Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[Bob001]

Among the consequence of no-Roe:

Sarah Gutman is an OB-GYN and complex family planning specialist in Philadelphia. Every week, she prescribes misoprostol and mifepristone. Sometimes she gives them to patients to manage a miscarriage or postpartum hemorrhage. Sometimes, they are not for pregnancy care at all: Misoprostol can prepare patients for a hysteroscopy, IUD insertion, or endometrial biopsy.

Though misoprostol and mifepristone are best known as the two components of medication abortion (referred to by many as the “abortion pill”), what they actually do is help soften the cervix and cause contractions, making them vital for a variety of gynecological uses. Yet because they are involved in medication abortions, Gutman is worried about whether doctors like her will be able to continue offering them. While prescribing misoprostol and mifepristone for reasons other than abortion technically remains allowed everywhere, “abortion bans create confusion, fear, and distrust,” she said. There are already signs that providers, patients, and pharmacists might now avoid these medicines out of fear of being prosecuted. Doctors also worry that medical training in abortion-related procedures, namely dilation and curettage, could be restricted or lost in some states. Besides abortion, these procedures can be used to treat heavy bleeding or evaluate the uterus for cancer.

Despite the shroud of stigma that has been attached to abortion—both surgical and medication—the medical methods behind pregnancy terminations are ordinary, critical elements of routine gynecological care. By creating legal gray areas and exacerbating existing stigma, the reversal of Roe v. Wade may now leave many doctors profoundly limited in how they can treat common health conditions that have nothing to do with pregnancy or abortion.
....

https://slate.com/technology/2022/0...-crisis-misoprostol-mifepristone-d-and-c.html

So doctors might not be able to provide standard health care for fear they'll be accused of performing an illegal abortion.

 

[Stacyhs]

Who was talking about Christians?

Says the member with Jesus as his avatar and who complains bitterly ad nauseum about how Christians are being targeted.

Why even bring it up? Probably they might say that murdering the unborn is worse than forcing raped children to give birth to one of God's beautiful creations. God has a plan, after all. Who are we to question it?

That's not what YOU said though, is it? No. You said, "Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care," and "I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either." You "don't care" about the suffering of these children or anyone else because "liberals have brought this upon themselves." As long as liberals suffer you're just fine with it. Trouble is, I don't think 10-11-13-14 year olds think much about politics.

So, I don't think that is hypocritical at all.

Of course you don't. And water is wet.

And you still haven't answered my question which you conveniently edited out:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But not an overwhelming majority, and not without some restrictions (for example, the majority doesn't support 9th month abortions).

9th month abortions are a manufactured talking point trying to make pro-choice people look bad. If there is a reason to end a pregnancy in the 9th month then it is called inducing labor or a c-section. It's done if the mother or the fetus are in trouble and generally every attempt to save a viable infant are taken. No one decides to end their pregnancies in the 9th month without a serious health risk of some kind. And no health care providers would kill a near-term fetus or infant.

Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done. Pro-choice advocates who talk about "no restrictions" mean in the law. They don't mean health care providers should go around murdering full-term infants. Leaving it up to the provider and the pregnant person is where the decisions should be made.

So how do we resolve differences of opinion among the citizenry? Well, one way to do it is to devolve the question from the federal level back to the states. And I think you will find that the degree of support for and opposition to abortion varies from state to state. States where a majority support abortion can keep it legal. States where a majority oppose abortion can restrict it. If the outcome you're after is laws that most closely resemble the desires of the people, then overturning RvW is a step in the right direction. Which makes me think you aren't actually making this argument in good faith, but just trying whatever you think might stick. The problem is, it doesn't.

Such as when 7 unelected judges declare that states cannot prohibit abortion, no matter how unpopular the decision is within that state?

You really can't use this argument to defend Roe v. Wade. It doesn't work.

And that decision by those 7 justices has been the law of the land for half a century. The law protected women's rights from state or federal laws that denied them. Many federal laws, upheld by the SCOTUS defend the rights of individuals against states that would otherwise deny those individual rights like segregation and other forms of discrimination.

Making abortion illegal doesn't decrease abortions. So just what "states' rights" are being protected by denying women the right to bodily autonomy?

So this whole business of returning the decision to the states is a cop-out excuse.

 

[Bob001]

.....
I wonder where the Catholics got their pro-life stance from. Anyone know?

Offhand, I would suspect it's for the same reason they oppose most birth control: The more Catholics, the better.

 

[Stacyhs]

9th month abortions are a manufactured talking point trying to make pro-choice people look bad. If there is a reason to end a pregnancy in the 9th month then it is called inducing labor or a c-section. It's done if the mother or the fetus are in trouble and generally every attempt to save a viable infant are taken. No one decides to end their pregnancies in the 9th month without a serious health risk of some kind. And no health care providers would kill a near-term fetus or infant.

Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done. Pro-choice advocates who talk about "no restrictions" mean in the law. They don't mean health care providers should go around murdering full-term infants. Leaving it up to the provider and the pregnant person is where the decisions should be made.

And that decision by those 7 justices has been the law of the land for half a century. The law protected women's rights from state or federal laws that denied them. Many federal laws, upheld by the SCOTUS defend the rights of individuals against states that would otherwise deny those individual rights like segregation and other forms of discrimination.

Making abortion illegal doesn't decrease abortions. So just what "states' rights" are being protected by denying women the right to bodily autonomy?

So this whole business of returning the decision to the states is a cop-out excuse.

Brava! The "9th month abortion" scare mongering has been pointed out often before, including by me, yet they continue to throw it around. It's the abortion equivalent to "If they ban assault style weapons, they'll come for all your guns next!" It's dishonest, but what else is new?

 

[Stacyhs]

Offhand, I would suspect it's for the same reason they oppose most birth control: The more Catholics, the better.

Yep. It's the same with Mormons who forbid birth control and abortion. All the millions of 'spirit children' are waiting to be born and to become good Mormons.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are there people fighting for their right to be cruel to animals? or to murder or to neglect children or ...

Well killing and neglecting children is something people fight for, see protections for parents when they refuse to treat medical conditions for religious reasons and easily treatable conditions kill kids.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For example:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/

Given that the facts contradict your expectations, will this prompt any introspection about why you got it so completely wrong?

That's from 2014 and follows religious beliefs rather closely. I don't think those religious persons should be dictating laws like making abortion illegal.

The strongest religious views unsurprisingly correlate with being against aid to the poor.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who was talking about Christians? Why even bring it up? Probably they might say that murdering the unborn is worse than forcing raped children to give birth to one of God's beautiful creations. God has a plan, after all. Who are we to question it?

So, I don't think that is hypocritical at all.

The SCOTUS justices are clearly Christian religious extremists. They make no attempt to hide that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well killing and neglecting children is something people fight for, see protections for parents when they refuse to treat medical conditions for religious reasons and easily treatable conditions kill kids.

So that's the equivalent of more than half the population protesting overturning Roe?

I didn't think I needed to point out there would be tiny handfuls of people who don't like certain laws.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So that's the equivalent of more than half the population protesting overturning Roe?

I didn't think I needed to point out there would be tiny handfuls of people who don't like certain laws.

Religious exemptions for medical neglect of children are fairly commonplace and popular.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's from 2014

You think things have changed so much that abortion opposition isn't still the majority in even a single state? That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

and follows religious beliefs rather closely. I don't think those religious persons should be dictating laws like making abortion illegal.

This is basically an argument that religious people shouldn't get a vote, or their vote should count for less. That is deeply, deeply undemocratic, and such a position is far more antithetical to our constitution than any possible views on abortion itself.

The strongest religious views unsurprisingly correlate with being against aid to the poor.

Well, no. Strongly religious people tend to view government welfare negatively. They also tend to give more to private charities which help the poor. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about the merits of government welfare vs. private charity, but your support for one over the other doesn't make anyone anti-poor. But this isn't relevant to my argument in any case, it's off topic and there's nothing more to add that would be in any way productive.

 

[Ziggurat]

9th month abortions are a manufactured talking point trying to make pro-choice people look bad.

And yet, there are abortion advocates who argue for it, without any qualifications. They want abortion on demand, for any reason, up to the due date. They are a small minority, to be sure, but that's kind of my point.

Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done.

Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never.

Making abortion illegal doesn't decrease abortions.

Says who? Based on what evidence? Abortions shot way up after Roe v. Wade. There's no reason to think they won't go down in response to its repeal.

So just what "states' rights" are being protected by denying women the right to bodily autonomy?

I'm not making a states rights argument. I'm pointing out that the argument in favor of RvW based on the notion that its repeal wasn't "democratic" is absurd on its face. If you want to argue in favor of RvW on the basis of rights that government shouldn't be able to violate regardless of the will of voters, go ahead, but that's a fundamentally different argument than the one I was countering. Can you understand that distinction? I know it can be a bit subtle if you're used to treating this issue with a sledge hammer, but give it a try.

 

[Upchurch]

This is basically an argument that religious people shouldn't get a vote, or their vote should count for less. That is deeply, deeply undemocratic, and such a position is far more antithetical to our constitution than any possible views on abortion itself.

None of that is even remotely true. The Constitution was set up so religious positions and practices would not be forced on anyone. In the particular case of abortion, anti-abortion religious people's vote should count less because there are less of them. That is the essence of democracy. Minority rule is what is deeply, deeply undemocratic.

 

[bruto]

I don't care now. Roe is dead. Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care. Complete abortion bans will not cause me to blink an eye. I do not care if all sex education is eliminated from schools, nor if birth control is outlawed.

I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either. As far as I am concerned liberals have brought this upon themselves through their loser political actions and ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law.

Of course we can see this in different ways but on this to me it looks as if in the battle between right and wrong, if there isn't a nice big floating blob of wrong in the mix, it's unacceptable to you, so **** it all. A flamboyant political flounce.

 

[Warp12]

And you still haven't answered my question which you conveniently edited out:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "

Comical. Yeah, there hasn't been any loosened legislation passed since then, and it wasn't called for by activists. That's great news...see, overturning Roe is no big deal. It won't change a thing.

All this fuss over nothing!

 

[Bob001]

......
Well, no. Strongly religious people tend to view government welfare negatively.
.....

I think you're going way out on a limb if you think you can generalize about what the "strongly religious" believe. "Strongly religious" people aren't just rural fundamentalist Christians. I think you might find a substantial percentage of people who identify themselves as "strongly religious" have a wide range of views about social welfare and the obligations of the well-off to the poor. I also think you're making a mistake if you equate right-wing political views with some sort of religious practice.

 

[Stacyhs]

Religious exemptions for medical neglect of children are fairly commonplace and popular.

Not true. Several parents have been convicted for failing to get medical care for their children including religiously bases reasons.

Typically, state laws give parents much leeway in protecting and caring for their children, including providing consent for or refusing medical care. But this isn't always the case if the decision may endanger a child's life. Although health care decision-making is one of the rights reserved to parents, there are some cases where the state must intervene to protect the child. Many courts will allow a state child protection agency to make medical decisions for a child if:
The medical community is in agreement about the appropriate course of treatment for the child
The expected outcome of that treatment is a relatively normal life with a reasonably good quality of life
The child would die without the treatment
The parent is refusing to grant consent for the treatment

Adults have the right to refuse their own medical care for religious or personal reasons. However, this legal right to refuse medical care does not extend to their children if it endangers the child's welfare. Under the law, children are entitled to protection and appropriate medical treatment despite their parents' religious views. Most states require parents to provide a reasonable degree of medical care for their children. Otherwise, they may face legal consequences, regardless of their religious beliefs.

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/i...can-a-parent-deny-medical-treatment-to-a.html

We have a church in my state that does not believe in medical care as "God will heal". Several parents have been convicted for failure to provide medical care:

2010:

Faith-healing parents guilty in teen son's death - NBC News

2011:

Oregon faith-healing couple found guilty in infant's death

2011:

Oregon strips faith-healing parents of legal defenses

2018

A religious Oregon couple didn’t believe in medical care. After newborn’s death, they’re headed to prison.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you're going way out on a limb if you think you can generalize about what the "strongly religious" believe.

I'm not doing any more generalization than SG was.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
9th month abortions are a manufactured talking point trying to make pro-choice people look bad.

And yet, there are abortion advocates who argue for it, without any qualifications. They want abortion on demand, for any reason, up to the due date. They are a small minority, to be sure, but that's kind of my point.

You are missing the point: no one argues for a healthy baby to be aborted in the 9th month because 1) no doctor would do it, 2) no mother waits until the last month of pregnancy to abort her baby on a whim. A full term baby that had died in the womb or had a non-viable condition such as anencephaly or where the mother's life was at stake would be an induced BIRTH either vaginal or by C-section. Provide ONE case of a woman demanding or getting an abortion in her 9th month that did not meet one of these conditions. Go on.

Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done.

Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never.

Provide a case of a third semester abortion provided solely on "the whim of the mother." You say it is done so provide evidence.

Making abortion illegal doesn't decrease abortions.

Says who? Based on what evidence?

Based on this:

Nevertheless, for the past two decades scientists at the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute have been developing tools to estimate abortion rates around the globe. Both institutions support abortion rights for people worldwide. This past February, they published, for the first time, abortion rates for nearly every country. And they've also updated their analysis looking at how abortion rates vary across regions of the world – and whether the legality of the procedure is associated with those rates. "So let's say you group together the countries where abortion is broadly legal," says Bearak, who led the study. "And then you group together countries where abortion is completely prohibited altogether, even without exception for the health of the woman." Which group has the higher abortion rate? Here's what they found. In countries where abortion is broadly legal, there are between 36 and 47 abortions performed annually per 1,000 women, ages 15 to 49. And what about in countries where abortions are prohibited altogether? "In these countries, there are between 31 and 51 abortions annually per 1,000 women, on average," Bearak says. "People can be surprised by the findings," he says, "because the rates are basically the same across the two groups of countries."

Abortions shot way up after Roe v. Wade. There's no reason to think they won't go down in response to its repeal.

Has it dawned on you that the number of recorded abortions shot up because the procedure was no longer illegal and clinics/ hospitals could keep records in contrast to the actual number of abortions being performed in back alleys and not recorded?