Abortion news and discussion

[Isgrimnur]

The non-Wendy Davis thread.

Poland

A member of Poland's conservative government said Wednesday that mass protests by women against a total abortion ban have been a lesson in "humility" for the country's leadership and that "there will not be a total abortion ban."

Jaroslaw Gowin, the minister of science and higher education, said the protests by women have "caused us to think and taught us humility."

The comments appear to indicate that Poland's conservative leadership will withhold support from the highly unpopular proposal to ban abortions, even in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is at risk.

The right-wing government, led by the Law and Justice party, is also under international pressure not to move forward with the idea, with a debate scheduled later Wednesday in the European Parliament on the situation of women in Poland.

Poland already outlaws abortions, with exceptions made only for rape, incest, badly damaged fetuses or if the mother's life is at risk. In practice, though, some doctors, citing moral objections, refuse to perform even legal abortions.

Polish women seeking abortions typically get them in Germany or other neighbouring countries or order abortion pills online.
...
The matter has led to mass protests by women, the largest on Monday when thousands of women turned out dressed in black. Many also boycotted work and classes.

[NickAragua]

What kind of shitty east european country is this, anyway? Public protests where the protesters aren't hosed down with water and tear gas and the politicians acknowledge the complaints? I call BS.

[GreenGoo]

They don't even have 99% turnout with a 90%+ favourability rating.

It's like they aren't even trying to be democratic.

[Max Peck]

Poland

In practice, though, some doctors, citing moral objections, refuse to perform even legal abortions.

Is there any place in the world where doctors are forced to perform abortions against their will?

[Pyperkub]

Poland

In practice, though, some doctors, citing moral objections, refuse to perform even legal abortions.

Is there any place in the world where doctors are forced to perform abortions against their will?

Yup. for money everywhere.

[Max Peck]

Poland

In practice, though, some doctors, citing moral objections, refuse to perform even legal abortions.

Is there any place in the world where doctors are forced to perform abortions against their will?

Yup. for money everywhere.

How so? Where, specifically, are doctors being forced to perform abortions if they don't want to do so? I've never heard of such a thing, which is why that sentence in the article seemed odd to me.

[ImLawBoy]

Poland

In practice, though, some doctors, citing moral objections, refuse to perform even legal abortions.

Is there any place in the world where doctors are forced to perform abortions against their will?

Yup. for money everywhere.

How so? Where, specifically, are doctors being forced to perform abortions if they don't want to do so? I've never heard of such a thing, which is why that sentence in the article seemed odd to me.

Pure speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear it happened in China during one baby days.

[Kraken]

Last night at dinner we were talking about whether BLTGB rights would come up in the vp debate. Wife said that candidates would avoid mentioning gay marriage because it's settled law and no longer up for debate. I pointed out that abortion has been settled law for 40+ years but is still a campaign issue. Wife admitted that Republicans have to sound off to their base about abortion, but insisted that nobody would mention it in the general election because opposing abortion rights = opposing women's health = opposing women, and that would just be stupid. I rolled my eyes and let that slide because she was not persuadable.

She was so chastised after we watched the vp debate that she offered an apology without even being prompted.

[Isgrimnur]

Mississippi

A federal judge on Thursday sided with women's health provider Planned Parenthood in a lawsuit aiming to block a Mississippi law that barred medical providers that perform abortions from participating in the state's Medicaid program.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan III is the latest in a string of rulings striking down similar laws elsewhere in the country against the women's health provider.

Jordan's two page order noted a ruling from the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals that rejected a similar law in Louisiana, saying "essentially every court to consider similar laws has found that they violate" federal law.
...
Planned Parenthood said in its complaint that the law, which went into effect in July, unconstitutionally limited patients' rights to choose the healthcare provider of their choice and would have stopped it from serving low-income patients.
...
In August, a federal judge prevented Ohio from cutting federal taxpayer funding from 28 Planned Parenthood clinics in the state, setting back the governor's hopes of stopping the women's health services group from providing abortions.

[Default]

It was my understanding that 80% of abortions are performed on women who live under the poverty line. I have not had time to vet that, but it seems to me that decreasing the number of women living in poverty should be at least a talking point.

[Isgrimnur]

Slate, 2015

Richard Reeves and Joanna Ventor of the Brookings Institution have a new paper out examining the impact income level has on unintended childbearing among single women.* They found that women have about the same amount of sex regardless of class, but poorer women are five times as likely to have unintended births than more affluent women. A huge chunk of the reason, they conclude, is because of the gap in abortion and contraception access.
...
Using economic modeling, they found that if poorer women had the same access to contraception as more well-off women, it would cut the birth rate for single women living in poverty in half. Doing the same for abortion would also have a dramatic impact, reducing the birth rate from 72 births per 1,000 women to 49. Of course, the real solution would be to make both contraception and abortion accessible to lower-income women, which would probably result in their unintended birth rate coming very close to what it is for higher-income women.
...
One of the peculiar facts the Brookings Institution pulls out is that the abortion rate is higher for the highest income bracket they looked at, which was 400 percent of the poverty rate. Single women who make $47,000 or more a year abort 32 percent of their pregnancies, whereas single women making $11,670 a year or less abort only 8.6 percent of their pregnancies. Women in the middle abort 11 percent of their pregnancies. That may seem hard to square with data from the Guttmacher Institute that shows that the majority of abortions are obtained by women living in or near poverty: Nearly 70 percent of abortions are for women who make 200 percent or less of the federal poverty line.

[stessier]

Slate, 2015

One of the peculiar facts the Brookings Institution pulls out is that the abortion rate is higher for the highest income bracket they looked at, which was 400 percent of the poverty rate. Single women who make $47,000 or more a year abort 32 percent of their pregnancies, whereas single women making $11,670 a year or less abort only 8.6 percent of their pregnancies. Women in the middle abort 11 percent of their pregnancies. That may seem hard to square with data from the Guttmacher Institute that shows that the majority of abortions are obtained by women living in or near poverty: Nearly 70 percent of abortions are for women who make 200 percent or less of the federal poverty line.

It's really not. The first part is taking percentages of their groupings while the second is talking about abortions overall. Math...it's really not that hard.

[PLW]

Slate, 2015

That may seem hard to square with data from the Guttmacher Institute that shows that the majority of abortions are obtained by women living in or near poverty: Nearly 70 percent of abortions are for women who make 200 percent or less of the federal poverty line.

Actually, it's easy to square. They are looking at single women, and there are a lot more single women who make less than 200 percent of the poverty line than there are single women who earn more than $47k/year..

[stessier]

Beat ya!

[Max Peck]

Hmmm, I wonder if the actual article had any sort of follow-up to explain that apples-to-oranges comparison between the two studies.

How can it be true that middle-class single women abort nearly one-third of their pregnancies, but lower-income women, who abort a smaller percentage of their pregnancies, still make up most of patients sitting in abortion clinic waiting rooms on any given day? The answer is simple: Lower-income single women get pregnant way more often. Way more often. The Brookings Institution found that single women at or below the federal poverty line were three times as likely to get pregnant in a given year than middle-class single women. That's because lower-income women were twice as likely to have had unprotected sex.

These statistics matter because they underline the one unchanging truth about the abortion rate: The only reliable way to lower the overall number of abortions women get is to make contraception accessible and affordable. Study after study shows this. Reducing abortion access isn't just cruel but ineffective. Middle-class women may abort more of their pregnancies, but since they get pregnant way less often, they still have fewer abortions overall. Discouraging abortion just doesn't work nearly as well as preventing unintended pregnancy in the first place.

It's almost like they have a cogent point to make, as long as you don't quote them out of context.

[stessier]

Pfft, reading links is for amateurs.

[gameoverman]

My belief, based on personal experience with the women I've known, is that poorer women often get pregnant because avoiding getting pregnant isn't high on the list of priorities for them. Family planning is more a luxury than a default action for people. The more you have going on in your life, the less appealing getting pregnant is, since that could interfere with the good times. The less you have going on, the less of a difference getting pregnant makes to your life.

People, including men of course, act when they are motivated. If you want people to treat family planning seriously they need to have a reason to do so. Attempting to suppress sexual activity as an approach is stupid, because that's a basic instinct in people. You might as well attempt to stop the wind from blowing while you're at it. The best approach is not to control people, but give the people reason to control themselves.

I believe that if we approached things that way, the number of abortions would be drastically reduced, not because of the choice being removed from women but because the women themselves will have made it less necessary.

There are some people who get off on telling other people what they can and can't do. My approach will not appeal to those people, "Let other people decide for themselves? Where's the fun in that?" they'll ask.

[Isgrimnur]

It's almost like they have a cogent point to make, as long as you don't quote them out of context.

Chalk it up to bad quoting rather than agenda-driven.

[Max Peck]

It's almost like they have a cogent point to make, as long as you don't quote them out of context.

Chalk it up to bad quoting rather than agenda-driven.

My snark was directed at the snarky comments from people who apparently didn't bother to read the article, not at the original quote itself. I lurves me some snark-on-snark action.

[Isgrimnur]

[Moliere]

Concern #1: men have no say in the matter. If the woman wants an abortion and the father wants the child, well that's just too bad. Fire up the Hoover. If the woman wants the child and the father doesn't, well that's too bad. Have fun paying child support for the next 18 years.

Concern #2: I don't see where to draw the line. I understand there's a difference between a clump of cells at inception and a 9 month old partial birth smack them in the skull upon breach. But where do you draw the line that it's not ok to kill this human being? Heart beat? Some brain signals? An arbitrary line at the 1st trimester?

[Zarathud]

Men do have a say -- get snipped or wrap it up.

The moment a woman who doesn't want a child can safely transplant the egg to a man can carry to term, we can alter the equation.

Being a parent is personally a very rewarding experience. But I didn't bear the child or suffer long-term health consequences. I didn't spend 9 months carrying the kid around, or deal with the hip problems after bearing my big children. My biological interaction ends quickly, but my moral obligation to take personal responsibility means child support. Better that the father pay instead of the government.

I would think a forced unwanted pregnancy to be horrible and inhuman -- especially if the child had birth defects. Our first pregnancy suffered from a terminal Trisomy 13 chromosomal mutation. Odds of a live birth were small, with zero shirt term survivability and high risks of medical complications. We chose abortion so she could have kids later. It wasn't an easy decision even with access to good medical options. I wouldn't wish having to make that decision on anyone--and I didn't have the fetus in my body. I wouldn't make that decision for anyone.

It's a matter of allowing a woman the freedom to make decisions about her most private biological functions, and letting her be her own moral arbiter in a difficult situation.

[Paingod]

Concern #1: men have no say in the matter. If the woman wants an abortion and the father wants the child, well that's just too bad. Fire up the Hoover. If the woman wants the child and the father doesn't, well that's too bad. Have fun paying child support for the next 18 years.

I agree that men should have more control, since they're equally to blame. They could just as easily opt to spray the fire hose at a vacant lot instead of into a holy sanctum. They also have the choice to wrap it up and many think that's just no fun (I'm one of them). Women have a few options as well. It takes two to get into trouble this way, and it should take two to get out of it.

I think it should work as follows:

• If both parties want an abortion, no objection.
• If one party wants an abortion, and the other doesn't, it goes to arbitration (and maybe court).
• The arbitrator/court decides if the party that wants the fetus (potential child) is capable of supporting a child
  • If they are, then the second party is absolved of all responsibility, including child support
  • The party that wants the fetus (potential child) is responsible for all reasonable healthcare costs up to birth
  • If they are not capable of supporting a child, then a woman cannot be forced to carry to term if she wants out and a man cannot be forced to pay child support if the woman decides to keep it.
• Any fetus conceived through rape, incest, endangers the mother's life, or with life-altering defect is not subject to this and could be terminated even if a man wanted to keep it.

I think men are under-represented in courts when it comes to children and custody. I wouldn't gladly tell women they have to be incubators for men who want children, but they did have the option to not have sex with him, and they knew what the consequences of that could be. If they were deprived of that option (rape), then the man has no rights to worry about and she can abort.

Concern #2: I don't see where to draw the line. I understand there's a difference between a clump of cells at inception and a 9 month old partial birth smack them in the skull upon breach. But where do you draw the line that it's not ok to kill this human being? Heart beat? Some brain signals? An arbitrary line at the 1st trimester?

I've always drawn the line in a very callous way - "Can it possibly survive without the mother?" Medical precedent has determined that a fetus earlier than a certain age cannot possibly survive without the mother - before then, it's a fully (pardon the term, I don't know if there's a better one) parasitic growth with the potential to become human. At that stage the massive bundle of cells isn't close to awareness. It hasn't been 'charged' with life yet, in my view. Even after that stage, I think it still takes a while in an incubator and using a lot of medical tools to get there. I'm quite comfortable with that line.

[Jeff V]

Yeah, that'll cover all of the bases.

Scenario: Woman REALLY doesn't want kid. Man does. Bitter argument ensues. Women is forced to continue to carry the fetus. Woman combats her anger/depression with a wide assortment of drugs and alcohol. Kid comes out with 2 heads, six arms, and no kidneys. Dad says "fuck this" and vanishes. So mother is saddled with mutant child that she didn't want in the first place. Life sucks for the next 18 years. And what did Freakonomics teach us about the correlation between unwanted spawn and violent crime?

Consider too that no childbirth is 100% safe for the mother. Women still do die giving birth, or from complications following childbirth. For this reason alone I believe it's completely up to the woman. Unless they figure out how to transplant a womb into a man; the father is at the whim of the mother when it comes to this choice. Best he can do is try to influence the decision, say, promising to financially support the kid when an otherwise insolvent mother might be leaning towards abortion for financial reasons.

[LawBeefaroni]

Biology. Live with it.

[Rip]

Men do have a say -- get snipped or wrap it up.

The moment a woman who doesn't want a child can safely transplant the egg to a man can carry to term, we can alter the equation.

Being a parent is personally a very rewarding experience. But I didn't bear the child or suffer long-term health consequences. I didn't spend 9 months carrying the kid around, or deal with the hip problems after bearing my big children. My biological interaction ends quickly, but my moral obligation to take personal responsibility means child support. Better that the father pay instead of the government.

I would think a forced unwanted pregnancy to be horrible and inhuman -- especially if the child had birth defects. Our first pregnancy suffered from a terminal Trisomy 13 chromosomal mutation. Odds of a live birth were small, with zero shirt term survivability and high risks of medical complications. We chose abortion so she could have kids later. It wasn't an easy decision even with access to good medical options. I wouldn't wish having to make that decision on anyone--and I didn't have the fetus in my body. I wouldn't make that decision for anyone.

It's a matter of allowing a woman the freedom to make decisions about her most private biological functions, and letting her be her own moral arbiter in a difficult situation.

It could be said women had that same choice without having to choose whether or not to kill something. Get tied or put a bag in it.

[Pyperkub]

Of course, you are forgetting about the complete failure of abstinence-only education:

The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In an effort to reduce these rates, the U.S. government has funded abstinence-only sex education programs for more than a decade. However, a public controversy remains over whether this investment has been successful and whether these programs should be continued. Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.

Yup, having the exact opposite effect as what the religious right has told us it would. Let's do it some more! Let's ban sex ed completely!

[gilraen]

Men do have a say -- get snipped or wrap it up.

The moment a woman who doesn't want a child can safely transplant the egg to a man can carry to term, we can alter the equation.

Being a parent is personally a very rewarding experience. But I didn't bear the child or suffer long-term health consequences. I didn't spend 9 months carrying the kid around, or deal with the hip problems after bearing my big children. My biological interaction ends quickly, but my moral obligation to take personal responsibility means child support. Better that the father pay instead of the government.

I would think a forced unwanted pregnancy to be horrible and inhuman -- especially if the child had birth defects. Our first pregnancy suffered from a terminal Trisomy 13 chromosomal mutation. Odds of a live birth were small, with zero shirt term survivability and high risks of medical complications. We chose abortion so she could have kids later. It wasn't an easy decision even with access to good medical options. I wouldn't wish having to make that decision on anyone--and I didn't have the fetus in my body. I wouldn't make that decision for anyone.

It's a matter of allowing a woman the freedom to make decisions about her most private biological functions, and letting her be her own moral arbiter in a difficult situation.

It could be said women had that same choice without having to choose whether or not to kill something. Get tied or put a bag in it.

Maybe if your beloved right wingnuts would stop closing women's clinics, where poor women can get contraceptives, they wouldn't have to resort to abortions as a birth control option. The tubal ligation surgery is much more serious and prone to complications than a male vasectomy, not to mention it's financially out of reach for the same women that really can't afford to have any more kids, or buy contraceptives, or drive 100 miles to a nearest hospital that will even do this procedure for them (and then spend several days recovering when they don't have paid sick leave at work and no one to take care of their other kids).

[Zarathud]

Get tied or put a bag in it.

Talk about grabbing women by the pussy.

Not surprised. So sad.

[Jeff V]

Men do have a say -- get snipped or wrap it up.

The moment a woman who doesn't want a child can safely transplant the egg to a man can carry to term, we can alter the equation.

Being a parent is personally a very rewarding experience. But I didn't bear the child or suffer long-term health consequences. I didn't spend 9 months carrying the kid around, or deal with the hip problems after bearing my big children. My biological interaction ends quickly, but my moral obligation to take personal responsibility means child support. Better that the father pay instead of the government.

I would think a forced unwanted pregnancy to be horrible and inhuman -- especially if the child had birth defects. Our first pregnancy suffered from a terminal Trisomy 13 chromosomal mutation. Odds of a live birth were small, with zero shirt term survivability and high risks of medical complications. We chose abortion so she could have kids later. It wasn't an easy decision even with access to good medical options. I wouldn't wish having to make that decision on anyone--and I didn't have the fetus in my body. I wouldn't make that decision for anyone.

It's a matter of allowing a woman the freedom to make decisions about her most private biological functions, and letting her be her own moral arbiter in a difficult situation.

It could be said women had that same choice without having to choose whether or not to kill something. Get tied or put a bag in it.

Maybe if your beloved right wingnuts would stop closing women's clinics, where poor women can get contraceptives, they wouldn't have to resort to abortions as a birth control option. The tubal ligation surgery is much more serious and prone to complications than a male vasectomy, not to mention it's financially out of reach for the same women that really can't afford to have any more kids, or buy contraceptives, or drive 100 miles to a nearest hospital that will even do this procedure for them (and then spend several days recovering when they don't have paid sick leave at work and no one to take care of their other kids).

When my wife had a C-section, she asked to get tied. After all, they were in there already, and getting it done at that time was about an extra 2 minutes of work.

The out-of-pocket costs for those 2 minutes was $3,000. I'm pretty sure getting my nuts disconnected would have been far cheaper.

[coopasonic]

I'm pretty sure getting my nuts disconnected would have been far cheaper.

$50 and one day of downtime (from work anyway) a little more downtime in bed.

[Fitzy]

Get tied or put a bag in it.

Talk about grabbing women by the pussy.

Not surprised. So sad.

I am honestly curious, how is what he said bad, but what you said okay? Why shouldn't a woman be equally responsible for preventing an accidental pregnancy?

The obvious exception is rape, but that's not what's being discussed.

[Zarathud]

First, Rip feeds into the "it's the woman's own fault for getting pregnant" punishment myth. If a male doesn't want a child, act early. Women can act later.

Second, tubal ligation has high risks/invasiveness.

Third, if Jeff V doesn't want a condom, they won't be used by either participant regardless of effectiveness. Any barrier is a barrier. Male condoms are easier to apply, although both can be equally effective.

If the suggestion was a morning after pill, that would be fine by me. But that is abortion for VP Pence and others. And it's not available in all states -- and likely going to become less available.

[stessier]

I'm pretty sure getting my nuts disconnected would have been far cheaper.

$50 and one day of downtime (from work anyway) a little more downtime in bed.

What, did you have your gardener do it? And it's a minimum of 2 days off of work with no stairs or lifting too.

[Remus West]

I'm pretty sure getting my nuts disconnected would have been far cheaper.

$50 and one day of downtime (from work anyway) a little more downtime in bed.

What, did you have your gardener do it? And it's a minimum of 2 days off of work with no stairs or lifting too.

Pffft. I went and coached a tournament the very next day. 14 hours on my feet pacing back and forth and encouraging the team. Granted I iced my nuts for the entire drive home after.

[Fitzy]

I'm pretty sure getting my nuts disconnected would have been far cheaper.

$50 and one day of downtime (from work anyway) a little more downtime in bed.

What, did you have your gardener do it? And it's a minimum of 2 days off of work with no stairs or lifting too.

Pffft. I went and coached a tournament the very next day. 14 hours on my feet pacing back and forth and encouraging the team. Granted I iced my nuts for the entire drive home after.

My urologist said one of his patients went horseback riding the next day. The results were...not good.

[Fitzy]

First, Rip feeds into the "it's the woman's own fault for getting pregnant" punishment myth. If a male doesn't want a child, act early. Women can act later.

Second, tubal ligation has high risks/invasiveness.

Third, if Jeff V doesn't want a condom, they won't be used by either participant regardless of effectiveness. Any barrier is a barrier. Male condoms are easier to apply, although both can be equally effective.

If the suggestion was a morning after pill, that would be fine by me. But that is abortion for VP Pence and others. And it's not available in all states -- and likely going to become less available.

Sorry, I'm still not understanding. I guess, if you see everything Rip posts as a certain way, it would be possible to interpret his statement as feeding into a myth. This just seemed really innocuous (for him), so I was surprised by the response.

My belief is that if you can't discuss birth control (or diseases) with your partner (any sex) you aren't anywhere near ready for sex, but that's not reality I know.

Comparing male to female birth control options isn't a great idea in general, so that was rather pointless. There are many differences and the barrier methods do require cooperation. Vasectomy = Tubal ligation is obviously not quite a match for the reasons you mentioned and cost. However women also have more options, including hormonal and IUDs, both of which are highly effective at preventing pregnancy and are safe for most women, but have zero male equivalents at the moment.

In which state is the morning after pill not available? At least one version is FDA approved for OTC.

[Jeff V]

Third, if Jeff V doesn't want a condom, they won't be used by either participant regardless of effectiveness. Any barrier is a barrier. Male condoms are easier to apply, although both can be equally effective.

Except when its not. Our daughter is the reason we felt a more effective solution was needed (condoms were being used so a positive stick test was about the last thing we expected when my wife started experiencing the crazies). Now, we were planning to have a second anyway, but definitely not a third.

[LawBeefaroni]

However women also have more options, including hormonal and IUDs, both of which are highly effective at preventing pregnancy and are safe for most women, but have zero male equivalents at the moment.

Surgically implanting a two-inch, timed release mechanism in your body isn't the same thing as throwing on a jimmy hat. You're committing to no kids for 2-5 years, you're spending several hundred dollars (if it's even covered), and you're undergoing surgery.

The reason there are no male equivalents is because no male would put up with anything close to that for routine birth control. "Here, let's put a plastic and copper thing up your penis and you can leave it in there for a few years so you can have sex. Or maybe we'll stick some kind of flat plastic thing in your nuts to do the same. Whatever fits your fancy."

[Default]

I'm pretty sure getting my nuts disconnected would have been far cheaper.

$50 and one day of downtime (from work anyway) a little more downtime in bed.

What, did you have your gardener do it? And it's a minimum of 2 days off of work with no stairs or lifting too.

Pffft. I went and coached a tournament the very next day. 14 hours on my feet pacing back and forth and encouraging the team. Granted I iced my nuts for the entire drive home after.

My urologist said one of his patients went horseback riding the next day. The results were...not good.

When I had it done, my doc said, "you can go back to work tomorrow."
I said, "I walk ten miles a day, up and down steps, while carrying 35 pounds."
He said, "Oh God, no! Take a week off then."

Lol.