Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

What it does is clear: protects the medical exception in states that had expressly banned medical exceptions.

I’m not sure how you’d characterise ‘widely available’, but I don’t know that much has changed in how medicine is practiced in the US in the last 10 years since this survey was done -

Abortion providers' relative silence around their work may produce its own prevalence paradox. A recent survey of obstetrician-gynecologists showed that 14% of the approx- imately 50,000 obstetrician-gynecologists in the US do offer abortion care in the context of their practice [23,24]. While this is a lower estimate than some previous ones, it means that at least 7500 obstetrician-gynecologists offer some abortion services. However, it is unclear if this is more or fewer abortion providers than the general public perceives. If the population-at-large is aware that abortion training is required by the committee that sets ob-gyn training program curriculum standards, then the public perception may be that many more than 14% of ob-gyns offer abortion services. On the other hand, because this requirement is likely not known, and because abortion care itself is largely marginalized within medicine, 14% may actually represent a higher proportion of ob-gyn abortion providers than the public imagines. Given that some family physicians, pediatricians and other doctors also offer abortion care, a true prevalence paradox may indeed exist.

https://www.redaas.org.ar/archivos-recursos/522-PIIS0010782412007974.pdf

I don’t associate the idea of a right to an abortion with circumstances where an abortion is considered necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman in a medical emergency. They’re not the same thing; that’s why it’s easy to find the vast majority of people who support the right to abortion, much more difficult to find people who have actually performed an abortion - people will say plenty, but when it comes down to actually performing an abortion, they’re much more reluctant to be associated with it. In practice their declarations are meaningless, they don’t apply in circumstances where a termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the mothers life, because that’s already permitted by law. It’s what enables politicians to declare they want abortion to be safe, legal and rare… without having to delve too much into what they actually mean by that.

I do know that PP aren’t the only provider of abortion services, I only used them as an example because they’re one of the loudest political lobby groups in terms of promoting the right to abortion, I could’ve used NARAL or one of the many others, but they all operate more in the political sphere, as opposed to the public healthcare sector, by which I’m referring to public hospitals which have EDs that are equipped to provide for abortion in circumstances where it is determined to be necessary to save the mothers life. They’re a popular place for anyone who wants an abortion really, not just those people who are publicly opposed to abortion, until they find themselves in need of it. It’s hardly a surprise to anyone that there is an overwhelming stigma in relation to abortion when the vast majority of the population hold religious beliefs which are in direct conflict with the provision and practice of abortion -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6424365/

Women were always at risk of dying from an ectopic pregnancy, it’s why laws limiting the availability of abortion, don’t prohibit abortion in those circumstances. It’s not considered a right, so much as it’s considered a medical necessity to save the life of the mother in those circumstances. It’s not that they’re pregnant is what presents any substantial risk, it’s because the pregnancy is ectopic, and surgical intervention increases the risk of infection - the pregnant woman could still die even if an abortion is performed with the intent of saving her life. That’s one of the reasons why medical professionals in those circumstances may need to consult with their legal team, because if the patient is in a stable condition, they’re not in any immediate danger. I’m not sure HHS consulted with their legal team before ‘clarifying’ that EMTALA includes ‘abortion care’. It doesn’t, and that’s notwithstanding the fact that he forgot to mention physicians other obligations under the same act in certain circumstances; undocumented immigrants, for example -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8164497/

Must have slipped his mind…

I wouldn’t say any of the descriptions were inaccurate, from their own users to perspective. I don’t expect any sort of compromise will be forthcoming between those who argue in favour of anyone having the ability to exercise their right to an abortion, and those who are opposed to abortion and seek to limit anyones ability to access or provide for abortion on the basis that there is a conflict of interest in terms of rights which are recognised in law, and those that aren’t.

With regards to examples of odious declarations being made in recent times, the Utah State legislator who suggested women could “control their intake of semen”, is right up there with the suggestion that the Biden Administration allow for National Parks to be used to set up makeshift abortion clinics in tents -

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2022/06/24/utah-republicans-take/

https://www.eenews.net/articles/abortion-tents-in-national-parks-its-not-off-the-table/

It’s true that I don’t know many American women, but I highly doubt the women who came out with those sorts of ideas are actually representative of American women, more generally speaking, and that’s a good thing.

I doubt if flash mobs harassing Supreme Court Justices will come to a good end. It seems very foolhardy to me. Are police likely to turn a blind eye?

@One eyed Jack your phrase was keen, then you link to a paper about stigmatization of abortion providers, largely due to harassment and violence. "Keen" is a bad choice of words; providers provide health care, as you agree Planned Parenthood and Naral aren't the only sources. But, abortions are provided by many medical providers, and yes, it's hard to get the data on how many because they're not public with it - not because they won't perform the abortions (necessarily) but, because they don't want the harassment. Would you?

I don't think it's hard to find more people in favor of abortion than those who've done one. But, if you look at, say, shoutyourabortion.com you'll see plenty of women for whom their abortion was great for their lives.

But really, doctors perform abortions. There are more people in favor of abortion than there are doctors. That's just a silly comparison to make.

And as for ectopic pregnancies, you seem to miss the point yet again, I think this is the 3rd time we've been over this.

Pre-dobbs: Woman shows up with ectopic pregnancy, is immediately scheduled and has the abortion.

Post-dobbs: Doctor has to wait for a lawyer.

To argue that "oh, the surgery risks the woman's life" is confusing. The ectopic pregnancy does. Not performing it risks the woman's life. But not performing the surgery is... uh, I don't know, too many dimensions. Do I have it right, you're in favor of not providing the surgery if it won't save the woman's life? I think we'd agree that this is a decision to be made by the woman, and her doctor. With no lawyer's involved delaying things? Do you agree?

What's odious about abortion providers on federal land? You're not against providing abortions in general, are you? Yeah, federal lands aren't the best choice for locations, but with a few infrastructure dollars that's resolvable. Might even be able to upgrade clinics on tribal lands and use those.

To be fair, I used the word keen in the context of physicians willing to provide abortion services, and cited the paragraph in the paper which suggests that only 14% of obgyns in the US are willing to provide abortion services. I was questioning the idea that abortion services are widely available in the US, because I don’t think they are, any more than they’re not widely available anywhere, and are limited to only a small number of healthcare providers willing to provide abortion services. Same story in Ireland has been pointed out only recently in a review of legislation permitting for abortion in limited circumstances -

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40777194.html

It’s not a silly comparison to make because the point I’m making is that while people are ideologically supportive of what is presented to them as a woman’s right to choose, becomes significantly more difficult to be so blasé when they are asked whether they are in favour of abortion. I’m not in favour of abortion. I do understand that it may be medically necessary in certain circumstances in order to save the life of the patient. Pre-Dobbs, post-Dobbs, in circumstances where abortion was deemed necessary, medical professionals still had to seek legal advice before they performed an abortion. Generally they were keen (I know, there’s that word again), to save both, if they could. In each case it will depend upon the circumstances involved -

https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-020-03465-y

We’re somewhere along the same lines in that I’d be opposed to the idea of doctors making all the decisions (the idea that “doctors know best”), and that there must be regard for the patients wishes, but where I’d disagree is that in cases where lawyers need to be involved, they be excluded because either the doctor or the patient are of the opinion that it means delaying their preferred means of administering treatment.

The reason I’m making the point, particularly in relation to how ectopic pregnancy is treated and being conscious of the risk of infection is because those factors have to be considered before surgery, and laparoscopic surgery limits the risk of infection, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a risk of infection, particularly sepsis, which doctors will undoubtedly be aware of. If they determine that an ectopic pregnancy will pass on it’s own, without surgical intervention, that’s a relief all round, as opposed to risking the woman’s life performing an abortion which could lead to an infection which kills her fairly rapidly if it’s not detected and managed properly. I think maybe now you might see why it’s not just that doing surgical procedures outdoors isn’t just a terrible idea, it’s short-term thinking in a desperate situation, and it’s absolutely guaranteed to put more women’s lives at risk of dying from infection than any women’s lives who are at risk of not being able to access abortion.

Those federal infrastructure dollars might just be better spent on providing supports for women and their families, than supporting the tiny number of people who are campaigning for what they believe is a legal and absolute right to abortion.

EDIT: Fixed the link in my previous post that should have read-

It’s hardly a surprise to anyone that there is an overwhelming stigma in relation to abortion when the vast majority of the population hold religious beliefs which are in direct conflict with the provision and practice of abortion -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6424365/

This is nonsensical. A lawyer won't be able to state whether the risk of infection is too much. That is not their job, that is the job of a doctor. I don't care what the surgery is about I want a doctor to figure out the risks of going ahead with a surgery or not. I do not want the f'in lawyer making that decision. The lawyer can talk about when there might be a risk of suing but they do not have the training to say if it is the best decision or not.

Those infrastructure dollars will never, ever be spent on women and their families and those campaigning against the right to choose will make sure that any woman who gives birth outside of a traditional family is f'd to kingdom come and back. So go away with that stupid "lets just give the money here instead nonsense". The US has the money to do both, it isn't an either or scenario, to begin with you will find that those states that do allow abortion have better maternity survival rates and better social supports than those that don't (this isn't causation, it is just most of those against choice are also against social support. Pro choice campaigners have campaigned for decades for things to reduce the number of abortions, anti choice tend to campaign for things to reduce the number of safe abortions.

Curious how much of that 14% is down to equipment and not wanting all of their patients harassed along with bomb threats

The 14% number is out of date. I didn't realize the study quoted a survey from 2011. That's over a decade ago.

It's at least 24% now, as of 2019 anyway. And, I think of all things, the number will be going up post-Dobbs because women will flock to states providing abortions when they need them, and there'll be a need for more OB/GYN's.

As is pointed out in this article, 72% of OB/GYN reported at least 1 client seeking an abortion in 2019. I'd say that makes it extremely popular in the US with pregnant people.

Note that Government-sponsored "restrictions" (imo pathways to harassment of doctors) is stated as a reason they don't provide medical abortions: "The survey also demonstrated that U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restrictions on the provision of medication abortion are a significant barrier to expanding provision. Eleven percent of Ob/GYNs in the survey said that the requirement to stock the medication in their clinic was a reason why they did not provide the abortion pill, and 28% of those not providing said they would start offering medication abortion if they could write a prescription for the drug."

If they could write prescriptions, then the forced-birthers would be forced to protest at drug stores, which likely isn't a good look for them, versus attacking individual offices which they routinely do.

Also, ectopic pregnancy is one risk of pregnancy, by far not the only one that could cause an abortion. Likewise, fatal fetal abnormality is another reason for an abortion, one that also is blocked by states implemented Dobbs. "Have that soon-to-die baby or else."

I think we’ve firmly established that doctors are not legal professionals already, which is why they consult with legal professionals to determine what factors may be relevant in terms of what they are, and are not permitted to do by law in any given case.

I don’t think it’s true to say that those infrastructure dollars won’t ever be spent on supporting women and their families, in reality there’s just not enough spent on supporting women and their families, and while there is the capacity to do both, in reality that just hasn’t happened, because the focus appears to have been providing for abortion instead of providing for support for women and their families. Understandably, in wealthier States where people have better all-round access to healthcare, they have better health outcomes. It IS causation - better overall access to better social supports and better healthcare standards leads to better outcomes.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that pro-choice campaigners have done anything to reduce the number of abortions when organisations like Planned Parenthood spent $45 million on political campaigns to support abortion rights candidates in 2020 elections. Anti-abortion campaigners are actually focused on… well, preventing abortion! It’s why people who are pro-life don’t trust organisations like Planned Parenthood, because they have no good reason to.

That lack of trust extends to other social and healthcare issues which is why people living in poverty view the medical profession with an unhealthy degree of scepticism. It’s not just because they’re black that the maternal mortality rate among black women is four times that of white women. It’s because they don’t trust a medical profession that is made up of people who are nothing like them, who have a history of treating them like shyte. That’s why Cecile Richards when she was head of PP, gave a political speech telling white women at the Women’s March that they need to “do better”, it went down about as well as could be expected -

She urged white women to join forces with women of color to change the nation.

"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.

"The good news is when we are in full on sisterhood, women are the most powerful, political force in America," she said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/21/us/women-march-cecila-richards-trnd/index.html

It wasn’t aimed at supporting women and their families, it was aimed at promoting abortion rights, because funding for providing abortion services is their largest source of income. What they’re doing is inventing a problem, and then proposing their ideas as the solution to that problem.

As for your curiosity regarding the 14% figure and why the other 86% of 50,000 obgyns are unwilling to provide abortion services, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that bomb threats and the welfare of their patients, or just not wanting to deal with abortion are some of the factors involved in why they are reluctant to provide abortion services. Out of my own curiosity, and since the ‘shout your abortion’ website was mentioned earlier, I looked it up (I’d heard of it before, but I’ve no interest in it), and that’s going about as well as could be expected too -

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/hashtag-campaign-twitter-abortion.html

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/shout-your-abortion/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/abject-failure-abortion-rights-movement-fractures-over-post-roe-future-2022-06-24/

Surely it just counts as protest. It is not outside the court nor outside the judge's house.

All anti abortion rights groups do is to stop safe/cheap abortions. It does not stop abortions, we know this. In Ireland we shipped our problem to England for decades and still do to a certain extent since the facilities need upgrading.

Well that’s certainly one thing they do, as part of preventing all abortion. Yes it’s fair to say that they don’t stop abortions, but that’s because in reality they can’t control individuals choices. On that basis I don’t agree with the idea that what you’re portraying as a problem was shipped anywhere, or that the facilities need upgrading. Individuals themselves made the choice to go abroad to avail of abortion, and their experiences have been mixed. A case like this for example, could happen anywhere -

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/01/london-abortion-clinic-criticised-in-inquest-into-womans-death

Look at the states that are anti safe abortion and see what they actually do to reduce the number of abortions (not just legal ones). How much do they put into sex ed for teens, how much do they put in for social welfare for families, how much do they put in public medical facilities. And if you want to argue they are just poor how much do the anti choice politicians argue for these things on a national level. It is absolutely true that that money won't see mothers and their families. I have payed attention to how they have voted for years, as soon as the mother gives birth they will call her a benefit cheat. The reason those states have worse outcomes for pregnancy is simply because the politicians don't actually give an F about any mother or child.

I don’t think people who are anti-abortion make any distinction between safe and unsafe abortions tbh, they’re just generally opposed to abortion under any circumstances. It’s for this reason that campaigners who are pro-choice use extreme examples that account for 1% of cases where an abortion was deemed medically necessary, to argue in favour of a right to abortion without any limitations in law.

They don’t put anything into providing sex education in accordance with your values, because your values are not their values. Same goes for social welfare. That’s not the same as campaigning for greater investment in social supports. It’s just that the State doesn’t provide it, and instead leaves that up to be provided for by their own religious communities for the most part. The reason they have the worst outcomes for pregnancy isn’t because politicians don’t give a F about women and children, it’s a whole multitude of contributing factors, not the least of which is that they are regarded as being of lesser value to “civilised” society, than people who see them as being a burden on society.

Trust me, plenty of pro life people have put their lives and the lives of loved ones in the hands of planned parenthood. They obviously had a good reason for the decision unlike the rest of the building.

I do trust you, but I see the reasons for their availing of abortion somewhat differently to the way you do. When the vast majority of people who avail of abortion give their reasons as being socioeconomic circumstances, then it’s incumbent upon policy and decision makers to look at the underlying reasons, and not just the outcomes, which are higher rates of unintended and unwanted pregnancies, higher rates of abortions, higher maternal and infant mortality rates, and prioritise putting structures in place to cater for people’s more basic needs, in order to reduce the risks of poor outcomes.

Nobody can lay all the responsibility for issues they have identified, at the foot of their ideological and political opponents, when they have all the opportunities to do something about it themselves. I don’t consider people with limited opportunities being forced into making decisions out of desperation, a good reason for anything. I don’t blame anyone making decisions in desperate circumstances for what they feel they need to do; I do blame people who exploit people in desperate circumstances for their own personal, political or financial gain.

It'd be bigger still it wasn't for the huge (and growing) influence on US healthcare by Catholic private organisations owning hospitals.

🙄 Abortion is safer than giving birth. Yet another empty argument. Ho hum.

They're not completely different circumstances. If someone is pregnant they basically have two options. It's deeply disingenuous to be talking about the risks of abortion while ignoring the very real, in fact greater, risks of what inevitably happens when you decline to have an abortion while pregnant. And those risks are averages. For certain women, due to health issues, there is a very substantial risk that continuing with a pregnancy will kill them.

No, what’s disingenuous is the false equivalence. Of course it stands to reason that a therapeutic or medical abortion, is safer than giving birth. The comparison is based upon statistical evidence.

One is not related to the other - they’re two completely different circumstances. I said I don’t consider abortion safe, because that’s what was being referred to, if giving birth had been mentioned, I don’t consider that particularly safe either, but the risks in both circumstances are outweighed by the benefits in terms of outcomes, which are completely different.

It’s an attempt at an argument in favour of abortion by portraying giving birth as much riskier than having an abortion. Avoiding pregnancy altogether is less risky again than either abortion or giving birth, but it’s completely impractical as an argument. It’s the kind of specious nonsense I expect of anti-natalists, who are an entirely different breed of idiot.

Now you've gone and contradicted yourself:

So to help us understand your original point, please define 'any.' Do you mean, 'there are circumstances where abortion is unsafe?' Can you be specific? Because you are making an argument against abortions in any circumstance by using the word 'any.' And as has been pointed out, there are many circumstances when abortion is safer than carrying the fetus to term.

Drinking your own piss or driving a car are not connected and not driving a car does not mean you have to drink your own piss or vice versa. You can do neither or do both. Less so with abortion, either a pregnant person gets one or you have the risks of a pregnancy. Abortion has to be compared to pregnancy, it is a bit weird to consider an abortion unsafe if it is safer than the only alternative option.

It’s only weird to attempt to compare them in terms of statistical risks and safety concerns when they’re completely unrelated. It’s not at all weird to acknowledge there are risks involved in either procedure, with the idea being to assess the risks and determine whether or not the outcome is worth the risk.

That’s a judgement that’s up to the individual, in the same way as providing abortion services is a risk which either a person is willing to take, or not, depending upon the circumstances involved, and whether circumventing the law is a risk they’re prepared to take. Some people think it’s worth the risk, and hope for a positive outcome, which, much like safety, can never be fully guaranteed.

That’s why I have an issue with the sloganeering of claiming that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” - it’s misleading IMO, as it attempts to guarantee something where they really can’t guarantee anything.

It is no longer an individual judgement and that choice, even with full information is being taken away from many in the US. Or at least the ability to do without decreasing the level of safety involved. Safety should always be considered with respect to the other available options at the time, in this case continuing the pregnancy.

You can also argue about the danger of going to the abortion clinic but I feel like you are getting overly detailed. Safe is used frequently when absolute safety is not guaranteed. For instance an employer has the legal requirement to ensure any vehicles used are safe, which by your definition is impossible.

It is no longer an individual judgement and that choice, even with full information is being taken away from many in the US. Or at least the ability to do without decreasing the level of safety involved. Safety should always be considered with respect to the other available options at the time, in this case continuing the pregnancy.

You’re acting like it was just done on a whim and people haven’t been campaigning to overturn Roe for the last 50 years or something? I think those people were very much aware of the potential consequences of their actions, it’s what they’ve been campaigning for.

You can also argue about the danger of going to the abortion clinic but I feel like you are getting overly detailed. Safe is used frequently when absolute safety is not guaranteed. For instance an employer has the legal requirement to ensure any vehicles used are safe, which by your definition is impossible.

I didn’t make that argument though, it’s an entirely separate issue as far as I’m concerned. I’m aware that safe is used frequently when absolute safety is not guaranteed, which is my issue with the political slogan “safe, legal and rare” - it’s obfuscation, where it is better to acknowledge the risks involved in an abortion, and at least to their credit when I go on the Planned Parenthood website, they do make it clear that there are risks involved and that abortion does involve risks -

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill/how-safe-is-the-abortion-pill

You do understand of course that in your example the legal requirement is enforced by the State, not by me as an individual - I’m free to make that risk assessment for myself, but the law requires a much more stringent and objective standard, as it does with abortion - a pregnant woman might well be of the opinion that she wants an abortion, but medical professionals are held to much more stringent standards in law, as are employers, for the benefit of society as a whole.

You could argue the that any protest against any judge's decision is external influence. Odds are they will see it on TV if it is big enough and may well be influenced by it. Like I said it was not outside a Judge's house or courtroom and was, near as I can tell, peaceful.

I would disagree that a peaceful protest counts as intimidation. Indeed I suspect the court agrees with me given I am guessing there are rules over intimidating healthcare workers outside their homes but they did allow peaceful protests outside the homes of healthcare workers. Unless you consider that intimidation?

You literally repeated the argument you said you didn't make. Your issue (near as I can tell) is that safe is being used when absolute safety is not guaranteed. In general abortions satisfy the general usage of the word safe.

An abortion requires a conversation with a doctor which is when you discuss the risks of going through with a procedure or the risks of not going through with a procedure on a case by case basis.

The law prevents a safer decision by forcing the risk of the birth. Obviously there is more that goes into a decision to abort however in terms of pure survival % of the woman in question the government is demanding a riskier course of action.

Bull.

You said abortion was never safe.

BTW commenting on the quality of your posts in this thread (or rather the complete lack thereof) is not getting personal.

the 1 thing that gets my goat on this...its just such an affront to democracy.

personally i think the US supreme court should have ruled in line with the will of the loud.

the constitution doesn't really matter, and who are these justices to say it does matter; so go and vote on it.

its terrible. i think 9 unelected officials have a duty to please rather than to serve.

who needs the legislative branch?