SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[tehdang]

Because they're doctors and not evil monsters lurking in the alleyway, I bet my ass they get the patient's consent, either without existing legislation, or some legislation already on the books that says procedures need their patient's consent. I mean, I've had multiple procedures/surgeries in my life, and I had to sign my consent every time.

What are you getting at with this line of thinking, tehdang?

Just answering your last post regarding to tell the patient and should we have a law preventing that too?. I'm not talking about speech laws.

Horseshit and you know it. You're now attacking doctors' ethics and decisions that you had no part in. I'll say it again, no doctor that wants to avoid breaking the law that will put themselves in a situation where they either can goto jail or be sued.

You're confusing the issue. Multiple people here and elsewhere argue that there should be no legal consequences for aborting a healthy baby post-viability. They've stated multiple times that the mere fact that a mother wants an abortion at the later stages guarantees that it's only for good reasons. And you're actually saying every doctor would be very different than these posters, and choose to doubt the mother's motives, refuse to perform the abortion, if it were legal to do so? Yeah, I think you're the one peddling horseshit.

So you're moving goalposts to the doctors being the ones at fault? Along with mothers?

Again, what's your line of thinking here and what does it have to do with sensible and easily interpretable law?

How do you get to "fault" from what you quoted? You just ignored the multiple reasons that I would call insufficient reasons a mother could present. Maybe you need to reread the earlier post and actually address instead of dismiss "why a doctor might abort a viable child."

I guess you could find sick doctors that did illegal shit cause they're sick people. But existing law already covers these insane suggestions you make of doctors and mothers in terms of abortion. Maternal infanticide, fucking hilarious!

You're willing to admit to the existence of unethical doctors that break the law, but refuse to consider unethical doctors that would do perfectly legal things in proposed abortion law? But I'm being mighty presumptuous of you even then regarding what you consider unethical! You ignored or purposely neglected my post when I listed a few things I'd consider insufficient or less-than-justifiable reasons to abort a healthy baby. Maybe they're all reasons you support and would also declare that doctors would support as well!

Why don't you tell them? I'm not on some crusade to vilify abortion. You tell them. And tell them your law was inspired by me, pro-choice Chonogo!

What I think you fail to comprehend, is that Democrat politicians like to leave the government out of the decisions with abortion. I think that's the right idea, but the wrong approach. Pro-life folks like yourself will demonize any and all aspects of abortion. I think it's best to come out with a strong front that even most pro-lifers will say "yeah, I guess that's pretty decent", and leave the *difficult* decision to women and their doctors, not you or the government. Guard rails for viability and mother/fetus/child in danger to satisfy people like you, but not defined by people like you.

You have an annoying habit of declaring something "pretty fucking simple" for "If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal to have an abortion when the fetus is viable outside the womb" then immediately contradicting yourself for why an entire national political party opposes it as do many people replying to me in this thread. If it were really a simple issue, then it'd have broad support among both parties ... but your own words betray that you know it's not so simple.

I am criticizing Democrat politicians for leaving healthy babies, viable outside of the womb, cast off from the protection of law. I don't care that they'd rather have a system without guardrails. I think the individual nature of a new human capable of living independently demands respect guaranteed by legislation. If all these are too difficult to put in a party platform, then absolutely people should describe them as permitting abortions through every week of the pregnancy and reject such extremism. Maybe even contrast the party position against 8-week bans and force them to adopt a better negotiating position. If Democrats would rather more first-term bans stay than actually advocate for post-viability restrictions, then their current position is actually in harmony with that aim.

Remember, it's you and the right that came up with nonsense like "partial birth abortion" to support your views. Doesn't fucking happen.

Just a simple ban on a particularly objectionable abortion procedure. Very rare, not that it seemed to matter to the pro-choice side.

EDIT - reread your response, and I gotta say, it's ok for you to admit that my proposal works.

If only more people believed as you do that it should be illegal! I'd consider it great progress for humanity if there were actually a national pro-choice party willing to be so forward on the issue!

I think I'll let the folks with more time and better debate skills pick up for me on this one, because either I've just been doing a bad job getting my point across or you have questionable reading comprehension.

But to be explicitly clear; I don't want any sort of prohibition on abortions for non-viable fetuses, because anything before a certain point isn't our business and anything after is usually done for specific medical purposes that I'm sure the women opting for them aren't making as a light decision. I'm not a doctor, nor a lawmaker, so I won't even begin to think I can draft a concrete piece of legislation myself in regards to all this, but my staunch opposition to Republican regulations is all about how they're written by people who do not care to know how exactly abortions and pregnancies work (clear misogynistic undertones about wanting women to 'live with the consequences of their promiscuity' aside), and seek to mete out outlandishly harsh punishments as a result. And thus get us stuck with morons who want to criminally investigate miscarriages or force women to carry medically nonviable or dead fetuses because they think the mother's arteries pumping blood through the fetus means it has an independent heartbeat.

The issue is if you support any general prohibition on abortions for viable babies, with any exceptions you would support. Any at all. I'm not asking you to personally draft the language. I'm not asking you to sign something a Republican has drafted. I'm not asking your opinion on how much Republicans "care to know how exactly abortions and pregnancies work," or asking you to support "outlandishly harsh punishments," or morons "criminally investigat[ing] miscarriages," or "medically nonviable or dead fetuses."

You said a couple posts ago that you're not arguing for -no- regulation, but you haven't made it clear if any impact healthy babies post-viability.

[Endus]

You're confusing the issue. Multiple people here and elsewhere argue that there should be no legal consequences for aborting a healthy baby post-viability. They've stated multiple times that the mere fact that a mother wants an abortion at the later stages guarantees that it's only for good reasons. And you're actually saying every doctor would be very different than these posters, and choose to doubt the mother's motives, refuse to perform the abortion, if it were legal to do so? Yeah, I think you're the one peddling horseshit.

You're framing the issue dishonestly.

The mother should never face legal consequences for an abortion. Why should she ever? This is just presumed, and there's literally no basis for it nor any legal precedent in any other aspect of the law.

Nobody said her reasons must be "good". We've pointed out it doesn't matter what her reasons are, and that we have no business making a judgement on their "goodness" in the first place.

Doctors can make calls on abortions for reasons of medical ethics, though this will generally take the form of finding the least harmful means of ending the pregnancy. Because that's what an abortion is. The ending of a pregnancy. It is not, despite the emotionally-charged bullshit propaganda of pro-lifers, about killing a fetus.

You have an annoying habit of declaring something "pretty fucking simple" for "If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal to have an abortion when the fetus is viable outside the womb"

It is pretty fuckin' simple. The idea you just presented is an attack on women's basic rights of self-ownership, on their religious freedoms, and against basic human decency itself. Simple. You don't have any justification for why it should be illegal in those circumstances, you just declare it and demand we take it as a serious proposition.

Well, we don't. It's silly and intentionally abusive horseshit.

then immediately contradicting yourself for why an entire national political party opposes it as do many people replying to me in this thread.

That a party supports intentionally abusive horseshit does not make it not intentionally abusive horseshit.

See the Nazi Party, see any American political party that ever supported slavery, see any American political party that supported Jim Crow laws, etc. "Their supporters are largely just bad people who are at least fine with these abuses being perpetrated in their names" is an entirely valid explanation.

If it were really a simple issue, then it'd have broad support among both parties ... but your own words betray that you know it's not so simple.

That doesn't follow at all. There's no reason a simple concept to grasp must be accepted by a party politically opposed to it. See the examples above. The reasons slavery is inhumane are very simple. It was still pretty darn prevalent and politically defended for quite some time by all political parties in the USA in that time.

I am criticizing Democrat politicians for leaving healthy babies, viable outside of the womb, cast off from the protection of law.

That just means you're a liar.

There aren't any "babies" in the discussion about abortion. That's a lie, one intended to appeal to people's emotions and try to get them to stop thinking rationally about the issue. There also just aren't late-term abortions being done to kill off viable fetuses, no matter how much you like to fearmonger about it.

If only more people believed as you do that it should be illegal! I'd consider it great progress for humanity if there were actually a national pro-choice party willing to be so forward on the issue!

"It would be great if pro-choice advocates stopped being pro-choice and adopted pro-life values" is not a position about coming together in agreement on something.

The issue is if you support any general prohibition on abortions for viable babies

Seriously. No "viable babies" are ever aborted. It's literally impossible. By definition. Stop misusing language because the lies are more emotionally stirring than the truth. That's just an admission that even you know your position is wrong and that you can't make a case supporting it, not without lying to people about the facts at least.

[Xyonai]

said a couple posts ago that you're not arguing for -no- regulation, but you haven't made it clear if any impact healthy babies post-viability.

Because viable fetuses, as in those who - if removed from the womb at that moment - can live and grow into healthy adults, are people. That's my only stipulation and it's such a non-issue of a position that it's only relevant to this debate if you somehow still think there's an epidemic of expecting mothers are frivolously shucking their healthy pregnancies in the third trimester.

In which case that's a you problem. But says a lot that you're more determined to nit pick
and whine about imaginary problems then actually confront why people think 'pro-lifers' are full of shit.

[Xyonai]

the whole game, tehdang. Pro-choice folks don't support abortion on viable fetuses. Cause they're no longer fetuses anymore, they're children. What we do say is not to ban it at all because of what pro-lifers did the first time Roe v Wade was decided. Peddle in bullshit about the evilness of it and start restricting things, to the detriment of women and families for decades.

This bit, and the rest of this post, kinda gets into the points I was trying to make as well, just worded better.

But I cut out this part in particular because, while I also don't think doctors should be aborting healthy babies because I'm not whatever strawman some posters think I am, the laxer regulations and rules before the Roe Overturning were preferable to the draconian bullshit we see being peddled right now.

Because doctors weren't just cutting out healthy babies willy-nilly before all this, and all overregulating this stuff does is make it more difficult for them to do their jobs when they have to.

[tehdang]

Because viable fetuses, as in those who - if removed from the womb at that moment - can live and grow into healthy adults, are people. That's my only stipulation and it's such a non-issue of a position that it's only relevant to this debate if you somehow still think there's an epidemic of expecting mothers are frivolously shucking their healthy pregnancies in the third trimester.

In which case that's a you problem. But says a lot that you're more determined to nit pick
and whine about imaginary problems then actually confront why people think 'pro-lifers' are full of shit.

Abortion involves killing before removal, so the difference between premature delivery and abortion matter here. If it's such a non-issue for you that you'd favor no legal protections, then I'd have my answers. It's all well and good that you consider viable fetuses people, but if you think such people are not deserving of actual legal protections, then I have some additional idea of how you consider people.

Why yes, a doctor would act differently than posters on an MMO site. Forgive me for not checking valid sources.

Okay, you're saying every doctor is so very different than every poster here that they would all, to an individual, refuse the abortion. I once thought there were some in America that placed too much trust in cops always doing the right thing, but you've far outstripped them in your elevation of doctors. Doctors, the angels who always second-guess their patients and argue them out of abortions for reasons that perfectly fit the reasons you and I would approve of. Have it as you want it.

I'm going to ignore all of this.

Apparently you can both ask why a doctor would abort a perfectly healthy baby, and ignore someone that lists some imperfect reasons why they may.

No my words aren't betraying me. I'm not a Democrat politician. I'm not other posters that are pro-choice. I'm me.

Doctors should define viability. They should define what a danger to a mother/fetus involves. Politicians should listen.

Democrat politicians are choosing(wrongly in my opinion) to play defense on abortion. But to be pro-choice means you want the government out of the decision-making, NOT THAT THEY WANT TO ABORT VIABLE CHILDREN. Jesus Christ.

They've been consistent. It's your camp that likes to paint it as the latter when it's the fucking former.

You do yourself a disservice! You're really claiming that doctors are the final arbiter of what ought to be legal. You haven't bound them by any law or external form. If the doctor thinks it should be done, you're fine with letting it be done, and you hold to your absolute faith that they will only do it in cases you approve of.

Like I said before, there are such unethical doctors that will do such a thing when it's illegal. You have a fixation that having such a thing legal won't increase the occurences.

What's the name of the procedure?

Intact dilation/extraction, and it's now defined in law as partial birth abortion. Common names and all that. Don't worry, it's been banned for twenty years.

they set themselves up for wrongful death

We were talking of stances that make abortion legal throughout all stages of the pregnancy. No wrongful death for any abortion decided upon by woman and doctor.

That's the thing, I don't think it should be illegal.

I guess we're done here.
You declared to me two days ago that it was "pretty fucking simple" that "If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal to have an abortion when the fetus is viable outside the womb." Direct quotes, my man.
Now you're saying you don't think it should be illegal.

I get that people can evolve and adopt new ideas, but you're really pushing the boundaries by compressing it to one day. You think it should be illegal, and don't think it should be illegal, and tell me that it's fucking simple? Maybe you meant to say it's "pretty fucking complex?"

[Endus]

Abortion involves killing before removal, so the difference between premature delivery and abortion matter here.

False. Abortion means the ending of a pregnancy before term.

https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html
https://www.health.harvard.edu/medic...egnancy-a-to-z
https://www.rxlist.com/abortion/definition.htm
https://www.tabers.com/tabersonline/...5/all/abortion

It's rare, but a fetus can survive an abortion in some cases.

You do yourself a disservice! You're really claiming that doctors are the final arbiter of what ought to be legal.

No, we claim that doctors are the final arbiter of what ought to be ethical medical practice.

You're the one trying to argue that there needs to be external laws.

Like I said before, there are such unethical doctors that will do such a thing when it's illegal. You have a fixation that having such a thing legal won't increase the occurences.

Vanishingly few, and medical malpractice laws already exist, making this entire complaint utterly useless and willfully ignorant.

[tehdang]

They already have legal protections if they're viable and get aborted. It's called murder.

In the words of pro-choice activists, it's called women's health care. If you support any law making it a crime, speak up now.

Yeah, I'm saying that. Doctors are professionals, they go to school for almost 10 years. Yes, they would act differently than a random poster on MMO-C.

Please give me some data that supports your dream that women ask for abortions without their health or the fetus' health being in danger. I posit that it doesn't happen, and if it does, the doctor refuses.

Sorry if I just can't take your word for it. Your previous posts declared your intention to ignore explanations for why women might act otherwise.

I said doctors are the final arbiters on what "viable" and "dangerous pregnancy that will result in death" mean, not law. You know, since it's their profession.

Yes, unethical doctors exist. If they do unethical shit, they get arrested or sued, or both. Because laws exist already.

We were talking about cases where there would be no laws restricting abortion post-viability. It would literally not be illegal in that case. Feel free to repudiate your past posts and desire laws making it illegal.

Partial birth abortion != intact dilation/extraction. The NRLC dreamed up "partial birth abortion". Fun fact, the procedure is still being used, in rare cases. Doctors have moved away from it, however, because of anti-abortion laws.

The partial birth abortion ban is still on the books and any procedure still being called intact dilation & extraction must comply with it.

Partial birth abortion is the nonsensical and non-existent abortion procedure that "births" a fetus then kills it.
Intact dilation/extraction involves a dead fetus. Usually late 2nd or early 3rd trimester following a non-viable pregnancy that results in dead fetus(think miscarriage or pregnancy complications or a fetus without kidneys). The doctors kinda have to get the corpse out so the mother doesn't die from infection.

Prior to the ban, no law existed to require the fetus to be dead before the partial act of delivery. Thankfully, that changed.

No, you were talking about that. I'm telling you that abortion doesn't happen throughout all stages of pregnancy if the child is viable. If the mother has a viable child and wants it aborted, and the doctor agrees and does it, he's committed murder, or at the very least can be sued for wrongful death.

The same way a pregnant woman can purposely kill her child in the womb and be arrested.

If you want to make it a law saying that, do it. It's part of my policy anyway, provided the experts define viability and danger to mother. Not you. Not politicians. I've been pretty consistent.

We're literally talking about the fact that you're unable to support laws that call it murder, and many people here don't support laws that call it murder. I know many states have laws on the book banning post-viability abortions with exceptions, but I struggle to find anyone saying such laws that make it illegal are proper and just. Yourself, for one.

You have comprehension problems. Abortion should be legal if the child isn't viable or the mother's life is in danger(determined by the doctors, figured I need to quantify it EVERY FUCKING TIME for you). Full stop, always said that.

Alright, Chonogo, let me quote Chonogo to you:
"That's the thing, I don't think it should be illegal." - Chonogo, when asked if it should be illegal.

Read harder dude. You seem infatuated with evil abortion doctors running around aborting healthy babies, maybe stop doing that?

Just so you can be reminded of my stance, since you seem to be confused, I'll post it again for you!

It's pretty fucking simple, tehdang.

If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal to have an abortion when the fetus is viable outside the womb.
If the child is not viable or the pregnancy is in danger, abortion is legal.
Science and doctors inside that specific profession should be the ones to answer what "viable" means. NOT politicians and their lobbyists.

Your stupid evil doctor arguments are covered here. The mother wanting to abort a healthy fetus is covered here. Doesn't seem complex to me.

I asked you if you wanted to make it illegal, and you told me that you don't think it should be illegal. You went on to display your trust that doctors would never do such a thing. I don't really know if your next post will be another, and I quote, "I don't think it should be illegal"-Chonogo, but you can't really go back and forth and expect others to have a firm grasp on which stance you truly believe.

Am I speaking to the Chonogo that stated "That's the thing, I don't think it should be illegal" "Because doctors won't abort viable healthy fetuses" (I'm using direct quotes from you here), or am I speaking to the Chonogo that says "If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal?"

[Muzjhath]

In the words of pro-choice activists, it's called women's health care. If you support any law making it a crime, speak up now.

Sorry if I just can't take your word for it. Your previous posts declared your intention to ignore explanations for why women might act otherwise.

We were talking about cases where there would be no laws restricting abortion post-viability. It would literally not be illegal in that case. Feel free to repudiate your past posts and desire laws making it illegal.

The partial birth abortion ban is still on the books and any procedure still being called intact dilation & extraction must comply with it.

Prior to the ban, no law existed to require the fetus to be dead before the partial act of delivery. Thankfully, that changed.

We're literally talking about the fact that you're unable to support laws that call it murder, and many people here don't support laws that call it murder. I know many states have laws on the book banning post-viability abortions with exceptions, but I struggle to find anyone saying such laws that make it illegal are proper and just. Yourself, for one.

Alright, Chonogo, let me quote Chonogo to you:
"That's the thing, I don't think it should be illegal." - Chonogo, when asked if it should be illegal.

I asked you if you wanted to make it illegal, and you told me that you don't think it should be illegal. You went on to display your trust that doctors would never do such a thing. I don't really know if your next post will be another, and I quote, "I don't think it should be illegal"-Chonogo, but you can't really go back and forth and expect others to have a firm grasp on which stance you truly believe.

Am I speaking to the Chonogo that stated "That's the thing, I don't think it should be illegal" "Because doctors won't abort viable healthy fetuses" (I'm using direct quotes from you here), or am I speaking to the Chonogo that says "If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal?"

I might be wrong here, however, in almost every case where you challenge on abortion here. Chonogo would point to laws about manslaughter, murder, and other unlawful killing.

Not abortion.

Stuff that covers what they object to.

[Endus]

We're literally talking about the fact that you're unable to support laws that call it murder, and many people here don't support laws that call it murder. I know many states have laws on the book banning post-viability abortions with exceptions, but I struggle to find anyone saying such laws that make it illegal are proper and just. Yourself, for one.

For the same reason we're unable to support laws that ban protesting by describing it falsely as "rioting", or laws that ban transgender health care by calling it "mutilation" or "grooming", or any number of other incredibly stupid laws that seek to redefine reality to prop up the personal extremism of its supporters.

Abortion is not "murder", and it makes as much legal sense to call it that as to follow PETA's guide and label anyone eating meat as committing "murder". It's just stupid nonsensical hyperbole, with a heavy dose of intentional malice behind it.

[Endus]

Great, while I have you here Endus, would you mind answering my request in my previous reply?
Any other posters reading this confused with my stance on abortion law? Tehdang is confused, so I'm trying to figure out if he just needs some assistance.

Well let's see;

If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal to have an abortion when the fetus is viable outside the womb.
If the child is not viable or the pregnancy is in danger, abortion is legal.
Science and doctors inside that specific profession should be the ones to answer what "viable" means. NOT politicians and their lobbyists.

Seems pretty darned clear to me.

I'd take issue with the first statement personally, because I still think it's more appropriately a matter of medical ethics than legality, because laws tend to be arbitrarily defined whereas any situation being examined for ethical conduct will be allowed to introduce contextual factors.

But what you're saying is clear enough that I know exactly where we'd disagree and why, so I don't see how anyone else would be reasonably confused.

[Nymrohd]

And let's keep in mind that many of the different dates suggested as "viability" relate to the earliest date of birth doctors have managed to keep a baby alive. It's not that they can consistently keep babies alive at those dates though. I've seen people talking about 23rd week.

[Endus]

In a perfect world I agree, but anti-abortion folks exist so my stance placates them. It also definitively affirms the pro-choice position that we are not in favor of killing viable fetuses, because the other side seems to think we do. Which will always baffle me. It's basic reasoning and logic.

It basically doesn't happen, and if a situation emerged where it a late pregnancy with a fully-viable fetus was to be aborted, the fetus is viable. If it can be saved ("born"), doctors will save the fetus, not kill it. It's a stupid argument and I can't see anything but intentional malice behind it.

Though I will reiterate that "abortion" means "ending a pregnancy before natural birth", not "killing a fetus". Pro-lifers like to lie and pretend otherwise.

[Edge-]

https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare...00590b304.html

Proposed tweaks to Louisiana's strict abortion ban faltered Wednesday before a Republican-controlled House committee, dealing a blow to Gov. John Bel Edwards and other Democrats who hoped to ease the ban in certain cases, such as after rape or incest occurs.

The House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee killed two bills that would have exempted rape and incest victims from the ban, including one specifically aimed at child victims. After the first vote, lawmakers pulled other bills that would have lessened penalties for doctors who perform abortions and exempted women who experience miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Louisiana Republicans have the chance to more narrowly define abortion restrictions, including granting exemptions for rape and incest while also exempting women who experience miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Just a reminder of what Republicans are currently doing that intentionally doing to harm and torture girls and women, and make providing some health care services a liability for providers.

[Elder Millennial]

https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare...00590b304.html



Louisiana Republicans have the chance to more narrowly define abortion restrictions, including granting exemptions for rape and incest while also exempting women who experience miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Just a reminder of what Republicans are currently doing that intentionally doing to harm and torture girls and women, and make providing some health care services a liability for providers.

I'll say this again, because it's worth saying again and again.

Conservatives look at the Handmaid's Tale Gilead as something inspirational. The cruelty is the point. That's why they also love banning that book so much, can't have the kids catch on to what's happening.

[Edge-]

I'll say this again, because it's worth saying again and again.

Conservatives look at the Handmaid's Tale Gilead as something inspirational. The cruelty is the point. That's why they also love banning that book so much, can't have the kids catch on to what's happening.

Don't worry, soon I'm sure we'll hear about how ultimately, this is all Democrats fault for not proactively passing protections in states where they've always been a minority party, actually.

[Xyonai]

https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare...00590b304.html



Louisiana Republicans have the chance to more narrowly define abortion restrictions, including granting exemptions for rape and incest while also exempting women who experience miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Just a reminder of what Republicans are currently doing that intentionally doing to harm and torture girls and women, and make providing some health care services a liability for providers.

And it's shit like this why I don't take 'reasonable' pro-lifers' stances at face value. For all their hang wringing about allowing common sense exemptions, almost none of the legislators on their side - who actually draft and pass these laws - want those things.

[Mekh]

https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare...00590b304.html



Louisiana Republicans have the chance to more narrowly define abortion restrictions, including granting exemptions for rape and incest while also exempting women who experience miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Just a reminder of what Republicans are currently doing that intentionally doing to harm and torture girls and women, and make providing some health care services a liability for providers.

The party of @tehdang everyone. It's worthwhile to keep calling this shit out. I'm sure he's got a mealy mouthed explanation for this one too.

[Edge-]

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/te...s-cdc-says.amp

Another example of, "If Republicans actually cared about what they claim to, they'd be focused on other issues." in relation to this topic -

An alarming report from the CDC reveals an increasing number of babies are being born with syphilis.

The CDC recently released a report revealing congenital syphilis cases increased by 32% between the years 2020 and 2021, and Texas accounted for the highest number of cases with nearly 700 congenital syphilis births reported.

"Texas, like a lot of southern states, is experiencing a surge in STI's, in particular syphilis. The reason why I believe this is happening is that it's kind of a quiet infection," said Dr. Irene Stafford, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Doctor with UTHealth & Memorial Hermann.

Congenital syphilis is when a mother passes the infection to her unborn baby. According to the CDC, the rise in these cases resulted in at least 220 stillbirths and infant deaths. And even if the child survives, there can be serious health consequences.

"Blood problems, bone problems, liver problems, and some babies can have neuro-syphilis where it goes to the central nervous system," Stafford explained.

Stafford says there's been an increase in syphilis, and other STDs in general, and she notes that some communities are at a greater risk than others.

"It disproportionately affects minorities and the underserved, and we know for a fact these communities in Houston have been disproportionately affected," Stafford said.

Stafford also says while congenital syphilis is a concerning and growing problem, there's a simple solution.

"It can be completely treated with just a simple shot of penicillin in pregnant individuals, so the most important thing to prevent congenital syphilis and the infection is to just get screened, tested, and treated," Stafford said.

She says early prenatal care is essential, pregnant women should be screened for syphilis at the beginning and later in their pregnancy. But she emphasizes everyone who is sexually active should be getting screened.

Again, if Republicans actually cared about ensuring healthy children are born and life is respected, they'd be in favor of better sex education, increased access to safer sex methods, and additional funding for prenatal care to prevent things like cases of congenital syphilis.

[Edge-]

Clearly this is the fault of abortion doctors and murderous mothers. The abortion law should be more restrictive!

/s

Unironically argued in this thread, yes.

But it's still absolutely telling that Republicans continually voluntarily pass, or voluntarily refuse to alter laws that are having a direct harm on individual and contradicting the central premise of the law ("protecting" life).

And then they wonder why they're getting their asses kicked by zoomers who all hate their fuckin guts and women who are increasingly abandoning a party that wants to control their bodies and force them to give birth to rape/incest babies before leaving them alone with the child they were forced to carry to term with no support from the state run by the same party.

[Edge-]

I think the telling bit is that there are now scores of women who wanted to have children, but ended up in a dystopian nightmare where their child died AND themselves almost died too. Quite a few of the stories we've seen indicated that these women now can't have children again ever because of it.

Republicans have been silent. Or I guess channeled tehdang and blamed doctors for not understanding the law.

I mean, forcing a woman to give birth to a baby that will die after seconds in her arms is sure a great way to traumatize her to the point where considering risking that process again isn't very appealing.