I want to see women having the right to personal healthcare as determined by them and their doctor including when it involves their reproduction systems as well as the state of a fetus.
I don't see anything in the constitution that could be used to deny women the right to personal healthcare, including on all health issues. The idea that women have to win their bodily autonomy one state at a time is just plain unconscionable.
Not all questions are valid. In the case above, you attempted a false equivalency. The only valid response is to point that out.
Women and fetuses can contract health problems at any time - not just when a fetus is young. A fetus has to develop before some serious defects can be detected. And, reasonable treatment of those healthcare problems can require ending the pregnancy. For example, a fetus may not survive live saving radiation or chemotherapy the woman may need. There are many diseases where treatment could seriously damage a fetus. What we have today is a contest between prosecutors and doctors concerning what healthcare is legal under state laws, such as those in Texas and other states today. Plus, OB/GYNs have to steer well clear of the law as protection against possible aggressive prosecutors. So we get the case of the Texas doctor who refused to risk extraction of a fetus that was dead - which itself is a serious health problem for the woman.
The REALLY stupid part? The data proves women do have their abortions within that early timeframe - by an overwhelming majority- the few outside the 12 week framework are lack of access, maternal or foetal health with a very occasional instance where pregnancy was not recognised earlier (think young female in abusive situation). Do you think that a termination of pregnancy for maternal health should come under health care?
Except that you did not answer my question. See some texts consider “life” to be at conception whereas some consider it to be at implantation
But taxpayers can happily fund wars (that kill children) and cut taxes to fund entities to AID LIVE LIVING children like Welfare, WIC, school lunch programs....funny world , isn't it.
Okay, well, you solidify my point that pandering politicians need to get honest and mention what you did above, that most women receive abortions within the first 12 months. There is no reason to pander for abortions that go beyond, (except in rare cases). To answer your last question, only if the pregnancy becomes a dire threat to the woman's health should abortion be seen as maternal healthcare. In most all other circumstances the decision to have an abortion is elective so women should fund their abortions themselves. Women who fund their own abortions make a choice to terminate their pregnancies. Asking someone who is pro-life fund them is outrageous.
Hmmm, Mr. Tog seems to have deleted his last post and my response, then picked up his toys and went home..
But taxpayers can happily fund wars (that kill children) and cut taxes to fund entities to AID LIVE LIVING children like Welfare, WIC, school lunch programs....funny world , isn't it.
FoxHastings said: ↑ But taxpayers can happily fund wars (that kill children) and cut taxes to fund entities to AID LIVE LIVING children like Welfare, WIC, school lunch programs....funny world , isn't it. What an illogical reply....why do you not mind paying for wars but worry you'll have to pay for an abortion which of course you don't...that's just an Anti-Chocers talking point to rile those who can't figure it out for themselves... AND it's righties who hate taxes and want everything for free...
My apologies -- its Will's opinion. The Democrats in CA banned abortion on demand after viability - 20-24 weeks. Under his standard, they are guilty of a travesty and an assault on the healthcare of women.
Then who deleted the two posts? My response was reasonable. I won't speak for him, but those who agree with the law, like me, it is not a travesty or assault on women's healthcare but reasonable restrictions. Like there should be for 2A.
Beats me. And so, you disagree with his standard. Unlike abortion, the USSC holds the right to keep and bear arms is not subject to means-end scrutiny.
?? No, the SC removed support for women who need healthcare. They opened the way for states to be as harsh on women's health as they want to be. As it turns out, there are definitely a bunch of state legislatures that think they can get votes by screwing up healthcare for women.
