[RD] Abortion, once again

[Birdjaguar]

^^^ Exactly.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think this is correct.

It's absolutely incorrect and frankly comical that he spends all his time in abortion threads arguing that the relevant question is actually fetal personhood then just stuffing his fingers in his ears when the implications of assuming fetuses are persons come up.

 

[Farm Boy]

I redirected this from the Crime and Punishment Thread

Yes I think that was the real point of the headline, albeit possibly not the article itself.

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.

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.

It is not unreasonable, unworkable, or impractical to owe due prenatal care to incarcerated pregnant people's children.

But I'm guessing there are plenty who would object to seeing it done. Barbaric, but here we are.

If it takes the concept of fetal personhood to shed meaningful light on what is almost certainly a mass ongoing wrong(and has been for a long time) I think it takes a special type of person to stand and be counted in opposition.

 

[Lexicus]

But I'm guessing there are plenty who would object to seeing it done.

I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Farm Boy]

Didn't figure you for one.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It is not unreasonable, unworkable, or impractical to owe due prenatal care to incarcerated pregnant people's children.

But I'm guessing there are plenty who would object to seeing it done. Barbaric, but here we are.

If it takes the concept of fetal personhood to shed meaningful light on what is almost certainly a mass ongoing wrong(and has been for a long time) I think it takes a special type of person to stand and be counted in opposition.

Seems like you're conflating two different things. Fetal personhood is difficult... if pointing out the difficulty somehow makes people treat pregnant women better, great...

but as has been pointed out, that isn't generally the focus.. sarcastic quips and innuendo are way more fun currency to trade in...

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, of course you're right. It's complicated. But when we assess complicated wholes, we're still left with the whole units they produce.

In the conversation about the Amish that Hygro and I had about a week back, regarding their suicide rates, he of course is also right that if you put in adequate control factors they potentially have very high suicide rates, if we're to rate thier societies, because the exercise and diet is so good at bringing those down. But at a certain point, the way they live is so inextricably linked to thier quirky and inflexible social structure that those benefits would unlikely exist for many members of thier society if they dropped the social controls. They'd bleed into being like us. Especially with the ratios at which they're surrounded.

If we want things out of the temperaments of beasts, we must take the whole beast. Amputating parts of it changes how it works, not always in easily predictable ways. That's an introspection on the past couple years, really. Sort of surprised this whole edifice is still standing. It's had a lot of help. <looks around>

 

[Angst]

just gonna nod to a point of sommerswerd's: indeed, the development of the fetus heavily changes depending on a number of factors; we know these are plentiful, often individually subtle, but make a huge difference in the end, but we don't know much about the details yet. it's similar logic to epigenetics (but obviously not quite the same afaik) and similarly a prime field of research, obviously something that matters a lot, but we're not that far in understanding the different factors

 

[Arwon]

Hang on is this an argument about whether the bloated prison industrial complex in the US should be made to ensure pregnant prisoners (and everyone else) have proper healthcare

 

[Farm Boy]

Given we aren't all on board in this land with considering each other humans, I think the (and everyone else) is going to need to get in line.

 

[Arwon]

ok so apparently my new abortion opinion is the american carceral state is a racist human rights disaster (others are too the US one is just way bigger)

 

[Farm Boy]

I'll take it.

 

[Angst]

i might've missed something contextual in my answer to sommerswerd if we're talking prisoner maternal care

for the record, i think it's natural to have proper healthcare in prisons, as it is everywhere else

 

[Samson]

Democrat-led states challenge US over abortion pill restrictions

Twelve states, led by Washington and Oregon, have filed a lawsuit against the United States government over access to the abortion pill mifepristone.

The FDA has categorised mifepristone under its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) programme, a drug safety framework for “certain medications with serious safety concerns”.

The federal government “has imposed REMS for only 60 of the more than 20,000 FDA-approved prescription drug products marketed in the US”, the lawsuit alleges.

“These cover dangerous drugs such as fentanyl and other opioids, certain risky cancer drugs and high-dose sedatives used for patients with psychosis.”​

The FDA is a federal agency under executive control, right? So the president has absolute control over what they do? Does they mean that it is Biden that makes the ultimate decision as to if mifepristone is categorised under the REMS programme?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Those states want the restrictions loosened to make the drug more accessible. At the same time there is a GOP driven case in Texas to ban the drug nationwide to stop abortion by medication (50% of all abortions now are by medications). In the TX case, we are awaiting the decision. Due anytime.

 

[RobAnybody]

The FDA is a federal agency under executive control, right? So the president has absolute control over what they do? Does they mean that it is Biden that makes the ultimate decision as to if mifepristone is categorised under the REMS programme?

While the head of the FDA is a position appointed by the President (& approved by the Senate), I'm not a fan of any President overruling their decisions (that goes for most government agencies - the EPA, the Dept of Health & Human Services, etc.) though. We saw how badly that can go under Trump who would "shop around" for heads who just agreed with his politically-motivated decisions. This is not meant as a comment on this particular issue, just a general statement that while, yes, Biden could probably engineer a response he desired from the FDA, I don't view doing so as A Good Thing. The President should ideally appoint capable heads of these agencies & then not interfere with what the experts decide.

 

[Samson]

While the head of the FDA is a position appointed by the President (& approved by the Senate), I'm not a fan of any President overruling their decisions (that goes for most government agencies - the EPA, the Dept of Health & Human Services, etc.) though. We saw how badly that can go under Trump who would "shop around" for heads who just agreed with his politically-motivated decisions. This is not meant as a comment on this particular issue, just a general statement that while, yes, Biden could probably engineer a response he desired from the FDA, I don't view doing so as A Good Thing. The President should ideally appoint capable heads of these agencies & then not interfere with what the experts decide.

I agree with much of what you say. However when most of politics is just inching the needle of the overton window one way or another, if the "goodies" only do things the way things should be done, and the "baddies" do things the way that pushes the needle most effectively then the goodies will lose.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

many laws are apparently difficult to enforce with logical consistency. we observe this all the time, even in cases where it shouldn't be hard. this is usually a failure of the system or individuals deliberately undermining it, sometimes both.

fetal personhood is legit (at some point we still can't agree on as a society), and so is going after the police in this case for their failure to provide basic accommodations to the fetus if you accept it as a premise. i would argue that denial of medical care for two people rather than one is the legally sound/arguably morally correct way to handle this particular case even. detaining the fetus not so much. especially if there is legit suspicion of the mother committing serious crimes, one might make a reasonable case that her previous environment isn't safer. that is, if the police were doing their job wrt people in custody that would be true. same for prison conditions in general.

 

[Lexicus]

While the head of the FDA is a position appointed by the President (& approved by the Senate), I'm not a fan of any President overruling their decisions (that goes for most government agencies - the EPA, the Dept of Health & Human Services, etc.) though. We saw how badly that can go under Trump who would "shop around" for heads who just agreed with his politically-motivated decisions. This is not meant as a comment on this particular issue, just a general statement that while, yes, Biden could probably engineer a response he desired from the FDA, I don't view doing so as A Good Thing. The President should ideally appoint capable heads of these agencies & then not interfere with what the experts decide.

Disagree completely, the people are sovereign, not the "experts."

 

[Samson]

Texas wants to criminalise the information about abortion

A proposed Texas state law would make it a criminal offense for internet service providers (ISPs) to provide access to websites that sell abortion pills or provide information about the procedure.

The bill, introduced by Republican Steve Toth, a member of the state House of Representatives, would require ISPs in Texas to "make every reasonable and technologically feasible effort to block internet access to information or material intended to assist or facilitate efforts to obtain an elective abortion or an abortion-inducing drug."

Since overturning Roe v. Wade last June, anti-abortion groups and lawmakers have pursued several other avenues that attempt to limit access to, and online information about, pregnancy termination. In at least one case, law enforcement has subpoenaed this type of private information to prosecute a woman who ended her pregnancy. And data privacy advocates EFF has warned that "service providers can expect a raft of subpoenas and warrants seeking user data that could be employed to prosecute abortion seekers, providers, and helpers."

In response, some tech companies that collect massive amounts of data have promised to limit or delete information that could be used to prosecute women seeking abortions and doctors providing the services.

Google last year pledged to update its location history system so that visits to medical clinics and similarly sensitive places are automatically deleted. That hasn't stopped the ad giant slinging ads for fake pregnancy centers however.

"This is a sweeping proposal that calls for network-level filtering of people's access to information online," Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told The Register. "It violates people's rights to access information and to keep their communications private."

Toth's bill specifically names six websites that ISPs must block: aidaccess.org, heyjane.co, plancpills.org, mychoix.co, justthepill.com, and carafem.org.

Additionally, it would ban service providers from allowing access to any websites or services operated by "an abortion provider or abortion fund," along with those "designed to assist or facilitate" women seeking an abortion. The use of "facilitates" is troubling because it can be interpreted so broadly, Llansó said.

"This could include a broad range of informational resources, such as the Wikipedia page on medication abortion, and potentially any site or services that allows two users to interact and exchange information," she said.

"A website operator or online service provider is not going to know which of the hundreds, thousands, or millions of communications on their service are related to facilitating access to abortion medication. This is a recipe for intensive surveillance of people's communications and widespread censorship of information about reproductive healthcare."

In case the earlier section wasn't broad enough, the proposal also requires ISPs to ban access to any "Internet website, platform, or other interactive computer service that allows or enables those who provide or aid or abet elective abortions, or those who manufacture, mail, distribute, transport, or provide abortion-inducing drugs, to collect money, digital currency, resources, or any other thing of value."

And finally, it targets any individual that puts up a website to "assist or facilitate" anyone seeking access to abortion pills. Although abortion is still legal in some US states, it notes that the law would apply to "the use of an abortion-inducing drug by a resident of this state, regardless of where the use of the drug occurs."