Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

You two are arguing with someone that generally agrees with your position here.

 

[Toni]

You two are arguing with someone that generally agrees with your position here.

Not really, as bilby’s position seems to be that I am too stupid to know what I think or to be able to e gage in critical thinking or that I am at all familiar with the medical and psychological needs of minor girls, something that he seems to think is irrelevant or beyond my ken. Or that I have some hidden anti-sex conservative agenda.

Both suppositions I find extremely insulting.

 

[Rhea]

Flaw? This was the design!

Meanwhile, in Ohio, saw an ad where they actually use the rape of the ten year old girl in Ohio as a ploy to support the abortion ban, because if abortion was legal in Ohio, then the rapist could have just driven her to get an abortion because of a lack of parental consent rules. OMFG! I mean, we are talking massive logic errors here. The current law (on hold) is not to allow any abortions... so that girl wouldn't be driven to get one by her rapist. The alt-right is effectively making the O in GOP mean "Orwellian".

Of course this is despicable but it does highlight my concern with OTC birth control pills and OTC morning after pill: in addition to making much needed birth control easily available to those seeking to prevent their own pregnancy, it does make it much easier for someone who is abusing a minor to prevent discovery by preventing pregnancy in the minor.

I don’t know a good way around this, unfortunately.

The other, much more minor concern I have is that annual exams for renewal of birth control are often the only well check up young women get. There they are screened for STIs, a breast exam is conducted, Pap smear taken and there is also screening for possible domestic abuse. As a younger woman, this WAS my annual check up.

There are obvious work around for this but I can tell you that most young adults do not go in for annual check ups without some underlying reason. Even with good healthcare.

I understand you say “ I don’t know a good way around this, unfortunately. ” I just want to find out if I understand you correctly that your “concerns with OTC BC” means you think they should not be OTC or that they should be OTC?

The concerns of young people getting regular check-ups is something that deserves a good public info campaign including in schools where parents and predators cannot mute it, and ready support for easily accessible places like Planned Parenthood. But I don’t see how keeping BC behind the counter could help women’s health at all.

 

[Toni]

Flaw? This was the design!

Meanwhile, in Ohio, saw an ad where they actually use the rape of the ten year old girl in Ohio as a ploy to support the abortion ban, because if abortion was legal in Ohio, then the rapist could have just driven her to get an abortion because of a lack of parental consent rules. OMFG! I mean, we are talking massive logic errors here. The current law (on hold) is not to allow any abortions... so that girl wouldn't be driven to get one by her rapist. The alt-right is effectively making the O in GOP mean "Orwellian".

Of course this is despicable but it does highlight my concern with OTC birth control pills and OTC morning after pill: in addition to making much needed birth control easily available to those seeking to prevent their own pregnancy, it does make it much easier for someone who is abusing a minor to prevent discovery by preventing pregnancy in the minor.

I don’t know a good way around this, unfortunately.

The other, much more minor concern I have is that annual exams for renewal of birth control are often the only well check up young women get. There they are screened for STIs, a breast exam is conducted, Pap smear taken and there is also screening for possible domestic abuse. As a younger woman, this WAS my annual check up.

There are obvious work around for this but I can tell you that most young adults do not go in for annual check ups without some underlying reason. Even with good healthcare.

I understand you say “ I don’t know a good way around this, unfortunately. ” I just want to find out if I understand you correctly that your “concerns with OTC BC” means you think they should not be OTC or that they should be OTC?

The concerns of young people getting regular check-ups is something that deserves a good public info campaign including in schools where parents and predators cannot mute it, and ready support for easily accessible places like Planned Parenthood. But I don’t see how keeping BC behind the counter could help women’s health at all.

I think it’s a net plus but only if girls and women still get annual exams. (Of course, everybody should get annual exams but right now we are talking about birth control pills.) And yes, that means a huge overhaul of our health care system. For myself, I have good insurance and I get my health care through an exceptionally good health care system. Everybody —and I mean everybody should have this kind of health care and access.

When I was a young woman, I would have been thrilled beyond to have had OTC birth control pills. I am also certain I would have missed having any kind of annual exam. It meant taking off from work, which meant missing pay which I desperately needed. But Planned Parenthood was wonderful, as was the student health center when I was a college student. Planned Parenthood came to my dorm and very thoroughly discussed birth control options, with pros and cons of each method, preventing STIs, demonstrated the correct way to put on a condom, how to use a diaphragm, and how to do a breast self-exam. Also, some discussion about domestic violence and sexual assault. I am so grateful to our RA for organizing this for us freshmen.

Not every and honestly, not many young women and teenagers have access to this kind of education, which should be universal.

Because there was a concern in my family medical history ( type of birth control pills were selected specifically with that in mind) and because I know girls/women for whom hormonal birth control can be a less than good option, I AM concerned about access without medical ok. Also I remember way back in the day when I had a lot of talks with girls/women my age and younger, sometimes a bit older, who were not well informed about birth control. As in: it isn’t fully effective until you have completed the first pack and you need to take it daily at the same time every day.

I’m also keenly aware of how much pressure can be placed upon young people to engage in sex acts when they are unsure or unready for sex. Birth control pills remove an excuse to demure. And also make it harder to insist on using condoms, which are smart because of back up birth control and disease control.

And of course there is the fact that teens and young adults are notoriously unreliable when it comes to taking their meds, be they to address diabetes, acne, strep throat, birth control, depression, etc. unreliable use of the pill = many more unintended pregnancies. Even assuming universal free and judgement-free access to abortion, abortion is not a walk in the park. It’s not risk free.

So yes, I worry about 12 year old girls who are pressured to give blow jobs being pressured to have intercourse because it’s easy to pick up a pack of pills at the drugstore. Never mind who will teach them how to use them effectively. And I worry about boys being pressured to have sex before they are ready for it, as well.

That said, I believe that ALL people who are sexually active or who are considering becoming sexual active have an absolute right and need to have free and easy effective birth control and disease prevention.

I freely acknowledge that I’m one of those people who immediately thinks: worst case scenarios. That’s just me. I’ve learned to live with it. Hope you all don’t hold it too much against me.

So sure: OTC bc pills are a net good BUT they do NOT remove the absolute need for good, pragmatic sex education or professional medical screening, and ongoing medical care at all ages.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But "it does make it much easier for someone who is abusing a minor to prevent discovery by preventing pregnancy in the minor" is, I suspect, not one of those points, because it's an entirely fictional scenario. It feels like it might be something that has happened; But there's zero evidence that it actually has.

Literally nobody has ever attempted to use this method to prevent discovery, in a way that would have been easier for them if the pill were available OTC.

Until and unless at least one case of this happening in reality (and not just in the imagination of propagandists) is presented, it shouldn't form any part of the discussion. As you correctly point out, there are many important and real issues that need consideration; Adding red herrings isn't helpful.

The OTC BC pills haven't been around long enough for such a case to be likely. You're inferring data from the absence of data.

I don't think it would be an appreciable issue as a molester who was concerned with pregnancy would have used a condom anyway--pregnancy most likely means they weren't being careful and thus wouldn't have gotten pills for their victim.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But "it does make it much easier for someone who is abusing a minor to prevent discovery by preventing pregnancy in the minor" is, I suspect, not one of those points, because it's an entirely fictional scenario. It feels like it might be something that has happened; But there's zero evidence that it actually has.

Literally nobody has ever attempted to use this method to prevent discovery, in a way that would have been easier for them if the pill were available OTC.

Until and unless at least one case of this happening in reality (and not just in the imagination of propagandists) is presented, it shouldn't form any part of the discussion. As you correctly point out, there are many important and real issues that need consideration; Adding red herrings isn't helpful.

The OTC BC pills haven't been around long enough for such a case to be likely. You're inferring data from the absence of data.

I don't think it would be an appreciable issue as a molester who was concerned with pregnancy would have used a condom anyway--pregnancy most likely means they weren't being careful and thus wouldn't have gotten pills for their victim.

You seriously arguing a position of rationality for a person who is committing an irrational (to put it mildly) crime?

 

[TomC]

You seriously arguing a position of rationality for a person who is committing an irrational (to put it mildly) crime?

That's what I was thinking about.

The likelihood that someone who would do something as dastardly as sex a kid probably isn't putting much thought into future consequences. It's all about immediate gratification.
Tom

 

[Toni]

You seriously arguing a position of rationality for a person who is committing an irrational (to put it mildly) crime?

That's what I was thinking about.

The likelihood that someone who would do something as dastardly as sex a kid probably isn't putting much thought into future consequences. It's all about immediate gratification.
Tom

Unfortunately, these ‘relationships’ sometimes go on for a long time, with the kid being too scared and ashamed and often too ignorant to seek help. And sometimes, too often, the adult who hears of the abuse doesn’t believe it’s true, another layer of betrayal that is almost worse than the actual abuse.

I was never thinking of someone abusing a minor using birth control pills to protect the child—they obviously care nothing about the minor. I was thinking about them seeking to avoid discovery by preventing a pregnancy. A pregnancy will eventually result in discovery and potential trial discovery of the person who caused the pregnancy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But "it does make it much easier for someone who is abusing a minor to prevent discovery by preventing pregnancy in the minor" is, I suspect, not one of those points, because it's an entirely fictional scenario. It feels like it might be something that has happened; But there's zero evidence that it actually has.

Literally nobody has ever attempted to use this method to prevent discovery, in a way that would have been easier for them if the pill were available OTC.

Until and unless at least one case of this happening in reality (and not just in the imagination of propagandists) is presented, it shouldn't form any part of the discussion. As you correctly point out, there are many important and real issues that need consideration; Adding red herrings isn't helpful.

The OTC BC pills haven't been around long enough for such a case to be likely. You're inferring data from the absence of data.

I don't think it would be an appreciable issue as a molester who was concerned with pregnancy would have used a condom anyway--pregnancy most likely means they weren't being careful and thus wouldn't have gotten pills for their victim.

You seriously arguing a position of rationality for a person who is committing an irrational (to put it mildly) crime?

No. I'm arguing that they'll be consistent.

Either they are protecting against pregnancy and the availability of BC pills simply produces a small benefit, or the are not protecting and the availability does nothing.

 

[lpetrich]

Yesterday's election results are now mostly out, and they have decided some things.

In Ohio, voters have voted to add protection of abortion rights to their state constitution, 56.6% - 43.4% with >95% counted.

Ohio 2023 ballot measures - Ballotpedia - last August, the voters rejected a proposal for making amendment more difficult, changing the threshold from a majority to a 60% supermajority: 57.1% - 42.9%.

The "pro" areas were the urban areas, Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati, along with the northeast corner and some other areas. The rest was "anti".

In Kentucky, governor Andy Beshear won re-election by a somewhat larger margin than he did previously: 52.9% - 47.1%, while in 2019, he won by 49.2% - 48.8% - (Libertarian) 2.0%.

In Virginia, the Democrats now have both chambers of the state legislature, getting back the state's House of Delegates from the Republicans. The State Senate is likely to be D 21, R 19, down from D 22, R 18, and the State House is likely to be D 51, R 49, up from D 46, R 51, vacant 3.


Abortion continues to be a losing issue for the Republicans.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Issue 1 was 70+% Yes in the most populated counties, Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus) while the college Athens County was 70+% as well. 55 to 65% in the lesser big ones Montgomery (Dayton), Hamilton (Cincinnati), Lucas (Toledo). Stark County has Canton, but also, depending on where you are, it is the deep south for some reason. That was a touch over 50%.

The eastern No counties were around 60%, the south and west No counties more around 65% with some getting well above 70%. What got the victory were the suburb counties around the Northeast where it was 55% to 65% and the suburb and much more conservative counties around Columbus that like to not pay taxes, but don't want to have women automatically give birth, which was just above 50% or no counties weren't much more than 50% either.

The Penis Vote
I don't recall seeing much in the way of exit polls for this. I would love to see the gender breakdown in the suburban Columbus counties. I suppose this is kind of possible via Issue 2, which I was surprised passed with more votes than Issue 1. IE, the voters with penises want to smoke weed, but want to protect babies for Jebus. A lot more counties voted to pass Issue 2. In general, liberal areas decreased support from abortion to weed, but conservative areas did the opposite, supporting the right to weed verses abortion.

Very southern / conservative Lawrence County was 66% no for abortion and 52% for legal weed. Where as the city counties passed Issue 2 by around 5% less than Issue 1. In western counties, the penis influence had the results going from 70+% against abortion to 50+% against weed. I can't even fathom the compartmentalization required for individual rights needed to justify the right to weed, but not to the reproductive system.

 

[bilby]

I can't even fathom the compartmentalization required for individual rights needed to justify the right to weed, but not to the reproductive system.

Anti-abortion voters consider fetuses to be individuals whose rights need protection. They're wrong, of course, but that's their position. And having made that fundamental(ist) mistake, no compartmentalisation is necessary.

If you support individual rights, and you want to defend those rights for the individuals least able to defend themselves, then voting to criminalise abortion and legalise weed is completely consistent, if fetuses are individuals.

The only error necessary to hold this set of positions is to lack a sound understanding of biology - that is, to have a naïve understanding of what constitutes an individual with human rights. If "it's human, and it's alive" is sufficient, then we need to hang the oncologists who murder all those cancers. But that conclusion depends on an understanding of biology that these folks lack.

If you want to improve your society, and to get people who are intent on voting for measures that will harm that society to change their minds, misrepresenting their opposition as a cognitive error rather than a lack of knowledge won't help.

The problem is that they're ignorant, not that they're irrational. They've been told that a fertilised ovum is a baby, and they believe that. Everything else is a completely reasonable extrapolation from that basic misunderstanding.

Developing a sound definition of what constitutes a human individual which should be considered to have rights is actually surprisingly difficult; There's no clear and objective dividing line.

Of course, even if the fetus were an individual with rights, those rights shouldn't include the right to use another individual's body against her will - but if you are a fundamentalist, it's quite possible that you don't consider women to be fully protected human individuals. I mean, they're obviously chattel property, it says so in the Bible.

If a woman is the property of her husband (or, prior to marriage, her father), and if a fertilised ovum is a human individual, then clearly a fertilised ovum has the right to be protected, either because it's an individual in its own right, or (if it lacks Y chromosomes) because it's the personal property of its father, who is an individual with rights.

Anyone who can see that an ovum is not an individual who has rights, and that a woman is an individual who has rights, would need to be irrational to object to abortion rights for women. But there are plenty of people who cannot see these things, and many of them are perfectly capable of using sound logic to reason that abortion should be banned. You can reach any false conclusion via sound logic, if you start with false premises.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can't even fathom the compartmentalization required for individual rights needed to justify the right to weed, but not to the reproductive system.

Anti-abortion voters consider fetuses to be individuals whose rights need protection. They're wrong, of course, but that's their position. And having made that fundamental(ist) mistake, no compartmentalisation is necessary.

If you support individual rights, and you want to defend those rights for the individuals least able to defend themselves, then voting to criminalise abortion and legalise weed is completely consistent, if fetuses are individuals.

The only error necessary to hold this set of positions is to lack a sound understanding of biology - that is, to have a naïve understanding of what constitutes an individual with human rights. If "it's human, and it's alive" is sufficient, then we need to hang the oncologists who murder all those cancers. But that conclusion depends on an understanding of biology that these folks lack.

That is a nice neat bow and all, but I think another part of the problem is that some humans with penises view abortion and weed with the exact same lens: Does banning this affect me?

If you want to improve your society, and to get people who are intent on voting for measures that will harm that society to change their minds, misrepresenting their opposition as a cognitive error rather than a lack of knowledge won't help.

We couldn't convince people that sheltering to save lives is a good idea during a global pandemic. I don't have a shot in heck at convincing a pro-lifer that women shouldn't be sobbing hysterically in a bathroom, after looking at a pregnancy test and then desperately looking online for DIY methods. Severe amount of Venn Diagram coverage over the "the government can't compel me to wear a mask" and "a woman who gets pregnant should be responsible for the consequences of it".

 

[Toni]

While bilby’s logic above is correct, Jimmy Huggins’ take sums up the emotional make up and decision making processes of ( some of) those with penises very accurately.

 

[Copernicus]

I can't even fathom the compartmentalization required for individual rights needed to justify the right to weed, but not to the reproductive system.

Perhaps you need to smoke more weed in order to gain insight into that subject.

 

[Copernicus]

The problem for the ascendent MAGA wing of the Republican Party is that they have really convinced themselves that abortion is equivalent to murder, and they can't believe that the majority of the voting public might see it differently. Now they are stuck with all of the incendiary language that they used in the past, because how do you publicly come out and say you've changed your mind about murdering babies and can now see murdering them under certain circumstances?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do MAGA care about abortion as much as trans, dragons, and election fraud? The evangelicals were the abortion crusaders.

MAGA is about problems that aren't real.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The problem for the ascendent MAGA wing of the Republican Party is that they have really convinced themselves that abortion is equivalent to murder, and they can't believe that the majority of the voting public might see it differently. Now they are stuck with all of the incendiary language that they used in the past, because how do you publicly come out and say you've changed your mind about murdering babies and can now see murdering them under certain circumstances?

Most Republicans actually *are* for murdering babies in certain circumstances.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem for the ascendent MAGA wing of the Republican Party is that they have really convinced themselves that abortion is equivalent to murder, and they can't believe that the majority of the voting public might see it differently. Now they are stuck with all of the incendiary language that they used in the past, because how do you publicly come out and say you've changed your mind about murdering babies and can now see murdering them under certain circumstances?

Most Republicans actually *are* for murdering babies in certain circumstances.

The whole sanctity of life* thing.

* Some exclusions apply including but not limited to immigrants, illegal immigrants, mentally ill, children of poor parents, people that drive electric cars, recently born infants, people that need assistanence in any way, Arabs, Muslims, Arab Muslims, Catholics, Jewish**.

 

[ZiprHead]

Republican Pushes to Overturn Ohio Election Result

Republican state representative in North Dakota has urged authorities in Ohio to "ignore the results" of Tuesday's election, in which voters backed a motion entrenching the right to an abortion in the state constitution.

Ohioans voted by 56.6 percent versus 43.4 percent to support Issue 1, which inserted the "right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions" into the Ohio constitution. The poll was just one of a string of GOP reverses on Tuesday, which also saw Democrats take control of both chambers of the state legislature in Virginia and extend their majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Abortion access has become highly contentious at the state level since the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, a 1973 ruling that made abortion access a constitutional right, in June 2022. In response, some Democratic-controlled states have sought to entrench abortion rights in their own constitutions, while a number of their Republican counterparts have introduced restrictions.

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, North Dakota State Representative Brandon Prichard argued Tuesday's Issue 1 vote in Ohio should be ignored.

Fuck you, Brandon.