Skip to main content

Abortion Questions

I have come to accept that there are many thoughtful, intelligent people who firmly believe — as I do not — that abortion is murder. I further accept that there is no moral or philosophical argument I can offer that will convince them otherwise.

I would, however, like to offer some practical arguments, which I have not yet seen thought through, or even brought up. If we end up, as we might, in a situation where Roe v. Wade is overturned, what would an actual ban on abortion look like? What would be the challenges to implementing such a ban? How does one go about making government responsible for policing women’s bodies?

Because if Roe is overturned, what we certainly will not see is an overarching federal ban — no foreseeable Congress would even consider it. So it will fall to each state to create its own abortion laws. Inevitably, some states will ban abortion altogether.

But a ban at the state level will most likely require an expansion of state government to accommodate what will surely be a dramatic increase in criminal activity. These states will need more police, more courts, and more prisons. Strapped state budgets will need to adjust.

Because laws do not stop abortions. They reduce access. They encourage dangerous workarounds. They turn ordinary citizens into criminals. But even in countries like Honduras — where any abortion, for any reason, is an aggressively-enforced crime — an estimated 80,000 women per year still manage to end unwanted pregnancies. Despite hair-raising risks.

So regardless of how strict the enforcement, let’s stipulate that the demand for abortion will continue to be brisk, even as the supply becomes illegal.

This is a movie we’ve seen many times. Just as in Prohibition, just as in the “War on Drugs,” the supply of an illicit product will always rise to meet the demand. This creates new kinds of criminals at every point in the supply chain, and society will need to decide how much enforcement it wants. But you can’t have an effective ban without bringing criminals to justice. What’s a crime without punishment?

So with all this in mind, here are some serious questions for those who would ban abortion outright:

Do you believe abortion is first-degree murder? Since premeditation is a given, should a conviction carry the same punishment as other first-degree murders, i.e. life imprisonment or the death penalty? If it’s not first-degree murder, then what is it? Will murder of the unborn carry more or less punishment than murder of the born?

Do you support taxpayer dollars allocated to the enforcement of abortion laws? If your state needs to raise income or sales taxes to pay for it, would you support that? Would you divert money from other areas of state government? Would you move resources from, say, the state’s Covid response to pursue abortion suspects?

Would you earmark state funding for policing and prosecution? Will police be trained in forensic gynecology? Will interrogation rooms be retrofitted with gynecological equipment? Will a uterus be considered a crime scene? Will an officer need a warrant to inspect such a crime scene?

Would you expand the judicial system to accommodate large numbers of new cases? Would you hire more judges and support staff? Would you put more public defenders on the payroll? Would you build more courtrooms?

What evidentiary standards would you establish? Can a suspect be held in custody because her uterus holds evidence of a crime? Would a judge — or a prosecutor — be able to order surgery to find evidence of a suspected abortion?

Would you expand the prison system to take on expected offenders? As convicted murderers, would they join the general prison population with other murderers? Or would they be a separate class of prisoner?

If a single mother is convicted and imprisoned, will the state take responsibility for her other children? Should the state commit to maintaining those children for the duration of her sentence? If not, how do you propose to take care of them?

As abortion pills become increasingly available and legal worldwide, how would you restrict access? Since most pills will be ordered online — mostly from states where it’s legal — how will you cut off that supply?

Would simple possession of abortion pills be a crime, or would they need to be ingested first? Will the seller of the pill be as liable as the buyer? Which is the greater crime — selling the pills or using them?

How would you handle the influx of unwanted babies who will surely be given up for adoption? Will they become wards of the state? Will adoption services be ramped up to accommodate them? Will orphanages make a comeback? Is the state, or any other entity, prepared to provide long-term care for a significant number of parentless children?

I understand that I am applying rational standards to an emotional issue. But in this case, the emotional issue has huge practical consequences. Because if you truly believe in the criminalization of abortion as a societal imperative, then you must be prepared to administer its enforcement.

But the long, sordid history of black markets would argue against the success of imposing another layer of government control over personal behavior.

So especially for those who purport to want less government in people’s lives, is a ban on abortion really worth it?

Comments

  1. If you believe fetal life is a "human life" with tremendous value, and you are also rational, you probably would support either criminal / civil penalties that could be enforced, probably short of imprisonment of medical personnel or the woman carrying an unwanted fetus. Perhaps suspending or pulling medical licenses and other monetary fines.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Covid

A lot of what we’re now going through has echoes of what we went through during Covid. The timelines are eerily similar. In January 2020, the rumble was in the distance, but we knew the storm was headed our way. It wasn’t something we wanted to think about. We knew what the disease was capable of, but we only knew it from afar. Denial was easy. Read that last paragraph again, but substitute 2025 for 2020. The word ‘disease’ still applies — only its definition is expanded. By February, we could see the virus spreading, a few cases here, a few there, but the CDC was warning that this was not something you want to mess with. It was only a matter of time before it would arrive in full force, and our experts seemed flummoxed as to how to respond. A few tried to warn us, but the alarm went unheeded. Even so, a sense of dread was descending on the land. Same deal in February of this year. As DOGE vandalized the government, right out in the open, fear of the unknown ...

So You Thought You’d Heard Enough about Jeffrey Epstein?

  Back in 2019, the first time Jeffrey Epstein was the name on everyone’s lips, the New York Times published the bizarre story of Leslie H. Wexner. The billionaire founder of Victoria’s Secret, this guy basically signed over his life — and much of his fortune — to Epstein. This went on for at least 16 years. Wexner gave Epstein power of attorney, and with it the ability to buy, sell, or sign for anything in Wexner’s name, thereby affording him extraordinary access to, and power over, the personal finances of an extremely wealthy man. Ostensibly Wexner had hired Epstein as a financial advisor, yet no one at L Brands — parent company of Victoria’s Secret— saw any official record of employment or compensation. Over a decade and a half, Epstein took over most, if not all, of Wexner’s personal investments, including substantial real estate holdings. Epstein transferred ownership of a lot of those properties to himself. This baffled and disturbed other executives...

Epstein: The Gift that Keeps On Giving

  T he Epstein scandal is not just about those elusive files, though seeing them released would surely be a hallelujah moment. Don’t hold your breath. The scandal is really about a massive set of laughably contradictory lies, all of which add up to one big whopper of a question: Did Donald Trump have sex with underage girls, courtesy of his long-time sidekick, Jeffrey Epstein? It seems almost certain that he did, and on multiple occasions. Which is why he needs to lie about it like he’s never lied before. Talk about a high bar. Driftglass , of The Professional Left Podcast , has called this “the load-bearing lie” — the lie that has to carry far more weight than all the thousands of other lies that define the Trump era. A load-bearing lie is a lie that must not fail, under any circumstances, lest the entire house of lesser lies implode. Watching the fact-free, logically bereft tap dancing being performed almost daily by the likes of JD Vance, Pam Bondi, a...