Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What exactly does late term abortion mean then?

Exactly! Link to the bill.

Link the bill, Xanax. You know, since you made the claim.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Exactly! Link to the bill.

Link the bill, Xanax. You know, since you made the claim.

- Doc

Ajax, as it was you who introduced the phrase "late abortion," you should at least define it. The gestational length of a normal pregnancy generally ranges between 38 and 42 weeks. So, when is an abortion a "late abortion?"

[canpakes]

.
Here’s a link to the bill -

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr37 ... 755pcs.pdf

Note pages 18 and 19, and these portions:

(a) GENERAL RULE.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:
…

(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

I don’t see anything here to support ajax’s claim that ‘late term abortions’, whatever that means, are allowed for any reason. The exclusion listed here are the same as currently exist for when the mother’s life is endangered. And there’s no exclusion for rape or incest after the point of viability.

[Res Ipsa]

.
Here’s a link to the bill -

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr37 ... 755pcs.pdf

Note pages 18 and 19, and these portions:

(a) GENERAL RULE.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:
…

(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

I don’t see anything here to support ajax’s claim that ‘late term abortions’, whatever that means, are allowed for any reason. The exclusion listed here are the same as currently exist for when the mother’s life is endangered. And there’s no exclusion for rape or incest after the point of viability.

And you won’t find anywhere except in the imaginations of people who swallow propaganda instead of taking the time to find out the facts. All this bill would do is enact the holding of Casey into federal law. Casey changed the trimester basis of Roe into a single point — viability. Before viability, the states cannot prohibit abortions or impose unduly burdensome requirements. After viability, the only limitation on the states’ power is when the life our health of the pregnant woman is at stake.

Viability is around 25 weeks. Around 99% of abortions are performed before 21 weeks.

[K Graham]

So basically Ajax doesn't know what he's talking anout. Again.

Shocker.

[ajax18]

The difference is we won’t be forcing poor women to have children they can’t afford.

Nobody is forcing poor women to have children they can't afford now. They still do, and in far more quantity that women of means. . The only real solution to overpopulation is economic growth. If women can't find good jobs, they're going to have more babies.

[canpakes]

The difference is we won’t be forcing poor women to have children they can’t afford.

Nobody is forcing poor women to have children they can't afford now. They still do, and in far more quantity that women of means. . The only real solution to overpopulation is economic growth. If women can't find good jobs, they're going to have more babies.

You mean to say that no-one is forcing poor women to become pregnant.

It’s quite a different matter to force a woman, once pregnant, to then wait 9 months to allow sperm and egg to develop and be birthed as a baby.

The difference is illustrated by this picture of cake -



Is it cake, yet?

[Res Ipsa]

The difference is we won’t be forcing poor women to have children they can’t afford.

Nobody is forcing poor women to have children they can't afford now. They still do, and in far more quantity that women of means. . The only real solution to overpopulation is economic growth. If women can't find good jobs, they're going to have more babies.

Actually, poor women are being forced to have children they can't afford. A number of states have concentrated on making access to abortion services difficult, if not impossible, in their states. Obstacles to accessibility affect the poor the most. Sure, some poor women undoubtedly choose to have a child or children they can't afford. But that doesn't mean that other poor women aren't forced to bear children against their will by obstacles placed in their way by state governments.

And expect that situation to increase in your state, as more poor women are forced to give birth.

[ajax18]

Actually, poor women are being forced to have children they can't afford. A number of states have concentrated on making access to abortion services difficult, if not impossible, in their states. Obstacles to accessibility affect the poor the most. Sure, some poor women undoubtedly choose to have a child or children they can't afford. But that doesn't mean that other poor women aren't forced to bear children against their will by obstacles placed in their way by state governments.

Birth control is plenty effective. The overwhelming majority of women get pregnant because they chose to not due to some pharmacological failure.

[Res Ipsa]

Actually, poor women are being forced to have children they can't afford. A number of states have concentrated on making access to abortion services difficult, if not impossible, in their states. Obstacles to accessibility affect the poor the most. Sure, some poor women undoubtedly choose to have a child or children they can't afford. But that doesn't mean that other poor women aren't forced to bear children against their will by obstacles placed in their way by state governments.

Birth control is plenty effective. The overwhelming majority of women get pregnant because they chose to not due to some pharmacological failure.

That doesn't respond at all to my point about women being forced to bear children against their will. A few years ago, a study found that 1/4 of women had an abortion before age 45. That's lots of women who chose not to give birth.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/f ... 017.304042