Under usual circumstances, the justices for the Supreme Court of the United States were recommended by a committee of the American Bar Association. The president goes from that list.
No, that’s not how it has worked. The president has nominated whoever he has wanted to and has relied on whatever recommendations he has wanted to in coming up with a shortlist of potential nominees. After the nomination has been made, the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has evaluated the qualifications of the nominee.
Roe v Wade was decided during the Burger Court which was demonstratively libertarian in its philosophy. They believed the privacy of the individual was of primary importance. If the constitution did not mention it, they felt it was up to the individual. On the other hand many state constitutions guaranteed the right to privacy, even quoting the preamble to the Declaration of Independence when they speak of the right of individuals. Often times Americans think the Declaration of Independence is included in the United States Constitution. No it is not.
Roe v Wade was decided during the Burger Court which was demonstratively libertarian in its philosophy.
It should be noted that the court that decided Roe v. Wade had a 6-3 split between Republican appointees (Burger, Brenan, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist) and Democratic ones (Douglas, White, Marshall). In other words the exact same distribution as the current court, though this was in the days before the decades long effort to intellectually capture the high court by movement conservatism. Still, I'm not sure how much I buy the framing of this court as "libertarian". It always depends on whose liberty is being discussed, I guess.
Roe v Wade was decided during the Burger Court which was demonstratively libertarian in its philosophy.
It should be noted that the court that decided Roe v. Wade had a 6-3 split between Republican appointees (Burger, Brenan, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist) and Democratic ones (Douglas, White, Marshall). In other words the exact same distribution as the current court, though this was in the days before the decades long effort to intellectually capture the high court by movement conservatism. Still, I'm not sure how much I buy the framing of this court as "libertarian". It always depends on whose liberty is being discussed, I guess.
It should also be pointed out that Burger eventually switched over to an anti-Roe position in later votes. And he was no fan of due-process etc.
Seems to me a woman's right to control her own body is an obvious subset of "liberty". If someone else can tell you to do something with your own body, you have less liberty. But then that's true of every law.
I suppose the anti-choicers shoulda known they were in trouble when so many of them thought it prudent to deny that the Amendment was going to do what they clearly hoped it would do. Apparently, even the preamble to the ballot question assured voters that a Yes vote would not automatically outlaw abortion.
If you are interested, here is a series of political ads calling on Kansans to vote NO on the constitutional amendment that would have allowed the state legislature to criminalized abortion
Indiana (home of Mike Pence) has just had its conservative Republican legislature pass an almost total abortion ban. That same Republican legislature refused an attempt to put a referendum question in support of maintaining access to abortion on the ballot.
Indiana House Speaker Todd Huston says:
Voters have an opportunity to vote, and if they're displeased, they'll have an opportunity both in November and in future years.
Which is about the most honest statement I've heard for a while. You voted for the leopards eating people's faces party. We just ate your face. If you don't like that, we'll see you at the next election.
He thinks that Indiana has enough people who either support an abortion ban, or don't care enough about an abortion ban to make it an electoral issue. Unfortunately, I suspect that he's right.
Indiana (home of Mike Pence) has just had its conservative Republican legislature pass an almost total abortion ban. That same Republican legislature refused an attempt to put a referendum question in support of maintaining access to abortion on the ballot.
Indiana House Speaker Todd Huston says:
Voters have an opportunity to vote, and if they're displeased, they'll have an opportunity both in November and in future years.
Always funny to see populist right-wingers switch to burkean elitism when they realize the much-valorized "people" might not share their views on a given issue.
Indiana is also home to the most KKK members of any state I believe, it's not lacking in extremists. I would be surprised if it didn't have majority support, unfortunately.
Indiana is one of 24 states that does not allow citizen initiatives or referendums on its ballots. The only way to change the law is to change the legislature. That would be a tough one.
Indiana is also home to the most KKK members of any state I believe, it's not lacking in extremists. I would be surprised if it didn't have majority support, unfortunately.
Historically, Indiana was headquarters of the second-wave KKK, which was focused more on anti-immigration and anti-Catholicism, and collapsed some time in the 1920s after their leader got busted for sex crimes. I'm not sure if we can extrapolate current klan membership from them, especially given that the KKK isn't really a single, centralized group.
Personally, I'd be surprised if Indiana is more anti-choice than Kansas, given that it's more urbanized, and is closer(though just slightly) to being a purple state. Not that any of that really matters if, as @Gramps49 says, they don't do referenda, and if the people don't prioritize the issue when electing their politicians.
Indiana is also home to the most KKK members of any state I believe, it's not lacking in extremists. I would be surprised if it didn't have majority support, unfortunately.
Historically, Indiana was headquarters of the second-wave KKK, which was focused more on anti-immigration and anti-Catholicism, and collapsed some time in the 1920s after their leader got busted for sex crimes. I'm not sure if we can extrapolate current klan membership from them, especially given that the KKK isn't really a single, centralized group.
Personally, I'd be surprised if Indiana is more anti-choice than Kansas, given that it's more urbanized, and is closer(though just slightly) to being a purple state. Not that any of that really matters if, as @Gramps49 says, they don't do referenda, and if the people don't prioritize the issue when electing their politicians.
Just for clarification, I believe they do use referenda, but referenda are proposed and put on the ballot by the legislature. What they don’t have is a process for a citizen-initiated referendum or ballot proposal.
Indiana is also home to the most KKK members of any state I believe, it's not lacking in extremists. I would be surprised if it didn't have majority support, unfortunately.
Historically, Indiana was headquarters of the second-wave KKK, which was focused more on anti-immigration and anti-Catholicism, and collapsed some time in the 1920s after their leader got busted for sex crimes. I'm not sure if we can extrapolate current klan membership from them, especially given that the KKK isn't really a single, centralized group.
Personally, I'd be surprised if Indiana is more anti-choice than Kansas, given that it's more urbanized, and is closer(though just slightly) to being a purple state. Not that any of that really matters if, as @Gramps49 says, they don't do referenda, and if the people don't prioritize the issue when electing their politicians.
Just for clarification, I believe they do use referenda, but referenda are proposed and put on the ballot by the legislature. What they don’t have is a process for a citizen-initiated referendum or ballot proposal.
Ah, thanks. And I'm guessing that a legislative majority that thinks one way about an issue is unlikely to hold a referendum if they think most of the public thinks another way.
Well, what I was wondering is if it was possible for a minority of lawmakers, but reaching a certain threshold, to call a referendum, eg. if 30% of the legislature wants a ballot question on widgets, it will happen.
Because a 50% threshold for calling a referendum would kinda defeat the purpose of having referenda in the first place, since the politicians won't want their own will to be contradicted by the mob.
(As I stated in the gambling thread, I hate referenda, but if you are gonna allow them, it only makes logical sense to have them initiated by members of the public.)
It depends on the reason for the referendum. For example, where I live, the state constitution provides that the state can’t issue bonds without approval by referendum, so if the legislature wants bonds for any given purpose, they have to put it to the electorate. (Ditto local governments.) That’s actually by far the most common type of referendum here.
Because a 50% threshold for calling a referendum would kinda defeat the purpose of having referenda in the first place, since the politicians won't want their own will to be contradicted by the mob.
This does rather assume that the politicians all have a strong opinion on the question.
(Also recall that there are multiple tiers of government. AIUI, in Indiana a local taxing unit can put a referendum question to increase property taxes on the ballot, and such an increase, if voted for by the people, wouldn't be subject to the statutory caps.) There might be a question to raise property taxes, sell bonds or something, in order to fund the construction of a new school.
For those who were paying attention to the events, there was a bit of an uproar about a 10 year old rape victim from Ohio who had to travel to Indiana to get an abortion because of Ohio's heartbeat cardiac activity law. That's not an option now, I guess.
For those who were paying attention to the events, there was a bit of an uproar about a 10 year old rape victim from Ohio who had to travel to Indiana to get an abortion because of Ohio's heartbeat cardiac activity law. That's not an option now, I guess.
Yes, and at least one legislator in Indiana specifically said he didn’t want it to be an option anymore.
^ Assuming Illinois remains pro-choice, were I a politician there, I'd be seriously tempted to push for a ban on providing abortion services to out-of-state patients.
Well, half-seriously anyway, since it would probably violate medical ethics to refuse care. It's just that I have a suspicion that right now a lot of anti-choice politicians in conservative states are thinking to themselves: "Eh, no big deal if we ban abortion here, it'll keep our base happy, and anyone who actually needs the procedure can just drive across the state line."
(Sorta like how for decades Ireland managed to be the faithful servant of church teaching, while using the UK as a safety valve.)
I think the casualties of such a decision would be fairly hideous.
Yeah, this.
People aren't chess pieces, and we shouldn't treat them as such.
(In the land of stetsonian realpolitik, I'd far rather Illinois took the opportunity to advertise itself as "move to Illinois, where women are people".)
Banning out out of state abortions in any state is not only cruel but unconstitutional under the state's constitution since all of them have provisions guaranteeing equal rights and protections under the law. Not that a number of states tend to interpret those provisions differently.
American politicians of all stripes are well aware that for many people "just" driving over the state line is a hell of a long drive, especially in the middle of the country where there are multiple states with severe restrictions that amount to abortion bans. Not to mention the fact that Texas by itself is enormous.
And that's not what anti-choice politicians are thinking anyway. They're thinking it would be a great idea to have abortion banned as widely as possible. They'll push through a federal ban given the chance.
Politicians in places like California are in fact doing the opposite of what stetson half-seriously suggests. Gov. Newsom proposes that California spend $125 million to expand access to abortion and prepare for the people who will travel here for medical care.
Banning out out of state abortions in any state is not only cruel but unconstitutional under the state's constitution since all of them have provisions guaranteeing equal rights and protections under the law. Not that a number of states tend to interpret those provisions differently.
More to the point, SCOTUS has held that states cannot ban interstate travel, even if a person is going to another state to do what is illegal in their home state. Indeed, they held just that regarding travel to another state to seek an abortion. (See a Slate article on the subject here.)
Of course, SCOTUS also once held that women have a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion, so there’s that.
Great phrase, if I do say so myself. It really sounds like it should be in a PoliSci textbook.
I'd far rather Illinois took the opportunity to advertise itself as "move to Illinois, where women are people".)
Something like that actually happened in Canada. The province of Quebec passed Bill 21, a "laicity" law, which restricted the wearing of religious garb in state-run workplaces, and was widely regarded as a disguised attack on Muslims and other racialized faiths. Another province, Ontario, I believe, ran a campaign for recruiting workers, pumping itself up as a place of tolerance and diversity. One of the posters listed "21 Reasons To Work In Ontario".
And that's not what anti-choice politicians are thinking anyway. They're thinking it would be a great idea to have abortion banned as widely as possible. They'll push through a federal ban given the chance.
George H.W. Bush would be an example of an erstwhile pro-choice politician who, upon deciding to seek the vice-presidency, started claiming to believe that abortion was evil, and did the occassional thing to pander to anti-choicers(Clarence Thomas to the top court being probably the most notable, and now fateful, example).
I'm pretty sure if he had lived to see the overturning of Roe, he woulda been both a) content with the decision, and b) content with women from prohibitionist states traveling to liberal states to avail themselves of abortion services.
(In the land of stetsonian realpolitik, I'd far rather Illinois took the opportunity to advertise itself as "move to Illinois, where women are people".)
Something like that actually happened in Canada. The province of Quebec passed Bill 21, a "laicity" law, which restricted the wearing of religious garb in state-run workplaces, and was widely regarded as a disguised attack on Muslims and other racialized faiths. Another province, Ontario, I believe, ran a campaign for recruiting workers, pumping itself up as a place of tolerance and diversity. One of the posters listed "21 Reasons To Work In Ontario".
Nice, but how many people actually moved? And how many people stayed put because they had no choice or because moving was too hard a choice?
This just isn't realistic for most people. People who are moving anyway may factor abortion access into their choices, but the vast majority of people of child-bearing age in states that now have abortion bans is not going to pick up and move. They have families, friends, jobs, roots, and a variety of other attachments to the places they live.
If I were young enough to get pregnant and California enacted abortion restrictions next week, I wouldn't move. I couldn't. And if I saw advertising here that said "move to Otherstate, where women are people," I'd see it as a performative stunt -- just galling.
This just isn't realistic for most people. People who are moving anyway may factor abortion access into their choices, but the vast majority of people of child-bearing age in states that now have abortion bans is not going to pick up and move. They have families, friends, jobs, roots, and a variety of other attachments to the places they live.
If I were young enough to get pregnant and California enacted abortion restrictions next week, I wouldn't move. I couldn't. And if I saw advertising here that said "move to Otherstate, where women are people," I'd see it as a performative stunt -- just galling.
About 1% of Americans move interstate each year. As you might imagine, younger people move more and older people move less. I see a number of states advertising for people to move to them - mostly touting things like low taxes, but I could certainly see a state including women's rights as one of its selling points.
That said, I know quite a few teen girls who are making college choices at the moment. Some intend to attend local colleges (so they're not going anywhere) and a couple are applying to the big names, so they're rather limited by where those places are, but for the set of kids who are applying to middle-rank out-of-state colleges, they sort of have a free choice to go to different kinds of state. None of them are altering their choices based on abortion law in the various states. But given that they are wealthy enough to attend an out-of-state college, it's not so much of a hardship for them to travel "home" if necessary, so I suppose it's not really entering in to their consideration.
And rich white old man that he was, it would never have occurred to Bush that not everyone who can get pregnant has the resources to travel.
I'm guessing Bush Sr. never put the mental energy into considering a whole bunch of logistical questions surrounding pregnancy. Having resources to travel can solve some, but not all, problems with abortion restrictions as some recent horror stories [ content warning: medically graphic ] have illustrated. If a fetus starts to die inside you it doesn't always happen during office hours or give you time to travel to a more reasonable jurisdiction. This is especially problematic in cases where fetal cardiac activity (the standard anti-abortion legislators seem to have arbitrarily picked as their gold standard) may still be detectable even if the fetus is otherwise recognizably doomed. How close to death counts for triggering the exception for the life of the mother is often deliberately vague in these kinds of laws.
The conceit that rich women will always be able to travel when they need an abortion is just that, a conceit that being rich also insulates you from this kind of medical emergency.
And rich white old man that he was, it would never have occurred to Bush that not everyone who can get pregnant has the resources to travel.
Just for the record, I wasn't defending his views, since as I said, I think he bears direct responsibility for the overturning of Roe. Just that, contra to the idea that all anti-choice politicians are chomping at the bit to ban abortion nationwide, he'd be an example of one who likely wouldn't have really cared, beyond whatever pandering was neccessary to secure the SoCon vote.
Nice, but how many people actually moved? And how many people stayed put because they had no choice or because moving was too hard a choice?
My guess would be that the provinces who ran those veiled anti-Quebec campaigns were trying to impress their own POC and religious minority voters, at least as much as they were trying to get people to move out of Quebec. No idea what sort of results they got. The media IIRC ran a few news stories about people who had decided to move, but that was mostly anecdotal.
Re Ireland 'using England as a safety valve', the result was Ireland overwhelmingly voting to legalise abortion - not England punishing those who crossed the Irish Sea to get one. Indeed, a very moving incident during the referendum vote was the Irish ferry and train companies cooperating to ensure that those returning home to vote didn't miss their connection - in a mirror of the distressing ferry journeys that had been made before in order to access abortion.
Gov. Pete Ricketts announced Monday he would not call for a special session to debate stricter abortion restrictions in Nebraska, citing a lack of votes in support of proposed legislation.
The announcement came after Ricketts received a letter from Speaker of the Legislature Mike Hilgers featuring signatures from 30 senators supporting a special session to debate a 12-week abortion ban. That is three votes short of the 33 votes needed for a filibuster-ending cloture motion, which Ricketts noted in his explanation for not calling a special session.
“It is deeply saddening that only 30 Nebraska state senators are willing to come back to Lincoln this fall in order to protect innocent life,” Ricketts said in the announcement.
The letter Hilgers sent proposed changing Nebraska’s current statute that bans abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization to a 12-week ban.
Rickets himself is term limited and won't be facing the voters in November, unlike the members of the Nebraska legislature.
And in today's news, a Florida court has ruled that a pregnant 16-year-old girl isn't mature enough to decide whether to have an abortion, so she has to have the baby.
It remains the case that most of this has bugger all to do with real concern for any putative unborn child, and everything to do with a patriarchal need to control women’s sexuality and reproduction.
And supply families wanting to adopt with healthy babies. She will almost certainly be strongly encouraged if not forced (she is a minor) to give the child, if healthy, up for adoption.
And supply families wanting to adopt with healthy babies. She will almost certainly be strongly encouraged if not forced (she is a minor) to give the child, if healthy, up for adoption.
Does the level of "encouragement" not depend on a comparison of the baby's skin tone with a paper bag?
And supply families wanting to adopt with healthy babies. She will almost certainly be strongly encouraged if not forced (she is a minor) to give the child, if healthy, up for adoption.
Does the level of "encouragement" not depend on a comparison of the baby's skin tone with a paper bag?
No, white conservative Christians love to act as white saviours by adopting Black and brown babies.
And supply families wanting to adopt with healthy babies. She will almost certainly be strongly encouraged if not forced (she is a minor) to give the child, if healthy, up for adoption.
Does the level of "encouragement" not depend on a comparison of the baby's skin tone with a paper bag?
No, white conservative Christians love to act as white saviours by adopting Black and brown babies.
Not to mention white non Christians such as the former consort of the late Frank Sinatra, the late Andre Previn and the former Alan Stewart Konigsberg…
With the recent special election of Pat Ryan in the 18th District of NY, the referendum in Kansas and the increase in women over men registering to vote especially in key battleground states, it looks like the Democrats may keep the House of Representatives plus pick up a few more seats in the Senate. Of course, there are other issues besides the women's right to choose. Nevertheless, it just may be possible for a Democratic controlled Congress to codify Roe v Wade. The fight is not over.
It's not just about the 'right to choose.' Making abortion illegal has all sorts of knock-on effects in other areas too. Women who have natural miscarriages are treated as criminals, for example. I'm not surprised that there's been an increase in young women getting their tubes tied: if I was of child-bearing age and lived in the USA I'd be considering it.
It's not just about the 'right to choose.' Making abortion illegal has all sorts of knock-on effects in other areas too. Women who have natural miscarriages are treated as criminals, for example.
Or things like chemotherapy or treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, both of which can induce miscarriages. Banning abortion has made pretty much any medical care more invasive than a general physical an uncertainty for women .
With the recent special election of Pat Ryan in the 18th District of NY, the referendum in Kansas and the increase in women over men registering to vote especially in key battleground states, it looks like the Democrats may keep the House of Representatives plus pick up a few more seats in the Senate. Of course, there are other issues besides the women's right to choose. Nevertheless, it just may be possible for a Democratic controlled Congress to codify Roe v Wade. The fight is not over.
Of all the U.S. Senators to propose a nationwide abortion ban I wouldn't have had Lindsey Graham in my top 5 list. Graham has proposed something deceptively called the Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act [PDF]. The general outline is that it bans abortions after 15 weeks of gestational age (not "late-term" by any meaningful use of the phrase) with exceptions for the life (but not the health) of the mother, rape (but only if the woman has received medical treatment and rape counseling), and incest (but only if reported to the government).
Graham seems to think that taking a hard line on abortion will help Republicans in the 2022 mid-term elections. It should be noted that Graham himself is not up for re-election until 2026.
That seems like it could backfire in a big way. Republican electeds/candidates have to be on board if asked about it, but the electorate in November is made up of a lot more people than the Republican base. How many more is hard to say, though -- loads of women are registering to vote in red states, but who knows if they'll actually vote. New voters are hard to predict.
Comments
It should be noted that the court that decided Roe v. Wade had a 6-3 split between Republican appointees (Burger, Brenan, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist) and Democratic ones (Douglas, White, Marshall). In other words the exact same distribution as the current court, though this was in the days before the decades long effort to intellectually capture the high court by movement conservatism. Still, I'm not sure how much I buy the framing of this court as "libertarian". It always depends on whose liberty is being discussed, I guess.
It should also be pointed out that Burger eventually switched over to an anti-Roe position in later votes. And he was no fan of due-process etc.
Indiana House Speaker Todd Huston says:
Which is about the most honest statement I've heard for a while. You voted for the leopards eating people's faces party. We just ate your face. If you don't like that, we'll see you at the next election.
He thinks that Indiana has enough people who either support an abortion ban, or don't care enough about an abortion ban to make it an electoral issue. Unfortunately, I suspect that he's right.
Always funny to see populist right-wingers switch to burkean elitism when they realize the much-valorized "people" might not share their views on a given issue.
Historically, Indiana was headquarters of the second-wave KKK, which was focused more on anti-immigration and anti-Catholicism, and collapsed some time in the 1920s after their leader got busted for sex crimes. I'm not sure if we can extrapolate current klan membership from them, especially given that the KKK isn't really a single, centralized group.
Personally, I'd be surprised if Indiana is more anti-choice than Kansas, given that it's more urbanized, and is closer(though just slightly) to being a purple state. Not that any of that really matters if, as @Gramps49 says, they don't do referenda, and if the people don't prioritize the issue when electing their politicians.
Ah, thanks. And I'm guessing that a legislative majority that thinks one way about an issue is unlikely to hold a referendum if they think most of the public thinks another way.
Well, what I was wondering is if it was possible for a minority of lawmakers, but reaching a certain threshold, to call a referendum, eg. if 30% of the legislature wants a ballot question on widgets, it will happen.
Because a 50% threshold for calling a referendum would kinda defeat the purpose of having referenda in the first place, since the politicians won't want their own will to be contradicted by the mob.
(As I stated in the gambling thread, I hate referenda, but if you are gonna allow them, it only makes logical sense to have them initiated by members of the public.)
This does rather assume that the politicians all have a strong opinion on the question.
(Also recall that there are multiple tiers of government. AIUI, in Indiana a local taxing unit can put a referendum question to increase property taxes on the ballot, and such an increase, if voted for by the people, wouldn't be subject to the statutory caps.) There might be a question to raise property taxes, sell bonds or something, in order to fund the construction of a new school.
Well, half-seriously anyway, since it would probably violate medical ethics to refuse care. It's just that I have a suspicion that right now a lot of anti-choice politicians in conservative states are thinking to themselves: "Eh, no big deal if we ban abortion here, it'll keep our base happy, and anyone who actually needs the procedure can just drive across the state line."
(Sorta like how for decades Ireland managed to be the faithful servant of church teaching, while using the UK as a safety valve.)
Yeah, this.
People aren't chess pieces, and we shouldn't treat them as such.
(In the land of stetsonian realpolitik, I'd far rather Illinois took the opportunity to advertise itself as "move to Illinois, where women are people".)
And that's not what anti-choice politicians are thinking anyway. They're thinking it would be a great idea to have abortion banned as widely as possible. They'll push through a federal ban given the chance.
Politicians in places like California are in fact doing the opposite of what stetson half-seriously suggests. Gov. Newsom proposes that California spend $125 million to expand access to abortion and prepare for the people who will travel here for medical care.
Of course, SCOTUS also once held that women have a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion, so there’s that.
Great phrase, if I do say so myself. It really sounds like it should be in a PoliSci textbook.
Something like that actually happened in Canada. The province of Quebec passed Bill 21, a "laicity" law, which restricted the wearing of religious garb in state-run workplaces, and was widely regarded as a disguised attack on Muslims and other racialized faiths. Another province, Ontario, I believe, ran a campaign for recruiting workers, pumping itself up as a place of tolerance and diversity. One of the posters listed "21 Reasons To Work In Ontario".
George H.W. Bush would be an example of an erstwhile pro-choice politician who, upon deciding to seek the vice-presidency, started claiming to believe that abortion was evil, and did the occassional thing to pander to anti-choicers(Clarence Thomas to the top court being probably the most notable, and now fateful, example).
I'm pretty sure if he had lived to see the overturning of Roe, he woulda been both a) content with the decision, and b) content with women from prohibitionist states traveling to liberal states to avail themselves of abortion services.
Nice, but how many people actually moved? And how many people stayed put because they had no choice or because moving was too hard a choice?
This just isn't realistic for most people. People who are moving anyway may factor abortion access into their choices, but the vast majority of people of child-bearing age in states that now have abortion bans is not going to pick up and move. They have families, friends, jobs, roots, and a variety of other attachments to the places they live.
If I were young enough to get pregnant and California enacted abortion restrictions next week, I wouldn't move. I couldn't. And if I saw advertising here that said "move to Otherstate, where women are people," I'd see it as a performative stunt -- just galling.
About 1% of Americans move interstate each year. As you might imagine, younger people move more and older people move less. I see a number of states advertising for people to move to them - mostly touting things like low taxes, but I could certainly see a state including women's rights as one of its selling points.
That said, I know quite a few teen girls who are making college choices at the moment. Some intend to attend local colleges (so they're not going anywhere) and a couple are applying to the big names, so they're rather limited by where those places are, but for the set of kids who are applying to middle-rank out-of-state colleges, they sort of have a free choice to go to different kinds of state. None of them are altering their choices based on abortion law in the various states. But given that they are wealthy enough to attend an out-of-state college, it's not so much of a hardship for them to travel "home" if necessary, so I suppose it's not really entering in to their consideration.
That is surely going to be filtered by income though - your ability to go out of state to study ?
I'm guessing Bush Sr. never put the mental energy into considering a whole bunch of logistical questions surrounding pregnancy. Having resources to travel can solve some, but not all, problems with abortion restrictions as some recent horror stories [ content warning: medically graphic ] have illustrated. If a fetus starts to die inside you it doesn't always happen during office hours or give you time to travel to a more reasonable jurisdiction. This is especially problematic in cases where fetal cardiac activity (the standard anti-abortion legislators seem to have arbitrarily picked as their gold standard) may still be detectable even if the fetus is otherwise recognizably doomed. How close to death counts for triggering the exception for the life of the mother is often deliberately vague in these kinds of laws.
The conceit that rich women will always be able to travel when they need an abortion is just that, a conceit that being rich also insulates you from this kind of medical emergency.
Just for the record, I wasn't defending his views, since as I said, I think he bears direct responsibility for the overturning of Roe. Just that, contra to the idea that all anti-choice politicians are chomping at the bit to ban abortion nationwide, he'd be an example of one who likely wouldn't have really cared, beyond whatever pandering was neccessary to secure the SoCon vote.
My guess would be that the provinces who ran those veiled anti-Quebec campaigns were trying to impress their own POC and religious minority voters, at least as much as they were trying to get people to move out of Quebec. No idea what sort of results they got. The media IIRC ran a few news stories about people who had decided to move, but that was mostly anecdotal.
Did you read the sentence I wrote two after the one you quoted?
Rickets himself is term limited and won't be facing the voters in November, unlike the members of the Nebraska legislature.
I really don't know where to start with that one.
Does the level of "encouragement" not depend on a comparison of the baby's skin tone with a paper bag?
No, white conservative Christians love to act as white saviours by adopting Black and brown babies.
Ah, true.
Best of luck with the fightback.
Or things like chemotherapy or treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, both of which can induce miscarriages. Banning abortion has made pretty much any medical care more invasive than a general physical an uncertainty for women .
Roe, Roe, Roe the Vote . . .
Graham seems to think that taking a hard line on abortion will help Republicans in the 2022 mid-term elections. It should be noted that Graham himself is not up for re-election until 2026.