Roe v. Wade.

[LightBright]

In the first 16 months of Roe vs Wade turned over to the states, the state of Texas alone had 26,000 women who have been forced to carry a pregnancy to term by rape. That is just ONE state with these evil abortion laws. All women need body autonomy.

I agree 100%. I do not believe Womens Health should be based on which state they live in. New Mexico, right next door to Texas, is never going to let the same thing happen. Culture should not determine fundamental bodily autonomy rights.

 

[LightBright]

It's possible that all contraception may become illegal with the twisted logic being it prevents personhood. Fetuses gained personhood in the EO re: trans people (bolding is mine):

“‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” the order reads in part. “‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”

Pro-abortion activists have warned about this for a long time. The EO gives a clump of cells the same equal rights as the born and categorizes anyone getting an abortion as a murderer. When a clump of cells and the person carrying it have the same rights, what impact will it have on women who need an abortion to save their lives? Will doctors performing medically necessary abortions be pro forma charged with murder and then have to sort it out in court?

Ohhhh. Huh. Good point about the slippery slope. They added “at conception” for no factual reason at all. However, I think the SC would have to approve that definition. And states are already challenging laws that give personhood to embryos for example: “HB1174 in Arkansas
Introduced in January 2023, this bill would have defined "person" to include an unborn child from fertilization until birth. It would have also allowed prosecution for intentionally causing the death of an unborn child. The bill failed in May 2023. “. The good news is that it failed even in conservative Arkansas.

I really hope we can get this straightened out at the federal level soon. But not looking good AT ALL.

 

[LightBright]

"

Increasing access ​

Historically, obtaining abortion pills has been hard. Now, a pilot program launched by Uplift International, an advocate for global health and human rights, in collaboration with online pharmacy Honeybee Health, aims to expand access to abortion care by allowing pharmacists to directly prescribe abortion medication to patients in Washington state. Called the Pharmacist Abortion Access Project (PAAP), the pilot program is the first of its kind in the US. The hope is that other states will follow. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, constitutional protections for abortions that had been in place since 1973 were repealed. Since then, a dozen states have banned abortions and others have sharply restricted the procedure. This created financial and psychological burdens for patients. “Attacks on access to abortion care have created an urgent medical, public health, and human rights crisis in the United States,” says Beth Rivin, president and chief executive officer of Uplift International and managing director of PAAP. Abortion is legal in Washington up to the point of fetal viability. But Rivin says some people in rural areas and those struggling financially can still find it hard to access reproductive health care. Washington’s pharmacists have long been recognized as health-care providers. In the PAAP pilot program, 10 pharmacists were trained to prescribe the standard, FDA-approved medications used for early abortion care to patients: misoprostol and mifepristone. By the end of the program, 43 people were prescribed abortion medication through Honeybee Health. The program doesn’t mean every pharmacist in Washington will start prescribing abortion pills. But there is interest in similar programs elsewhere. A 2023 survey of more than 900 pharmacy students and pharmacists in California found that, if allowed by law, 75% would be willing to prescribe abortion medication. “Uplift International has created a model,” Rivin said. “We encourage leaders in states that have already made progress in advancing abortion access to get in touch with us.” — Antonia Mufarech " Uplift International – Pioneering Solutions in Health and Human Rights The Right To Health We educate and advocate for the right to health, including increased access, affordability and nondiscrimination. Good health goes beyond healthcare. The Human Right to Family Planning (HR2FP) We tackle the global health challenge that puts 25 million women at upliftinternational.org

​

In addition to this, I hope women’s rights groups can make “Plan B” accessible in every drugstore across America, as a on-demand non-prescription item, at the guidance of the pharmacist. Like it is in California.

I’m less comfortable with easy access to RU486 (but I fully support it and we absolutely need it) because I think women should be taught the basics of fertility and given info regularly in culture, to know how to prioritize preventing pregnancy, rather than waiting until after it happens. Prevention starts with awareness of biological processes, as a first line of defense.

 

[Calliecake]

I too am trying to wrap my head around this @Lookinagain. Wouldn’t states rights have the final decision in Women’s Reproductive rights the way laws stand now? I was certain the state I live in and other states, made sure Women’s Reproductive Rights would be protected after the Supreme Court reversed Roe and made the decision to send it back to the states.

The wording of EO this week gave me pause. Please correct me if I’m wrong but Fetus personhood had to be entered deliberately to try to give the fetus the same rights as the woman carrying the fetus. Does the wording open the door to have the states decision reserved? Wouldn’t there have to be changes to the constitution for this to happen?

@Matata and @Lookinagain , I know you are both far more knowledgeable than I am. Am I missing something? I’m not trying to cause a PS war or debate. I don’t want to break any rules here. I’m just trying to understand what happened this week.

 

[LightBright]

I too am trying to wrap my head around this @Lookinagain. Wouldn’t states rights have the final decision in Women’s Reproductive rights the way laws stand now? I was certain the state I live in and other states, made sure Women’s Reproductive Rights would be protected after the Supreme Court reversed Roe and made the decision to send it back to the states.

The wording of EO this week gave me pause. Please correct me if I’m wrong but Fetus personhood had to be entered deliberately to try to give the fetus the same rights as the woman carrying the fetus. Does the wording open the door to have the states decision reserved? Wouldn’t there have to be changes to the constitution for this to happen?

@Matata and @Lookinagain , I know you are both far more knowledgeable than I am. Am I missing something? I’m not trying to cause a PS war or debate. I don’t want to break any rules here. I’m just trying to understand what happened this week.

The wording of that EO, which Matata quoted, was in reference to when a person gains their sex status, which is at conception.

I think that has to be said. Sex status is not conferred first at birth or at any other time after conception. It’s based on permanent encoding in sex chromosomes and secondarily, the EO says, in reproductive gametes. I’m not sure why they had to add that, but it further describes sex chromosomes.

But the EO wording seems to assert personhood at conception also, by adding the word “person” (see Matata’s bolded).

An Executive Order is not a valid authority to determine personhood. Will wait for experts.

 

[Calliecake]

Thank you Light Bright!

 

[Calliecake]

i feel like this reporter is trying to make an issue where there isnt one
this was never an election issue
it was never an issue here

No change to abortion laws, new Health Minister Simeon Brown promises

Simeon Brown's opposition to abortion as been on the public record for years, having led a pro-life group at university and voted reform in 2020.

www.rnz.co.nz

It shouldn’t be an issue @Daisys and Diamonds. I hope it doesn’t become one in your country.

 

[Lookinagain]

I too am trying to wrap my head around this @Lookinagain. Wouldn’t states rights have the final decision in Women’s Reproductive rights the way laws stand now? I was certain the state I live in and other states, made sure Women’s Reproductive Rights would be protected after the Supreme Court reversed Roe and made the decision to send it back to the states.

The wording of EO this week gave me pause. Please correct me if I’m wrong but Fetus personhood had to be entered deliberately to try to give the fetus the same rights as the woman carrying the fetus. Does the wording open the door to have the states decision reserved? Wouldn’t there have to be changes to the constitution for this to happen?

@Matata and @Lookinagain , I know you are both far more knowledgeable than I am. Am I missing something? I’m not trying to cause a PS war or debate. I don’t want to break any rules here. I’m just trying to understand what happened this week.

I really haven't sorted out in my mind yet. I think I would have to go back and re-read the decision overturning Roe and then see how that might intersect with the EO. Roe was based on the 14th Amendment, which I don't think (have to also check) defines personhood in any way. So there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle and I'm not a Constitutional law expert. And of course, no matter what we, or the actual experts think, it's what SCOTUS thinks that really matters. So far, the EO hasn't been used to stop abortion on a national level, so we may not really know anything until it is, and then the challenge brought, and SCOTUS speaks. I'm hoping no one tries to use the EO that way, but it seems to be an open door for that. However, that would fly in the face of SCOTUS who put abortion back with the states. Seems that an EO couldn't undo that, although a federal law could, I would think. And then that would of course be challenged so back to SCOTUS. As you can tell, my mind is going in circles thinking about these issues. Sorry.

 

[Matata]

An Executive Order is not a valid authority to determine personhood.

Correct. It would take a Constitutional amendment to confer equal rights to a clump of cells. It would definitely complicate states' abortion laws as it doesn't seem defensible to permit each state to choose when one became a person. Huge can of worms imo.

The EO is also scientifically incorrect. "During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female. After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that result in the development of the testes"(NIH.gov). This shoots a hole in the claim that we have only two sexes and that biological sex cannot be changed. Females can turn into males in utero = all males are trans making the purpose of the EO unsupportable

 

[Lookinagain]

After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that result in the development of the testes"(NIH.gov). This shoots a hole in the claim that we have only two sexes and that biological sex cannot be changed. Females can turn into males in utero = all males are trans making the purpose of the EO unsupportable

My daughter and I were just discussing this. Seems that whomever wrote the EO needs a science lesson.

 

[ShinyPink]

The only chuckle I got this week was the "now everyone is female" debacle. Otherwise, I'm just plain old super angry and I keep having imaginary conversations with people, telling them "You don't support abortion? Don't get one."

 

[Matata]

The only chuckle I got this week was the "now everyone is female" debacle. Otherwise, I'm just plain old super angry and I keep having imaginary conversations with people, telling them "You don't support abortion? Don't get one."

Emotionally charged topics are difficult to discuss. My opinion is that too much time is spent arguing about when life begins because it is not, imo, the central issue which is that health and medical care is private and between the patient and doctor. When we intrude on the privacy of others we might learn that they do things within the bounds of the law that we don't like or approve and the solution to that is to mind our own business.

 

[missy]

2 new studies provide broadest evidence to date of unequal impacts of abortion bans​

Published February 17, 2025
MD Linx
"

2 new studies provide broadest evidence to date of unequal impacts of abortion bans​

Published February 17, 2025 | Originally published on Newswise: Children's Health


Texas imposed what was then the country’s most stringent abortion ban on September 1, 2021. Additional states have enacted abortion bans since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its landmark Dobbs decision in June 2022. The researchers limited their analysis to the first 14 states that imposed a complete or six-week abortion ban to allow enough time for outcomes and impacts to emerge.



The findings, published online February 13 in JAMA, reveal unequal impacts of abortion bans across and within the 14 states and among subgroups—most of which already experience worse maternal and child health outcomes.



Among the 14 states with abortion bans, the researchers found higher-than-expected live births among racially minoritized individuals (non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and “other” races and ethnicities); those without a college degree; Medicaid beneficiaries; unmarried individuals; younger individuals; and those living in Southern states.



The researchers estimate that, among the 14 states with abortion bans, Black infants died at a rate 11% higher than would have been expected in the absence of bans. There were larger increases in infant mortality in Southern states—both overall and among Black infants.



These analyses are believed to be the first to examine abortion-ban impacts across and within states and subgroups since the Dobbs decision in June 2022.



The researchers used publicly available birth and death certificate data from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and statistical modeling to estimate outcomes had states not enacted abortion bans.



The researchers then examined live births and infant deaths in 14 states that imposed a complete or six-week abortion ban between September 1, 2021, and August 25, 2022: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. All states but Idaho, Missouri, South Dakota, and Wisconsin are considered Southern states.



The researchers note that the timing of outcomes and impacts periods do not fully align given the staggered adoption of the abortion laws. In Texas, the impact period begins in 2022, while in the other states, it starts in early 2023.



Impacts of Abortion Bans on Live Births



For this analysis, the researchers drew from birth certificate and U.S. Census data from 2012 through 2023 for all 50 states and the District of Columbia changes in fertility rates—measured as live births per 1,000 females aged 15-44—by state and subgroup after abortion bans went into effect in 14 U.S. states.



The researchers estimate that the fertility rate in states with abortion bans was 1.7% higher than expected, with 60.55 live births per 1,000 reproductive-aged females versus the 59.54 expected, resulting in an estimated 22,180 births above expectation had the bans not been enacted. Excluding Texas, which imposed an abortion ban nearly a year earlier, there were 6,019 additional births above expectation across the 13 states with bans, equivalent to a 0.8% increase.



The fertility rate was higher than expected in the 14 states with abortion bans for the following groups:







Additionally, the impact in Southern states was approximately two times higher than in non-Southern states.



“These findings indicate that many pregnant people were unable to overcome barriers to access abortion services and instead were forced to continue an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy to term,” says Suzanne Bell, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the Bloomberg School’s Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health and the study’s co-lead author. “Importantly, we find the effects of these abortion bans are not uniformly felt, with the largest estimated impacts on fertility among populations experiencing the greatest structural disadvantages and in states with among the worst maternal and child health outcomes.”



Across states, estimated changes in fertility rates above expectation ranged from 0.3% to 2.3%, or 0.16 to 1.41 additional births per 1,000 reproductive-aged females, with the largest estimated changes in Texas (2.3%), Kentucky (1.4%), and Mississippi (1.4%). Patterns in subgroup changes were largely consistent across states.



Impacts of Abortion Bans on Infant Deaths



Infant mortality in the U.S. has generally been declining in recent decades, with 5.6 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 2022 versus 6.9 infant deaths in 2000.



In their new analysis, the researchers estimate that infant deaths were 5.6% higher than they would have been in the 14 states with abortion bans had the bans not been enacted, resulting in an estimated 478 additional deaths. Most of these–384–were in Texas, which enacted an abortion ban nearly a year ahead of other states.



Additional key findings in the 14 states with bans show:







“These findings suggest that restrictive abortion policies may be reversing decades of progress in reducing infant deaths in the U.S.,” says Alison Gemmill, PhD, associate professor in the Bloomberg School’s Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health and the infant-death study’s co-lead author. “The data also show a clear pattern of abortion bans disproportionately affecting regions and populations already struggling with poor health outcomes, including Black infants and infants born in the South.”



The current study’s Texas-specific estimate is in line with a 2023 study led by Gemmill. The new analysis suggests that states that banned abortion following the 2022 Dobbs decision experienced a smaller increase in infant deaths than Texas did following its 2021 state ban.



Taken together, the two studies highlight the unequal impacts of abortion bans across states and subgroups. The authors urge policymakers to consider the downstream health consequences of abortion bans, especially among disadvantaged populations.



The authors note that the studies have limitations. States without abortion bans may have been impacted by policy changes, which could have influenced the findings. Some of the state-specific subgroups may have been too small to detect potential effects, especially infant deaths. The researchers estimated infant deaths in instances where data were incomplete.



Both studies were supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD042854 and R01HD114292) and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (U54MD000214).



“U.S. Abortion Bans and Fertility” was written by Suzanne Bell (co-first author), Alexander Franks (co-first author), David Arbour, Selena Anjur-Dietrich, Elizabeth Stuart, Eli Ben-Michael, Avi Feller (co-senior author), and Alison Gemmill (co-senior author).



"

 

[Matata]

If these studies were grant funded, they may be the last we see.

Southern states generally receive more in federal aid than they pay into the system. Federal funding cuts resulting from the efficiency policies currently being enacted will further cut social services and will worsen the public health and educational deficiencies of southern states.

These outcomes aren't a surprise.

History repeats.