Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Effects of Dobbs on maternal health care overwhelmingly negative, survey shows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/21/obgyn-abortion-poll/

It sounds like it will be have and have not states for women's health care. Pro- choice states will have their pick of the best of the best pros and forced birther states will have lower quality and quantity options. Choose wisely if you can.

I would not put it past some leftist health care workers to google their patients, see how they vote, and simply let them die to prove their points. This is where the left is now - no conscience at all

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Effects of Dobbs on maternal health care overwhelmingly negative, survey shows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/21/obgyn-abortion-poll/

It sounds like it will be have and have not states for women's health care. Pro- choice states will have their pick of the best of the best pros and forced birther states will have lower quality and quantity options. Choose wisely if you can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bring it.

This is a reasonable first step, but insuffient. I think there should be federal charges against those doctors who denied care— in violation of federal law— to women who needed it. Hospital lawyers think this won’t happen and so are being way, way to blasé with women’s lives and health, but if we lock up the people sending women home to wait until they start dying, the lawyers will start reading “life of the mother” in larger font.

Anonymous wrote:Bring it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Read this tidbit from that article -- any anti-abortionists brave enough comment? Do you not care that these bans are going to impact women's access to health care in the states that enact them? Be honest now.

In February, a group of students, residents and faculty surveyed 2,063 licensed and trainee physicians and found that 82 percent want to work or train in states that retain abortion access—and 76 percent would refuse to apply in states that restrict it. (The respondents worked in a mix of specialties; for those whose work would include performing abortions, the proportion intending to work where it remains legal soared above 99 percent.)

Then in April, a study from the Association of American Medical Colleges drawing on the first round of applications to residency programs after Dobbs found that ob-gyn applications in states with abortion restrictions sank by 10 percent compared to the previous year. Applications to all ob-gyn programs dropped by 5 percent. (Nationwide, all applications to residency went down 2 percent from 2021 to 2022.)

Last month, two preliminary pieces of research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists uncovered more perturbations. In Texas—where the restrictive law SB8 went into effect in September 2021, nine months before Dobbs—a multi-year upward trend in applications to ob-gyn residency slowed after the law passed. And in an unrelated national survey, 77 percent of 494 third- and fourth-year medical students said that abortion restrictions would affect where they applied to residency, while 58 percent said they were unlikely to apply to states with a ban.

So no anti-abortionists are brave enough to respond. Just looking the other way, nothing to see here.

Anonymous wrote:One year later…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have little confidence that Florida can pull off a constitutional amendment but it’s moving that way. 🤞

If it gets on the ballot, it will pass - it's just a matter of getting enough signatures.

https://floridiansprotectingfreedom.com/petition/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Effects of Dobbs on maternal health care overwhelmingly negative, survey shows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/21/obgyn-abortion-poll/

It sounds like it will be have and have not states for women's health care. Pro- choice states will have their pick of the best of the best pros and forced birther states will have lower quality and quantity options. Choose wisely if you can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Read this tidbit from that article -- any anti-abortionists brave enough comment? Do you not care that these bans are going to impact women's access to health care in the states that enact them? Be honest now.

In February, a group of students, residents and faculty surveyed 2,063 licensed and trainee physicians and found that 82 percent want to work or train in states that retain abortion access—and 76 percent would refuse to apply in states that restrict it. (The respondents worked in a mix of specialties; for those whose work would include performing abortions, the proportion intending to work where it remains legal soared above 99 percent.)

Then in April, a study from the Association of American Medical Colleges drawing on the first round of applications to residency programs after Dobbs found that ob-gyn applications in states with abortion restrictions sank by 10 percent compared to the previous year. Applications to all ob-gyn programs dropped by 5 percent. (Nationwide, all applications to residency went down 2 percent from 2021 to 2022.)

Last month, two preliminary pieces of research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists uncovered more perturbations. In Texas—where the restrictive law SB8 went into effect in September 2021, nine months before Dobbs—a multi-year upward trend in applications to ob-gyn residency slowed after the law passed. And in an unrelated national survey, 77 percent of 494 third- and fourth-year medical students said that abortion restrictions would affect where they applied to residency, while 58 percent said they were unlikely to apply to states with a ban.

Anonymous wrote:Effects of Dobbs on maternal health care overwhelmingly negative, survey shows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/21/obgyn-abortion-poll/

Anonymous wrote:😡