What Would Be an "(un)acceptable burden" to get an abortion?

I'm tied up in an argument over Roe V. Wade at another forum. I've pointed out that even if Roe V. Wade was overturned it would simply return the U.S. to having each state set their own laws regarding abortion. And if the state by state laws became what they were prior to Roe v. Wade that fully half of all American women would either live in a state allowing elective (non medical reason) abortions or live within 100 miles of such a state.

Someone maintained that having to travel 100 miles to obtain an abortion was an "unacceptable burden" for a woman seeking one. Sure they point out that not everyone in the U.S. has a car. True but I bet almost everyone in the U.S. knows someone well who has a car. And there are still buses and other means of public transportation.

So what would constitute an "acceptable burden" for a woman seeking a legal abortion?

I think you should stay out of it since you don't have a uterus or a brain.

Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.

If Roe were overturned, it would have to be because either: (1) the court reversed its position on a right of privacy as the basis for abortion rights; or (2) the court found that the fetus was deserving of protections.

If (2) were the basis for overturning it, abortion would not simply revert to the states; it would be made unlawful (or subjected to the federal constraints) everywhere.

Hard to tell without context. You should link us to to thread in question.

Wrong, thread invalid because @Dayton Kitchens does not have a uterus, brain, or sex with humans so he has no need for any input on abortion.

You really are going to do that after whining about all the dayton derailments? You are going to indulge the troll thread? Really?

You're the moderator.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-be-the-effect.561884/page-6#post-1070995786

As @Bailey said, it's hard to formulate advice without seeing the full context of the discussion you're having.

You are still only at a bit over 3000 likes over there? Do you smell of clinton or something? I am pretty sure the alt right people over there love pos repping boobs like you. You are not even at 25 percent. Maybe you need to buy a MAGA hat or something.

I give up.

Abort yourself.

I would vote for public funding a @Dayton Kitchens self abortion. After all, if his mom could have afforded the coat hanger we would have all been saved the torment.

Hmm... acceptable burden for getting an abortion...

I guess it's reasonable to expect people to make an appointment and actually go to a clinic instead of expecting the doctor to come to one's house.

Although, mobile abortion clinics might be a good business opportunity.

None.

1)Knowing someone with a car ≠ having access to said car

2) Outside of NYC, Seattle and maybe Los Angeles, the state of public transportation is dismal in America. I no bullshit looked up a bus route while I was stationed in a suburb of New Orleans and Google Maps told me to take a 10 minute car ride to the nearest bust ride.

2a) on that note, some areas can't even get tacos to come out. We sailors tried bribing taxis in Avondale with ridiculous tips and they still wouldn't do it. Imagine what it's like for the fairly impoverished residents just trying to get groceries.

3)we should just be able to get it done at any hospital or clinic since 90 percent of the time, doctors issue a pill and tell the pregnant person to expect hard cramps for a day. But that ain't always the care, so here we are.

There's no answer you'd accept and it's not your place to dictate that.

They say a large number of abortions can be done chemically with pills, so the fed ex guy might be all you need.

there is no "acceptable burden".

An unacceptable burden is anything put in place for the purpose of being a burden.

Why?

I've got a better idea... why don't you come up with valid excuse to place an obstacle between someone and their right to decide what medical procedure they require?

A first trimester fetus is not a viable human life, so that's already disqualified.

As mentioned, pregnancy can be terminated without an actual procedure now using a pill. Is there even a reason to require a specialist doctor when even a nurse/practitioner is more than qualified to provide it?

Because the procedure is either legal or it isn't. Making it legal and then trying to find ways to deliberately make things difficult for those who opt for it is victimisation and not something that the state should be in the business of doing.

I'm not for abortion. But guess what? That's not my choice to make for someone else. So if it's legal (which isn't my decision to make either) anything that prevents or makes it anymore difficult than it would for any other medical procedure is an unacceptable burden.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned then abortion is no longer a nationally recognized legal right in the U.S.

your dad tried to abort you but he was too dumb to use a hanger.

Let's make bullets 5 grand apiece.
I'm sure gunforge won't mind at all.
What? Guns are still legal!
It's just market solutions!

Except that the right to keep and bear arms is actually in the constitution and thus by obvious implication ammunition. The right to an abortion is not. And the "right" that abortion rights are based on, privacy is not in the constitution either. Thus abortion is an implied right based on another implied right.

By any unbiased analysis, the "right" to an abortion has very thin constitutional basis.

It should be noted I mentioned the "100 miles" for a specific reason. In my own state the only place a woman can obtain an abortion (except for an emergency medical one at a hospital) is at a clinic in Little Rock.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aborti...ith-one-abortion-clinic-this-week-2019-07-22/

Little Rock is more than 100 miles away from the bulk of the female population of this state.

So, to be clear @Dayton Kitchens, you think that it is legitimate for the government to seek to victimise people who do things which are legal?