Social Question

Kraigmo's avatar

Now that Roe v. Wade is struck down, Can states now legally mandate forced abortions?

Asked by Kraigmo (9005points) June 24th, 2022

Since Roe v. Wade was based on an assumed Constitutional right to privacy, and it is now overturned… can states mandate abortions for certain people, especially if they present a compelling state interest?
For example, if someone on welfare has 9 kids, can states now force her to abort any potential 10th baby, based on the idea that she is abusing her other 9 kids by having another kid she cannot afford, and she is abusing the welfare system by making preventable choices that depend on future state support?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

Blackwater_Park's avatar

I don’t think you understand this

gorillapaws's avatar

@Kraigmo Perhaps a more believable scenario to your point would be a state law that required abortions in the case of incest or the rape of a child resulting in pregnancy. It’s an interesting hypothetical, though not likely to ever come to pass since nobody is actually pro-abortion.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Does not make sense !


RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Thanks for the original question.
Seeing that America, including Canada, had atrocities like forced sterilization, and residential schools, then it’s possible in the past. Hopefully the world will not come to that ever again. It is unfortunately a possibility.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Sterilization in those cases has been discussed, yes. In order to receive benefits most will submit, is what I recall hearing.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Of course not.

jca2's avatar

Receiving public assistance (not called “welfare”) is not “an abuse of the welfare system.” Its purpose is for people to receive it.

If the child is fed, housed and clothed, it’s not abuse. It’s not neglect. The child is cared for.

Blackberry's avatar

Not sure if you know….but it’s the opposite…..that lady with 9 kids will not be able to get an abortion….because RvW was struck down.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Blackberry I think you might be misunderstanding what the ruling means. Essentially Roe said that states cannot pass laws that ban abortion. This ruling reversed that decision and so now it’s up to the states to decide what rules can be made regarding a woman’s body. Based on this logic, that would mean that a state could conceivably force women to abort under certain circumstances if the states were to pass such laws. At least that’s how I interpreted @Kraigmo‘s question—please correct me if I’m wrong.

Blackberry's avatar

Oh ok I gotcha. Basically a state is free to make its own rules.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Blackberry “Basically a state is free to make its own rules.”

Exactly that, yes—at least that’s my understanding.

LostInParadise's avatar

The question does point out the absurdity of the Supreme Court ruling. It would make for an interesting test case, but it is not going to happen.

seawulf575's avatar

Probably not. Authorization is required by the patient (if adult, by the parents of a minor) for almost all medical procedures. Possible exceptions would be treatment for communicable diseases.

BUT, the left is pushing the rights of schools to urge transgender treatments on children without the parents consent. So they ARE setting a precedent of having a governmental agency determine what is and isn’t acceptable for minors. So it is possible, in the future, we may see just that. After all, China did it.

LadyMarissa's avatar

Somebody is confused yet once again!!! Authorization for a medical procedure will become a thing of the past & the state will TELL you what procedure you will be having & also force you to sign a document saying you’re giving authorization. I hope I live long enough to see some people’s excitement turn into disappointed reality when it’s used AGAINST them!!!

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther