Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

They're banned.

Or lessons from Ireland 35 years ago... for a while you could be jailed if you held a sign with the phone number 01 - 679 4700 so they figured out if each person only held up one digit they might get away with it...

Great my wife is going to have another panic attack. We live in this dumbass state.

Hello again.

A few days ago a 5th circuit judge in Texas iirc ruled to block the legal use of mifepristone, the abortion pill, by blocking the FDA approval of the drug.

A separate federal circuit judge elsewhere, issued a competing ruling protecting the drug. Mifepristone was approved 23 years ago by the FDA.

It's now going to go back to SCOTUS, where they just undid Roe vs. Wade just 10 months ago.

Laws blocking the pill from being mailed or administered by teleheath were considered 'TRAP Laws' - there's no medicalogical reason they can't be remotely prescribed to the patient, but some states still try to insist it must happen in a clinic, and those clinics must have operating room grade facilities, it cant be X miles from any school etc. etc. to push cost up and access out to abortions for arbitrary and capricious reasons.

Even if everything you wrote were absolutely true, and I don't grant that it is, none of it matters. The concept of bodily autonomy overrides other considerations. In the US at least a person's body cannot be used without their consent. Even to save the life of another person. Even if that person will die without it. If you were the only match that could be found for someone who needed a kidney or they would die, you cannot be forced to donate that kidney. Bone marrow donation is another one. The procedure for doing it means that the person that is going to receive the donor marrow needs to have their marrow destroyed before the donor donates their marrow. So there is a window before the donor has donated their marrow but the patient who needs the marrow has had their marrow destroyed and so they will die a horrible painful death if they don't get new marrow. During that window it is still perfectly legal for the donor to back out. And it happens. I know of at least two instances of it happening in just my personal experience. There isn't any way to find a new donor in time, so patients that this happens to die. But as bad as it is, there still shouldn't be a law forcing them to. Because people have bodily autonomy.

Around 13 people per day die in the US because they need a kidney. If everyone was tissue typed it would be easy to find someone that matched most if not all of those people, and then as long as they had two kidneys they could donate one. Liver transplants don't even require the entire organ be transplanted, so people could just give up part of their liver to save the life of another person. And if everyone was required to donate blood regularly, especially people who are O-, there would never be a worry about the blood supply. None of that is legislated though, because people have bodily autonomy and you cannot force them to use their body to help someone else.

In 2022 there were 33 maternal deaths for every 100,000 births in the US. In 2019, the most recent year I could find numbers for, there were 4 maternal deaths related to abortion procedures. Women are considerably more likely to die due to a pregnancy than they are due to an abortion. Forcing them to give birth is forcing them to risk their lives against their will.

Abortions involve a doctor?

Then it sure isn't automobile repair. It's healthcare.

The emotional argument is your own: judging people for what they do privately. It has nothing to do with you.

An abortion is healthcare, so your statement is illogical.

It is in fact often related to and likened to an operating procedure by anti-abortion activists. Many of whom have been successful in requiring state abortion facilities to be surgically prepped facilities to handle all procedures and complications.

If it had nothing at all to do with healthcare why would anti-abortion activists lobby to have abortion done only under the most clinical of conditions? 😶

Why would the Mississippi state regs on abortion facilities mention "health" 51 times?

Sure seems like the Republicans totally understand it to be healthcare based on the evidence.

Oh grow the hell up. Life's infinitely more complex than that pea brained so called 'pro life" comment could ever countenance. There are multitudes of physical medical reasons for needing an abortion without touching on the psychological reasons. Any absolutist reasoning is the refuge of a ducking moron who has never lived a day in the real world.

Irrelevant:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The validity of such statistics are specious at best it is a healthcare issued tied to healthcare privacy.

Nobody is required to explain to anyone else why they sought an abortion.

No they're not.They're making a perfectly valid argument.

I don't actually care whether women have abortions or not that is their own business but it doesn't help the argument in favour of abortion when people are completely disingenuous when they argue for it.

In almost all cases it isn't a healthcare issue everybody know this is the case everybody know the reason people want abortion legalized is so women can have the option to have one if they wish.

If it was genuinely a healthcare issue then you wouldn't have people pushing for free for all abortion you'd have them arguing for abortion with clauses attached to it but of course that isn't the case people who argue in favour of abortion want no free for all abortion without any medical reason which is perfectly fine.

By making the very flawed and largely innacurate argument "abortion is a healthcare issue" it allows people to push back against that argument and point out it's disingenuous and further delays any progress of the issue arguing "women should be allowed to have an abortion for the simple reason they want to have one" means you reduce the amount of flaw in that idea and reduce the amount of ways you can argue against it therefore strengthening the argument.

I've said a few times if a woman has an abortion I'm fine with it that I don't care.

Everything you've talked about here indicates that 'but' is doing all the heavy lifting. You actually have a great amount of consternation over whether women can have abortions or not, and what you think they should be allowed to have them, for.

Family Planning is Healthcare, even in Republican states.