We see here, of course, the time-honored tradition of politicians (because that's what this is: politics) passing whatever laws or policy or interpretations they can based on illogic and their personal philosophy - but not some sort of rational consistent healthcare based on the input of a nation of medical professionals with their backgrounds in science and ethics and public policy.
After all, what do they know?
And, that's if you can afford any health care at all since they can't figure out a national health care policy. This is all just ping ponging in little bits from one idea to another based on how the wind blows. A Winchester Mystery House of rules without anyone knowledgable supervising.
Something is forbidden (legally) since forever - then it's OK (legally) - and then fifty years later it's forbidden again (legally) based on "law." Feh.
This is a disgustingly accurate description of this country.
So pardon the ignorance of an old white man ... but in this day and age well into the 21st Century, why do we still need abortion as a means of birth control anymore ?
We've had the morning after pill longer the R v W. It was experimental then, but it is now well documented, inexpensive and safe, especially compared to an abortion.
I get it for medical health problems, but for birth control ?
I can tell a true story of someone close to me who had sex, took a pill, and was relieved it worked so they miscarried. After all, this is in Texas where options were few at the time.
She didn't have health care coverage. After all, this is America.
But, as the pain in her abdomen persisted, she began to worry. Finally she went to the doc who found she had another fetus, now weeks old. A surviving twin.
For her unique pre-existing medical reasons it would've been disastrous to try to carry it to term, of this there was no debate. For her, the abortion was mandatory.
I very much believe that abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. I've met patients who have gotten dozens of abortions, really.
And, I very much believe that a fetus is not the mother (they can have different blood types, for example) so saying the choice is about the woman's body is oversimplification.
However, I very much believe that there are times when abortion is absolutely unequivocally necessary - and no politician has any business sticking their vote-getting grandstanding into that decision. Even politicians that are doctors (looking at you, Rand Paul - eye doctor) have no business making a decision here, since they're clearly not privy to the nuance of any patient's particular case. They need to butt the fuck out.
So pardon the ignorance of an old white man ... but in this day and age well into the 21st Century, why do we still need abortion as a means of birth control anymore ?
We've had the morning after pill longer the R v W. It was experimental then, but it is now well documented, inexpensive and safe, especially compared to an abortion.
I get it for medical health problems, but for birth control ?
It's been a long-used trope of some Conservatives and other anti-abortion types that women who get abortions consider it a form of "birth control", implying that those women are amoral and devoid of any conscience. It's suggesting that having an abortion is simply a matter of "convenience" to those women - like buying new shoes - not a terrifying, agonizing, and guilt-ridden dilemma. Maybe it is a "convenience" to some people, but I think that would be a very small number. Anyhow, I don't think you are consciously implying such things but that dog-whistle sentiment has been around since R v. W was passed.
The morning after pill only works within a short period of time after sex (2 or 3 days?), and will not prevent an implanted pregnancy. From what I could gather, the RU-486 pill and/or other "medical/medication" abortions had been used for the majority of abortions in the US in 2020, but even that would become illegal under this ruling.
So pardon the ignorance of an old white man ... but in this day and age well into the 21st Century, why do we still need abortion as a means of birth control anymore ?
We've had the morning after pill longer the R v W. It was experimental then, but it is now well documented, inexpensive and safe, especially compared to an abortion.
I get it for medical health problems, but for birth control ?
Once they take away abortion,
they'll come for your contraceptions next!
So pardon the ignorance of an old white man ... but in this day and age well into the 21st Century, why do we still need abortion as a means of birth control anymore ?
We've had the morning after pill longer the R v W. It was experimental then, but it is now well documented, inexpensive and safe, especially compared to an abortion.
I get it for medical health problems, but for birth control ?
We see here, of course, the time-honored tradition of politicians (because that's what this is: politics) passing whatever laws or policy or interpretations they can based on illogic and their personal philosophy - but not some sort of rational consistent healthcare based on the input of a nation of medical professionals with their backgrounds in science and ethics and public policy.
After all, what do they know?
And, that's if you can afford any health care at all since they can't figure out a national health care policy. This is all just ping ponging in little bits from one idea to another based on how the wind blows. A Winchester Mystery House of rules without anyone knowledgable supervising.
Something is forbidden (legally) since forever - then it's OK (legally) - and then fifty years later it's forbidden again (legally) based on "law." Feh.
Well the claim to the right to privacy has sorta sailed with the demand that the federal government pay for abortions. Once you ask for government money, your right to privacy is gone. Can't have it both ways.
As far as I recall, the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits Federal funding for abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother), is still in force. 17 states allow their State Medicaid to cover abortions.
