To all the women in affected US states-New abortion laws.

[Lou]

I was somewhat familiar with this info from some of the news we had after the "leak" but this article has some more current stuff and goes into it in more detail that I had seen before.
Let me know if you need help reading it - it is behind a paywall. but I think everyone gets a few free visits.

Abortion Pills Take the Spotlight as States Impose Abortion Bans​

Demand for medication abortion is surging, setting the stage for new legal battles.​

​

Abortion pills, already used in more than half of recent abortions in the U.S.​

​

The patient must participate in the consultation from a state that allows abortion, even if it simply involves being on the phone in a car just over the border.​

​

“When people say we’re going back to the days before Roe, there’s no such thing as a time machine — we have a very different pharmaceutical landscape,”​

​

Within a few days, it plans to deploy in Colorado the first of what will become “a fleet of mobile clinics” to park along state borders, providing consultations for medication abortions and dispensing pills.... designed to reach patients from nearby states like Texas, Oklahoma and South Dakota that quickly outlawed abortion ....​

​

Medication abortion became legal in the United States in 2000, when mifepristone was approved by the F.D.A.​

​

there might be attempts by states that ban abortion to prosecute doctors and other health providers in other states​

​

States where abortion remains legal are mobilizing to increase access stifle legal assaults from other states. Connecticut passed a bill that would prevent abortion providers from being extradited to other states, bar Connecticut authorities from cooperating with abortion investigations from a patient’s home state and allow Connecticut residents who are sued under another state’s abortion provision to countersue. Legislation in California would provide financial assistance to patients traveling from other states to obtain abortions and increase the number of abortion providers.​

​

Abortion Pills Take the Spotlight as States Impose Abortion Bans

Demand for medication abortion is surging, setting the stage for new legal battles.

www.nytimes.com

​

​

​

​

 

[Chryssie]

Reposting since I put this info in the wrong thread! Communication from my employer includes this:

effective immediately, if an Associate, or their covered spouse or dependent, enrolled in one of our TJX Blue Cross Blue Shield medical plans needs to travel to access abortion services, our plan will now provide up to $5000 in travel expense reimbursement to get to a location where that care is legally available. For individual coverage questions and additional details, please contact Blue Cross Blue Shield at 800-859-4417.

 

[Lou]

I think it was on the Daily Podcast, they were discussing how little effect the abortion laws will have - or have had. They were talking about several states but I thought I would dig a little deeper and look into Texas.

Check out the graphic in this article.

Most Women Denied Abortions by Texas Law Got Them Another Way - The New York Times

www.nytimes.com

 

[silva]

I think it was on the Daily Podcast, they were discussing how little effect the abortion laws will have - or have had. They were talking about several states but I thought I would dig a little deeper and look into Texas.

Check out the graphic in this article.

Most Women Denied Abortions by Texas Law Got Them Another Way - The New York Times

www.nytimes.com

The abortion laws are only the beginning, and little to do with abortions
Look at the bigger picture that's unfolding with the chriso-facism
Time to break out Baphomet if you ask me. Just what action are the democrats in office actually taking?
How about taxing churches since they've moved into public office?

 

[Hashtag_Eevee]

@Hashtag_Eevee --this ruling impacts much more than women

I know , I am not that short sighted, I just did not write about the other things.

 

[Graeme M]

Not being in the US I don't have great familiarity with this situation, but as fas I can tell the original Roe V Wade decision was always a little shaky. The SC has now ruled that the right to an abortion is not a constitutional right but rather subject to state jurisdictions. This is probably true under an originalist interpretation of the constitution, but I confess I do not know why the constitution cannot continue to be amended in line with an "evolving/living" interpretation. It seems odd to allow the SC to vacillate between two means of interpretation.

That said, here in Australia it is the same; the right to abortion is legislated state by state.

The general religious complaint is that a) a human being is created at conception and b) one cannot murder another human being. I rather feel though that this depends a little on how the society's laws are framed and to what extent they must reflect God's laws. After all, the aborted (killed) person suffers no loss for being killed (as far as most interpretations of the scriptures go) and the transgression against God's law is between the offender and God. There is no clear requirement for human law to align with God's law, is there?

 

[Lou]

Not being in the US I don't have great familiarity with this situation, but as fas I can tell the original Roe V Wade decision was always a little shaky.

yes. but I'm not sure shaky is the right word. I think of it as fragile. But yeah.

Roe and then later Casey were based on a woman's right to privacy. but then here is the thing. The right to privacy is not in the constitution either.

One of the things that the lawyers argued is that the constitution does not have to explicitly state each right. Some just are there. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I do not know why the constitution cannot continue to be amended in line with an "evolving/living" interpretation. It seems odd to allow the SC to vacillate between two means of interpretation.

The constitution can be amended. unfortunately it has to be done by congress. And it takes a super majority. Unfortunately abortion has become so politicalized that its sometimes called a third rail. you touch it. you die.

There is also a something like a 300-year old argument about how much interpretation the courts Should do. In the instance of Roe and Casey, the courts felt like they needed to step in. then this court decided they over stepped.

I think something like this Should be legislated. Congress had 50 years to do it in but never did. in the present political climate it seems unlikely that they can do it nation wide.

I'm also always looking for the bright side. Some states have totally banned abortions. There are a lot of women in each of those states. I'm hoping that maybe they can finally dump the Republican govenors and state assemblymen and get those bans lifted.

Moving off topic... unfortunately that won't help with gun control. The Supreme Court has decided that states Don't have the right to infringe on second amendment rights. So it is up to the US congress to legislate gun control or maybe even amend the 2nd amendment.

 

[Graeme M]

Moving off topic... unfortunately that won't help with gun control. The Supreme Court has decided that states Don't have the right to infringe on second amendment rights. So it is up to the US congress to legislate gun control or maybe even amend the 2nd amendment.

I did not know this. That's both interesting and scary. I honestly don't get the gun thing, but my wife once lived woith Americans and she says they look like us (Aussies) but are a whole different animal!

 

[vegan89]

I heard their going to prevent people from getting an abortion in another state, it will still be considered a felony. Wealthy people can afford a private doctor, or have the procedure done outside of the USA. The government is supposed to be secular, what is the scientific reasoning behind the sanctity of human life? how do people justify killing pigs and other mammals, isnt it hypocritical?

What is the scientific reasoning behind opposing animal cruelty? That matter, like abortion, is an ethical dispute... not a science issue.

Science can be useful for determining the facts about questions like when a fetus is developed enough to experience pain as a distinct individual from the mother, but science does not endorse or oppose any particular personal opinion someone has about ethics or value judgements on issues like abortion.

You could also turn your argument around and argue that people who oppose slaughtering animals but support cutting up human fetuses or whatever are hypocrites... and many conservatives make such arguments.

If you want to be consistent in your views, and you oppose animal cruelty; you should also oppose abortion whenever there is reason to suspect a fetus might be experiencing pain from an abortion.

 

[David3]

What is the scientific reasoning behind opposing animal cruelty? That matter, like abortion, is an ethical dispute... not a science issue.

Science can be useful for determining the facts about questions like when a fetus is developed enough to experience pain as a distinct individual from the mother, but science does not endorse or oppose any particular personal opinion someone has about ethics or value judgements on issues like abortion.

You could also turn your argument around and argue that people who oppose slaughtering animals but support cutting up human fetuses or whatever are hypocrites... and many conservatives make such arguments.

If you want to be consistent in your views, and you oppose animal cruelty; you should also oppose abortion whenever there is reason to suspect a fetus might be experiencing pain from an abortion.

.
I'm not a neurologist, but this report by Neurology Today states that a human fetus doesn't experience pain until at least 20 weeks of gestation (if not later): WHEN DOES A FETUS FEEL PAIN? : Neurology Today

This review, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, says essentially the same thing: Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence - PubMed
.

 

[Sax]

If you want to be consistent in your views, and you oppose animal cruelty; you should also oppose abortion whenever there is reason to suspect a fetus might be experiencing pain from an abortion.

You're forgetting the woman has interests at stake as well as the fetus.

 

[Tom L.]

The general religious complaint is that a) a human being is created at conception and b) one cannot murder another human being. I rather feel though that this depends a little on how the society's laws are framed and to what extent they must reflect God's laws. After all, the aborted (killed) person suffers no loss for being killed (as far as most interpretations of the scriptures go) and the transgression against God's law is between the offender and God. There is no clear requirement for human law to align with God's law, is there?

I identify as "agnostic" and adhere to no religion, although I do pray. I'm also pro-life.

And where is all research to grow these embryos without them being a parasite?

Where is the call for free, safe, and accessible birth control for everyone? Where is the accountability for the sperm donor?

I don't know how much progress has been made developing artificial wombs, but they're a good idea. It IS true that pro-lifers generally have problems with birth control- which makes it easy for people to dismiss them.

What do you mean when you say it's not entirely the woman's choice to make! All I make of that is that woman do not have rights to their bodies, as in,they are second class citizens with lesser rights. Name one thing comparable that subjects a male to the rule of government that involves his body?

The draft (at least formerly).

 

[vegan89]

You're forgetting the woman has interests at stake as well as the fetus.

No... I'm not forgetting that.

I'm just bearing in mind the fact that unless we're talking about cases involving some type of coercion or rape, the woman obviously bears much greater responsibility for a fetus being there than the fetus does... so it's not really ethical to subject a fetus to unnecessary cruelty on account of circumstances beyond the control of the fetus. (Or worse yet... to do so in order to protect the interests of the people who are responsible for putting the fetus in this situation in the first place).

If you want to argue the fetus would incur greater suffering from growing to become an unwanted child raised in undesirable circumstances than they would from the abortion and so it's ethically justifiable to support abortion even if you're against animal cruelty... that might be a discussion worth having.

 

[silva]

I identify as "agnostic" and adhere to no religion, although I do pray. I'm also pro-life.


I don't know how much progress has been made developing artificial wombs, but they're a good idea. It IS true that pro-lifers generally have problems with birth control- which makes it easy for people to dismiss them.

The draft (at least formerly).

What I find so upsetting, and terrifying really,is that this is not about protecting innocent lives, and it's not pro-life
You'd think women were having sex in anticipation of having an abortion--no one wants to go through a medical procedure, no woman wants to have an abortion. Knowing this, where was the push to prevent unwanted pregnancies?
Viagra is regularly advertised,it's covered by insurance plans.
Companies are allowed to ban their insurance plans from covering birth control
Viagra (and the like) have long been available by tele doc and mailed to your home without a doctor visit
Birth control very recently
Male birth control?
Advocating for vasecomies--largely reversible?
Many doctors won't proform tubal ligations on younger women--(she may not be responsible to make her own decisions)
Universal health care?????
Making birth control safe, free and available?
Sex ed?

as for the not pro-life part---
WHy are dead people allowed the right to keep their organs? HUMAN BEINGS die needing organ transplants. I cannot recall a push to make organ donations mandatory on death
the list is too long ......

They could make it a widely available option for men to freeze their sperm at a young age and have a vasectomy

None of these have been addressed, but they are fine with forcing woman to reliquish her bodily control

The rich will still have abortion as an option. the rich will still get to pick and choose the baby they adopt
The country will have many more addicted and brain damaged babies, and more prisons, and more welfare, and more deaths

 

[Sax]

No... I'm not forgetting that.

I'm just bearing in mind the fact that unless we're talking about cases involving some type of coercion or rape, the woman obviously bears much greater responsibility for a fetus being there than the fetus does... so it's not really ethical to subject a fetus to unnecessary cruelty on account of circumstances beyond the control of the fetus. (Or worse yet... to do so in order to protect the interests of the people who are responsible for putting the fetus in this situation in the first place).

If you want to argue the fetus would incur greater suffering from growing to become an unwanted child raised in undesirable circumstances than they would from the abortion and so it's ethically justifiable to support abortion even if you're against animal cruelty... that might be a discussion worth having.

Again you offer absolutely no accounting for the costs borne by a woman.

 

[Tom L.]

as for the not pro-life part---
WHy are dead people allowed the right to keep their organs? HUMAN BEINGS die needing organ transplants. I cannot recall a push to make organ donations mandatory on death
the list is too long ......

(Original post partially quoted) Now that I think of it... although euthanasia and assisted suicide are often debated by pro-lifers, I don't remember this being the case for organ donation. Which is strange, now that you've got me thinking about it. Someone who is irreversibly brain-dead presumably has nothing to lose by having their organs donated- whereas a pregnant woman with no access to abortion must AT LEAST endure pregnancy and then delivery (assuming she immediately puts the newborn up for adoption).

I think some places/countries assume that someone who is brain-dead consents to their organs being donated, unless there are documents saying they don't want this. (I would hope this would also mean that, if they needed an organ, this would be denied!!!!) I've read information materials addressing concerns that, if someone has consented to their organs being donated upon their death, doctors/hospitals won't make the same effort to keep them alive, all other things being equal. I think they assure that this doesn't happen; for one thing, a surgeon performing the transplant would not be the one pronouncing the donor "dead".

 

[silva]

What is the scientific reasoning behind opposing animal cruelty? That matter, like abortion, is an ethical dispute... not a science issue.

Science can be useful for determining the facts about questions like when a fetus is developed enough to experience pain as a distinct individual from the mother, but science does not endorse or oppose any particular personal opinion someone has about ethics or value judgements on issues like abortion.

You could also turn your argument around and argue that people who oppose slaughtering animals but support cutting up human fetuses or whatever are hypocrites... and many conservatives make such arguments.

If you want to be consistent in your views, and you oppose animal cruelty; you should also oppose abortion whenever there is reason to suspect a fetus might be experiencing pain from an abortion.

I believe science says the woman is the host, the embryo the parasite. A fetus grows completely dependent on the woman, it has no life of it's own.
Pregnancy causes much pain, and often much trauma which can affect a woman for her entire life. The act of birth is very painful, and in far too many, causes death.
As a vegan I am concerned with life, and consent.

 

[Hashtag_Eevee]

You're forgetting the woman has interests at stake as well as the fetus.

Yh like, if the fetus has the sentience of a bug, then abortion can still be moral

 

[peacefulveglady]

This is why I swayed away from being vegan. Woman has not gotten their rights taken away. Its time to make other ways to not have an abortion. I though being vegan was to stand against victims. There is a victim in an abortion and its the unborn baby. Yes I am calling it a baby as its fetus is a spanish word for offspring. Offspring is a baby. So a fetus is a growing baby in uterus.
I was for woman rights til the protesters turned into riots and violence. Plus vandalizing churches and pregnancy centers. Do any liberals know of pregnancy centers where you get help to keep a person to abort an innocent life? I hope they keep Roe overturn as woman needs to learn more responsibility and morals. If you do not want a baby do not have sex simple as that.

 

[peacefulveglady]

I believe science says the woman is the host, the embryo the parasite. A fetus grows completely dependent on the woman, it has no life of it's own.
Pregnancy causes much pain, and often much trauma which can affect a woman for her entire life. The act of birth is very painful, and in far too many, causes death.
As a vegan I am concerned with life, and consent.

A growing baby from conception is not a parasite its a life since conception.