SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Rasulis]

Surprised they actually dared to show this.

Kristi Noem's ghoulish Sunday TV tour showed how hard women's lives will become in deep red states

And if Republicans have their way, the rest of the country won't be far behind.

People can keep arguing moralities. I'll keep posting pro-life states hypocrisies. Hard facts that are impossible to deny.

A Public Health Paradox: States with Strictest Abortion Laws Have Weakest Maternal and Child Health Outcomes

If you are going to force women to go through unwanted pregnancies. Then you better take care of them. Simple fact, these states haven't become more generous at providing supports low-income mothers.

[DarkTZeratul]

This is just you either misunderstanding the pro-choice position and/or ascribing malice where there is none. When pro-choice politicians say they support unrestricted abortions all the way through, they do so with the understanding that the medical community is more equipped than legislators to make these decisions, and that they are going to default to preserving life wherever possible.

To add to this, I'm gonna quote Pete Buttigieg when he was asked by Chris Wallace about the approximately 6000 third trimester abortions that happen each year:

"That's right, representing one percent of cases. So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, than almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."

[Edge-]

If you are going to force women to go through unwanted pregnancies. Then you better take care of them. Simple fact, these states haven't become more generous at providing supports low-income mothers.

Nope. It's on the woman to pull herself up by her bootstraps, and once that little sucker is out of the womb and into the world then they need to pull themselves up by their adorable little baby boostraps as well.

Seriously, looking at the comprehensive policy positions of Republicans makes it obvious that they have no coherent ideological position on this and simply want to control women's bodies without giving a shit about anything that happens during pregnancy, or after.

[Levelfive]

If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy "seconds up to actual birth," that's called "induction." The baby survives that. Call me radical, but I support inducing labor.



Most of what you've said seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what pro-choice politicians are talking about.



Well most people don't read MMO-C? And this isn't a site just used by Americans? And I mean...congratulations on realizing that people don't usually bother to examine the philosophical groundings of their arguments or that of their opponents'.



Well mass shootings have a much larger effect and on more people per event than abortions late in pregnancy.



Sorry, but "final minutes" such a mind-bogglingly ignorant thing to say. It is understood- except by pro-life extremists, apparently- that the baby survives an exit from the womb at that point, and that nobody actually supports terminating viable fetuses that can be safely delivered. Particularly the medical community. If a woman requires an abortion late in pregnancy, "save the fetus if possible" is automatically the preferred option. The fact that I should have to clarify that "I think viable fetuses should be saved whenever possible" instead of it being as obvious as "I support the existence of stop signs" is due entirely to pro-life propaganda and brain rot.



If only the people they were meant to compromise with had any clue what they were legislating, maybe they would? I mean, I don't agree with compromising a human right, but this is America...



Like I already said about restrictions: they're not needed, and in fact would do more harm than good.
1) The medical community is already going to default to "save a viable fetus, if it can be done safely."
2) The exceptions like "life of the mother" are written by legislators and enforced by prosecutors that know shit about medicine and are usually politically motivated. The situations they are meant to legislate are complicated; there's no test to determine whether or not the life of the mother is endangered or not, or how in danger she is. If she had a 90% chance of dying, does it qualify as an exception? A 70% chance? A 50% chance? A 25% chance? Where is the line between "exceptional situation" and "prosecutable offense?"
3) Because of the complexity of said situations, medical providers are better qualified than legislators to make these decisions.
4) Because of- again- the complexity of the situations, knowing that they could be investigated/prosecuted if some government official decides the mother's life "wasn't in enough danger" is sufficient to scare medical providers into preferring inaction when they would otherwise prefer to act. The threat of potential legal action against providers due to vague and politically motivated restrictions will mean more women dying.



This is just you either misunderstanding the pro-choice position and/or ascribing malice where there is none. When pro-choice politicians say they support unrestricted abortions all the way through, they do so with the understanding that the medical community is more equipped than legislators to make these decisions, and that they are going to default to preserving life wherever possible.

If you want to accuse Democrats of being terrible communicators, have at it. I'll join you. But at least make an attempt to understand what "unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks" actually means instead of buying into the malicious assumptions pro-lifers have been projecting at us for decades.

Well said. Here's an expert on the matter:

"Here are my credentials:

I am an OB/GYN board certified in two countries. I did a 5 year residency in which I trained to do abortion up to about 24-25 weeks. I developed other skills after residency out of necessity. I have been an OB/GYN for 28 years and, including my residency, I provided abortion services for 16 of those years. I have not provided abortion services for the past 13 years.

For 3-4 of the 6 years that I practiced in Kansas there was no gestational age limit. I could let you put two and two together, but as there is so much abortion misinformation I’m going to spell it out. That means I could have done an abortion at any gestational age — even right up to the due date.

No one ever called me to terminated a healthy pregnancy or even a pregnancy with minor abnormalities. First of all, with no indication insurance won’t pay so it is $20k cash.

Also, WTF people? Do some of you really think women wander aimlessly through pregnancy wondering what they have forgotten and then at 37 weeks finally figure out why their pants are so tight and say, “Oh, THAT’S what I forgot to do 29 weeks ago. Pregnancy brain, Duh!” Then grab $20k from their mad money jar and head off the local abort-and-go?

The only case I know of was a 12 year-old girl raped by her brother. She had to travel from another state and I believe she was about 32 weeks (I did not do her procedure). It was done that late because it took that long to get the court order. If the legal system were actually protecting her she could have had the procedure at 8 or 9 weeks. If her parents were actually protecting her should would not havebeen raped. If this is the case that is going to put you up in arms then you are a terrible person. No 12 year-old girl should be forced to give birth to her 17 year-old brother’s baby.

Ever.

Why are you harping on about 24 weeks?

Viability is largely accepted at 24 weeks, but sometime at 23 weeks it looks like there might be a 10% chance of survival. Sometimes at 25 weeks there is no chance of survival. That is why you go to OB/GYN or pediatrics school, to learn when a fetus has a chance after birth (and what painful interventions that chance might take). And you also learn (or should learn) to discuss it in a way that your own personal beliefs STAY THE HELL AWAY.

In general, we will offer a c-section at 24 weeks, but if look promising at 23 weeks and 2 days and based on the patient’s wishes we may offer one that early. There are times at 25 or even 26 weeks where we recommend against a c-section and an abortion is offered.

How many women have abortions after 24 weeks?

Very few.

Only 1.3% of the 638,169 abortions that happen each year in the United States occur at or after 21 weeks — so approximately 8,000. As I am an expert I can tell you most of these procedures happen before 24 weeks. Most are for fetal anomalies (birth defects) and maternal health, but a few are maternal request.

A couple of years ago I took a deep dive into how any abortions at or after 24 weeks occur. I looked at the states that had no gestational age limit and the best estimate I have (this data is not tracked by the CDC) is there are about 1,100-1,200 abortions at 24 weeks onwards in the United States. Maybe the New York law will add a few to this number? Although they will likely not be additional, my guess is it will be women who now do not have to travel to New Jersey.

Women just don’t skip down to their doctor for 35 week pleasure abortions."

More here: https://drjengunter.com/2019/01/29/a...wise-is-wrong/

It's the favorite ground the radical right likes to keep the conversation on--pitting the bad selfish woman against the innocent fetus, but the conversation should always be steered back where it belongs, to the problem of the government imposing itself on our most personal decisions, and substituting its will for the woman's and its sorry excuse for expertise for the doctor's.

[Specialka]

There are a lot reasons women can't or don't. I don't know why people think they--and the government--are better equipped to make that decision than the woman and her doctor.

Also, of course the forced birth people aren't going to settle for anything less than a full federal ban.

It is working in France. It could work in the USA with the proper reform obviously. But we also both know that it won't happen anyway.

[Endus]

Why don't you get a 14 week time limit like in France. Enough time to know, take the decision, and get the abortion done.

Why have a limit at all? Why are we even discussing how much we should restrict women's basic self-ownership?

This isn't a measured compromise. You're asking how much you get to subjugate and dehumanize women. The only reasonable answer to that is "none".

[Lenonis]

For whose benefit?

Well...I mean this is my own take but "get this thing out" is still satisfied and it also acknowledges a scientific reality that at some point you have an organism that is self-sustaining. The complicated thing, of course, is where that line is...

Why don't we just leave that as a medical decision between the doctor and their patient? Why even involve the government?

Oh no, I absolutely agree. And I would hope a doctor is educated enough to weigh all the factors at place to create the optimal outcome. I do not think the government should be involved.

But I also think the concept of fetal viability should be a factor in that medical decision. That's all.

- - - Updated - - -

I was under the impression that by the time the fetus is viable, it's large enough in size to make inducing birth the safer procedure anyway.

I do have to confess I don't know the details of this. It would make sense that the larger the object to remove the harder it would be to do procedures safely designed for much smaller objects.

[Specialka]

Why have a limit at all? Why are we even discussing how much we should restrict women's basic self-ownership?

This isn't a measured compromise. You're asking how much you get to subjugate and dehumanize women. The only reasonable answer to that is "none".

Do not start with "being reasonable". You are known for being unreasonable.

And because, in a society, unless you want riots after riots, you have to make compromise to make it work. Then change the mentality, then compromise, etc... Is that hard to understand ?

[Glorious Leader]

Do not start with "being reasonable". You are known for being unreasonable.

And because, in a society, unless you want riots after riots, you have to make compromise to make it work. Then change the mentality, then compromise, etc... Is that hard to understand ?

Since the majority, wide majority of the country was in favor of roe you're more likely to get riots with it being overturned.

[Edge-]

Do not start with "being reasonable". You are known for being unreasonable.

Being "reasonable" means not setting uniquely arbitrary legal hurdles for women seeking health care.

And because, in a society, unless you want riots after riots, you have to make compromise to make it work.

Some compromises aren't worth making. Like for example, there's no amount of acceptable slavery we should tolerate.

Then change the mentality, then compromise, etc... Is that hard to understand ?

It's not liberals who are the primary problem when it comes to compromise, my guy.

[Glorious Leader]

Being "reasonable" means not setting uniquely arbitrary legal hurdles for women seeking health care.



Some compromises aren't worth making. Like for example, there's no amount of acceptable slavery we should tolerate.



It's not liberals who are the primary problem when it comes to compromise, my guy.

If anything they compromise too much....

[Specialka]

Since the majority, wide majority of the country was in favor of roe you're more likely to get riots with it being overturned.

It is what ? 60/40 ? I do not call that "wide" majority. 80/20 would be wide majority.

- - - Updated - - -

Being "reasonable" means not setting uniquely arbitrary legal hurdles for women seeking health care.



Some compromises aren't worth making. Like for example, there's no amount of acceptable slavery we should tolerate.



It's not liberals who are the primary problem when it comes to compromise, my guy.

At some point, there was slavery because it was deemed acceptable. Then mentality evolved, changed followed etc... Those things take times.

[Edge-]

It is what ? 60/40 ? I do not call that "wide" majority. 80/20 would be wide majority.

A +20 split isn't "wide"? It needs to be a +60 split? That's ludicrous and not remotely reasonable on any issue, especially in the US.

At some point, there was slavery because it was deemed acceptable. Then mentality evolved, changed followed etc... Those things take times.

Yes, and for the people suffering while they wait, that's too much time and has lasting impacts. Sorry if I'm not cool working with a bunch of backwards-ass authoritarians in the name of "compromise", when said backwards-ass authoritarians refuse to even entertain the notion of compromise on contentious issues.

[Specialka]

A +20 split isn't "wide"? It needs to be a +60 split? That's ludicrous and not remotely reasonable on any issue, especially in the US.



Yes, and for the people suffering while they wait, that's too much time and has lasting impacts. Sorry if I'm not cool working with a bunch of backwards-ass authoritarians in the name of "compromise", when said backwards-ass authoritarians refuse to even entertain the notion of compromise on contentious issues.

Sure, you can go "no compromise". We all reap what we sow.

[Moadar]

Being "reasonable" means not setting uniquely arbitrary legal hurdles for women seeking health care.

At some stage the baby can be viable without mother. Thats a line that should only be crossed for birth defects or to save someone's life. From what someone else said it's only 1% so shouldn't really be seen as a compromise.

[Edge-]

Sure, you can go "no compromise". We all reap what we sow.

I mean, it seems to be working for Republicans. Why not give it a try?

- - - Updated - - -

At some stage the baby can be viable without mother. Thats a line that should only be crossed for birth defects or to save someone's life. From what someone else said it's only 1% so shouldn't really be seen as a compromise.

Personally, I'd be fine with that compromise but here's the thing: I'm a dude and honestly I should have no say in this given that it's not my body that's at question here.

But given that it's so exceedingly rare, I see no point in outlawing something and requiring potentially burdensome exceptions for women who may need/want to pursue an abortion at that late stage.

[Moadar]

I mean, it seems to be working for Republicans. Why not give it a try?

- - - Updated - - -



Personally, I'd be fine with that compromise but here's the thing: I'm a dude and honestly I should have no say in this given that it's not my body that's at question here.

But given that it's so exceedingly rare, I see no point in outlawing something and requiring potentially burdensome exceptions for women who may need/want to pursue an abortion at that late stage.

At that stage it's not just the females body in question. If someone needs one at that stage that's one thing, but just wanting one? Well I've wanted to kill a couple people before too but I had to compromise.

[Edge-]

At that stage it's not just the females body in question.

It is, unless the father is going to volunteer for the remaining time. Though currently that's quite difficult for cis dudes.

If someone needs one at that stage that's one thing, but just wanting one?

It's a health care decision. The government largely doesn't regulate people's personal health care decisions outside of something like medically assisted suicide, which I'm am fully, 100% in favor of as well.

Well I've wanted to kill a couple people before too but I had to compromise.

That's good for you, but I'm not sure what the point is since you didn't compromise, you simply didn't do it. Because there is no compromise in that, unless you only killed one person or only severely maimed them instead of killing them. Those would be compromises.

[Moadar]

It is, unless the father is going to volunteer for the remaining time. Though currently that's quite difficult for cis dudes.



It's a health care decision. The government largely doesn't regulate people's personal health care decisions outside of something like medically assisted suicide, which I'm am fully, 100% in favor of as well.



That's good for you, but I'm not sure what the point is since you didn't compromise, you simply didn't do it. Because there is no compromise in that, unless you only killed one person or only severely maimed them instead of killing them. Those would be compromises.

There doesn't need to be a volunteer. Pre mature babies are delivered all the time. If it can survive outside the mother then it can just be induced pre mature.

Again if it's needed to save someone's life that's different than "I just don't want to deal with it and I waited too long. Oh well."

[Edge-]

There doesn't need to be a volunteer. Pre mature babies are delivered all the time. If it can survive outside the mother then it can just be induced pre mature.

That decision is between the woman and her doctor, nobody else. Because the "pro-life" folks sure aren't adopting all those babies they want to force women to have.

Again if it's needed to save someone's life that's different than "I just don't want to deal with it and I waited too long. Oh well."

Regardless of your opinion, and that this is rarely ever the reasoning behind why the very, very few women who pursue abortions that late actually do so (it's a lovely strawman to demonize the women, though!), that is a perfectly valid reason for a woman to decide what happens to her body.

Again, especially while Republicans refuse to fund pre/post-natal care and provide more funding for low-income families, adoption services, school lunches etc. etc. etc.