To the lawyers: Is there something I'm not understanding about Roe v. Wade?

Question

Say, in the highly unlikely event that Roe v. Wade does get overturned, and the decision was left to the individual states to handle, wouldn't that just mean abortion clinics, and hospitals that perform abortions, etc. wouldn't get government funding for the procedure? The issue, as I understand it, is that people who vehemently disagree with a practice don't want to be forced to pay for it with their tax dollars. So what would stop doctors from opening up private clinics to offer abortion services, after Roe v. Wade is (hypothetically) overturned?

A little off-topic, I would even argue that free market competition between private clinics would result in innovations in safety and technology for abortion procedures.

Answer 1

The answer to your question is Yes.  Roe is not about funding.  Many states do not fund abortions even now.  The issue isn't over who pays--it's over who decides.

Answer 2

No. If it was said that there is no constitutional right, then the individual states could decide whether or not the procedure would be allowed within their borders. So if someone lives in the deep south, they may be left with no nearby states where the procedure is legal. Thus, we could be looking again at the specter of the back-alley, coat hanger abortionist. The issue isn't that people don't want their tax dollars paying for it, the issue is that people don't want anyone to have the option.

Answer 3

The issue is not money.  The Supreme Court found the right to privacy in the US Constitution, then projected that privacy right to doctor/patient conversation.  They used a back-door approach to create something that did not exist.  

Having states decide the issue is really a cop-out.  Abortion is either OK or not OK and it clearly should apply to everyone.

If some states did allow abortions, women who wanted them would just travel to the states that allowed the procedure.  They would still have to pay for it.