Welcome to pro-life America. Enjoy your forced childbirth. Hope you don't die. | Opinion | Orlando | Orlando Weekly
By: Jeffrey C. Billman (Orlando Weekly)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Informed Dissent
By Jeffrey C. Billman
"Abortion carries significant physical and psychological risks to the maternal patient, and these physical and psychological risks increase with gestational age," Mississippi lawmakers declared in the Gestational Age Act of 2018, the 15-week abortion ban the Supreme Court's conservatives will likely use to eviscerate Roe v. Wade.
Not that it matters, but none of this is true.
According to the American Psychological Association, abortion doesn't increase a woman's risk for depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder — although women denied an abortion "are more likely to initially experience higher levels of anxiety, lower life satisfaction, and lower self-esteem."
About those physical risks? Only 2% of abortions have complications, most of which are minor. In the U.S., the abortion mortality rate is 0.6 per 100,000. In Mississippi, giving birth is roughly 60 times more dangerous than having an abortion; the pregnancy-related mortality rate in 2016 was 33.2 per 100,000 live births, about four times the national average.
Mississippi didn't fool District Court Judge Carlton Reeves, who called its "professed care in 'women's health' … pure gaslighting." In 2018, Reeves struck down the law. "No, legislation like H.B. 1510 is closer to the old Mississippi — the Mississippi bent on controlling women and minorities," Reeves wrote.
Technically, Mississippi seems bent on controlling women who are minorities. Black women are more than five times as likely to get an abortion than white women, according to the state's data. In Mississippi, Black women are also more likely to be affected by geographic, regulatory and financial barriers to obtaining an abortion, face medical complications, or become pregnant as teenagers — all factors that lead to the later-term abortions the state wants to outlaw out of purported concern for their welfare.
Not only is Mississippi the country's poorest state, but it has the highest poverty rate for working-age women, and Black residents are nearly three times as likely to live in poverty as white ones. Nearly a quarter of its residents lack health insurance. Mississippi has the country's second-highest teenage birth rate, with Black teenagers about 50% more likely to give birth than their white peers. It also leads in children born to unmarried mothers, preterm births, low birthweight births and infant mortality.
This is the vanguard of the "pro-life" movement.
I doubt anyone's naive enough to think Mississippi lawmakers give a wet fart about poor Black women. But that's irrelevant, as last week's Supreme Court arguments made clear. If the Court kills Roe, 21 states' dormant abortion bans will go into effect. Five more states could ban abortion soon after, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Together, they include the entire Deep South, save for North Carolina and Virginia, and most of the Upper Midwest — including Michigan and Wisconsin, where pre-Roe bans can be enforced.
Women with means will travel thousands of miles to obtain abortions. Women without will be compelled to carry their pregnancies to term. Amy Coney Barrett thinks they can simply dump their unwanted babies after giving birth, so problem solved — as if pregnancy and childbirth don't pose physical risks or have real-life financial consequences.
Barrett doesn't want Americans to see the Court as "a bunch of partisan hacks," so she needs something to justify undoing a half-century of precedent. The safe haven laws that proliferated over the last two decades are apparently her best option. Of course, 15 years ago, Barrett went on record calling Roe "barbaric." And when she told the Senate "It's not possible" to say how she'd rule in an abortion case, she lied.
As Paul Waldman pointed out in The Washington Post, the conservative justices all lied during their confirmation hearings. Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch insisted their personal views wouldn't affect their decisions. Clarence Thomas claimed he hadn't discussed Roe with anybody, ever. Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts said Roe was "settled as a precedent," a position Kavanaugh especially seems to have reconsidered.
The Supreme Court wants to turn the 14th Amendment from a right into a privilege — one that legislatures can remove. tweet this
"The other side would say that the core problem here is that the Court has been forced by the position you're taking and by the cases to pick sides on the most contentious social debate in American life," Kavanaugh told Julie Rikelman, attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, "and to do so in a situation where they say that … the Constitution's neither pro-life nor pro-choice on the question of abortion. And they would say, therefore, it should be left to the people, to the states, or to Congress."
Rights aren't subject to popular opinion. That's what makes them rights — in this case, the right to liberty and physical autonomy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The Court's conservatives want to turn that right into a privilege that legislatures can remove; their ruling will amount to a declaration that women can't be trusted with decisions about their own pregnancies.
There will be one upside to the Court reversing Roe, however. We can stop pretending this Court isn't an activist body whose decisions derive from its members' partisan inclinations and far-right ideologies. And eventually, that will lead to much-needed, sweeping judicial reforms — including expanding the Court and placing term limits on justices — as well as smaller measures such as establishing a code of ethics.
"Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked last week. "I don't see how it is possible."
It isn't. And if this is the direction the Court goes, that's for the best.
Tags
Who is online
428 visitors
Gotta agree with Sotomayor.
All of this just seems like political acts and will harm perception of the court.
I can't stand that phonier than thou small c christian BITCH!
It's my understanding that SCOTUS operates simply on respect. They have zero enforcement powers.
When states lose respect for SCOTUS and start to ignore the Court it will force Congress to pass enforcement laws .
At least two recent appointees lied through their teeth during confirmation hearings.
Respect can take a lifetime to achieve and be lost in seconds...this court is now looking uphill.
It seems like some lawmakers don't even have respect for the courts when they make laws to skirt judicial review.
Women forced to endure a pregnancy against their will is just collateral damage. But pro-lifers don't seem to care about that.
Well then "they should have kept their legs closed".
I've seen some actually say that too. Quite misogynistic.
Maybe someone, "Should have kept it in their pants!"
That too. But perhaps when it comes to abortion and individual choice, maybe everyone should mind their own business.
obviously bible thumpers are unable to do that.
It's funny how "bible thumpers" know exactly what god wants us to do with sex but argue over almost everything else.
Looks like it's gonna get harder to get laid.
...for anyone that doesn't have access to a sunday school.
Not "will harm", it already has. She makes the case for stacking the court.
Indeed she does. President Biden needs to do so.
There IS no case for stacking the court in my book. No matter one's perception of what someone may feel is someone's agenda. Justice is to be blind........................and if it isn't, they need to go.
I may no longer practice law, and may not be that cognizant of American law, but what bothers me is when I see a justice of the highest court in the land make comments like the court's "position on Jews" and the "JEWISH-Palestinian conflict" and after publishing her very strong position against Abortion refuses to recuse herself from any hearing on abortion. Let's see what she does when a Trump personal matter hits the court.
In this hypothetical question she used the language of the class of people trying to find out what triggers the state to act...
I can post it in it's entirety if you like? (I already have on another article ) but just because of that you now consider her a bigot?
Hypothetical questions are asked in legal arguments all the time, to illustrate points in questioning the intent of everything... I'm sure you have made some in your career as an attorney, you have made some right here on the board to me...
[ deleted ]
That's easy to say when the court is already stacked in one's favor. That said, democrats have been woeful when it comes to elections for the past score or so years abandoning all other elections for the placebo of electing a president. It's all about SCOTUS folks and y'all fucked up ... expanding the court will be akin to building a new chicken coop without a door and the 'republican' foxes will waltz in wearing bibs; they're really good at this stuff and democrats suck royally at it.
As far as I am concerned, it isn't stacked at all. Quite frankly that is bullshit. People use that excuse because the person possibly doesn't like views expressed years ago. Just because one party may control the Senate doesn't mean the other party plays no part in the confirmation. They all get to voice their questions and concerns. If a concern is that egregious, it should light a fire under both "sides". And a 30+ year old frat party doesn't need to be considered if that was the only blemish on one's past. As far as ACB's opinions outside the halls of the Supreme Court, everyone has and opinion on everything or none whatsoever. When one gets to the Supreme Court and the considerations for rulings is based on law but more heavily weighted by the Constitution of the United States, those leanings for academic value mean squat. It is the rule of law that governs and if one feels the Justice's are inserting personal feelings and attitudes, bring up a case for impeachment. Otherwise, shut the hell up and drive.
In a nutshell that is what I said, just don't ask Thelma and Louise to drive.
No Value [devangelical]
Jim's comment to me certainly has zero value now that it has been deleted.
sorry, it was just easier for me that way, instead of only removing the taunting...
There are 12 federal court districts and only 9 justices. Which ones are doing "double duty"?
She asked a State Attorney General a hypothetical "What If" question about skinheads in relation to a program for funding education....
In this hypothetical question she used the language of the class of people trying to find out what triggers the state to act...
I can post it in it's entirety if you like? (I already have on another article )
Hypothetical questions are asked in legal arguments all the time, to illustrate points in questioning the intent of everything... I'm sure you have made some in your career as an attorney, you have made some right here on the board to me...
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. In the federal court system’s present form, 94 district level trial courts and 13 courts of appeals sit below the Supreme Court.
The 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.
A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.
In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Bankruptcy Appellate Panels (BAPs) are 3-judge panels authorized to hear appeals of bankruptcy court decisions. These panels are a unit of the federal courts of appeals, and must be established by that circuit.
Five circuits have established panels: First Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit.
The nation’s 94 district or trial courts are called U.S. District Courts. District courts resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right.
Trial courts include the district judge who tries the case and a jury that decides the case. Magistrate judges assist district judges in preparing cases for trial. They may also conduct trials in misdemeanor cases.
There is at least one district court in each state, and the District of Columbia. Each district includes a U.S. bankruptcy court as a unit of the district court.
Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases involving personal, business, or farm bankruptcy. This means a bankruptcy case cannot be filed in state court. Through the bankruptcy process, individuals or businesses that can no longer pay their creditors may either seek a court-supervised liquidation of their assets, or they may reorganize their financial affairs and work out a plan to pay their debts.
Four territories of the United States have U.S. district courts that hear federal cases, including bankruptcy cases: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
There are also two special trial courts. The Court of International Trade addresses cases involving international trade and customs laws. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims deals with most claims for money damages against the U.S. government.
Congress created several Article I, or legislative courts, that do not have full judicial power. Judicial power is the authority to be the final decider in all questions of Constitutional law, all questions of federal law and to hear claims at the core of habeas corpus issues. Article I Courts are:
None of them do "Double Duty"
I realize I should have stated "circuit courts". My apologies.
The federal circuit courts of appeals and district courts are organized into 13 federal circuits and each Justice is responsible for emergency applications and other matters from one or more of these circuits. For example, individual Justices may be asked to halt the implementation of a circuit court order, set bond for a defendant, or stop the deportation of an alien. Justices are also asked to act on applications for a stay of execution.
This is why each judge is "Allotted" a district or set of districts to act as a presiding judge for administrative duties.... They do one heck of a lot more than just sit and argue legalities... The work load is balanced over the judges more or less fairly.... No one does "Double Duty" Some districts have more business than others...
Thank you for the explanation. With all due respect, tell us why we should not have one for each district.
My Pleasure...
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred since.
Although FDR tried to expand the court massively in '38 I believe it was, to one sitting justice for each district and a sitting "Backup" for each justice in case one of them became incapacitated for any reason, in effect 24 sitting justices to be appointed on a political basis... It was defeated soundly by a veto proof majority of Congress, both political parties outright rejecting the proposal...
The only thing I could add is that it should always be an odd number, the court can function with an even number, but an odd number leaves no ties...
You would have to ask Congress that question...
Thank you for the history lesson.
That doesn't tell us why we shouldn't have more Justices. Why not 11?
You would have to ask Congress that question...
So it's not your pleasure anymore? That was quick.
I don't have your answer, it's as simple as that... Doesn't have anything to do with my pleasure....
Congress by express article in the constitution is the only organization that does...
Ask them...
If you ask a question I can give a factual answer to that you would accept I would be happy to give you one... That would be My pleasure..
You made that claim 8 hours ago yet failed to answer TOM's question.
Aw, my humble apologies, I thought he was satisfied with the answers I was able to give him.. Must have been, he thanked me for them...
[deleted]
TOM thanked you for the history lesson, NOT an answer.
Actually no.
As I said, you didn't answer his question, nor have you answered mine.
[Yeah]
[deleted]
There you go Tom and Dulay - supplying the truth and facts.
Don't you know some folks here don't deal in truth and facts?
{chuckle}
[deleted]
Lets try this one more time...
What facts and truth haven't been dealt with?
I don't believe that you are truly incapable of reviewing this thread a finding TOM inquiry NWN, so WHY play this game of yours.
Though at this point nobody gives a fuck about reading your argument.
[deleted]
Given the (now deleted) trollish comments, there is no rational argument to begin with, as a rational, civil argument could probably stand on its own merits.
[deleted]
[deleted
]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I know I don't.
[deleted]
"Commom sense" in what way? Laws which unduly restrict abortion rights is not common sense.
He acts like women willy nilly abort their babies right up until birth.
Some seem to think that will actually happen if abortion rights stand or are not restricted.
If the court decides that the states can decide, yes, it essentially overturns RvW.
Then welcome back to the days of back alley abortions.
It will be time to invest in wire hanger manufacturers.
And they come in a variety of colors.
...by right wing conservatives and anti-choice advocates.
Sadly it seems that SCOTUS has become more and more politizied. Heading down the tubes.
Sorry, not all states are going to make laws that abortion can occur up until the time of birth- where the baby's head can be smashed in with a rock; if that is what the "mother" wants.
Funny how the left never bitch when a state goes too far the other direction when it comes to abortion "rights".
There is a set standard. The right is trying to make that standard null and void.
Simple as that.
Some states do not respect rights, especially those of women.
Too far how?
What is "too far"?
I would like to respond to this deeply disturbing misrepresentation of what our present abortion laws allow.
First of all, no one smashes rocks on the heads of babies of late term abortions. That is a hyperbolic comment.
Most states allow under specific circumstances late term abortions. They are either for the life of the mother, or the baby has passed. Read here:
Women do not carry to term or near term without wanting that baby, and no ethical doctor would abort a late-term pregnancy without cause, so let's put that myth to bed, and stop with the disgusting and disturbing descriptions that are not true.
now you know why I deleted that pro-life bullshit. 2 years ago I had some thumped out trumpster of an uber driver tell me that trump had stopped the liberal abortion law on his own that allowed the mother 3 months to decide after the baby was born whether it could continue to live or be put to death. she probably heard that come from the church pulpit.
Not only is the disturbing description not true, Partial birth abortion which the rock depiction alludes to was banned in 2003...
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court o n April 18, 2007, in a 5–4 decision, Gonzales v. Carhart , held that the statute does not violate the Constitution.
No one is performing, much less seeking elective partial birth abortion. Such procedures are only performed in cases of medical necessity.
Actually no, what I've read is they have other procedures to terminate a child late term without using PBA, that is why it was banned... There is no medical necessity for it anymore... and most doctors didn't like doing it anyway no matter their political views...
"No one is performing, much less seeking elective partial birth abortion. Such procedures are only performed in cases of medical necessity."
I can't believe anyone brought up that nonsense.
Mere deflection, projection, and denial.
That anyone would even say such a thing. Mind boggling.
What expertise do you have to determine what constitutes a medically necessary procedure? Medical necessity is determined by a physician.
Are you referring to my post?
"Women do not carry to term or near term without wanting that baby, and no ethical doctor would abort a late-term pregnancy without cause, so let's put that myth to bed, and stop with the disgusting and disturbing descriptions that are not true."
My one sister had to go through delivery of her baby who had 'passed'. She was days away from actual delivering.
Horrific and to think women who have to make such a horrible decision to END a pregnancy under those conditions is so ignorant to act like they come to that decision lightly.
"What expertise do you have to determine what constitutes a medically necessary procedure? Medical necessity is determined by a physician."
[Deleted]
Personally I have none, didn't claim to.. but I can read and report on what I have read... very capable in that department...
Besides what is not clear in the Supreme Court stating that the ban on PBA is constitutional? No medical doctor worth his salt is going to jeopardize his medical license and face prison especially when there are better, safer and more humane ways to terminate a late term pregnancy?
[need a link to back up your claims]
Instead of 'reporting' what you read, how about providing a link?
The AMA cites only 2 alternative procedures for late-term abortions, BOTH of which have significant medical risks for the woman.
Thank you..
Thank you for clarifying.
A link won't be provided, either will the truth.
The link is here TG, in my response to Perrie...
You see the SC link?
Besides Dulay provided the answer on medical procedures and I thanked her for it... Why should I have to post a link to information you already have....
[ deleted ]
Actually NWM, I refuted the predicate of your 'question' by stating the fact that there are NO "better, safer and more humane ways to terminate a late term pregnancy".
Of and BTFW, your 'question' wasn't about medical procedures, it was about doctors jeopardizing their license or risking jail time.
I'm so sorry for your sister's loss. I had to fight very hard to keep my pregnancy with my twin girls, so I know just the possibility of losing the pregnancy is terrifying. I can't imagine having to deliver a stillborn.
See, neither was provided.
Yep, enslavement to a fetus.
The issue is elective abortion. A medically necessary abortion is not a woman's choice. Choice means elective abortion.
If cancer develops in a woman's breast then the woman no longer has a choice. The cancer determines the treatment as a medical necessity. Once the cancer forms it is too late for a choice.
Women worried about the risk of breast cancer can seek an elective prophylactic mastectomy. The breasts are surgically removed so that a cancer cannot develop. That's the woman's choice.
If women are that worried about the risk of pregnancy they can seek an elective prophylactic tubal ligation. The fallopian tubes are tied so that a pregnancy cannot develop. That's the woman's choice. Once a pregnancy occurs it is too late for a choice.
A medically necessary abortion is still a woman's choice. She can refuse medical intervention. But I doubt many would. But a woman doesn't automatically lose or surrender her choice when she becomes pregnant. She is still free to choose up to viability.
A woman can't just go to her doctor and tell him/her she wants her tubes tied (and we all know what a tubal is, Nerm, no need to act like a know-it-all).
There are certain criteria a woman must have before she can electively have a tubal. Doctors won't perform them especially if a woman hasn't had children.
I remember a former member on NV who never wanted kids and said she wanted to have her tunes tied, but her doctor refused, thinking she might "change her mind." Many doctors refuse to do elective tubal ligations fearing possible lawsuits later on.
Not to mention elective abortions are generally easier and less invasive than ligations.
Many years ago, a friend had an AB (rape..she was 15). She was offered a tubal. When her mother found out, she tore that hospital a new one.
They offered her a tubal at 15?
HUh, and my daughter was told she would have to wait until she was at least 30 and/or had a couple of kids (which could have killed her).
Yep.
Or an abortion.
Perfect! So those teenagers get to choose between having children at age 15 or never having children at all! Truly, the most benevolent type of thinking. the other option is an abortion, and then she can have kids later in life when she is more prepared, but that's just crazy.
No it isn't.
pencils have erasers for a reason
You have to choose to sharpen the pencil before there is a need for the eraser.
There will always be need for an eraser, regardless of how sharp the pencil is.
I read that and was that was spoken like and by someone that has never had to go down that road .
sorry nerm , but most drs will refuse to do that proceedure unless there is an underlying medical problem , and the individual is over a certaain age . AND they do so for both sexes that way .
How do i know ?
after my exes and mines 3 child we came to the agreement no more , after doing some research it was cheaper AND less risky for me to undergo the snip snip , than it was for her to . let alone the recovery time , and the time spent in the hospital , for her 2-3 days with a recovery period of maybe 2 weeks , me , in and out of the drs office in less than an hr and recovery consisted of ice packs or cold beer can on the crotch for a day or so ....I really was in no shape to go play rodeo .....
Point is even though i was 33 years old , already had 3 kids , definitely didnt want any more , the dr would NOT do the proceedure without my Ex signing off and agreeing AND allowing it to happen .
what chance you think a woman has if I faced all those obsticals ?
i still find it kind of funny to this day that my ex wanted a LARGE family ( she said 12 kids ) i knew that changed after the first REAl labor pain hit with the first kid , then a year and 3 days later we had the second , the 3rd came almost 3 years later and when the real labor started i almost expected a bill cosby type of delivery , her standing up in the stirrups ( she sorta did ) and pulling my lower lip over top of my head , all the while shouting that my parents were never married when i was born .. cant say i blame her , i mean 9 and a half pound thing like she had the last time , even i winced .
we watched Knocked up when it first came out together , and to my credit , there is a certain scene that i did NOT say gee , that looks familiar ,,, took me a long time to learn tact like that ..., it was that or sleep on the couch .....
I didn't need anyone's consent for my vasectomy. The vasectomy involved my body and my life, so was my choice. I didn't have to kill a fetus.
An abortion and/or tubal ligation involves a woman's body and her life. It's also her choice, so she doesn't and shouldn't need anyone's permission for either.
A tubal ligation only involves the woman's body and life so that's her choice; just as a prophylactic mastectomy is her choice. But abortion involves two lives.
There is a valid argument that too many women are being denied a choice over sex. Women really are being socially conditioned, coerced, and forced into having sex. That's the human right that's being denied. And abortion won't correct that violation of human rights. Society has glorified women as sex objects. There is a very large commercial market to transform women into sex objects. And we've conditioned women into believing that sex is power. We've conditioned women into believing that promiscuity is liberating. Sex has become socially acceptable entertainment; sex isn't about reproduction.
The phony argument that the unborn isn't a person deliberately sweeps the real human rights violation under the rug. We've allowed ourselves to believe that violating a basic human right is acceptable because it can be corrected later by ending a life created by that human rights violation.
The woman's right to choose an abortion is not enlightened thinking. That's an argument to hide and avoid confronting the real human rights violation. Those demanding that women have ready access to abortion are trying to protect a caveman mentality towards women's choice over sex.
Lucky you , question is then were you married or single when you underwent the proceedure ?, i was married , and i attribute the drs actions as to him trying to decide since i was not the only one involved , he had better cover his own backside from a potential suit from the ex for depriving her of having more kids if she changed her mind even if i was simply the sperm donor . she would have had a better chance suing me and not the dr he already knew i was done wanting anymore anyway .
each situation is different and unique , and should be treated as such , there is no one size fits all in some matters .
The unborn is not a person. That is a simple fact. Certain states have tried to establish "personhood" to the unborn, but have always failed. You speak of human rights violations, but completely ignore the fact that some want to deprive women of their already established right to choose and autonomy. Doing so would effectively put women in an indentured servitude status, which most would probably see as a human rights violation. Sex is a separate issue from abortion and is not relevant to the argument.
WTF leads you to believe that being reduced by society to a sex object is glorifying Nerm?
Seriously, of all the ridiculous comments you have made here, that one takes the cake.
Ironic that you don't need permission to do what you want with your body....
So if sex is only for procreation I hope you aren't doing the mattress mambo any longer since you are incapable of fathering children
And you will never have the problem of having a fetus
If sex was only for procreation, then talk about a life less lived.
The fact that the parents are republican may be the only reason the child is alive. I am sure the child will realize that as they are more familiar with the real world.
Yeah, because Democrat always terminate their pregnancies & Republicans NEVER have abortions - what bullshit.
I didn't say always or never, I said may be. As for percentages.....Who is more likely to get an abortion? Who is more likely to be pro life?
The group most likely to suffer unwanted pregnancies in America are poor dumb undereducated white people; which also fits the demographic for Trump voters in red states...
A woman regardless of political leanings that has an unwanted pregnancy.
Democrats since they care about the living not just fetuses.
Ain't that the truth!
Try some more research.
That's bullshit.
They sure do like to make stuff up. Learning from Joe and the Incompetents.
The biggest hypocrites I have seen on abortion are so-called Born Again Christians. Two of them as a matter of fact. I probably know many more
A Republican politician?
mrs. smith, she got knocked up by the preacher that offered her couples counseling for her marriage issues. or little heather, that was such a great help to the youth minister at church camp. they're all still pro-life, but those particular lives would have caused some major controversy at their living bible church.
Also getting knocked up at family reunions.
Nope, try again
"Hope you don't die"? Really? A bit melodramatic maybe? " In the U.S., the abortion mortality rate is 0.6 per 100,000". Isn't that a bit higher than the mortality rate of having covid? You know, the reason the whole country was shut down for well over a year. By that logic the fine folks on the left should be fighting to shut down all abortion clinics because abortion kills so many people.
Deflection, projection, denial.
Abortion doesn't kill any people.
Sorry if the truth bothers you.
You haven't provided any.
Sure I have, for anyone that chooses to see them.
No, you haven't.
Yes, yes I have. Everything I said was true
No, no you haven't. You stated your opinions.
Therein lies the rub. And it is pretty sad that they cannot dispute with facts on the other side of the discussion. Well it's not really a discussion as much as it is a "nuh uhhh".
That's all you have - the 'nuh uhhh' as described by someone somewhere.
[deleted]
That is pretty much their predictable response when they can't spin it anymore.
[deleted]
If abortion is severely restricted or prohibited, then expect the mortality rate to rise as women seek less safe means to obtain an abortion. This country has already been down that road before. It's unbelievable that some want to travel that road again.
I'm getting re-bid notices for a medical complex and hotels in southeastern colorado for projects that were put on hold a few years ago. the medical complex was for performing abortions and was to serve KS, OK, and TX, just like all the weed dispensaries located there.
I predict a large volume of business once the facility is complete.
the town has grown 10x it's size in the last 10 years. it's crawling with goober weed tourists.
That is only an assumption and wishful thinking. Not everyone wants kids or is capable of raising them properly. I expect more women to take matters in their own hands to obtain an abortion, as history has already shown.
Adoption is better than abortion. Care to share statistics as to how many people got illegal abortions and how many died from them?
care to share the statistics on elective abortions that occurred in the 3rd trimester which didn't involve a crime, a health risk to the mother, or a fetus with a severe health issue?
Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality (nih.gov)
You're welcome though I doubt you actually care about the data.
BTW, is your screen name meant to be sarcastic?
nah, he seems straight down the middle of the republican party.
Why should a woman endure a pregnancy she doesn't want just to give to adoption? Not all kids get adopted and neither does everyone want to adopt. There are plenty of kids waiting for adoption. It makes no sense to add more to the system. But thanks for mentioning adoption. I'll be sure to mention it in my article on "pro-abortion."
Some that do are "returned" at a later date because of physical/mental issues of the children or their temporary parents.
I urge people to google "parents try to return adopted children" or similar searches to understand some of the pitfalls for everyone involved.
and
When the costs are factored in, adoption of babies may even be a lucrative business that should be closely monitored to ensure that the adoption agencies are not engaging in "legal" human trafficking.
First rule: ALWAYS follow the money.
I have no doubt that the people who are profiting from running private adoption agencies in the US are not involved in the fight to limit legal abortion.
I found an article that you might want to include on an article about using taxpayer money to fund religion and funding religious child abuse. Below are two good articles that I just found while researching adoption. I know the RCC has had scandals related to being in the adoption business but probably won't research tonight.
and
AP: Catholic Church lobbied for taxpayer funds, got $1.4B | AP News
By aggressively promoting the payroll program and marshaling resources to help affiliates navigate its shifting rules, Catholic dioceses, parishes, schools and other ministries have so far received approval for at least 3,500 forgivable loans, AP found.
The Archdiocese of New York, for example, received 15 loans worth at least $28 million just for its top executive offices. Its iconic St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue was approved for at least $1 million.
In Orange County, California, where a sparkling glass cathedral estimated to cost over $70 million recently opened, diocesan officials working at the complex received four loans worth at least $3 million.
And elsewhere, a loan of at least $2 million went to the diocese covering Wheeling-Charleston, West Virginia, where a church investigation revealed last year that then-Bishop Michael Bransfield embezzled funds and made sexual advances toward young priests.
Simply being eligible for low-interest loans was a new opportunity. But the church couldn’t have been approved for so many loans -- which the government will forgive if they are used for wages, rent and utilities -- without a second break.
Religious groups persuaded the Trump administration to free them from a rule that typically disqualifies an applicant with more than 500 workers. Without this preferential treatment, many Catholic dioceses would have been ineligible because -- between their head offices, parishes and other affiliates -- their employees exceed the 500-person cap.
The amount that the church collected, between $1.4 billion and $3.5 billion, is an undercount. The Diocesan Fiscal Management Conference, an organization of Catholic financial officers, surveyed members and reported that about 9,000 Catholic entities received loans. That is nearly three times the number of Catholic recipients the AP could identify.
You bring up some good points in your posts, which some might not have even considered. Thak you for that.
So the data shows not to get an abortion in a developing nation. Or better yet don't get one at all.
No.
No.
Yes
Thanks.
Among other things, children are an economical commodity in the US.
In addition to foster care & adoption agencies, think of all of the businesses that rely on babies, children, teenagers and then young adults.
We now have government funded daycare, headstart and charter (private) schools. ALL of those businesses require a steady, if not expanding, supply of children. Where is the oversight? Seems to be pretty much non-existent considering that charter schools rarely perform better than public schools. The taxpayer is paying more and getting less. Why wouldn't it be the same across the board? Where are the organizations that should be questioning the lack of oversight?
How many retail sectors depend on parents buying expensive everything to ensure their child(ren) is admired/envied/popular/successful?
Secondary education has become a very big business. Why? Does our country really benefit from having an endless supply of undereducated young adults? Maybe, if the military draft was reinstated. I have seen estimates that up to 80 percent of young males are not physically/mentally fit for military service. Maybe, that is why the push to include females.
People, who care about children, don't waste their time and energy limiting women's birth control option. People, who care about children, spend their time and energy working to take care of the children already in existence.
Children can either be an economic commodity or an economic liability. I tend to think it's more the latter.
I agree it seems that children are becoming a major liability for US taxpayers as poverty levels rise and more families qualify for Medicaid.
Unwanted children even more.
The expenses for government oversight of abusive parents, counseling for abusive parents, legal fees to terminate custody of abusive parent, the expense of recruiting foster parents to care for over 400,000 children on a daily basis, the expense of paying (numerous) foster parents, medical/dental costs, child counseling costs, etc. until child is 18 years of age.
I learned something new today about foster care. I was unaware of the "shadow" system. While I agree that it is optimal to place children with relatives/friends if possible, those placements should be thoroughly vetted and there should be a minimum numbers of follow up visits to ensure the safety of the children.
Some highlights....
No