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: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.

Abortion is a right to some degree in the US. It is not a right that is fundamental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesn’t mean it is.

[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: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.

Sound the alarm! Every law ever passed and hospital regulations are now under scrutiny. We are not safe! Intentional homicide may become lawful! Speeding may become lawful! Ahhhhhh!

[Anonymous]

You should all tread very carefully about what you wish for.

You now have no right to privacy in the medical space. The state could pass a law force you to donate organs after death. The state could ban circumcision or any other medical procedure it wishes so long as you have the votes.

This ruling vastly expands the power of government in ways not experienced since Jim Crow.

[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.

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.

Why not let us just narrow it to you get to decide about your body and I get to decide about mine. Land of the free and all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should all tread very carefully about what you wish for.

You now have no right to privacy in the medical space. The state could pass a law force you to donate organs after death. The state could ban circumcision or any other medical procedure it wishes so long as you have the votes.

This ruling vastly expands the power of government in ways not experienced since Jim Crow.

Where do you get this from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not let us just narrow it to you get to decide about your body and I get to decide about mine. Land of the free and all.

And your baby? Does your baby get to choose about their body?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not let us just narrow it to you get to decide about your body and I get to decide about mine. Land of the free and all.

And your baby? Does your baby get to choose about their body?

My religion defines birth as when life begins. When a fetus is born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely. We just flat out told our kids no family money would be spent in states that don't support the rights of women or gay people.

+1. Can’t imagine our DD would pick a state like Texas or Florida anyways with their draconian laws like report your neighbor and don’t say gay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should all tread very carefully about what you wish for.

You now have no right to privacy in the medical space. The state could pass a law force you to donate organs after death. The state could ban circumcision or any other medical procedure it wishes so long as you have the votes.

This ruling vastly expands the power of government in ways not experienced since Jim Crow.

Where do you get this from?

Can’t you read? The scope of the opinion is horrifying.

[Anonymous]

Sorry if it’s inconvenient if your Roll Tide/Hoddy Toddy dreams come with fallopian shackles. You suck as a parent if you send your kid to a land of extremist wackos.

[Anonymous]

I really am watching this carefully. I have schools in VA (current home state), NJ, NC, PA, MA, OH and WI on a preliminary list for my current sophomore.

The schools in MD I think would be good matches for her plans are too expensive out of state.

All this said, should VA go nuts, we will cross the Potomac and UMBC joins the list, the ones in MA and NJ become top contenders and the abortion ban states are no longer an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not let us just narrow it to you get to decide about your body and I get to decide about mine. Land of the free and all.

And your baby? Does your baby get to choose about their body?

An evolving cluster of cells entirely dependent on my body does not have the capacity to make choices. I make the choice whether or not to let those cells evolve into a baby that I am responsible for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really am watching this carefully. I have schools in VA (current home state), NJ, NC, PA, MA, OH and WI on a preliminary list for my current sophomore.

The schools in MD I think would be good matches for her plans are too expensive out of state.

All this said, should VA go nuts, we will cross the Potomac and UMBC joins the list, the ones in MA and NJ become top contenders and the abortion ban states are no longer an option.

+1
I'm hopeful VA continues to value basic freedoms because the in-state options are so strong, but both DD and DS's OOS considerations have shifted. They are strong students so the opportunity for OOS merit aid is there, so maybe we won't have to move to MD. But I'd consider it. I'd love to become a grandparent someday but not by force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:100% a consideration.

Of course. Also, I prefer that my kids go to school with mostly peers who support human rights for all.