Abortion news and discussion

[Pyperkub]

There is no evidence that late pregnancy abortions happen when the health of the mother/fetus isn't an issue.

Then it should be easy to make a law preventing it as it won't affect anyone.

Really? Just as environmental reviews aren't a hindrance to development?

[noxiousdog]

There is no evidence that late pregnancy abortions happen when the health of the mother/fetus isn't an issue.

Then it should be easy to make a law preventing it as it won't affect anyone.

Really? Just as environmental reviews aren't a hindrance to development?

Are you advocating getting rid of environmental reviews?

[GreenGoo]

Or we could have some rules around it like BAC or speed limits.

But we're talking about a (near) total ban because some place somewhere at sometime aborted a late stage pregnancy without going to jail. If you want to discuss abortion as a general topic go right ahead I guess, but this particular segment of the thread was kicked off because Georgia and Kentucky are competing to see how draconian they can make their abortion laws. You need to convince them that moderation is key before you convince me.

That said, I'd prefer medical guidelines over codification into law, because law enforcement oversight of legitimate medical treatments feels like government overreach regarding a person's body.

[GreenGoo]

Then it should be easy to make a law preventing it as it won't affect anyone.

This is the exact opposite of your view on laws covering just about anything else. Why make an unnecessary law?

[Montag]

So statistics:

In 2015 per CDC 638,169 abortions at a rate of 188 per 1,000 live births.
1.2% means ~7650 late term abortions.

In 2015 13,286 people killed by firearms, excluding suicide. Suicide would be a large number - in 2010 it was 19,392 - so say 20,000.

Wiki on gun violence in the US - sources BBC article and CDC.

My views are unsettled, but 600,000 abortions per year should be viewed as society fail regardless of your political view.

[gilraen]

Or we could have some rules around it like BAC or speed limits.

this particular segment of the thread was kicked off because Georgia and Kentucky are competing to see how draconian they can make their abortion laws.

From what I understand, there's more of an agenda behind all these dozens of new abortion laws that states are pushing. They know that these laws are going to court and most likely getting declared unconstitutional. The ultimate goal is to get at least one of these cases in front of the Supreme Court, where (thanks to Trump and McConnell) there's a very good chance of it being used to override Roe v. Wade.

[Isgrimnur]

My views are unsettled, but 600,000 abortions per year should be viewed as society fail regardless of your political view.

Perhaps we should improve education and services available to women so that they make better decisions and avoid the need/desire for one.

[coopasonic]

So statistics:

In 2015 per CDC 638,169 abortions at a rate of 188 per 1,000 live births.
1.2% means ~7650 late term abortions.

In 2015 13,286 people killed by firearms, excluding suicide. Suicide would be a large number - in 2010 it was 19,392 - so say 20,000.

Wiki on gun violence in the US - sources BBC article and CDC.

My views are unsettled, but 600,000 abortions per year should be viewed as society fail regardless of your political view.

Yes, but not failures to have strict enough abortion laws. They are failures in sex education, access to birth control and access to affordable maternal care. There is a link between preventing abortion and perpetuating poverty... I am not clear on how perpetuating poverty helps anyone, but I have ideas.

[Montag]

My views are unsettled, but 600,000 abortions per year should be viewed as society fail regardless of your political view.

Perhaps we should improve education and services available to women so that they make better decisions and avoid the need/desire for one.

Absolutely. If both sides would put 1/2 the effort here, the outcomes would be immensely better.

[Isgrimnur]

My views are unsettled, but 600,000 abortions per year should be viewed as society fail regardless of your political view.

Perhaps we should improve education and services available to women so that they make better decisions and avoid the need/desire for one.

Absolutely. If both sides would put 1/2 the effort here, the outcomes would be immensely better.

And yet one side is actively pulling the other way.

[noxiousdog]

My views are unsettled, but 600,000 abortions per year should be viewed as society fail regardless of your political view.

Perhaps we should improve education and services available to women so that they make better decisions and avoid the need/desire for one.

Absolutely. If both sides would put 1/2 the effort here, the outcomes would be immensely better.

And yet one side is actively pulling the other way.

Both sides are.

One side wants no abortion laws and the other wants (but doesn't codify) a total ban. Both are part of their platforms. Frankly, the Democratic platform is more extreme, but I understand that the Republican platform is more subtle and would immediately move if there were even a chance it could be enacted.

Democratic Platform: "We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment."

Republican Platform: "Over a dozen states have passed Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts prohibiting abortion after twenty weeks." & "American taxpayers should not be forced to fund abortion."

[Isgrimnur]

Your Dem quote is from the first paragraph. Here's the second:

We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful access to reproductive health care services, including those based on gender, sexuality, race, income, disability, and other factors. We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care, evidence-based sex education and a full range of family planning services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

Seems like both parties could agree on the desire for that last phrase.

[noxiousdog]

Your Dem quote is from the first paragraph. Here's the second:

We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful access to reproductive health care services, including those based on gender, sexuality, race, income, disability, and other factors. We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care, evidence-based sex education and a full range of family planning services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

Seems like both parties could agree on the desire for that last phrase.

No doubt, which is why I don't trust the Republican party on the issue. If they really cared about preventing abortion, they'd prevent as many conceptions as possible.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm glad we can agree on that.

At the moment, the balance is being weighted to their side. I'll worry about the excesses of the Dem platform when they stand a snowball's chance in Houston of being implemented.

[gbasden]

If "pro-life" activists really cared about reducing abortion they would see results like this from Colorado and embrace it.

The steep drop in teen pregnancies and abortions in Colorado since 2009 is mainly due to one thing: free, low-cost access to IUDs.

Intrauterine devices — tiny, T-shaped pieces of plastic placed in the uterus — are the main reason Colorado’s teen birth rate fell 54 percent and the teen abortion rate declined 64 percent in the last eight years, state health officials said Thursday.

The astounding numbers, capturing the eight-year period since IUDs became an affordable option for low-income health clinics, were released along with a study estimating the state avoided paying nearly $70 million for labor and delivery, well-baby check-ups, food stamps and child-care assistance because of fewer births to teen moms.

But instead Republicans are trying their best to kill the program.

[GreenGoo]

My views are unsettled, but 600,000 abortions per year should be viewed as society fail regardless of your political view.

How do you figure? What percentage of those are societal failure? What number would be a society success? This sort of blanket statement (which is overly simplistic and inaccurate) is exactly why politicians need to stay out of the relationship between patients and their doctors.

Even if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions per year, some abortions are always going to be reasonable, even in a "successful" society.

[noxiousdog]

I'm glad we can agree on that.

At the moment, the balance is being weighted to their side. I'll worry about the excesses of the Dem platform when they stand a snowball's chance in Houston of being implemented.

It depends on the state. They just did in New York.

Regardless, I think their stance keeps folks from voting for a Democratic president. It is super easy to paint Democrats as extreme. In fact, the Republican platform does just that, "The Democratic Party is extreme on abortion. Democrats’ almost limitless support for abortion, and their strident opposition to even the most basic restrictions on abortion, put them dramatically out of step with the American people." They even go so far as to put it in a special highlighted text box in the middle of their PDF. The celebration of the New York law just emphasizes it further.

[GreenGoo]

My views are unsettled, but 600,000 abortions per year should be viewed as society fail regardless of your political view.

Perhaps we should improve education and services available to women so that they make better decisions and avoid the need/desire for one.

Absolutely. If both sides would put 1/2 the effort here, the outcomes would be immensely better.

And yet one side is actively pulling the other way.

Both sides are.

...but that's not the context of the quote chain you're commenting on here.

a) abortions means society failed.
b) failed in sex ed and services
c) Agreed, both sides should put in more effort in sex ed and services
d) But only 1 side is pulling the other way (from sex ed and services)
e) Both sides are.

both c) and e) are demonstrably false. This is exactly the "both sides" crap that you've been lamenting during horse race coverage of elections. Democrats are absolutely NOT pulling away from sex ed and services. That is the sole providence of Republicans.

Any failure of society regarding abortions is fully on the Republicans' shoulders. Period.

Nox is determined to make this somehow "unlimited abortions for all" vs "no abortions for anyone", when it's really "let the doctor/patient decide" vs "no abortions for anyone".

One side wants reason to prevail, the other side wants absolutely none. Nox suggests that Democrats can be painted as extreme, but that's like saying a town that allows drinking and a dry town are two sides of the same coin of extremeness. It's a silly argument based on an imaginary hypothetical and not reality.

[noxiousdog]

Nox is determined to make this somehow "unlimited abortions for all" vs "no abortions for anyone", when it's really "let the doctor/patient decide" vs "no abortions for anyone".

Wrong.

Democratic platform: "We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment."

There's no mention of a doctor or health. It's a blanket statement to oppose any law that impedes access without a timetable.

You can spin it all you want, but it's black and white.

[Sepiche]

Wrong.

Democratic platform: "We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment."

There's no mention of a doctor or health. It's a blanket statement to oppose any law that impedes access without a timetable.

You can spin it all you want, but it's black and white.

Your interpretation of that line says more about you and your biases than the Democratic platform to be honest.

[noxiousdog]

Wrong.

Democratic platform: "We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment."

There's no mention of a doctor or health. It's a blanket statement to oppose any law that impedes access without a timetable.

You can spin it all you want, but it's black and white.

Your interpretation of that line says more about you and your biases than the Democratic platform to be honest.

Is this like literally meaning figuratively?

Impede doesn't mean impede?

[GreenGoo]

Is this like literally meaning figuratively?

Impede doesn't mean impede?

Opposing codifying abortion restrictions into law is not the opposite of no abortions for anyone, by law. The Democrat and Republican stances are not opposite extremes.

[noxiousdog]

Is this like literally meaning figuratively?

Impede doesn't mean impede?

Opposing codifying abortion restrictions into law is not the opposite of no abortions for anyone, by law. The Democrat and Republican stances are not opposite extremes.

"We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment."

The Republican official policy is 20 weeks and they won't pay for it or make it easy.

[Isgrimnur]

The Republican official policy is 20 weeks and they won't pay for it or make it easy.

Then maybe they should adhere to the policy and stop trying to move it to, "five minutes, and we get to watch."

[noxiousdog]

The Republican official policy is 20 weeks and they won't pay for it or make it easy.

Then maybe they should adhere to the policy and stop trying to move it to, "five minutes, and we get to watch."

I think it's pretty clear I don't trust nor agree with their policy. Legal medical services shouldn't be excluded from funding.

[Isgrimnur]

The Republican official policy is 20 weeks and they won't pay for it or make it easy.

Then maybe they should adhere to the policy and stop trying to move it to, "five minutes, and we get to watch."

I think it's pretty clear I don't trust nor agree with their policy. Legal medical services shouldn't be excluded from funding.

It is pretty clear. What is not clear to me at the moment is what your actual stance is.

[noxiousdog]

Here, let's do it this way.

You guys tell me when, according to the Democratic Party, during a pregnancy it should be illegal to have an abortion assuming no health issues to the mother or child, no incest, and no rape.

[gilraen]

Here, let's do it this way.

You guys tell me when, according to the Democratic Party, during a pregnancy it should be illegal to have an abortion assuming no health issues to the mother or child, no incest, and no rape.

When the fetus is viable outside of the mother. Since at that point it's called "birth".

[Isgrimnur]

Here, let's do it this way.

You guys tell me when, according to the Democratic Party, during a pregnancy it should be illegal to have an abortion assuming no health issues to the mother or child, no incest, and no rape.

So you want to tilt at a windmill that's not even remotely within the realm of possibility for the foreseeable future? Seems grounds for a productive discussion.

[Zarathud]

I am sure the practical Democratic Party's official line would be the third trimester standard of Roe v. Wade.

The Democrats have to step up their rhetoric because the anti-abortion activists are willing to go so far as these bullshit "heartbeat" abortion bans and literally assassinating abortion providers.

[Holman]

Here, let's do it this way.

You guys tell me when, according to the Democratic Party, during a pregnancy it should be illegal to have an abortion assuming no health issues to the mother or child, no incest, and no rape.

See above.

Right now the boogeyman scenario used to defend earlier and earlier abortion restrictions is "in some states a woman can abort a baby right up until the moment of delivery!!" The logic seems to be that because this is legal somewhere, it just makes sense to make it illegal closer and closer to conception.

But does this ever actually happen? Even in a place where it is legal to abort just prior to delivery (and I don't know if any exist), do healthy women with healthy babies actually carry almost to term and then decide to abort? I'm guessing no.

According to Planned Parenthood and the CDC, only 1.2% of abortions occur at or after 21 weeks (the halfway point of gestation). It's likely that most of these are due to discovery of serious health problems with the fetus or the mother.

I'd be very interested to learn the rates at which healthy mothers with a healthy fetus facing no serious trauma decide to abort very late. Such cases are probably so rare as to be statistically invisible, but apparently they're driving national policy.

Compare/Contrast the percentage of guns that are used in murders.

When dealing with things that should be illegal, you're likely going to find a small percentage of the population that would engage in that kind of behavior.

We aren't talking about what 999/1000 people would do. We're talking about 1 in 1000 or less.

[GreenGoo]

Here, let's do it this way.

You guys tell me when, according to the Democratic Party, during a pregnancy it should be illegal to have an abortion assuming no health issues to the mother or child, no incest, and no rape.

This is a strawman because it assumes the law needs to be involved at all.

[noxiousdog]

It's interesting to see all the different answers.

So far we have two for always, one for third trimester, and two for it doesn't matter.

And no, Isgrimmur, I was looking for clarification.

[GreenGoo]

Wow, what incredible inconsistencies, you've really put a spotlight on democratic extremism.

[Zarathud]

It's interesting to see all the different answers.

So far we have two for always, one for third trimester, and two for it doesn't matter.

And no, Isgrimmur, I was looking for clarification.

You would have received similar from the Republican Party before The Gingrich Purge of RINOs. Only the Republicans have the Doctrinal Orthodoxy that leads to Tyranny.

The Democrats are disorganized. You're not going to get clarification beyond the party's extremes.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo on the current state and last two decades of battle at the state level.

[Smoove_B]

Meanwhile, as an update to Isg's 5/1 post, Alabama set to pass nation's strictest law - would send a doctor to prison for 10-99 years for performing an abortion:

The measure would be the strictest abortion ban in the U.S. Lawmakers rejected an amendment 21-11 that would have created exemptions for rape or incest — provisions typically included in anti-abortion legislation. The bill, called the Human Life Protection Act, includes an exemption if a woman were to seek an abortion because her pregnancy threatens her health, and it wouldn't punish women for having an abortion.

If Ivey, a Republican, signs the bill into law, then it's likely to be immediately stopped by a federal judge because it violates Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion across the U.S. Still, it is one of several measures that red states are passing to try to force the justices to take up the issue under the court's more conservative makeup.

[Pyperkub]

More on Alabama

[Drazzil]

More on Alabama

F the Alabama legislature.

[tjg_marantz]

Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant," a statement that garnered a mixture of groans and cackles from the chamber's gallery.


Let that fucking sink in. Morally bankrupt fucktwit.