Abortion

[Danoff]

It's interesting, is there a trigger point where a "clump" becomes a "baby"?

A baby has been born. Arguably a fetus is not merely a "clump" of cells, but it's obviously not a hard and fast definition. An embryo probably is. It's a fetus after 10 weeks of pregnancy (which I'll remind is not actually 10 weeks of pregnancy).

 

[HenrySwanson]

A baby has been born.

That's the thing, according to the definition that's not strictly true (but it may be according to your personal definition/beliefs). You're describing either a neonate or an infant. Baby is just as technically right, or wrong, to use as a clump of cells - that's my point, they're both loose definitions that could create an emotional response. I wouldn't even say they're equally as "bad", as there's more potential for harm with what's contained in the essay than the tweet.

 

[Danoff]

That's the thing, according to the definition that's not strictly true (but it may be according to your personal definition/beliefs).

Baby goes from birth (neonate) to beyond infancy up to toddler. Don't try to over-think this. When you see the announcement:

They don't say "we already have a baby! it's just not born yet!" I get that some people incorrectly refer to fetuses as babies, but it's tolerated sloppy language rather than "accurate".


Calling an adult a clump of cells is perhaps technically accurate in some respect, but it misses the fact that we have a distinction for this particular clump of cells that is non-arbitrary. The same is true for the difference between an embryo and fetus.

 

[Joey D]

One of the first legal tests of the Utah trigger law was handed down today in the form of an injunction:

Preliminary injunction granted in Utah Planned Parenthood abortion rights lawsuit

KUTV CBS 2 provides local news, weather forecasts, traffic updates, notices of events and items of interest in the community, sports and entertainment programming for Salt Lake City and nearby towns and communities in the Great Salt Lake area, including Jordan Meadows, Millcreek, Murray...

kutv.com

 

[HenrySwanson]

They don't say "we already have a baby! it's just not born yet!" I get that some people incorrectly refer to fetuses as babies, but it's tolerated sloppy language rather than "accurate".

I've always seen it as a vague, unscientific term - but admit that when I've used it in written work it has only been in reference to infants. Are you sure that it can only be used as a synonym for infant? During Obs and Gynae placements I've never heard a professional correct a person over the term, and we were encouraged to avoid "jargon" which foetus may be to some pregnant people (and there's a lot of literature for patients that calls it as such). I think the problem is people weaponising the term in the abortion debate, and trying to humanise the unborn to force people into feeling guilty.

As an aside I remember you struggled with infertility. Did you ever find it acceptable at any stage of the pregnancy to refer to the embryo/foetus as a baby?

------

Should there be a legal right for a healthcare professional to refuse to participate in abortion services because of a conscientious objection? Currently in the UK there is a provision under the Abortion Act for this, but in Sweden the European Court of Human Rights found that midwifes who were refused employment because of their objection didn't have their human rights breached. It's my understanding that it varies by state in the US.

I'm thinking the ECHR were right in this case.

 

[Danoff]

I've always seen it as a vague, unscientific term - but admit that when I've used it in written work it has only been in reference to infants. Are you sure that it can only be used as a synonym for infant? During Obs and Gynae placements I've never heard a professional correct a person over the term, and we were encouraged to avoid "jargon" which foetus may be to some pregnant people (and there's a lot of literature for patients that calls it as such).

I can see why a doctor might even encourage someone to think of the unborn as a baby, they might make better prenatal decisions.

Did you ever find it acceptable at any stage of the pregnancy to refer to the embryo/foetus as a baby?

When we finally told people that my wife was pregnant, we announced it as "We're having a pregnancy!" The idea that it would eventually become a baby seemed impossible, so much needed to go right, so many hurdles to pass, and we didn't really believe we were about to be parents. I don't think we bought a carseat until like 2 weeks before birth.

 

[Joey D]

Included in Biden's EO, any hospital that accepts Medicaid/Medicaid must provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA):

Following President Biden’s Executive Order to Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care, HHS Announces Guidance to Clarify that Emergency Medical Care Includes Abortion Services

Guidance and communication to providers makes clear that federal law preempts state law in emergency situations.

www.hhs.gov

I can't say for certain if every single hospital in the US accepts Medicaid and Medicare, but ones that don't would be very few and far between. And while this doesn't protect elective abortions, it should at least allow women to safely get a D&C for an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Included in Biden's EO, any hospital that accepts Medicaid/Medicaid must provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA):

Following President Biden’s Executive Order to Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care, HHS Announces Guidance to Clarify that Emergency Medical Care Includes Abortion Services

Guidance and communication to providers makes clear that federal law preempts state law in emergency situations.

www.hhs.gov

I can't say for certain if every single hospital in the US accepts Medicaid and Medicare, but ones that don't would be very few and far between. And while this doesn't protect elective abortions, it should at least allow women to safely get a D&C for an ectopic pregnancy.

I think this is about all that the executive can do within the bounds of separation of powers. I think Biden needs to be quite frank and give the moderate and left-of-moderate America some tough love on this one: The only way to turn this around is to show up and vote consistently, and that it won't be quick, and it won't be easy. The GOP has been building up to this for decades and managed it essentially against the will of the majority of Americans. This needs to be a wake up call - the fact that something like that can happen in a nation that identifies itself as a democratically-elected republic means that something isn't right. The balance of representation has been perverted to reward a minority of citizens at the expense of everyone else.

The real inherent problem -the critical design flaw- with the United States is that our foundation was compromised while it was being built - the Senate shouldn't even exist (as it does) in a republic, it doesn't represent people, it represents arbitrarily-drawn land - and somehow that land gets to decide who is on the Supreme Court. You cannot defend it with reason. I'll tell you how unreasonable the Senate is - California could decide to chop itself up into each of its constituent counties. There are 58 of them. This would more than double the size of the Senate and give the West coast a super majority in the senate, all for meaningless, invisible cartographic boundaries. Or Texas could turn itself into 254 states. I mean why not? That might sound absurd, but it's no more absurd than the arbitrarily drawn rectangular shapes in the center of the country having 2 senators each.

Who wants to help me start a movement to enact the original Virginia Plan for the Senate?

...membership in both houses would be allocated to each state proportional to its population. Candidates for the lower house would be nominated and elected by the people of each state, while candidates for the upper house would be nominated by the state legislatures of each state and then elected by the members of the lower house.

It would still be problematic due to gerrymandering, but at least it would be representational. I'd be curious to see how the nominating part would play out.

 

[Danoff]

I think this is about all that the executive can do within the bounds of separation of powers. I think Biden needs to be quite frank and give the moderate and left-of-moderate America some tough love on this one: The only way to turn this around is to show up and vote consistently, and that it won't be quick, and it won't be easy. The GOP has been building up to this for decades and managed it essentially against the will of the majority of Americans. This needs to be a wake up call - the fact that something like that can happen in a nation that identifies itself as a democratically-elected republic means that something isn't right. The balance of representation has been perverted to reward a minority of citizens at the expense of everyone else.

The real inherent problem -the critical design flaw- with the United States is that our foundation was compromised while it was being built - the Senate shouldn't even exist (as it does) in a republic, it doesn't represent people, it represents arbitrarily-drawn land - and somehow that land gets to decide who is on the Supreme Court. You cannot defend it with reason. I'll tell you how unreasonable the Senate is - California could decide to chop itself up into each of its constituent counties. There are 58 of them. This would more than double the size of the Senate and give the West coast a super majority in the senate, all for meaningless, invisible cartographic boundaries. Or Texas could turn itself into 254 states. I mean why not? That might sound absurd, but it's no more absurd than the arbitrarily drawn rectangular shapes in the center of the country having 2 senators each.

Who wants to help me start a movement to enact the original Virginia Plan for the Senate?



It would still be problematic due to gerrymandering, but at least it would be representational. I'd be curious to see how the nominating part would play out.

As semi-crazy as the senate is, it wouldn't be nearly so much of a problem if we didn't ALSO feel the need to have that land-based representation AGAIN in the electoral college. If the presidency was a popular vote, none of this would have happened.

 

[HenrySwanson]

And while this doesn't protect elective abortions, it should at least allow women to safely get a D&C for an ectopic pregnancy.

Do they do D&C before treating ectopics in the US?

 

[Joey D]

Do they do D&C before treating ectopics in the US?

This is me not knowing all the ins and outs of OB procedures. Looks like ectopic pregnancies are treated by one of two laparoscopic surgeries, a salpingostomy where the fallopian tube isn't removed or a salpingectomy where the fallopian tube is removed. D&C's are for miscarriages.

 

[HenrySwanson]

This is me not knowing all the ins and outs of OB procedures. Looks like ectopic pregnancies are treated by one of two laparoscopic surgeries, a salpingostomy where the fallopian tube isn't removed or a salpingectomy where the fallopian tube is removed. D&C's are for miscarriages.

Ahh ok. Yes those are the surgical procedures, and it can sometimes be an open surgery. There's also medical management instead of surgery in some cases with an injection or, more rarely, there's expectant management if clinically appropriate.

 

[Danoff]

Included in Biden's EO, any hospital that accepts Medicaid/Medicaid must provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA):

Following President Biden’s Executive Order to Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care, HHS Announces Guidance to Clarify that Emergency Medical Care Includes Abortion Services

Guidance and communication to providers makes clear that federal law preempts state law in emergency situations.

www.hhs.gov

I can't say for certain if every single hospital in the US accepts Medicaid and Medicare, but ones that don't would be very few and far between. And while this doesn't protect elective abortions, it should at least allow women to safely get a D&C for an ectopic pregnancy.

I'm not completely understanding. If the law says that a hospital cannot perform a certain abortion, and medicare says they must or they cannot accept medicare, surely the result is that they are cut off from medicare right? Otherwise the hospital staff just ends up arrested.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not completely understanding. If the law says that a hospital cannot perform a certain abortion, and medicare says they must or they cannot accept medicare, surely the result is that they are cut off from medicare right? Otherwise the hospital staff just ends up arrested.

I'm not sure, we're waiting on clarification from our legal team and administration on what it means.

But that's the way I understand it, a health system will lose Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements if they don't perform emergency abortions and that will sink a hospital in mere weeks. They also open themselves to malpractice lawsuits and regulatory fines.

My guess is that this is the federal government putting pressure on the health systems to lobby the states to rethink their laws. At the end of the day, it'll boil down to either allowing hospitals to perform emergency abortions at a minimum or losing healthcare access in the state. Of course, a hospital could attempt to function without Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements, but that would be really, really difficult, especially since many of the states that are banning abortion are southern. Southern states have a high utilization of socialized medicine due to low income and elderly people, plus their health in general is overall pretty bad. I know the states will attempt to pin it on the White House, but I can't see the population caring too much when they can't get healthcare and will point to their local leaders to do something.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure, we're waiting on clarification from our legal team and administration on what it means.

But that's the way I understand it, a health system will lose Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements if they don't perform emergency abortions and that will sink a hospital in mere weeks. They also open themselves to malpractice lawsuits and regulatory fines.

My guess is that this is the federal government putting pressure on the health systems to lobby the states to rethink their laws. At the end of the day, it'll boil down to either allowing hospitals to perform emergency abortions at a minimum or losing healthcare access in the state. Of course, a hospital could attempt to function without Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements, but that would be really, really difficult, especially since many of the states that are banning abortion are southern. Southern states have a high utilization of socialized medicine due to low income and elderly people, plus their health in general is overall pretty bad. I know the states will attempt to pin it on the White House, but I can't see the population caring too much when they can't get healthcare and will point to their local leaders to do something.

I see, in the short term, hospitals in many of these states will be cut off from medicare, and they'll be looking to state legislature to help them get it back. It's an interesting technique, and potentially could result in some hospital closures and denied healthcare.

I can see a GOP president doing the same (and now that it has been even thought of, it will be attempted). You lose access to medicare if you provide abortion services.

 

[Joey D]

I see, in the short term, hospitals in many of these states will be cut off from medicare, and they'll be looking to state legislature to help them get it back. It's an interesting technique, and potentially could result in some hospital closures and denied healthcare.

I can see a GOP president doing the same (and now that it has been even thought of, it will be attempted). You lose access to medicare if you provide abortion services.

Yup, and this is my biggest argument against single payer healthcare/Medicare for all. I don't want socialize medicine because it would 100% be used as a political tool and not just for abortion. Access to medical cannabis, certain treatments using stem cells, any form of birth control, or even any medication developed using fetal cell lines, which is almost every common med from ibuprofen to antacids to antihistamines.

Imagine if a hospital could lose funding for giving ibuprofen to a patient after surgery? That's the sort of thing that can happen with this and something people who push for government funded healthcare for all fail to recognize. I've been told it's crazy and wouldn't happen, but I'm not counting anything out at this point.

It's kind of a dangerous precedent to set.

 

[Danoff]

It's kind of a dangerous precedent to set.

I'm not sure how dangerous it is. In fact I think some republican circles were already talking about that and similar tactics. These days everything is on the table.

In this case, the converse is not as bad. Being denied an abortion at a hospital in a state that allows abortions is not as powerful as being given one at a hospital in a state that bans them. Presumably because in a state that allows them you go across the street to get one.

 

[Blitz24]

I'm not sure how dangerous it is. In fact I think some republican circles were already talking about that and similar tactics. These days everything is on the table.

In this case, the converse is not as bad. Being denied an abortion at a hospital in a state that allows abortions is not as powerful as being given one at a hospital in a state that bans them. Presumably because in a state that allows them you go across the street to get one.

That is until the state banning them starts to go after its' residents for getting procedures done elsewhere.

 

[TexRex]

Gosh.

 

[TexRex]

I think I've got this right: They said they wouldn't go after those who provide an abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim, of whom there are few, and there wasn't one this time as claimed by those whose source "couldn't be confirmed."

The reality is that they simply didn't confirm the source, there was a 10-year-old rape victim for whom an abortion was provided (the frequency with which this occurs notwithstanding) and they are absolutely going after the provider.

The reality is that they are ****ing lying garbage.

An added layer is that the perpetrator whose existence they denied a day ago is in the country illegally andnso the assault is because of Biden's immigration policies.

And just like that, they've memory-holed that they ever denied the story.

 

[Scaff]

It's double standards time.

Missouri's trigger law has banned abortion because fetuses are people, but Missouri's divorce law will not allow a divorce to be finalised if the woman is pregnant, because fetuses are not people.

It's almost like it's really about control of women.

Pregnant Women Can't Get Divorced in Missouri

The state's divorce law has come under more scrutiny since the overturning of Roe v. Wade

www.riverfronttimes.com

 

[TexRex]

The reality is that they are ****ing lying garbage.

 

[Timugen]

Serious question here, without delving into whether abortion is "right or wrong."


Approximately 1% of abortions are cases of rape/incest/life of the mother.

Contraception is readily available, covered by insurance, and for the uninsured there are organizations/services which offer it for free or at a negligible expense.

So how do we, as a society, have SO MANY unwanted pregnancies? And yes, I understand that given all the above there are still some circumstances that would result in an unwanted pregnancy for someone who was responsibly trying to avoid it. But that's a statistical outlier; it does not account for millions of unwanted pregnancies.

So how do we have so many unwanted pregnancies? Do we embrace irresponsibility as a society? Have we been conditioned over 50yrs that abortion is just another form of contraception?

I have no desire to argue about abortion; I'm just trying to logically determine why there are so many, seemingly unnecessarily.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Serious question here, without delving into whether abortion is "right or wrong."


Approximately 1% of abortions are cases of rape/incest/life of the mother.

Contraception is readily available, covered by insurance, and for the uninsured there are organizations/services which offer it for free or at a negligible expense.

So how do we, as a society, have SO MANY unwanted pregnancies? And yes, I understand that given all the above there are still some circumstances that would result in an unwanted pregnancy for someone who was responsibly trying to avoid it. But that's a statistical outlier; it does not account for millions of unwanted pregnancies.

So how do we have so many unwanted pregnancies? Do we embrace irresponsibility as a society? Have we been conditioned over 50yrs that abortion is just another form of contraception?

I have no desire to argue about abortion; I'm just trying to logically determine why there are so many, seemingly unnecessarily.

You have no desire to argue about abortion but you put this post forward in a thread about abortion.

The old I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'

 

[UKMikey]

You have no desire to argue about abortion but you put this post forward in a thread about abortion.

The old I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'

I mean, we already have a "dumb" questions thread.

Nearly half of all pregnancies are unintended—a global crisis, says new UNFPA report [EN/AR/RU] - World

News and Press Release in Arabic on World about Health and Protection and Human Rights; published on 30 Mar 2022 by UNFPA

reliefweb.int

Key findings: Gender inequality and stalled development drive high rates of unintended pregnancies

Globally, an estimated 257 million women who want to avoid pregnancy are not using safe, modern methods of contraception, and where data is available, nearly a quarter of all women are not able to say no to sex. A range of other key factors also contribute to unintended pregnancies, including:

• Lack of sexual and reproductive health care and information
• Contraceptive options that don't suit women's bodies or circumstances
• Harmful norms and stigma surrounding women controlling their own fertility and bodies
• Sexual violence and reproductive coercion
• Judgmental attitudes or shaming in health services
• Poverty and stalled economic development
• Gender inequality

All of these factors reflect the pressure societies place on women and girls to become mothers. An unintended pregnancy is not necessarily a personal failure and may be due to the lack of autonomy society allows or the value placed on women’s lives.

 

[Timugen]

You have no desire to argue about abortion but you put this post forward in a thread about abortion.

The old I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'

My question was about how we end up with millions of unwanted pregnancies (I mean, I only stated it 3 times; maybe you missed it.) I'm not a pro-lifer btw. But that doesn't mean I want more abortions; maybe you do.

I mean, we already have a "dumb" questions thread.

Nearly half of all pregnancies are unintended—a global crisis, says new UNFPA report [EN/AR/RU] - World

News and Press Release in Arabic on World about Health and Protection and Human Rights; published on 30 Mar 2022 by UNFPA

reliefweb.int

I should have specified, I was referring to circumstances in the US, not globally.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

My question was about how we end up with millions of unwanted pregnancies. I'm not a pro-lifer btw. But that doesn't mean I want more abortions; maybe you do.

Why does it matter? Does it impact you? It's never impacted me how many unwanted pregnancies there are.

 

[UKMikey]

I should have specified, I was referring to circumstances in the US, not globally.

Unintended Pregnancy in the United States

On average, U.S. women want to have two children. To accomplish that goal, a woman will spend close to three years pregnant, postpartum or attempting to become pregnant, and about three decades—more than three-quarters of her reproductive life—trying to avoid pregnancy.1

www.guttmacher.org

Understanding demographic differences in unintended pregnancy helps to identify where to focus policy and programmatic interventions, and highlights areas of inequality. These differences do not occur in a vacuum; they reflect differences in social, cultural, structural, economic and political contexts, which influence health behaviors, access to services and outcomes.

• Unintended pregnancy rates are highest among low-income women (i.e., women with incomes less than 200% of the federal poverty level), women aged 18–24, cohabiting women and women of color.2 Rates tend to be lowest among higher-income women (at or above 200% of poverty), white women, college graduates and married women.
• The rate of unintended pregnancy among women with incomes less than 100% of the poverty was 112 per 1,000 in 2011, more than five times the rate among women with incomes of at least 200% of poverty (20 per 1,000 women).
• The proportion of pregnancies that are unintended generally decreases with age. The highest unintended pregnancy rate in 2011 was among women aged 20–24 (81 per 1,000 women). However, traditional estimates understate the risk of unintended pregnancy among adolescents because these estimates typically include all women, whether or not they are sexually active. When rates are recalculated including only those sexually active, women aged 15–19 have the highest unintended pregnancy rate of any age-group.
• Cohabiting women had a higher rate of unintended pregnancy compared with both unmarried noncohabiting women (141 vs. 36–54 per 1,000) and married women (29 per 1,000).
• At 79 per 1,000, the unintended pregnancy rate for non-Hispanic black women in 2011 was more than double that of non-Hispanic white women (33 per 1,000).
• Women without a high school degree had the highest unintended pregnancy rate among those of any educational level in 2011 (73 per 1,000), and rates were lower with each level of educational attainment.
• There are also differences in rates of outcomes of unintended pregnancies across population groups. In 2011, women with incomes below 100% of poverty had an unplanned birth rate nearly seven times that of women at or above 200% of poverty

 

[Timugen]

Unintended Pregnancy in the United States

On average, U.S. women want to have two children. To accomplish that goal, a woman will spend close to three years pregnant, postpartum or attempting to become pregnant, and about three decades—more than three-quarters of her reproductive life—trying to avoid pregnancy.1

www.guttmacher.org

That merely states that there A LOT of unintended pregnancies in the US.....which is the actual premise of my question. WHY?

Perhaps re-read my original post with a little less emotion and more reason.

 

[UKMikey]

That merely states that there A LOT of unintended pregnancies in the US.....which is the actual premise of my question. WHY?

Perhaps re-read my original post with a little less emotion and more reason.

What emotion? I googled your question - twice - and in both cases quoted the relevant part for you.

Perhaps it's not me who needs to be re-reading posts.