• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The overturning of Roe v Wade

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,257
Location
No longer here
They thought that in America until quite recently.
No, the idea that women can avail of an abortion is still a settled issue in the USA. The debate is over timing.

We do not live in the United States and we do not share its political landscape. It is the most foreign to us of all Anglophone countries.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
No, the idea that women can avail of an abortion is still a settled issue in the USA. The debate is over timing.

No it isn't, there are now 9 states where it's illegal and in 4 of those the woman is committing a crime carrying a prison sentence.
 

Berliner

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2020
Messages
399
Location
Edinburgh
Who cares? Heartbeat laws aren’t going to be anywhere near a possibility in the UK. Abortion is a settled political issue and has been for a very long time. Importation of American hysteria has to stop within our political spaces. It happens on all sides.


Yes I forgot we lived in the 51st state of the USA (!)

We were a member of the EU, it wasn't an issue until someone made enough noise and look where we are now. Peace in NI was a settled issue with the GFA, now it's up in the air again due to flag-waving politicians. Our Human rights were supposed to be enshrined in law, but now they're going to be tinkered with. The right to strike is meant to be a fundamental right in the UK, but oh look, that's under the microscope too.

Nothing is "settled" in the UK, all it takes is a willing group of loudmouths to lobby enough MPs, and before you know it what you thought was a settled issue is suddenly the subject of call-in shows on TV/radio, you see prominent people start to take sides and suddenly that issue is the subject of PMQs, then leaders debates and then manifestos. We simply can not be complacent in this country. Americanisation of our politics is well underway here.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,257
Location
No longer here
No it isn't, there are now 9 states where it's illegal and in 4 of those the woman is committing a crime carrying a prison sentence.
But that does not follow on from public opinion. Public opinion in the United States has always coalesced around a loose consensus of “okay yes abortion is probably necessary but we are very undecided as to when such a thing should be permissible”. That’s why places like Kansas are worth watching. If you don't believe me, look: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Only 13% of Americans think abortion should be illegal outright and that is an all-time low.

We were a member of the EU, it wasn't an issue until someone made enough noise and look where we are now.
EU membership debate and Euroscepticism was a mainstream pursuit for my entire life.
Nothing is "settled" in the UK, all it takes is a willing group of loudmouths to lobby enough MPs, and before you know it what you thought was a settled issue is suddenly the subject of call-in shows on TV/radio, you see prominent people start to take sides and suddenly that issue is the subject of PMQs, then leaders debates and then manifestos. We simply can not be complacent in this country. Americanisation of our politics is well underway here.
Very depressing you think fundamentalist Christianity is somehow a nascent threat to British politics. You'd struggle to find more than 2-3% of MPs who believed abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
 
Last edited:

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
But that does not follow on from public opinion. Public opinion in the United States has always coalesced around a loose consensus of “okay yes abortion is probably necessary but we are very undecided as to when such a thing should be permissible”. That’s why places like Kansas are worth watching. If you don't believe me, look: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Only 13% of Americans think abortion should be illegal outright and that is an all-time low.

I don't doubt that and I hope it's true. But it doesn't change the fact that there are states in the US where abortion is now illegal.

I'm always wary of "x% of Americans" stats as the population centres on the coasts throw it. It's still 42 million people. And that's enough people to take away abortion rights in various states
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,257
Location
No longer here
I don't doubt that and I hope it's true. But it doesn't change the fact that there are states in the US where abortion is now illegal.

I'm always wary of "x% of Americans" stats as the population centres on the coasts throw it. It's still 42 million people. And that's enough people to take away abortion rights in various states
It's entirely proper that the issue is decided at a state level. Roe v Wade was a massive overreach - even the vaunted RBG wasn't a big fan of the ruling.

Even we in Britain don't have anything like a "constitutional right" to an abortion. Matters of grave conscience are rightly decided by democratic consent. We will see how that plays out now state legislatures.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
Only 13% of Americans think abortion should be illegal outright and that is an all-time low.
Yet, in several states it already is and there are several more where it likely will be within the next few years.
It's entirely proper that the issue is decided at a state level.
Why? Surely if it's a matter of right to life (for the foetus) that is a right that's intrinsic to being a (future?) American citizen and so it has to be determined at the national level? Or are you saying that lives matter more or less depending on the state?
We hold the following truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (except you guys in Tennessee, you can eff right off)...
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,257
Location
No longer here
Why? Surely if it's a matter of right to life (for the foetus) that is a right that's intrinsic to being a (future?) American citizen and so it has to be determined at the national level? Or are you saying that lives matter more or less depending on the state?
No, I’m saying it’s a matter of conscience and those are best left to electorates. Why should it be decided by federal law and not the states? The argument about it being a (potential) citizen doesn’t make any sense.

Other matters of life and death, and matters of conscience, are devolved to the states, and I don’t see a coherent argument why this shouldn’t be the case for aborting a foetus. States can already decide whether or not to actually kill an adult citizen, so I’m not sure I follow your logic.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
Other matters of life and death, and matters of conscience, are devolved to the states...
Offhand I can't think of any life or death matter that is entirely devolved to the states - that is to say that there are state laws but no federal laws. What did you have in mind?
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,257
Location
No longer here
Offhand I can't think of any life or death matter that is entirely devolved to the states - that is to say that there are state laws but no federal laws. What did you have in mind?
Whether the death penalty is legal varies by state. The federal government permits the killing of its own citizens for some crimes, but each state may have its own laws for non-federal crimes.

The death penalty is also a matter of conscience and is properly devolved to the states.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,167
Location
SE London
No, I’m saying it’s a matter of conscience and those are best left to electorates. Why should it be decided by federal law and not the states? The argument about it being a (potential) citizen doesn’t make any sense.

Other matters of life and death, and matters of conscience, are devolved to the states, and I don’t see a coherent argument why this shouldn’t be the case for aborting a foetus. States can already decide whether or not to actually kill an adult citizen, so I’m not sure I follow your logic.

I think you are correct that in a democracy matters of conscience like this need to be resolved as political decisions, with the involvement of the electorate. I'm not sure there's any moral basis for saying that political decision should be made at State level rather than Federal level - that really comes down to what you think the relationship between the states and the Federal Government should be. The problem with Roe vs. Wade isn't that it was made at federal level: It's that it appears to have been, to some extent, a case of the judiciary 50 years ago having effectively made up a law that hadn't been decided on by any democratic political process; not only was that undemocratic (no matter how desirable the law might be in principle), but it meant there was always going to be the risk of a different set of judges reversing the process - as has now (to the regret of many of us) happened.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
Whether the death penalty is legal varies by state. The federal government permits the killing of its own citizens for some crimes, but each state may have its own laws for non-federal crimes.
The death penalty is legal in all states. Some states have it on their statute books, others do not - any state can add capital offences if they want to.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,698
I think you are correct that in a democracy matters of conscience like this need to be resolved as political decisions, with the involvement of the electorate. I'm not sure there's any moral basis for saying that political decision should be made at State level rather than Federal level - that really comes down to what you think the relationship between the states and the Federal Government should be. The problem with Roe vs. Wade isn't that it was made at federal level: It's that it appears to have been, to some extent, a case of the judiciary 50 years ago having effectively made up a law that hadn't been decided on by any democratic political process; not only was that undemocratic (no matter how desirable the law might be in principle), but it meant there was always going to be the risk of a different set of judges reversing the process - as has now (to the regret of many of us) happened.
As I understand it, the issue with making it at a Federal level is that the US is structured that only things enumerated in the Constitution can be handled by the Federal Government. Anything else is reserved to the States. The ruling in Dobbs was that Roe vs. Wade had overstretched trying to interpret articles in the Constitution allowing the Federal Government to overrule the States on the matter of allowing abortion. It's fairly likely that even if Congress could pass legislation explicitly codifying those rights, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court on the same basis. Which leads down the path of getting an Amendment through Congress and then ratified by 3/4s of the States to get it properly sorted.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
I've been sent this article by a friend, which suggests that - while we definitely aren't in a carbon-copy of American circumstances here - the position possibly isn't as clear-cut as it can seem to be.

Opinion: Abortion

Think abortion is legal in Great Britain? Ask the two women currently facing life sentences​

Charlotte Proudman

Like many people in Britain, you probably watched with horror the US supreme court’s reversal of Roe v Wade, thinking, “Thank goodness women could never be prosecuted for having an abortion here.”

But let me tell you, it already happens here.

Two women are currently awaiting criminal trial in England for abortion-related offences, both facing charges that carry a maximum sentence of life. At least 17 women have been investigated by police over the past eight years for having had abortions.

In Oxford, a 25-year-old mother of one is facing trial for allegedly taking the drug misoprostol – one of the two pills routinely prescribed by doctors to abort a pregnancy. But her baby was born alive and she was subsequently reported to the police. She is being charged under the Offences Against the Person Act, a law passed by parliament in 1861, before the invention of the lightbulb and before women had the right to vote. The law states that a woman must be “kept in penal servitude for life” if she procures an abortion.

Another woman is facing trial after she took abortion pills she obtained from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) by post when rules were relaxed during the pandemic to allow this. She was allegedly 28 weeks pregnant at the time and is facing charges of “child destruction” (note the visceral language) under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act from 1929, which also comes with a maximum life sentence. She could spend the rest of her life in prison.

We so often think that the 1967 Abortion Act legalised abortion. But it did no such thing. It partially decriminalised abortion in England, Scotland and Wales, so long as strict conditions were in place, such as a confirmation from two medical practitioners that the pregnancy had not exceeded 28 weeks (subsequently reduced to 24 weeks in 1990), or that the termination was necessary to prevent injury or mental harm. Any abortion outside these criteria is still a criminal offence.

We know that it is overwhelmingly vulnerable women who are investigated and prosecuted for having abortions. One woman collapsed in the dock when she was sentenced to two and a half years in 2015 for taking tablets she had bought online to induce a miscarriage after the 24-week period of gestation. The court heard that she had “a history of emotional and psychological problems”.

Another woman, a mother of one, ordered pills online to induce an abortion in 2019 after her abusive boyfriend had told her not to go to the doctor. She had believed she was eight to 10 weeks pregnant but after a traumatic miscarriage in her bath tub, where she has described sitting in an inch of blood, she realised her pregnancy had been much further along. She was arrested in her hospital bed and served two years in prison.

These are just some examples of women who have faced trial: there are multiple other women who face gruelling police investigations. In 2021, a 15-year-old girl was investigated for a year after suffering an unexplained stillbirth. Her phone and laptop were confiscated during her GCSE exams, she was self-harming, and the investigation only ended after a coroner concluded that the pregnancy ended due to natural causes. Another woman was arrested in hospital last year and kept in a prison cell for 36 hours after a stillbirth at 24 weeks, and is now suffering PTSD. My question is this: if a woman has had an abortion late in the gestation period, or a traumatic miscarriage or stillbirth, should she go to prison or should she be offered support from medical practitioners at what is clearly a horrendous time, both mentally and physically?

Women in 2022 are being shackled by a 160-year-old law made at a time when we were not even allowed to set foot in the House of Commons. Urgent reform is needed to protect more women from harm, which is why organisations such as BPAS and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) are calling on the director of public prosecutions for England and Wales, Max Hill QC, to drop all charges against these women. The RCOG this month has gone further, calling on ministers to finally legalise abortion. There is absolutely no public interest in sending vulnerable women to prison for terminating pregnancies. Instead, these prosecutions will only serve to put off women seeking help from doctors because they might get arrested, pushing more women into unsafe and underground options.

Meanwhile, according to the criteria of the Abortion Act, a woman has to show that she would suffer grave permanent injury to her mental health if she did not have an abortion after 24 weeks. Why should women still have to pathologise themselves as mad, hysterical, unfit or suffering to legally access healthcare?

The state currently has a triple lock on women’s bodies. By not legalising abortion it has the right to force pregnancy, birth and motherhood upon us. Look to the rules on organ donation: it is illegal to donate people’s organs after they die (however desperately they are needed by people on waiting lists) without their permission. The law at present, which denies women the right to abort a pregnancy on their own terms, is to give us less autonomy than a corpse.
  • Charlotte Proudman is a barrister specialising in violence against women and girls and a fellow at Queens’ College, Cambridge
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,698
I've been sent this article by a friend, which suggests that - while we definitely aren't in a carbon-copy of American circumstances here - the position possibly isn't as clear-cut as it can seem to be.

I think I'd wheel out the old adage "Hard cases make bad law". I don't think we should be making laws based on specific cases like these.
There is a tension between the rights of the unborn child and those of the mother. Unlike the US, our politicians have managed to come up with a compromise and put it into law. It be time for parliament to have another look and see if the current balance is still right, though I think private members bills regarding abortion do come up from time to time.
The author seems mistaken about organ donation. Haven't all of England, Wales, and Scotland now moved to an opt-out system for donation, so someone needs to actively say they don't want their organs donated otherwise permission is assumed?
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
The author seems mistaken about organ donation. Haven't all of England, Wales, and Scotland now moved to an opt-out system for donation, so someone needs to actively say they don't want their organs donated otherwise permission is assumed?
With regards to this point specifically, yes, all three jurisdictions in Great Britain now presume that a person who does not belong to an excluded group and who hasn't registered a refusal will be willing to donate their organs after death.

The excluded groups are:
  • Persons under the age of 16 in Scotland, or 18 in England and Wales;
  • Persons who lack the capacity to understand the opt-out arrangements;
  • Persons who are not ordinarily resident in the jurisdiction in which they die, or who became resident less than 12 months before their death; and
  • Persons who are resident in England or Wales involuntarily.
Nevertheless the author's point remains valid - a person's refusal to donate remains legally inviolate after death.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
3,006
Location
London
I've been sent this article by a friend, which suggests that - while we definitely aren't in a carbon-copy of American circumstances here - the position possibly isn't as clear-cut as it can seem to be.


As an aside, the author is famous for outing a middle-aged lawyer who complimented her photo on LinkedIn, which led to a media frenzy.
 
Last edited:

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,906
Location
Leeds
I read an interesting article on Reddit just this week.
A woman had presented for her second ultrasound and unfortunately it was identified that the fetus had acrania (leading to anancephaly) a lack of skull and brain. Acrania is believed to be the stage before anancephaly, whilst others use the two terms interchangeably. Whilst a subtype of neural tube defect, the obstetrician had explained that with this being more severe and in this particular patient’s case, whilst the fetus’s heart was beating, the lack of brain and skull development would lead to a stillbirth or at the very least the birth of something that would have no function whatsoever. The hospital’s lawyers turned down the recommendation of aborting the fetus because acrania isn’t specifically listed as a condition in which abortion is offered (although anancephaly is) against the statute even though carrying the fetus to full term would be psychologically distressing for both parents and be medically futile at the very least. So whilst states say there are specific instances where abortion is allowed and available to women, the allowable conditions are so rigorous and hospitals worried about litigation this leaves women, parents and HCPs in a very difficult place.

Online news article quoted below:
‘A Louisiana woman has been denied an abortion despite her fetus having a fatal defect, because of a lack of clarity regarding the state's now much stricter abortion laws.
On June 24 this year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade precedent that granted a constitutional right to abortion, prompting a number of states to outlaw the procedure.

Since then, Louisiana has become one of the most difficult places in the country for women to obtain an abortion since it is now only allowed there if a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.

Another exception is if the fetus is deemed to have an untreatable condition that would make it unable to survive after birth. Such conditions are deemed "medically futile."

Now, a pregnant woman says that despite her baby being diagnosed with an unsurvivable condition, doctors have still told her they are unable to carry out an abortion procedure.

The mother, named as Nancy Davis by Louisiana news outlet NOLA.com, discovered she was pregnant after she started feeling nauseous in July. However, when specialists at Louisiana's Woman's Hospital conducted an ultrasound scan, they discovered that the fetus had a serious defect in which part of the skull is missing.

Devastated, Davis prepared herself for an abortion only to be told by the hospital that doctors could not go through with the procedure.

According to NOLA, this is due to a gray area in Louisiana's abortion laws. The fetus's condition, acrania, does not appear on the state's list of medically futile conditions that would grant an exception allowing an abortion, despite the fact that the condition is still unsurvivable.

The Fetal Medicine Foundation states that the prognosis for babies born with acrania is death within the first week of life.

Caroline Isemann, a hospital spokesperson, told NOLA: "In the absence of additional guidance, we must look at each patient's individual circumstances and remain in compliance with all current state laws to the best of our ability."

Matthew Brown, a New Orleans-based attorney specializing in health care law, told NOLA it is possible that the hospital might view the fetus as viable since the condition may not be immediately fatal.

Newsweek has contacted the Woman's Hospital for comment.

Another expert, Dr. Cecilia Gambala, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Tulane University School of Medicine, told NOLA that in her opinion, acrania is synonymous with another condition known as anencephaly which refers to the incomplete development of the brain, skull, and scalp in a fetus.

Babies born with this condition might not immediately die and might display reflex actions like breathing or touch responses, but gaining consciousness is not possible and infants usually do not survive more than a few days or weeks, according to the U.S. National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD).

Unlike acrania, anencephaly is included on Louisiana's medically futile conditions list.

In any case, Davis may struggle to head out of state due to caring for her 13-year-old and one-year-old children in addition to having no car.‘
 
Last edited:

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,096
This may appear flippant, but I write with serious intent. In the USA, but I hope not here, Roe v Wade may well be replaced with Woe v Raid, Woe being the state of mind of the pregnant female when Raid appears at the abortion clinic to detain all involved in the process.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
For those who think that the UK isn't at danger of religious intrusion into public life, I just found out about a couple of incidents involving the Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School - yes, it is a religious school, but they receive state funding and are supposed to teach to the same standard as non-religious schools.

Specific incidents that made the newspapers:

A state-funded Orthodox Jewish girls’ school in north London has admitted censoring sections of GCSE textbooks to remove mentions of homosexuals and examples of women socialising with men, saying it did so to protect girls from sexualisation.

Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls’ school in Stamford Hill, which serves the strictly Orthodox Haredi community, covered text and images including Fred Astaire dancing with Ginger Rogers.

Words and photos were redacted in a book called Understanding the Modern World, one of the exam board AQA’s GCSE history resources.

The school removed references to homosexuals from a section on the Nazi belief in the superiority of the Aryan race. Elsewhere, a number of images of women were censored to hide their chests, shoulders and arms, and legs above the knee.

In a section on the position of women in modern American society, references to women smoking, drinking and driving with men were redacted, as was the sentence: “They kissed in public.”

Exams regulator Ofqual has rewritten its policy on the blacking-out of exam questions following an investigation into the practice at a charedi Orthodox Jewish school in Stamford Hill.

The Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls’ School, an Orthodox Jewish state school in Egerton Road, redacted questions on a science GCSE paper taken last October.

The school was one of two found to be redacting exam questions of religious sensitivity, meaning students were unable to answer them.

Ofqual’s director of regulatory operations Jane Farleigh wrote to the exam boards on 31 March clarifying their new policy on the matter: “I expect you to treat this as malpractice,” she wrote. “Any agreements that are currently in place should be withdrawn before any further assessments are taken.”

Blacking-out questions “prevents candidates from having access to the full range of marks available. It also undermines the validity of the assessment,” wrote Farleigh.

But I don't doubt there are other practices that don't, nor that similar incidents happen at other religious-affiliated schools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top