Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade
Comments
-
While Kavanaugh is aborting his dinner in the back alley of a steakhouse, (if only he had a right to make private decisions between himself and the restaurant chef), in Texas they are sparking the fetal personhood debate
IIRC The Roe decision held that the unborn were not persons, but Dodd did not state the opposite when overturning it - SCOTUS didn't hold personhood extended to the unborn AFAIK.
So a whole new can of worms might be opened and the ramifications of fetal personhood could get pretty wild - am I owed 2 paychecks if I'm on the clock and pregnant? Persons have labor rights.
As for the justices and their steak dinners, they might consider doordash for a while
0 -
Biden's latest EO instructs hospital workers to provide abortions if it will save the mothers life, even in states where state law has banned abortions without medical exception like Oklahoma. The order pre-empts the state law, because federal emergency care laws pre-empt state laws.
I'd be concerned how this legal authority could be used in the polar opposite way in a future administration.
1 -
That's always a risk with EO's. Useless Congress should do something. But it seems since about Reagan Congress is happy to be useless.
2 -
Biden's latest EO instructs hospital workers to provide abortions if it will save the mothers life, even in states where state law has banned abortions without medical exception like Oklahoma.
It’s the ‘if’ in that statement that makes all the difference as it defines the conditions under which hospital workers are permitted to provide abortions. It’s not quite the Hail Mary that Xavier makes it out to be in his letter to hospitals -
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/emergency-medical-care-letter-to-health-care-providers.pdf
How does EMTALA define an emergency?
An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs." For example, a pregnant woman with an emergency condition must be treated until delivery is complete, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate.
https://www.acep.org/life-as-a-physician/ethics--legal/emtala/emtala-fact-sheet/
https://www.emra.org/emresident/article/emtala/
It’s of no real help whatsoever really, much like Biden’s latest EO has left me very confused tbh as to what it actually mandates or changes - it doesn’t appear to actually do anything. But your general point about EO’s is legitimate, and I can think of a few examples where depending upon who’s in office, they’ll flip-flop overturning the previous POTUS EOs where it suits their political positions.
0 -
I’ve been meaning to come back to you on this one all week Christy, it’s that it threw up more questions that I wanted to find answers for first, and then how to put all that together in a cogent post 😂
0 -
Advertisement
-
Tbh, it's reminding me a bit too much of our 8th amendment and doctors are potentially gonna be very weary depending on their state.
1 -
That is the point and anytime it happens they can blame the doctor saying it totally would have been allowed in that case with the benefit of hindsight.
1 -
And this is where the cultural impacts matter. Now that the eighth is repealed, attitudes change. Women are safer. Women can take more risks. Being 'forced birth' is less attractive as a philosphy now that the state has weighed in (not far enough but that's for the Abortion discussion thread).
The repeal of the right to privacy in the US via Dobbs will have the opposite effect in the US. Plus the Thomas court has already rumbled things about same-sex marriage and contraception, and the GQP is girding its tiny loins for a national abortion ban.
It's more than legal interpretation, it's the cultural/societal impacts that matter.
0 -
‘Attitudes change’ and ‘women are safer’, are non-specific ideas that don’t really say much, let alone equating being opposed to abortion with forced birth. ‘Forced birth’ if you want to put it in those terms, isn’t any less an attractive philosophy than it wasn’t before the introduction, or the repeal of the 8th amendment.
Physicians in both Ireland, and the US, still aren’t keen on providing abortion services, partially as they’re morally opposed to the idea, partially as they’re not trained to provide abortion services as part of healthcare services, and partially as they’re not willing to take the risk of being held liable under the law for performing abortions.
The difference that does appear to have meant women are safer is just all-round better healthcare, such as the discovery of antibiotics and their use in the treatment of infections -
That rather unfortunate gaffe wasn’t the reason why Planned Parenthood decided to ditch the only physician who had been the head of the organisation in 50 years. They ditched her partially because her management style was off-putting, but they also ditched her because she planned on expanding PP beyond just a political lobbying organisation, with plans to actually provide for and promote women’s overall healthcare -
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/us/politics/planned-parenthood-wen.html
Cultural impacts and social change does matter of course, and both have a great degree of influence over how people view abortion, or the necessity of abortion, vs the necessity of providing appropriate healthcare for women, not just when they are pregnant, but as part of a holistic approach to medicine. What I mean by that is a couple of things - abortion rates in the US are decreasing, and PP needs to stay relevant, but there appears to be a disconnect between PPs aims, and their employees values which have been inculcated through their participation in US society -
I’m just not sure that women actually can, or will for that matter, take more risks, when they are growing up in a society where they are taught that they cannot take risks, and it’s not just the case of ‘forced birthers’ wanting to control women’s bodies, it’s simply the case that people have different values and views for the kind of society that they want to live in. Their values are influenced not just by their political ideologies, but also by their religious, social and cultural ideologies -
It’s for these reasons that for example Alveda King is able to refer to abortion as “black genocide”, while members of Congress are pushing forward with the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act that refers to ‘women and birthing people’ (I have no doubt the inclusion of a reference to ‘birthing people’ is going to turn some people off supporting the Act, precisely because of those social and cultural influences) -
https://blackmaternalhealthcaucus-underwood.house.gov/Momnibus
The decision in Dobbs though was somewhat similar to the ABC v Ireland case if we were to equate the US with the Council of Europe, and SCOTUS with the ECHR - the right to privacy wasn’t repealed, it was determined that the right to privacy didn’t infer right to an abortion. The reason it is similar to the ABC v Ireland case is because the ECHR reached the same conclusion -
On the existence of a right to abortion, the Court underlined – just as the Commission already had (Brüggemann and Scheuten v. Germany, para 61) – that, although legislation regulating the interruption of pregnancy touches upon the sphere of private life, protected by ECHR Article 8(1), the norm ‘cannot be interpreted as meaning that pregnancy and its termination are, as a principle, solely a matter of the private life of the mother’ (Vo v. France, para 80). Instead, ‘the issue’ is ‘determined by weighing up various, and sometimes conflicting, rights or freedoms claimed by a woman, a mother or a father in relation to one another or vis-à-vis an unborn child.’ (Vo v. France, para 80). The Court has clarified that when the pregnant woman’s life is risked, access to abortion is non-negotiable (X v. the United Kingdom, para 19).
In 2010, it further acknowledged a consensus amongst the substantial majority of ECHR States-parties towards allowing abortion on broader grounds than the risk to the pregnant woman’s health (A, B and C v. Ireland, para 235). However, it found that the MoA enjoyed by the States on the regulation of abortions remained broad and that allowing abortions only when the health of the mother is at stake, did not exceed this MoA (A, B and C v. Ireland, para 241). To reach this conclusion, the Court relied on applicants’ discretion to travel to other ECHR States-parties for the requested abortion.
https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-right-to-abortion-and-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/
While the cultural and societal impacts do matter, what fundamentally underscores the impact of those influences is how they are interpreted in law, because it’s in law that what rights apply and what competing interests are in conflict in each and every case are determined, and that’s why it’s absolutely necessary for physicians to seek legal advice before they attempt a termination of a pregnancy, because the pregnant woman’s health or the physicians subjective determination of a particular course of treatment to pursue, aren’t the only risks involved that require consideration in how the patient (or patients, depending upon laws which may be relevant), are to be treated in each case.
0 -
Physicians in both Ireland, and the US, still aren’t keen on providing abortion services, partially as they’re morally opposed to the idea, partially as they’re not trained to provide abortion services as part of healthcare services, and partially as they’re not willing to take the risk of being held liable under the law for performing abortions.
Keen? In the US it's widely available. Ireland's only had it generally legal since 2018. Give it time. As has been stated in this thread many times, the right to abortion in the US is favored by a majority of the population - not the population that succeeded in stuffing the SCOTUS with RCC extremists, unfortunately.
And, you may not be aware of this, but Planned Parenthood isn't the only way to obtain termination of pregnancy in the US. Most physicians in states where it continues to be legal can provide. Planned Parenthood is largely used by women not served by physicians (poor, usually.) Further, it's a popular place for forced-birthers to get their abortions*
I’m just not sure that women actually can, or will for that matter, take more risks, when they are growing up in a society where they are taught that they cannot take risks, and it’s not just the case of ‘forced birthers’ wanting to control women’s bodies, it’s simply the case that people have different values and views for the kind of society that they want to live in. Their values are influenced not just by their political ideologies, but also by their religious, social and cultural ideologies -
Then, you don't know a lot of American women. Women's ability to make their own reproductive decisions is the threat that the right wing especially the RCC in the US was against. And the risk they avoided until Dobbs was being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Heck, some states are disallowing rape and incest (as in the case of the 10 year old being brought from Ohio to Indiana because she couldn't get an abortion any longer and would've been forced to bear a relative's child. At great personal physical risk, too.)
While the cultural and societal impacts do matter, what fundamentally underscores the impact of those influences is how they are interpreted in law, because it’s in law that what rights apply and what competing interests are in conflict in each and every case are determined, and that’s why it’s absolutely necessary for physicians to seek legal advice before they attempt a termination of a pregnancy, because the pregnant woman’s health or the physicians subjective determination of a particular course of treatment to pursue, aren’t the only risks involved that require consideration in how the patient (or patients, depending upon laws which may be relevant), are to be treated in each case.
And women at risk of dying from ectopic pregnancies now need to wait around till the doctor consults with a lawyer. If in fact one's available. This is just some of the truly awful cultural impact of Dobbs.
--
*Forced birthing is what it is. Note all the nonsensical verbiage like 'preborn' and 'unborn' that typically you here from GQP politicians these days. Have that baby - or else - is the attitude in a lot of the US these days. I agree with you, it's an odious philosophy. I disagree that the description is inaccurate.
1 -
Advertisement
-
What it does is clear: protects the medical exception in states that had expressly banned medical exceptions.
0 -
-
I’m not sure how you’d characterise ‘widely available’, but I don’t know that much has changed in how medicine is practiced in the US in the last 10 years since this survey was done -
Abortion providers' relative silence around their work may produce its own prevalence paradox. A recent survey of obstetrician-gynecologists showed that 14% of the approx- imately 50,000 obstetrician-gynecologists in the US do offer abortion care in the context of their practice [23,24]. While this is a lower estimate than some previous ones, it means that at least 7500 obstetrician-gynecologists offer some abortion services. However, it is unclear if this is more or fewer abortion providers than the general public perceives. If the population-at-large is aware that abortion training is required by the committee that sets ob-gyn training program curriculum standards, then the public perception may be that many more than 14% of ob-gyns offer abortion services. On the other hand, because this requirement is likely not known, and because abortion care itself is largely marginalized within medicine, 14% may actually represent a higher proportion of ob-gyn abortion providers than the public imagines. Given that some family physicians, pediatricians and other doctors also offer abortion care, a true prevalence paradox may indeed exist.
https://www.redaas.org.ar/archivos-recursos/522-PIIS0010782412007974.pdf
I don’t associate the idea of a right to an abortion with circumstances where an abortion is considered necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman in a medical emergency. They’re not the same thing; that’s why it’s easy to find the vast majority of people who support the right to abortion, much more difficult to find people who have actually performed an abortion - people will say plenty, but when it comes down to actually performing an abortion, they’re much more reluctant to be associated with it. In practice their declarations are meaningless, they don’t apply in circumstances where a termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the mothers life, because that’s already permitted by law. It’s what enables politicians to declare they want abortion to be safe, legal and rare… without having to delve too much into what they actually mean by that.
I do know that PP aren’t the only provider of abortion services, I only used them as an example because they’re one of the loudest political lobby groups in terms of promoting the right to abortion, I could’ve used NARAL or one of the many others, but they all operate more in the political sphere, as opposed to the public healthcare sector, by which I’m referring to public hospitals which have EDs that are equipped to provide for abortion in circumstances where it is determined to be necessary to save the mothers life. They’re a popular place for anyone who wants an abortion really, not just those people who are publicly opposed to abortion, until they find themselves in need of it. It’s hardly a surprise to anyone that there is an overwhelming stigma in relation to abortion when the vast majority of the population hold religious beliefs which are in direct conflict with the provision and practice of abortion -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6424365/
Women were always at risk of dying from an ectopic pregnancy, it’s why laws limiting the availability of abortion, don’t prohibit abortion in those circumstances. It’s not considered a right, so much as it’s considered a medical necessity to save the life of the mother in those circumstances. It’s not that they’re pregnant is what presents any substantial risk, it’s because the pregnancy is ectopic, and surgical intervention increases the risk of infection - the pregnant woman could still die even if an abortion is performed with the intent of saving her life. That’s one of the reasons why medical professionals in those circumstances may need to consult with their legal team, because if the patient is in a stable condition, they’re not in any immediate danger. I’m not sure HHS consulted with their legal team before ‘clarifying’ that EMTALA includes ‘abortion care’. It doesn’t, and that’s notwithstanding the fact that he forgot to mention physicians other obligations under the same act in certain circumstances; undocumented immigrants, for example -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8164497/
Must have slipped his mind…
I wouldn’t say any of the descriptions were inaccurate, from their own users to perspective. I don’t expect any sort of compromise will be forthcoming between those who argue in favour of anyone having the ability to exercise their right to an abortion, and those who are opposed to abortion and seek to limit anyones ability to access or provide for abortion on the basis that there is a conflict of interest in terms of rights which are recognised in law, and those that aren’t.
With regards to examples of odious declarations being made in recent times, the Utah State legislator who suggested women could “control their intake of semen”, is right up there with the suggestion that the Biden Administration allow for National Parks to be used to set up makeshift abortion clinics in tents -
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2022/06/24/utah-republicans-take/
https://www.eenews.net/articles/abortion-tents-in-national-parks-its-not-off-the-table/
It’s true that I don’t know many American women, but I highly doubt the women who came out with those sorts of ideas are actually representative of American women, more generally speaking, and that’s a good thing.
Post edited by One eyed Jack on1 -
"While Kavanaugh is aborting his dinner in the back alley of a steakhouse, (if only he had a right to make private decisions between himself and the restaurant chef)"
Do you feel strongly that slaughtering animals is cruel?
0 -
I doubt if flash mobs harassing Supreme Court Justices will come to a good end. It seems very foolhardy to me. Are police likely to turn a blind eye?
0 -
If justices of the Irish Supreme Court were to be confronted by mobs at restaurants what would posters here think of that? Always wrong or okay sometimes depending on the circumstances?
0 -
@One eyed Jack your phrase was keen, then you link to a paper about stigmatization of abortion providers, largely due to harassment and violence. "Keen" is a bad choice of words; providers provide health care, as you agree Planned Parenthood and Naral aren't the only sources. But, abortions are provided by many medical providers, and yes, it's hard to get the data on how many because they're not public with it - not because they won't perform the abortions (necessarily) but, because they don't want the harassment. Would you?
I don't think it's hard to find more people in favor of abortion than those who've done one. But, if you look at, say, shoutyourabortion.com you'll see plenty of women for whom their abortion was great for their lives.
But really, doctors perform abortions. There are more people in favor of abortion than there are doctors. That's just a silly comparison to make.
And as for ectopic pregnancies, you seem to miss the point yet again, I think this is the 3rd time we've been over this.
Pre-dobbs: Woman shows up with ectopic pregnancy, is immediately scheduled and has the abortion.
Post-dobbs: Doctor has to wait for a lawyer.
To argue that "oh, the surgery risks the woman's life" is confusing. The ectopic pregnancy does. Not performing it risks the woman's life. But not performing the surgery is... uh, I don't know, too many dimensions. Do I have it right, you're in favor of not providing the surgery if it won't save the woman's life? I think we'd agree that this is a decision to be made by the woman, and her doctor. With no lawyer's involved delaying things? Do you agree?
What's odious about abortion providers on federal land? You're not against providing abortions in general, are you? Yeah, federal lands aren't the best choice for locations, but with a few infrastructure dollars that's resolvable. Might even be able to upgrade clinics on tribal lands and use those.
1 -
I’m not sure it does tbh, and I’m absolutely certain that medical professionals aren’t going to rely on the opinion of a vaguely worded statement from the Secretary of the HHS claiming they are protected from prosecution either -
Thus, if a physician believes that a pregnant patient presenting at an emergency department, including certain labor and delivery departments, is experiencing an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA, and that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition, the physician must provide that treatment. And when a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted.
The enforcement of EMTALA is a complaint driven process. The investigation of a hospital’s policies/procedures and processes, or the actions of medical personnel, and any subsequent sanctions are initiated by a complaint. If the results of a complaint investigation indicate that a hospital violated one or more of the provisions of EMTALA, a hospital may be subject to termination of its Medicare provider agreement and/or the imposition of civil monetary penalties. Civil monetary penalties may also be imposed against individual physicians for EMTALA violations. Additionally, physicians may also be subject to exclusion from the Medicare and State health care programs. To file an EMTALA complaint, please contact the appropriate state survey agency.
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/emergency-medical-care-letter-to-health-care-providers.pdf
1 -
To be fair, I used the word keen in the context of physicians willing to provide abortion services, and cited the paragraph in the paper which suggests that only 14% of obgyns in the US are willing to provide abortion services. I was questioning the idea that abortion services are widely available in the US, because I don’t think they are, any more than they’re not widely available anywhere, and are limited to only a small number of healthcare providers willing to provide abortion services. Same story in Ireland has been pointed out only recently in a review of legislation permitting for abortion in limited circumstances -
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40777194.html
It’s not a silly comparison to make because the point I’m making is that while people are ideologically supportive of what is presented to them as a woman’s right to choose, becomes significantly more difficult to be so blasé when they are asked whether they are in favour of abortion. I’m not in favour of abortion. I do understand that it may be medically necessary in certain circumstances in order to save the life of the patient. Pre-Dobbs, post-Dobbs, in circumstances where abortion was deemed necessary, medical professionals still had to seek legal advice before they performed an abortion. Generally they were keen (I know, there’s that word again), to save both, if they could. In each case it will depend upon the circumstances involved -
https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-020-03465-y
We’re somewhere along the same lines in that I’d be opposed to the idea of doctors making all the decisions (the idea that “doctors know best”), and that there must be regard for the patients wishes, but where I’d disagree is that in cases where lawyers need to be involved, they be excluded because either the doctor or the patient are of the opinion that it means delaying their preferred means of administering treatment.
The reason I’m making the point, particularly in relation to how ectopic pregnancy is treated and being conscious of the risk of infection is because those factors have to be considered before surgery, and laparoscopic surgery limits the risk of infection, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a risk of infection, particularly sepsis, which doctors will undoubtedly be aware of. If they determine that an ectopic pregnancy will pass on it’s own, without surgical intervention, that’s a relief all round, as opposed to risking the woman’s life performing an abortion which could lead to an infection which kills her fairly rapidly if it’s not detected and managed properly. I think maybe now you might see why it’s not just that doing surgical procedures outdoors isn’t just a terrible idea, it’s short-term thinking in a desperate situation, and it’s absolutely guaranteed to put more women’s lives at risk of dying from infection than any women’s lives who are at risk of not being able to access abortion.
Those federal infrastructure dollars might just be better spent on providing supports for women and their families, than supporting the tiny number of people who are campaigning for what they believe is a legal and absolute right to abortion.
EDIT: Fixed the link in my previous post that should have read-
It’s hardly a surprise to anyone that there is an overwhelming stigma in relation to abortion when the vast majority of the population hold religious beliefs which are in direct conflict with the provision and practice of abortion -
Post edited by One eyed Jack on0 -
The women he sexually assaulted are still in hiding because of public death threats but poor Boofs there were loud people outside his steakhouse window.
6 -
Advertisement
-
Dicks sporting goods will pay employees 4k to have an abortion. Its cheaper to pay the staff rather than lose a member for an extended time and have more dependents added to the corporate healthcare plan.
Stop the lights
1 -
Dicks sporting goods will pay employees 4k to have an abortion.
No they won’t. What they’ve said is that they’ll reimburse employees travel expenses for an abortion, up to $4,000. They didn’t state anything about whether or not abortion is covered under their health benefits plans -
In reality it amounts to nothing more than corporates virtue signalling, and unsurprisingly, they’re not willing to give any further information -
1 -
This is nonsensical. A lawyer won't be able to state whether the risk of infection is too much. That is not their job, that is the job of a doctor. I don't care what the surgery is about I want a doctor to figure out the risks of going ahead with a surgery or not. I do not want the f'in lawyer making that decision. The lawyer can talk about when there might be a risk of suing but they do not have the training to say if it is the best decision or not.
Those infrastructure dollars will never, ever be spent on women and their families and those campaigning against the right to choose will make sure that any woman who gives birth outside of a traditional family is f'd to kingdom come and back. So go away with that stupid "lets just give the money here instead nonsense". The US has the money to do both, it isn't an either or scenario, to begin with you will find that those states that do allow abortion have better maternity survival rates and better social supports than those that don't (this isn't causation, it is just most of those against choice are also against social support. Pro choice campaigners have campaigned for decades for things to reduce the number of abortions, anti choice tend to campaign for things to reduce the number of safe abortions.
Curious how much of that 14% is down to equipment and not wanting all of their patients harassed along with bomb threats
2 -
If we had an unaccountable overtly politicised court taking away the rights of citizens, as the US now has, then all forms of non-violent resistance are legitimate
Life ain't always empty.
0 -
The 14% number is out of date. I didn't realize the study quoted a survey from 2011. That's over a decade ago.
It's at least 24% now, as of 2019 anyway. And, I think of all things, the number will be going up post-Dobbs because women will flock to states providing abortions when they need them, and there'll be a need for more OB/GYN's.
As is pointed out in this article, 72% of OB/GYN reported at least 1 client seeking an abortion in 2019. I'd say that makes it extremely popular in the US with pregnant people.
Note that Government-sponsored "restrictions" (imo pathways to harassment of doctors) is stated as a reason they don't provide medical abortions: "The survey also demonstrated that U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restrictions on the provision of medication abortion are a significant barrier to expanding provision. Eleven percent of Ob/GYNs in the survey said that the requirement to stock the medication in their clinic was a reason why they did not provide the abortion pill, and 28% of those not providing said they would start offering medication abortion if they could write a prescription for the drug."
If they could write prescriptions, then the forced-birthers would be forced to protest at drug stores, which likely isn't a good look for them, versus attacking individual offices which they routinely do.
Also, ectopic pregnancy is one risk of pregnancy, by far not the only one that could cause an abortion. Likewise, fatal fetal abnormality is another reason for an abortion, one that also is blocked by states implemented Dobbs. "Have that soon-to-die baby or else."
1 -
Except harassing judges in public places would not be seen as legitimate by AGS or the courts. You'd be entering a world of trouble.
1 -
I think we’ve firmly established that doctors are not legal professionals already, which is why they consult with legal professionals to determine what factors may be relevant in terms of what they are, and are not permitted to do by law in any given case.
I don’t think it’s true to say that those infrastructure dollars won’t ever be spent on supporting women and their families, in reality there’s just not enough spent on supporting women and their families, and while there is the capacity to do both, in reality that just hasn’t happened, because the focus appears to have been providing for abortion instead of providing for support for women and their families. Understandably, in wealthier States where people have better all-round access to healthcare, they have better health outcomes. It IS causation - better overall access to better social supports and better healthcare standards leads to better outcomes.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that pro-choice campaigners have done anything to reduce the number of abortions when organisations like Planned Parenthood spent $45 million on political campaigns to support abortion rights candidates in 2020 elections. Anti-abortion campaigners are actually focused on… well, preventing abortion! It’s why people who are pro-life don’t trust organisations like Planned Parenthood, because they have no good reason to.
That lack of trust extends to other social and healthcare issues which is why people living in poverty view the medical profession with an unhealthy degree of scepticism. It’s not just because they’re black that the maternal mortality rate among black women is four times that of white women. It’s because they don’t trust a medical profession that is made up of people who are nothing like them, who have a history of treating them like shyte. That’s why Cecile Richards when she was head of PP, gave a political speech telling white women at the Women’s March that they need to “do better”, it went down about as well as could be expected -
She urged white women to join forces with women of color to change the nation.
"So, white women, listen up. We've got to do better. ... It is not up to women of color to save this country from itself. That's on all of us. That's on all of us," said Richards, who also heads the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
"The good news is when we are in full on sisterhood, women are the most powerful, political force in America," she said.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/21/us/women-march-cecila-richards-trnd/index.html
It wasn’t aimed at supporting women and their families, it was aimed at promoting abortion rights, because funding for providing abortion services is their largest source of income. What they’re doing is inventing a problem, and then proposing their ideas as the solution to that problem.
As for your curiosity regarding the 14% figure and why the other 86% of 50,000 obgyns are unwilling to provide abortion services, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that bomb threats and the welfare of their patients, or just not wanting to deal with abortion are some of the factors involved in why they are reluctant to provide abortion services. Out of my own curiosity, and since the ‘shout your abortion’ website was mentioned earlier, I looked it up (I’d heard of it before, but I’ve no interest in it), and that’s going about as well as could be expected too -
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/hashtag-campaign-twitter-abortion.html
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/shout-your-abortion/
1 -
All anti abortion rights groups do is to stop safe/cheap abortions. It does not stop abortions, we know this. In Ireland we shipped our problem to England for decades and still do to a certain extent since the facilities need upgrading.
Look at the states that are anti safe abortion and see what they actually do to reduce the number of abortions (not just legal ones). How much do they put into sex ed for teens, how much do they put in for social welfare for families, how much do they put in public medical facilities. And if you want to argue they are just poor how much do the anti choice politicians argue for these things on a national level. It is absolutely true that that money won't see mothers and their families. I have payed attention to how they have voted for years, as soon as the mother gives birth they will call her a benefit cheat. The reason those states have worse outcomes for pregnancy is simply because the politicians don't actually give an F about any mother or child.
Trust me, plenty of pro life people have put their lives and the lives of loved ones in the hands of planned parenthood. They obviously had a good reason for the decision unlike the rest of the building.
1 -
Surely it just counts as protest. It is not outside the court nor outside the judge's house.
4 -
Advertisement
-
Look at the states that are anti safe abortion and see what they actually do to reduce the number of abortions (not just legal ones). How much do they put into sex ed for teens, how much do they put in for social welfare for families, how much do they put in public medical facilities. And if you want to argue they are just poor how much do the anti choice politicians argue for these things on a national level. It is absolutely true that that money won't see mothers and their families. I have payed attention to how they have voted for years, as soon as the mother gives birth they will call her a benefit cheat. The reason those states have worse outcomes for pregnancy is simply because the politicians don't actually give an F about any mother or child.
You mean like the ones I quoted in response earlier to @One eyed Jack and asked what they had in common? High infant mortality, high maternal mortality and strongly anti-abortion. I never did point out that their consumption of porn, that he brought up, wasn't what I was thinking of.
The draconian anti-abortion states are poor places for medical outcomes for women and fetuses. Completely unsurprising - one of the many 'cultural' problems you get when you confine women to the 2d class.
1
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
