Sanctuary States for Abortion are Coming


The Governor of California has proposed his state pay travel and abortion expenses for low-income women who live in abortion prohibition states. This would make it possible for a low-income woman in Texas to board a plane, fly to California for an abortion and fly home expenses paid. What better publicity for a state than to announce it considers women intelligent assets rather than mere baby factories.

I could see other states not wanting to be left out as states who treat women fairly. The trend of dividing states into red and blue seems likely to increase. There are states that want to be identified as "Mississippi North" and others that do not. Those that do not will follow California's lead and increase abortion access. Race and gender issues may well follow. 

In the Midwest, Minnesota and Illinois certainly will remain abortion welcoming states. Others like Iowa where I live may be off and on. In the Southwest there are some states with modern political majorities and some backward ones. 

Access of women in backwater states will ultimately depend on how much money is available to advertise and pay transportation costs. I'm often surprised at how much and where donated money appears. It used to be liberal causes and candidates were always swamped by the money conservatives were able to raise. That still happens, but sometimes liberals raise amazing amounts of money. Obama was an example.

Fundraising for abortion access seems to be skyrocketing. However, I don't know how is compares to the amount that will be needed to pay transportation costs for women in abortion prohibition states. That California is opening its state Treasury to funding this is a new dimension. California is now running big budget surpluses and is easily able to pay for travel from other states for abortions.

I've wondered about volunteer vehicles and drivers. For other medical treatments there are volunteer pilots with their own airplanes that fly patients to other states for surgeries and follow up. Perhaps there could be the same for abortions. More practical would be a fleet of vans that took women to abortion facilities on interstates with volunteer drivers. Mayve even pairs of drivers for 24-hour shifts and quick turnarounds. Back before Roe interstates and the quality of vehicles was nothing like what we have today.   

While it is frustrating to see the anti-women legislation and court decisions going forward. It is also exciting to contemplate the opportunities to keep abortion available.

Comments

  1. Re the picture.
    Now there's a smart girl. Thumbing her way to town to get birth control pills so there's no need for an abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. helper--"...to get birth control pills...."

    Yes, that would be smart. It would be good if the pills always worked.

    On pills, there is a lot of discussion about how to get abortion pills into Texas and Mississippi. I suspect there will be a smart underground. There was the underground railroad during slavery. Today there is a huge underground economy to avoid showing income and then paying taxes. People will figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. Didn't Gov. Newsome say he will pay for pregnant, poor women from other States to come to California for pre-natal care. After birth, they can be flown back at his expense, for strollers, carriages, diapers, etc. After all, this is about helping women, not just abortion, right? It's not about choice, it's about helping poor women, right?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matt-- A child costs over $100,000 to age 18. Paying for an abortion helps poor women more than a few diapers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By offering free abortions, Governor is giving pregnant poor women a gift of $100,000. If churches or other state governments would match that they might buy off some abortions. But wait. These women had sex. They must be punished, not rewarded.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. tsm -- So the poor woman's child will become an asset to society, if she gets an abortion society will be without that asset. It would follow logically society should pay the $100,000 to the woman to raise the child. You conservatives will not hear of that: THAT'S SOCIALISM. ANYWAY, THE WOMAN NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED FOR HAVING SEX. WITHOUT PUNISHMENT WOMEN WILL NEVER BEHAVE THEMSELVES. REMEMBER EVE, SHE CAUSE THE ORIGINAL SIN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. tsm -- If you could focus it would be helpful. I said if the poor woman's personal interest is to have an abortion but you and others believe it is in the national interest to force her to give birth the public should pay her for the cost of raising the child. It's quite simple. Conservatives want to force her to have and raise a child because they want to punish her. As one told me, "If she is forced to pay the cost of raising a child maybe she will not have sex."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  7. I agree with TSM. His focus is sharp. His arguments are logical.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe the "Original Sin" Should be Reassigned

Who Suffers from a "Hardened Heart"

Young Women can see Bull$hit a Mile Away