How many actual “late term” terminations actually happen? Actual reasons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Oh look here’s the exact passage and can be found of page 455. Enjoy!


Data Collection. The CDC's abortion surveillance and maternity mortality reporting systems are woefully inadequate. CDC abortion data are reported by states on a voluntary basis, and California, Maryland, and New Hampshire do not submit abortion data at all. Accurate and reliable statistical data about abortion, abortion survivors, and abortion-related maternal deaths are essential to timely, reliable public health and policy analysis.
Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion. Moreover, abortion should be clearly defined as only those procedures that intentionally end an unborn child's life. Miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy treatments should never be conflated with abortion.

Page 455 of what? This language is in a peer reviewed and published study? WTAF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If half of abortions occurring in the second trimester, after 20 weeks, are the result of not having the funds to get an abortion, then you definitely aren’t paying for a 20,000 plus procedure in the third trimester.

This is the real issue. People are getting abortions late for reasons OTHER than birth defects or health of mother.

OP again. This is the claim I’d like to fact-check.

How many third-trimester terminations are for reasons OTHER THAN birth defects or physical health of the mother?

No has answered that yet.

DP I think the simple answer to your question is that nobody knows because nobody is keeping track of this data.

OP again. Thx.

Sadly, people littered this thread with political statements even after I said not to. And while some information has been shared (thx again), we still do not have facts, which makes debating this kinda pointless.

My guess is you are probably right: no one is keeping track of this data.

If so, there really is no reliable answer to my question: how many third-trimester terminations are purely elective.

Unless someone can post some actual data in answer to my question, there’s no longer much point to anyone posting (again: stop posting political responses! This is about ascertaining basic facts. That’s all).

Heres my thing OP. Your obsession with elective is clouding the fact there are REAL reasons to have a 3rd trimester abortion. And by focusing on elective, which OB/GYNs dont do in 3rd trimester, you take from women who are experiencing real pain and loss. Its grotesque. And you WANT to find elective people so that you can say well if there are 4 people having elective abortions then no one should get it because deep down you dont actually agree with abortion.

People dont have 25-35k and weeks off. Every fed employee who has fed insurance wouldnt be able to get it covered and is unable to get any abortion covered.

And people who want an elective abortion will find a back alley provider or conduct infanticide. You arent thinking rationally. Rationally, someone who wants to abort a fetus- ELECTIVELY- will find a way to do it or will kill an unwanted child because no one grows a fetus in their belly and electively says No, put me under, kill a healthy child, heres 30k plus 1-2 weeks to recover.

Theres your rational answer and facts.

Your response is NOT a factual response to the request for mathematical data this thread is premised upon.

Why couldn’t you simply have said: “I do not know the answer. Here’s my opinion?”

And furthermore, you don’t know me. My sibling had an abortion. My ex had an abortion. I offered to accompany a close friend to her scheduled PP appointment and promised to hold her hand during a termination and help get her through it (she miscarried prior to the appt though).

Why do so many of you fail to read / comprehend ? I AM PRO CHOICE!!

What I’m asking is a simple FACTUAL question about 3rd Trimester / 27 weeks-numbers, WITHOUT politics, but instead all I get is opinions and politics.

If you don’t know, don’t post.

You have gotten plenty of answers on that. Why don’t you respond to them?

So: you don’t know the answer.

Why did you respond to a question with a question? Still no data?

Why did you ignore this post?

“KFF:

While very limited contemporary data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year).

https://www.kff.org/women...dobbs-era/“

Because shes asking for elective. The data you provided likely includes elective and medically necessary.

And why is the cdc link on page 8 being ignored?

But more to the point, why does OP not understand that “purely elective” abortions don’t really happen late in a pregnancy? Why not comprehend that it’s just not a thing?

Because it’s not true. Multiple surveys have been posted here in which women are explaining their reasoning for obtaining elective third trimester abortions, including delays in receiving care/raising funds earlier.

That “study” is junk science. No attempt to verify information was done. It’s worthless.
We have rough numbers and the word of doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath.

It was peer reviewed and published so…no. The fact that you don’t like the survey doesn’t make it worthless. No doctors have said that there are zero elective abortions.

I have no feelings either way. Can you post where their stories were corroborated, because I couldn’t find anything.

This was a medical journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, and you can look up their peer review policies online. Scientific journals go through a verification and peer review process prior to publication.

I’ve read the report. Please point out where any attempt to verify claims can be found. I’ll admit that I’ve skimmed it, but haven’t found it.

Do you understand the peer review process of scientific journal? This is standard. Why are you suggesting this publication would be any less verified than their other research - because you are uncomfortable with the women’s words?

No. I’m extremely well aquatinted with the pro life movement. Please look up Abby Johnson. It’s is not a movement grounded in logic, data or the truth.
So it’s lovely that someone wanted to do a study in good faith re: women’s reasons for third trimester abortions, but if they didn’t adequately account for a percentage of people that are motivated by religious zealotry with no compunction to lie to achieve their goals, then… it’s a worthless study.
And the prolife moment has worked 40 years to force their agenda and that included judges lying before congress under oath.
So again. The study isn’t worth anything.
Women get third trimester abortions because their health or the health of the fetus demand it.
The end.

The publication isn’t pro life, it’s Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. The authors made the case for increased and earlier access in the media.

Wonderful for them. Did they account for their research being F’d by pro life lying nut jobs?
Because at no point in the last 40 years has anyone on the left been prepared for how craven forced birth advocates actually are.

The research isn’t pro life for the hundredth time. And in fact, the people citing it including the Washington Post have made the point that when you have women saying they are feeling forced to abort in the third trimester because of delays in seeking care or funds, or issues with prenatal care including not even knowing they were pregnant - that’s an argument for GREATER access to prenatal care and abortion in the first or second trimesters. Everyone hates late term trimesters, even pro choice people. Denying the voices of these women means ignoring the fact that tight abortion bans can lead to later abortions, and yes, that includes the elective ones.

You are throwing a fit casting doubt on the researchers and not thinking through what the pro choice issues being brought forward are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If half of abortions occurring in the second trimester, after 20 weeks, are the result of not having the funds to get an abortion, then you definitely aren’t paying for a 20,000 plus procedure in the third trimester.

This is the real issue. People are getting abortions late for reasons OTHER than birth defects or health of mother.

OP again. This is the claim I’d like to fact-check.

How many third-trimester terminations are for reasons OTHER THAN birth defects or physical health of the mother?

No has answered that yet.

DP I think the simple answer to your question is that nobody knows because nobody is keeping track of this data.

OP again. Thx.

Sadly, people littered this thread with political statements even after I said not to. And while some information has been shared (thx again), we still do not have facts, which makes debating this kinda pointless.

My guess is you are probably right: no one is keeping track of this data.

If so, there really is no reliable answer to my question: how many third-trimester terminations are purely elective.

Unless someone can post some actual data in answer to my question, there’s no longer much point to anyone posting (again: stop posting political responses! This is about ascertaining basic facts. That’s all).

Heres my thing OP. Your obsession with elective is clouding the fact there are REAL reasons to have a 3rd trimester abortion. And by focusing on elective, which OB/GYNs dont do in 3rd trimester, you take from women who are experiencing real pain and loss. Its grotesque. And you WANT to find elective people so that you can say well if there are 4 people having elective abortions then no one should get it because deep down you dont actually agree with abortion.

People dont have 25-35k and weeks off. Every fed employee who has fed insurance wouldnt be able to get it covered and is unable to get any abortion covered.

And people who want an elective abortion will find a back alley provider or conduct infanticide. You arent thinking rationally. Rationally, someone who wants to abort a fetus- ELECTIVELY- will find a way to do it or will kill an unwanted child because no one grows a fetus in their belly and electively says No, put me under, kill a healthy child, heres 30k plus 1-2 weeks to recover.

Theres your rational answer and facts.

Your response is NOT a factual response to the request for mathematical data this thread is premised upon.

Why couldn’t you simply have said: “I do not know the answer. Here’s my opinion?”

And furthermore, you don’t know me. My sibling had an abortion. My ex had an abortion. I offered to accompany a close friend to her scheduled PP appointment and promised to hold her hand during a termination and help get her through it (she miscarried prior to the appt though).

Why do so many of you fail to read / comprehend ? I AM PRO CHOICE!!

What I’m asking is a simple FACTUAL question about 3rd Trimester / 27 weeks-numbers, WITHOUT politics, but instead all I get is opinions and politics.

If you don’t know, don’t post.

You have gotten plenty of answers on that. Why don’t you respond to them?

So: you don’t know the answer.

Why did you respond to a question with a question? Still no data?

Why did you ignore this post?

“KFF:

While very limited contemporary data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year).

https://www.kff.org/women...dobbs-era/“

Because shes asking for elective. The data you provided likely includes elective and medically necessary.

And why is the cdc link on page 8 being ignored?

But more to the point, why does OP not understand that “purely elective” abortions don’t really happen late in a pregnancy? Why not comprehend that it’s just not a thing?

Because it’s not true. Multiple surveys have been posted here in which women are explaining their reasoning for obtaining elective third trimester abortions, including delays in receiving care/raising funds earlier.

That “study” is junk science. No attempt to verify information was done. It’s worthless.
We have rough numbers and the word of doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath.

It was peer reviewed and published so…no. The fact that you don’t like the survey doesn’t make it worthless. No doctors have said that there are zero elective abortions.

I have no feelings either way. Can you post where their stories were corroborated, because I couldn’t find anything.

This was a medical journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, and you can look up their peer review policies online. Scientific journals go through a verification and peer review process prior to publication.

I’ve read the report. Please point out where any attempt to verify claims can be found. I’ll admit that I’ve skimmed it, but haven’t found it.

Do you understand the peer review process of scientific journal? This is standard. Why are you suggesting this publication would be any less verified than their other research - because you are uncomfortable with the women’s words?

No. I’m extremely well aquatinted with the pro life movement. Please look up Abby Johnson. It’s is not a movement grounded in logic, data or the truth.
So it’s lovely that someone wanted to do a study in good faith re: women’s reasons for third trimester abortions, but if they didn’t adequately account for a percentage of people that are motivated by religious zealotry with no compunction to lie to achieve their goals, then… it’s a worthless study.
And the prolife moment has worked 40 years to force their agenda and that included judges lying before congress under oath.
So again. The study isn’t worth anything.
Women get third trimester abortions because their health or the health of the fetus demand it.
The end.

The publication isn’t pro life, it’s Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. The authors made the case for increased and earlier access in the media.

Wonderful for them. Did they account for their research being F’d by pro life lying nut jobs?
Because at no point in the last 40 years has anyone on the left been prepared for how craven forced birth advocates actually are.

The research isn’t pro life for the hundredth time. And in fact, the people citing it including the Washington Post have made the point that when you have women saying they are feeling forced to abort in the third trimester because of delays in seeking care or funds, or issues with prenatal care including not even knowing they were pregnant - that’s an argument for GREATER access to prenatal care and abortion in the first or second trimesters. Everyone hates late term trimesters, even pro choice people. Denying the voices of these women means ignoring the fact that tight abortion bans can lead to later abortions, and yes, that includes the elective ones.

You are throwing a fit casting doubt on the researchers and not thinking through what the pro choice issues being brought forward are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh look here’s the exact passage and can be found of page 455. Enjoy!


Data Collection. The CDC's abortion surveillance and maternity mortality reporting systems are woefully inadequate. CDC abortion data are reported by states on a voluntary basis, and California, Maryland, and New Hampshire do not submit abortion data at all. Accurate and reliable statistical data about abortion, abortion survivors, and abortion-related maternal deaths are essential to timely, reliable public health and policy analysis.
Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion. Moreover, abortion should be clearly defined as only those procedures that intentionally end an unborn child's life. Miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy treatments should never be conflated with abortion.

Page 455 of what? This language is in a peer reviewed and published study? WTAF?

Page 455 of Project 2025 - Roger Severino’s insights into renaming HHS the Department of Life and many other horrifying recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If half of abortions occurring in the second trimester, after 20 weeks, are the result of not having the funds to get an abortion, then you definitely aren’t paying for a 20,000 plus procedure in the third trimester.

This is the real issue. People are getting abortions late for reasons OTHER than birth defects or health of mother.

OP again. This is the claim I’d like to fact-check.

How many third-trimester terminations are for reasons OTHER THAN birth defects or physical health of the mother?

No has answered that yet.

DP I think the simple answer to your question is that nobody knows because nobody is keeping track of this data.

OP again. Thx.

Sadly, people littered this thread with political statements even after I said not to. And while some information has been shared (thx again), we still do not have facts, which makes debating this kinda pointless.

My guess is you are probably right: no one is keeping track of this data.

If so, there really is no reliable answer to my question: how many third-trimester terminations are purely elective.

Unless someone can post some actual data in answer to my question, there’s no longer much point to anyone posting (again: stop posting political responses! This is about ascertaining basic facts. That’s all).

Heres my thing OP. Your obsession with elective is clouding the fact there are REAL reasons to have a 3rd trimester abortion. And by focusing on elective, which OB/GYNs dont do in 3rd trimester, you take from women who are experiencing real pain and loss. Its grotesque. And you WANT to find elective people so that you can say well if there are 4 people having elective abortions then no one should get it because deep down you dont actually agree with abortion.

People dont have 25-35k and weeks off. Every fed employee who has fed insurance wouldnt be able to get it covered and is unable to get any abortion covered.

And people who want an elective abortion will find a back alley provider or conduct infanticide. You arent thinking rationally. Rationally, someone who wants to abort a fetus- ELECTIVELY- will find a way to do it or will kill an unwanted child because no one grows a fetus in their belly and electively says No, put me under, kill a healthy child, heres 30k plus 1-2 weeks to recover.

Theres your rational answer and facts.

Your response is NOT a factual response to the request for mathematical data this thread is premised upon.

Why couldn’t you simply have said: “I do not know the answer. Here’s my opinion?”

And furthermore, you don’t know me. My sibling had an abortion. My ex had an abortion. I offered to accompany a close friend to her scheduled PP appointment and promised to hold her hand during a termination and help get her through it (she miscarried prior to the appt though).

Why do so many of you fail to read / comprehend ? I AM PRO CHOICE!!

What I’m asking is a simple FACTUAL question about 3rd Trimester / 27 weeks-numbers, WITHOUT politics, but instead all I get is opinions and politics.

If you don’t know, don’t post.

You have gotten plenty of answers on that. Why don’t you respond to them?

So: you don’t know the answer.

Why did you respond to a question with a question? Still no data?

Why did you ignore this post?

“KFF:

While very limited contemporary data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year).

https://www.kff.org/women...dobbs-era/“

Because shes asking for elective. The data you provided likely includes elective and medically necessary.

And why is the cdc link on page 8 being ignored?

But more to the point, why does OP not understand that “purely elective” abortions don’t really happen late in a pregnancy? Why not comprehend that it’s just not a thing?

Because it’s not true. Multiple surveys have been posted here in which women are explaining their reasoning for obtaining elective third trimester abortions, including delays in receiving care/raising funds earlier.

That “study” is junk science. No attempt to verify information was done. It’s worthless.
We have rough numbers and the word of doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath.

It was peer reviewed and published so…no. The fact that you don’t like the survey doesn’t make it worthless. No doctors have said that there are zero elective abortions.

I have no feelings either way. Can you post where their stories were corroborated, because I couldn’t find anything.

This was a medical journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, and you can look up their peer review policies online. Scientific journals go through a verification and peer review process prior to publication.

I’ve read the report. Please point out where any attempt to verify claims can be found. I’ll admit that I’ve skimmed it, but haven’t found it.

Do you understand the peer review process of scientific journal? This is standard. Why are you suggesting this publication would be any less verified than their other research - because you are uncomfortable with the women’s words?

No. I’m extremely well aquatinted with the pro life movement. Please look up Abby Johnson. It’s is not a movement grounded in logic, data or the truth.
So it’s lovely that someone wanted to do a study in good faith re: women’s reasons for third trimester abortions, but if they didn’t adequately account for a percentage of people that are motivated by religious zealotry with no compunction to lie to achieve their goals, then… it’s a worthless study.
And the prolife moment has worked 40 years to force their agenda and that included judges lying before congress under oath.
So again. The study isn’t worth anything.
Women get third trimester abortions because their health or the health of the fetus demand it.
The end.

The publication isn’t pro life, it’s Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. The authors made the case for increased and earlier access in the media.

Wonderful for them. Did they account for their research being F’d by pro life lying nut jobs?
Because at no point in the last 40 years has anyone on the left been prepared for how craven forced birth advocates actually are.

The research isn’t pro life for the hundredth time. And in fact, the people citing it including the Washington Post have made the point that when you have women saying they are feeling forced to abort in the third trimester because of delays in seeking care or funds, or issues with prenatal care including not even knowing they were pregnant - that’s an argument for GREATER access to prenatal care and abortion in the first or second trimesters. Everyone hates late term trimesters, even pro choice people. Denying the voices of these women means ignoring the fact that tight abortion bans can lead to later abortions, and yes, that includes the elective ones.

You are throwing a fit casting doubt on the researchers and not thinking through what the pro choice issues being brought forward are.

I’m not throwing a fit. I understand this wasn’t a pro life study.
I’m well aware of the pro choice issues brought up.
That doesn’t make a study relying on the honor system a good study. Especially when one side of this issue has absolutely no honor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Roe protected abortion rights to viability at 24 weeks. That was in place for 50 years and that is what we should return to. This study is at 20 weeks for some reason

Doe v Bolton eliminated Roe's trimester regime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. This is an issue for me too, OP. I’m very pro-choice in first semester and I think women should be allowed to terminate at the anatomy scan (which is not always at 20 weeks, could be 1-2 weeks later to be fair). After that point, I think abortions should be banned unless there’s a very compelling medical reason for the baby or the mother.

I also hear things like “that almost never happens! Right wing talking point!” and if that’s true, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with a law against it. It’s either happening or it’s not. And it shouldn’t, IMO.

I read something that said the vast majority of Americans have this middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. So I don’t know why we need to choose between one extreme or the other. The crazies on both sides drive me nuts.

This is what gets said in response to the Republican bills, focusing on lack of exemptions that should have been in there, and instead they just ban everything.
However, these are rare cases, and every thread on this forum eventually comes around to people want to have abortion legal because giving birth can be inconvenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh look here’s the exact passage and can be found of page 455. Enjoy!


Data Collection. The CDC's abortion surveillance and maternity mortality reporting systems are woefully inadequate. CDC abortion data are reported by states on a voluntary basis, and California, Maryland, and New Hampshire do not submit abortion data at all. Accurate and reliable statistical data about abortion, abortion survivors, and abortion-related maternal deaths are essential to timely, reliable public health and policy analysis.
Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion. Moreover, abortion should be clearly defined as only those procedures that intentionally end an unborn child's life. Miscarriage management or standard ectopic pregnancy treatments should never be conflated with abortion.

Page 455 of what? This language is in a peer reviewed and published study? WTAF?

Who exactly “reviewed” it?

Republicans polluting science with religious extremism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If half of abortions occurring in the second trimester, after 20 weeks, are the result of not having the funds to get an abortion, then you definitely aren’t paying for a 20,000 plus procedure in the third trimester.

This is the real issue. People are getting abortions late for reasons OTHER than birth defects or health of mother.

OP again. This is the claim I’d like to fact-check.

How many third-trimester terminations are for reasons OTHER THAN birth defects or physical health of the mother?

No has answered that yet.

DP I think the simple answer to your question is that nobody knows because nobody is keeping track of this data.

OP again. Thx.

Sadly, people littered this thread with political statements even after I said not to. And while some information has been shared (thx again), we still do not have facts, which makes debating this kinda pointless.

My guess is you are probably right: no one is keeping track of this data.

If so, there really is no reliable answer to my question: how many third-trimester terminations are purely elective.

Unless someone can post some actual data in answer to my question, there’s no longer much point to anyone posting (again: stop posting political responses! This is about ascertaining basic facts. That’s all).

No, you are incorrect. No third trimester pregnancy terminations are purely elective. That's just not reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. This is an issue for me too, OP. I’m very pro-choice in first semester and I think women should be allowed to terminate at the anatomy scan (which is not always at 20 weeks, could be 1-2 weeks later to be fair). After that point, I think abortions should be banned unless there’s a very compelling medical reason for the baby or the mother.

I also hear things like “that almost never happens! Right wing talking point!” and if that’s true, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with a law against it. It’s either happening or it’s not. And it shouldn’t, IMO.

I read something that said the vast majority of Americans have this middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. So I don’t know why we need to choose between one extreme or the other. The crazies on both sides drive me nuts.

This is what gets said in response to the Republican bills, focusing on lack of exemptions that should have been in there, and instead they just ban everything.
However, these are rare cases, and every thread on this forum eventually comes around to people want to have abortion legal because giving birth can be inconvenient.

I don’t know what you are talking about. That is not the case at when referring to third trimester abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If half of abortions occurring in the second trimester, after 20 weeks, are the result of not having the funds to get an abortion, then you definitely aren’t paying for a 20,000 plus procedure in the third trimester.

This is the real issue. People are getting abortions late for reasons OTHER than birth defects or health of mother.

OP again. This is the claim I’d like to fact-check.

How many third-trimester terminations are for reasons OTHER THAN birth defects or physical health of the mother?

No has answered that yet.

DP I think the simple answer to your question is that nobody knows because nobody is keeping track of this data.

OP again. Thx.

Sadly, people littered this thread with political statements even after I said not to. And while some information has been shared (thx again), we still do not have facts, which makes debating this kinda pointless.

My guess is you are probably right: no one is keeping track of this data.

If so, there really is no reliable answer to my question: how many third-trimester terminations are purely elective.

Unless someone can post some actual data in answer to my question, there’s no longer much point to anyone posting (again: stop posting political responses! This is about ascertaining basic facts. That’s all).

Heres my thing OP. Your obsession with elective is clouding the fact there are REAL reasons to have a 3rd trimester abortion. And by focusing on elective, which OB/GYNs dont do in 3rd trimester, you take from women who are experiencing real pain and loss. Its grotesque. And you WANT to find elective people so that you can say well if there are 4 people having elective abortions then no one should get it because deep down you dont actually agree with abortion.

People dont have 25-35k and weeks off. Every fed employee who has fed insurance wouldnt be able to get it covered and is unable to get any abortion covered.

And people who want an elective abortion will find a back alley provider or conduct infanticide. You arent thinking rationally. Rationally, someone who wants to abort a fetus- ELECTIVELY- will find a way to do it or will kill an unwanted child because no one grows a fetus in their belly and electively says No, put me under, kill a healthy child, heres 30k plus 1-2 weeks to recover.

Theres your rational answer and facts.

Your response is NOT a factual response to the request for mathematical data this thread is premised upon.

Why couldn’t you simply have said: “I do not know the answer. Here’s my opinion?”

And furthermore, you don’t know me. My sibling had an abortion. My ex had an abortion. I offered to accompany a close friend to her scheduled PP appointment and promised to hold her hand during a termination and help get her through it (she miscarried prior to the appt though).

Why do so many of you fail to read / comprehend ? I AM PRO CHOICE!!

What I’m asking is a simple FACTUAL question about 3rd Trimester / 27 weeks-numbers, WITHOUT politics, but instead all I get is opinions and politics.

If you don’t know, don’t post.

You have gotten plenty of answers on that. Why don’t you respond to them?

So: you don’t know the answer.

Why did you respond to a question with a question? Still no data?

Why did you ignore this post?

“KFF:

While very limited contemporary data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year).

https://www.kff.org/women...dobbs-era/“

Because shes asking for elective. The data you provided likely includes elective and medically necessary.

And why is the cdc link on page 8 being ignored?

But more to the point, why does OP not understand that “purely elective” abortions don’t really happen late in a pregnancy? Why not comprehend that it’s just not a thing?

Because it’s not true. Multiple surveys have been posted here in which women are explaining their reasoning for obtaining elective third trimester abortions, including delays in receiving care/raising funds earlier.

That “study” is junk science. No attempt to verify information was done. It’s worthless.
We have rough numbers and the word of doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath.

It was peer reviewed and published so…no. The fact that you don’t like the survey doesn’t make it worthless. No doctors have said that there are zero elective abortions.

I have no feelings either way. Can you post where their stories were corroborated, because I couldn’t find anything.

This was a medical journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, and you can look up their peer review policies online. Scientific journals go through a verification and peer review process prior to publication.

I’ve read the report. Please point out where any attempt to verify claims can be found. I’ll admit that I’ve skimmed it, but haven’t found it.

Do you understand the peer review process of scientific journal? This is standard. Why are you suggesting this publication would be any less verified than their other research - because you are uncomfortable with the women’s words?

No. I’m extremely well aquatinted with the pro life movement. Please look up Abby Johnson. It’s is not a movement grounded in logic, data or the truth.
So it’s lovely that someone wanted to do a study in good faith re: women’s reasons for third trimester abortions, but if they didn’t adequately account for a percentage of people that are motivated by religious zealotry with no compunction to lie to achieve their goals, then… it’s a worthless study.
And the prolife moment has worked 40 years to force their agenda and that included judges lying before congress under oath.
So again. The study isn’t worth anything.
Women get third trimester abortions because their health or the health of the fetus demand it.
The end.

The publication isn’t pro life, it’s Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. The authors made the case for increased and earlier access in the media.

Wonderful for them. Did they account for their research being F’d by pro life lying nut jobs?
Because at no point in the last 40 years has anyone on the left been prepared for how craven forced birth advocates actually are.

The research isn’t pro life for the hundredth time. And in fact, the people citing it including the Washington Post have made the point that when you have women saying they are feeling forced to abort in the third trimester because of delays in seeking care or funds, or issues with prenatal care including not even knowing they were pregnant - that’s an argument for GREATER access to prenatal care and abortion in the first or second trimesters. Everyone hates late term trimesters, even pro choice people. Denying the voices of these women means ignoring the fact that tight abortion bans can lead to later abortions, and yes, that includes the elective ones.

You are throwing a fit casting doubt on the researchers and not thinking through what the pro choice issues being brought forward are.

I’m not throwing a fit. I understand this wasn’t a pro life study.
I’m well aware of the pro choice issues brought up.
That doesn’t make a study relying on the honor system a good study. Especially when one side of this issue has absolutely no honor.

You don’t like science when you don’t like the findings. I get it.

[Anonymous]

“Believe all women!” Except in published medical research by pro choice researchers because I don’t like their words and it makes me uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Roe protected abortion rights to viability at 24 weeks. That was in place for 50 years and that is what we should return to. This study is at 20 weeks for some reason

Doe v Bolton eliminated Roe's trimester regime.

What? No. Wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If half of abortions occurring in the second trimester, after 20 weeks, are the result of not having the funds to get an abortion, then you definitely aren’t paying for a 20,000 plus procedure in the third trimester.

This is the real issue. People are getting abortions late for reasons OTHER than birth defects or health of mother.

OP again. This is the claim I’d like to fact-check.

How many third-trimester terminations are for reasons OTHER THAN birth defects or physical health of the mother?

No has answered that yet.

DP I think the simple answer to your question is that nobody knows because nobody is keeping track of this data.

OP again. Thx.

Sadly, people littered this thread with political statements even after I said not to. And while some information has been shared (thx again), we still do not have facts, which makes debating this kinda pointless.

My guess is you are probably right: no one is keeping track of this data.

If so, there really is no reliable answer to my question: how many third-trimester terminations are purely elective.

Unless someone can post some actual data in answer to my question, there’s no longer much point to anyone posting (again: stop posting political responses! This is about ascertaining basic facts. That’s all).

Heres my thing OP. Your obsession with elective is clouding the fact there are REAL reasons to have a 3rd trimester abortion. And by focusing on elective, which OB/GYNs dont do in 3rd trimester, you take from women who are experiencing real pain and loss. Its grotesque. And you WANT to find elective people so that you can say well if there are 4 people having elective abortions then no one should get it because deep down you dont actually agree with abortion.

People dont have 25-35k and weeks off. Every fed employee who has fed insurance wouldnt be able to get it covered and is unable to get any abortion covered.

And people who want an elective abortion will find a back alley provider or conduct infanticide. You arent thinking rationally. Rationally, someone who wants to abort a fetus- ELECTIVELY- will find a way to do it or will kill an unwanted child because no one grows a fetus in their belly and electively says No, put me under, kill a healthy child, heres 30k plus 1-2 weeks to recover.

Theres your rational answer and facts.

Your response is NOT a factual response to the request for mathematical data this thread is premised upon.

Why couldn’t you simply have said: “I do not know the answer. Here’s my opinion?”

And furthermore, you don’t know me. My sibling had an abortion. My ex had an abortion. I offered to accompany a close friend to her scheduled PP appointment and promised to hold her hand during a termination and help get her through it (she miscarried prior to the appt though).

Why do so many of you fail to read / comprehend ? I AM PRO CHOICE!!

What I’m asking is a simple FACTUAL question about 3rd Trimester / 27 weeks-numbers, WITHOUT politics, but instead all I get is opinions and politics.

If you don’t know, don’t post.

You have gotten plenty of answers on that. Why don’t you respond to them?

So: you don’t know the answer.

Why did you respond to a question with a question? Still no data?

Why did you ignore this post?

“KFF:

While very limited contemporary data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year).

https://www.kff.org/women...dobbs-era/“

Because shes asking for elective. The data you provided likely includes elective and medically necessary.

And why is the cdc link on page 8 being ignored?

But more to the point, why does OP not understand that “purely elective” abortions don’t really happen late in a pregnancy? Why not comprehend that it’s just not a thing?

Because it’s not true. Multiple surveys have been posted here in which women are explaining their reasoning for obtaining elective third trimester abortions, including delays in receiving care/raising funds earlier.

That “study” is junk science. No attempt to verify information was done. It’s worthless.
We have rough numbers and the word of doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath.

It was peer reviewed and published so…no. The fact that you don’t like the survey doesn’t make it worthless. No doctors have said that there are zero elective abortions.

I have no feelings either way. Can you post where their stories were corroborated, because I couldn’t find anything.

This was a medical journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, and you can look up their peer review policies online. Scientific journals go through a verification and peer review process prior to publication.

I’ve read the report. Please point out where any attempt to verify claims can be found. I’ll admit that I’ve skimmed it, but haven’t found it.

Do you understand the peer review process of scientific journal? This is standard. Why are you suggesting this publication would be any less verified than their other research - because you are uncomfortable with the women’s words?

No. I’m extremely well aquatinted with the pro life movement. Please look up Abby Johnson. It’s is not a movement grounded in logic, data or the truth.
So it’s lovely that someone wanted to do a study in good faith re: women’s reasons for third trimester abortions, but if they didn’t adequately account for a percentage of people that are motivated by religious zealotry with no compunction to lie to achieve their goals, then… it’s a worthless study.
And the prolife moment has worked 40 years to force their agenda and that included judges lying before congress under oath.
So again. The study isn’t worth anything.
Women get third trimester abortions because their health or the health of the fetus demand it.
The end.

The publication isn’t pro life, it’s Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. The authors made the case for increased and earlier access in the media.

Wonderful for them. Did they account for their research being F’d by pro life lying nut jobs?
Because at no point in the last 40 years has anyone on the left been prepared for how craven forced birth advocates actually are.

The research isn’t pro life for the hundredth time. And in fact, the people citing it including the Washington Post have made the point that when you have women saying they are feeling forced to abort in the third trimester because of delays in seeking care or funds, or issues with prenatal care including not even knowing they were pregnant - that’s an argument for GREATER access to prenatal care and abortion in the first or second trimesters. Everyone hates late term trimesters, even pro choice people. Denying the voices of these women means ignoring the fact that tight abortion bans can lead to later abortions, and yes, that includes the elective ones.

You are throwing a fit casting doubt on the researchers and not thinking through what the pro choice issues being brought forward are.

I’m not throwing a fit. I understand this wasn’t a pro life study.
I’m well aware of the pro choice issues brought up.
That doesn’t make a study relying on the honor system a good study. Especially when one side of this issue has absolutely no honor.

You don’t like science when you don’t like the findings. I get it.

What’s wrong with the findings? Be specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Believe all women!” Except in published medical research by pro choice researchers because I don’t like their words and it makes me uncomfortable.

No one said believe all women.
Please point to the part where they verified the accounts given in the study.
TIA