Should abortion be put back into the hands of the states?

Question

I would actually like to see the states act as competitors. So if a neighboring state says yes to abortions, someone from a pro-life state can go there and get an abortion. If the state they live in gets mad, well they made the decision to be pro-life so it's their fault not the person.

Answer 1

I really think it should be but the pro-lifers want abortion ban in the whole country! Some say reversing Roe v. Wade would only put abortion back to the states' hands but if you think abortion is murder, shouldn't you want it banned altogether? If I had my choice between making abortion illegal in the country or just putting in the hands of states, then I pick the latter. Except I worry about what the girls in the pro-life states would do if they want an abortion. Would they be prohibited from traveling to those states? Would they be allowed and not prosecuted if the abortion took place in a pro-choice state? How would the evangelicals take this issue? This are all things to think about.

Answer 2

Yes, I am against abortion but at least this measure would create an atmosphere where abortion stops becoming a national issue in times of elections. There would be no point in any candidate taking a political stance on abortion if it was not a national issue. The only way I see to do that is to make it a state's issue. Then the red states could ban it, and the blue states could keep it as is. I think this would reduce a lot of the pointless chatter; most people have already decided their stance and won't change it.

Answer 3

Yes.

The question in Abortion isn't about when "life" or even "human life" begins, and it isn't about the rights of the mother. Life per se has no beginning. Obviously the mother has rights, but that isn't the question.

The question is when the fetus gains rights that the government can and will protect.

The answer to this question may be "conception" and it may be "at birth", but no matter what the answer is, it is a matter of when the fetus is defined as a "person" under the law, so that the laws regarding Homicide may be invoked.

Homicide being a state issue, it seems obvious that abortion must be as well.

* Bringing up race is a straw man argument, Nasty, unless you think some states would define "personhood" along racial lines. If anyone does think that, please keep it to yourself, don't send me an email about it.

Answer 4

Poll wise, Americans want a more restricted abortion law...not necessarily all-out illegality. I believe Roe vs Wade was a form of judicial activism, and should be overturned. I'd rather this issue be dealt with by the states, although I could see the moral issue on both sides...and that's probably why it should be dealt with in that manner.

In that way, it might address some of the concerns and it won't be the pure highlight of each election if the issue is more close to the people. Any significant change ought to be done with wide support, and I do believe there is sufficient support to overturn Roe, and alteast go from there.

Answer 5

Yes. This issue has poisoned our national political process, and the Constitution does not give the federal government (including the courts) any power to decide such issues. The Supreme Court should have kicked it back to the states in 1973 instead of issuing a fiat declaration that cannot be constitutionally supported.

Abortion is probably the most divisive issue the country has seen since slavery, and it is clear that Americans do not wish to live under one law regarding it. The best solution to the problem is to give it back to the states and let them make their own policies, as their people wish.

At the very least, under such a system, if you didn't like the law in your state or locality you could always move. Today, no one has that option.

Answer 6

Yes! It should be up to the people to decide! You'll find that the majority of America is politically pro-choice, but would prefer abortions to be rarer and deeply recognize the sanctity of life.

It's an immensely complex issue and should not be given a "yes" or "no" by our Supreme Court. Let the majority of the population decide how to handle their state's abortion problems.

Answer 7

Cynical: Bush has already made it a federal crime to transport a pregnant child/teen/woman across state lines for an abortion, even if it is to save the child's/teen's/woman's life.

Apparently some people want to see bloody coat-hangers, back alley abortions, high mortality and infertility rates among young women, and dead babies in gutters and garbage cans in this country again.... I guess that's "good Christian values" to them.

Answer 8

Abortions are best accomplished using medical instruments and not bare-handed.

Answer 9

i think putting important things in hands of states is a cop out that is intended to make it ok to violate american's freedoms. For example, if some state thinks its ok to discriminate against blacks, then its their right. If one state decides being gay is a crime, then thats their right...etc.

Answer 10

No, they are safe and legal and that's how they should remain for every woman in the country. It shouldn't even be an issue anymore.