And? It's still an issue about the woman's health and/or the health of the offspring. This includes any potential health risks that they would could go through. The presence or lack of STD's don't figure in on the decision, at least in and of itself. But overall, STD's don't affect abortions and abortions don't affect STD's. Health and health risks are pretty much all abortions are based on. Third trimester abortions are a minority, regardless of condition.
That's not what he was responding to with that post. Not saying that he didn't make that overall statement or intent. Just not with that post that you quoted.
Hmmmm the stats are different with the slightly different question instead of “married” the question should be “in a stable relationship”
change doesn't happen at the snap of the fingers. Have the voter in those states actually done anything?
The California constitution protects the rights to abortion and contraception. It guarantees women the right to an abortion before the fetus is viable, or when it's necessary to protect the woman's health or life. So, what women are being left to die by CA?
The maternal mortality rate in North Dakota, for instance, is 8.7, while in California it is 10.1 The maternal mortality rate in Missouri is 32, while it is 76.8 in New Mexico. Missouri is restrictive on abortion, while New Mexico has almost no restrictions whatsoever. Idaho and Montana have similar maternal mortality statistics, even though Idaho is moderately restrictive while Montana is moderately pro-abortion. If we ignore the Deep South region (the areas with a high African American population), there is not too much of a correlation.
I am pretty sure most people don't want to endanger the life of a woman. This discussion is really about a corporation making money off the misfortune of others. STDs are nasty in they often result in infertility, so yes they don't factor in to abortion statistics. I also don't think that saying murder is rare, so we should just legalize it is the answer.
The the states and their citizens should do something about it. The Constitution gives them the power to do so.
Lols! Have you compared those rate to elsewhere in the developed world? If I were you I would NOT be highlighting ANY MMR rates anywhere in the US. Do you know what Australia’s MMR rate is https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240400/maternal-mortality-rates-worldwide-by-country/ 2 not 20 but 2. Want to explain to me why the USa’s MMR is so freaking high? But let’s look at the whole picture and not cherry pick - firstly - where are your stats on morbidity not just mortality? Second how about a complete comparison of all states not just those that are “convenient”. Plus MMR is multi factorial https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...nal-mortality-crisis-international-comparison
Research mate there is a ton of research QUOTE] In June, the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, changing America’s health care landscape. This triggered new and existing legislation in states seeking to restrict abortion, which will deepen already-existing inequities among states in terms of access to abortion, maternal health, and reproductive health services. These new laws will have a disproportionate impact on low-income women and women of color as a result of factors including an increased likelihood of being uninsured and decreased likelihood of having jobs with adequate wages or employer-based coverage. In this post, we examine how reproductive health care in the United States compares with care in other high-income countries to draw lessons for how U.S. policymakers could work to improve women’s health. [/QUOTE] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/bl...erican-women-impacts-health-economic-security abortion is not the only factor https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...nal-mortality-crisis-international-comparison Our rural and remote centres have the same issue but fortunately RFDS have midwives on board. (Royal Flying Doctor Service) [
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10728320/ https://read.dukeupress.edu/demogra...Pregnancy-Related-Mortality-Impact-of-a-Total
Maternal Mortality Ratio. The campaigns for ending abortion ignore the damage to women's healthcare. Because of the risk of prosecution and difference of belief, OB/GYNs are in short supply in many areas where there are laws that threaten both doctors and patients with poorly worded law that prosecutors are free to interpret. This needs to be a rights issue - the right of personal bodily autonomy. Patients are explicitly involved in courses of treatment for all other cases involving treatment. It's not rare for the majority to fail to support rights. We see that every day.
What's your point - If what the links say isn't worth quoting in the post what possible reason would I have to follow them.
the numbers for complete abolishment is a small minority according to most polls. And how are YOU supporting rights? Laws can change if people work to change them. What have you done?
Once again, places like TN have few OB/GYNs. The number at risk is more than just the number that need (or want) an abortion. Also, I don't always accept the idea that if a new law only kills a few, then so what.
My post that she quoted is the point. With abortion referred back to the states it's up to them to create the programs and laws THEY want. Make not mistake this is not a finger-snap chore, but poles show broad acceptance of some form of abortion laws; everything from an "Abortions 'r' US" on every corner to much more restrictive terms such as non-viability, rape, incest, health of the mother, etc.
Look it is simple but multi factorial and the essence relies on “when is too sick sick enough for a medical practitioner to risk their registration? This question is not unique to America. We saw it here in Australia esp QLD in the case Bayliss v QLD health https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/7387/1995_S0176_Bayliss_28_04_1997.pdf. Where Bayliss was running an abortion clinic but was actually protected by the “freedom of information act” where it was found that the police could NOT access private health records of women ergo they could not prove that the abortion was not performed “for the life and health of the mother”. In effect tossing the law out. This was also the essence of RvW privacy of medical information. The reason for the abortion was solely between a woman and her doctor. Ireland as more complex because performing an abortion could lose an MD his/her licence until Savita Halappanavar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar That one case caused an outrage in Ireland and the law was overturned Previously Irish women had been crossing to England where although abortion is technically still illegal however https://www.bpas.org/our-cause/campaigns/briefings/abortion-law-in-great-britain/ peripartum depression is very very real and life threatening The biggest issue is that you do not know what it is driving the woman to choose abortion
