• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Women Losing Access to Abortion as Opponents Gain Ground in State Legislatures

5,983
Posts
15
Years
A three-year surge in anti-abortion measures in more than half the states has altered the landscape for abortion access, with supporters and opponents agreeing that the new restrictions are shutting some clinics, threatening others and making it far more difficult in many regions to obtain the procedure.

On Monday, in a clash that is likely to reach the Supreme Court, a federal appeals court in New Orleans will hear arguments on a Texas requirement that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals — a measure that caused one-third of the state's abortion clinics to close, at least temporarily.

Advocates for abortion rights, taking heart from recent signs in Virginia and New Mexico that proposals for strong or intrusive controls may alienate voters, hope to help unseat some Republican governors this year as well as shore up the Democratic majority in the United States Senate.

Anti-abortion groups aim to consolidate their position in dozens of states and to push the Senate to support a proposal adopted by the Republican-controlled House for a nationwide ban on most abortions at 20 weeks after conception.

"I think we are at a potential turning point-- either access to abortion will be dramatically restricted in the coming year or perhaps the pushback will begin," said Suzanne Goldberg, director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia University.

The anti-abortion groups, for their part, feel emboldened by new tactics that they say have wide public appeal even as they push the edges of Supreme Court guidelines, including costly clinic regulations and bans on late abortions.

"I'm very encouraged," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. "We've been gaining ground in recent years with laws that are a stronger challenge to Roe."

"I think it is more difficult to get an abortion in the country today," she said.

The new laws range from the seemingly petty to the profound. South Dakota said that weekends and holidays could not count as part of the existing 72-hour waiting period, meaning that in some circumstances women could be forced to wait six days between their first clinic visit and an abortion.

Laws passed last year by Arkansas and North Dakota to ban abortions early in pregnancy, once a fetal heartbeat was detected, were hailed by some as landmarks if quickly rejected by federal courts. But bans on abortion at 20 weeks, also an apparent violation of constitutional doctrine, remain in force in nine states.

In Roe and later decisions, the Supreme Court said that women have a right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb — at about 24 weeks of pregnancy with current technology — and that any state regulations must not place an "undue burden" on that right.

In 2013 alone, 22 states adopted 70 different restrictions, including late-abortion bans, doctor and clinic regulations, limits on medication abortions and bans on insurance coverage, according to a new report by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

Anti-abortion legislation in the states exploded after the major conservative gains in the 2010 elections, the report said, resulting in more than 200 measures in 30 states over the last three years.

Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group, has a similar count, describing the flood of new laws as "life-affirming legislation designed to protect women from the harms inherent in abortion."

Twenty-four states have barred abortion coverage by the new health exchanges and nine of them forbid private insurance plans, as well, from covering most abortions.

A dozen states have barred most abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy, based on a theory of fetal pain that has been rejected by major medical groups. Such laws violate the viability threshold and have been struck down in three states, but proponents hope the Supreme Court will be open to a new standard.

A partial test is expected this month, when the Supreme Court announces whether it will hear Arizona's appeal to reinstate its 20-week ban, which was overturned by federal courts.

While some states have increased access to abortions, it seems that many others have actually increased restrictions to abortions - states across America are diverging when it comes to abortion policy.

Your thoughts on abortion and its future in the United States?

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/u...round-in-state-legislatures.html?ref=politics
 

Silais

That useless reptile
297
Posts
10
Years
  • Seen Jul 17, 2016
I've said this in a few other topics, but I think abortion clinics should be available in all states to all women. I am hoping that, like gay marriage and marijuana, abortion will eventually become an accepted part of human society and become unrestricted or less restricted. Healthcare is unimaginably important, especially for women.

The restrictions placed on frightened women seeking abortions is not only despicable but, in my opinion, inhumane. It takes a lot of thought and emotional turmoil to make the decision to have an abortion. Perhaps if we offered contraceptives more readily to women...oh, but wait, contraceptives are the devil's work. So no contraceptives, no abortions...are we returning to the dark ages? It certainly seems so.
 

Ultramarine

Turn the tables
148
Posts
10
Years
I'm very very uneducated on this topic, but I'll just give my two cents.

I think abortion is wrong, because it's basically allowing someone to kill someone. This "someone" may not be fully developed, but they're still human, are they not?

Of course, there's the argument that the mother might be too young or be unable to take care of the baby.
First, if you're to young to have a baby, don't freaking have sex. It's that simple. There's always the problem of rape, but that's not where 100% of abortions stem from. As for the second problem, about the woman/girl being unprepared to take care of the baby. Take a page from Juno, find parents that will. Isn't it worth the work to know you saved a life?

These are just my views, but I am not a female and I have not researched this topic, so please excuse my ignorance.
 

mayuyu

Fairy Queen
39
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Mar 22, 2014
I'm personally against it (as in, I would never have an abortion, but more for fear of the operation than anything else). This is how I choose to believe based on experiences in my life, but I respect that everyone has been through different experiences, and thus would think differently. So I'm all for women having a choice on the matter. Forcing anyone to do anything with their body that they don't want to do is completely wrong. Having control of one's body and what one does with it is a basic human right; the government telling an individual what to do with their body is the biggest invasion of privacy I can think of.
 

Silais

That useless reptile
297
Posts
10
Years
  • Seen Jul 17, 2016
I'm very very uneducated on this topic, but I'll just give my two cents.

I think abortion is wrong, because it's basically allowing someone to kill someone. This "someone" may not be fully developed, but they're still human, are they not?

Of course, there's the argument that the mother might be too young or be unable to take care of the baby.
First, if you're to young to have a baby, don't freaking have sex. It's that simple. There's always the problem of rape, but that's not where 100% of abortions stem from. As for the second problem, about the woman/girl being unprepared to take care of the baby. Take a page from Juno, find parents that will. Isn't it worth the work to know you saved a life?

These are just my views, but I am not a female and I have not researched this topic, so please excuse my ignorance.

Telling a woman not to have sex is like telling her not to eat, drink, or sleep. Sex is a natural process in human development and it's not only impossible but irresponsible to think that telling someone not to have sex so that they will not get pregnant will actually work to solve the problem. People WILL have sex, regardless of how many times they're told they shouldn't. It's the same with drunk drivers; no matter how many billboards we put up showing crushed cars and bloodied bodies, no matter how many signs we put up at crash sites saying "Why die?", no matter how many people are interviewed on late night television, drunk drivers will still exist.

Why? Because there are vast proportions of Americans who are uneducated and unaware. It is not necessarily their fault; a lot of women seeking abortions are poor and live disenfranchised lives, meaning that their education on sexual health and pregnancy is relatively low due to their economic status. People of color are also more likely to have abortions, especially black Americans. Read Code of the Street by Elijah Anderson; it chronicles the lives of poor blacks in disenfranchised neighborhoods and explains why a lot of black women become pregnant at young ages. It's fascinating to know just how economic status affects these sorts of problems.

To me, a fetus is NOT a life until it can exist without the mother's care. Meaning that if the baby cannot develop without the mother's body, it is part of her, and not its own being. A baby become "autonomous" around 24 weeks, and at that point I do not believe abortions are as acceptable. However, I DO believe abortions should be provided to all women, regardless of their situations.

If we provided contraceptives or made them more readily available, unplanned pregnancies would decrease. But we don't. Why? Because there are plenty of Americans who believe contraceptives to be wrong, and those in power aim to keep it that way. When we allow our population to grow ignorant and unaware of the truth, we create problems like these.

We should not punish these frightened women by telling them they're evil for "killing" an unborn child, we should not forcefully tell them that they will regret it. They will already regret it. It's such a difficult decision to have an abortion. For many women, it can take up to 6 days before they are able to have an abortion even after visiting their clinic.

Many people are bound and determined to force women to go through with unplanned pregnancies, but seem to care very little, if at all, for the child after it is born. A lot of anti-abortion activists seem to forget that after the child is born, it has to grow up. These children will oftentimes grow up poor and uneducated and have little opportunity to pull themselves up out of poverty. Many will become criminals. Many will become ill, with no viable access to healthcare. But as long as we're saving a life, it's okay, right? No. It isn't. Look at the big picture. Do you believe it is fair, or right, to force a woman to give birth to a child that may suffer its entire life? To me, I do not believe it is fair, nor is it right.

But that's just me.
 

Ultramarine

Turn the tables
148
Posts
10
Years
Wow, I didn't know people these days were so...promiscuous...yeesh.

Everyone I know has self-control.

Well then, I won't say anything more on the topic, haha.
 

Silais

That useless reptile
297
Posts
10
Years
  • Seen Jul 17, 2016
Wow, I didn't know people these days were so...promiscuous...yeesh.

Everyone I know has self-control.

Well then, I won't say anything more on the topic, haha.

It isn't necessarily promiscuity. As I said before, it's a lack of education and contraceptive care, a divide in economic freedom, and a culture built upon values that developed as a result of these aspects. Yes, there are cases of promiscuous women becoming pregnant and seeking abortions, but this sliver of the population of actual women who seek abortions is dramatically overblown. It all depends on the living situation, upbringing, and economic stability. Rarely is only one of these responsible for the abortion itself; it is a myriad of factors. Do we have a right to judge someone based on these factors? Personally, I do not think so. We come from all walks of life. We all experience different things in our time on earth. Who are we to tell someone they are evil for taking actions that could very well save their life or their financial future?
 

Ultramarine

Turn the tables
148
Posts
10
Years
True, but would finding another family to have the baby solve the financial problem, as well as give a baby to a family that can't have it? Though I suppose the pain of giving birth and for younger women the social aspect (school) would definitely be accounted for..
 

Silais

That useless reptile
297
Posts
10
Years
  • Seen Jul 17, 2016
True, but would finding another family to have the baby solve the financial problem, as well as give a baby to a family that can't have it? Though I suppose the pain of giving birth and for younger women the social aspect (school) would definitely be accounted for..

In the United States, adoption is not a viable option. Adoptions can cost thousands of dollars and take months or even years before the potential family can be cleared. Most of these children will stay in the system until they become adults, and not for the better. They will have little they can rely upon to get them through the adult world. To me, it's quite cruel to put a child up for adoption. You never know what may happen to them in their lives. They may be abused by their adoptive family, they may never be adopted, they may suffer from mental and emotional disorders as a result of abandonment, etc. etc. Sure, there are cases of adoption that go well, but with so many children in the system as it is, it's not really a viable or logical option.
 

Phantom1

[css-div="font-size: 12px; font-variant: small-cap
1,182
Posts
12
Years
In the United States, adoption is not a viable option. Adoptions can cost thousands of dollars and take months or even years before the potential family can be cleared. Most of these children will stay in the system until they become adults, and not for the better. They will have little they can rely upon to get them through the adult world. To me, it's quite cruel to put a child up for adoption. You never know what may happen to them in their lives. They may be abused by their adoptive family, they may never be adopted, they may suffer from mental and emotional disorders as a result of abandonment, etc. etc. Sure, there are cases of adoption that go well, but with so many children in the system as it is, it's not really a viable or logical option.

This.

A lot of people throw the 'just adoption' card.

Adoption is a long and expensive process. And the amount that actually end up adopted is low. Most will end up stuck in the system forever, sent from foster family to foster family.

As cruel as it sounds, just as Silais said earlier, until the fetus can sustain itself, it is not it's own life. In fact, until then, it's a part of the mother.

Now, should everyone be having abortions like they were on sale? No. Abortions are not a quick appointment. Most are very painful and can put the mother out of commision for days, in some cases weeks. As well as the emotional stress that comes along with it. (Save for the Plan B steps, those are more like to knock you out a bit for few days, and are sort of like getting the flu)

(I'm pro choice)
 

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
Telling a woman not to have sex is like telling her not to eat, drink, or sleep.
That's stretching it a little. While sexual intercourse is an important act in regard to our existence as a species, it does not fall under the category of "individual survival".

Why? Because there are vast proportions of Americans who are uneducated and unaware.
Wouldn't you think the wealthy would have sex just as much as the poor regardless of their upbringing, because of the emotions experienced and connections made in the process?

It is not necessarily their fault; a lot of women seeking abortions are poor and live disenfranchised lives, meaning that their education on sexual health and pregnancy is relatively low due to their economic status.
Sometimes wealthy women seek abortions out of ignorance as well (it's possible, too).

People of color are also more likely to have abortions, especially black Americans. Read Code of the Street by Elijah Anderson; it chronicles the lives of poor blacks in disenfranchised neighborhoods and explains why a lot of black women become pregnant at young ages.
While I will admit that African-Americans are at a disadvantage in regard to general economics, I don't think that their rate of abortions is proportionate simply to their economic status.

To me, a fetus is NOT a life until it can exist without the mother's care. Meaning that if the baby cannot develop without the mother's body, it is part of her, and not its own being. A baby become "autonomous" around 24 weeks, and at that point I do not believe abortions are as acceptable.
Inventions such as the Day-After pill seem to be a lot more common and socially acceptable nowadays compared to surgical abortions, don't you think?

However, I DO believe abortions should be provided to all women, regardless of their situations.
I'll agree with you in the fact that it's simply not our choice.

If we provided contraceptives or made them more readily available, unplanned pregnancies would decrease. But we don't. Why? Because there are plenty of Americans who believe contraceptives to be wrong, and those in power aim to keep it that way. When we allow our population to grow ignorant and unaware of the truth, we create problems like these.
I don't think the powers that be are necessarily trying to maliciously control us; rather, I believe negligent issues like this—issues that shouldn't even be a question—still exist merely for their amusement.

Many people are bound and determined to force women to go through with unplanned pregnancies, but seem to care very little, if at all, for the child after it is born. A lot of anti-abortion activists seem to forget that after the child is born, it has to grow up. These children will oftentimes grow up poor and uneducated and have little opportunity to pull themselves up out of poverty. Many will become criminals. Many will become ill, with no viable access to healthcare. But as long as we're saving a life, it's okay, right? No. It isn't. Look at the big picture. Do you believe it is fair, or right, to force a woman to give birth to a child that may suffer its entire life? To me, I do not believe it is fair, nor is it right.
Carlin the Man will explain everything. ;)
 

Star-Lord

withdrawl .
715
Posts
15
Years
I think it's disgusting that a country like The United States who have made criticisms to facets of Middle-Eastern culture and how they treat women (among other things) would deprive women the right of bodily autonomy.

There is no other legal situation where someone has to give up control of their body to another person and abortion should not be the exception.
 
15
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 34
  • Seen Dec 24, 2020
You know, this is one subject that hits my nerves easily, so I'll do my best not to be rude...

Unborn children are still children, and killing children is unexcusable. If the brain has not yet been significantly developed, you could still argue that it's not yet a living thing (I personally think that's wrong too, but I can see perfectly how one could think otherwise), but after that, it's a freaking children. Otherwise, the only (barely) excusable motive anyone could have for aborting would be if it endangers the mother's life, although it's a bit strange to me that, with all that 21st Century tech we still have mothers dying while birthing.

It makes no sense that so many people believe fetuses are an "extension of a woman's body" and are therefore not alive just because it depends on the mother's body to keep growing. If that were true, one could say a newborn baby is just a... thing until the umbilical cord is cut.
 

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon
3,416
Posts
15
Years
I think that abortion clinics should be available to all women because of two reasons. One, you can't always just "avoid a pregnancy", it's literally a part of the body that a woman cannot control, so in many cases you're bringing an unwanted child into the world into a family that probably can't, won't, or doesn't want to take care of them. Second, women will still get abortions other ways for that reason and those ways can hurt the mother.

I'm sorry but our culture obsesses way too much over the baby and seems to love giving the woman 0 rights over her body. Yes, there's a life in there. But honestly, would you want to be born into a place where you were a "mistake" but nobody could get rid of you? I mean, I know that sounds horrible but that's the truth of some of these situations. If I got pregnant I would have an abortion not because I hate kids or anything but because I know I wouldn't be able to care for that child and that I wouldn't want him or her to suffer.

What I'm against with abortions is using pre natal testing to find certain disorders/diseases that are vague and the causes aren't well understood, such as autism or other neurological conditions. Not everything's an on-off switch and it isn't a barrier to success in most cases, and the need for this stems from an inherit fear of people not understanding the condition itself. Also, you should not be getting an abortion in most situations past your first trimester, unless there's a serious complication that threatens the life of the mother.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
I'm not sure if the argument could be made that restrictions on abortions amount to a loss of control over somebody's body. It comes across as rhetorical. If you think about it, it isn't something we ever had to "control" in the first place - abortions are only made safe by modern medicine, it's a losing a perk of civilization, not "control".

If you look at "control" as being, hey this is my body and I can do whatever I want with it, it seems to be a dangerous way of thinking. To me, the starting point should be the protection of life - not of the "woman's" life, or a first-world privileged life, but life. This is an issue of threshold and ymmv, but when you look at it that way, restricting abortions but for cases like rape and serious injury wouldn't be so arbitrary - it's not about restricting abortions /except for/ certain cases, more like using abortion as a tool to protect and only protect life.

It's also highly arbitrary how some people decide when or when not life begins. Everything is life. Even a single sex cell is life. To say that oh an embryo isn't life but a three month fetus is, to say that this brain isn't developed enough to be considered life but that one is, it's rhetorical and fallacious. Life is more complicated than that and we're not doing ourselves a favour by drawing lines in the sand. Let's face it, life is sacrosanct - that's why we /want/ to describe a fetus as "not-life", to place it not among bacteria but viruses, to make it easier to shed the emotional connections we have to life. The question of life and abortion is too complex to simplify it as life/not-life - and we shouldn't arbitrarily disregard complexity for the sake of making decisions easier.

It's definitely a debate worth having, and I'm not sure where my own position lies completely, but while we always address the shortcomings of the pro-life position, we never really talk about the rhetoric and fallacies of the pro-choice side.
 

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon
3,416
Posts
15
Years
What I meant over control was whether or not a woman can control becoming pregnant or not. She can't and anyone who says that is an idiot who is justifying rape. The only way she can is if she takes countermeasures beforehand or abstains from sex. Anything about "oh she can reject the baby" is nonsense. You misunderstood what I meant though so that's cool.
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
You know, this is one subject that hits my nerves easily, so I'll do my best not to be rude...

Unborn children are still children, and killing children is unexcusable. If the brain has not yet been significantly developed, you could still argue that it's not yet a living thing (I personally think that's wrong too, but I can see perfectly how one could think otherwise), but after that, it's a freaking children. Otherwise, the only (barely) excusable motive anyone could have for aborting would be if it endangers the mother's life, although it's a bit strange to me that, with all that 21st Century tech we still have mothers dying while birthing.

It makes no sense that so many people believe fetuses are an "extension of a woman's body" and are therefore not alive just because it depends on the mother's body to keep growing. If that were true, one could say a newborn baby is just a... thing until the umbilical cord is cut.

You're ignoring the biology there. Abortions usually take place between before 20-24 weeks because the fetus becomes viable after that time. It can be considered a "child" after that. Not before.

And to be technical, in biological terms, a fetus is essentially a parasite, totally dependant on the host. If something goes wrong, or if the mother seems the pregnancy unwanted, for any reason, then it's the mother's call, hopefully with careful and logical imput from her, medical professionals, and the potential father. It is nobody else's decision.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Perhaps that's why they've gone to adding restriction on abortions - it sends the message that there is not a blanket ban on abortions, but instead framing it as acceptable, but only appropriate in certain situations. In this way the law can be used to guide behaviour without too many perverse incentives, with an example of that being driving the practice underground. I think there's a subtle but significant difference between "abortion is not okay" and "abortion is okay, but only appropriate when..." It comes across as rational, more agreeable to the masses, and a middle ground between conservatives and liberals.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top