Do you consider state laws/health care access effecting your child when selecting college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my kid is suffering an ectopic pregnancy, she can’t just get on a plane. Our money would not be able to save her.

Which state has a law that says ectopic pregnancies won't be appropriately treated?

+1. I mean really. They are conjuring up instances that are not true as a scare tactic.

There are some draft bills out there that are trying hard to be all encompassing and avoid abortion pills (moment of fertilization, all cases, limit travel out of state language) that don't have an ectopic pregnancy exclusion, but they aren't any laws. So it's held up to show how aggressive some of the language is getting about restricting rights. And then some people believe these are actual laws then rather than drafted bills.


But personally the current reality of restricting women's autonomy is scary enough. I am perfectly scared that the minority of people in this country think they have the right to make decisions about mine and other women's bodies. No scare tactics needed.

Good, you agree that it’s not being considered to be restricted.

It's being considered by those who are writing draft bills of course. But I know draft bills get edited so it's not reality yet. That it is even considered in the bills is exceedingly repugnant and telling about the perspectives of these zealots. And that it was only in 2011 that Catholic hospitals made protecting the mother policy is startling--doesn't give a lot of confidence that this is an impossibility. Reminds me of why I didn't stay a Catholic after being raised one.

But the reality of what is currently happening is, in my view, problematic enough to hold my attention on stopping it.

Do Catholics have a monopoly on hospitals?

In some locations, yes.

Where? I'm curious what city/part of the country only has Catholic hospitals.

In rural areas in the mid/mountain west about 1/4 of the people have the nearest hospital more than 30 minutes away. If that hospital is a Catholic one, it is essentially a monopoly. But my point was more that this is a 2011 medical policy--which to me is alarming about how recent it was that the mother's life wasn't considered as valuable.

So there is no monopoly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my kid is suffering an ectopic pregnancy, she can’t just get on a plane. Our money would not be able to save her.

Which state has a law that says ectopic pregnancies won't be appropriately treated?

+1. I mean really. They are conjuring up instances that are not true as a scare tactic.

There are some draft bills out there that are trying hard to be all encompassing and avoid abortion pills (moment of fertilization, all cases, limit travel out of state language) that don't have an ectopic pregnancy exclusion, but they aren't any laws. So it's held up to show how aggressive some of the language is getting about restricting rights. And then some people believe these are actual laws then rather than drafted bills.


But personally the current reality of restricting women's autonomy is scary enough. I am perfectly scared that the minority of people in this country think they have the right to make decisions about mine and other women's bodies. No scare tactics needed.

Good, you agree that it’s not being considered to be restricted.

It's being considered by those who are writing draft bills of course. But I know draft bills get edited so it's not reality yet. That it is even considered in the bills is exceedingly repugnant and telling about the perspectives of these zealots. And that it was only in 2011 that Catholic hospitals made protecting the mother policy is startling--doesn't give a lot of confidence that this is an impossibility. Reminds me of why I didn't stay a Catholic after being raised one.

But the reality of what is currently happening is, in my view, problematic enough to hold my attention on stopping it.

Do Catholics have a monopoly on hospitals?

In some locations, yes.

Where? I'm curious what city/part of the country only has Catholic hospitals.

In rural areas in the mid/mountain west about 1/4 of the people have the nearest hospital more than 30 minutes away. If that hospital is a Catholic one, it is essentially a monopoly. But my point was more that this is a 2011 medical policy--which to me is alarming about how recent it was that the mother's life wasn't considered as valuable.

I can’t get to a hospital within 30 minutes from my house here in the dmv area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my kid is suffering an ectopic pregnancy, she can’t just get on a plane. Our money would not be able to save her.

Which state has a law that says ectopic pregnancies won't be appropriately treated?

+1. I mean really. They are conjuring up instances that are not true as a scare tactic.

There are some draft bills out there that are trying hard to be all encompassing and avoid abortion pills (moment of fertilization, all cases, limit travel out of state language) that don't have an ectopic pregnancy exclusion, but they aren't any laws. So it's held up to show how aggressive some of the language is getting about restricting rights. And then some people believe these are actual laws then rather than drafted bills.


But personally the current reality of restricting women's autonomy is scary enough. I am perfectly scared that the minority of people in this country think they have the right to make decisions about mine and other women's bodies. No scare tactics needed.

Good, you agree that it’s not being considered to be restricted.

It's being considered by those who are writing draft bills of course. But I know draft bills get edited so it's not reality yet. That it is even considered in the bills is exceedingly repugnant and telling about the perspectives of these zealots. And that it was only in 2011 that Catholic hospitals made protecting the mother policy is startling--doesn't give a lot of confidence that this is an impossibility. Reminds me of why I didn't stay a Catholic after being raised one.

But the reality of what is currently happening is, in my view, problematic enough to hold my attention on stopping it.

Do Catholics have a monopoly on hospitals?

In some locations, yes.

Where? I'm curious what city/part of the country only has Catholic hospitals.

In rural areas in the mid/mountain west about 1/4 of the people have the nearest hospital more than 30 minutes away. If that hospital is a Catholic one, it is essentially a monopoly. But my point was more that this is a 2011 medical policy--which to me is alarming about how recent it was that the mother's life wasn't considered as valuable.

I can’t get to a hospital within 30 minutes from my house here in the dmv area.

Supposedly around 90% of people can get to a hospital or acute care center in under 8 min in the DMV (for the stats, hospitals includes any acute care center)--maybe they mean if you're in an ambulance so don't have to deal with traffic? But this is all way off-topic now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Driven into hysteria by the liberal machine.

+1. I can’t believe the stupidity of the posts here! And I’m a woman. All the draft opinion does is send back the matter to the 50 states! We’re no better off in the current formulation. If you don’t like what your state us doing you vote the guts out of office, move, or go to the state where you can get the procedure you want. This is not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driven into hysteria by the liberal machine.

+1. I can’t believe the stupidity of the posts here! And I’m a woman. All the draft opinion does is send back the matter to the 50 states! We’re no better off in the current formulation. If you don’t like what your state us doing you vote the guts out of office, move, or go to the state where you can get the procedure you want. This is not rocket science.

In the current formulation women have autonomy over their bodies. If they are against abortion they do not have to have one. If they aren't, they can. Now, if you live in a state that is going back on 50 years of precedent and want bodily autonomy, you have to find a new job elsewhere, uproot your family, sell your house etc. Or hope that your state isn't so gerrymandered to prevent your vote from having an impact. Don't be dense. Whether you are for this or against it, no one reasonable thinks it is inconsequential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my kid is suffering an ectopic pregnancy, she can’t just get on a plane. Our money would not be able to save her.

Which state has a law that says ectopic pregnancies won't be appropriately treated?

+1. I mean really. They are conjuring up instances that are not true as a scare tactic.

There are some draft bills out there that are trying hard to be all encompassing and avoid abortion pills (moment of fertilization, all cases, limit travel out of state language) that don't have an ectopic pregnancy exclusion, but they aren't any laws. So it's held up to show how aggressive some of the language is getting about restricting rights. And then some people believe these are actual laws then rather than drafted bills.


But personally the current reality of restricting women's autonomy is scary enough. I am perfectly scared that the minority of people in this country think they have the right to make decisions about mine and other women's bodies. No scare tactics needed.

Good, you agree that it’s not being considered to be restricted.

It's being considered by those who are writing draft bills of course. But I know draft bills get edited so it's not reality yet. That it is even considered in the bills is exceedingly repugnant and telling about the perspectives of these zealots. And that it was only in 2011 that Catholic hospitals made protecting the mother policy is startling--doesn't give a lot of confidence that this is an impossibility. Reminds me of why I didn't stay a Catholic after being raised one.

But the reality of what is currently happening is, in my view, problematic enough to hold my attention on stopping it.

Do Catholics have a monopoly on hospitals?

In some locations, yes.

Where? I'm curious what city/part of the country only has Catholic hospitals.

In rural areas in the mid/mountain west about 1/4 of the people have the nearest hospital more than 30 minutes away. If that hospital is a Catholic one, it is essentially a monopoly. But my point was more that this is a 2011 medical policy--which to me is alarming about how recent it was that the mother's life wasn't considered as valuable.

So your source of "alarm" is something that hasn't even been in effect for over a decade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driven into hysteria by the liberal machine.

+1. I can’t believe the stupidity of the posts here! And I’m a woman. All the draft opinion does is send back the matter to the 50 states! We’re no better off in the current formulation. If you don’t like what your state us doing you vote the guts out of office, move, or go to the state where you can get the procedure you want. This is not rocket science.

In the current formulation women have autonomy over their bodies. If they are against abortion they do not have to have one. If they aren't, they can. Now, if you live in a state that is going back on 50 years of precedent and want bodily autonomy, you have to find a new job elsewhere, uproot your family, sell your house etc. Or hope that your state isn't so gerrymandered to prevent your vote from having an impact. Don't be dense. Whether you are for this or against it, no one reasonable thinks it is inconsequential.

There are 50 states, pick one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my kid is suffering an ectopic pregnancy, she can’t just get on a plane. Our money would not be able to save her.

Which state has a law that says ectopic pregnancies won't be appropriately treated?

+1. I mean really. They are conjuring up instances that are not true as a scare tactic.

There are some draft bills out there that are trying hard to be all encompassing and avoid abortion pills (moment of fertilization, all cases, limit travel out of state language) that don't have an ectopic pregnancy exclusion, but they aren't any laws. So it's held up to show how aggressive some of the language is getting about restricting rights. And then some people believe these are actual laws then rather than drafted bills.


But personally the current reality of restricting women's autonomy is scary enough. I am perfectly scared that the minority of people in this country think they have the right to make decisions about mine and other women's bodies. No scare tactics needed.

Agree. Univited intrusion into these intensely personal and unique decisions is repulsive and wrong. Alito and everyone else needs to respect the privacy of the patient and her doctor.

So if a woman wants to abort an 8 month pregnancy, just go ahead because it’s about privacy between doctor and patient.

Enough with the stupid talking points. 8 months? Wtf are you yammering about 8 months? Skip that talking point and try a different one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my kid is suffering an ectopic pregnancy, she can’t just get on a plane. Our money would not be able to save her.

Which state has a law that says ectopic pregnancies won't be appropriately treated?

+1. I mean really. They are conjuring up instances that are not true as a scare tactic.

There are some draft bills out there that are trying hard to be all encompassing and avoid abortion pills (moment of fertilization, all cases, limit travel out of state language) that don't have an ectopic pregnancy exclusion, but they aren't any laws. So it's held up to show how aggressive some of the language is getting about restricting rights. And then some people believe these are actual laws then rather than drafted bills.


But personally the current reality of restricting women's autonomy is scary enough. I am perfectly scared that the minority of people in this country think they have the right to make decisions about mine and other women's bodies. No scare tactics needed.

Agree. Univited intrusion into these intensely personal and unique decisions is repulsive and wrong. Alito and everyone else needs to respect the privacy of the patient and her doctor.

So if a woman wants to abort an 8 month pregnancy, just go ahead because it’s about privacy between doctor and patient.

Enough with the stupid talking points. 8 months? Wtf are you yammering about 8 months? Skip that talking point and try a different one.

Okay, how about 6 months?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driven into hysteria by the liberal machine.

+1. I can’t believe the stupidity of the posts here! And I’m a woman. All the draft opinion does is send back the matter to the 50 states! We’re no better off in the current formulation. If you don’t like what your state us doing you vote the guts out of office, move, or go to the state where you can get the procedure you want. This is not rocket science.

We are about to be stripped of a fundamental right we all held as americans for almost 50 years and maybe our daughters as well depending on how long it takes to fight this war once again. That is an outrage. Not something to just shrug off. You are weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driven into hysteria by the liberal machine.

+1. I can’t believe the stupidity of the posts here! And I’m a woman. All the draft opinion does is send back the matter to the 50 states! We’re no better off in the current formulation. If you don’t like what your state us doing you vote the guts out of office, move, or go to the state where you can get the procedure you want. This is not rocket science.

We are about to be stripped of a fundamental right we all held as americans for almost 50 years and maybe our daughters as well depending on how long it takes to fight this war once again. That is an outrage. Not something to just shrug off. You are weak.

You're posting in the "college and university discussion" board. Most of the daughters (and sons) of posters here are already 18+ or very close to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driven into hysteria by the liberal machine.

+1. I can’t believe the stupidity of the posts here! And I’m a woman. All the draft opinion does is send back the matter to the 50 states! We’re no better off in the current formulation. If you don’t like what your state us doing you vote the guts out of office, move, or go to the state where you can get the procedure you want. This is not rocket science.

We are about to be stripped of a fundamental right we all held as americans for almost 50 years and maybe our daughters as well depending on how long it takes to fight this war once again. That is an outrage. Not something to just shrug off. You are weak.

What do you know about the issue? Absolutely nothing. Leaving it up to states is not the same as stripping rights. Stupid fake anger woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driven into hysteria by the liberal machine.

+1. I can’t believe the stupidity of the posts here! And I’m a woman. All the draft opinion does is send back the matter to the 50 states! We’re no better off in the current formulation. If you don’t like what your state us doing you vote the guts out of office, move, or go to the state where you can get the procedure you want. This is not rocket science.

We are about to be stripped of a fundamental right we all held as americans for almost 50 years and maybe our daughters as well depending on how long it takes to fight this war once again. That is an outrage. Not something to just shrug off. You are weak.

Do you know what fundamental means or do you just insert where you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Driven into hysteria by the liberal machine.

+1. I can’t believe the stupidity of the posts here! And I’m a woman. All the draft opinion does is send back the matter to the 50 states! We’re no better off in the current formulation. If you don’t like what your state us doing you vote the guts out of office, move, or go to the state where you can get the procedure you want. This is not rocket science.

We are about to be stripped of a fundamental right we all held as americans for almost 50 years and maybe our daughters as well depending on how long it takes to fight this war once again. That is an outrage. Not something to just shrug off. You are weak.

Do you know what fundamental means or do you just insert where you want?

DP: I consider bodily autonomy to be a fundamental right also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my kid is suffering an ectopic pregnancy, she can’t just get on a plane. Our money would not be able to save her.

Which state has a law that says ectopic pregnancies won't be appropriately treated?

+1. I mean really. They are conjuring up instances that are not true as a scare tactic.

There are some draft bills out there that are trying hard to be all encompassing and avoid abortion pills (moment of fertilization, all cases, limit travel out of state language) that don't have an ectopic pregnancy exclusion, but they aren't any laws. So it's held up to show how aggressive some of the language is getting about restricting rights. And then some people believe these are actual laws then rather than drafted bills.


But personally the current reality of restricting women's autonomy is scary enough. I am perfectly scared that the minority of people in this country think they have the right to make decisions about mine and other women's bodies. No scare tactics needed.

Good, you agree that it’s not being considered to be restricted.

It's being considered by those who are writing draft bills of course. But I know draft bills get edited so it's not reality yet. That it is even considered in the bills is exceedingly repugnant and telling about the perspectives of these zealots. And that it was only in 2011 that Catholic hospitals made protecting the mother policy is startling--doesn't give a lot of confidence that this is an impossibility. Reminds me of why I didn't stay a Catholic after being raised one.

But the reality of what is currently happening is, in my view, problematic enough to hold my attention on stopping it.

Do Catholics have a monopoly on hospitals?

In some locations, yes.

Where? I'm curious what city/part of the country only has Catholic hospitals.

In rural areas in the mid/mountain west about 1/4 of the people have the nearest hospital more than 30 minutes away. If that hospital is a Catholic one, it is essentially a monopoly. But my point was more that this is a 2011 medical policy--which to me is alarming about how recent it was that the mother's life wasn't considered as valuable.

So your source of "alarm" is something that hasn't even been in effect for over a decade?

Yes. Given that 50 years that was called "settled precedent" no longer is, something that is 2011 is not safe.