Just a reminder, abortion exceptions are pretty much meaningless where they are available at all. Rape victims may need to make statements to the police, or have some other government entity agree...
Just a reminder, abortion exceptions are pretty much meaningless where they are available at all. Rape victims may need to make statements to the police, or have some other government entity agree that they were in fact raped, before they can get care under the exception. The laws are intentionally vague, and their enforcement only runs one way (there is never leniency for an abortion). Criminal penalties for doctors have such a chilling effect on their ability to practice medicine that they are taking a personal risk to offer care under exceptions, so many don't. OBGYN practitioners are fleeing these states, so in a few years, there may not even be anyone around who has any training. Of course, all of this is the desired outcome.
I don't understand the article's emphasis on "Reagan Era law". It seems to imply that the federal government is doing something sneaky, which of course they are not. The whole article is littered with anti–abortion talking points. I would have expected better from CNN.edit: see my reply to @skybrian
Worth noting for those that missed it, Arizona's abortion law was passed in 1864, but women were not able to vote in Arizona until 1912.
As always when this topic comes up, I encourage people who care about this issue on both sides to pay attention to Jessica Valenti's work at Abortion, Every Day. If you are pro-choice, it is a great way to keep track of everything that is happening across different fronts. If you are not, it's obviously going to be antagonistic to your viewpoint, but I encourage you to read about the real effects these laws are having in women's lives.
I see this article as fairly neutral. It does include anti-abortion arguments, but they’re attributed to anti-abortion advocates. Knowing what sort of arguments they’re making (without endorsing...
I see this article as fairly neutral. It does include anti-abortion arguments, but they’re attributed to anti-abortion advocates. Knowing what sort of arguments they’re making (without endorsing them) seems like part of the story?
I went back and reread it, and I think you're right. They even do acknowledge my point above about the negative impact of the narrowness of exemptions. I'm definitely on one side of this, so maybe...
I went back and reread it, and I think you're right. They even do acknowledge my point above about the negative impact of the narrowness of exemptions.
I'm definitely on one side of this, so maybe I'm just tired of hearing about these things that I consider incredibly harmful in a "both sides" way, but I think your point about balance is pretty accurate.
I just want to validate your exhaustion/frustration. I thought the article did a good job of balancing things, but it absolutely is still draining to hear people make the same claims that revoke...
I just want to validate your exhaustion/frustration. I thought the article did a good job of balancing things, but it absolutely is still draining to hear people make the same claims that revoke (at least in my case) my bodily autonomy
Thank you! That is real for you in a way that it isn't for me (in the sense that am not a person who can become pregnant), but it is real for many people I care about. It matters to me that I work...
Thank you! That is real for you in a way that it isn't for me (in the sense that am not a person who can become pregnant), but it is real for many people I care about. It matters to me that I work toward a society with meaningful equality for everyone, and I see the anti-abortion stuff is moving things the other way.
Absolutely! I feel similarly when it's a topic that I am in more of an ally position whether due to work or personal advocacy. We want the world to be better. It's so frustrating when what we see...
Absolutely! I feel similarly when it's a topic that I am in more of an ally position whether due to work or personal advocacy. We want the world to be better. It's so frustrating when what we see are people who seem determined to make it harder and worse. And even knowing that that's not how they view it, there is a level of callousness to their point of view that I do not understand on an emotional level.
I wish politicians would propose a compromise rather than just going on about legal or not legal. The entire debate is pointing at the other side and claiming they want the extreme when in reality...
I wish politicians would propose a compromise rather than just going on about legal or not legal. The entire debate is pointing at the other side and claiming they want the extreme when in reality all the majority of people want is a logical compromise between the two, but I rarely even see people propose what that would look like.
The way I see it, there must be a period in development where a fetus can survive being aborted without excess medical assistance (6mo?). Using that logic you can establish a point where it becomes an "unborn baby" and the one doing the abortion would be required to keep it alive, if possible. In that way an abortion can be done at any time, for any reason, and an unborn baby isn't guaranteed to die during the procedure.
This would cover emergencies since the idea is to give it a chance, not guarantee it lives, making the mother's life more important (unless she decides it isn't). It would also require changes to laws that make killing pregnant women a double homicide. After all, if it can be aborted then it can't be murdered and having another law that contradicts when they're counted as unborn babies will weaken it. The idea being to establish a single definition by law so that people will see that as the most valid definition (truth), creating a tougher barrier against zealots and those who are ok with infanticide.
Edit: Hmm, not sure how that'd work toward the whole ER visits for pregnant women who aren't at risk but a young fetus is. Maybe change it so that it basically makes the fetus to be on par with an important organ or limb. You would not expect to be denied if your kidney was at risk, even if you could survive with only 1.
What you describe as "a compromise" is basically how it worked in most of the US until Roe v. Wade was overturned. Only a small number of states ever allowed abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
What you describe as "a compromise" is basically how it worked in most of the US until Roe v. Wade was overturned. Only a small number of states ever allowed abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
Realistically late term abortions were incredibly rare anyway even when permitted, pretty much limited to major medical problems (serious risk of their health or life) for the parent, or lethal...
Realistically late term abortions were incredibly rare anyway even when permitted, pretty much limited to major medical problems (serious risk of their health or life) for the parent, or lethal medical problems (imminent or with very minimal survivability) for the fetus. And a super small percentage to begin with.
Just a reminder, abortion exceptions are pretty much meaningless where they are available at all. Rape victims may need to make statements to the police, or have some other government entity agree that they were in fact raped, before they can get care under the exception. The laws are intentionally vague, and their enforcement only runs one way (there is never leniency for an abortion). Criminal penalties for doctors have such a chilling effect on their ability to practice medicine that they are taking a personal risk to offer care under exceptions, so many don't. OBGYN practitioners are fleeing these states, so in a few years, there may not even be anyone around who has any training. Of course, all of this is the desired outcome.
I don't understand the article's emphasis on "Reagan Era law". It seems to imply that the federal government is doing something sneaky, which of course they are not.
The whole article is littered with anti–abortion talking points. I would have expected better from CNN.edit: see my reply to @skybrianWorth noting for those that missed it, Arizona's abortion law was passed in 1864, but women were not able to vote in Arizona until 1912.
As always when this topic comes up, I encourage people who care about this issue on both sides to pay attention to Jessica Valenti's work at Abortion, Every Day. If you are pro-choice, it is a great way to keep track of everything that is happening across different fronts. If you are not, it's obviously going to be antagonistic to your viewpoint, but I encourage you to read about the real effects these laws are having in women's lives.
I see this article as fairly neutral. It does include anti-abortion arguments, but they’re attributed to anti-abortion advocates. Knowing what sort of arguments they’re making (without endorsing them) seems like part of the story?
I went back and reread it, and I think you're right. They even do acknowledge my point above about the negative impact of the narrowness of exemptions.
I'm definitely on one side of this, so maybe I'm just tired of hearing about these things that I consider incredibly harmful in a "both sides" way, but I think your point about balance is pretty accurate.
I just want to validate your exhaustion/frustration. I thought the article did a good job of balancing things, but it absolutely is still draining to hear people make the same claims that revoke (at least in my case) my bodily autonomy
Thank you! That is real for you in a way that it isn't for me (in the sense that am not a person who can become pregnant), but it is real for many people I care about. It matters to me that I work toward a society with meaningful equality for everyone, and I see the anti-abortion stuff is moving things the other way.
Absolutely! I feel similarly when it's a topic that I am in more of an ally position whether due to work or personal advocacy. We want the world to be better. It's so frustrating when what we see are people who seem determined to make it harder and worse. And even knowing that that's not how they view it, there is a level of callousness to their point of view that I do not understand on an emotional level.
The attempt to enforce Emtala the federal emergency care law in abortion cases is major news.
Re cnn, this article might shed some light. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/what-the-shakeup-at-cnn-says-about-the-future-of-cable-news
I wish politicians would propose a compromise rather than just going on about legal or not legal. The entire debate is pointing at the other side and claiming they want the extreme when in reality all the majority of people want is a logical compromise between the two, but I rarely even see people propose what that would look like.
The way I see it, there must be a period in development where a fetus can survive being aborted without excess medical assistance (6mo?). Using that logic you can establish a point where it becomes an "unborn baby" and the one doing the abortion would be required to keep it alive, if possible. In that way an abortion can be done at any time, for any reason, and an unborn baby isn't guaranteed to die during the procedure.
This would cover emergencies since the idea is to give it a chance, not guarantee it lives, making the mother's life more important (unless she decides it isn't). It would also require changes to laws that make killing pregnant women a double homicide. After all, if it can be aborted then it can't be murdered and having another law that contradicts when they're counted as unborn babies will weaken it. The idea being to establish a single definition by law so that people will see that as the most valid definition (truth), creating a tougher barrier against zealots and those who are ok with infanticide.
Edit: Hmm, not sure how that'd work toward the whole ER visits for pregnant women who aren't at risk but a young fetus is. Maybe change it so that it basically makes the fetus to be on par with an important organ or limb. You would not expect to be denied if your kidney was at risk, even if you could survive with only 1.
Anti-abortion proponents don't want a compromise. The laws that were in place already were compromises, and they didn't want that.
What you describe as "a compromise" is basically how it worked in most of the US until Roe v. Wade was overturned. Only a small number of states ever allowed abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
Realistically late term abortions were incredibly rare anyway even when permitted, pretty much limited to major medical problems (serious risk of their health or life) for the parent, or lethal medical problems (imminent or with very minimal survivability) for the fetus. And a super small percentage to begin with.