Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

Do you believe that a baby two days prior to delivery has any personhood that merits some element of protection?

Stupid "gotcha" question.

"Two days prior to delivery" doesn't apply to any actual situation at all. If the delivery takes place in two days and you kill the baby, that's murder.
If there's some reason for a last minute abortion, I sure as fuck don't want your congressman in the room with me, my wife and my doctor. That is a nightmare situation and the LAST place legislators belong.

If there's no reason for the last minute abortion, the doctor should refuse to do it. He does not need a cop standing at his shoulder*.

There DO arise situations where the choice is save the baby or save the mother. In those situations saving the mother has traditionally been understood in the US to be the way to go because the mom can make another baby and the baby cannot make another mom. But again I'd leave it up to the family not some congresscritter.

* unless (s)he already belongs in jail with their med license revoked. That's why they take the Hippocratic oath.

Does that make anything any clearer for you?

Okay, let's take a look at the red bit, because that's where you and I are completely failing to communicate.

You say if there's no medical reason for a later abortion, the doctor should refuse to do it. I would agree with you on that.

The problem is that you're also approaching this from a position of legally guaranteed *rights*. You have taken a position that gives women the absolute *right* to have abortions for whatever reason they want, without question, without any boundaries being imposed, and without any restrictions at all.

Do you understand that in that situation, if a doctor refused to perform the abortion at 35 weeks that the women was legally entitled to as a result of your policy, that doctor would be violating the woman's rights?

Why do you keep inventing scenarios without statistics? Do you know any OBGYNs who complain about that happening, or would participate in killing an obviously viable late term fetus? My brother is a general practitioner MD with subspecs in ob and pediatrics. I've actually asked about these things happening with any regularity. In 40+ years of private practice and Hospital staff, he's "not that I know of". Of course there's some chatter at CME conferences and stuff, but there's there's also chatter about using South American ants as sutures. And that comes with pictures! Pregnancy is high risk for mom, far more so for the fetus. But that kind of assumption - that pregnancy needs oversight because women can't be trusted not to change their minds at the last minute - ridiculous. You'd have to PROVE to me that the vast, I mean VAST preponderance of harm is done to viable somewhat "normal" fetuses by not having these laws, rather than to women by having them.
If it's even close, tie goes to the woman. The invasion of privacy alone would outweigh any government intervention or punitive action for elective healthcare. That would make it simple.

You have taken a position that gives women the absolute *right* to have abortions for whatever reason they want, without question, without any boundaries being imposed, and without any restrictions at all.

You have taken the position that in certain circumstances the government may delay or deny a woman's healthcare. The State may co-opt her body. Under what circumstances may a male person's body be co-opted? Sexism is just a whole other reason it's a bad idea to legislate hc specifics.
But as for this specific... Very very very very few women (you provide the stats/source, if there are any: I didn't get anything significant in a brief try) I mean, like one in a million or millions of women, a abort healthy fetus in the third trimester just for the hell of it.
But 100% of women that live long enough will need (benefit from) healthcare, and a majority will need reproductive healthcare. I oppose government intervention in healthcare, excessive insurance rates and other stuff that makes people unhappy and unhealthy.

Sure, this week? I'd celebrate a return to Roe. And congratulations to the Christian legislators, for keeping at least a symbolic toehold in the stirrups, so to speak.

 

[Bomb#20]

During the years that I worked in public health as a nurse, including in family planning, and a maternity clinic, not once did I ever meet a woman who waned to have an abortion in her third term. I've never heard of anyone wanting one that late, so I doubt it ever happens.

Third term abortions are extremely rare and I'm pretty sure they are always related to either the condition of the fetus, unviable or severely impaired with a very slight chance of living more than a few days or weeks, or the life of the mother being in danger. Women don't get pregnant and then wait for 6 or 7 months, then suddenly decide they don't want to give birth. Women sometimes have to end a pregnancy at the end of the term, and I'm sure it's heartbreaking for them.

But as for this specific... Very very very very few women (you provide the stats/source, if there are any: I didn't get anything significant in a brief try) I mean, like one in a million or millions of women, a abort healthy fetus in the third trimester just for the hell of it.

This is a canard that just keeps coming back over and over -- either the woman is seeking an abortion because it's medically indicated, or else she's seeking one just for the hell of it because she doesn't want it any more and couldn't be bothered to make up her mind in the first 6 or 7 months. It's a false dilemma fallacy, it's insulting as hell to women, and it is bloody condescending to the entire social class who lack our advantages. So to everyone who ever presented those dilemma horns, check your goddamn privilege.

There are at least three painfully obvious reasons a healthy woman might quite rationally seek to abort a healthy fetus late-term. (1) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, she lost her medical insurance. (2) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, the baby's father walked out on her, or went to prison, or died. (3) Seven months into a much-unwanted pregnancy, she was finally able to lay her hands on enough money to pay for an abortion and/or for travel to a state where it's still legal.

 

[thebeave]

Do you believe that a baby two days prior to delivery has any personhood that merits some element of protection?

Stupid "gotcha" question.

"Two days prior to delivery" doesn't apply to any actual situation at all. If the delivery takes place in two days and you kill the baby, that's murder.
If there's some reason for a last minute abortion, I sure as fuck don't want your congressman in the room with me, my wife and my doctor. That is a nightmare situation and the LAST place legislators belong.

If there's no reason for the last minute abortion, the doctor should refuse to do it. He does not need a cop standing at his shoulder*.

There DO arise situations where the choice is save the baby or save the mother. In those situations saving the mother has traditionally been understood in the US to be the way to go because the mom can make another baby and the baby cannot make another mom. But again I'd leave it up to the family not some congresscritter.

* unless (s)he already belongs in jail with their med license revoked. That's why they take the Hippocratic oath.

Does that make anything any clearer for you?

Okay, let's take a look at the red bit, because that's where you and I are completely failing to communicate.

You say if there's no medical reason for a later abortion, the doctor should refuse to do it. I would agree with you on that.

The problem is that you're also approaching this from a position of legally guaranteed *rights*. You have taken a position that gives women the absolute *right* to have abortions for whatever reason they want, without question, without any boundaries being imposed, and without any restrictions at all.

Do you understand that in that situation, if a doctor refused to perform the abortion at 35 weeks that the women was legally entitled to as a result of your policy, that doctor would be violating the woman's rights?

Why do you keep inventing scenarios without statistics? Do you know any OBGYNs who complain about that happening, or would participate in killing an obviously viable late term fetus? My brother is a general practitioner MD with subspecs in ob and pediatrics. I've actually asked about these things happening with any regularity. In 40+ years of private practice and Hospital staff, he's "not that I know of". Of course there's some chatter at CME conferences and stuff, but there's there's also chatter about using South American ants as sutures. And that comes with pictures! Pregnancy is high risk for mom, far more so for the fetus. But that kind of assumption - that pregnancy needs oversight because women can't be trusted not to change their minds at the last minute - ridiculous. You'd have to PROVE to me that the vast, I mean VAST preponderance of harm is done to viable somewhat "normal" fetuses by not having these laws, rather than to women by having them.
If it's even close, tie goes to the woman. The invasion of privacy alone would outweigh any government intervention or punitive action for elective healthcare. That would make it simple.

You have taken a position that gives women the absolute *right* to have abortions for whatever reason they want, without question, without any boundaries being imposed, and without any restrictions at all.

You have taken the position that in certain circumstances the government may delay or deny a woman's healthcare. The State may co-opt her body. Under what circumstances may a male person's body be co-opted? Sexism is just a whole other reason it's a bad idea to legislate hc specifics.
But as for this specific... Very very very very few women (you provide the stats/source, if there are any: I didn't get anything significant in a brief try) I mean, like one in a million or millions of women, a abort healthy fetus in the third trimester just for the hell of it.
But 100% of women that live long enough will need (benefit from) healthcare, and a majority will need reproductive healthcare. I oppose government intervention in healthcare, excessive insurance rates and other stuff that makes people unhappy and unhealthy.

Sure, this week? I'd celebrate a return to Roe. And congratulations to the Christian legislators, for keeping at least a symbolic toehold in the stirrups, so to speak.

Ever heard of the draft? Many hundreds of thousands of dead, disabled and mentally disturbed men would like to have a word with you.

 

[southernhybrid]

During the years that I worked in public health as a nurse, including in family planning, and a maternity clinic, not once did I ever meet a woman who waned to have an abortion in her third term. I've never heard of anyone wanting one that late, so I doubt it ever happens.

Third term abortions are extremely rare and I'm pretty sure they are always related to either the condition of the fetus, unviable or severely impaired with a very slight chance of living more than a few days or weeks, or the life of the mother being in danger. Women don't get pregnant and then wait for 6 or 7 months, then suddenly decide they don't want to give birth. Women sometimes have to end a pregnancy at the end of the term, and I'm sure it's heartbreaking for them.

But as for this specific... Very very very very few women (you provide the stats/source, if there are any: I didn't get anything significant in a brief try) I mean, like one in a million or millions of women, a abort healthy fetus in the third trimester just for the hell of it.

This is a canard that just keeps coming back over and over -- either the woman is seeking an abortion because it's medically indicated, or else she's seeking one just for the hell of it because she doesn't want it any more and couldn't be bothered to make up her mind in the first 6 or 7 months. It's a false dilemma fallacy, it's insulting as hell to women, and it is bloody condescending to the entire social class who lack our advantages. So to everyone who ever presented those dilemma horns, check your goddamn privilege.

There are at least three painfully obvious reasons a healthy woman might quite rationally seek to abort a healthy fetus late-term. (1) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, she lost her medical insurance. (2) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, the baby's father walked out on her, or went to prison, or died. (3) Seven months into a much-unwanted pregnancy, she was finally able to lay her hands on enough money to pay for an abortion and/or for travel to a state where it's still legal.

That sounds like bullshit to me. Have you ever personally known a woman who was healthy who decided to have a late term abortion? Fro that matter, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to even find a doctor who would do one on a healthy woman who was in the third trimester. I've known, worked with and cared for plenty of poor women who were thrilled to be having a baby, regardless of whether there was a man in her life, whether she had insurance etc. There are plenty of programs that help pay for childbirth for poor women. I actually got help when I had mine 54 years ago. My ex and I had no insurance and his income was low enough for me to quality. I had to pay 600 dollars for the entire thing. We did it in small increments. Very poor women get Medicaid coverage for childbirth. Well, at least for now.

The 25 year old daughter of a friend of mine who recently had a baby had little money and may not have had insurance. She has already broken up with the father, although he is helping her care for the baby. She simply wanted to be a mother. She is living with her family and seems quite happy. Not that I think that was a good idea, but it's none of my business if other women feel they need to have children to feel fulfilled. I've yet to meet a healthy woman that wanted a late term abortion. Doctors don't do them just because someone wants one. If they don't want the baby, there are lots of people waiting to adopt a baby. One of my former patients decided to give up her baby for adoption and there was no shortage of people wanting that baby. But again, we've strayed way off topic, haven't we?

 

[thebeave]

During the years that I worked in public health as a nurse, including in family planning, and a maternity clinic, not once did I ever meet a woman who waned to have an abortion in her third term. I've never heard of anyone wanting one that late, so I doubt it ever happens.

Third term abortions are extremely rare and I'm pretty sure they are always related to either the condition of the fetus, unviable or severely impaired with a very slight chance of living more than a few days or weeks, or the life of the mother being in danger. Women don't get pregnant and then wait for 6 or 7 months, then suddenly decide they don't want to give birth. Women sometimes have to end a pregnancy at the end of the term, and I'm sure it's heartbreaking for them.

But as for this specific... Very very very very few women (you provide the stats/source, if there are any: I didn't get anything significant in a brief try) I mean, like one in a million or millions of women, a abort healthy fetus in the third trimester just for the hell of it.

This is a canard that just keeps coming back over and over -- either the woman is seeking an abortion because it's medically indicated, or else she's seeking one just for the hell of it because she doesn't want it any more and couldn't be bothered to make up her mind in the first 6 or 7 months. It's a false dilemma fallacy, it's insulting as hell to women, and it is bloody condescending to the entire social class who lack our advantages. So to everyone who ever presented those dilemma horns, check your goddamn privilege.

There are at least three painfully obvious reasons a healthy woman might quite rationally seek to abort a healthy fetus late-term. (1) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, she lost her medical insurance. (2) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, the baby's father walked out on her, or went to prison, or died. (3) Seven months into a much-unwanted pregnancy, she was finally able to lay her hands on enough money to pay for an abortion and/or for travel to a state where it's still legal.

That sounds like bullshit to me. Have you ever personally known a woman who was healthy who decided to have a late term abortion? Fro that matter, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to even find a doctor who would do one on a healthy woman who was in the third trimester. I've known, worked with and cared for plenty of poor women who were thrilled to be having a baby, regardless of whether there was a man in her life, whether she had insurance etc. There are plenty of programs that help pay for childbirth for poor women. I actually got help when I had mine 54 years ago. My ex and I had no insurance and his income was low enough for me to quality. I had to pay 600 dollars for the entire thing. We did it in small increments. Very poor women get Medicaid coverage for childbirth. Well, at least for now.

The 25 year old daughter of a friend of mine who recently had a baby had little money and may not have had insurance. She has already broken up with the father, although he is helping her care for the baby. She simply wanted to be a mother. She is living with her family and seems quite happy. Not that I think that was a good idea, but it's none of my business if other women feel they need to have children to feel fulfilled. I've yet to meet a healthy woman that wanted a late term abortion. Doctors don't do them just because someone wants one. If they don't want the baby, there are lots of people waiting to adopt a baby. One of my former patients decided to give up her baby for adoption and there was no shortage of people wanting that baby. But again, we've strayed way off topic, haven't we?

There was a lot of discussion on this in the "RvW is on deck" thread several months ago. Its not bullshit. It happens, though pretty rare. Here is a link to that discussion with actual examples. You might want to read that thread. It seems like we keep rehashing this over and over.

 

[Elixir]

There are at least three painfully obvious reasons a healthy woman might quite rationally seek to abort a healthy fetus late-term. (1) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, she lost her medical insurance. (2) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, the baby's father walked out on her, or went to prison, or died. (3) Seven months into a much-unwanted pregnancy, she was finally able to lay her hands on enough money to pay for an abortion and/or for travel to a state where it's still legal.

Also, maybe an alien came to her in a dream and told her to get an abortion.
Maybe she ate some bad vindaloo and started hallucinating that the fetus was in fact the same alien that came to her in the dream.
Sure, all kinds of likely things come up to counter the dreaded canard.

Good thing our legislators are fine upstanding people who rightfully have domain over such persistent problems.

Seriously - I’m back to considering how many fetuses/fetae are worth one woman’s life - or even her suffering.

But that’s the reverse of the dynamic in play, wherein our trusted representatives decide how many women should be sacrificed to save one fetus.

Seriously B20, do you have any means to quantify the pressing problems we have each identified?

 

[Elixir]

Of the 28 women interviewed, they fell into two thematic groups: Those who gained new information in the third trimester, and those who faced barriers to obtaining an earlier termination.

I reviewed that whole thread and didn’t see a single case within their micro-sample of 28 cases, wherein a doctor just said okay fine, to killing a healthy, viable fetus.
It certainly doesn’t appear (to me) to justify legislative oversight of ALL pregnancies.

 

[Elixir]

it should be illegal except in cases where it's medically justified due to the non-viability of the fetus, considerable malformation and abnormality of the fetus, or a materially higher risk to the health of the mother.

As determined by your congresscritter.
Got it.

 

[TomC]

Sure, this week? I'd celebrate a return to Roe.

Don't you read Emily's posts?
She has said basically the same thing multiple times.
But people keep making up strawman bullshit and attributing to her.
Tom

 

[KCFlyer]

I understand that many of you are working from a position of "right wing bad" and can't step back from that reflex enough to realize that this isn't a right wing positions at all. It's the completely liberal position that is supported by the vast majority of women, and Democrats, and well, almost all developed countries.

I live in Kansas. One of my Senators is Roger Marshall. He was an OB/GYN in Western Kansas. He is adamantly pro life and supports a complete ban on abortions. My wife and I had to face a late term abortion in 1991. We both wanted a baby more than anything in the world. But in the 21st week, we were devastated to learn that the child that we wanted had a severe problem - the brain had failed to form. It would not live, or if it did, only for days. My wife's OB/GYN recommended termination. The condition is called "anencephaly". I wrote to Senator Marshall to ask him what he would tell a patient who presented to him with the identical condition. His response was that he is pro life and understands that others have the right to a different opinion....but....he DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

My wife's (physical) health was not endangered although her mental health was rocked by this devastating news. He would support laws similar to Texas and Missouri, which basically ban abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. But to show how 'open' they are to the "pro abortion" side - they cite exceptions. In the case of Texas - mothers life is endangered (it wasn't in our case), ectopic pregnancy (again, it wasn't in our case) or premature rupture of the amneotic membrane (again...not in our case). But our child was not viable. And didn't meet any of their exceptions. And if a woman in Texas presents with the exact same thing my wife and I faced, a doctor would not perform the abortion. In part since Texas legislators made it a criminal offense with a sentence of life in prison for doctors who performed an "unauthorized abortion". A doctor's livelihood is on the line and it's a risk that, while they might feel a procedure is necessary, cannot risk losing their freedom over it. I suggested to my Senator that maybe doctors are more qualified to determine if a procedure is right or wrong than a politician. And I suggested that, in cases like Texas, a doctor on trial for performing one should have a jury of OB/GYN's, since they are the only "peers" that they have.

I know....the left lobbied for "abortion right up to delivery", but many Republicans want to say that life begins at conception. That is also a pretty extreme view. But these idiots think that there are women who, in their ninth month, get pissed off at their boyfriend/husband and decide to abort the baby. My side has presented women who face a situation like the one my wife faced, but the other side has NEVER brought up a woman who decided to abort for the hell of it and was wracked with guilt afterwards. Not one.

 

[Shadowy Man]

it should be illegal except in cases where it's medically justified due to the non-viability of the fetus, considerable malformation and abnormality of the fetus, or a materially higher risk to the health of the mother.

As determined by your congresscritter.
Got it.

No. The congress critters don’t consider each case. They just assume that all cases are unjustified and let the legal counsel of the hospital decide on a case by case basis to consider the balance of financial risk/criminal exposure between giving proper medical care and doing nothing.

 

[KCFlyer]

Donald Trump was telling North Carolina, which parts suffered catastrophic flooding damage due to a hurricane, that he was thinking of getting rid of FEMA.

He only added two words that made everything better.."in California"

 

[Elixir]

Sure, this week? I'd celebrate a return to Roe.

Don't you read Emily's posts?
She has said basically the same thing multiple times.
But people keep making up strawman bullshit and attributing to her.
Tom

She presents the previous Roe situation as something like “ideal”. I look at it as vastly superior to this - the condition that inevitably comes from leaving Roe alone where RW control freaks can pervert it into this.
Emily rationalizes it as saving those poor … unknown number fetae … above allowing women full bodily autonomy.
Not the same thing.

 

[TomC]

Sure, this week? I'd celebrate a return to Roe.

Don't you read Emily's posts?
She has said basically the same thing multiple times.
But people keep making up strawman bullshit and attributing to her.
Tom

She presents the previous Roe situation as something like “ideal”. I look at it as vastly superior to this - the condition that inevitably comes from leaving Roe alone where RW control freaks can pervert it into this.
Emily rationalizes it as saving those poor … unknown number fetae … above allowing women full bodily autonomy.
Not the same thing.

That's bullshit.
You're making up stuff, the opposite of what she actually posted, and arguing with that.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

it should be illegal except in cases where it's medically justified due to the non-viability of the fetus, considerable malformation and abnormality of the fetus, or a materially higher risk to the health of the mother.

As determined by your congresscritter.
Got it.

No. The congress critters don’t consider each case. They just assume that all cases are unjustified and let the legal counsel of the hospital decide on a case by case basis to consider the balance of financial risk/criminal exposure between giving proper medical care and doing nothing.

Zackly. And that’s how we ended up here.
Thanks a heap. The the legal counsel of the hospital needs to weigh in before life-saving care can be granted to a woman.
But at least the aggregation of cells living off her body in a state that all of us have been in and none of us recalls, will be given fair hearing, even if both the person and the fetus die as a result.

 

[Elixir]

Sure, this week? I'd celebrate a return to Roe.

Don't you read Emily's posts?
She has said basically the same thing multiple times.
But people keep making up strawman bullshit and attributing to her.
Tom

She presents the previous Roe situation as something like “ideal”. I look at it as vastly superior to this - the condition that inevitably comes from leaving Roe alone where RW control freaks can pervert it into this.
Emily rationalizes it as saving those poor … unknown number fetae … above allowing women full bodily autonomy.
Not the same thing.

That's bullshit.
You're making up stuff, the opposite of what she actually posted, and arguing with that.
Tom

How is it opposite? I’ve been entirely consistent and so has Emily. I favor not legislating abortion period. She favors legislating third trimester abortions. That’s not a strawman not matter how you might wish it were so, Tom.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sure, this week? I'd celebrate a return to Roe.

Don't you read Emily's posts?
She has said basically the same thing multiple times.
But people keep making up strawman bullshit and attributing to her.
Tom

She presents the previous Roe situation as something like “ideal”. I look at it as vastly superior to this - the condition that inevitably comes from leaving Roe alone where RW control freaks can pervert it into this.
Emily rationalizes it as saving those poor … unknown number fetae … above allowing women full bodily autonomy.
Not the same thing.

I cannot accept that this "baby with the bathwater" philosophy is anything but a designed attempt to create FUD.

Save 1-2 fetae so that 100 can have miserable fucking lives.

Save 1-2 regretful people so that 1000 can have miserable fucking lives.

It sure looks from here that the point is more the miserable fucking lives than saving the 1-2.

It is as much the people who will scream no matter what when an automated vehicle kills 1-2 people and saves 1000.

It's the same thing. People don't want a better life, they want to have a vent to their rage at a difficult universe and they can't realize this well or deeply enough so as to cache that rage until they find a better outlet. They can't sacrifice the feelings of doing something now for the unsatisfying but effective feeling of doing something abstract.

Of course, some folks still do the abstract and effective things, but that's largely less effective when we aren't joined by everyone else.

People have long since found a way to use pretty much any kind of idiot, though.

Edit: and the immediate and ineffective thing is often counter-productive to the hard and abstract thing. "Think of the children" always paradoxically ends up harming the children.

 

[Elixir]

Sure, this week? I'd celebrate a return to Roe.

Don't you read Emily's posts?
She has said basically the same thing multiple times.
But people keep making up strawman bullshit and attributing to her.
Tom

She presents the previous Roe situation as something like “ideal”. I look at it as vastly superior to this - the condition that inevitably comes from leaving Roe alone where RW control freaks can pervert it into this.
Emily rationalizes it as saving those poor … unknown number fetae … above allowing women full bodily autonomy.
Not the same thing.

I cannot accept that this "baby with the bathwater" philosophy is anything but a designed attempt to create FUD.

Save 1-2 fetae so that 100 can have miserable fucking lives.

Save 1-2 regretful people so that 1000 can have miserable fucking lives.

It sure looks from here that the point is more the miserable fucking lives than saving the 1-2.

It is as much the people who will scream no matter what when an automated vehicle kills 1-2 people and saves 1000.

It's the same thing. People don't want a better life, they want to have a vent to their rage at a difficult universe and they can't realize this well or deeply enough so as to cache that rage until they find a better outlet. They can't sacrifice the feelings of doing something now for the unsatisfying but effective feeling of doing something abstract.

Of course, some folks still do the abstract and effective things, but that's largely less effective when we aren't joined by everyone else.

People have long since found a way to use pretty much any kind of idiot, though.

That does reflect the emotional facet of my stance, but that is not what I consider its rationale.
I simply detest government sticking its politicians’s noses into places where it does more harm than good.
In this case it’s difficult to quantify “more harm” because nobody has come up with the number of optional last minute abortions of normal healthy fetuses or of women bleeding out in parking lots. My emotional bias is that one such woman’s life is indeed worth more than that of a fetus. Maybe worth more than a thousand fetuses, as it is likely that more people love the woman, will miss her and grieve over her loss than a thousand unwanted optionally aborted fetuses, but I’d withhold such judgment until someone can provide an accurate accounting of both dead women and optionally aborted fetuses.
Meanwhile I see no rationale for legislating abortion other than slaking old white men’s thirst for power over women.

Perplexity offers this;

Studies have found a correlation between restrictive abortion policies and higher maternal mortality rates:
1. States with more restrictive abortion policies have 7% higher total maternal mortality compared to states with fewer restrictions.
2. States with abortion bans or restrictions experience 62% higher maternal death rates than states with greater abortion access (28.8 vs. 17.8 per 100,000 births).
3. One study estimates that a total abortion ban in the United States would result in an additional 140 maternal deaths annually, with a 33% increase for non-Hispanic Black individuals.

That doesn’t look like Roe was a “no harm done” kind of deal - just a lot less harm than is happening now.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sure, this week? I'd celebrate a return to Roe.

Don't you read Emily's posts?
She has said basically the same thing multiple times.
But people keep making up strawman bullshit and attributing to her.
Tom

She presents the previous Roe situation as something like “ideal”. I look at it as vastly superior to this - the condition that inevitably comes from leaving Roe alone where RW control freaks can pervert it into this.
Emily rationalizes it as saving those poor … unknown number fetae … above allowing women full bodily autonomy.
Not the same thing.

I cannot accept that this "baby with the bathwater" philosophy is anything but a designed attempt to create FUD.

Save 1-2 fetae so that 100 can have miserable fucking lives.

Save 1-2 regretful people so that 1000 can have miserable fucking lives.

It sure looks from here that the point is more the miserable fucking lives than saving the 1-2.

It is as much the people who will scream no matter what when an automated vehicle kills 1-2 people and saves 1000.

It's the same thing. People don't want a better life, they want to have a vent to their rage at a difficult universe and they can't realize this well or deeply enough so as to cache that rage until they find a better outlet. They can't sacrifice the feelings of doing something now for the unsatisfying but effective feeling of doing something abstract.

Of course, some folks still do the abstract and effective things, but that's largely less effective when we aren't joined by everyone else.

People have long since found a way to use pretty much any kind of idiot, though.

That does reflect the emotional facet of my stance, but that is not what I consider its rationale.
I simply detest government sticking its politicians’s noses into places where it does more harm than good.
In this case it’s difficult to quantify “more harm” because nobody has come up with the number of optional last minute abortions of normal healthy fetuses or of women bleeding out in parking lots. My emotional bias is that one such woman’s life is indeed worth more than that of a fetus. Maybe worth more than a thousand fetuses, as it is likely that more people love the woman, will miss her and grieve over her loss than a thousand unwanted optionally aborted fetuses, but I’d withhold such judgment until someone can provide an accurate accounting of both dead women and optionally aborted fetuses.
Meanwhile I see no rationale for legislating abortion other than slaking old white men’s thirst for power over women.

Perplexity offers this;

Studies have found a correlation between restrictive abortion policies and higher maternal mortality rates:
1. States with more restrictive abortion policies have 7% higher total maternal mortality compared to states with fewer restrictions.
2. States with abortion bans or restrictions experience 62% higher maternal death rates than states with greater abortion access (28.8 vs. 17.8 per 100,000 births).
3. One study estimates that a total abortion ban in the United States would result in an additional 140 maternal deaths annually, with a 33% increase for non-Hispanic Black individuals.

That doesn’t look like Roe was a “no harm done” kind of deal - just a lot less harm than is happening now.

Quite my point though: you can never clear harm, and often counter-productive efforts make headway specifically by pointing to known events that can be made to seem harmful and that can be immediately interacted with.

A lot of people were sold a lie: that their purpose was to reproduce and have children. They were sold this ubiquitously by the world from all angles all their lives. Their parents had children so that they could have grandchildren or some such.

Indeed if life did not pre-program some predelictions to this, if it ever arose it would be selected for heavily, among any reproductive caste in a society, simply because that causes more babies to happen and much of life seeks to fill up the world with its kind to the extent that it will carry them.

But, it is an illusion: Nothing in reality but the assumption that "they must" or perhaps some sentimentality to the body itself holds someone to keep the selfish gene preserved in the world.

Ultimately, whatever goads were forged into the personalities of whoever, these goads do not justify their own existence and action in drafting the unwilling to their cause.

To be honest, I think the only legal interest that really exists in these sorts of measures is to determine who is a "handmaid", who is a "wife", and who is a "commander".

It strikes me that legal definitions can only be an interest to those who want legal difference.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Women don't get pregnant and then wait for 6 or 7 months, then suddenly decide they don't want to give birth. ...

...
There are at least three painfully obvious reasons a healthy woman might quite rationally seek to abort a healthy fetus late-term. (1) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, she lost her medical insurance. (2) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, the baby's father walked out on her, or went to prison, or died. (3) Seven months into a much-unwanted pregnancy, she was finally able to lay her hands on enough money to pay for an abortion and/or for travel to a state where it's still legal.

That sounds like bull... to me. Have you ever personally known a woman who was healthy who decided to have a late term abortion?

Good lord, how can you possibly think that's a good argument? Out of a hundred and fifty million women in America, five thousand a year have late term abortions. Your theory is what, that if I were right then it would have happened to one of the maybe five women who know me well enough they'd tell me if they were getting abortions?!?

I've known, worked with and cared for plenty of poor women who were thrilled to be having a baby, regardless of whether there was a man in her life, whether she had insurance etc.

And much joy I hope it brought them. People are all different. Some people feel overwhelmed by financial difficulties that other people could face stoically. Some people have networks of supportive family and friends they can count on to pull them through the hard periods while other people are on their own. Some people don't angst over the future and just tell themselves God will provide.

There are plenty of programs that help pay for childbirth for poor women. I actually got help when I had mine 54 years ago. My ex and I had no insurance and his income was low enough for me to quality. I had to pay 600 dollars for the entire thing. We did it in small increments. Very poor women get Medicaid coverage for childbirth. Well, at least for now.

Nice that you qualified. So you know qualifying is an issue. Don't get me started on Medicaid. The income and asset limitations aren't just stupid and cruel; they create perverse incentives. I know a woman on Medicaid who works part time and has to turn down extra hours because they'd bump her income over some stupid cutoff, and all her endless medical problems would suddenly be on her to pay for, which she couldn't remotely, so she'd die.

The 25 year old daughter of a friend of mine who recently had a baby had little money and may not have had insurance. She has already broken up with the father, although he is helping her care for the baby. She simply wanted to be a mother. She is living with her family and seems quite happy. Not that I think that was a good idea, but it's none of my business if other women feel they need to have children to feel fulfilled. I've yet to meet a healthy woman that wanted a late term abortion.

Good that she has a family to live with. It's not about wanting. It's about not seeing how to make it work.