Anonymous wrote:Remember when people said the left was being over the top and hysterical when Kavanaugh and Barrett were confirmed?
Ya, that was fun.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why anyone would think a 15 week ban is a good idea. Just on a purely practical basis, women don't get decent ultrasound information about the viability/physical condition of the fetus until 18-20 weeks.
Having carried a child to birth that had a significant defect, (50% chance of surviving to 5 yrs), it's really crucial for women to have that information, and to make decisions based on that information. To be forced to carry a child to term knowing that the child may die before birth or thereafter is forcing that woman into psychological trauma.
But, I guess men don't understand the timing of pregnancy info.
I agree. As someone going through the process now, if someone didn’t want to be pregnant, they would have aborted before 15 weeks-I can see that. The law is punishing those women who actually want to have a baby and are in the process of genetic testing, and devastating have to make a decision about whether to keep or terminate the pregnancy due to complications. It’s not an easy decision. And that information isn’t even fully available before 15 weeks. It may be if you hit all your appointments at exactly the right time. But if your OB practice is backed up or you bump up against back to back holidays or cannot make your appts exactly on time due to work or other commitments, you are SOL.
I think you’ll see an increased focus on early testing, with private insurance companies starting to pick up the cost for more sophisticated and earlier techniques. These tests will be cheaper than allowing a woman to deliver a profoundly disabled child after a high risk pregnancy. I think you’ll also see an increase in risk averse people aborting just in case, before any of the more definitive tests are back. Poor women on state programs will continue to suffer, of course, but if taxpayers in those places want to pay for the substandard care of thousands of disabled kids in the foster care system I’m happy to let them pay that price. The key is to make sure they can’t go a single day without being reminded of it and what they could have had for themselves and their children under a more sane policy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why anyone would think a 15 week ban is a good idea. Just on a purely practical basis, women don't get decent ultrasound information about the viability/physical condition of the fetus until 18-20 weeks.
Having carried a child to birth that had a significant defect, (50% chance of surviving to 5 yrs), it's really crucial for women to have that information, and to make decisions based on that information. To be forced to carry a child to term knowing that the child may die before birth or thereafter is forcing that woman into psychological trauma.
But, I guess men don't understand the timing of pregnancy info.
I agree. As someone going through the process now, if someone didn’t want to be pregnant, they would have aborted before 15 weeks-I can see that. The law is punishing those women who actually want to have a baby and are in the process of genetic testing, and devastating have to make a decision about whether to keep or terminate the pregnancy due to complications. It’s not an easy decision. And that information isn’t even fully available before 15 weeks. It may be if you hit all your appointments at exactly the right time. But if your OB practice is backed up or you bump up against back to back holidays or cannot make your appts exactly on time due to work or other commitments, you are SOL.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Susan Collins is an enemy of women.
She’s the lightning rod, for sure, but every Stein voter, every “how bad can Trump be?” voter, every “they’re both the same” voter… they’re all on the hook.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why anyone would think a 15 week ban is a good idea. Just on a purely practical basis, women don't get decent ultrasound information about the viability/physical condition of the fetus until 18-20 weeks.
Having carried a child to birth that had a significant defect, (50% chance of surviving to 5 yrs), it's really crucial for women to have that information, and to make decisions based on that information. To be forced to carry a child to term knowing that the child may die before birth or thereafter is forcing that woman into psychological trauma.
But, I guess men don't understand the timing of pregnancy info.
I agree. As someone going through the process now, if someone didn’t want to be pregnant, they would have aborted before 15 weeks-I can see that. The law is punishing those women who actually want to have a baby and are in the process of genetic testing, and devastating have to make a decision about whether to keep or terminate the pregnancy due to complications. It’s not an easy decision. And that information isn’t even fully available before 15 weeks. It may be if you hit all your appointments at exactly the right time. But if your OB practice is backed up or you bump up against back to back holidays or cannot make your appts exactly on time due to work or other commitments, you are SOL.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this isn't viewed as a first amendment separation of church and state issue. Life begins at conception is a religious-based belief, isn't it? If you don't believe that, then why should the state be able to require you adhere to a religious belief you don't accept?
No one is seeking to tie viability to conception. That is hyperbole. Viability begins at about 24 weeks. That is when premies can survive.
Actually the pro-life movement believes that life begins at conception. This is why they also oppose all hormonal based forms of contraception (pill, patch, ring and norplant and depoprovera) plus IUDs because they believe those forms of contraception interfere with implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus and therefore are abortion-causers.
Life begins at conception is literally the fundamental belief of the pro-life movement. All their attempts at laws that restrict abortion are efforts to move the line on abortion incrementally back closer to conception
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I hope they overturn Roe v Wade. It will be an awesome gift to democrats in the midterms.
Hope it will spur action to reform the court. Make the court like 60 judges who are assigned randomly. This would increase the work load and remove the gaming of the court.
Anonymous wrote:[…]
Life begins at conception is literally the fundamental belief of the pro-life movement. All their attempts at laws that restrict abortion are efforts to move the line on abortion incrementally back closer to conception
Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why anyone would think a 15 week ban is a good idea. Just on a purely practical basis, women don't get decent ultrasound information about the viability/physical condition of the fetus until 18-20 weeks.
Having carried a child to birth that had a significant defect, (50% chance of surviving to 5 yrs), it's really crucial for women to have that information, and to make decisions based on that information. To be forced to carry a child to term knowing that the child may die before birth or thereafter is forcing that woman into psychological trauma.
But, I guess men don't understand the timing of pregnancy info.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this isn't viewed as a first amendment separation of church and state issue. Life begins at conception is a religious-based belief, isn't it? If you don't believe that, then why should the state be able to require you adhere to a religious belief you don't accept?
No one is seeking to tie viability to conception. That is hyperbole. Viability begins at about 24 weeks. That is when premies can survive.
Anonymous wrote:BlueFredneck wrote:I'm guessing if Roe is overturned you'll see a "straight" 6-week ban coming out in several states. There'll be calls to pack the court for sure but I can't see that getting past Manchema, much less any Republicans.
The Texas bans open a Pandora's box I'm pretty sure no one really wants open. But who knows, SCOTUS may be just that stupid/blinkered/confident the Dems won't ever play that dirty.
But ... I'm not seeing how this does anything other than make the usual bicoastal suspects from Blue Fortress states (states that HRC won by >10%) angrier. And nearly all of us are just that, the usual bicoastal suspects, myself included. How many people are actually going to go from R->D or NV->D?
So yay, NY Dems win 68-30 instead of 64-34. Big whoop. CT and WA become even more Democratic. Yay, I suppose.
Does running on a platform of abortion rights do anything for Dems in the Midwest and swingy Sun Belt states? Some states seem to WANT to be in Ireland 1980.
Go ahead and call me a concern troll or an Eeyore. But when has running on abortion rights EVER won anything outside the Blue Fortress?
Given that 65% of Americans do not want Roe overturned, overturning it will make folks angry. Also there are (were?) many pro-choice Republicans that felt the government shouldn’t be involved in personal life decisions. But most of those Republicans left the party because of Trump. (Most of my GOP family is in this camp.)