Over a dozen companies announce they will cover abortion series travel costs

[F1fan]

On the day that the Supreme Court issued its decisions to overturn Roe V Wade over a dozen companies announced that they would cover the travel costs for abortion services for women in ban states. This is obviously an effort to work around the bans in about half the states so women can get abortion services.

Will this be the next phase, like the underground railroad that helped hide and move slaves from slave states? Will more companies and sponsors decide to help women who need abortion services and get them to legal states? Could this be a new type of charity provided to poor women, where there is travel and housing available in the legal states?

Will Republicans retaliate with new laws to prevent their state citizens from getting services in legal states? How far will Republicans go now that they have this victory? This is a culture war.

These US companies will cover travel costs for employees who need an abortion - CNN

 

[Debater Slayer]

While this is far from a permanent solution, it's good to see that at least some big corporations are doing the right thing, whether for self-interest (e.g., to retain employees) or otherwise. This situation would be even worse if the richest corporations were all on the side of anti-choice legislation.

 

[Sand Dancer]

On the day that the Supreme Court issued its decisions to overturn Roe V Wade over a dozen companies announced that they would cover the travel costs for abortion services for women in ban states. This is obviously an effort to work around the bans in about half the states so women can get abortion services.

Will this be the next phase, like the underground railroad that helped hide and move slaves from slave states? Will more companies and sponsors decide to help women who need abortion services and get them to legal states? Could this be a new type of charity provided to poor women, where there is travel and housing available in the legal states?

Will Republicans retaliate with new laws to prevent their state citizens from getting services in legal states? How far will Republicans go now that they have this victory? This is a culture war.

These US companies will cover travel costs for employees who need an abortion - CNN

Yes, it will be.

 

[Nakosis]

On the day that the Supreme Court issued its decisions to overturn Roe V Wade over a dozen companies announced that they would cover the travel costs for abortion services for women in ban states. This is obviously an effort to work around the bans in about half the states so women can get abortion services.

Will this be the next phase, like the underground railroad that helped hide and move slaves from slave states? Will more companies and sponsors decide to help women who need abortion services and get them to legal states? Could this be a new type of charity provided to poor women, where there is travel and housing available in the legal states?

Will Republicans retaliate with new laws to prevent their state citizens from getting services in legal states? How far will Republicans go now that they have this victory? This is a culture war.

These US companies will cover travel costs for employees who need an abortion - CNN

Better I think if they'd open up branches in pro choice friendly states and allow folks to transfer to whichever state had the preferred laws.
Maybe this was the cheaper option.

Though it'd be interesting I think to see how the national migration works out.

 

[Twilight Hue]

On the day that the Supreme Court issued its decisions to overturn Roe V Wade over a dozen companies announced that they would cover the travel costs for abortion services for women in ban states. This is obviously an effort to work around the bans in about half the states so women can get abortion services.

Will this be the next phase, like the underground railroad that helped hide and move slaves from slave states? Will more companies and sponsors decide to help women who need abortion services and get them to legal states? Could this be a new type of charity provided to poor women, where there is travel and housing available in the legal states?

Will Republicans retaliate with new laws to prevent their state citizens from getting services in legal states? How far will Republicans go now that they have this victory? This is a culture war.

These US companies will cover travel costs for employees who need an abortion - CNN

Nothing wrong with that.

I support the endeavor.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Better I think if they'd open up branches in pro choice friendly states and allow folks to transfer to whichever state had the preferred laws.
Maybe this was the cheaper option.

Though it'd be interesting I think to see how the national migration works out.

As long as states don't pursue those that go out of state and hunt them down for prosecution.

US states could ban people from traveling for abortions, experts warn

If they did that, I'd say it's as totalitarian as much as I accuse the Democrats.

 

[Heyo]

On the day that the Supreme Court issued its decisions to overturn Roe V Wade over a dozen companies announced that they would cover the travel costs for abortion services for women in ban states. This is obviously an effort to work around the bans in about half the states so women can get abortion services.

Will this be the next phase, like the underground railroad that helped hide and move slaves from slave states? Will more companies and sponsors decide to help women who need abortion services and get them to legal states? Could this be a new type of charity provided to poor women, where there is travel and housing available in the legal states?

Will Republicans retaliate with new laws to prevent their state citizens from getting services in legal states? How far will Republicans go now that they have this victory? This is a culture war.

These US companies will cover travel costs for employees who need an abortion - CNN

In a fight corporations against states, I know where my bet is.

 

[exchemist]

Better I think if they'd open up branches in pro choice friendly states and allow folks to transfer to whichever state had the preferred laws.
Maybe this was the cheaper option.

Though it'd be interesting I think to see how the national migration works out.

Not many people will want to move thousands of miles just in case they may, one day, need an abortion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

These US companies will cover travel costs for employees who need an abortion - CNN

But this is only half the story. See Tell Corporate America: Stop Funding Anti-Abortion Politicians!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not many people will want to move thousands of miles just in case they may, one day, need an abortion.

True. But companies will often make decisions of where to invest based upon the politics of that state. I don't see people moving due to abortion laws, but I can see some major companies rethinking the sites for their next factories.

 

[Nakosis]

Not many people will want to move thousands of miles just in case they may, one day, need an abortion.

Ok, but the option for folks to move where they choose doesn't seem like a bad thing.

 

[F1fan]

Ok, but the option for folks to move where they choose doesn't seem like a bad thing.

The dilemma is that many poor people, or people with families, don't have this option because they can't bear the expense of moving or traveling. Economics is a huge motivator for people moving. Getting a high paying job elsewhere justifies the stress and cost of moving, but to move just for access to a single procedure is not justifiable.

I could see a non-profit service that helps women travel to a state, have hotel costs covered, and an abortion procedure scheduled, and then travel home. This could be a two day solution. The one mounting problem is not enough clinics that can handle the extra demand.

If some ban states go so far to pass laws that prosecute their citizens for accessing abortion services in other states this will cause legal problems. The agenda the anti-choice movement has tried is to make it harder to get abortion access, and passing laws that make it illegal for state citizens to even have the procedure would be another hurdle. I don't see that type of law being constitutional, but with the current activist court we can't expect much objectivity as it would assume an authority by a state over the rights of an individual to be in another state and follow legal standards in that state. The state would in essence assume ownership of the woman, or parts of her, and limit her rights to autonomy beyond its borders.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Better I think if they'd open up branches in pro choice friendly states and allow folks to transfer to whichever state had the preferred laws.
Maybe this was the cheaper option.

Though it'd be interesting I think to see how the national migration works out.

I see this happening on the borders of states.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The dilemma is that many poor people, or people with families, don't have this option because they can't bear the expense of moving or traveling. Economics is a huge motivator for people moving. Getting a high paying job elsewhere justifies the stress and cost of moving, but to move just for access to a single procedure is not justifiable.

I could see a non-profit service that helps women travel to a state, have hotel costs covered, and an abortion procedure scheduled, and then travel home. This could be a two day solution. The one mounting problem is not enough clinics that can handle the extra demand.

If some ban states go so far to pass laws that prosecute their citizens for accessing abortion services in other states this will cause legal problems. The agenda the anti-choice movement has tried is to make it harder to get abortion access, and passing laws that make it illegal for state citizens to even have the procedure would be another hurdle. I don't see that type of law being constitutional, but with the current activist court we can't expect much objectivity as it would assume an authority by a state over the rights of an individual to be in another state and follow legal standards in that state. The state would in essence assume ownership of the woman, or parts of her, and limit her rights to autonomy beyond its borders.

These non-profits are already there and there will be more. Humans always find a way to make things happen.

 

[Nakosis]

The dilemma is that many poor people, or people with families, don't have this option because they can't bear the expense of moving or traveling. Economics is a huge motivator for people moving. Getting a high paying job elsewhere justifies the stress and cost of moving, but to move just for access to a single procedure is not justifiable.

I could see a non-profit service that helps women travel to a state, have hotel costs covered, and an abortion procedure scheduled, and then travel home. This could be a two day solution. The one mounting problem is not enough clinics that can handle the extra demand.

If some ban states go so far to pass laws that prosecute their citizens for accessing abortion services in other states this will cause legal problems. The agenda the anti-choice movement has tried is to make it harder to get abortion access, and passing laws that make it illegal for state citizens to even have the procedure would be another hurdle. I don't see that type of law being constitutional, but with the current activist court we can't expect much objectivity as it would assume an authority by a state over the rights of an individual to be in another state and follow legal standards in that state. The state would in essence assume ownership of the woman, or parts of her, and limit her rights to autonomy beyond its borders.

California is working on legislation to pay for travel to it's state.
I do hope the people of a state don't choose to restrict their own freedom to travel.
I don't know how they'd be able to enforce something like that though.

 

[exchemist]

True. But companies will often make decisions of where to invest based upon the politics of that state. I don't see people moving due to abortion laws, but I can see some major companies rethinking the sites for their next factories.

Oh indeed. That is possible.

I can't help wondering what sort of backlash there will be among voters. From what I read, the majority of citizens are in favour of maintaining abortion rights. Will this make the Republican party lose votes?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh indeed. That is possible.

I can't help wondering what sort of backlash there will be among voters. From what I read, the majority of citizens are in favour of maintaining abortion rights. Will this make the Republican party lose votes?

I hope so. And I can see two reasons that it could. First off the Republican party right now is the party of the single issue voter. Not all Republicans are gun nuts. Not all Republicans are racists. Not all Republicans are anti-choice. But if you fulfill the desires of one of those groups and if that was the main topic getting one to go out and vote the incentive to vote is lowered by fulfilling that desire. There will not be an urgent drive to get out and vote for those that are mainly anti-choice.

And on the other hand, as I posted elsewhere and can post again, the latest surveys show that 61% of Americans favor abortion with zero to no conditions attached. All of those people just got an added incentive to vote Democratic. I was braced for a rather sizable loss by the Democrats this fall. That often happens on off year elections when there is no Presidential race. The party that is in power tends to lose some. Now there may be a chance of the opposite happening.

 

[Heyo]

Oh indeed. That is possible.

I can't help wondering what sort of backlash there will be among voters. From what I read, the majority of citizens are in favour of maintaining abortion rights. Will this make the Republican party lose votes?

Many voters are mainly interested in the economy. They want to have jobs and cheap consumer goods. Many believe (falsely) that the GOP is the party that is good for the economy. When it obviously turns out not to be, they'll lose voters.
Reminds me of an incident some time back and I'm very hazy about the details. One state created a law targeting minorities. Many corporations left that state and incentivised their employees to leave also. Would be interesting to see how that went for the politicians.

 

[F1fan]

Oh indeed. That is possible.

I can't help wondering what sort of backlash there will be among voters. From what I read, the majority of citizens are in favour of maintaining abortion rights. Will this make the Republican party lose votes?

This is a risk the far right is taking. But we have to remember that the MAGAs are working to get their people in state election jobs and could use their authority to not certify elections their side doesn't win. Even if these efforts don't work they will be able to cause chaos and distrust. There needs to be a serious reconsideration of what the far right wants and does in the USA, and what ethics means to each member of society.

I suspect the far right knows they are unethical, but they feel they have the higher moral position, and that Democrats are evil, so the ends justifies the means. They don't seem aware that they have bought into a lot of disinformation, and these beliefs inform their actions. Democrats need to be better at messaging.

 

[Heyo]

Many voters are mainly interested in the economy. They want to have jobs and cheap consumer goods. Many believe (falsely) that the GOP is the party that is good for the economy. When it obviously turns out not to be, they'll lose voters.
Reminds me of an incident some time back and I'm very hazy about the details. One state created a law targeting minorities. Many corporations left that state and incentivised their employees to leave also. Would be interesting to see how that went for the politicians.

Had to look it up:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/discriminate-gender-identity-corporate-power-1.3527577

It shows who has the power in the land. Sometimes they are on the right side.