On Monday, Politico published a leaked Supreme Court opinion draft that would use Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health to overturn Roe v. Wade and the right to an abortion. My immediate reaction was fury, and over on FB someone I went to elementary school with asked me what I’d consider a fair compromise. Respectfully, there isn’t one between well-funded extremists who want to ban access entirely and mine to allow access. He then wanted to know what limits I considered, or if I truly wanted access to term? Because the response was >600 words, I’m storing them here as well (partly because it turns out I have more thoughts so there is a part 2).
I do not think this (and other rights affected by Roe establishing right to privacy) should be made on a state-by-state basis. Someone smarter than me and knows legal matters will probably have written an article enumerating potential affects by tomorrow, so I'll link that later [here is one, re: contraception, sodomy laws and non-hetero marriage. The experts Vox consulted also bring up Loving v. Virginia, Miranda rights, and redistricting committees] . If you've read my previous posts, you don't need me to talk about access burdens again.
Specifically for Idaho: for a state that loudly proclaims its friendliness to freedom, recent legislative sessions have spent an awful lot of time interceding on Idahoans' personal decisions. It's a waste of taxpayer time and money, and Idahoans suffer while legislation gets written for IFF [Idaho Freedom Foundation, a rightwing think tank] gold stars.
I fail to think of a "compromise" that would satisfy the conservative desire to end access and mine to throw it open. If the goal is reducing abortions, provide the safety nets and opportunities that making parenting expensive and difficult. Taking away legal access only increases DIY attempts. But also: if someone doesn't want to be a parent, *don't force them to be one*. Would the state like to dictate how many kids I have as well? Should I send them a log of how often my husband and I have sex?
Personally, I'm for access to term because the decision to end a pregnancy is solely with the individual and their medical provider; there is no one-size-fits-all decision for an unplanned pregnancy. As much as "late term" abortions are mentioned as bogeymen ("partial birth" is not a medical term), they are
1) incredibly rare (see https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/462-547.png which used CDC data from 2016), as the vast majority of abortions take place within the first 12 weeks and most in 8 weeks or less.
2) Of the 11% that do occur in second trimester and beyond, in many cases these were *wanted* pregnancies when suddenly the ultrasound technician goes quiet, and pages a specialist. I think it's a compassionate parent who makes the decision to end their child's suffering rather than carry to stillbirth, or watch their child choke to death hours after birth (and that's not even touching on the anguish as strangers congratulate them on a doomed pregnancy).
Colorado is one of the few states that provides later abortion, which is why there'll be people who fly from the east coast in. At $10,000, it's not a capricious decision, and between travel & financial costs simply not feasible, even though birthing is even more costly. (https://www.denverpost.com/.../13/late-abortion-women-2020/)
3) Last Menstrual Period is not a useful metric for determining gestational age (https://www.nytimes.com/.../abortion-six-weeks-pregnant.html). At the beginning of this year, I had an eight week cycle instead of the "typical" 4 week. If you're unfamiliar with menstrual cycles (probably good to be familiar with since you have daughters), they're measured from the start of a period until the next one begins. I've had irregular periods due to stress before, though I know this one was from IUD removal a few months prior. Still, per the regulations of several states, I wouldn't be allowed access even though *I wasn't even pregnant*.
The reason I say access should be determined at a federal level is because I don't want to go from being able to make decisions for my family here in Oregon but then NOT allowed by the state if we were to move back to Idaho or South Carolina. By making access piecemeal, it limits it to those who can afford to travel, to take time off. Consider: for some procedures, people already do medical tourism because private healthcare in the United States is excessively expensive (https://www.agd.org/.../worth-the-trip-a-look-at-dental...). there's a parallel here too to legislation against gender-affirming healthcare: states like Idaho and Texas are criminalizing the existence of trans people, but not everyone can simply *move* to a state that won't investigate parents who support their kids (https://abcnews.go.com/.../texas-court-halts.../story...).
My question for states who want to criminalize abortion is this: what next? (asked previously here)
Will self-induced abortions via mifepristone obtained off the internet be considered murder? Is the state going to provide a safety net that allows parenting to be a viable solution, or is it looking for an infant factory for adoptive couples (this is already long, so I won't go into detail but the private adoption industry needs reform https://time.com/6051811/private-adoption-america/).
Anti-vaxxers and those against mandates (including Idaho representatives) borrowed the language of reproductive rights when declaring "My body, my choice" regarding masks and vaccination against COVID-19 yet want to disrupt the bodily autonomy of others who don't share their religious or personal beliefs. The phrase was misapplied here too- pandemic restrictions are intended to minimize spread, but abortions aren't infectious.