[RD] Abortion, once again

Not at the level of what Romania did under Ceaucescu, but getting there...

There are some interesting comments regarding Margaret Atwood and The Handmaid's Tale. I've been getting the impression that the Republicans have latched on to this novel as a how-to manual for oppression (which is one reason why it would be very dangerous for women and vulnerable minorities to move to an entirely cashless society, as it would be far too easy to freeze someone's bank account, depending on which boxes are ticked in their personal information).
 
I am not seeing any provision that would amount to "monitor all pregnant women". Am I missing something?
No. There's nothing about people's home addresses, or consenting to cell phone location monitoring or whatever, either.

I'm assuming that the main point of contention is that the bill wants to create a "pro life" website where individuals can give their phone and email and then get references about local pregnancy services. (I don't think that's the fed's business but whatever.)

This somehow gets translated into "pregnant women will get harassed"
As if someone in Washington has nothing better to do with their time other than call all these people back and say "you better not be thinking about getting an abortion! are you? Huh? HUH? you are, are you?! because I'll find you!"
*totally realistic scenario*
 
As if someone in Washington has nothing better to do with their time other than call all these people back and say "you better not be thinking about getting an abortion! are you? Huh? HUH? you are, are you?! because I'll find you!"
*totally realistic scenario*
My sweet summer child. :lol:
 

Scenes outside pharmacies could foreshadow next phase in U.S. abortion battle​

Prepare to see protests against pill abortions in post-Roe v. Wade era

We're about to witness a tangible example of what the coming generation of abortion battles might look like in a post-Roe v. Wade United States.

The scene: Local drugstores.

In the coming days and weeks, anti-abortion activists are set to protest across the U.S. outside dozens of pharmacies whose chains intend to sell abortion pills.

It's their attempt to recreate the familiar decades-long demonstration scenes outside abortion clinics, updated to a new target.

Different groups plan to stand outside, hold signs, chant and inform customers that their pharmacy will be distributing abortion medication.

A tandem of new realities explains this unusual protest setting: As red states race to prohibit abortion following a Supreme Court ruling in June 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade — a 1973 decision that enshrined the right to an abortion — pills have become the leading method of terminating pregnancies in the U.S.

And these pills, available online, shipped by mail and soon to be sold in participating pharmacies in pro-choice states, threaten to surmount these new restrictive walls.

'Roe was the pre-season to the real fight'​

Hence the muted sense of celebration this year at the annual anti-abortion march in Washington, D.C., the first since abortion restrictions took effect in two dozen states.

Participants described their battle as only just beginning.

"Roe was the pre-season to the real fight," activist Caroline Smith said in an interview at the annual March for Life rally on Jan. 22.

"Some people were like, 'Do we even need to march [this year], like, what's the point?' It is really, really important to still have this because we have to show people the fight is still going."

Smith works with an anti-abortion group whose members have been charged in Michigan and Washington with blocking clinics, including one confrontation where a nurse stumbled and sprained her ankle.

That latter case led to police seizing fetuses from the fridge of one group member, held as part of a purported plan to ensure burials for 115 fetuses.

Now anti-abortion activists are setting their sights on pharmacies.

The fight for Smith's group, Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, increasingly, involves the pills mifepristone and misoprostol.

Those products have become the leading source of abortions in the U.S., officially overtaking surgical abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration is now moving to simplify distribution of the pills: In states where abortion is legal, it's letting retail pharmacies carry the pills, and in other states, it's instructed the postal service not to halt shipments.

The anti-abortion movement, meanwhile, is suing the federal government to block the pills nationally, while also pushing states to ban online prescriptions.

A sustained pressure campaign is envisioned against major national pharmacy chains like CVS and Walgreens that have agreed to distribute the pills. It includes a boycott drive — and awkward scenes on sidewalks.

Demonstrations are planned in several cities on Feb. 4, at Walgreens' headquarters in suburban Chicago on Feb. 14 and at more pharmacies on March 4.

"If I was a manager of a CVS, I wouldn't want us [standing] outside," said Smith, who lives in Washington and will protest there. "That's the social pressure and the tension, and it has to continue until that happens."

In Smith's view, her movement faces the real threat that after investing decades in shutting clinics one by one, hundreds of pharmacies are sprouting up in their place to offer abortion pills.

Biden administration: 'We are fighting back'​

At a mournful event on Jan. 22 for the 50th anniversary of the now-defunct Roe v. Wade decision, U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris announced a new presidential order instructing federal agencies to seek additional ways to make the pills accessible.

Harris referred to the human impact of anti-abortion laws — like the 10-year-old girl in Ohio who was sexually assaulted and had to go to another state to get an abortion, leading to death threats against the provider.

Or the Texas woman who nearly died of sepsis because she was having a miscarriage and was refused in her first three attempts to get an emergency abortion.

Or the 14-year-old girl in Arizona with severe arthritis and osteoporosis who struggled to get critical treatment because her pills can cause pregnancy loss; her pharmacy feared being prosecuted.

Harris referred to new state anti-abortion laws as being designed by extremists. "Today we are fighting back," she said, as she announced Joe Biden's presidential order.

An irony of the pharmacy protests is that one of the groups involved, Smith's, would actually agree with progressive Democrats on some topics.

Her Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising describes itself as left-leaning; its members use the language of the left — they refer to an abortion "industrial complex" and to "Big Pharma" as preying on "pregnant people."

Sonja Morin, a graphic designer who works for that group and other anti-abortion organizations, said she'll be protesting near Boston.

She said protest tactics will need to adjust to some of the evident differences between a giant pharmacy outlet and an abortion clinic.

"It's obviously going to be trickier," Morin said.

"You're not going to be going up to someone and saying, 'Hey, are you picking a medication abortion today for your prescription?' Like, you don't do that," she said.

"We'll have signage, we'll have different things that say very blatantly, 'Keep abortion out of our pharmacies.'"

Major chains say they want to participate​

Morin said her goal is to start conversations as a way to inform passersby of recent developments: On Jan. 3, the Biden administration announced that abortion pills, previously distributed by medical providers and by some organizations online, would be available in popular retail pharmacies at the prescription counter.

Several major chains have said they'll apply to participate in the plan — albeit only in states where it's allowed by authorities.

Morin's colleague in the anti-abortion movement, Melanie Salazar, lives in Texas, a state where pharmacies won't dispense the pills.

Yet she'll be protesting, too, because some of the same pharmacy chains observing the laws in her anti-abortion state will still be selling those pills in other states.

People living in no-abortion states could get prescriptions filled in participating stores in other states; they can also order from overseas, even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended against doing this.

"We need to stand in unity," Salazar said. "We must protect life in all circumstances. And this includes speaking out and boycotting your local big pharmacy."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-abortion-pharmacies-protests-1.6726239
 
It's a publicly funded pro-life pregnancy center. The private versions of those are really problematic and trick a lot of people. Maybe making it 'government' will drive people to be cautious of them.
 
No. There's nothing about people's home addresses, or consenting to cell phone location monitoring or whatever, either.

I'm assuming that the main point of contention is that the bill wants to create a "pro life" website where individuals can give their phone and email and then get references about local pregnancy services. (I don't think that's the fed's business but whatever.)

This somehow gets translated into "pregnant women will get harassed"
As if someone in Washington has nothing better to do with their time other than call all these people back and say "you better not be thinking about getting an abortion! are you? Huh? HUH? you are, are you?! because I'll find you!"
*totally realistic scenario*
You'd be surprised at the ways people get harassed over health care. After my hospitalization for diabetes in 2019, I kept getting phone calls to do a "survey" to see if I'd "recommend" my local emergency department over other emergency departments, and the same sort of thing because I'd been admitted.

Trying to explain that Red Deer has only one emergency department and I didn't pick it from a catalogue before going there sailed over the questioner's head. So I told them their survey was stupid in a city with only one hospital and the nearest next one wasn't even in the same county, let alone same city.
 
It's a publicly funded pro-life pregnancy center. The private versions of those are really problematic and trick a lot of people. Maybe making it 'government' will drive people to be cautious of them.
the best case scenario for this is more government bloat. that's the best outcome, and supposedly something gop is against (they're not really though, nobody in gop actually has track record of anti-bloat).

also has non-zero risk for leaks, harassment, and/or unauthorized monitoring, with the 3rd being most likely by far since the government loves doing that and will overreach just to accomplish it in other contexts.

if they want to slap up a basic informational website that people who want can click through, they probably don't need a bill for it...those already exist. probably still get monitored though, by google and such.
 

Scenes outside pharmacies could foreshadow next phase in U.S. abortion battle​

Prepare to see protests against pill abortions in post-Roe v. Wade era

We're about to witness a tangible example of what the coming generation of abortion battles might look like in a post-Roe v. Wade United States.

The scene: Local drugstores.

In the coming days and weeks, anti-abortion activists are set to protest across the U.S. outside dozens of pharmacies whose chains intend to sell abortion pills.

It's their attempt to recreate the familiar decades-long demonstration scenes outside abortion clinics, updated to a new target.

Different groups plan to stand outside, hold signs, chant and inform customers that their pharmacy will be distributing abortion medication.

A tandem of new realities explains this unusual protest setting: As red states race to prohibit abortion following a Supreme Court ruling in June 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade — a 1973 decision that enshrined the right to an abortion — pills have become the leading method of terminating pregnancies in the U.S.

And these pills, available online, shipped by mail and soon to be sold in participating pharmacies in pro-choice states, threaten to surmount these new restrictive walls.

'Roe was the pre-season to the real fight'​

Hence the muted sense of celebration this year at the annual anti-abortion march in Washington, D.C., the first since abortion restrictions took effect in two dozen states.

Participants described their battle as only just beginning.

"Roe was the pre-season to the real fight," activist Caroline Smith said in an interview at the annual March for Life rally on Jan. 22.

"Some people were like, 'Do we even need to march [this year], like, what's the point?' It is really, really important to still have this because we have to show people the fight is still going."

Smith works with an anti-abortion group whose members have been charged in Michigan and Washington with blocking clinics, including one confrontation where a nurse stumbled and sprained her ankle.

That latter case led to police seizing fetuses from the fridge of one group member, held as part of a purported plan to ensure burials for 115 fetuses.

Now anti-abortion activists are setting their sights on pharmacies.

The fight for Smith's group, Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, increasingly, involves the pills mifepristone and misoprostol.

Those products have become the leading source of abortions in the U.S., officially overtaking surgical abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration is now moving to simplify distribution of the pills: In states where abortion is legal, it's letting retail pharmacies carry the pills, and in other states, it's instructed the postal service not to halt shipments.

The anti-abortion movement, meanwhile, is suing the federal government to block the pills nationally, while also pushing states to ban online prescriptions.

A sustained pressure campaign is envisioned against major national pharmacy chains like CVS and Walgreens that have agreed to distribute the pills. It includes a boycott drive — and awkward scenes on sidewalks.

Demonstrations are planned in several cities on Feb. 4, at Walgreens' headquarters in suburban Chicago on Feb. 14 and at more pharmacies on March 4.

"If I was a manager of a CVS, I wouldn't want us [standing] outside," said Smith, who lives in Washington and will protest there. "That's the social pressure and the tension, and it has to continue until that happens."

In Smith's view, her movement faces the real threat that after investing decades in shutting clinics one by one, hundreds of pharmacies are sprouting up in their place to offer abortion pills.

Biden administration: 'We are fighting back'​

At a mournful event on Jan. 22 for the 50th anniversary of the now-defunct Roe v. Wade decision, U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris announced a new presidential order instructing federal agencies to seek additional ways to make the pills accessible.

Harris referred to the human impact of anti-abortion laws — like the 10-year-old girl in Ohio who was sexually assaulted and had to go to another state to get an abortion, leading to death threats against the provider.

Or the Texas woman who nearly died of sepsis because she was having a miscarriage and was refused in her first three attempts to get an emergency abortion.

Or the 14-year-old girl in Arizona with severe arthritis and osteoporosis who struggled to get critical treatment because her pills can cause pregnancy loss; her pharmacy feared being prosecuted.

Harris referred to new state anti-abortion laws as being designed by extremists. "Today we are fighting back," she said, as she announced Joe Biden's presidential order.

An irony of the pharmacy protests is that one of the groups involved, Smith's, would actually agree with progressive Democrats on some topics.

Her Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising describes itself as left-leaning; its members use the language of the left — they refer to an abortion "industrial complex" and to "Big Pharma" as preying on "pregnant people."

Sonja Morin, a graphic designer who works for that group and other anti-abortion organizations, said she'll be protesting near Boston.

She said protest tactics will need to adjust to some of the evident differences between a giant pharmacy outlet and an abortion clinic.

"It's obviously going to be trickier," Morin said.

"You're not going to be going up to someone and saying, 'Hey, are you picking a medication abortion today for your prescription?' Like, you don't do that," she said.

"We'll have signage, we'll have different things that say very blatantly, 'Keep abortion out of our pharmacies.'"

Major chains say they want to participate​

Morin said her goal is to start conversations as a way to inform passersby of recent developments: On Jan. 3, the Biden administration announced that abortion pills, previously distributed by medical providers and by some organizations online, would be available in popular retail pharmacies at the prescription counter.

Several major chains have said they'll apply to participate in the plan — albeit only in states where it's allowed by authorities.

Morin's colleague in the anti-abortion movement, Melanie Salazar, lives in Texas, a state where pharmacies won't dispense the pills.

Yet she'll be protesting, too, because some of the same pharmacy chains observing the laws in her anti-abortion state will still be selling those pills in other states.

People living in no-abortion states could get prescriptions filled in participating stores in other states; they can also order from overseas, even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended against doing this.

"We need to stand in unity," Salazar said. "We must protect life in all circumstances. And this includes speaking out and boycotting your local big pharmacy."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-abortion-pharmacies-protests-1.6726239
Absolute psychos
 
Mammon's counterstroke.
 
I must say, being a man, I'm not 100% familiar with women's drugs; but I thought pills which (attempt to) prohibit a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall is not necessarily "terminating a pregnancy". Especially since it's more than possible that embryos might do that by themselves naturally anyway.
However, I would be concerned if they do, if somehow taken incorrectly, kill an implanted embryo. I don't know enough about that, however.
This is as far as I researched for now:

Medical abortion can be done using these medicines:
  • Oral mifepristone (Mifeprex) and oral misoprostol (Cytotec). This is the most common type of medical abortion. These medicines are usually taken within seven weeks of the first day of your last period.
    Mifepristone (mif-uh-PRIS-tone) blocks the hormone progesterone, causing the lining of the uterus to thin and preventing the embryo from staying implanted and growing. Misoprostol (my-so-PROS-tol), a different kind of medicine, causes the uterus to contract and expel the embryo through the vagina.
 
I've never understood the difference there.

One time I was driving through the desert, and my kid needed to get out, and then I closed the door after he got out and drove away so I wouldn't have to deal with him.

Later, different kid, we were driving through the same desert and I pushed him out at 60 miles an hour.

I don't equate an embryo with personhood, so whether it is a deliberate denial of uterine resources or an actual poison, it makes no difference to me so I don't care.

I guess it's similar to how essential medical devices are left with timers that turn themselves off if they're not reset. So, if they decide that a patient can die they just choose to not reset the machine rather than actually unplugging it.
 
I'm saying it's a moot point to try and assign some kind of legal right to something that's not viable. Obviously we would not fault a woman who with no malice birthed a dead baby by saying she was "negligent" in some form or another. (Or maybe some would, I don't know).

But generally I take the same view towards abortion that I do towards homicide: mostly against it yet sometimes it's justifiable. If a woman takes a pill which in effect prevents pregnancy to begin with, she can't be said to be terminating it and we can't in good conscience fault her for it.
 
I've never understood the difference there.
i don't either.

the only way it would be relevant is if the drug were also used for some other medical purpose, and the mother explicitly *doesn't* want to lose the fetus. that, or maybe a situation where it has different impact on mother/risks depending.

hmm...after checking, it apparently it does have some non-pregnancy related clinical applications, so yeah patient history is important here since you wouldn't want it to serve two purposes while only one was intended!

and apparently it's one of many things you shouldn't eat grapefruit around the time you take it.
 
I'm saying it's a moot point to try and assign some kind of legal right to something that's not viable. Obviously we would not fault a woman who with no malice birthed a dead baby by saying she was "negligent" in some form or another. (Or maybe some would, I don't know).

But generally I take the same view towards abortion that I do towards homicide: mostly against it yet sometimes it's justifiable. If a woman takes a pill which in effect prevents pregnancy to begin with, she can't be said to be terminating it and we can't in good conscience fault her for it.
A standard question asked of women is "are you pregnant, or could you be pregnant"?

This gets asked when discussing symptoms, whether or not to prescribe a new medication, for certain tests, or if you're having x-rays.

I've always answered no, and the aggravating times have happened when the male doctor asks in a condescending voice, "How do you know?"

Well, not having been intimate in the last 9 months or had IVF ever, should be a good indicator that the answer would be no, and since I live in this body and he doesn't, I'm right, and he's wrong.
 
Pickleball is easier on old knees, so I hear!
 
it apparently it does have some non-pregnancy related clinical applications
Another reason why these demented bans are bad, they hit a bunch of unrelated people with other needs for the particular medications. Potentially even to the extent of criminal suspicion, simply for obtaining healthcare.
 
Maybe... depends on the amount/nature of the damage, doesn't it?

In any case... the headline of the article certainly wasn't concerned with that currency... it was focused instead on making some clever/sarcastic and/or cognitive-dissonance-inducing point, by throwing the personhood issue in the face of law-and-order and pro-life conservatives.
I redirected this from the Crime and Punishment Thread
it's a good reason to consider the absurdity of putting legal personhood too early, even if the particular example is a little odd
Yes I think that was the real point of the headline, albeit possibly not the article itself.
fetus has no known meaningful change in experience from mother's location alone
I don't think this is correct. The external environment of the mother can have a non-negligible impact on the fetus. Even putting aside the secondary factors that are incidental to the mother's physical environment, ie., people in jail (or homeless, or in a warzone, impoverished area, highly polluted area, etc) are more likely to experience and/or engage in xyz, harmful to the fetus... simply increasing the mothers stress level, can have direct negative impacts on the development of the fetus. So the reality appears to be, that imprisoning a pregnant woman, unavoidably potentially harms the fetus, based on location alone, obviously absent any culpable conduct on the part of the fetus.
but does if mother needs medical care and doesn't receive it). early legal personhood creates a lot of directly useful to pro choice nonsense examples, but they're not picking the best one here.
The overall point seems, that every example is a good example of why fetal personhood is complicated, unworkable, impractical, and therefore difficult at best, to be enforced in any sort of consistent, logical way.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom