Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions

Yeah! Pity there is not the same effort put in to save the living as there is to try and save those who may never be

 

Oh okay, so your posts means nothing then. Thanks for dismissing them for us.

 

Efforts like what? It is clearly criminalized, which is more than can be said for abortion.

 

What is “clearly criminalised”? Having a maternal mortality rate 10 times higher than those of other countries?

 

You seem to have trouble following the conversation.
You tried to make the claim, or insinuated, that Pro-Lifers were inconsistent and had their priorities wrong by focusing on protecting the fetuses in the womb rather than Black women who are being killed by their partners.
I was simply making the point it's not really inconsistent. Pro-Lifers want to protect fetuses by getting the killing of them to be illegal, whereas Black women being killed is already clearly and obviously illegal.
The point of comparison you were insinuating there was not a very good one or very strong.

 

Wow - you just pick and choose, followed by some sort of weird amalgam.

The issue is women's right to bodily autonomy.

You were presented clear evidence that your assault on women's bodily autonomy is NOT some sort of winning strategy, even when limited to your purpose of reducing the number of abortions. (You aren't simply trying to make it illegal, are you?)

In fact, "pro life" folks often claim as part of their argument that women can easily go somewhere else to get an abortion!!!

If you wanted to lower the abortion rates, you would go to VERY different sources.

For example, you might try solving some of the problems women face in this decision.

You might find agreement on methods of reducing abortion if those methods were oriented to solving the problems women face.

Maybe you should think about how Canada is so effective - even though they don't use laws against women's rights!

 

That is not a basis for fair argument. If you want to say the issue is right to bodily autonomy, okay, but to say the issue is just the right of women's bodily autonomy?

A few of them. That is not my argument.
(And I do find that mostly kind of a disingenuous argument)

I think you're changing the argument, but I'll bite. If you want to talk about reducing the problems women face, I'm open to discussing that, but I think there should be some sort of guarantee in place. So the conservative pro-life side is not just giving things to the other side without any sort of guarantee in place to make sure it will reduce abortions. Conservatives have already agreed to give the other side lots of things, like supplemental nutrition programs to pregnant women and children who grow up in poor households.

 

Women's rights of personal bodily autonomy aren't for sale.

The point is that it's at least possible that we could work together toward reasonable objectives.

How do you think Jesus would judge the notion that aid to the poor is a political payoff.

 

Did you know ice cream sales on the beach are often higher than there are more shark attacks.

When can we conclude ice cream causes shark attacks.

 

When a woman dies because available treatment was denied by law, that is clear causation.

 

Who dies because they couldn't abort their baby?

 

You can google the case in Texas where a woman carrying a dead fetus couldn't get an abortion. That is a life threatening situation.

There are many diseases where the treatment of the disease would be fatal to a fetus. Prosecutors determining whether the woman was sick enough to warrant treatment is a threat to the woman's LIFE.

Healthcare analysis by doctors always comes in the form of risk assessment. In court, a doctor may be confronted by a prosecutor who has found other doctors who declare that the risk wasn't high enough to justify such treatment. The upshot is that to protect their licenses, doctors HAVE TO avoid treatments that might possibly lose their license due to prosecution of laws that are (and will always be) vaguely written.

 

I'm not interested in one off sensationalized horror stories mostly device to manipulate people.

Bullshit. I don't believe this. I don't think any prosecutor in the right mind would attempt to prosecute someone who miscarried through some sort of treatment.

You might as well claim that prosecutors are going to lock up women for having miscarriages or still births.

This is reactionary codswallop.

I have a hard time believing that it gets to this point.

 

This isn't about miscarriages. If you treat a pregnant woman with chemotherapy, the fetus will die. It's abortion. In fact, the best practice is to remove the fetus before subjecting the woman to chemotherapy - for obvious reasons.

You can look up the example I gave you.

 

So that's how abortion is administered give the woman chemotherapy?

Why not just give them Mifepristone and misoprostol to block progesterone...

Oh wait yeah that's what an abortion is.

It's not when you get cancer treatment.

Do they do this with chemotherapy like you ridiculously suggested above or do they administer Mifepristone and misoprostol to block progesterone which is how most abortions are performed?

example of what?

 

Please go back and reread.

 

The law in all pro-life states says she can get abortion if it is needed to save her life. That's not really the issue.
The issue is that you are claiming, despite that, that women are still going to die because weren't allowed to get abortions in medical situations.

You still haven't named one example of what such a situation might be.

The law says an abortion can be done if it is needed to save her life, but you claim even with the law saying that, doctors will still be too afraid to perform abortions when it is needed to save her life.

You haven't really provided any explanation or elaborated on that.

 

That is clearly a ridiculous situation, and I assume the majority of pro-life activists would have no problem with a law that says the fetus can be taken out if it is already dead.

That should have no bearing on whether abortion of a living fetus should be allowed.

 

Why? Did I misunderstand something or if I did you'd be able to tell me.

Are you just telling me this because I don't buy the BS? Doesn't matter how many times I read it it'll always be BS

 

You mixed what I said somewhat. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

The problem is that prosecutors can challenge assessments made by doctors. And, laws made by legislatures can not be so clear that there isn't significant room for challenge. So in court, the prosecutor may offer the opinions of other doctors, rebutting claims that the abortion was medically important.

Beyond that, there can be disease that is short of being life threatening, such as leaving the woman unable to procreate (one example).

Another result is the damage to OB/GYN in a state that comes from driving education in that field to other states. Also, medical students need to select where to go for education. There are several angles to this problem and one can find much written about it as it is a hot topic in medical education:

For one example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/04/21/abortion-ban-states-obgyn-residency-applications/

 

No, it is NOT about "pro-life activists". They already did their damage.

It is about prosecutors vs doctors, requiring doctors to guess how prosecutors might interpret the law. The example I gave clearly pointed out that doctors have to guess what prosecutors might prosecute.

It's about Texas civil law on who you may sue to get the Texas $10K bounty.

 

Wow! Racism du jour!
Soooooo - you have proof that the main cause of maternal mortality is domestic violence?

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306375

 

Racism?
You're the one who only wants to compare the U.S. to other white countries.
How about to any nations in Africa?

 

It is interesting. Maternal mortality rates for Hispanic women in the U.S. are slightly lower than for White women, even though rates for Black women are almost three times as high.
This suggests that poverty is not such a big factor, or at least that there exists some other big factors that cancel out poverty.

My guess would be that Hispanic women in the U.S. tend to be more concentrated in big cities and so have better access to better equipped hospitals.

 

No. That is NOT the point here.

The point is that countries with essentially equivalent health care and standard of living do better than we do with maternal mortality.

That is evidence that our policies have defects.

And, I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that the problem has to do with domestic violence.