Japan Today
world

Which states could have abortion on the ballot in 2024?

19 Comments
By GEOFF MULVIHILL and KIMBERLEE KRUESI

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


19 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

I wish it were on the ballot here. Let the people decide. Last time they let us decide something it was whether alcohol could be sold on Sunday afternoons. It passed by a huge margin, ruining all the liquor stores day off.

24 states don't allow citizens to force ballot issues.

I'd allow abortions at any time for rape or incest or if the health of the mother is at risk. For all other situations, I'd allow abortions as long as possible, provided the safety of the mother wasn't at risk. I wouldn't be opposed to a mandatory 7 day consultation period, but those consultations could be performed over the phone or internet to ensure factual medical information was provided. In the packet of facts, I wouldn't be opposed to having secular adoption information provided as well, provided there wasn't any religious slant to it at all. Nobody should be forced to have a child they don't want.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Let the people decide.

No. Basic human rights should not depend on the ballot box, and abortion was considered that once until the rightwing extremists on the Supreme Court decided otherwise. The arc of justice is long, and eventually this right will be somehow again enshrined in American law, In the meantime, there will be untold suffering, both for mothers and children.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

A subject the the rest of the world has some how managed to resolve or semi resolve, anytime the state gets involved in any thing private spells trouble.

I honestly believe that a Woman has the right to chose if she wishes to continue with her pregnancy or not. She bares that responsibility , it's her choice, her future, her conscious, her LIFE. No one should be telling the new mother if or when she could bare a child.

Now there are certain conditions and exceptions when a mother should not have an abortion and I am sure that there are condition when she MUST.

Either way IT'S HER CHOICE and we must respect that.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Keep the states nose out of the citizens private matters.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

I'm a man SO IT"S NONE OF MY BUSINESS what women do with their health and bodies.

Seems the abortion fight has to be refought and refought again.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Let the States vote on the issue.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Which states could have baby slaughter on the ballot in 2024?

Fixed the title in order to correct misinformation.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

Was talking to a fetus a few days ago. She said she wanted a choice too.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Fixed the title in order to correct misinformation

Ignorance.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Let the States vote on the issue.

So far 7 did. Pro Abortion rights won in all 7.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Was talking to a fetus a few days ago

I bet you did.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Was talking to a fetus a few days ago. She said she wanted a choice too.

This could be a good example of why religion should stay out of politics.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

So far 7 did. Pro Abortion rights won in all 7.

If that is what they decided, so be it.

This could be a good example of why religion should stay out of politics.

Why?

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

This could be a good example of why religion should stay out of politics.

Why?

Because I think decisions or beliefs based on imaginary conversations are not a sensible basis for government policy.

Do you?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

This could be a good example of why religion should stay out of politics.

Why?

Why do you believe that you personally should have a religious voice in a decision that is between the person who chooses to have an abortion (that is between them and God), and think that you should tell them if they can or can't have one (attempting to make it between yourself, and them and God). Freedom of choice is a God given right. The consequences are between them and God, not YOU.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one yourself. But don't interject your personal moral/religious choice on those who can legally choose to do so as it is their choice. The cat has been out of the bag since the 60s, and you can't stuff it back in. If the law was left alone at no abortions allowed during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, there would be no concern. If you look at human history, abortions were done well before there were laws to make it a legal right. My step grandmother (eastern European) "worked" during WW2 and knew how to terminate a pregnancy or force a miscarriage due to what she was doing to survive in that era and passed down the information to all her daughters. Women will do it anyway, and will know how to do it.

I'm not a big fan of abortion, but I'd rather have hard statistics on legal abortion, instead of trying to force it underground/illicit abortions with no way of knowing how societal/population trends are going and what problems are happening.

You're not "saving" babies that aren't born yet, especially since you know you can't even help the children that are already born and alive in this world!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@HonestDictator

Why do you believe that you personally should have a religious voice in a decision that is between the person who chooses to have an abortion (that is between them and God), and think that you should tell them if they can or can't have one (attempting to make it between yourself, and them and God). Freedom of choice is a God given right. The consequences are between them and God, not YOU.

So it's none of anyone's business to legislate against murder or other serious crimes because it's none of our business, but rather between the perpetrator and God?

If you don't like abortion, don't have one yourself. But don't interject your personal moral/religious choice

The religious person's objection is more than anything based on the fact that during an abortion a baby's life is brutally destroyed. Their religion merely confirms what their conscience is already telling them and urges them to speak up against it.

And besides, the very nature of public debate and the democratic process is about everyone interjecting their beliefs into the discussion, voting and defeating those with opposing ideas. So why are you advocating being about to outvote others with your beliefs and morals but denying religious people the same right?

on those who can legally choose to do so as it is their choice.

Being legal or popular doesn't make it right to slaughter a child. War, racism, slavery and other moral evils have all been legal and popular at various times.

The cat has been out of the bag since the 60s, and you can't stuff it back in. If the law was left alone at no abortions allowed during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, there would be no concern. If you look at human history, abortions were done well before there were laws to make it a legal right. My step grandmother (eastern European) "worked" during WW2 and knew how to terminate a pregnancy or force a miscarriage due to what she was doing to survive in that era and passed down the information to all her daughters. Women will do it anyway, and will know how to do it.

While I sympathize with the reasons for wanting to abort the child, it doesn't make it right. Bring it to birth and have it adopted if necessary, but don't slaughter it.

I'm not a big fan of abortion

Why? Probably because your humanity tells you it destroys a child. If there was no pain, injury or death to a child involved you would be enthusiastically supportive.

, but I'd rather have hard statistics on legal abortion, instead of trying to force it underground/illicit abortions with no way of knowing how societal/population trends are going and what problems are happening.

800,000 abortions are performed in the US each year. If outlawed, there is no way that there will be 800,000 underground abortions occurring yearly. So, many lives will be saved.

You're not "saving" babies that aren't born yet

Maybe you should check out the many grateful testimonies of those who survived abortion attempts.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Because I think decisions or beliefs based on imaginary conversations are not a sensible basis for government policy. 

Do you?

Depends.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

No. Basic human rights should not depend on the ballot box

There are different opinions on that. To Catholics who follow the teaching of the Pope, from conception on, it is a "life" and must have the same "human rights" as any other born human, including the mother.

Getting the US Constitution to change to allow abortion rights is extremely unlikely. It would be easier to get owning firearms as a right and THAT won't happen in my lifetime. So, being practical, getting abortion rights on all state ballots will be the fastest way to get them returned, especially while the SCOTUS is majority fundamental religious people.

There's the ideal world and there's the practical world. I live in the practical world.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

800,000 abortions are performed in the US each year. If outlawed, there is no way that there will be 800,000 underground abortions occurring yearly. So, many lives will be saved.

facepalm... if there are more than 800,000 underground abortions/forced miscarriages, you'll never have an exact number, because there is no way to properly track it! You are NOT SAVING unborn children being brought into this world!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites