The Truth About America's Abortion Problem
Making abortions illegal does not reduce the steady demand for terminations by even one case. The real abortion rate in Mexico and Czechoslovak, where elective abortions are mostly illegal, is at least twice that of the United States which plainly illustrates the only pertinent point.
Making abortions illegal does not stop women from aborting. What it does is to make criminals of the women, their doctors and often even family members who merely cooperated in the process.
The demand for terminations is mostly dictated by the numbers of unwanted pregnancies which is primarily due to poor women already having more children than they can provide for. Doing three simple things has been proven to almost eliminate the demand for termination services. Those things are...
1. Require comprehensive sex education for all students prior to puberty.
2. Make all forms of birth control easily available and affordable.
3. Provide all women with family planning services such as are provided by Planned Parenthood.
By doing those three simple things and we could drastically reduce the incidence of terminations. Unfortunately though, those who are most opposed to reproductive choice are also those standing in the way of actually doing anything to actually help the situation. It seems that all the wretched hypocrites in the damn gop realky want to do is to put poor women and their goid doctors into their godforsaken for profit prisons. Is that plain enough for you now?
If all the good godfearing women in America who have ever made the difficult and painful choice to terminate for whatever their reasons were sent to prisons tonight then church pews across America would be half empty tomorrow morning.
The whole thing is infuriating and you should damn the gop for it all!
Can We Deal With The Truth?
The only real problem I see with abortion are antiabortionists (or anti-choicers, if you prefer).
If Roe were reversed women would burn this country to the ground
Women Lives Matter (WLM)?
Besides, reversing Roe would set a very dangerous precedent.
It would be like reversing Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson. Roe vs. Wade is every bit as vile and evil as those decisions were.
No, it wouldn't. It would be the exact opposite.
Merely your opinion. Dredd & Plessy restricted rights. Roe expanded them. Roe was a very good decision!
Roe legalized human extermination and ending the right to even exist for some of us.
Such hyperbole. It's no wonder anti-abortionists consistently lose on the issue. Maybe you should try putting emotion aside and formulate a rational argument.
You do realize abortion has been around since the dawn of man.
And it will probably be around even if it were prohibited. Of course, that would be going socially backwards (which seem to want to do) and likely would not be safe. At least current abortion laws make abortions legal and safe.
If you ever know of anyone killing babies then please do report it to the police immediately for murder is illegal. If, on the other hand, you are babbling about women making the legal choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy during the first months of pregnancy than you should mind your own damn business for once...
Doncha know, some of them actually believe donald when he says people are killing babies after they are born...
Some actually believe a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a "baby" too. Is such mentality just plain stupidity or a disconnect from reality? Or both?
Just out of curiosity....if abortion is outlawed...exactly how many unwanted babies will you be adopting? 100? 1000? I mean, you will have to do it on your own...no help with education, clothing, healthcare, or food because the GOP votes against that stuff...every...single...time. So how are you going to pay for all these unwanted babies that you will adopt?
And the women who are pro life will stop it from happening....
How long do you think that a woman who chooses to have an abortion should spend in prison? Or, do you think she should get the death penalty? And, what about the doctor? What about a friend who only drives her to and from the abortionist? If you really believe it should be a crime to get an abortion then you should be up front about the penalties which you propose. So, what do you think?
Um, nope, there are more prochoice women and prolife women are only prolife until they get an abortion
Doesn't want to admit he is for death penalty!
I am for the death penalty for certain especially bad crimes but getting an abortion is a lesser crime. The doctor and the clinic are the ones that should pay any fines or jail time for performing an abortion if almost all abortions were made illegal.
Newsflash - Handmaid's Tale is a horror story!
Wait - it's not an instruction manual?
I suppose that depends on whom you ask.
Too true.
I've read the book and watched the series. Anyone that would want to live in that kind of world needs their head examined. Women reduced to human incubators for the infertile and men in charge calling the shots. Never!
In this world, some antiabortionists want the same thing: relegate women to being human incubators and/or as second class citizens by removing certain rights or bodily autonomy.
Unfortunately you speak the truth.
I'm sorry. I'll try to lie a little more often then, Lol
The woman on Trump's fast track to the SC will do just that. That is why Trump wants her.
These are all simple and effective means for eliminating unwanted pregnancies and/or the need for abortions. But I would add the following:
1. Comprehensive sex ed prior to puberty and all throughout high school, when hormones really kick in. So we're talking at least grades 5 or 6-12 to start teaching about sex. Unfortunately, there are parents out there who have a stick up their @ss when it comes to sex ed, either because of personal, religious, and/or cultural influence. Parental opposition is a big roadblock and a disservice to children. That needs to be dealt with.
2. Make all forms of birth control easily available and affordable: make condom vending machines available in high schools and birth control pills available over the counter. Pediatricians and high school medical staff should be able to freely inquire about a child's sexual activity or habits and provide birth control if needed.
3. Provide all women with family planning services such as are provided by Planned Parenthood: Absolutely and I'd even include men too. Include information packets in sex ed classes with contact information to PP and other related sources.
That is all quite reasonable. Do notice though that those most adamantly opposed to our reproductive freedoms are not interested in the ways we know to practically eliminate the demand for terminations...
Thank you. I thought so too.
Indeed. Some seem to view sex as bad or "dirty" (that's the best way
) and don't want any mention of it whatsoever, including sex ed, birth control, ect.. It's a very antiquated and ignorant way of thinking which frankly, has no place in our modern world. Not to mention it only exacerbates the problem of unwanted pregnancies.
I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal but still happened anyway...if the girl or her family had enough money to pay for one. Poor girls were expected to give up on their futures and to just get married. If not they were shunned and relegated to lifelong poverty!
And those that couldn't pay for one had to resort to back alley "doctors" for an abortion, which sometimes left them mutilated or dead. If abortion were severely restricted or prohibited, it's possible we'd see history repeating itself. Or we'd become like other countries that outlawed abortions such as Romania, which did not end well.
Long before roe v. wade a relative of mine (was told this story and it happened before I was born in 1962) had an abortion done by a butcher and bled to death in the street.
And you wonder why I am prochoice, that is just one reason.
Your relative was likely not the only one to suffer such a fate. Quite terrible indeed.
If a conservative-packed SCOTUS were to reverse Roe vs Wade I intend to invest in companies that manufacture wire coat hangers, and I would invite the whole SCOTUS to take a tour of the top floor ward of Toronto's Sick Children's Hospital and spend the day helping the staff care for the monsters whose parents retched when they even looked at them and were not qualified to care for them.
I know that's a concern for some. But I don't think it will actually happen. Although, individual states will probably attempt to restrict abortion to the point where legal challenges may bring it before the SCOTUS. Still, the SCOTUS was fairly conservative when Roe was originally decided.
Was the court ever as strong conservatively as 6 - 3?
I don't recall off the top of my head.
That's morbid, Buzz, but I do see where you're coming from
We pretty much do these things already, and have for a long time. Is it 100%? Of course not. And I would endorse improving all of those things (though the family planning part doesn't have to be Planned Parenthood per se).
I'm pretty sure most kids get sex ed in school (often by the 5th or 6th grade or so), and have for generations. 97% get sex ed by the time they are 18.
Birth control is easier to get and cheaper to buy all the time (When I was young, I had to ask the pharmacist for condoms. Now you can just pick them up off the rack or buy them online.).
Planned Parenthood or other providers are right there for people who want to use them. But many don't until it's time to get an abortion.
The implication seems to be that abortions happen because we don't have those 3 things. I don't believe for one minute that even a significant number of abortions (much less a majority) happen with women or couples who had no sex education, couldn't find or afford any kind of contraception, and had no access to family planning. People are just not that ignorant, poor, and deprived - at least not in the many thousands that we are talking about. They know how babies are made. They just don't take steps to prevent it.
(Some do take those steps and still get pregnant. I'm not talking about them.)
I see a parallel with the covid pandemic. People think we need some kind of miracle legal or social policy from government to arrest transmission. That's not what we need. What we need is people who are willing to take responsibility.
As a timely example, as I write this, the house across the street from me is hosting a Sweet 16 party. There are a few dozen people milling about in the yard and the house. They have a bounce house. A MFing bounce house.
Meanwhile, my kids can't go to school, and my father in law is on lockdown at his assisted living facility, when he was in the hospital, we couldn't visit him. My wife can't get her hair or nails done. We can't eat in restaurants. All because our county can't satisfy 6 metrics from the governor. We've reduced deaths and hospitalizations. Where are we lacking? Too many new cases. Is that Trump's fault or anyone in government? No. It's because people like the assholes across the street have decided they don't give a fuck. They know better. They just don't care enough to make a small sacrifice.
All forms of birth control are easily available and affordable? IUDs aren't available and affordable to all. Neither is tubal ligation.
I remember someone back in the old NV days who said she never wanted kids and actually tried to get a tubal ligation. But she was denied because the doctor thought she would change her mind, as if she wasn't capable of deciding for herself.
One of my employees had two children, knew she didn't want to have any more, and asked for a tubal, and her doctor argued with her. "What if one of your kids dies?" She asked him if another child would be a replacement for the dead one. She got her tubal.
WTF? What kind of question is that?
Good answer.
I wouldn't say so. And I didn't.
Were you excluding bullet point #2 when you typed this?
Did you miss the part where I said it wasn't 100% and that I thought we could do better? Here's the thing: If you're really worried about preventing pregnancy, and you can't get an IUD or tubal ligation, you can probably get an alternative pretty easily and cheaply.
This was 30+ years ago, when she and her family were stationed overseas because her husband was in the Navy. The base provided medical care to families, but there wasn't much choice in doctors.
"Not 100%" isn't the same as the two most reliable forms of contraception being either financially out of reach or difficult to obtain for many women. Yes, there are alternatives. None are nearly as reliable.
EXACTLY! Thank you.
Do you think that's what's driving all the abortions? Just people who can't get IUDs or get their tubes tied?
You're the one who said "We pretty much do these things already" in response to a quote that says "Make all forms of birth control easily available and affordable." We don't make all forms of birth control easily available and affordable.
It is not 'more available.' It's not an 'insulated incident.' Many women are discouraged/not allowed to get their tubes tied if they don't already have children or do not want children or already have children.
Also certain folks are trying to make all forms of birth control not so readily available. Like the morning after pill or medical abortions as a for instance.
Read the article or do some research. The demand for terminations is mainly driven by women already having more children than they can care for financially or emotionally. If you want to reduce the number of abortions then you must reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. There are known proven ways of doing this. Plural. No one thing controls all aspects, you should already know this and so there is no excuse for such impertinence or to play dumb merely for argument sake!
It was available at the time, and that's the doctor who performed it for her, after disregarding that whole bedside manner thing.
But if you read my quoted link in the same comment, women are still often expected to jump through hoops to get tubal ligation. At some hospitals, a woman still needs her husband's consent to get a tubal.
I don't see a discussion in your comment. Just a personal attack. I have engaged with the content of your article and commented on it. I took no jabs at you or anyone else. I have shown you no disrespect. Your accusations are unfounded.
I did and I even included a link to some of it. Seems dishonest of you to imply that I didn't.
Catholic hospitals. Many communities have only hospitals run by the Catholic church.
It varies by hospital. I have also heard of doctors wanting a wife's input regarding her husband's vasectomy.
And of course they have to consider a woman's general health. The thing is, a tubal is less likely to endanger a woman's health than a pregnancy, and pregnancy itself can be dangerous for some women. A tubal is their most reliable way to avoid those dangers.
Distance can be a barrier, Kathleen. Especially for poor women in rural areas (the areas with less hospital choice), where public transportation is nonexistent. If we want fewer abortions, we should remove barriers to contraception. We shouldn't be making it harder, then whining (not you, because I know you're pro-choice) about women getting abortions.
Goes back to that whole "easily available and affordable" thing.
Any doctor can refuse to perform an elective procedure for any reason that is not discriminatory. If he or she would make that requirement of all married men asking for a vasectomy, it is not illegal. Same as it's not illegal for doctors or private hospitals to require a husband's consent for a woman to have tubal ligation. You and I may not like it, but it's not illegal.
It is, however, a barrier to contraception.
They can and have tried many things to make it impossible to get it done.
From requiring a hospital tag, limiting it to a two week window, etc.
There is only one place in my state where one could have it done. For some people that could be a four hour drive.
Then add in the religious dogma that is against any form of birth control, making it harder to attain.
I find this whole, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant have her tubes tied, thing to be very condescending and sexist.
A woman may not want to have a child at a young age and wait until she is more secure at a later date.
For some it is an all or nothing approach.
Of course they can use other forms of contraception. But for the woman who wants no more children, or never wanted children, tubal ligation is the most reliable method. And some women can't take hormonal contraception (I couldn't, last time I tried - my blood pressure skyrocketed within a few days), that leaves barrier methods like diaphragms and condoms, which are the least reliable.
Which will lead to more abortions.
The point is, that to decrease the number of abortions, we should decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. The best way to do that is to make it easy to avoid unwanted pregnancies, by whatever methods the women prone to conceiving those pregnancies find works best for them. If it's tubal ligation, they should be able to get a tubal ligation on demand, without having to drive across the state, or satisfy some doctor's personal conditions about why they want a tubal, or have a certain number of children (that they may or may not want or be able to support) first, or be a certain age, or make sure their husbands are satisfied with the number of pregnancies they got out of their incubators.
Of course not. No man should be forced into parenthood by a doctor's wishes, or his wife's. The same goes for women regarding their doctors' wishes, or their husbands'. But the fact of the matter is that it happens (more for women than men, it seems), and it's legal, and it leads to unwanted pregnancies, which in turn leads to abortions.
Here's a link:
If a physician thinks it is unethical or immoral for one spouse to deprive the other of children (and some do), they can refuse a tubal or a vasectomy. If the physician has religious objections to contraception, including sterilization, they can refuse a tubal or vasectomy.
There is no one reason. But it is obvious to me that reliable contraception will decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions. If a woman has trouble accessing or paying for contraception, or is limited to less reliable methods by her circumstances, financial or otherwise, she is more likely to find herself pregnant when she doesn't want to be.
Yes, and if the nearest facility is miles away? Say you're in some rural community where it's an hour or more drive to the nearest hospital that even has an OR, and you find out that you can't have some procedures done, because the doctor or hospital don't like them. Would you consider that procedure to now be "easily available and affordable" as we both seem to think that contraception should be? Can everyone afford to take another day off of work, drive even farther, to find a hospital or doctor who will perform the procedure? For a minimum wage earner with no paid medical leave and no or limited insurance coverage, and possible transportation issues, the problems should be pretty clear. Ironically, these are the folks least likely to be able to support an unexpected child.
It helps, for those who are covered. Not everybody is.
The flip side to that is no woman should be forced into parenthood by a man or someone opposed to abortion.
This, to me.
Or government support for healthcare facilities, so that communities aren't left to the mercies of religiously-based hospitals who put their interpretations of scriptures ahead of patient's best interests.
11.1% of the US population is uninsured, lacking either private coverage or Medicaid.
Using contraception is common sense. Common sense dictates that we should make it easy for couples to exercise their common sense by removing barriers to contraception. Don't you agree?
I agree that people need to be responsible with their reproductive decisions. And I believe there are barriers to them being able to do so, and that ignoring or downplaying those barriers is not helpful.
Yeah, they can go to the pharmacy and buy condoms, which have a 13% failure rate with typical use.
Nobody here is doing that. How is wanting to make contraception available and affordable downplaying responsibility? I don't think anyone here who is advocating for contraception is doing so in the hopes that folks will chuck their condoms or birth control pills in the trash without using them.
Yes, sex ed, contraception, and family planning services were all mentioned, with the intent that nobody be responsible enough to use them /s
The expectation of responsibility is implied, Kathleen. None of these suggestions implies that couples need someone to blow the whistle to stop them if they don't have a condom ready, or plans to provide birth control pills that don't get taken, or sex ed classes with the expectation that students will sleep through them.
Good grief, Kathleen, do you seriously think that anybody here expects that any of these measures will work without the couples involved being responsible enough to use them? Of course we expect them to be responsible. We all know that a condom doesn't work in the box.
Where did you get that figure from? But according to the Guttmacher Institute, half of women who were using contraceptives became pregnant.
Ideally, both do. But this is not an ideal world and failure can still occur.
And it is possible that in that poll, some women may have lied about the use of them. After getting an abortion, it is entirely possible she might have said that instead of looking like she and her partner were too dumb to use them.
Possible, but no reason to assume that's the case.
I'm sure that plays a part. But regardless if one or both use or do not use contraceptives, or contraceptives fail, abortion is something that must always be legal, available, and safe.
Probably. But some people think that as long as 1 person is using contraceptives, then that is good enough. And in many cases, it is. But not always.
Since we have no idea how many might be lying, we cannot make the assumption. All we have is the data as presented. But it's reasonable to think the reported number is at least a ballpark estimation of the actual number.
I wasn't implying that is what you were saying.
True. But regardless of how or even if they're reduced or not, we can agree abortion should always be an available option.
Everybody got your point, Kathleen. We just all realize that any method of contraception must actually be used to be effective, and that utilization requires responsibility.
And some of us object to the fact that while you seemed to start out agreeing that contraception should be readily available and affordable, you then started to dither, and doubted that access is restricted for some women despite multiple links provided, and said that if one method wasn't available, to just use something else, and then just chalked unwanted pregnancy up to lack of responsibility, ignoring the fact that we are all very much aware when we mention contraception that one must be responsible enough to use it for it to work. You backpedalled.
I don't think there is one person around here that has not given into temptation at one time.
Especially being a teenager.
Acting like it is all just as easy as a simple choice is bypassing human instinct, if not and/or emotion.
In other words I guess, shit happens.
What gets me most of all with a lot of it, whatever happens or the end result may be, it is not the business of anyone else beside the parties involved. At all.
Telling other what is right and wrong is only dictating what others can or should do. Most times without even knowing any circumstances involved.
Really weird to me that some do not see simple facts.
I've always been pretty careful, and have never had an unwanted pregnancy, but I've also always had access to contraception. Starting in my mid-30s, though, I could no longer take the Pill (caused very high blood pressure for me, when it had been on the low side before), so that left me fewer and less reliable options. So, while I've always used contraception, I was lucky not to be in that 13%. Of course, I had insurance, so I would have had access to tubal ligation, had it become necessary. I'm lucky enough not to live in a community where the only hospital objects to contraception or sterilization.
Come on now. We all had at least one breakdown. Haha
I imagine you have to beat them off with a spiked club. So you can do whatever you want.
Sorry the pill had that impact on you. For some I have read it helps and even regulates.
You're probably right. Your conclusion seems indisputable.
OTOH, that doesn't change our obligations as a society. We know that an unwanted pregnancy will probably lead to serious problems.
We must try to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sex education, contraception, over and over.
Ah, if only. But thanks.
Yeah, it was 118/68 the day I went to the doctor. She told me to take my blood pressure a few weeks in, and to watch for signs of blood clots, due to my age. Two or 3 weeks later, I felt like I was coming down with the flu - ached all over, fatigue, but no fever. I had my assistant take my BP, and it was 150/110. Holy crap! So, couldn't take that anymore.
Thank you. It is back to normal without meds now, but I spent about 6 months on BP meds. It runs in my family, too. Glad you're taking care of yours.
In rural America that's all that available. There may be county health departments but that could mean a 50 mile drive one way. I would like to see more government operated medical facilities that can provide birth control information and actual medication and devices
My mom used to say..."For the pill to be truly effective, hold it between your knees."
Well, she's not entirely wrong, lol
Still can't figure out why so called 'freedom loving' conservatives wish to legislate laws giving the government the power to force a woman or family to bear a child they do not need, want, can not afford or are simply not interested for their own personal reasons.
Pro life people? Really? So what does that actually mean?
I still can't figure out why some people think a woman's personal decision is any of their business.
Unless conservative wish to have a 'certain power' over a portion of the population ( women ) in the same manner certain uber religious Islamic states have.
After all, aren't the roots of the Taliban's religious interpretations grounded in the Abrahamic religion?
So are christian fundamentalists.
My point exactly. They are the same.
I suspect they would disagree.
Of course they would disagree. But they are the same. Only difference is one side has larger and more powerful weapons.
There is no reason - ethical, logical, or Biblical - to oppose abortion. All such arguments are artificial constructs, with no basis in reality.
The actual reason anyone opposes abortion is that we all have an inborn reflex to protect our young. This reflex has been hijacked by the anti-choice people, and applied to blobs of tissue that in no way qualify as "babies". Unless we seriously examine the foundations of our pro- or anti- positions, we can make no progress.
The motives most often cited for banning abortion cannot be sustained in any serious discussion. Anti-choicers must therefore resort to dishonest subterfuges... while claiming to act for morality. They must - and do - derail any attempt to seriously examine the topic.
The current legal situation in the US has nothing to do with morality. It is a "Judgement of Solomon" compromise between pure emotion and exhausted reason.
I think you hit the nail on the head right there.
I tend to agree. Most, if not all arguments against abortion I have seen are more emotionally based rather than rational. I could probably construct a fairly rational argument for abortion, but that will probably cause some people to go into an emotional tizzy.
I haven't seen 1 anti-abortionist put forth a logical, rational argument as to why abortion should be prohibited. Usually all they muster is emotional appeals or rhetoric, religious belief, or flat out misinformation or lies. It's especially ridiculous when they base their arguments on morality.
Exactly.
They are "holier than thou"... while unable to explain their position.
There are many who have never thought through their position, despite being very vehement. These people simply follow their leaders. They have abandoned their own minds and consciences.
Their leaders are smart enough to think it through. Since that process must necessarily conclude that prohibiting abortion causes pain for no good reason... they are just plain evil.
Who needs explanations when one has sanctimony?
Some do seem to simply parrot others while ignoring actual facts. It's willful ignorance at its best.
Often their positions and "arguments" do seem quite irrational.
That I'm not so sure.
I would just like to say, that a law that is not part of the constitution, can be reversed. Even if it was in the constitution, it could be reversed, but it would be harder to do. So those who say that there is no danger of Roe v Wade being reversed with a conservative court, are wrong. It is an absolute possibility.
Perrie, I don't think anyone said abortion rights couldn't be reversed. Only that it is unlikely. However, doing so would set a very dangerous legal precedent. Unfortunately, the abortion debate seems to be more emotionally driven than rationally.
So, according to the pro-abortionists, abortion is an effective method of birth control that should have no restrictions as to the stage of the pregnancy or the age of the female
Who said that specifically?
trumpturd and his supporters.
What is this word?
I have never met anyone who favors abortions.
Something anti-abortionists made up, which is willfully disingenuous. Then there are those who are willfully ignorant by equating pro-choice to pro-abortion.
I note that Greg didn't answer. That would have been preferable.
MAGA has not answered either.
MAGA can't answer. Remember when Chris Matthews asked him if punishment should be given to women seeking abortion? Trump replied yes but could not or would not answer what the punishment would be.
I'm not surprised.
More like won't.
Exactly. But not surprising either.
Overpopulation is the problem neither party wants to talk about
But it's a problem we have to deal with. Or it'll deal with us.
I have read studies that more affluent people tend to have less children.
Not sure how accurate it is but basically saying the more people lifted out of poverty would lower birth rate.
That makes sense, as having and raising children is expensive. Less or no children means one retains the assets they would otherwise spend on child rearing. Therefore, they have a greater chance of achieving greater affluence.
Women in poverty may not have the resources to obtain contraception or an abortion. So if they become pregnant, then they risk becoming even more impoverished, for both them and a child.
I have noticed that, too. People having more kids than they can afford leads to poverty in that generation and in the future
It also risks posing a drain on the rest of us too.
Amen.
Wonder what will happen with all the hypocrites that were boycotting wearing masks, saying keep government off of my body...
I have noticed that many people who are against choice on abortion want choice on masks and many people who want make people wear masks are for choice on abortion. Seems a reversal of positions when something affects or inconvinces them.personally, This is puzzling.
They are HYPOCRITES
The big difference here is, wearing a mask protects me from you, as someone with Covid can spread it and cause harm to others. Someone having an abortion has no effect on me or anyone else.
There is no contradiction. The two topics are not as you present them. .
Not wearing a mask puts people in danger. It is irresponsible.
Prohibiting abortion ruins damages lives. It is irresponsible.
Responsible people favor wearing a mask, and oppose prohibiting abortion.
Irresponsible people refuse the mask and forbid abortion.
Son I'm still wondering, what exactly is America's abortion problem? Or perhaps, how is abortion a problem?
So, not son. Typo on my part.
That's better. Thank You, JBB...
Our problem is that the issue of legal abortion divides us like no other yet we could do some things to mostly eliminate the demand for abortions but instead the gop only wants to make terminations illegal, again. The Supreme Court and women's rights to choose are in the balance right now and that is a problem.
The problem is, one side does not accept the legal boundaries of abortion. That is a problem I mentioned in my first post on this thread.
Agreed. That would be optimal to satisfy both sided of the issue.
Indeed. They go right to the extreme.
Indeed it is.
The biggest problem with abortion is like many things some people can't tend to their own business