ve experienced it yourself.

If the men that so firmly believe in banning abortion, ever got pregnant themselves in less than ideal circumstances (or even in ideal circumstances), they might be surprised to find themselves with a different perspective.

I have always been a pro-choice person. Your body, your choice. After experiencing pregnancy, I am still a “your body, your choice” person but was surprised to find myself also as a “no uterus, no opinion” person. I don’t say this to be disrespectful or controversial. I promise I have so much respect for the men in my life and on this board. I just literally could not care less what any man who has never experienced pregnancy and can never be pregnant himself thinks on the topic of creating laws that he himself will never have to face the full consequences of.

I realize there are pro-life women. I’ve also come across a number of women who thought they were pro-life until they became pregnant and I think we’d have very different laws if men could get pregnant. (Please sign me up for that world!)

PS. This is not a pregnancy announcement, nor do I have any children.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I am pretty sure no one is going to hang a woman for taking a bus across state lines.

Hahaha. Yeah that's not going to fly for the people who probably need and have the most abortions the poor. Those people can't afford to take time off to go get abortions outside of where they live. They likely can't afford contraception because the job they have doesn't have good health insurance to provide it. They get trapped in a cycle of poverty. It's super easy to say get on a bus and go get an abortion - wrong. Louisiana to Illinois is 12 hours by car. By bus I bet 24 hours. That I bet would be the closest state for abortion. Texas at least is next to new mexico. ID, UT, WY will be next to blue states that provide access. But most states in the south? It'll be impossible to get on a bus and get an abortion. What will it cost you time wise? people don't stop having sex they just realize they have no other choices and they sink lower and all the help will still make it harder to break out of the cycle.

We are the morality police. I agree that marriage is a tax and legal union not holy. So then why is it even controversial? Because the religious right believes they should police people. Like policing abortion. They don't want gay marriage or abortion because of beliefs. Leaving abortion to the dr and woman/family why should it be illegal in so many states?

2nd amendment right to bear arms was written in 1700s So slavery was also legal then. What's wrong with realizing what was written was wrong? Why can't the framers be wrong? They believed in slavery? Owning others doesn't fly now even in saudi arabia. So times change. It's probably not wrong to suggest that limiting the right to bear arms be changed either. Women didn't have the right the vote, does anyone DARE propose women are not mens equal and dare suggest that they not be allowed to vote? Nope. Again based on 1700s value women were less than men.

Lots of things change with times. Suggesting a document written by our founding fathers is the holy bible (which was also written by men) seems a bit ludicrous.

Like the electoral college. I'm all for small states being equal to large one. Then why not make it proportional division so that those of us in the majority aren't ruled by the minority tyranny? That's what's happening in presidential elections. It's decided by a few people in a few states. The framers decided that those of us living in red/blue states matter = 0. Only those in swing states.

it's been proven that votes in red blue states are worthless and those in swing are worth 1.6 votes. Gee that is total fair and equitable and predicted by framers.

[ua_guy]

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

So, screw those people? I'm not sure I can logically connect (any) of your reasoning here.

[Petunia 100]

Roe vs Wade financial impacts, no politics

Well, since it will only be poor women forced to bear children which they do not want, I expect that this ruling will be financially devastating to the people actually effected. When it comes to the financial cost to taxpayers as a whole, I expect that long-term we will need more police officers, district attorneys, prisons, and prison guards. It took two decades after Roe v Wade for the crime rate to drop, so I suppose that means we have two decades to prepare for a large uptick in crime. There's probably opportunity there for home security systems, etc.

We won't spend more on social programs, as our society is not terribly concerned with poor children having adequate food or shelter, much less education, health care, or mental health care.

However, people with certain medical skills have a real opportunity to earn some side hustle money, provided they aren't squeamish about operating outside of the law. It's a whole new cottage industry.

[QuarterMillionMan]

Money talks. Chase & Citi bank will pay for flights. Translation it’s cheaper than maternity & adding a new name to insurance. In other words, “have at it,” and Chase & Citi will add it as an extra benefit because it disrupts their flow of continuous employment with child-bearing woman.

[Petunia 100]

Money talks. Chase & Citi bank will pay for flights. Translation it’s cheaper than maternity & adding a new name to insurance. In other words, “have at it,” and Chase & Citi will add it as an extra benefit because it disrupts their flow of continuous employment with child-bearing woman.

That's good.

I am wondering about the abortion pill. It is available by mail now; I don't see how any of the 13 states which have already banned abortion can prevent anyone from receiving the pill by US mail. So, there's another growth industry.

[ua_guy]

There are non-prescription medications cheaply and easily obtainable that also cause near 100% pregnancy loss when taken as directed for other ailments. In listening to the national rhetoric today, I'm pleased to hear many prosecutors in states where abortion is banned have said they will not prosecute doctors nor pregnant women who continue to perform or seek abortion services.

[james.hendrickson]

All,

Wanted to pipe up here.

First of all, thanks to everyone for a very civil conversation, and frankly helpful and constructive conversation. I've been keeping an eye on a lot of the buzz around this on social media. Many other threads on platforms like Facebook, or comment threads in major media have all devolved into name calling. So, thanks everyone for keeping it cool.

Second, there is a lot of data that suggests legalized abortion has public safety benefits.

In a classic study, Freakonomics authors Donohue and Levitt basically found that states which legalized abortion in the 1970s had less crime 15 to 20 years later. Here is a write up from a study that replicated their work.

John J. Donohue, Steven D. Levitt, The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime over the Last Two Decades, American Law and Economics Review (2020).

Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s. That paper concluded with a strong out-of-sample prediction regarding the next two decades: “When a steady state is reached roughly twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be roughly twice as great as the impact felt so far. Our results suggest that all else equal, legalized abortion will account for persistent declines of 1% a year in crime over the next two decades.” Estimating parallel specifications to the original paper, but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we find strong support for the prediction and the broad hypothesis, while illuminating some previously unrecognized patterns of crime and arrests. We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion— a decline of 1% per year. From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%. Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline.

Source: Stanford.edu.

So, by making abortion illegal, it makes it so that more poor single moms will have children born into high risk environments - which will increase crime.

[ua_guy]

I think that study provides some good data on a peripheral effect of legal abortion. Most importantly, abortion needs to be legal so women can make the choice for themselves, because they have sovereign control over their own bodies. If this also reduces crime in the long run, great. But I encourage people not to lose sight that yesterday's ruling was a direct attack on women and personal freedom.

[Petunia 100]

I think that study provides some good data on a peripheral effect of legal abortion. Most importantly, abortion needs to be legal so women can make the choice for themselves, because they have sovereign control over their own bodies. If this also reduces crime in the long run, great. But I encourage people not to lose sight that yesterday's ruling was a direct attack on women and personal freedom.

According to Justice Alito, more attacks on personal freedom are coming.

[ua_guy]

According to Justice Alito, more attacks on personal freedom are coming.

Those attacks would be targeted at people like me, a gay man married to a same-sex partner, who has same-sex intercourse. Sorry to go there, but apparently it keeps Clarence Thomas up at night because what I do in privacy with a consenting adult bothers him and a few others. I can empathize with the anger of women who were targeted with the rollback of Roe v Wade. But I viscerally feel the anger in my situation and am ready to spend and act accordingly. I'm done being nice; the conservative right causes me actual hate when they meddle in things which don't concern them.

My husband and I will need to preemptively put in place duplicative legal protections for ourselves, which I estimated above will cost us more than $10,000 in legal fees. And that doesn't take into consideration the amount of money we will be donating to groups like ACLU, HRC, Planned Parenthood, and other groups going forward.