system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: If states vote to ban abortion, they should be required to establish state-funded support systems for women and children in need - and those systems should be up for vote, too.

For the record, I am vehemently pro-choice and that part of my view will not be changed. 

That said, if this is the direction our country is voting to go, I believe we should require more government-funded support organizations and easements for the people directly impacted by this decision (women and children in need).

I’ve admittedly not considered all the pros, cons and logistics of setting something like this in motion, but i believe it’s beyond irresponsible to pass laws and restrictions that will have significant short and long-term impact on our country’s population, culture, economy and healthcare systems without requiring a support system for the inevitable *equal or opposite reactions.*

Fundamentally, I don’t think it’s possible to take something away without giving something back to fill the void. If we’re going to make matters of personal choice (such as abortion) non-negotiable, state-level decisions, then those states (not *just* independently funded organizations) need to accept responsibility for the impact on their individual citizens and the resulting health of their larger communities. 

Perhaps this is a basic concept for solving a complex issue, but it’s my view nonetheless. CMV.
gpt
Would this apply to states that do not ban abortion completely, but just restrict it more?   How much would a state have to restrict abortion before you think they should establish these systems for women and children in need?

Also, do you think that states like New York with very liberal abortion laws should not have to also support women and children in need as much?  Why shouldn't all states have to support women and children in need to the same degree regardless of their abortion laws?