3 ms·

Denmark, France and Germany allow on-demand abortions. How was that different from the US until now?

gonehome 4y ago
They only allow it up to a certain point (12 weeks for Denmark the others are similar) and then after that only with cause. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark For those that don't want to click: > "Abortion in Denmark was fully legalized on 1 October 1973,[1] allowing the procedure to be done on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its 12th week. Under Danish law, the patient must be over the age of 18 to decide on an abortion alone; parental consent is required for minors, except in special circumstances. An abortion can be performed after 12 weeks if the woman's life or health are in danger. A woman may also be granted an authorization to abort after 12 weeks if certain circumstances are proved to be present (such as poor socioeconomic condition of the woman, risk of birth defects in the baby, the pregnancy being the result of rape, or mental health risk to mother)." That's a lot more restrictive than the US was prior to this recent decision.
- the_mar 4y ago
  But the US states could already impose term limits (e.g. Texas). So why did Roe v Wade need to be overturned?
  - gonehome 4y ago
    SCOTUS is tasked with determining if a right is constitutionally protected. There is no right to abortion in the constitution, Roe argued a path to one but it was fairly weak (https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc). It was overturned because it's not the court's job to legislate policy beyond that. Part of the reason for that is it creates policy which cannot be reverted by democratic means (except by the kind of extremes we've seen recently) - that's why it's better on net if it's narrow in scope and tied to constitutional rights (imo). IANAL so this is at the edge of my knowledge, but that's my understanding. There is a path to adding things to the constitution, but that power lies with congress.
    - the_mar 4y ago
      I'm confused what you're arguing for. You seem to agree, in general abortion should be an option - which is what roe v wade did. States could impose restrictions on how and when abortion is performed. I agree with you, that third trimester on-demand abortions are ludicrous btw. I however do not have that rosy of a perspective that this was overturned due to technicality and that in fact women's rights are about to be stripped the fuck away.
      - gonehome 4y ago
        Basically I'm drawing a distinction about what I personally think is good policy and what is actually a right granted by the constitution. I think broad access to abortion for women is important, but I think Roe finding that this protection exists as a constitutional right just isn't correct. If we want there to be a constitutional protection there needs to be an amendment. Short of that we need to pass legislation federally. Otherwise it's up to states and constituents within those states to fight it out democratically. I was happy with the outcome from Roe because it protected a lot of vulnerable women who will now unfairly suffer consequences, but I still intellectually think it was wrongly decided. Now we're suffering the consequences of that. Had Roe not been decided this way maybe there wouldn't have been as extreme a push to get Trump in office at all costs? It would reduce the political nature of SCOTUS and allow for relief valves - people can fight out the issues democratically. Obviously this can't happen in cases where constitutional rights are legitimately infringed, but again the finding of a constitutional right to abortion was tenuous at best. We need to get into law the things we care about - that's how the system is supposed to work.
        the_mar 4y ago
        Ok, I will never not be amazed by how americans can reconcile two opposing views in their heads (I mean it as a compliment). But I do think that leaving abortion rights up to states will work out terribly. It's kind of like letting states decide if women should be allowed to vote
        4y ago
- divided 4y ago
  On face value sure it may look more restrictive, but it’s not a simple comparison. The exceptions for their 12 week limit are some of the PRIMARY reasons to get an abortion. In that regard, the soft 12 week limit could be more permissive of 20+ week abortions than our statutes. Second, Denmark citizens have universal healthcare making it easier to access procedures, pregnancy testing, etc. Third, prior to the ruling some states only had 1 abortion center state-wide. As well as rules requiring day long waiting periods, anti-abortion counseling, etc. Imagine how access looks different when you must save up for months, travel 3 hours to visit a clinic, rent a motel for the night for the waiting period, and all while trying to not miss any days at work. Hope that helps convey that rather dry comparisons of the weeks of various international statutes is a far cry from determining whether one system is “a lot more restrictive” than another.

They only allow it up to a certain point (12 weeks for Denmark the others are similar) and then after that only with cause. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark For those that don't want to click: > "Abortion in Denmark was fully legalized on 1 October 1973,[1] allowing the procedure to be done on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its 12th week. Under Danish law, the patient must be over the age of 18 to decide on an abortion alone; parental consent is required for minors, except in special circumstances. An abortion can be performed after 12 weeks if the woman's life or health are in danger. A woman may also be granted an authorization to abort after 12 weeks if certain circumstances are proved to be present (such as poor socioeconomic condition of the woman, risk of birth defects in the baby, the pregnancy being the result of rape, or mental health risk to mother)." That's a lot more restrictive than the US was prior to this recent decision.

the_mar 4y ago
But the US states could already impose term limits (e.g. Texas). So why did Roe v Wade need to be overturned?
- gonehome 4y ago
  SCOTUS is tasked with determining if a right is constitutionally protected. There is no right to abortion in the constitution, Roe argued a path to one but it was fairly weak (https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc). It was overturned because it's not the court's job to legislate policy beyond that. Part of the reason for that is it creates policy which cannot be reverted by democratic means (except by the kind of extremes we've seen recently) - that's why it's better on net if it's narrow in scope and tied to constitutional rights (imo). IANAL so this is at the edge of my knowledge, but that's my understanding. There is a path to adding things to the constitution, but that power lies with congress.
  - the_mar 4y ago
    I'm confused what you're arguing for. You seem to agree, in general abortion should be an option - which is what roe v wade did. States could impose restrictions on how and when abortion is performed. I agree with you, that third trimester on-demand abortions are ludicrous btw. I however do not have that rosy of a perspective that this was overturned due to technicality and that in fact women's rights are about to be stripped the fuck away.
    - gonehome 4y ago
      Basically I'm drawing a distinction about what I personally think is good policy and what is actually a right granted by the constitution. I think broad access to abortion for women is important, but I think Roe finding that this protection exists as a constitutional right just isn't correct. If we want there to be a constitutional protection there needs to be an amendment. Short of that we need to pass legislation federally. Otherwise it's up to states and constituents within those states to fight it out democratically. I was happy with the outcome from Roe because it protected a lot of vulnerable women who will now unfairly suffer consequences, but I still intellectually think it was wrongly decided. Now we're suffering the consequences of that. Had Roe not been decided this way maybe there wouldn't have been as extreme a push to get Trump in office at all costs? It would reduce the political nature of SCOTUS and allow for relief valves - people can fight out the issues democratically. Obviously this can't happen in cases where constitutional rights are legitimately infringed, but again the finding of a constitutional right to abortion was tenuous at best. We need to get into law the things we care about - that's how the system is supposed to work.
      - the_mar 4y ago
        Ok, I will never not be amazed by how americans can reconcile two opposing views in their heads (I mean it as a compliment). But I do think that leaving abortion rights up to states will work out terribly. It's kind of like letting states decide if women should be allowed to vote
        4y ago
divided 4y ago
On face value sure it may look more restrictive, but it’s not a simple comparison. The exceptions for their 12 week limit are some of the PRIMARY reasons to get an abortion. In that regard, the soft 12 week limit could be more permissive of 20+ week abortions than our statutes. Second, Denmark citizens have universal healthcare making it easier to access procedures, pregnancy testing, etc. Third, prior to the ruling some states only had 1 abortion center state-wide. As well as rules requiring day long waiting periods, anti-abortion counseling, etc. Imagine how access looks different when you must save up for months, travel 3 hours to visit a clinic, rent a motel for the night for the waiting period, and all while trying to not miss any days at work. Hope that helps convey that rather dry comparisons of the weeks of various international statutes is a far cry from determining whether one system is “a lot more restrictive” than another.