Supreme Court Asked to Consider overturning Roe V. Wade

[OldCoyote]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lawmakers-ask-supreme-court-to-consider-overturning-roe-v-wade/ar-BBYyG8X?ocid=spartandhp

[laterbloomer]

You saw that coming from a mile off. Good luck to all American women.

[Gardening Grandma]

Jan 2, 2020 22:39:04 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

You saw that coming from a mile off. Good luck to all American women.

American women with the means will do what they did before Roe.
Poor American women will also do what they did before Roe. The lucky ones won’t die.

[busymom]

Poor women will go back to using coat hangers & vacuum cleaners for "do-it-yourself" abortions.  Sadly, any change in the laws will just make it unsafe to be poor.  Rich women will get their abortions done in countries outside of the USA, like they always have.  

[oped]

There is already a significant underground movement to teach and learn old midwifery means of terminating a pregnancy.

[oped]

Jan 2, 2020 23:51:49 GMT -5 busymom said:

Poor women will go back to using coat hangers & vacuum cleaners for "do-it-yourself" abortions.  Sadly, any change in the laws will just make it unsafe to be poor.  Rich women will get their abortions done in countries outside of the USA, like they always have.  

They won’t have to leave the US. Not all states will outlaw abortion. This would hasten geographical self selection and the fracturing of the republic... if it lasts that long...

[kadee79]

Jan 2, 2020 23:51:49 GMT -5 busymom said:

Poor women will go back to using coat hangers & vacuum cleaners for "do-it-yourself" abortions.  Sadly, any change in the laws will just make it unsafe to be poor.  Rich women will get their abortions done in countries outside of the USA, like they always have.  

I had an opportunity for one inside the US in 1967 (prior to RvW)...at a Jewish hospital done by certified surgeons and the records would have shown it as something else.  The cost was more than I could handle at the time & really didn't want to do that anyway...I had a CHOICE!  

[justme]

This honestly is behind the turning point where I almost exclusively switched to voting Dem. A few years ago I knew there was a big force that wanted to over turn Roe v Wade, but I thought they were being kept in check and the Repubs weren't going to go off that cliff, that it was a freaking supreme court decision. Trump forced my hand more towards the Dems (couldn't vote for him), but in the last few years I've pretty much become solidly almost all Dem. I dislike it, but I've done a lot of soul searching and I just can't vote for someone that 1) Thinks it's ok to force women to die for having sex* and 2) Don't view all humans as humans (ie anti-LGBTQ+). If there's multiple candidates for that meet 1 & 2 I'll have to dive deeper, but right now my deal breakers only have one candidate (once you get past primaries). 





*Yes, my view on abortion has boiled down to this. We have the worst maternal mortality rate in a 1st world country (if abortions aren't legal there will be women dying that wanted an abortion). It's worse than some non-1st world countries. Until maternal mortality rate is 0 it should unequivocal be the choice of the woman whether she faces the very real risk of death to bring another human into this world. (I have more arguments for it being a choice in case this is ever achieved, but this is where it's settled after a lot of self reflection.)

[Gardening Grandma]

Jan 3, 2020 13:47:53 GMT -5 justme said:

This honestly is behind the turning point where I almost exclusively switched to voting Dem. A few years ago I knew there was a big force that wanted to over turn Roe v Wade, but I thought they were being kept in check and the Repubs weren't going to go off that cliff, that it was a freaking supreme court decision. Trump forced my hand more towards the Dems (couldn't vote for him), but in the last few years I've pretty much become solidly almost all Dem. I dislike it, but I've done a lot of soul searching and I just can't vote for someone that 1) Thinks it's ok to force women to die for having sex* and 2) Don't view all humans as humans (ie anti-LGBTQ+). If there's multiple candidates for that meet 1 & 2 I'll have to dive deeper, but right now my deal breakers only have one candidate (once you get past primaries). 





*Yes, my view on abortion has boiled down to this. We have the worst maternal mortality rate in a 1st world country (if abortions are legal there will be women dying that wanted an abortion). It's worse than some non-1st world countries. Until maternal mortality rate is 0 it should unequivocal be the choice of the woman whether she faces the very real risk of death to bring another human into this world. (I have more arguments for it being a choice in case this is ever achieved, but this is where it's settled after a lot of self reflection.)

I cannot support any politician who believes women are too immoral or too stupid to be trusted to make their own damn healthcare decisions.  That is a dealbreaker.  And when people talk about "moderate" as if it's code for passing so called "prolife" laws, they are full of shit.  

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

If it was really about "saving lives" then instead of doing this crap they would be making birth control over the counter/free,  subsidizing daycare costs, improving educational opportunities for women and getting rid of the welfare cliff so you don't lose all your benefits if you make a handful of change an hour over the approved amount you can collect.

All those things have been shown in study after study to decrease abortions because when you elevate women and give them the right to control their reproduction pregnancies go down as a whole.  Meanwhile those that are born see significant improvement.   A free society for women in terms of reproduction leads to a better society overall.

But that is socialism!  Communism!!  Stupid women need to keep their damn legs closed. .. unless a man doesn't want them to of course.   Then it's still her problem for wearing the wrong thing, going to the wrong party, etc.  She needs to pay for her "choices" by carrying that baby to term because after all it wasn't "real" assault if she got pregnant.

Which is what it boils down to.  It isn't about saving lives or improving society, it's about controlling women just as it always has been.  It's also about disenfranchising the poor because like everyone else has pointed out if you have the money you can get your abortion, look at all the senators who have been outed as pressuring their mistresses to get one, guess who was going to pay that?   It is people in lower socio-economic tiers that will suffer.

Meanwhile men will continue to get away with what they have always gotten away with despite it taking TWO to make a baby last time I checked.   Those women that cut off their noses to spite their faces will be able cluck that they are rich/white/straight/Christian enough to not end up in a bad situation of any kind and if they do rest comfortable in the fact that the system will pay for and keep that mistake under wraps for them.

[chiver78]

Jan 3, 2020 14:05:55 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

If it was really about "saving lives" then instead of doing this crap they would be making birth control over the counter/free,  subsidizing daycare costs, improving educational opportunities for women and getting rid of the welfare cliff so you don't lose all your benefits if you make a handful of change an hour over the approved amount you can collect.

All those things have been shown in study after study to decrease abortions because when you elevate women and give them the right to control their reproduction pregnancies go down as a whole.  Meanwhile those that are born see significant improvement.   A free society for women in terms of reproduction leads to a better society overall.

But that is socialism!  Communism!!  Stupid women need to keep their damn legs closed. .. unless a man doesn't want them to of course.   Then it's still her problem for wearing the wrong thing, going to the wrong party, etc.  She needs to pay for her "choices" by carrying that baby to term because after all it wasn't "real" assault if she got pregnant.

Which is what it boils down to.  It isn't about saving lives or improving society, it's about controlling women just as it always has been.  It's also about disenfranchising the poor because like everyone else has pointed out if you have the money you can get your abortion, look at all the senators who have been outed as pressuring their mistresses to get one, guess who was going to pay that?   It is people in lower socio-economic tiers that will suffer.

Meanwhile men will continue to get away with what they have always gotten away with despite it taking TWO to make a baby last time I checked.   Those women that cut off their noses to spite their faces will be able cluck that they are rich/white/straight/Christian enough to not end up in a bad situation of any kind and if they do rest comfortable in the fact that the system will pay for and keep that mistake under wraps for them.

[swamp]

Why should I care, I've got money and know the right people.   I could get an abortion at any time.    It doesn't affect me.  

Oh, wait, because women aren't as fortunate as me shouldn't be forced to have a baby.  

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2020 14:05:55 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

If it was really about "saving lives" then instead of doing this crap they would be making birth control over the counter/free,  subsidizing daycare costs, improving educational opportunities for women and getting rid of the welfare cliff so you don't lose all your benefits if you make a handful of change an hour over the approved amount you can collect.

All those things have been shown in study after study to decrease abortions because when you elevate women and give them the right to control their reproduction pregnancies go down as a whole.  Meanwhile those that are born see significant improvement.   A free society for women in terms of reproduction leads to a better society overall.

But that is socialism!  Communism!!  Stupid women need to keep their damn legs closed. .. unless a man doesn't want them to of course.   Then it's still her problem for wearing the wrong thing, going to the wrong party, etc.  She needs to pay for her "choices" by carrying that baby to term because after all it wasn't "real" assault if she got pregnant.

Which is what it boils down to.  It isn't about saving lives or improving society, it's about controlling women just as it always has been.  It's also about disenfranchising the poor because like everyone else has pointed out if you have the money you can get your abortion, look at all the senators who have been outed as pressuring their mistresses to get one, guess who was going to pay that?   It is people in lower socio-economic tiers that will suffer.

Meanwhile men will continue to get away with what they have always gotten away with despite it taking TWO to make a baby last time I checked.   Those women that cut off their noses to spite their faces will be able cluck that they are rich/white/straight/Christian enough to not end up in a bad situation of any kind and if they do rest comfortable in the fact that the system will pay for and keep that mistake under wraps for them.

 No issues here. 

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2020 23:47:13 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Jan 2, 2020 22:39:04 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

You saw that coming from a mile off. Good luck to all American women.

American women with the means will do what they did before Roe.
Poor American women will also do what they did before Roe. The lucky ones won’t die.

No worst case hyperbole/scenario here.  (bolded)

Is it 1950 again ? 


It's 2020 this year.


Quote;  The morning-after pill (also known by the brand name Plan B), is emergency contraception that a woman takes to prevent pregnancy. It’s a form of birth control which is used after unprotected sex takes place. The traditional morning-after pill is effective if taken up to 5 days after having unprotected sex.

www.birthcontrol.com/options/morning-after-pill/

[justme]

Jan 3, 2020 15:22:04 GMT -5 @x said:

Jan 2, 2020 23:47:13 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

American women with the means will do what they did before Roe.
Poor American women will also do what they did before Roe. The lucky ones won’t die.

No worst case hyperbole/scenario here.  (bolded)

Is it 1950 again ? 


It's 2020 this year.


Quote;  The morning-after pill (also known by the brand name Plan B), is emergency contraception that a woman takes to prevent pregnancy. It’s a form of birth control which is used after unprotected sex takes place. The traditional morning-after pill is effective if taken up to 5 days after having unprotected sex.

www.birthcontrol.com/options/morning-after-pill/

It's not 100% effective. If you've ovulated within the last 5 or so days before you take the pill it's useless. There's plenty of women that have ended up pregnant after taking Plan B.

Also, most pro-lifers consider it an abortifacient so don't like - even though that's false.  

[oped]

I'm sorry.. you must have missed when Hobby Lobby was allowed to classify the morning after pill as an abortion pill... even though the science did not support their claims... 

Many of the people who are support overturning row v wade .. are also gunning to end invitro and birth control pills... 

[thyme4change]

This will accelerate the "browning" of America. About half of the abortions are for mothers who are black or Hispanic. The number of minority births will go up 20-25%. If a significant amount of white women have the means to still obtain an abortion, maybe the white birth rate will come up 10% or something. As is the birth rate is about 50/50 white v non-white. Plus the older generations have a higher percentage of white people. So, 20 years of the elderly dying plus 20 years of even more disproportional birth rates....even if they cut immigration to zero (except Norwegians, who don't want to come here) whites will be just one of many minorities.

Fine by me, but seems like an unintended consequence that the GOP will have to deal with, as they currently have low support in non-white groups.

[chiver78]

Jan 3, 2020 15:01:56 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

This, and other policies like it, is precisely why I AM a Dem.  Many years ago now I did some political soul searching.  As a small business owner and fiscal conservative I was out of step with many aspects of the Democratic Party, including at the time, unions.  However, there were so many other factors in legal, social and humanitarian issues that made the GOP abhorrent to me- and this was before trump!  

I found a home in the "Blue Dogs" camp at the time, and was an early supporter of Paul Tsongas, who no one remembers now I'm sure.  But I was able to find a like minded home in a party that valued inclusivity and human life- real human lives.  Of course I don't always agree, and of course the Democratic Party is FAR from perfect.  However I can hold my head up straight and look anyone in the eye.  I can defend my ethics.  

I remember Paul Tsongas, and his wife Niki. 

[Tennesseer]

Jan 3, 2020 16:16:17 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jan 3, 2020 15:01:56 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

This, and other policies like it, is precisely why I AM a Dem.  Many years ago now I did some political soul searching.  As a small business owner and fiscal conservative I was out of step with many aspects of the Democratic Party, including at the time, unions.  However, there were so many other factors in legal, social and humanitarian issues that made the GOP abhorrent to me- and this was before trump!  

I found a home in the "Blue Dogs" camp at the time, and was an early supporter of Paul Tsongas, who no one remembers now I'm sure.  But I was able to find a like minded home in a party that valued inclusivity and human life- real human lives.  Of course I don't always agree, and of course the Democratic Party is FAR from perfect.  However I can hold my head up straight and look anyone in the eye.  I can defend my ethics.  

I remember Paul Tsongas, and his wife Niki. 

Me too. But then we are New Englanders.

[oped]

Jan 3, 2020 16:08:22 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

This will accelerate the "browning" of America. About half of the abortions are for mothers who are black or Hispanic. The number of minority births will go up 20-25%. If a significant amount of white women have the means to still obtain an abortion, maybe the white birth rate will come up 10% or something. As is the birth rate is about 50/50 white v non-white. Plus the older generations have a higher percentage of white people. So, 20 years of the elderly dying plus 20 years of even more disproportional birth rates....even if they cut immigration to zero (except Norwegians, who don't want to come here) whites will be just one of many minorities.

Fine by me, but seems like an unintended consequence that the GOP will have to deal with, as they currently have low support in non-white groups.

More consumers for their for profit prisons...

[happyhoix]

Jan 3, 2020 15:22:04 GMT -5 @x said:

Jan 2, 2020 23:47:13 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

American women with the means will do what they did before Roe.
Poor American women will also do what they did before Roe. The lucky ones won’t die.

No worst case hyperbole/scenario here.  (bolded)

Is it 1950 again ? 


It's 2020 this year.


Quote;  The morning-after pill (also known by the brand name Plan B), is emergency contraception that a woman takes to prevent pregnancy. It’s a form of birth control which is used after unprotected sex takes place. The traditional morning-after pill is effective if taken up to 5 days after having unprotected sex.

www.birthcontrol.com/options/morning-after-pill/

That pill costs about 20 - 40 bucks a pop, so not an issue for middle and upper class women, but once again, poor women bear the brunt. 

Since poor women are more likely to require society to step in and provide assistance to raise their kids you would think the GOP members would be standing on street corners handing out free condoms and free morning after pills. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Jan 3, 2020 19:02:04 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jan 3, 2020 15:22:04 GMT -5 @x said:

No worst case hyperbole/scenario here.  (bolded)

Is it 1950 again ? 


It's 2020 this year.


Quote;  The morning-after pill (also known by the brand name Plan B), is emergency contraception that a woman takes to prevent pregnancy. It’s a form of birth control which is used after unprotected sex takes place. The traditional morning-after pill is effective if taken up to 5 days after having unprotected sex.

www.birthcontrol.com/options/morning-after-pill/

That pill costs about 20 - 40 bucks a pop, so not an issue for middle and upper class women, but once again, poor women bear the brunt. 

Since poor women are more likely to require society to step in and provide assistance to raise their kids you would think the GOP members would be standing on street corners handing out free condoms and free morning after pills. 

You also have to be in an area where it you encounter a pharmacist that refuses to.fill it based on religious beliefs you can find one that will dispense it before your 72 hour window closes.

I think it being behind the counter is bull shit personally. It should be right next to the Tylenol.

[Gardening Grandma]

Jan 3, 2020 15:22:04 GMT -5 @x said:

Jan 2, 2020 23:47:13 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

American women with the means will do what they did before Roe.
Poor American women will also do what they did before Roe. The lucky ones won’t die.

No worst case hyperbole/scenario here.  (bolded)

Is it 1950 again ? 


It's 2020 this year.


Quote;  The morning-after pill (also known by the brand name Plan B), is emergency contraception that a woman takes to prevent pregnancy. It’s a form of birth control which is used after unprotected sex takes place. The traditional morning-after pill is effective if taken up to 5 days after having unprotected sex.

www.birthcontrol.com/options/morning-after-pill/

You need us a pharmacist who won’t  refuse to fill the prescription citing his religious objections.
Are you really that obtuse?

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-s-doctor-prescribed-morning-after-pill-pharmacists-refused-fill-n1101586

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5018646

[billisonboard]

Are you really that obtuse?

And we start the descent in the inferno.

[Gardening Grandma]

Jan 3, 2020 21:02:20 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Are you really that obtuse?

And we start the descent in the inferno.

An anti choice male posts a really ignorant statement. Five women  (as well as a couple of men) explain the realities to him.

Yes, I’d say he was being obtuse. It literally is a life or death issue for women of childbearing age and if he doesn’t understand that, maybe he should stfu.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2020 22:39:04 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

You saw that coming from a mile off. Good luck to all American women.

#redstateproblem

[tallguy]

Yes, but red state women deserve to have their rights respected too, even if their men don't think so.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2020 22:37:14 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Yes, but red state women deserve to have their rights respected too, even if their men don't think so.

yes, and they have my sympathies. truly.

I hope they get out and vote against Trump this Fall, because their reproductive rights clearly depend on it.

[tallguy]

I would unfortunately bet that a substantial percentage of them don't look at it like that.  They've probably had their kids already and don't care at all about other women's rights.

[justme]

Jan 3, 2020 22:47:10 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I would unfortunately bet that a substantial percentage of them don't look at it like that.  They've probably had their kids already and don't care at all about other women's rights.

It becomes a I would never have an abortion so I'm ok with you never having that option. Seriously several female relatives position. To the point of arguing "it'll be different if you ever get pregnant". Maybe, but maybe not and no woman should be shackled by another's choice.