US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

TheRepentent

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119029674#Comment_119029674

ffs it's not a child.

Bayonet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119029645#Comment_119029645

This is a bit of a WTF? why are you telling me pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion? is that like an argument to ...um, just abort all babies or something?

I'm confused.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119029721#Comment_119029721

No I don’t think you are. PM me if you need more info at this point.

Juran

11 million open job vacancies in the US today. 6 million unemployed people in the US right now.

Big business need low paid workers. Big business donate big money to Republicans to ensure woman (poorer women) reproduce to fill these low paid jobs. As we know, due to the expensive education system in the US, poor kids will rarely get educated or get out of the cycle of poverty. This suits big business.

Republican conservative politicians dont care about the life of unborn children .. they care only about keeping big business happy and that the big $$$ donations keep coming in. Ensuring weathly politicians are well looked after.

Its all about money and controlling poorer women.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119029733#Comment_119029733

Sorry for confusing you two

Far from being ignored, it’s already implied at the front of the issue: an abortion ends in the termination of the pregnancy. The number of terminated fetuses thusly is the same as the number of performed abortions. Legalization of abortion led to much safer abortions for women.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119027221#Comment_119027221

Ok I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying Christy. Republicans don’t care about abortion in the sense that they aren’t campaigning for it, they’re more interested in being able to support themselves and their families and being able to do so. They don’t WANT to have abortions, but they’re in circumstances which leave them no choice. I don’t know that the decision if it goes against them is really going to have Democrats coming out in any great numbers either if I’m being honest.

Certainly that’s another way to interpret that particular survey, but that requires you ignore the fact that in spite of existing precedent, women have historically been more concerned with employment, education and the ability to provide for themselves and their families.

If you picked me because that’s how you interpreted what I said, then you just took me up wrong. I don’t think a tiny minority of middle class women speak for all women at all either. I was pointing to the fact that they claim abortion is an issue which affects all women. In reality, it doesn’t. Socioeconomic deprivation is not an issue which affects all women in the US either.

Both NARAL, and Planned Parenthood have acknowledged that they have a bit of a class issue that they haven’t really addressed, namely that they are perceived as being representative of white middle class women, and they’re trying to turn around that image problem -

Ms. Shipp also said there was a feeling that endorsing Mr. Obama at a high-profile juncture might help Naral shed its image as an organization for white women only. 

“Has it been in the past?,” Ms. Shipp asked. “Yes. Do I think the face of the choice movement is different today and do I hope Naral plays a role in that? You bet.”

…

"So, white women, listen up. We've got to do better. ... It is not up to women of color to save this country from itself. That's on all of us. That's on all of us," said Richards, who also heads the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

You didn’t need to show that women who aren’t white middle class women are vastly over-represented in abortion statistics. That much has been known about and well understood for decades already with the main reason women give for having an abortion being for socioeconomic circumstances. I linked to the stats myself earlier. In debunking the whole “abortion as black genocide” myth, which, as you can imagine carries a hell of a lot of weight in low-income neighbourhoods, there is the additional context of socioeconomic deprivation which is based upon a number of factors -

In an August 2008 opinion piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Guttmacher Institute Board Chair Melissa Gilliam said of the high unintended pregnancy and abortion rates among African Americans: “The root causes are manifold: a long history of discrimination; lack of access to high-quality, affordable health care; too few educational and professional opportunities; unequal access to safe, clean neighborhoods; and, for some African Americans, a lingering mistrust of the medical community.”

What can be done about entrenched disparities in women’s health? Kaiser calls it a “formidable challenge” that will “require an ongoing investment of resources from multiple sectors that go beyond coverage and include strengthening the health care delivery system, improving health education efforts, and expanding educational and economic opportunities for women.”

In the context of high abortion rates among women of color, Guttmacher has argued that the fundamental question policymakers should be asking is not why women of color have high abortion rates, but rather what can be done to help them have fewer unintended pregnancies and achieve better health outcomes more generally. Barriers to health care access, including financial and geographic hurdles, remain a significant issue. For instance, many women of color are unable to afford prescription birth control methods, such as the IUD, that are highly effective over extended time periods but have high up-front costs.

Beyond access to affordable contraceptives, however, other factors like dissatisfaction with the quality of services and the methods themselvesmay be at least as much an impediment to consistent and correct contraceptive use. There is increasing recognition that quality of care plays a major role in health-seeking behavior and health outcomes. Dissatisfaction with health care providers, a problem often made worse by cultural or linguistic barriers, can lead to frustration and poor follow-through on contraceptive use. Unstable life situations, in which consistent use of contraceptives is a lower priority than simply getting by, can also be a factor.

It’s a complex challenge, but one thing is clear: By continuing to label abortion providers as “racists” and refusing to support expanded access to contraceptive services anti–abortion rights activists are by no means part of the solution—to high rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion among racial and ethnic minorities or to persistent and tragic disparities in health care generally.

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2009/06/new-health-disparities-report-more-context-higher-unintended-pregnancy-and-abortion

Fundamentally, IMO, addressing the issues involved means gaining the trust of these people who have good reason not to trust the people who claim to want to help them. The first thing that anyone needs to do is listen to them, and listen to what their actual concerns are, as opposed to telling them what they should be concerned about and expecting they’ll simply fall into line and join the “sisterhood“, whose experiences and ways of thinking couldn’t be more different to their own.

TheRepentent

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119029750#Comment_119029750

I sleep fine, but thanks. No matter what you think or when you misuse english words it's not a child. That is a fact and not open to debate.

Bayonet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119029733#Comment_119029733

The Democrats got more money from wall street than Republicans. Big tech massively favours Democrats in donations. Planned parenthood is a massive business and a big lobby in the pro-abortion case.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030082#Comment_119030082

Trying to argue who wore it better is moot when Dark Money exists.

Bayonet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030092#Comment_119030092

I prefer the money that saves babies than the money that tears them limb from limb or sucks them out the womb with a vacuum cleaner.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030109#Comment_119030109

And that’s entirely your prerogative. Others side on babies already born and those with personhood

Bayonet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030124#Comment_119030124

Personhood. All these euphemisms.

Just a nothing blob one minute, passes through the birth canal and magically gains "personhood".

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030134#Comment_119030134

Personhood is not a “euphemism” it is a matter of legal fact.

https://lawreview.wlulaw.wlu.edu/category/online/roundtables/fetal-personhood/

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” (Amendment XIV)

Bayonet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030143#Comment_119030143

I'm aware of the legal definition. It's still doesn't alter the fact it's euphemistic to pro-lifers because a baby is always a person.

kowloon

A friend of mine did an essay on defining personhood or some similar title. I think it has been a term in philosophy for a long time.

edit: this is years ago, so not just latching on to a fashionable term.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030163#Comment_119030163

Except it does fundamentally undermine your conjecture that it is a euphemism. If you want to really get into a philosophical debate about Abortion there’s a 4 part megathread for that on boards. This is a thread about Abortion Law, specifically the imminent change in status of Roe vs Wade. Writing off the actual law as euphemistic?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030170#Comment_119030170

Philosophy, medicine, and science. But these arguments for the definition in academia (subject to review, etc) do not establish or change a definition in the law (also subject to change, but in force effect). The law does that and this ultimately concerns what the law says in the USA. In particular, Amendment XIV.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030006#Comment_119030006

I agree that many things could reduce the numbers of abortions including helping people provide for families etc. However common sense would dictate fixing them before getting rid of abortion.

You still haven't actually proven that it is just middle class women who care about abortion. You seem to be grabbing whatever opinion pieces support your opinion as opposed to actually searching for an answer. You say minorities are disproportionately in abortion statistics for other reasons and you are correct. However those other reasons still exist so I am betting it will still help for them to access to safe abortions cos healthcare and poverty won't be fixed before the judgement comes out.

You tend to see more of the people arguing for keeping roe vs wade also argue for better healthcare for those less well off as well as better social services, how does that not count as listening to the concerns you raised?

riclad

I thing I find worrying is the legal argument for overturning roe seems to be there's no justication for women's rights or the right to privacy in the constitution , so going by this logic the same argument could be used to make gay marriage illegal or to make contraception illegal especially for unmarried people I.m not a legal expert but this supreme Court seems determined to give religious groups extra rights and priveliges that would have negative effects on women's rights of all kinds . It also reduces the separation of church and state eg religious schools would have the right to be funded by taxpayers while they discriminate against minoritys eg they won't take on teachers or students who are openly gay or lgbt supporters

This mostly effects minority groups and women on low incomes who won't have the money to travel to other states to get an abortion.

We should remember before the 70s in Ireland divorce was not legal. The laws of Ireland were mainly in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church

Many Irish women had to travel to the UK to get an abortion . Older readers will remember when Ireland was a theocratic state in that laws were written to be in line with the Catholic Church

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030306#Comment_119030306

However common sense would dictate fixing them before getting rid of abortion.

They’ve had 200 years Christy to address economic and social inequality. How much longer do you think Democrats can pretend they give a damn about economic and social inequality before people become sick of hearing the same old tune but nothing changes?

"What I believe is that mainstream media and the White, liberal population in general, the only thing that they address the Black community on is what I call placebo paternalism. We will say nice things about you. We will talk about your suffering, we will say that there's racism throughout the land," he described. "But when you go to the core issues of what Black Americans really need, that's access to capital, access to wealth and income.”

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/05/bets-robert-johnson-voting-democrat-gives-black-americans-minimal-return.html

BET Founder Robert Johnson, billionaire, who understands what Black people need. What Black people don’t need, is more White peoples patronising platitudes.

It’s not just about addressing these issues before the judgement comes out. Whether the right to abortion exists or doesn’t, won’t and hasn’t made any difference to address the inequalities experienced by people living in poverty.

Calls for better sex education and access to contraceptives and abortion, just doesn’t put food on the table for Americans and their families. That should be common sense, but it just doesn’t register among people who have never had to be concerned about putting food on the table or providing for their families. Once they’re able to do that much, then they can allow for higher ideals like whether they should choose to have an abortion or not.

Decades of voting for candidates who have consistently made promises to address social and economic inequality, and then failed to deliver, is what demonstrates whether or not people who claim to care about people’s needs actually do care. Evidently they don’t care, which is what has made it easier for Republicans to gain ground while Democrats are more concerned with signalling to other Democrats how much they care about minorities. They’re doing it again with the way they’re already sensing that the decision is not likely to go their way -

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/black-and-hispanic-people-have-the-most-to-lose-if-roe-is-overturned

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030553#Comment_119030553

Texas, of course, is already going after public schools. Not in the Constitution, after all.

WRT to the Church, I find it interesting and unsurprising that the 5 justices voting to overturn are all Catholic; Gorsuch is 'Episcopalian' but was raised such. Coincidence? Coincidence that the Federalist Society nominated them?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030859#Comment_119030859

Coincidence? No, of course not.

An observation based upon your own personal biases? Probably.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1287846

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030703#Comment_119030703

Surely having an extra kid makes it harder to put food on the table? Surely not being able to work/go to school due to pregnancy appointments and childcare makes it harder to put food on the table? If people are having abortions for economic reasons then it shows there is an economic benefit.

Yes democrats have failed to fix all these issues. They haven't been much of a left wing party and the left wing part of it is growing. I would point out that Republicans have also not fixed these issues and tend to be arguing against fixing these issues. Fixing them would be a lot easier if they were not around. Republicans can fix those issues if they care so much about food on the table and then discuss abortion. Except it was never about that, republicans were dead set focused on removing abortions and didn't give an f who they hurt.

I do love the attempt to make the middle class the evil boogeyman. Ah yes, nothing about billionaires hoarding wealth and making laws to help them exploit workers. All the evil is from those slightly better off than you. Fight them instead.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119031180#Comment_119031180

Surely having an extra kid makes it harder to put food on the table? Surely not being able to work/go to school due to pregnancy appointments and childcare makes it harder to put food on the table? If people are having abortions for economic reasons then it shows there is an economic benefit.

It doesn’t though. Having children isn’t what makes it hard to put food on the table. Being in a position where you’re unable to put food on the table in the first place due to lack of access to adequate healthcare, education and employment, is what makes it hard to put food on the table. People having abortions due to socioeconomic deprivation shows the only thing there’s anything wrong with is how you view their circumstances by your own standards.

Explaining that neither Democrats nor Republicans have failed to fix these issues, implies that they ever attempted to address these issues in the first place. Historically speaking, they haven’t. These issues are only a convenient stick to beat their political opponents with. In the same way as you accuse Republicans of wanting to ban abortion without giving a fcuk who they hurt, the same accusation can be levelled at Democrats who argue that the issues experienced by people living in poverty can be solved by imposing their standards on those people through comprehensive sex education, contraception and abortion, provided by them, funded by the Federal Government. Without a hint of irony, it’s rich to claim that the abortion issue is a private matter between a woman and her doctor, while expecting the Federal Government should fund it.

There’s no attempt to make the middle class the evil bogeyman at all, there aren’t any evil bogeyman, just people unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. No issue with claiming Federal funding for their own ideas though, it’s how Cecile was able to retire from Planned Parenthood with a personal fortune of $5m and earning a $600k annual salary to tell White women they needed to “do better” to bring “women of colour” into “the sisterhood” (you’ll have to excuse the inverted commas, it’s not language I normally use).

There was no hint of irony either when NARAL decided to throw their political weight behind a black man instead of a White woman who had been an ardent supporter of abortion rights since her earliest days in Arkansas working in Family Law, because they figured it would help to shed their image as an organisation for white women only.

That’s not an attempt to portray anyone as being the evil bogeyman. It’s simply pointing out the fact that the only people who seem to be benefiting economically from abortion are the people who are claiming it’s an issue for all women. Abortion itself hasn’t done anything to benefit the people it’s claimed should benefit the most from it, they’re still desperately poor, experience worse outcomes in healthcare, education and employment, and of course now when abortion rights look to be on the chopping block and Federal funding is going to disappear, the same old refrain of the people who will suffer the most are the most marginalised in society is being put forward as a reason to maintain a abortion rights… for those peoples own economic benefit, of course.

Meanwhile, Republicans are looking more and more attractive every day, because they’re offering healthcare, education and employment opportunities which are more in line with their voters values, and Democrats empty promises can’t save their political skin any more. The overturning of Roe v Wade is only of any significance to the tiny minority of people who want to maintain Federal funding for abortion. Everyone else just has greater priorities than access to abortion.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119031406#Comment_119031406

This is beyond parody. "Healthcare will be so easy" was a slogan for a Republican president. What happened there, there was a Republican majority at the time, what were the details of this great and easy plan? The right wing is fighting against the minimum wage rising. The right wing is fighting against cheaper healthcare. The right wing is fighting against better education standards. The right wing is fighting against unions that could provide better pay for poorer workers. I agree provide better and cheaper access to healthcare, education and have jobs pay more for labour. Giving access to abortion stops literally none of that. Neither does a comprehensive sex education and access to birth control measures. Why not have all these things? That is literally the position of those like AOC, Warren and Sanders fighting against this potential decision. The people who are arguing it should go ahead are those that have argued against more socialist healthcare, unions and better education standards.

Ah yeah, needing to buy more food doesn't make food harder to provide and people are having abortions for economic reasons that have economic effects. This is utter nonsense at this point.

The middle class aren't even the ones going to be the worst hurt by it (though some of the proposed laws are pretty archaic and may cause issues even for them). They can afford gas and sick/holiday leave to pop across a state border. As you say you want people to put their money where their mouth is. Many will but how exactly do you expect those without money to put it where their mouth is on this issue given you claim to have their interests at heart?

Look at the laws already being proposed under this ruling. Louisiana is voting on banning IUDs. TN is trying to ban getting plan B via mail. How does any of this help the less well off?

bertiebomber

Late term is wrong a woman knows if she doesnt want a pregnancy as soon as she reads the test and lets the father know in those two moments she knows what she is going to do. Waiting until 39 weeks is not good behaviour and tells you a lot about the woman. An abortion in the first 12 weeks should be the only one permitted to a healthy woman who has gotten caught. there are other types of issues but prior to having abortion these ill children died naturally within a year or two and grief was experienced by the mother which was much more natural. Perhaps a little bit of planing & abstinence would do the whole world a bit of good.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119031652#Comment_119031652

Oh cool, I didn't know we were allowed to just make stuff up. Let me try.

I heard some babies are able to fight off abortion attempts and in one case that's definitely true when the doctor went to perform the abortion there was a signed and witnessed letter from the baby's solicitor sticking out of the mother's knickers threatening legal action if the doctor continued.

Bayonet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119030553#Comment_119030553

Re: affecting minority groups.

Heaven forbid more black and brown babies are born.

You know planned parenthood was started by a woman with some very worrying views with regards to black people. Some argue over the quotes, but she seemed to indicate that planned parenthood was to reduce black babies.

The stats bear that out too as more black women have abortions than white women, as a percentage of population.

Bayonet

The pro-abortion left aren't even interested in the adoption debate. Don't want to have a baby but you were irresponsible enough to have sex? then have the baby and give it up.

But no, the argument now is that women who don't want their babies shouldn't have to carry it and 'ruin' their bodies. Literally couldn't make this up.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119031710#Comment_119031710

What on earth are you on about?

The debate's been had. It's only the anti-democratic American right who can't get with the program.