⮞ Texas Abortion Ban Stays In Effect With Help From SCOTUS ⮜

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
If your neighbor smokes pot, it doesn’t affect you. If your neighbor marries someone of the same gender, it doesn’t affect you. So why have laws against smoking pot or same sex marriage? If you don’t like those things, don’t do them.
Some forms of murder ARE legalized(Assassination of Soleimani, use of Drones)! Although I understand what you are trying to say, you are still misrepresenting my argument. My argument is NOT simply, "If I don't believe in the things that other people believe in, then simply don't do them(if I am understanding you)? "If I don't like the things that other people do, then don't do them.". I do agree with this freedom of choice!

The monumental difference with your analogies and oversimplification, is that I AM NOT BEING FORCED TO SMOKE POT OR TO MARRY THE SAME SEX. Also, both are legal and do not violate any of my basic and protected rights. What other people choose to do or want to believe in, should have zero effect on me in any so-called free society. I believe that life begins at the point of viability, and that the woman should have the right to terminate her own pregnancy. But now, my beliefs, liberties, and choices, have been suspended and ignored. I AM NOW BEING FORCED NOT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Because of the beliefs of a small vocal minority, who have now directly influenced the policy decisions of our elected leaders. This is why our founding fathers wanted a separation between religious beliefs and government policies. If you can't see the red flags and slippery slopes, that this decision will lead to, then your ignorance is truly self-imposed.

All of our freedoms will be in the hands of whichever minority group can scream the loudest(White Nationalists, Animal Rights Activists, Flat Earth believers, etc.). We will be rationalizing our asses off. Justifying Intelligent Design in our science classrooms. Bringing back the merits of separate but equal opportunities in our schools, businesses, and workforce. We will be justifying the merits of legalized social and religious discrimination. We will be justifying the merits of misogyny and nationalism within society. Our Constitution will have very little meaning and purpose, regarding the freedoms and liberties of its citizens.

No, Seth. We are NOT simply talking about a difference in ideologies here. We are talking about a group of well meaning fanatics, that don't care about how many lives and families they destroy. How many maternal deaths they cause. Or, how many unwanted newborns they force women to conceive. Or, how many unwanted children they force into our already overcrowded adoption and foster-care agencies. Or, how many children they will doom to a life of being reviled by their own parents. All they care about, is forcing their beliefs down the throats of the majority, and bugger the consequences.

These groups are no different than Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, etc.. They all believe that they are right, and that their cause is just. But they must force others to believe it as well, to validate their beliefs.

You are also correct. You can never convince anyone who already believes that he is Napoleon, that he isn't Napoleon. These people have already lost the ability to reason objectively. But there are others who can. And, may what to hear another point of view. Or, want to hear the flaws in these extremist views. For example,

why do they always call abortion murder?
why do they always use newborns to illustrate the aborted unborn? Newborns are NOT being aborted!!
why do they always avoid the issue of a woman's right of choice?
why do they always call pro-choice activists, pro-death activists?
why do they not address their own contradictions of excusable/acceptable abortions?
why do they believe that only human life is sacred, and not all life?
Why do they avoid all direct questions concerning their core abortion beliefs?

No Seth, I believe that this is more about egos, than about principles!!
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Dershowitz is right. I have always thought that the 10th Amendment was the constitutional answer to the question of abortion.
No Seth. The abortion issue is covered under the due-process clause under the 14th Amendment. And the right to privacy right, under the 9th amendment. Even if Anti-abortionist claim the 5th Amendment(right to life), the unborn before viability has no Constitutional protection.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
IMHO, this issue isn't about a Constitutional Right to Abortion, for the Federal Government to decide.........it's an individual State's issue, where at that level only the States can best honor the wants & needs of the People.
That's been tried and failed. Segregation, discrimination at all levels of society, racial injustices, due-process violations, unequal treatment under the law, slavery, White privilege, lynching's, Jim Crow and other similar laws, prohibition, tax and voting violations, separate but equal laws for women and gay marriages, and the promotion of religious tolerance and xenophobia.

No! The last thing we want is individual states deciding the civil rights and freedoms of the people in the state. The Federal governments must protect ALL citizens from states that opening suppress the civil and basic rights of its citizens. Rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Or, is interpreted as guaranteed by the Constitution.

In your heart, you know that it is wrong to force any woman that a man has impregnated, to carry her child to term. It is wrong for anyone to control any part of anyone's anatomy or bodily function. Clearly you wouldn't like it, if the State government would make all men responsible for the care, support, and rearing of the child, if they DIDN'T WEAR PROTECTION!! This would certainly have an immediate impact in reducing all abortions. And, would not interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion!

So, why do you think that this obvious solution is not on the table??
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
10th Amendment says. . . . ? (Bear with me, very trying day today.)
Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Mississippi's Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Case
Is a State’s Rights Case

Source: NEWS-TIMES
This week’s highly publicized coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization is erroneously billed as an abortion rights case when in fact it is a case that either strengthens the 10th Amendment or weakens it.

Much is being made of the decision by the Mississippi legislature to set limits as to the deadline for deciding to terminate a pregnancy. Opponents of the law contend that this is an attack on the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a woman’s right to an abortion, based on the science of the day which at that time determined the viability of the fetus or unborn child to be some time after the second trimester or after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

According to the Legal Information Institute, “The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

Since that highly controversial decision, the Court has upheld the basic tenants of the original decision based on the broad and questionable conclusion of when the unborn child reaches the point of viability. After that moment when viability is possible the Court approved the right of the state to restrict abortions.

The Mississippi case, as the current case is being named, is now challenging the date of gestation at which the state can step in, as prescribed by the Roe v Wade decision, and determine when it is appropriate to deny abortion within the boundaries of the state.

News reports are replete with stories about babies being born prematurely, even in the first 24 weeks of gestation and surviving successfully. Considering these facts and for other reasons, the Mississippi state legislature established a new point of pregnancy beyond which the procedure is no longer allowed within the state.

Washington Post columnist Marc Theissen notes in his column today that the U.S. is “one of just seven of the 198 countries that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.” Among the other six are China and North Korea and he notes that Mississippi is not inclined to be in that list and has passed legislation that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The media and the abortion rights proponents are apoplectic, arguing that this is a denial of a woman’s right to choose. But that is not the case. The expectant mother can choose to have an abortion, but just not in Mississippi after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The individual can easily go to states where abortions are more liberal, such as New York, California, and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia.

The argument before the Supreme Court is not the denial of a right, abortion, but rather an affirmation of a right, Mississippi’s State’s Rights, as articulated in the 10th Amendment.

That amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Legal scholars have long acknowledged that the Roe v Wade created a right that doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution. Now Mississippi is arguing that it has a right to determine the time frame within which abortions may be performed. It is that argument that is the most critical issue being decided in this case.

A woman’s right to abortion is not being denied in this case. Mississippi is establishing, as the Constitution allows and still adhering to the overarching decision in the Roe v Wade, a process and the time for when the procedure is allowed. Any effort on the part of the federal government to interrupt the state’s privileges and authority, not otherwise granted to the government, is unconstitutional.

The debate as being played out in the Supreme Court has ramifications that go beyond the issue of abortion; it will determine if the Court is continuing on a course to create laws rather than judge the implementation of laws duly established by the citizenry and by extension, Congress.

Thomas Jefferson expressed grave concern about the potential authority of the Supreme Court in situations such as this. The 10th Amendment Center noted that in 1823 he wrote to judge William Johnson, in response to another Supreme Court decision, Marbury v Madison, that involved the Supreme Court deciding in its favor in a dispute with Jefferson, who had just taken office as President.

“This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, ‘there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.’ True, there must; but.. the ultimate arbiter is the people …” he wrote.

With this case, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court is now faced with determining the fate of the 10th Amendment, not abortion rights.
This Case is a, if not the, quintessential case that exemplifies the reasons our American Founding Fathers included a Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Tenth Right of the Ten Rights of the American People's Bill of Rights. The Constitution of the United States of America, after all is said & done, holds high the principal of State's Rights, & the individual Rights of the American People, which were always meant to be leagues above the Rights & Powers delegated to the Federal Government.

I hope I adequately & respectfully answered your question........"10th Amendment says. . . . ?"
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
10th Amendment says. . . . ? (Bear with me, very trying day today.)
These two might help. The Ninth Amendment,

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit...-the-bill-of-rights-ncc/v/the-ninth-amendment

And, the Tenth Amendment,


Basically, the Ninth Amendments states that The Federal Government also has rights that are NOT enumerated(listed) in the Constitution. And, that these unenumerated rights are natural rights, and basic human rights afforded to all citizens. Its point was not to have people interpret the Bill of Rights as having the only rights afforded to the Federal Government. But, there are many people who still think, that if it isn't written down in the Constitution, that the federal government doesn't have the right? This is false.

Think what could happen if not for the 9th and 14th Amendments! There would be no equal opportunities for all citizens in some states. There would still be slavery in some states. There would still be women who couldn't vote in some states. There would stills be legal segregation and judicial inequality in some states. There could be women being arrested for having illegal abortions in some states. It would truly be a different America to live in. And, would only be the luck of the draw, if you were born in a State that taught you that snakes and donkeys can talk, or in the Big Bang Theory.

The Tenth Amendment was drafted to appease the Federalist. Having them think that the Federal government had only the enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution. The framers even included, "..or to the people.". So that not only did the people have their basic rights protected in the State, but they also had their powers protected in the State. Whenever the peoples rights and powers in the State are ignored, abused, or violated, the Federal Government can step in. Hence why the Attorney General of the US has stepped in(9th Amendment) to challenge this law.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
This may provide some context:

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2019...gain-state-abortion-restrictions-are-not-main

So in Texas the abortion ban mainly affects poor women including women of color. Wealthier women have more options as always.
That may be one side affect, but the greater good is served in saved human lives.....lives saved from horrible deaths at the bloody hands of abortionists......lives who now have a chance to live, prosper, & advance their potentials.

 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
If you were to READ my linked article you will find a few poor/colored women will be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy to birth, that is about the effect of the Control of Uppity Women Act.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Some forms of murder ARE legalized(Assassination of Soleimani, use of Drones)! Although I understand what you are trying to say, you are still misrepresenting my argument. My argument is NOT simply, "If I don't believe in the things that other people believe in, then simply don't do them(if I am understanding you)? "If I don't like the things that other people do, then don't do them.". I do agree with this freedom of choice!

The monumental difference with your analogies and oversimplification, is that I AM NOT BEING FORCED TO SMOKE POT OR TO MARRY THE SAME SEX. Also, both are legal and do not violate any of my basic and protected rights. What other people choose to do or want to believe in, should have zero effect on me in any so-called free society. I believe that life begins at the point of viability, and that the woman should have the right to terminate her own pregnancy. But now, my beliefs, liberties, and choices, have been suspended and ignored. I AM NOW BEING FORCED NOT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Because of the beliefs of a small vocal minority, who have now directly influenced the policy decisions of our elected leaders. This is why our founding fathers wanted a separation between religious beliefs and government policies. If you can't see the red flags and slippery slopes, that this decision will lead to, then your ignorance is truly self-imposed.

All of our freedoms will be in the hands of whichever minority group can scream the loudest(White Nationalists, Animal Rights Activists, Flat Earth believers, etc.). We will be rationalizing our asses off. Justifying Intelligent Design in our science classrooms. Bringing back the merits of separate but equal opportunities in our schools, businesses, and workforce. We will be justifying the merits of legalized social and religious discrimination. We will be justifying the merits of misogyny and nationalism within society. Our Constitution will have very little meaning and purpose, regarding the freedoms and liberties of its citizens.

No, Seth. We are NOT simply talking about a difference in ideologies here. We are talking about a group of well meaning fanatics, that don't care about how many lives and families they destroy. How many maternal deaths they cause. Or, how many unwanted newborns they force women to conceive. Or, how many unwanted children they force into our already overcrowded adoption and foster-care agencies. Or, how many children they will doom to a life of being reviled by their own parents. All they care about, is forcing their beliefs down the throats of the majority, and bugger the consequences.

These groups are no different than Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, etc.. They all believe that they are right, and that their cause is just. But they must force others to believe it as well, to validate their beliefs.

You are also correct. You can never convince anyone who already believes that he is Napoleon, that he isn't Napoleon. These people have already lost the ability to reason objectively. But there are others who can. And, may what to hear another point of view. Or, want to hear the flaws in these extremist views. For example,

why do they always call abortion murder?
why do they always use newborns to illustrate the aborted unborn? Newborns are NOT being aborted!!
why do they always avoid the issue of a woman's right of choice?
why do they always call pro-choice activists, pro-death activists?
why do they not address their own contradictions of excusable/acceptable abortions?
why do they believe that only human life is sacred, and not all life?
Why do they avoid all direct questions concerning their core abortion beliefs?

No Seth, I believe that this is more about egos, than about principles!!
Shell, you make your points and ask your questions, but just try for a moment to imagine - just pretend - that you believed that an unborn child was an individual human life. This is, after all, what pro-lifers believe.

Now if you believe that, then that belief pretty much answers your points and answers your central questions.

Let me put it another way .... If a child is born, and on Day 1 someone kills that baby, the legal definition of that act is Murder, a very serious crime. However, if someone terminates a pregnancy, we call that an abortion, a legal act. Pro-lifers will agree that an abortion is a legal act, but they don't agree that it should be legal because it is their belief that the fetus that is aborted is an individual human being that has just as much right to life as a person who has been born.

That is, and always will be the crucial issue that divides the two sides.

I see no resolution to the argument.

Look at this Gallup polling ...

32% think abortion should be legal under any circumstances.
19% think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
48% think abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

49% consider themselves to be pro-choice.
47% consider themselves to be pro-life.

Our society is divided on this issue about as evenly as you can get.

 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
see no resolution to the argument.

Look at this Gallup polling ...

32% think abortion should be legal under any circumstances.
19% think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
48% think abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.
So you're saying that if 80% of the country believes that abortion should be legal under some or any circumstances, that this is an evenly divided argument? Really???

Let me put it another way .... If a child is born, and on Day 1 someone kills that baby, the legal definition of that act is Murder, a very serious crime. However, if someone terminates a pregnancy, we call that an abortion, a legal act. Pro-lifers will agree that an abortion is a legal act, but they don't agree that it should be legal because it is their belief that the fetus that is aborted is an individual human being that has just as much right to life as a person who has been born.
Sorry Seth! Although in some states, if a pregnant women looses her unborn child, during the commission of a crime, murder can certainly be the charge. But generally, murder is when you take the life of another fully formed human being. This is just another disingenuous false equivalence.

Disingenuous, because the anti-choice/prolife crowd don't really give a shit about the unwanted pregnancy. They only want to punish women for having had unsanctioned sex! They only see pregnancy and motherhood as a punishment for women having had sex. And, they see abortion as a way for women to get out of their punishment! Protecting the unborn child, is just a sham argument, using pathos to conceal their true reason. This really is a hostile and perverted view of the world and people.

In reality, fetuses are no more fully human than a fertilized egg is to a chicken! A grape is to a glass of wine, and a fetus is to a fully formed human being. The embryo/fetus is only a fetal human, and not fully human. It doesn't have the vital parts that even make it a functioning human organism. 88% of pregnancies are terminated within the first 12 weeks. And, another 6.3% are terminated before 15 weeks(94% total). The fetus, at this stage is just an unwanted non-viable pregnancy. Now those are the facts!

I understand what you are saying. But I just can't imagine an embryo as being human. I can believe that this is true. But in reality it just isn't. You and I both know that we would NOT want people making laws, that infringes on our privacy and personal liberties. History has already shown us where these types of sectarian beliefs can lead us to(slavery, racism, segregation, prohibition, etc.). If prolife people believe in the sanctity of life, then simply PRACTICE IT THEMSELVES!! No prochoice activist is forcing prolife activists to have an abortion. So why are prolife activists shoving their views down our throats? And worse, forcing us to obey them? This is wrong on any level.

These people play ZERO role in the pregnancy, birth, or in the rearing of the child! They have absolutely no right to force others to adapt their distorted view of reality.

As I've said before, if you believe that abortion is the murder of the unborn human, THEN DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION!! Your personal beliefs end at my front door.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
So you're saying that if 80% of the country believes that abortion should be legal under some or any circumstances, that this is an evenly divided argument? Really???



Sorry Seth! Although in some states, if a pregnant women looses her unborn child, during the commission of a crime, murder can certainly be the charge. But generally, murder is when you take the life of another fully formed human being. This is just another disingenuous false equivalence.

Disingenuous, because the anti-choice/prolife crowd don't really give a shit about the unwanted pregnancy. They only want to punish women for having had unsanctioned sex! They only see pregnancy and motherhood as a punishment for women having had sex. And, they see abortion as a way for women to get out of their punishment! Protecting the unborn child, is just a sham argument, using pathos to conceal their true reason. This really is a hostile and perverted view of the world and people.

In reality, fetuses are no more fully human than a fertilized egg is to a chicken! A grape is to a glass of wine, and a fetus is to a fully formed human being. The embryo/fetus is only a fetal human, and not fully human. It doesn't have the vital parts that even make it a functioning human organism. 88% of pregnancies are terminated within the first 12 weeks. And, another 6.3% are terminated before 15 weeks(94% total). The fetus, at this stage is just an unwanted non-viable pregnancy. Now those are the facts!

I understand what you are saying. But I just can't imagine an embryo as being human. I can believe that this is true. But in reality it just isn't. You and I both know that we would NOT want people making laws, that infringes on our privacy and personal liberties. History has already shown us where these types of sectarian beliefs can lead us to(slavery, racism, segregation, prohibition, etc.). If prolife people believe in the sanctity of life, then simply PRACTICE IT THEMSELVES!! No prochoice activist is forcing prolife activists to have an abortion. So why are prolife activists shoving their views down our throats? And worse, forcing us to obey them? This is wrong on any level.

These people play ZERO role in the pregnancy, birth, or in the rearing of the child! They have absolutely no right to force others to adapt their distorted view of reality.

As I've said before, if you believe that abortion is the murder of the unborn human, THEN DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION!! Your personal beliefs end at my front door.
The Gallup polls show that the majority (unsurprisingly) take a middle ground. The majority will accept abortion early in the pregnancy but not late in the pregnancy. The majority will accept abortion to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest. But the majority does not accept (53%) an abortion “when the woman doesn’t want the child for any reason”.

These polls show that the nearly half of the people who call themselves “pro-life” will accept abortion in certain types of cases. FWIW, I fall into that general category.

Those who favor an outright ban and those who favor no restrictions at all are both in the minority by significant margins.

You say (I’m paraphrasing) that if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one, but don’t impose your choice on others. The problem with that is that in a representative democracy we are responsible for our own laws. You may not disagree in places like North Korea or China, and so average citizens bear no responsibility for the conduct of their masters. But in free countries like Australia and the U.S. we have a civic duty to loudly and openly disagree when we believe that what our country is doing is wrong. If our countries are doing something wrong, we feel guilt, even if we didn’t support whatever it is.

So for as long as pro-life people believe as they do, they will fight against it, and pro-choice people will oppose them just as strenuously.

Most likely, it is the middle ground that will prevail in the long run, IMO.
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
DRX stop fucking posting cutesy wutesy hallmark cards! a bunch of cells doesn't look like that.....you must be so fucking dense! born babies don't fall victim to abortions..... just this: how about posting a pic of a newborn stuffed into a waste bin in the rest room of a gas station instead :oops:...... hows that for well meaning dickhead?

 
Last edited:

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
In Texas if a woman has a miscarriage she will be arrested as having tried to obtain an abortion. Some women miscarry a lot latish in their pregnancy—their life will be hell in Texas if they cannot afford to move to another state. This is the crap that comes in the wake of laws to control women’s sexual health.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You say (I’m paraphrasing) that if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one, but don’t impose your choice on others. The problem with that is that in a representative democracy we are responsible for our own laws. You may not disagree in places like North Korea or China, and so average citizens bear no responsibility for the conduct of their masters. But in free countries like Australia and the U.S. we have a civic duty to loudly and openly disagree when we believe that what our country is doing is wrong. If our countries are doing something wrong, we feel guilt, even if we didn’t support whatever it is.
A "representative democracy"? That is a debate in itself. But even in a representative democracy, the majority view should be the dominant and most successful view. But with money, lobbyists, and the vocal minority in politics, this may not always be the case. So, lets not pollute the waters with meaningless platitudes, political soundbites, and a civics lesson. Which are all, only loosely connected to this subject!!

Seth, we are talking about an entire gender in society. This gender has just had the freedom to end their pregnancy taken away. Just because of a small minority of fanatics(mostly men), have chosen to distorted the meaning of life and personage, to support their selfish and religious narrative. And, all you can say is, "tough luck, but we do live in a representative democracy."? Really?? Men do not get pregnant or bear children. So, their opinions are meaningless. So what specific right gives them the power to decide that all women MUST take their pregnancy to term? The most blood soaked book ever written, the Bible?? So, show me a Gallop poll with the opinions of ONLY WOMEN, and you might add more credibility to your argument.

The Gallup polls show that the majority (unsurprisingly) take a middle ground. The majority will accept abortion early in the pregnancy but not late in the pregnancy. The majority will accept abortion to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest. But the majority does not accept (53%) an abortion “when the woman doesn’t want the child for any reason”.
The gallop polls show that 80% of those polled, believed that abortion should be legal under some or any circumstances. This is the majority view. As well as the commonsense view. Remember, this is about freedom of choice. Either women have this freedom or they don't. You can't simply tell women that they have the freedom to have an abortion, but if they do, we will arrest, fine, jail, or mount legal proceedings against anyone who aids and abets you. This is called an undue burden, and hypocritical. And also blatantly violates their Constitutional rights under the 14th, 9th, and 5th Amendments.

This is not a debate. This is an encroachment into the affairs of State, by well-meaning fanatics with a distorted and selfish view of reality. No one should have the power to control your body, except you. And, certainly without any due process. Are you debating this? Do you think that people have the right, not to simply voice their opinions and beliefs, but to force their opinions and beliefs down the throats of those who disagree through legislation?

Remember abortion is a legal medical procedure. Are we now outlawing a medical procedure?
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
dust bins after the unwanted birth is the preferred option...... or a shit life for the child.

fuck me jesus wept
 
Last edited:

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
A shit life for the mother too. Unwanted child, education/career dreams shattered, poverty their lot. All because some insecure males are made uncomfortable by women deciding on their own fertility etc.

The mothers most affected—poor, colored—have a hard enough struggle as it is.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
The FDA Just Made Medication Abortions a Whole Lot Easier to Get

The Food and Drug Administration announced on Thursday that it will loosen restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, allowing people to receive the pill via mail or pharmacy instead of having to appear in person at a clinic or hospital.

The decision comes while the Supreme Court deliberates over a Mississippi ban on abortion after 15 weeks. The court is widely expected to use the case to roll back nearly a half century of abortion rights. The court ruled last week that an abortion restriction in Texas could remain in effect.

For almost 30 years, the FDA restricted the use of mifepristone through its drug safety program, even though the drug has long been known to be safe and effective. The new change “will allow many patients to access care earlier with fewer burdens and costs,” ACLU attorney Julia Kaye told the Washington Post.

Misoprostol, the second pill needed in medication abortion, has long been accessible at a pharmacy with a prescription. Earlier this year, the Biden Administration temporarily lifted the restriction on mifepristone to ensure abortion access continued despite the challenges of the pandemic.

According to the FDA, the restriction was modified in order to “reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

Yet the change won’t mean a whole lot in much of the country. Nineteen states, including Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama (which recently introduced a “heartbeat bill” similar to Texas’) restrict the use of telemedicine for abortion. People across the South and the Midwest will have to travel to sanctuary states like California or New York for telemedicine appointments and to receive the medication.

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...jeWNRov8GTD6ory6RcBhu3NkGqjYASJrc-1iY9Tdae3O4
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, a false analogy, if you prefer.

All I’m saying is that I see no resolution to this debate, and that is why I usually avoid it. It doesn’t seem to matter what argument anyone makes on this topic, either pro or con. People’s positions on this are set in stone.

And people are entitled to all of the opinions they want. Nothing will ever change that.

What is true and important is that people's opinions shouldn't get to pass laws. And certainly not religious ideology. Science and reason should reign over that.

And science and reason tells us that at the point most foetuses are aborted, they are not "life", they are merely the potential for life.

I'm strongly opposed to late term abortions, except when there is real risk to the mother, but prior to the foetus being viable, it is not a lif unto itself.

Simply because some collection of religious zealots consider it a sin is no excuse for putting girls and women in very real harm's way by restricting or prohibiting access to safe and affordable terminations.

And that is not just my opinion. Science and reason back me.
 
Top