Abortion news and discussion

[Smoove_B]

They are not concessions, and my personal opinion is that healthy pregnancies should be illegal to terminate in the 3rd trimester.

I'm not picking on you, I just want clarification then, if I may humbly ask. If this is your position (which I don't think is unreasonable), then do you also support programs like Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance?

My issue with so many of the "a woman must give birth at all cost" positions (assuming we can ignore liberty issues for a second) is that at the same time someone is yelling for the life of the fetus, they're also doing everything they can to take away state and federal programs designed to help women and children. I'm not saying you're doing that here, but it makes it personally hard for me to move an inch on the issue because of it. If I actually started to hear the "pro-life" activists speaking on how important it is to make sure the woman and baby are cared for after the birth happens, maybe I'd look at things differently. But that never seems to happen. Instead, they're painted as "parasites" that are trying to take taxpayer money.

[LawBeefaroni]

Nox will make his point not once, but twice!

[coopasonic]

He seems to have made some concessions and limited the discussion to 3rd trimester only, but it's hard to tell if this is his line in the sand or whether it's a wedge that he will use to discuss earlier trimesters.

They are not concessions, and my personal opinion is that healthy pregnancies should be illegal to terminate in the 3rd trimester.

With proper education, access to contraception and access to abortion, a third trimester abortion of a healthy fetus shouldn't need to be outlawed because there wouldn't be a reason for it. Who decides after 7 months that enough is enough unless there is some extreme circumstance... and in that case maybe there should be an exception anyway?

[LawBeefaroni]

He seems to have made some concessions and limited the discussion to 3rd trimester only, but it's hard to tell if this is his line in the sand or whether it's a wedge that he will use to discuss earlier trimesters.

They are not concessions, and my personal opinion is that healthy pregnancies should be illegal to terminate in the 3rd trimester.

With proper education, access to contraception and access to abortion, a third trimester abortion of a healthy fetus shouldn't need to be outlawed because there wouldn't be a reason for it. Who decides after 7 months that enough is enough unless there is some extreme circumstance... and in that case maybe there should be an exception anyway?

Yep. I'd guess that the main reason for >7 month healthy abortions is lack of access and stigma that can cause delays. If you want to outlaw 3rd trimester, you need to improve access and get rid of the bullshit "counselling" requirements.

[GreenGoo]

Whether these are your personal views or not does not change the pro-life argument put forth. I apologize for suggesting this is your argument.

My understanding of your position is concern about all the 3rd trimester abortions that are taking place, and how the law needs to be involved to put an end to this scourge.

Edit: I see you've reiterated it to that effect. Great.

[gbasden]

So nothing changes if one of the two intentionally tampers with the contraception?

I mean, that's fine if that's how you think it should work, I'm less convinced. What if the woman becomes pregnant after the act, through any of a number of ways? For example, turkey baster and used condom. What if she just pokes holes in the condom? What if he does? Tough luck, lifetime of responsibility and financial obligation?

I think deceit changes the equation, but if you don't, that's fine.

Given that any act of intercourse has the chance of pregnancy I think people should be prepared for that possibility. If the guy could somehow prove that the woman did the turkey baster method then I'd be open to the argument that he should be let off, but you are designing around edge cases here. It's far more likely for the condom to fail or break.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not designing edge cases, I'm asking about deception and giving an example.

If you feel deceit changes nothing, so be it.

[gbasden]

I'm not designing edge cases, I'm asking about deception and giving an example.

If you feel deceit changes nothing, so be it.

How are you going to prove it, legally? I think morally there is a huge deal if someone breaks consent by intentionally sabotaging birth control, but there is rarely going to be any evidence. Just allowing a guy to claim that the woman did it is incentive to lie to get out of child support. How would you put it into law?

[GreenGoo]

How are you going to prove it, legally?

Beats me. With evidence, presumably. Video tape. Confession. Pins lying beside a pile of unused condoms from which the original condom was taken, which also have holes punched in them. Etc etc.

I don't think the practicalities are necessary to answer the question or any of original questions either.

Enforcement is a separate question the answer of which I'm not particularly interested in.

Lastly, who said it had to be the female doing the sabotaging?

[noxiousdog]

I'm not picking on you, I just want clarification then, if I may humbly ask. If this is your position (which I don't think is unreasonable), then do you also support programs like Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance?

I don't support Medicaid specifically because we should have a medical system where Medicaid should be irrelevant. Whether that is single payer or universal health insurance, I don't care.

Yes, on SNAP.

With proper education, access to contraception and access to abortion, a third trimester abortion of a healthy fetus shouldn't need to be outlawed because there wouldn't be a reason for it. Who decides after 7 months that enough is enough unless there is some extreme circumstance... and in that case maybe there should be an exception anyway?

There's a whole host of things that shouldn't need to be illegal but are.

I'm completely sympathetic to someone who decides they no longer want to be a parent after 7 months of pregnancy. I'm more sympathetic to a fetus which could survive outside of that womb. I cannot reconcile that it's murder one second after birth and legal (in some states) one second prior to birth. Obviously the date is negotiable, but 3rd trimester seems the most reasonable place to put it based on fetal viablility at 23 weeks and babies born at 26 weeks have an 80% survival rate. A third trimester baby has a 90% survival rate.

I am only talking about healthy pregnancies for both mother and fetus.

[GreenGoo]

I am only talking about healthy pregnancies for both mother and fetus.

Abortions of which are exceedingly rare. Exceedingly.

It's not like you to demand that society spend time and resources to deal with edge cases that statistically are almost non-existent. I'll have to re-evaluate your opinions on other "waste of time" efforts you've commented on. Seems to me that what other people care about is a waste of time, but what you care about needs to be codified into law.

Personally I'm not ok with forcing a woman to carry to term a baby she doesn't want. That's some Handmaid's Tale shit right there. I am in no position to judge a woman's informed decision about what's allowed to grow in her body, even when it's a viable baby. The rarity of this occurrence leads me to believe that it requires extreme circumstances to even be considered in any case, and other peoples' circumstances is not something I'm willing to judge, either.

I also think that a line in the sand "here legal, there illegal" is a tricky proposition and likely to be abused in any case. This sort of law will always be "one day no problem, the next day the law is involved" no matter where you think the line should be drawn. That people in dire circumstances will do what they think needs to be done, government finger wagging or no, Nox's disapproval or no, my disapproval or no, just puts these (incredibly few) abortions back into back alleys with rusty coat hangers and turns these desperate women into criminals. Mission accomplished, I guess.

We've had centuries of abortions being illegal. The amount of issues that arose from this are manifold and well documented. We've now had a few decades, a tiny amount of time comparatively, where abortions have been legal. This has been a proven "win" for society. We should not be moving backward, particularly not because of nearly hypothetical edge cases that are personally unacceptable when imagined, and imagined they must be, because it is unlikely that any of us actually know someone who was a member of these edge cases, while the likelihood of knowing someone who had to make the incredibly difficult decision to abort an earlier term baby is high.

The system is working as is. The people working to change it don't care what happens to the mother during the pregnancy or after (or even the child at that point). As pointed out earlier in the thread, these are the same people who are against social support programs for those very same women and the children they were forced to bear. That there are people in the middle suggesting some middle ground can be reached to the benefit of the mother and the child are being naive, imo.

In the end I don't feel Nox's position any more compelling than anyone else's position on forcing a woman to bring their pregnancy to term. Whether they feel all abortions are an abomination or just some, it all comes down to forcing a woman to bear a child, and that is not something I can tolerate, no matter how unpleasant and distasteful I find some of the decisions some women make. Women are not incubators. They are autonomous beings just like the rest of us. Forcing them to reproduce against their will is heinous.

[noxiousdog]

The strawman and false dichotomy is very strong in your post.

[GreenGoo]

The strawman and false dichotomy is very strong in your post.

No. That you won't talk about context or anything out of your very limited scenario or how it impacts everything else does not make the rest of the factors at play a strawman. You want what you want and statistics or impact analysis have no place in that discussion.

[gbasden]

How are you going to prove it, legally?

Beats me. With evidence, presumably. Video tape. Confession. Pins lying beside a pile of unused condoms from which the original condom was taken, which also have holes punched in them. Etc etc.

I don't think the practicalities are necessary to answer the question or any of original questions either.

Enforcement is a separate question the answer of which I'm not particularly interested in.

Lastly, who said it had to be the female doing the sabotaging?

I'm all for levying moral opprobrium, but if you somehow actually want to hold someone legally not liable for child support then knowing how you would structure the law is pretty important, no?

If the male intentionally sabotaged birth control, then at least theoretically the female could have an abortion.

[GreenGoo]

I'm all for levying moral opprobrium, but if you somehow actually want to hold someone legally not liable for child support then knowing how you would structure the law is pretty important, no?

Not this very moment, no. We don't need to create every working facet right now out of whole cloth before we will even consider the idea in a philosophical discussion. We can discuss it, sure. But we don't need to discuss it to move forward. Regardless, I've suggested a number of ways which took all of 3 seconds off the top of my head, and I'm not a reproductive specialist or a member of the justice system. I assume it would work like every other thing that arrives in a court works.

We literally do "he said/she said" with sexual assault ALL. THE. TIME. That's not a reason to keep sexual assault legal.

If the male intentionally sabotaged birth control, then at least theoretically the female could have an abortion.

Are you kidding me? It's that easy, is it? Have you or anyone you know had an abortion? Tell me that they aren't scarred by the experience. Tell me that they thought "no big deal, it's just another form of contraception. I'll get it done during lunch.". Abortions are a MAJOR decision for nearly every person who has ever had one, and the psychological impact it will have on them is likely to be with them for the rest of their lives.

You're saying "sure, the guy altered the course of someone's life through deceit, but at least the woman can rip it out of their body, so no big deal". Yeah. She can. She should *never* have been put in that situation in the first place. That it's a risk of sex? Of course. That someone would intentionally impregnate you against your will? That's not a risk of sex. That's a crime, in my opinion. That's rape, imo.

[noxiousdog]

The strawman and false dichotomy is very strong in your post.

No. That you won't talk about context or anything out of your very limited scenario or how it impacts everything else does not make the rest of the factors at play a strawman. You want what you want and statistics or impact analysis have no place in that discussion.

You started this whole thing with a false premise. The adults tried to have a discussion and then you did your thing. Congratulations.

[GreenGoo]

You started this whole thing with a false premise. The adults tried to have a discussion and then you did your thing. Congratulations.

Oooh, ouch. Ouch Nox. My feels.

[noxiousdog]

Are you kidding me? It's that easy, is it? Have you or anyone you know had an abortion? Tell me that they aren't scarred by the experience. Tell me that they thought "no big deal, it's just another form of contraception. I'll get it done during lunch.". Abortions are a MAJOR decision for nearly every person who has ever had one, and the psychological impact it will have on them is likely to be with them for the rest of their lives.

Unsurprisingly, you are wrong. I thought that was the case too, but research has proven it to be a fallacy.

"The truth remains that most substantive studies in the last 30 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect..."

[GreenGoo]

Suddenly studies are super important, as long as we're not talking healthy, 3rd trimester abortions.

"The truth remains that most substantive studies in the last 30 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect..."

And yet a significant portion of that text discusses mental health re: abortion as compared to giving birth. I.e. abortion and birth are (similarly) liable to affect women's mental health. I never said giving birth was a walk in the park. Post partum depression is a thing, after all.

Here are some items from the article.

Unwanted pregnancy increases a woman’s risk of problems with her mental health.

• A woman with an unwanted pregnancy is as likely to have mental health problems from abortion as she is from giving birth.

• A woman with a history of mental health problems before abortion is more likely to have mental health problems after abortion.

• Circumstances, conditions, behaviors, and other factors associated with mental health problems are similar for women following abortion and women following childbirth.

• Pressure from a partner to terminate a pregnancy, negative attitudes about abortion, and negative attitudes about a woman’s experience of abortion may increase a woman’s risk of mental health problems after abortion.Among its recommendations for further study, the AMRC suggested that researchers focus on the mental health repercussions of unwanted pregnancy rather than on the repercussions of how a woman

In any case, I think you misunderstand my point. That abortion doesn't cause more mental health issues than live birth is interesting, but only tangentially related. I'm talking about significant mental anguish, not formal diagnosis of mental health issues. Being bullied at a young age is scarring and emotionally difficult to deal with, and often sticks with a person their entire life. That doesn't mean that being bullied will result in a formal diagnosis of depression and/or other mental health struggles. Does that make being bullied "relatively benign" too? Relatively benign as compared to what? People find losing a loved one traumatic. The number of people who development mental healthcare issues because of it is low. Does that make loved ones dying "relatively benign"?

I said "Abortions are a MAJOR decision for nearly every person who has ever had one, and the psychological impact it will have on them is likely to be with them for the rest of their lives." The study says they don't development more mental health issues than women who give live birth from unwanted pregnancies.

Fantastic.

[GreenGoo]

Terminating a wanted pregnancy can be associated with negative psychological experiences comparable to those associated with stillbirth or death of a newborn — but less severe than those experienced by women who deliver a child with a severe abnormality.

My concern for women who have abortions was unfounded. It's no more traumatic than having your (wanted and loved) newborn die. Thank goodness Nox is here to set me straight. And yes I realize the quote is about "wanted" pregnancy.

edit: You know what? I retract my snark and comment, but only for this post. I'll leave it up to show my foolishness and take my lumps. I hold to my stance that abortions are psychologically traumatic for most women. How could it not be? It's traumatic for most men in a serious relationship with the mother. That most women don't seek mental healthcare because of it notwithstanding.

[GreenGoo]

Post abortion grief counseling is a thing. I have no idea how many women utilize it or would benefit from it. It is a relief to find that abortions don't put additional strain on healthcare systems due to development of mental health issues afterward.

[gbasden]

\
Are you kidding me? It's that easy, is it? Have you or anyone you know had an abortion? Tell me that they aren't scarred by the experience. Tell me that they thought "no big deal, it's just another form of contraception. I'll get it done during lunch.". Abortions are a MAJOR decision for nearly every person who has ever had one, and the psychological impact it will have on them is likely to be with them for the rest of their lives.

You're saying "sure, the guy altered the course of someone's life through deceit, but at least the woman can rip it out of their body, so no big deal". Yeah. She can. She should *never* have been put in that situation in the first place. That it's a risk of sex? Of course. That someone would intentionally impregnate you against your will? That's not a risk of sex. That's a crime, in my opinion. That's rape, imo.

I *never* said it was fucking easy. I also never said it was no big deal. It is a crime, and a violation of consent that absolutely is rape. That's true no matter what gender would do the deceit. It is an option for the woman that would not be an option for the guy, though. If a woman sabotages birth control in the hopes of getting pregnant, that child is most likely getting born.

I don't for the life of me know why you are harping on this point so hard, though. In the greater abortion debate, is there some epidemic of sabotaged birth control out there? In general, I think fewer unwanted children should be born and access to safe and legal abortion should be available early in the pregnancy when it is needed.

[gbasden]

Not this very moment, no. We don't need to create every working facet right now out of whole cloth before we will even consider the idea in a philosophical discussion. We can discuss it, sure. But we don't need to discuss it to move forward. Regardless, I've suggested a number of ways which took all of 3 seconds off the top of my head, and I'm not a reproductive specialist or a member of the justice system. I assume it would work like every other thing that arrives in a court works.

We literally do "he said/she said" with sexual assault ALL. THE. TIME. That's not a reason to keep sexual assault legal.

And OK, we are in agreement - I would like there to be legal consequences for a violation of consent such as sabotage of birth control. I think that's going to be super messy, hard to prove and is going to have a lot of unintended consequences, but as an ideal, awesome.

[GreenGoo]

I don't for the life of me know why you are harping on this point so hard, though. In the greater abortion debate, is there some epidemic of sabotaged birth control out there?

Epidemic? Probably not. More than healthy 3rd trimester abortions? Almost certainly. Anecdotally I know of at least 2 instances of sabotage, which is just data, not proof of course.

As for harping, this is the part of my response to the original questions that you specifically commented on, and thus the conversation has continued in that context. "harping" is in the eye of the beholder, imo.

[gbasden]

I don't for the life of me know why you are harping on this point so hard, though. In the greater abortion debate, is there some epidemic of sabotaged birth control out there?

Epidemic? Probably not. More than healthy 3rd trimester abortions? Almost certainly. Anecdotally I know of at least 2 instances of sabotage, which is just data, not proof of course.

As for harping, this is the part of my response to the original questions that you specifically commented on, and thus the conversation has continued in that context. "harping" is in the eye of the beholder, imo.

Agreed on healthy 3rd trimester abortions. Everything I have read says it is incredibly rare. I guess I'll have to go back an look at the original questions, but it wouldn't change my stance. Abortion should be safe and legal and the pregnant woman should have the choice as to how things proceed. If it can be shown that there was intentional sabotage then there should be some sort of legal sanction.

[coopasonic]

I'm completely sympathetic to someone who decides they no longer want to be a parent after 7 months of pregnancy. I'm more sympathetic to a fetus which could survive outside of that womb. I cannot reconcile that it's murder one second after birth and legal (in some states) one second prior to birth. Obviously the date is negotiable, but 3rd trimester seems the most reasonable place to put it based on fetal viablility at 23 weeks and babies born at 26 weeks have an 80% survival rate. A third trimester baby has a 90% survival rate.

I am only talking about healthy pregnancies for both mother and fetus.

I don't think it is necessary to outlaw, but I would accept it in exchange for killing all of the other crap that is currently being pushed to make abortion impossible.

[GreenGoo]

If there was some way to enforce that, I'd agree in a heartbeat as well.

I'm horrified by healthy elective 3rd trimester abortions.

Unfortunately that's not on the table, nor could it be.

[noxiousdog]

If we allow people to use deadly force to protect their land, why not extend the principle to a woman’s uterus?

But you don't believe in castle laws.....

With America’s tolerance of huns and violence, it is ridiculous to say a right to life is absolute.

We don't like Atilla THAT much.

[Isgrimnur]

Missouri

Missouri moved closer to becoming the first state without an abortion clinic Friday when its health department rejected a license renewal for the St. Louis Planned Parenthood location.

A judge had ordered the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services to decide by Friday whether it would renew a license for the clinic, Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region. Judge Michael Stelzer relayed the health department's decision Friday in court.

The clinic will remain open until further court order, Stelzer added. Should it close, Missouri would become the first state without an abortion clinic in almost 50 years.

[tjg_marantz]

I'd move the Blues right the fuck out of that backwards shit stain place.

[Defiant]

This is fucked up.

[Freyland]

Muddying context for those that don't read the article: the shooter was determined to have shot in self-defense, and was not indicted by a jury. By self-defense, meaning the pregnant woman started the fight.

[Isgrimnur]

Tennessee

After struggling to pass a six-week abortion ban earlier this year, Tennessee lawmakers are now considering one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country: a total ban on the procedure.

On Monday and Tuesday, the state's judiciary committee will hear testimony from more than 20 witnesses and debate an 11-page amendment to its stalled "fetal heartbeat" bill. If the changes are adopted, the legislation will ban abortion once a woman knows she's pregnant.

The committee, which has seven Republicans and two Democrats, is expected to accept the changes. The amended bill would be put up for a vote in January 2020, when the legislature reconvenes.
...
[State Senator Kerry] Roberts told CBS News the intention of Tennessee's amended abortion bill isn't to immediately cut off access to the procedure. The point is to provide a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey and other Supreme Court precedent.
...
Rather than cutting off access to abortion after cardiac activity is detected, the amendment redefines fetal viability. Federal standards, based on past Supreme Court decisions, consider viability to mean when a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb. In Tennessee, policy makers have proposed that viability is when a pregnancy can be detected.

[Isgrimnur]

NPR

Planned Parenthood is leaving the federal Title X family planning program rather than comply with new Trump administration rules regarding abortion counseling.

The new rules, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services earlier this year, prohibit Title X grantees from providing or referring patients for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or medical emergency.
...
Officials say that means patients are likely to see longer wait times or increased costs for reproductive health services.

Planned Parenthood and other medical groups say the rule is unethical and interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. Abortion-rights opponents, meanwhile, have long argued for a complete separation between federal dollars and any organization involved in providing or facilitating abortions.
...
The announcement follows a letter submitted by Planned Parenthood last week to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. An attorney for Planned Parenthood said the organization had hoped to remain in the program but stop using Title X funds while the matter is being litigated. But, the letter says, recent guidance from HHS informed grantees that they would have to leave the program if they could not show "good-faith efforts" to comply. The letter expresses "deep regret" but says Planned Parenthood clinics "now have no option but to withdraw from the Title X program."

In a statement to NPR Monday, HHS officials said, "Every grantee had the choice to accept the grant and comply with the program's regulations or not accept the grant if they did not want to comply. Some grantees are now blaming the government for their own actions – having chosen to accept the grant while failing to comply with the regulations that accompany it – and they are abandoning their obligations to serve their patients under the program."

Planned Parenthood's withdrawal from the $286 million federal program represents a significant shift in the way the family planning program operates. The organization has been involved in the program since its inception, and officials say it serves about 40% of the nation's 4 million Title X recipients, who receive services such as contraception and STD screenings.
...
The impact of the rule change is not limited to Planned Parenthood. Maine's sole Title X grantee, Maine Family Planning, is also withdrawing. In a letter to HHS, CEO George Hill said his group is leaving the program "more in sorrow than in anger."
...
Anti-abortion advocates say they hope the changes to the Title X program will open up funding for other groups, including religiously based organizations and crisis pregnancy centers that counsel women against abortions. Some of those groups do not provide a full range of contraceptive services.

What could possibly go wrong when 800k people no longer have access to contraception and STD screenings except through religiously based organizations?

[tjg_marantz]

Under his eye.

[Smoove_B]

Likely important to note, for historical purposes:

The number and rate of abortions across the United States have plunged to their lowest levels since the procedure became legal nationwide in 1973, according to new figures released Wednesday.

...

One reason for the decline in abortions is that fewer women are becoming pregnant. The Guttmacher Institute noted that the birth rate, as well as the abortion rate, declined during the years covered by the new report. A likely factor, the report said, is increased accessibility of contraception since 2011, as the Affordable Care Act required most private health insurance plans to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs.

A message I hope is heard:

"If your priority is to reduce abortions, one of the best things you can do is make sure that women have access to high-quality, affordable and effective methods of birth control," said Alina Salganicoff, director of women's health policy for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

[Paingod]

I'm sorry.

The correct response for many anti-abortionists is "abstinence" not "safe sex" - they likely believe that women shouldn't be having any kind of pleasurable experience before their husband climbs on top of them and heaves twice before falling asleep.

[EvelynHarper]

Spam removed

[Isgrimnur]

Georgia

A federal judge has sidelined at least temporarily a Georgia law that would place new restrictions on abortion, a measure that already has drawn threats from filmmakers and some studios that they would consider pulling production from the state if the legislation is fully implemented.
...
In his decision, Jones wrote that “by prohibiting a woman from terminating her pregnancy after a fetal heartbeat is detected, [the law] bans abortions prior to the point of viability.” The fetal heartbeat typically is detected in the first six weeks of a pregnancy.

He wrote that the law was “in direct conflict with current Supreme Court precedent, which this Court is bound by and must follow” and that the plaintiffs “have therefore established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Groups such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood challenged the legislation.
...
Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger said in May that it would be “very difficult” for the company to shoot in the state if the law took effect. Disney’s Marvel unit has shot a number of superhero tentpoles in the state, including Black Panther and Avengers: Endgame. Netflix also said that it would “rethink its entire investment” in the state should the law be implemented.

[Isgrimnur]

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland's abortion law breaches the UK's human rights commitments, the High Court ruled.
...
The judge said a formal declaration of incompatibility would not be made at this stage.

Mrs Justice Keegan made that decision in light of impending legislation, already passed at Westminster, which will decriminalise abortion if there is no deal to restore devolution in Northern Ireland by 21 October.
...
The 1967 Abortion Act, which liberalised the rules in England, Scotland and Wales, was never extended to Northern Ireland.
...
Northern Ireland has been without a devolved government for almost three years.
...
At present there is little sign that there will be a resolution within the 18-day deadline.