Of course they did! They'd rather have the argument that they didn't have data in their state vs that they had the data but did nothing. It's so frustrating to me...
Of course they did! They'd rather have the argument that they didn't have data in their state vs that they had the data but did nothing. It's so frustrating to me...
The committee disbanded despite a high rate of maternal mortality in the United States that exceeds those of other high-income countries. The U.S. recorded 23.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2020, compared with 8.4 in Canada and 3.6 in Germany, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
And the U.S. rate is sharply rising. In March, a few weeks before Idaho lawmakers adjourned their 2023 session, the CDC released data that showed the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. climbed in 2021 to 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births.
Idaho has a particularly acute problem. Its pregnancy-related mortality ratio was 41.8 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births in 2020, according to the Maternal Mortality Review Committee report from that year.
"We didn't like that the data conclusions goes against what we believe politically and spiritually. Therefore, we discarded it and stopped allowing any studies that prove us wrong.". - Idaho,...
"We didn't like that the data conclusions goes against what we believe politically and spiritually. Therefore, we discarded it and stopped allowing any studies that prove us wrong.". - Idaho, probably.
And when you look at the CDC's break down you'll see the mortality is staggering among non-Hispanic blacks and the jump in 2018 to 2021 in Hispanics is also startling. I sadly suspect race...
And when you look at the CDC's break down you'll see the mortality is staggering among non-Hispanic blacks and the jump in 2018 to 2021 in Hispanics is also startling.
I sadly suspect race could've played a factor here too much like some folks were okay when cities were hit harder by COVID at the start.
I mean the State at hand here Idaho is where White Supremist were moving to create their ethnostate.
It's an interesting question (in the abstract) to tease apart the pieces of the current conservative movement behind this. In practice this just seems like a really bad decision that will cost...
It's an interesting question (in the abstract) to tease apart the pieces of the current conservative movement behind this. In practice this just seems like a really bad decision that will cost women's lives.
There's no real financial argument. The committee was covered by a federal grant and was even identified as revenue neutral.
All I can think of as reasons are racism/classism — the disproportionate affect on minority and/or poor populations, or the Reagan-esque "starve the beast," form of governance.
Is there another rationale for this kind of decision? It's depressing to believe that either of the above reasons would be popular, but I honestly can't think of another.
Are you American? (I'm not sure how much contextual background you have). The reasons you listed always good guesses for reasons behind republican actions, but the obvious underlying causes to me...
All I can think of as reasons are racism/classism — the disproportionate affect on minority and/or poor populations, or the Reagan-esque "starve the beast," form of governance.
Are you American? (I'm not sure how much contextual background you have).
The reasons you listed always good guesses for reasons behind republican actions, but the obvious underlying causes to me are the newer abortion laws in Idaho.
Since Roe vs. Wade was overturned, public opinion has seen a significant shift in favor of keeping abortion legal. One of the causes of this is because people are learning that Draconian abortion laws lead to higher maternal death rates.
The bottom line is that Idaho is about to see a significant increase in maternal death rates, and republican politicians know it, and they know why. The panel by its nature has the ability to gather and provide evidence for cause of this increase. If word of this evidence gets out, Republican abortion policies might lose popularity, and Republicans don't want that.
As a general rule, well informed citizens are less likely to vote for Republicans, and this is why. Their policies are often-times just plain immoral. I do not understand why Republican politicians believe fetus lives are so much more important than actual human lives, but they believe it strongly enough to make sure that people don't become aware of the fact that lack of abortion access leads to women's deaths.
Edit: @rave264 wrote the following, which pretty much sums up my post:
They'd rather have the argument that they didn't have data in their state vs that they had the data but did nothing.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am American, so definitely up on the Roe background. I hadn't thought of the defensive head-in-the-sand of not wanting information about repercussions of that...
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I am American, so definitely up on the Roe background. I hadn't thought of the defensive head-in-the-sand of not wanting information about repercussions of that decision to be easily found, but that does make sense.
I had hoped that these policies that seem clearly harmful are by people who are, at worst, ignorant of the direct harms of their decisions — the idea that dissolving this panel is functionally to hide deaths due to the abortion ban just really depressing.
I used to believe this - that they were just ignorant. But as more and more polices are put in place, I now realize that they know and don't care. And it sucks..
I used to believe this - that they were just ignorant. But as more and more polices are put in place, I now realize that they know and don't care. And it sucks..
I believe that the group contains both subsets at the moment. However as the health impact to women becomes more well known, the ones who care will change sides or disengage politically, leaving...
I believe that the group contains both subsets at the moment. However as the health impact to women becomes more well known, the ones who care will change sides or disengage politically, leaving the zealots and fanatics.
That is truly my hope, but tbh, I'm not sure if that will happen. There's data showing that the US population doesn't want to make abortion completely illegal, but we have the GOP in many states...
That is truly my hope, but tbh, I'm not sure if that will happen. There's data showing that the US population doesn't want to make abortion completely illegal, but we have the GOP in many states digging their heels in. For now, it's about saving face... even if it's wrong.
That's a great mindset to have! Fortunately, this despair with politics hasn't stopped me from voting, but I don't want it to get to that point. There's always a chance that people will come to...
That's a great mindset to have! Fortunately, this despair with politics hasn't stopped me from voting, but I don't want it to get to that point. There's always a chance that people will come to their senses.
I had assumed the politicians were anti-abortion just because their base was anti-abortion. Are republicans voters themselves loosening their views on abortion? It's still confusing to me what the...
I had assumed the politicians were anti-abortion just because their base was anti-abortion. Are republicans voters themselves loosening their views on abortion?
It's still confusing to me what the actual motivations are for anti-abortion policy. There must be some chunk that are grifters accumulating power, some chunk that just hate women, some chunk that have true ethical issues with abortion, etc.
Funny, about 2 minutes ago I responded to someone in another thread who posted that if you have an abortion you "still kill your baby." My guess is that some people truly believe that a fetus is...
Funny, about 2 minutes ago I responded to someone in another thread who posted that if you have an abortion you "still kill your baby."
My guess is that some people truly believe that a fetus is an actual baby (which seems absurd to me but I get that you have to draw the line somewhere and that some people draw it really early). This is a common belief among religious Christians, so there may be some theological basis for their beliefs, but as a non-Christian I find it annoying that their culture has to have a potential on impact my life.
The percentage of Americans wanting abortion to be outright illegal regardless of the circumstance has fallen from 21% in 2019 to 13% in 2022 and 2023, according to Gallup.
I'm a Christian and don't believe in abortions unless in certain situations (I don't say this a lot online and in person). But I also don't believe in forcing my beliefs on people and making them...
I'm a Christian and don't believe in abortions unless in certain situations (I don't say this a lot online and in person). But I also don't believe in forcing my beliefs on people and making them follow what I believe. I get on soap boxes ranting about this aspect with my friends at times...
But I think the frustrating thing is that the same people who are so vocal about abortions becoming illegal don't care about the baby after it's born and don't care about the parents i.e. federal paid parental leave.
I'm pro-choice, but I think this is kind of a nonsensical way of thinking. We wouldn't say the same kind of thing about murder or theft. If it really is wrong, then it may be worth making it...
But I also don't believe in forcing my beliefs on people and making them follow what I believe.
I'm pro-choice, but I think this is kind of a nonsensical way of thinking. We wouldn't say the same kind of thing about murder or theft. If it really is wrong, then it may be worth making it illegal, even if that involves "forcing beliefs". All laws involve some degree of "forcing beliefs".
Lawyer here. You are opening up what has the potential to be a really complicated conversation. Laws are not just about what is right, but also about what is reasonable and possible for society to...
Lawyer here. You are opening up what has the potential to be a really complicated conversation. Laws are not just about what is right, but also about what is reasonable and possible for society to enforce in a way that doesn't cause more harm than good. (I also support a pro choice position personally but you are raising a different issue)
We already have a lot of variations of laws around killing depending on circumstances. Manslaughter. Self defense. War. etc.
Enforcing some laws really intrudes on privacy and autonomy. Example when same gender sex was illegal, cops trying to enforce those laws did some really unfortunate things. Because the fetus is dependent on the mother, laws about abortion have to balance competing interests. It is not merely about what we forbid the mother from doing but also about what we are requiring her to do, including put her life at risk by giving birth.
Laws against abortion in some cases puts the prosecutor in the position of trying to assess health care needs around ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and other conditions. That is technically tricky and morally questionable. If doctors are intimidated from providing needed health care because of legal risk, it is bad for society.
All laws do this. Deciding whether a law is worth passing/enforcing is always, at least in part, a cost-benefit analysis, and there's always an element of subjectivity there. Yes, outlawing...
Enforcing some laws really intrudes on privacy and autonomy.
All laws do this. Deciding whether a law is worth passing/enforcing is always, at least in part, a cost-benefit analysis, and there's always an element of subjectivity there. Yes, outlawing abortions will inevitably do harm. But there's no inherent contradiction in saying that abortion is so wrong that, even given that harm, outlawing it is still worthwhile. Whatever side of the cost-benefit analysis you come down on, it's ultimately a utilitarian judgment, which is very different from just saying "I don't want to force my beliefs on people."
Example when same gender sex was illegal, cops trying to enforce those laws did some really unfortunate things.
Sure, but this is a bad example because there was never a compelling government interest in outlawing same-sex relations in the first place, so that law only ever did harm. In the case of abortion, there's a cogent argument to be made that a fetus at least has some moral value.
Laws against abortion in some cases puts the prosecutor in the position of trying to assess health care needs around ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and other conditions. That is technically tricky and morally questionable. If doctors are intimidated from providing needed health care because of legal risk, it is bad for society.
We outlaw many things that require morally and technically difficult questions - that is why we employ expert witnesses and allow them to answer questions based on their expertise in fields that require it.
/you wrote : We outlaw many things that require morally and technically difficult questions - that is why we employ expert witnesses and allow them to answer questions based on their expertise in...
/you wrote : We outlaw many things that require morally and technically difficult questions - that is why we employ expert witnesses and allow them to answer questions based on their expertise in fields that require it.
Which is why I am unhappy that the states that have outlawed or limited abortion to a time period where a woman might not even know she was pregnant yet, have in fact done no calling of expert witnesses re abortion, doctors or otherwise.
As for the larger abortion argument, that has been argued and reargued by people of good faith and people not of good faith. I don't want to do that today. I pointed to the complexity of the issue, which as you say is not sufficient argument by itself to say don't forbid abortion, but it is a complex mix of issues and rights. We don't require family members generally to donate lifesaving organs.
Feel free to answer with your best argument, but I'm not going to reply again.
I'm not physically capable of pregnancy (cis male) but it seems to me irrelevant whether a fetus is a baby. I would say that if you avoid colloquial terminology then yes, a fetus is a living human...
I'm not physically capable of pregnancy (cis male) but it seems to me irrelevant whether a fetus is a baby. I would say that if you avoid colloquial terminology then yes, a fetus is a living human and you are killing it by performing an abortion. But also human biology is cruel and unfair and we should have a society where defying biology is an acceptable tradeoff to make when it favors bodily autonomy. I think if someone is pregnant but does not want to be then forcing them to do something they don't want to with their body is wrong.
I can imagine a world where performing an abortion is unethical:
If we can develop the fetus in an artificial womb
If we can easily transfer the fetus into an artificial womb part-way through a pregnancy
Someone is willing to pay for the artificial womb
In that case performing abortions is much harder to justify.
I think there needs to be another step: Someone is willing to provide for the child's welfare after birth. Becoming a parent is a huge, important commitment. Nobody should have it forced upon them.
I think there needs to be another step:
Someone is willing to provide for the child's welfare after birth.
Becoming a parent is a huge, important commitment. Nobody should have it forced upon them.
I'd take that one full huge 18 year step later and say that someone would also have to be willing to invest their time, energy, and money in raising that child well. All of that is a theoretical...
I'd take that one full huge 18 year step later and say that someone would also have to be willing to invest their time, energy, and money in raising that child well. All of that is a theoretical fantasy, though. Abortion should remain legal.
Who is going to pay and care for the baby and it’s care once it is born? That to me is a huge concern when discussing forcing a baby to be born. And forcing the mom to means you might get another...
Who is going to pay and care for the baby and it’s care once it is born? That to me is a huge concern when discussing forcing a baby to be born. And forcing the mom to means you might get another kid with a horrible childhood and it will be luck if he or she doesn’t turn into a horrible person themselves cause of such.
I found it puzzling also. The only thing I could conclude besides racism and classism was that these state lawmakers have their eyes on federal politics, and in the future want to be able to point...
I found it puzzling also. The only thing I could conclude besides racism and classism was that these state lawmakers have their eyes on federal politics, and in the future want to be able to point to their voting records.
Of course they did! They'd rather have the argument that they didn't have data in their state vs that they had the data but did nothing. It's so frustrating to me...
From the article - emphasis mine
That mortality rate is worse than Cuba, Barbados, and Mongolia, and tied with Jordan.
"We didn't like that the data conclusions goes against what we believe politically and spiritually. Therefore, we discarded it and stopped allowing any studies that prove us wrong.". - Idaho, probably.
And when you look at the CDC's break down you'll see the mortality is staggering among non-Hispanic blacks and the jump in 2018 to 2021 in Hispanics is also startling.
I sadly suspect race could've played a factor here too much like some folks were okay when cities were hit harder by COVID at the start.
I mean the State at hand here Idaho is where White Supremist were moving to create their ethnostate.
It's an interesting question (in the abstract) to tease apart the pieces of the current conservative movement behind this. In practice this just seems like a really bad decision that will cost women's lives.
There's no real financial argument. The committee was covered by a federal grant and was even identified as revenue neutral.
All I can think of as reasons are racism/classism — the disproportionate affect on minority and/or poor populations, or the Reagan-esque "starve the beast," form of governance.
Is there another rationale for this kind of decision? It's depressing to believe that either of the above reasons would be popular, but I honestly can't think of another.
Are you American? (I'm not sure how much contextual background you have).
The reasons you listed always good guesses for reasons behind republican actions, but the obvious underlying causes to me are the newer abortion laws in Idaho.
Since Roe vs. Wade was overturned, public opinion has seen a significant shift in favor of keeping abortion legal. One of the causes of this is because people are learning that Draconian abortion laws lead to higher maternal death rates.
The bottom line is that Idaho is about to see a significant increase in maternal death rates, and republican politicians know it, and they know why. The panel by its nature has the ability to gather and provide evidence for cause of this increase. If word of this evidence gets out, Republican abortion policies might lose popularity, and Republicans don't want that.
As a general rule, well informed citizens are less likely to vote for Republicans, and this is why. Their policies are often-times just plain immoral. I do not understand why Republican politicians believe fetus lives are so much more important than actual human lives, but they believe it strongly enough to make sure that people don't become aware of the fact that lack of abortion access leads to women's deaths.
Edit: @rave264 wrote the following, which pretty much sums up my post:
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I am American, so definitely up on the Roe background. I hadn't thought of the defensive head-in-the-sand of not wanting information about repercussions of that decision to be easily found, but that does make sense.
I had hoped that these policies that seem clearly harmful are by people who are, at worst, ignorant of the direct harms of their decisions — the idea that dissolving this panel is functionally to hide deaths due to the abortion ban just really depressing.
I used to believe this - that they were just ignorant. But as more and more polices are put in place, I now realize that they know and don't care. And it sucks..
I believe that the group contains both subsets at the moment. However as the health impact to women becomes more well known, the ones who care will change sides or disengage politically, leaving the zealots and fanatics.
That is truly my hope, but tbh, I'm not sure if that will happen. There's data showing that the US population doesn't want to make abortion completely illegal, but we have the GOP in many states digging their heels in. For now, it's about saving face... even if it's wrong.
I try to focus on the swing voters. And on not despairing when there is a chance I can do some good.
That's a great mindset to have! Fortunately, this despair with politics hasn't stopped me from voting, but I don't want it to get to that point. There's always a chance that people will come to their senses.
I had assumed the politicians were anti-abortion just because their base was anti-abortion. Are republicans voters themselves loosening their views on abortion?
It's still confusing to me what the actual motivations are for anti-abortion policy. There must be some chunk that are grifters accumulating power, some chunk that just hate women, some chunk that have true ethical issues with abortion, etc.
Funny, about 2 minutes ago I responded to someone in another thread who posted that if you have an abortion you "still kill your baby."
My guess is that some people truly believe that a fetus is an actual baby (which seems absurd to me but I get that you have to draw the line somewhere and that some people draw it really early). This is a common belief among religious Christians, so there may be some theological basis for their beliefs, but as a non-Christian I find it annoying that their culture has to have a potential on impact my life.
Anyway, from this article:
I'm a Christian and don't believe in abortions unless in certain situations (I don't say this a lot online and in person). But I also don't believe in forcing my beliefs on people and making them follow what I believe. I get on soap boxes ranting about this aspect with my friends at times...
But I think the frustrating thing is that the same people who are so vocal about abortions becoming illegal don't care about the baby after it's born and don't care about the parents i.e. federal paid parental leave.
I'm pro-choice, but I think this is kind of a nonsensical way of thinking. We wouldn't say the same kind of thing about murder or theft. If it really is wrong, then it may be worth making it illegal, even if that involves "forcing beliefs". All laws involve some degree of "forcing beliefs".
Lawyer here. You are opening up what has the potential to be a really complicated conversation. Laws are not just about what is right, but also about what is reasonable and possible for society to enforce in a way that doesn't cause more harm than good. (I also support a pro choice position personally but you are raising a different issue)
We already have a lot of variations of laws around killing depending on circumstances. Manslaughter. Self defense. War. etc.
Enforcing some laws really intrudes on privacy and autonomy. Example when same gender sex was illegal, cops trying to enforce those laws did some really unfortunate things. Because the fetus is dependent on the mother, laws about abortion have to balance competing interests. It is not merely about what we forbid the mother from doing but also about what we are requiring her to do, including put her life at risk by giving birth.
Laws against abortion in some cases puts the prosecutor in the position of trying to assess health care needs around ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and other conditions. That is technically tricky and morally questionable. If doctors are intimidated from providing needed health care because of legal risk, it is bad for society.
All laws do this. Deciding whether a law is worth passing/enforcing is always, at least in part, a cost-benefit analysis, and there's always an element of subjectivity there. Yes, outlawing abortions will inevitably do harm. But there's no inherent contradiction in saying that abortion is so wrong that, even given that harm, outlawing it is still worthwhile. Whatever side of the cost-benefit analysis you come down on, it's ultimately a utilitarian judgment, which is very different from just saying "I don't want to force my beliefs on people."
Sure, but this is a bad example because there was never a compelling government interest in outlawing same-sex relations in the first place, so that law only ever did harm. In the case of abortion, there's a cogent argument to be made that a fetus at least has some moral value.
We outlaw many things that require morally and technically difficult questions - that is why we employ expert witnesses and allow them to answer questions based on their expertise in fields that require it.
/you wrote : We outlaw many things that require morally and technically difficult questions - that is why we employ expert witnesses and allow them to answer questions based on their expertise in fields that require it.
Which is why I am unhappy that the states that have outlawed or limited abortion to a time period where a woman might not even know she was pregnant yet, have in fact done no calling of expert witnesses re abortion, doctors or otherwise.
As for the larger abortion argument, that has been argued and reargued by people of good faith and people not of good faith. I don't want to do that today. I pointed to the complexity of the issue, which as you say is not sufficient argument by itself to say don't forbid abortion, but it is a complex mix of issues and rights. We don't require family members generally to donate lifesaving organs.
Feel free to answer with your best argument, but I'm not going to reply again.
I have different opinions about different aspects of law, justice, court system etc. My statement was specifically about abortions.
I'm not physically capable of pregnancy (cis male) but it seems to me irrelevant whether a fetus is a baby. I would say that if you avoid colloquial terminology then yes, a fetus is a living human and you are killing it by performing an abortion. But also human biology is cruel and unfair and we should have a society where defying biology is an acceptable tradeoff to make when it favors bodily autonomy. I think if someone is pregnant but does not want to be then forcing them to do something they don't want to with their body is wrong.
I can imagine a world where performing an abortion is unethical:
In that case performing abortions is much harder to justify.
I think there needs to be another step:
Becoming a parent is a huge, important commitment. Nobody should have it forced upon them.
I'd take that one full huge 18 year step later and say that someone would also have to be willing to invest their time, energy, and money in raising that child well. All of that is a theoretical fantasy, though. Abortion should remain legal.
Who is going to pay and care for the baby and it’s care once it is born? That to me is a huge concern when discussing forcing a baby to be born. And forcing the mom to means you might get another kid with a horrible childhood and it will be luck if he or she doesn’t turn into a horrible person themselves cause of such.
They should be held responsible for the deaths but hey accountability doesn't exist.
I found it puzzling also. The only thing I could conclude besides racism and classism was that these state lawmakers have their eyes on federal politics, and in the future want to be able to point to their voting records.
Huh, the few people into whose hands we concentrate all the power are trying to control us to an even greater extent? How could this possibly happen?