Lexicus
Deity
Can you not even conceive of the idea that moving has costs that not everyone can pay? People who can afford to just move if they have an unplanned pregnancy can probably afford to fly to Europe for the abortion anyway lol
Roe vs Wade overturned
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Can you not even conceive of the idea that moving has costs that not everyone can pay? People who can afford to just move if they have an unplanned pregnancy can probably afford to fly to Europe for the abortion anyway lol
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,993
that was one of 4 options listed
to a degree, yes. after backing authoritarian policy and deliberate erosion/ignoring charter of rights and freedoms wrt trucker convoy and similar measures, why the surprised pikachu face that you now find the country at risk of other authoritarian measures? canada said that the charter is just a piece of paper loudly and clearly very recently, and enough canadians seem to have accepted that. with that established...what makes canadians think they have rights the government doesn't feel like upholding in other contexts?
this is a logical progression for a country that disregards individual liberties the government supposedly upholds.
i do wonder how each government will define personhood though. any federal law in the usa would have to try to claim that it happens earlier than birth, and use that as the basis for abortion ban. i can't envision any other argument passing muster even with current scotus, but if scotus is convinced that fetus is a person deprived of life, all bets are off. let's hope it's not something unreasonable.
EnglishEdward
Deity
That may be what you fear, but it won't necessarily be so.
Do you think you will still think the problem is old people when you are old yourself ?
I am aware that there are costs to moving and can conceive of pro-choice people crowd funding poor people's travel etc. costs.
aelf
Ashen One
Every generation is different from the ones before.
Lexicus
Deity
This is kind of an insane idea, this is like saying a solution to slavery is the underground railroad
It's only a "logical" option if you have the money and support and help to do so. It's also only a "logical" option if jobs paying the equivalent or better than what you're currently making happen to grow on trees where you might be able to move.
There are so many who just stick their noses in the air and say "Just move", for a variety of reasons. I've been told to "just move" because of various issues that have come up and the person who says this is not unoften someone working in some social agency or medical setting who absolutely cannot wrap their minds around the reasons why I need the type of place I'm already in. I will not "just move" for someone else's convenience.
People who need medical services that should be available in any city should not have to "just move" because certain demographics can't just mind their own <censored> business.
One of those crazy misogynists just lost the UCP nomination in my riding (nominations are going on now all over the province because our next election is scheduled for May 2023). Considering who won, I guess it's good news. It's not great news, given that my current MLA is the Canadian version of Betsy De Vos, minus the wealth and guns. She's an anti-choicer who used to be on the Catholic school board and saw nothing wrong with busing high school kids to an anti-abortion rally in Edmonton as a "field trip." But at least she's not an anti-vaxxer who supported the "freedumb convoy". In fact, she jumped the vaccine queue by several weeks.
And here's something else: Canada cannot continue to be the ones who will just "always be there" for Americans who are constantly being victimized by their own government's rules and regulations. Yes, we've said we'll do abortions for women who can't get them in their own states and who live near the border. There's actually been reciprocity between the two countries where women have been closer to medical facilities in the other country than in their own. But this attitude that "why should we bother fixing our problems? People can just go to Canada" has to stop. FIX YOUR PROBLEMS! If it means voting strategically, rather than how you've always voted, do it.
It's not just abortions (please keep in mind that our health system here is actually NOT free; it's just paid for in a different way, with taxes and various insurance schemes - I wasn't covered for prescriptions for several months this year due to a glitch, and ended up having to ration my meds). I'm reminded of the "insulin caravans" that went across the border several years ago - busloads of people crossing the border, swarming the Canadian pharmacies, buying up 3-month supplies of insulin at Canadian prices, when Canadian diabetics are only allowed a 30-day supply. What's a Canadian diabetic supposed to do if they need insulin and are told, "Sorry, the busload of Americans that came through this morning just cleaned us out. You'll have to go somewhere else or wait." And some of those Americans who were on those buses freely admitted they weren't even diabetic - can you say "black market"?
There actually are people who can't conceive of moving costs that include much more than just paying the movers to pick stuff up and carry it from one place to another, assuming there's somewhere to carry it to at all.
The following quoted post makes this more than obvious:
Oh, so rather than fix an unconstitutional law (it would be unconstitutional in Canada, as it would stomp all over women's Charter rights in several ways), the victims should just expect sympathizers to do crowd-funding? And how fast do you suppose these states would make THAT illegal?
You. Just. Don't. Get. It. At. All.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,783
Every generation inherits a new set of circumstances. The people change barely at all, but for survivorship bias masking the greatest travesties.
EnglishEdward
Deity
You. Just. Don't. Get. It. At. All.
Consider managing in the current reality as it is,
rather than pining for what is no longer the legal reality:
(i) SCOTUS has ruled Roe v Wade invalid
(ii) Some US states have laws prohibiting abortion
(iii) Some woman in those states are pregnant now.
(iv) Some of those women definitely do not want a baby.
I identified four options:
(c) won't occur quickly enough for those women who are already pregnant.
I recommended (d), my recommendation being previously summarised in
a single word "Emigration".
Yet some posters here are annoyed about it.
It's your attitude and tone that annoys us. "Just move" is a slap in the face for those who can't, and "crowd fund for the poor people" is beyond condescending.
It's another form of "let them eat cake."
Because your recommendation isn't realistic beyond singular anecdotes that don't actually in any way address the core problem, or even mitigate it for the majority of people that will be affected. That's why it's laughable. Your apparent inability to understand why people find it so silly should tell you something, and yet.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Having an alternative suggestion ready to go isn't a requirement of criticising yours, sorry.
EnglishEdward
Deity
No, but it means that people are in moral outrage and
nit picking etc, rather than in problem managing mode.
nit picking etc, rather than in problem managing mode.
I have to stress that this is not an alternative to any political action that one may take to deal with the criminalisation of modern medicine that is happening in the US, but if one does need advice on what to do if one finds oneself in such a situation I shall repeat my links.
Spoiler Look after yourself :
Let's see. This thread has been going for 34 pages, and how many women have been posting in it? Not a lot. There aren't many women who even post in OT, and for a stretch of several years, I was the only regular (that we knew of at the time). I really dislike mansplaining.
I've had the experience on this forum of being told, "mind your own business" by male posters even in threads about women's issues.
Yes, I am morally outraged. Yes, I am ready to nitpick "solutions" that are only solutions to people who have the physical and financial ability to even think of applying them, never mind managing it.
If I had a solution to it, the problem would already be solved, because BOOM. I'd wave a hand and there would be adequate medical services where it's needed, and everyone - men and women - would STFU about medical decisions that are none of their business. The U.S. would have a form of government that actually makes sense, and the entire pack of sociopaths in my province would all get taken away by the Vogons so we could have a government that makes sense.
My life is not impacted in any way if my neighbor lady has an abortion. The only thing about her life that impacts me is when she and her boyfriend leave and their cat starts crying because it has separation anxiety.
@Samson: Or women could start doing what we used to do in the pre-internet age: keep a physical calendar. Not the one on the kitchen wall, of course - a private pocket calendar most women kept in their purses or night tables to keep track. It's completely private, and if you never show it to anyone or tell them where it is, nobody else ever knows (unless the thing you don't want to happen, happens).
EnglishEdward
Deity
I am certainly not telling you to mind your own business.
Being in the UK, I have no particular dog in this USA fight.
But my limited sympathy is more with the woman pregnant
now who doesn't want the baby in a US state where abortion
is illegal, rather than with the morally outraged posters here.
And thank you for pointing out the Canadian situation.
Being in the UK, I have no particular dog in this USA fight.
But my limited sympathy is more with the woman pregnant
now who doesn't want the baby in a US state where abortion
is illegal, rather than with the morally outraged posters here.
And thank you for pointing out the Canadian situation.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
"limited sympathy"
If you want to police nitpicking in CFC OT, you're going to be a very busy guy indeed.
Regardless, you don't have to have a solution ready to identify a problem. I'm sorry you don't seem to like that your suggestion is being critiqued, but people are going to critique it regardless. Doesn't even have to be over "moral outrage" (though as Valka pointed out, some have good reason to panic) or even "nitpicking". Your suggestion isn't good enough, and that's the long and short of it.
Kind of good news, as far as it goes: Judge blocks part of Idaho's abortion law from taking effect
The Biden administration on Wednesday scored its first legal victory since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, convincing a judge to block the portion of an Idaho law that criminalizes performing an abortion on a woman to protect her health.
The law, which was set to take effect on Thursday, bans abortions except in cases involving rape, incest or when a woman's life is in danger — and does not contain an exception for when a pregnant person's health is at risk. It would allow authorities to arrest a health-care professional involved in performing an abortion, putting the onus on that person to prove in court that the abortion met the criteria for one of the exceptions.
In a ruling late Wednesday, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill said the statute violates a federal act that requires hospitals participating in the federally funded Medicare program to provide medical care when a person's life or health is at stake. The "trigger" law was written by Idaho state lawmakers long before the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June, with the expectation that it would automatically go into effect soon after the court made that landmark ruling.
Idaho can still have a strict abortion law in place. But in issuing a preliminary injunction, Winmill ruled that a doctor cannot be punished if he or she performs an abortion to protect the health of a pregnant patient.
"It's not about the bygone constitutional right to an abortion," the judge's ruling states. "This Court is not grappling with that larger, more profound question. Rather, the Court is called upon to address a far more modest issue — whether Idaho's criminal abortion statute conflicts with a small but important corner of federal legislation. It does."
The ruling sets up a potential clash in the federal court system, with a Texas court ruling Tuesday that the federal statute in question does not require states to allow abortions in instances when it could protect a pregnant patient's health. With many states passing increasingly stringent abortion bans, legal experts expect the litigation over the health-exception issue to continue, potentially reaching the Supreme Court.
Extremely limited, by the look of it.
Similar threads
