Reply to Roe v Wade struck down

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Roe v Wade struck down"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][twitter]https://x.com/troy_in_tahoe/status/1834636862205366289?s=46&t=kf1qYlCXQnKgUhJWEIu2vg[/twitter][/quote]

It is very disappointing that major media is not reporting these stories. Not surprising, but disappointing. [/quote]

The only abortions illegalized by Dobbs were certain pre-viability abortions in conservative states. The odds that there are a sufficient number of bleed outs that ten thousand occurred among the population of women familiar with this relatively obscure commentator is zero. Thats not a political statement on my part; it's just a matter of whats even remotely plausible or not. [/quote]
Forced birthers just aren’t very bright.

Essentially all abortions were made illegal in forced birther states, including ones that forced birther women didn’t think “counted” as abortions.

At a minimum several thousand women online in these forced birthers states had poorly managed miscarriages or other early pregnancy complications.

The internet being what it is, word travels fast when some flaccid weird man claims it didn’t happen.

Women have died from these bans, guaranteed. [/quote]

I know you're constantly affirmed in your intelligence, but let me run something by you:

Before Dobbs, you could ban post-viability abortions. So to say that &quot;essentially all abortions were made illegal&quot; after Dobbs means that [b]certain pre-viability abortions were made illegal[/b]; the post-viability abortions were *already* illegal. To suggest that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of women have &quot;bled out&quot; because they couldn't get a pre-viability abortion is just so self-evidently untrue that really the only suitable epithet for it is &quot;alternative facts.&quot;[/quote]

Given how the vast majority of abortions happen pre-viability and given the extreme restrictions, [b]essentially all abortions are, in fact, now banned in many red states[/b]. DP.

[img]https://s-abcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/s.abcnews.com/images/US/Map_US_map_of_abortion_laws_v02_dnl_1718989715200_hpEmbed_1x1_992.jpg[/img][/quote]
THANK YOU the “pre-viability” PP is edging bonkers.[/quote]

I'm the &quot;'pre-viability' PP&quot;. I'm actually generally curious: what inconsistency do you see between my observation and this graphic? This is about the absolute number of abortions, not the change in the number of abortions or the results those those changes. [/quote]

You minimized the impact of the bans in red states. They were devastating to women's health.

The red states went from &lt;1% of abortions banned to 90-100% banned. The post viability #s are insignificant.

[img]https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/US%20Abortion%20Fact%20Sheet%20Fig%203%20abortions%20in%20the%20formal%20us%20health%20care%2027177.png[/img]
[/quote]

And to address the miscarriage aspect:
~1 million miscarriages per year in the US 
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-little-is-known-about-what-causes-many-pregnancies-to-end-in-miscarriage

Say 1/3rd of them happen in red states with restrictive medical care for women.

That is 300k x 2 years = 600k women who miscarried and may have needed medical intervention. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics