US Abortion Support Groups Put On More Public Face

[adrina]

source

For years, such organizations kept a low profile to avoid being targeted by abortion opponents. But now, as abortion foes have succeeded in shrinking access, advocates are working harder to grow grassroots support and taking a more public stance. The anti-abortion movement won a victory with the election of President Donald Trump, who has promised to appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision protecting a woman's right to abortion. Critics of the decision say states should decide.

Kentucky is a flashpoint in the national debate. The state had 17 abortion providers in 1978 but one today. It could become the first U.S. state without any clinics this fall, when a court will determine whether its anti-abortion Republican governor wins a licensing fight. Anti-abortion protesters will converge on Louisville starting Saturday ahead of a week of demonstrations. Some have vowed to broadcast footage of abortions on an 8-by-16-foot "Pro-Life JumboTron" screen. In response, a judge has ordered a temporary buffer zone around the state's only abortion clinic.

Kentucky is not alone. There are six other states - seven total - with only a single abortion clinic.

In the first half of 2017 alone, 41 laws restricting abortion access were enacted. From 1991 to 2014, we have lost over 30% of our abortion providers nationwide. From just over 2400 to just under 1500. The population is growing, the need for clinics are growing but they are being legislated out of existence by zealots that need to control the lives and morality of women.

Advocates say poor and rural women are hurt most by such laws. The biggest impact is in the South and Midwest, where the number of abortion providers has dwindled. Nearly half of the 40 clinics in Texas closed after laws enacted in 2013. Only a few have reopened since last year's court ruling.

"When we started two years ago, a lawyer told us to make sure your mission is kind of vague, don't use the A-word," said Maia Elkana, who started Missouri's Gateway Women's Access Fund several years ago. "We're a lot more out there now."

Good. There's not a damn thing wrong with abortion. People need to get the hell over it. And don't give me one bit about the taxpayers dime: Hyde Amendment.

Birth control and abortion services are an investment into society. This vilification is ridiculous and hysterical. This isn't about morality or safety for women or even taxpayer money. It's about these anti-abortion fanatics that seek to impose their will upon women.

 

[AnAmericanDarling]

I agree completely. And I really don't think Trump will be able to overturn Roe v. Wade completely - he just doesn't have that much power to do that. The American people wouldn't allow it. Abortions need to be made legal, period. And it doesn't matter if there are one facility in the state or fourteen - women will find ways to get legal abortions. He doesn't know what it's going to take.

 

[Disgustipated]

Almost half of the abortions I have performed have been of the legal variety.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c4/02/31/c40231867bdcb105fbbfb813edca82fb--photo-shelf-never-again.jpg

 

[Hypoxia]

Almost half of the abortions I have performed have been of the legal variety.

Have you worked on yourself? Did you get a permit first? Hey, I can see a viable compromise -- abortion permits, just so many issued per person (all genders) per lifetime, scaled on one's social status. Some society babe or stud gets more permits than the usual welfare scut or asshole, etc. Once you've used up your permits it's either keep on breeding or get sterilized.

We could also legalize post-partum abortions, up to age 55. Which adults would you like to see aborted now?

 

[hsnh]

While I'm definitely pro- choice, I don't understand one thing:

Why should the tax payer pay for other people's mistakes aka failure to use contraception?
Shouldn't some private charity fund those who can't afford it, instead?

 

[adrina]

Catch up H. They don't. Hyde Amendment. On a federal level, no tax dollars pay for abortion.

On a state level, if the state has elected to, there may be some provision for public funding. But that is on a state by state basis.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

While I'm definitely pro- choice, I don't understand one thing:

Why should the tax payer pay for other people's mistakes aka failure to use contraception?
Shouldn't some private charity fund those who can't afford it?

Why do you appear to assume that the need or desire for an abortion is necessarily the result of "mistakes"?

 

[adrina]

Why do you appear to assume that the need or desire for an abortion is necessarily the result of "mistakes"?

Because abortion is dealt with in a punitive manner.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

Because abortion is dealt with in a punitive manner.

Hsnh is such a hateful twit.

 

[adrina]

Hsnh is such a hateful twit.

To be fair, H is not alone in that mindset.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

To be fair, H is not alone in that mindset.

The RWCJ is full up on it.

 

[adrina]

The RWCJ is full up on it.

Yes. And even some that are moderate and consider themselves pro-choice. It's like a begrudging pro-choice.

 

[hsnh]

Hsnh is such a hateful twit.

To be fair, H is not alone in that mindset.

No I'm not. YOU guys are applying a binary thinking here.
Because as I said, I 'm definitely pro- choice, and I cringe when I read about those who are trying to make the procedure ilegal.


But as to the financial part:

Many tax payers have reservations regarding it's ethics, since they view the fetus as a living organism as opposed to being merely "a thing, a collection of matter".

Because of that, while I would condemn them if they opposed the legality of the procedure, I can certainly understand why they would feel uneasy about Financing, as tax payers, the procedure. It's another ethical angle.

 

[oggbashan]

My Ethics mean Profits

In the UK people can buy the 'morning after contraceptive' medicine over the counter at a pharmacist.

Boots, the UK's largest chain of pharmacists, refused to lower the price of the 'morning after contraceptive' despite competitors dropping their prices significantly for generic drugs. Apparently the founders of Boots had religious convictions that would be compromised. They didn't mind selling it - they just wanted to charge four times the price.

A massive online campaign with a threat to encourage people, any people, to boycott Boots stores if they didn't change their policy, led to Boots reducing the price to match competitors.

Although some groups objected to Boots change of policy, they were a very small minority compared with the campaigners wanting Boots to offer the medicine at a competitive price.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

No I'm not. YOU guys are applying a binary thinking here.

Still not too great at this whole "thinking" thing, eh?

 

[hsnh]

In the UK people can buy the 'morning after contraceptive' medicine over the counter at a pharmacist.

Boots, the UK's largest chain of pharmacists, refused to lower the price of the 'morning after contraceptive' despite competitors dropping their prices significantly for generic drugs. Apparently the founders of Boots had religious convictions that would be compromised. They didn't mind selling it - they just wanted to charge four times the price.

A massive online campaign with a threat to encourage people, any people, to boycott Boots stores if they didn't change their policy, led to Boots reducing the price to match competitors.

Although some groups objected to Boots change of policy, they were a very small minority compared with the campaigners wanting Boots to offer the medicine at a competitive price.

This is a clearly black and white issue.
Because in this case, we're clearly talking about a couple of cells as opposed to a living organism (the foetus).

The ethical reasoning in this case is weak and it's more about religious fanaticism.

 

[hsnh]

Why do you appear to assume that it's necessarily the result of "mistakes"?

There are, of course those unfortunate cases of failed contraception, or of rape.

But statistically speaking, most cases are due to lack of or improper use of contraception.

 

[MGurkus]

No I'm not. YOU guys are applying a binary thinking here.
Because as I said, I 'm definitely pro- choice, and I cringe when I read about those who are trying to make the procedure ilegal.


But as to the financial part:

Many tax payers have reservations regarding it's ethics, since they view the fetus as a living organism as opposed to being merely "a thing, a collection of matter".

Because of that, while I would condemn them if they opposed the legality of the procedure, I can certainly understand why they would feel uneasy about Financing, as tax payers, the procedure. It's another ethical angle.

It's like you don't read what people say. How did you become so stupid? Are pakistani schools really that bad?

 

[adrina]

For the record:

In the US, absolutely no federal tax dollars go to abortion. Again, no federal tax dollars fund abortion.

In the US, 52-58% of women who sought abortions were using BC. (In the UK, that figure is 2/3rds). The statistical reality of a large population ensures there will be a large number of abortions.

Why they happen isn't the concern of anyone involved except the pregnant woman and her doctor. The moral judgment regarding abortion is part of the punitive mindset. Abortion is not a moral issue. It is a medical issue. If it is a moral issue, whose morality do we apply to it? The pope's? The president's? The state legislature's? Westboro Church? Whose morality gets to rule everyone else?

 

[hsnh]

It's like you don't read what people say. How did you become so stupid? Are pakistani schools really that bad?

No, RobDownSouth.

You two started by distorting my comments. I simply brought things back to the points that I intended to make.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

It's like you don't read what people say. How did you become so stupid? Are pakistani schools really that bad?

Maybe he expends all his mental energy figuring out how to lay shit bricks.

 

[JinSun]

For the record:

In the US, absolutely no federal tax dollars go to abortion. Again, no federal tax dollars fund abortion.

In the US, 52-58% of women who sought abortions were using BC. (In the UK, that figure is 2/3rds). The statistical reality of a large population ensures there will be a large number of abortions.

Why they happen isn't the concern of anyone involved except the pregnant woman and her doctor. The moral judgment regarding abortion is part of the punitive mindset. Abortion is not a moral issue. It is a medical issue. If it is a moral issue, whose morality do we apply to it? The pope's? The president's? The state legislature's? Westboro Church? Whose morality gets to rule everyone else?

You've arrived at the argument of whether or not morality is relative or universal.

Good luck.

 

[adrina]

You've arrived at the argument of whether or not morality is relative or universal.

Good luck.

To each their own or tyrannical rule... I think I know my answer.

 

[hsnh]

For the record:

1.In the US, absolutely no federal tax dollars go to abortion. Again, no federal tax dollars fund abortion.

2. Abortion is not a moral issue. It is a medical issue. If it is a moral issue, whose morality do we apply to it? The pope's? The president's? The state legislature's? Westboro Church? Whose morality gets to rule everyone else?

1.Good to know, thanks.
I got the wrong impression after reading some exchanges in the forum.

2.It's not a moral issue, it's an ethical one that comes in shades of grey.