[utahagen]

I am aware that abortion would not become illegal in the US simply if Roe V Wade is overturned. (Roe v Wade prevents any state from making abortion illegal; reversing R v W would allow individual states to limit abortions within those states.) My point was that “The number of abortions would remain unchanged as long as people could travel” is absurd. If abortion were illegal in even one out of the fifty states, the number of abortions would go down. Some women would travel for an abortion, but some wouldn't. The author of the posted article is trying to assuage his conscience with his argument that “we've lost the abortion war — permanently.” This conveniently lets him off the hook from having to limit abortions in any way. His argument that freeing states up to limit abortions by overturning R v W would have no effect on the “number of abortions” is nonsensical and would be disputed even by Planned Parenthood and NARAL. If abortion were banned in, say, Alabama, some women in Alabama would travel out of state to abort; some would seek illegal abortions in state; and some would choose not to abort.

[ChurtleDawg]

true-—abortions would decrease, particularly in some of the more inland states of the midwest where stronger restrictions or outright bans are likely-—states like South Dakota.

there are other measures that could be done too-—for example tax credits for people to give an unplanned child up for adoption. This would make carrying a baby to term more likely especially for poor women.

My Church has a program (they fund it out of the poor box), where they help poor pregnant women pay bills. These little measures, as well as the care shown by the community help convince people to carrying unplanned pregnancies to term.