1ºMelinda Hollingsworth It's not a religious issue, despite your best attempts to paint it as such. Religious people may agree with it, but so do a lot of non-religious people. The whole matter was a legal power grab robbing states of a right that was theirs explicitly and giving rights to people that weren't even implied in the Constitution. Undoing it is restoring rights that were actually guaranteed by the Constitution, back to the states. That's the whole purpose of looking at past decisions, unless you still think that the Three Fifths Compromise was a good decision that should never have been revisited. The court made law...not its job. The court undid a Constitutional mistake...its job.
2ºJoe Sanchez Keep in mind that the initial post and my comment were about an increase in birth control usage. You were the one who decided to get off topic. However, I'm perfectly fine going down this rabbit hole; just be aware that I do my homework.
First off, women are REGULARLY denied sterilization procedures. There's literally a running Google doc being shared across the internet with a list of doctors that will do it without question. The fact that it has to exist is problematic. Oh and are we going to ignore the fact that those justices that overturned roe v wade have already set their sights on access to birth control?
Second, let's talk about the difference between elective and necessary abortion. The problem with "state's rights" is that state representatives are idiots and can't tell the difference. A miscarriage is considered a spontaneous shmabortion. Many pregnancies require medical intervention as a result. Many women will go into sepsis as a result of a nonviable pregnancy. Ohio thinks eptoctic pregnancies can be reimplanted (they can't, and an eptoctic pregnancy is deadly). Many women have underlying health concerns that would be exacerbated as a result of pregnancy, and they will likely not get the care they need (if you notice in the comments of my post, there are many women echoing this sentiment). This already happens, and bans will make it worse.
But even if we were talking about elective procedures, it's obvious that this isn't about the baby; it's about controlling women. When the penalty for getting an shmabortion is harsher than the penalty for grape, then it's not about the baby. When there is no discussion about child support payments being assessed as soon as paternity can be confirmed *which is in utero*, then it's not about the baby. When they're no discussion about forced vasectomies or removing access to viagra, it's not about the baby. When women need a board of old white men to decide whether she can get a lifesaving procedure, it's not about the baby. When the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country and it's worse in red states and poc are particularly impacted, it isn't about the baby. When women's pain and concerns are regularly dismissed and ignored in the medical field, it isn't about the baby. When the conversation around overturning roe v wade isn't paired with a conversation about addressing the foster care/adoption system, it isn't about the baby. When the same representatives who cheered overturning roe v wade also vote against legislation to address the formula shortage, it isn't about the baby. When those same representatives advocate for cutting welfare programs, it isn't about the baby. When those same representatives are against a minimum wage increase, it isn't about the baby. When those same representatives aren't pushing for paid maternity leave, it isn't about the baby.
I could go on.
"Why do you not realize that nothing has changed and the law is just not nationwide but in the hands of each state?" Do you honestly think I don't realize that? Do you honestly think that I couldn't possibly be concerned about anyone other than myself? That my compassion ends with women in states where bans are passed? Not to mention the states trying to make it illegal for anyone to travel outside the state for the procedure, assuming that every woman could afford to do that. I'm pretty sure the "state's rights" logic was used in the Dred Scott vs. Stanford case. Because that worked out well.
As it is, doctors and hospitals already had the ability to refuse to perform these procedures. Women already died because of that, and more women will die now that state law will force doctors to err on the side of "caution" rather than exercising their professional opinion on the subject. Why doesn't it make more sense to leave the decision up to the individual and their doctor rather than state intervention?
3ºMaureen W-Wright Respectfully mam, you are misinformed. Several states had trigger laws set to take effect as soon as Roe was overturned. By the time all of them take effect twenty-six states will have banned it. I think we're at 16 today, if I remember correctly. Many of those states want to restrict inter-state travel and prosecute women if they go out of state to attain an abortion.
The other person commenting here about maternal mortality was sadly not making that up. I've heard stories too numerous to catalog about women needing a termination to save her life and being unable to get one in the more restrictive states. I've listened to obstetricians explain how these laws affect the women they treat and what they are allowed to do and when. There isn't a switch that tells the doctors when a patients' life is at enough risk that it won't be challenged by non medical people in a court of law.
Sadly in many cases a women needs to be at death's door in order for it to be clearly legally permissible according to those who oppose abortion. It's unfortunately not a black and white situation. And what's most frustrating is that it's people without a medical background or in many cases even a basic understanding of how our biology works making those laws.
Just because you don't want to believe that they would let women die unnecessarily unfortunately doesn't make it true. It's one of the many reasons that people are so upset about this Supreme Court ruling right now.
4ºAsteria Chandra good lord girl! I stated what your options were. I stated that that was why the ruling was handed down. It was a weak ruling 50 years ago and honestly needed a congressional bill to hold it up. Did you not read that I am pro choice? Your so emotional that you jump off a cliff when someone presents facts to you. You cannot get anything done if you go on an emotional tyrade. We need to be leval headed and work together to get things accomplished. The reality is, I also support adoption as well. So we need to address that issue as well. More adoptions would take place if the cost wasn’t astronomical! I have friends who foster, they would love to adopt, but your talking$60,000 in legal fees! That is why we have so many in foster care. We need a multi prong approach to 1) prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place on those we can.. 2) provide safe and legal options in cases where abortion is needed and 3) most certainly provide support for those who choose to carry to term by making adoptions more available and affordable. Now, take a breath and think about that for a bit!
5ºDebbie Farrow Scannell no, you are a lunatic because you don't see the realities of pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancies, chronically ill women, miscarriages that the woman's body can't dispel on their own and ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT CAN AND DO GO WRONG WITH PREGNANCY that women will now have to just die ( and most times just slowly bleed to death) because you and others of your ilk cannot fathom that life isn't fair and sometimes a baby just won't make it into this world. And instead of losing BOTH THE WOMEN AND THE FETUS/BABY, we could just not let that fetus/baby suffer and let the women live. HOWEVER, since you just want to stick your nose in things that YOU NEITHER UNDERSTAND NOR WANT TO UNDERSTAND, it's now NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to get health care. You and those politicians WERE NOT IN THE DOCTORS OFFICE WITH HER, you DID NOT KNOW OR CARE FOR the reason WHY she was getting an abortion and you all JUST ASSUMED that it were ALL UNWANTED PREGNANCIES that you voted for it to be illegal. Heads up, those politicians you SO LOVE AND WORSHIP AS GODS, are the ones WHO GET THE MOST ABORTIONS DONE FOR THEIR MISSTRESSES. They will ALWAYS get an abortion first. But hey, you are always right and your religion is the only religion in the world so yeah, everyone should be forced into that religion of yours. It hasn't done anything wrong in the history of the world at all.
6ºAsteria Chandra 83% of the population does.. you can still chose.. the ruling put it back into states hands. Yes, that means travel to areas that supports it, or getting your state to approve it. I currently live in a no abortion state, I am choosing to let my state representative know I don’t agree. But medications( ie pill) or otc contraception is far too controversial for a political party to address. Robert’s wrote his opinion based on his interpretation of whether it could potentially be looked at, not that they will. It would need to come up thru court system as a case for Supreme Court to even address.. very doubtful anyone would take that on.
7º"We've got to take this stuff seriously, as seriously as you are because you have been forced to take this seriously," Harris said to the press and Highland Park residents.
"The whole nation should understand and have a level of empathy to understand that this could happen anywhere [to] any people in any community. And we should stand together and speak out about why it's got to stop," Harris added before stepping away.
SHE NEEDS TO LEARN WORDS.. WTF IS THIS WORD SALAD. Proof picking someone just because of race doesn't work. Box of rocks comes to mind. Does she actually do anything ?
8ºWith your insensitivity, it makes sense that you align with the Republicans that want to put women between a rock and a hard place. Ban contraceptives, allow religious organizations to not cover contraception, make it difficult to access healthcare, make laws to prevent women from being sent contraception and Plan B, and then banning abortion. It is almost as if these religious zealots are trying to force women to change their sexual habits due to their own ideas on how women should behave. And then Republicans do not want to provide services to women and children after the fact, such as drug testing them for food stamps. Let the heavily gerrymandered states decide! All to continue to oppress women and women of color. They force people into impossible situations and then demonize them for being poor. You can all go to hell.
9ºNorad Titep contraceptive measures aren’t 100%. There are times it doesn’t work (like when on an antibiotic) so barrier methods are needed on top of that and they have one of the least effective chances of preventing pregnancy. No, the no hope is because if legal abortion isn’t an option, then of course BC methods will double and triple in cost. Eventually, insurances will weigh in on inflated costs. Demand goes up, cost goes up. Not everyone uses abortion like a BC pill….many use it to prevent their own death…ectopic pregnancies require abortive measures or the mother dies…and that’s very early in the process…probably during the time people are still trying to determine if it counts as a fetus or as a person.
10ºMary Mann Ok. I mean if you're referring to the person that actually quoted a statistic, I'm still waiting for where that statistic came from... Unlike myself, I've provided three different links to different statistics I've used.
I mean if you want to take a bunch of people saying, nobody does that, it never happens but there's no statistical data to back those claims up as fact, that's your choice.
I make no claims that a late term abortion, healthy mother, healthy fetus is common... And agree that a woman that would do that, obviously has a few issues.
So once again I post a question, why the resistance in making an abortion in that situation illegal?
You can still have a first trimester abortion, still should allow abortions in the second and third trimester for medical reasons regarding both child and mother.