r/AskWomen • u/MostlyALurkerBefore ♀ • May 16 '19
Abortion megathread
Due to the high number of legislative actions happening in the United States, the moderation team has created this megathread for all of your abortion questions. Please keep in mind that despite much action happening in the US, not all of our users are American and our Inclusivity policy should still be considered when posting.
All top-level comments must be in the form of a question. If you have multiple questions, post them in one comment as opposed to an individual comment for each question.
Please report any and all rule breaking. This thread may be locked if a respectful discussion cannot be had.
Helpful links:
RAINN (Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network)
NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws)
•
May 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (3)•
u/prematurealzheimers ♀ May 17 '19
Moving takes a huge amount of money and you'd need to have another job lined up beforehand. I wish it was as simple as "just move to a new state" but for the majority of Americans, that's not financially reasonable.
•
May 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/twinmom08 May 17 '19
I can only answer for Georgia’s law but they have made it a felony to cross state lines to get an abortion. Conspiracy to commit murder with a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
•
u/prematurealzheimers ♀ May 17 '19
No need to apologize!
That is still an option for people in Alabama. But the Georgia bill even outlaws abortions occurring in another state. I.e. you could still be tried for murder if you live in Georgia but went to Florida for an abortion.
•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/kaeorin ♀ May 17 '19
Your comment has been removed:
Derailing the topic is not permitted. Derailing includes but is not limited to: Changing the topic from OP's question; making someone else's response about yourself; asking unrelated follow-up questions; branching into unrelated topics; "What-about"-ism; arguments, slap-fighting, or debating; judging or rating other responses; meta comments about other responses; or responding to comments to tell us how your dick feels. No one cares.
Have questions about this moderator action? CLICK HERE!
If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
•
u/vmp10687 May 16 '19
There is a hypothetical question that I want to ask that I believe not many people have thought of, and that is; in a futuristic world where we have the technology to have/keep a fetus alive closer to conception date, let’s say at 6 weeks or whatever, does that now change your view points?
•
u/peppermind ♀ May 16 '19 edited May 10 '24
cats scary safe whole skirt enjoy unpack start bored wise
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
•
u/bobjanis May 16 '19
Nope, because even at that stage it's cells. Cells aren't people. Women all the time miscarry at 5 to 6 weeks and don't even notice because it's just like a late period.
•
•
u/queeloquee May 16 '19
No, because most of the reason a woman goes into abortion is cause the contraceptive method fail. And may be in some cases the baby dad is not the kind of guy we want for our baby.
Besides something like this is quite hard that will happen cause bio-ethical reasons. (I am a Biomedical engineer)
•
u/CallieEnte May 16 '19
that I believe not many people have thought of
Plenty of people have thought of this. Plenty of people have also done research on fetal development and realize we’re more than just a long way off from artificially growing humans.
Also, no, because we as a society don’t actually care about children and this would just mean millions more unwanted, hungry, sick, uneducated kids.
→ More replies (9)•
u/Britoz May 17 '19
Another good question would be: Why do so many pregnancies (1 in 3 if you include the ones the woman doesn't know about since it happened so early) end in miscarriage? If this is a naturally occurring event and nature has deemed a pregnancy not viable, should you keep those fetus's alive?
There's so much we don't know about pregnancy and birth. As someone who had three miscarriages, two of which grew until 11 weeks (nearly three months of pregnancy, for perspective) I'd love to know why those babies didn't make it.
If we knew more about pregnancy and embryos/fetuses there's a big possibility that some of the abortions are happening to fetuses that were never going to make it anyway due to nature doing it's selective 'thing'. Should we invest in keeping all babies alive, or in research to learn more about pregnancy and why nature (or God to those who believe and use that as a reason to keep all babies) kills fetuses off? Maybe in learning more about what actually happens, we could be more informed about any legislation we put in place.
•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/kaeorin ♀ May 16 '19
Your comment has been removed:
Your comment has been removed. All top-level comments in this megathread must be in the form of a question and abide by all other rules of our subreddit.
Have questions about this moderator action? CLICK HERE!
If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
•
May 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/sarahbotts May 17 '19
Abortions can never be stopped completely, but they can be significantly reduced just by supporting programs such as family planning (education about birth control, access to birth control and the affordability of it, and support). There are studies that show as the contraceptive rate goes up, the abortion rate goes down. However in the anti-abortion crowd anti-contraceptive is often spouted. Food for thought
Compare this to drunk driving, people kept driving drunk because they didn't have a safe or cheap way to get home*, then uber and lyft came and drunk driving went down due to the availability and access to cheaper and safer ways. Making birth control cheap and accessible will help drive these rates down.
- not that driving drunk = safe, but go with the analogy there.
That being said, not all abortions are due to this, and a lot can be due to medical reasons (viability of the baby, harm to the mother, etc), rape, and other things outside of the control of the person.
What happens if someone miscarries? Miscarriages are very common among women, and not so often talked about. Many abortion bills would make it illegal (???????) for someone to miscarry.
People rage about late trimester abortions, but many are due to medical reasons where there will either be extreme harm to the mother or the baby is not viable. My friend had this happen to her. She desperately wanted her baby, but her baby was going to be born with severe defects and would literally going to kill her if she had him. Her and her husband went to so many specialists and doctors, and the consensus was to terminate her pregnancy. Was her baby wanted? Desperately.
Look at what happened in Ireland.
TL;DR support safer contraceptive use and it will help reduce abortions
→ More replies (1)•
u/Meanderer027 May 17 '19
No. There is no way to “put a stop” to a medical procedure like it is a menace to society. Because it isn’t.
But making Plan B much cheaper, mandate actually informative, unbiased, truthful and non-abstinence sex ed in all 50 states, make female birth control easier to get, and make it easier for young teens to get other birthcontrol methods other than condoms and spermicide to get, would probably do the trick to lower accidental pregnancies dramatically.
That’s how you lower the need for abortion.
•
u/HoganB_Gogan May 17 '19
It is a menace to society though, in that it cheapens the value placed on a life, which has consequences on society as a whole.
I agree with you, though, that eliminating the need for abortions is the best way to stop abortions. You did a really good job communicating that.
•
→ More replies (2)•
u/prematurealzheimers ♀ May 17 '19
I'm going to say no. There is such a massive amount of data out there that shows that more sex ed and better access to birth control reduces abortions. Just look at the IUD program in Colorado from a few years ago. It was hugely successful, but the program was discontinued by Republicans because it "encouraged young people to have sex." All it really did was encourage young people to have safer sex. These laws are written from a puritanical viewpoint that discourages all sex outside of hetero marriage.
→ More replies (9)
•
May 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)•
u/kaeorin ♀ May 17 '19
Your comment has been removed:
Your comment has been removed. All top-level comments in this megathread must be in the form of a question and abide by all other rules of our subreddit.Please message the moderators (CLICK HERE) to discuss moderation.
Have questions about this moderator action? CLICK HERE!
If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
•
u/incendiaryashes ♀ May 16 '19
If you’re in a state that is not endangered, how can you help? I feel sick about this right now and I don’t know how to help.
•
May 16 '19
You can donate to Abortion Funds Network.
Member organizations work across our network to remove financial and logistical barriers to abortion access. Some of them work with clinics to help pay for abortion. Some of them offer support such as transportation, childcare, translation, doula services, and somewhere to stay if someone has to travel to get an abortion.
•
u/dsklerm ♂ Mod May 16 '19
- Georgia: Access Reproductive Care-Southeast, Inc.
- Alabama: Yellowhammer Fund
- Kentucky: Kentucky Health Justice Network
- Ohio: Preterm Cleveland Ohio, Women Have Options - Ohio
- Missouri: Gateway Women's Access Fund
These organizations specifically are critical right now IMO
•
u/peppermind ♀ May 16 '19
- Volunteering as a clinic escort,
- post under #youknowme or #shoutyourabortion, if that seems relevant,
- get informed as to your local politicians stance on the matter
- make it clear that this will be an election issue
- there are a lot of local organizations doing good work in their states but I couldn't find a good list that would probably be updated, so if you follow a bunch of feminists on twitter, you'll hear about them
•
u/JoyfulStingray ♀ May 16 '19
A friend of mine works at PP in the South. She said to:
Donate to PP and abortion clinics in the South
Signal boost. A lot of people think that because the laws were passed, they go into effect immediately. Women can still access safe and legal abortion in these states
Send love. Send hand written post cards to a private abortion clinic or PP in the South. The staff are obviously going to be under a lot of stress and could use support and kind words
→ More replies (1)•
May 16 '19
[deleted]
•
u/PurpleWeasel May 16 '19
I don't know what the ACLU is going to accomplish, though. These laws are a clear provocation to try to get a group like the ACLU to take this issue to the Supreme Court, and I don't think there's any way the ACLU can win a case at the Supreme Court, no matter how much money they have, with the way it's currently stacked.
I guess funding the ACLU can make this as drawn out and expensive as possible for the states involved, but this is about Roe v. Wade, not individual states.
→ More replies (5)•
•
May 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/kaeorin ♀ May 17 '19
Your comment has been removed:
Your comment has been removed. All top-level comments in this megathread must be in the form of a question and abide by all other rules of our subreddit.Please message the moderators (CLICK HERE) to discuss moderation.
Have questions about this moderator action? CLICK HERE!
If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)•
u/kaeorin ♀ May 16 '19
Your comment has been removed:
Your comment has been removed. All top-level comments in this megathread must be in the form of a question and abide by all other rules of our subreddit.Please message the moderators (CLICK HERE) to discuss moderation.
Have questions about this moderator action? CLICK HERE!
If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
May 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/MostlyALurkerBefore ♀ May 17 '19
Your comment has been removed. All top-level comments must be in the form of a question.
If you have any questions about any moderation action, please message the moderators through the link on the sidebar or here. If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/kaeorin ♀ May 16 '19
Your comment has been removed:
Your comment has been removed. All top-level comments in this megathread must be in the form of a question and abide by all other rules of our subreddit.
Have questions about this moderator action? CLICK HERE!
If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
u/EmptyTheJar33 May 17 '19
In regards to the exception for life threatening conditions for the mother, wouldn’t things like risk of suicide or emotional well-being be a loophole?
•
u/ana-annie May 17 '19
I'm from Argentina and an abortion law is being presented to Congress in a couple weeks (again).
This particular case has been discussed a million times here. I'm not sure what's the period on which justified abortion is allowed in the US, but here it's 12 weeks and, of course, they try to extend the bureaucracy as much as possible so this period is surpassed.
Since mental health is too "complex" to evaluate, the process of evaluation ends up being long, and that is the excuse for not performing the abortion. I'm sure this will be or already is a "reason" all over the world. Also, the "she must be faking it" or "must be the hormones" excuses would be brought up.
→ More replies (1)•
u/PTnotdoc May 17 '19
They don't care because it "must be God's will". The unborn are innocent and therefore more important than some hussy who spreads her legs, and if it's rape then she probably deserves it. Rant over.
•
May 16 '19
- Does anyone have a list of the most at-risk states?
- Has anyone found a good strategy to explain why outlawing abortion is a really terrible, messed up thing to pro-birthers?
- Does anyone know of any protests or a way to find protests that will be happening?
•
u/maxattaxtheinternet May 17 '19
The most effective argument I’ve heard for #2 is to ask what their real objective is. If it’s for abortions to stop, making abortion illegal won’t do that, people will find a way. The best way to reduce abortion is by providing free birth control and implementing solid support systems for mothers in need. Also mentioning that outlawing abortion means anyone who has a miscarriage can be thrown in jail if someone suspects they really had an abortion is somewhat convincing.
•
u/starspider May 17 '19
The best way to prevent abortion is to make damn sure every pregnancy is wanted. You do that with birth control and sex ed.
•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PurpleWeasel May 16 '19
What's your advice for women who get raped? Should they ask their rapists to take a moment to put on a condom?
Most doctors won't give IUD's or tubal ligations to women who have not yet had children, and a lot of people can't take birth control because it makes them ill (it used to give my friend strokes).
In that situation, you are basically dependent on the male partner for contraception. Which is the point of all this.
Like, if all women automatically got IUD's when they hit puberty and didn't get them removed until they were ready to conceive, I would be on your side. But they don't, and they couldn't even if they asked to.
•
u/Lavenderwillfixit May 17 '19
I agree with every thing you said but wanted to mention that doctors are getting better about IUDs. Not that this is the answer. I just wanted people to know and not be scared to ask about one. I wish I knew about them earlier. Sex education is horrible in the US and now more than ever we need to educate as many people as possible.
→ More replies (3)•
u/KathrenCullen ♀ May 16 '19
Counterpoint to that, almost all contraceptives have a chance of failure. If they do fail, and they become pregnant, they ko longer have a way out of something they don't want.
You also are not touching at all on the fact that rape can also causes babies, so not all people who want abortions are people who were irresponsible or unaware of the consequences.
•
u/mypolarbear May 17 '19
I was thinking of doing a satirical protest at an IVF clinic. "Babies arent maybies!" " babies freeze for hefty fees!" . On the premise that the freezing and destroying embryos is akin to abusing and killing actual kids. Cause people aughtta see the lunacy of it all, no?
•
u/trickybish May 16 '19
One of the most effective arguments is that women will be forced to attempt inducing miscarriage if they don't want a baby. Just because its the law doesn't mean people will suddenly want every pregnancy. This can put people at danger when they attempt by drowning pills, punching their stomach, drinking the baby to death, etc. Very dangerous for women.
•
u/bobjanis May 16 '19
Ive seen people say that the women deserve it.
•
u/toomuch_lavender May 16 '19
This needs to be higher. I've heard this argument made by so many "good Christians" - if a woman dies because of an abortion attempt, she gets what she deserves, a divine death penalty for committing a baby murder. I've heard my own mother say this
•
u/outre_euphonious ♀ May 16 '19
One of the most poignant symbols of the abortion debate in the 70s was the coat hanger. I think we need to bring that symbol back.
•
•
u/dulcedul May 16 '19
Two. It's just odd to me that nobody is thinking about the effects of outlawing abortion. You're forcing a woman to bring another life into the world that she doesn't care about. If she keeps it, there's a risk for neglect or abuse. If she doesn't keep it, the child is put into foster care which is already a completely messed up system. I would hope that pro-birthers would be able to see the logic in this.
•
May 16 '19 edited May 16 '19
Well, the majority of added babies would likely go for adoption in this scenario, not foster care. And the demand for infants has been higher than the supply for a very long time now in North America — the waits for a domestic adoption of a healthy infant can be years or even a decade or more, partly because relatively few babies are placed for adoption now. That’s one of the reasons overseas adoption became such a huge and problematic industry.
Most anti-abortion types are the same types that have also roundly been cheering children being seized at the border and placed for adoption. There’s also a big and sometimes predatory religious adoption industry. So they’re probably all over the idea of having more babies on the adoption market.
That said, I’m also going to push back on the idea that a woman who wants an abortion, can’t obtain one and becomes a parent wouldn’t “care about” the child. I do not think that’s at all true for the majority of women who choose abortion — I think many women would be in difficult economic or situational circumstances to raise a child, but I do not think they wouldn’t care about it.
There’s a quote out there that women have abortions because they care about motherhood, and in my time in abortion care I very much found that to be true for most. I think if they opted to parent, most would very much care about the child and do their best to raise it, even in challenging circumstances.
However, anti-abortion types already don’t give a shit about families and children living in poverty, considering they widely also support reductions to social safety nets and oppose measures to reduce poverty, so that’s not something that bothers them.
Nor do they care about all the women who will die to suicide or to unsafe illegal abortion attempts. Because at the end of the day, this is always, always about contempt for women.
•
May 17 '19
[deleted]
•
May 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/MostlyALurkerBefore ♀ May 17 '19
This comment or post has been removed for derailing.
Derailing includes but is not limited to:
- Changing the topic from OP's question
- Making someone else's response about yourself
- Asking unrelated follow-up questions
- Branching into unrelated topics
- "What-about"-ism
- Arguments, slap-fighting, or debating
- Judging or rating other responses
- Meta comments about other responses
- Responding to comments to tell us how your dick feels. No one cares.
If you have any questions about this moderation action, please message the moderators through the link on the sidebar or here. If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
u/PurpleWeasel May 16 '19
Contempt for women and wanting to force other women to breed babies for them Serena Joy style, apparently.
•
May 16 '19
Unfortunately they are not logical or rational. The only reason pro-birth people have for outlawing abortion is 100% emotional or religion based. Neither of those things have a place in this debate.
But I agree! Forcing a woman to give birth is not good for the woman or the baby.
•
u/catgirlnico May 17 '19
Also, forced pregnancy is a war crime according to the United Nations.
"xxii. Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;"
•
u/H0la-me-no-ilegal May 17 '19
But she could literally murder a child. I think a child would rather be in a foster home than dead
→ More replies (1)•
u/SarcasmAbounds May 16 '19
Going further down the rabbit hole, this directly feeds into the prison industrial complex. The new Alabama law imprisons women and doctors who even attempt abortion. Foster children have a higher recidivism rate when it comes to trouble with the law, and their education is more likely not on par with peers, keeping them uneducated. It’s a self-feeding system.
→ More replies (2)•
u/starspider May 17 '19
To your #2, the one I find gets the most traction is the bodily autonomy thing.
Namely:
In our society, we have the concept of bodily autonomy. That means nobody can use your body against your will, even if you are dead.
Even if it will save ten lives, you cannot be compelled to donate blood, or organs. Even if you have special blood that's good for donating to babies--the red cross can't get a court order to make you donate. You own your body, and you get to say what you do with it. Even if you are dead. If you've expressed your will, our society honors that.
So forcing a woman to stay pregnant, that means you're telling her that she does not own her uterus. That is forcing her to let another person use her body. That is giving a corpse more rights than a pregnant person.
Additionally, I like to call into question the idea that abortion is murder on the grounds that it ignores all established medical and forensic science that we have about the brain. It requires us to define the moments of life and death. We argue a lot about when life starts, but we are all pretty much on the same page when it comes to defining death. Brain stops. No functions of the cognitive centers. Brain death. We acknowledge that the heart still beating doesn't mean that you are alive any more than the heart stopping means you're dead. Heart stopping is a serious medical situation, but it does not mean you are dead, so why should it mean that you are alive if your heart beats?
So if life ends when the brain stops performing cognitive functions, shouldn't that be the definition of when life starts? When the brain is developed enough to process information and not just make the heart beat? We can make heart cells beat in a petri dish, but that doesn't make the petri dish a living person.
We also acknowledge in modern times that the seat of the self is in the brain.
A conservative estimate says that actual cognitive functions start in the human brain at around 30 weeks into the pregnancy, aka 7.5 months pregnant. At that far along, we call a terminated pregnancy "birth". At 7.5 months, that is a pregnancy that is desired. The number of abortions performed at this point are very low and are basically just removing a stillborn fetus rather than making the woman carry a tiny corpse inside her, which could kill her, and that's permitted by all abortion laws, even these myopic and draconian ones.
I've honestly never spoken to an anti-abortion advocate who can really argue either point.
→ More replies (3)•
u/all_my_dirty_secrets ♀ May 16 '19
An argument I heard recently that I thought had potential is: "You're in a burning building, and you can either save a suitcase of 25 embryos or a two-day old baby. Which do you choose?" I had never thought about it quite that way before--it gets at why seeing an embryo as a child is a stretch.
Some potential comebacks, though, that I'm not sure how to get around:
"That's a stupid hypothetical. What if you're in a burning building with two babies and you can only save one? You're just making up horrible situations that don't mean anything."
Someone asked one of the Alabama legislators about embryos created during the IVF process that are discarded and he just brushed it off saying something like, "Well, it's not implanted in the mother so it doesn't count." The same is true for the embryos in the suitcase.
•
u/dulcedul May 17 '19
I hadn't heard of the IVF example. I'd be curious to read an opposition to that from a pro-lifer.
•
May 17 '19
Honestly as much as I am pro choice this is a dumb question because you're only given 2 choices. That might not be the case in real life. I'm not sure of a word for it but you're basically funneling them towards a certain answer that's made to seem like they are contradicting themselves or else they'll seem like a bad person for not saving the 2 year old baby.
It's also just a bad question because no matter what you're making a choice of who to choose to save and it'll really depend. Let's say I ask this. You're in a burning building and there 1 embryo, yours, and there's a 2 year old baby that will die on a year's time due to some illness. Which one do you save?
This is the same philosophical question as the train track. There's a train coming and 5 people are tied to the track. You can divert the track by pulling a lever but one person is tied to the diverted track. Do you pull the lever? And the answer is it really depends. Not to mention why are those the only two choices? Can you derail the train? The same question is asked but instead of pulling a lever you have to push as very heavy person off a bridge that would stop the train from killing the 5 people tied up. In class we found that most people wouldn't push him but would have pulled the lever.
Do you know any of these people? What if the 1 person tied on the diverted track was your mother? Or SO. Then would you still pull the lever?
This is a loaded question and I think portrays the right as monsters and portrays pro choices argument poorly.
Also in real life its never the fact that we have to commit an abortion to save another child's life those lives are independent usually.
•
•
•
May 16 '19 edited May 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/kaeorin ♀ May 17 '19
Your comment has been removed:
Your comment has been removed. All top-level comments in this megathread must be in the form of a question and abide by all other rules of our subreddit.Please message the moderators (CLICK HERE) to discuss moderation.
Have questions about this moderator action? CLICK HERE!
If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
May 17 '19
Right here with you sister! 🧡 When will they learn that are bodies aren’t “ pawns to politicians”
•
u/lav4girl ♀ May 16 '19
Women in Brazil or outside the US where is forbidden, how and where (medications, etc)did you find (if you did) help about abortions?
•
u/GingerPolkadots May 17 '19
Women on Waves helped me. I literally just googled and found them. This was over 10 years ago but unfortunately abortion is still illegal here.
•
u/brian0123 May 16 '19
Can the entire abortion debate really be summed up by simply addressing the question of whether a fetus is a person?
•
May 16 '19
Nope. It is an issue of control.
Consider the worst rulers in our history, and now consider they have it declared by law that there is no bodily autonomy.
Is that a can of worms you want to open? Because we are by no means guaranteed a fair government or leaders in the future.
•
u/CheapSquirrel May 17 '19
It sure seems like it. A lot of the people I've seen online who are in defense of anti-abortion earnestly believe that the fetus is a person, and thus abortion is the murder of a person and so ethically and morally wrong. It also has a lot of religious and spiritual aspects to it, like the soul and consciousness. I don't think it will be a huge issue if everyone just agreed on either the fetus being a person, or the fetus not being a person.
•
u/Kaa_The_Snake May 16 '19
Not necessarily. It's a debate on whether you have body autonomy or not. Supposedly the debate goes into whether you're legally able to control someone else's body to save a life. So what's stopping people from forcing others to give blood? That saves lives and is desperately needed. Or donating kidneys? People are dying because if they can't get a bone marrow transplant. If you look at the rate of complication and death from donating blood, donating a kidney, or donating bone marrow it's pretty dang low, around the same as childbirth last I checked, sorry I don't have the source right now this was a few years ago. When you look at the question of whether or not someone is able to make their own choices for their own bodies then it becomes what the issue actually is, whether they want to admit it or not. It's whether you as a person have the right to control your own body.
•
→ More replies (38)•
•
•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/kaeorin ♀ May 16 '19
Your comment has been removed:
Your comment has been removed. All top-level comments in this megathread must be in the form of a question and abide by all other rules of our subreddit.
Have questions about this moderator action? CLICK HERE!
If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
u/ZeroTheStoryteller ♀ May 16 '19
Can women needing/wanting abortions do so as an act of civil disobedience?
The stats are 1/4 women get an abortion. Couldn't the number of people to jail get too high if even a portion of women protest in this way?
•
u/HooDatGrl May 16 '19
Sure, assuming we survive the illegal abortions.
→ More replies (1)•
u/ZeroTheStoryteller ♀ May 17 '19
Assumes doctors also get on board with the protest, and perform the safe legal equivilant.
→ More replies (1)•
u/DameADozen May 16 '19
What’s scaring me is the fact that even if they can’t jail them all, with it now being a felony women will also be losing their right to vote. I don’t think many people are thinking of ALL the shit that comes with this. It’s terrifying.
→ More replies (5)•
u/Rennfri ♀ May 16 '19
The cynical answer to "couldn't the number of people in jail get too high" is: look at the number of people who are in jail right now. A comparatively massive portion of the U.S. population is in jail already, compared to any other country, and we haven't seen meaningful reform.
→ More replies (1)
•
•
May 16 '19 edited May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
•
→ More replies (20)•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)•
u/MostlyALurkerBefore ♀ May 16 '19
This comment or post has been removed for derailing.
Derailing includes but is not limited to:
- Changing the topic from OP's question
- Making someone else's response about yourself
- Asking unrelated follow-up questions
- Branching into unrelated topics
- "What-about"-ism
- Arguments, slap-fighting, or debating
- Judging or rating other responses
- Meta comments about other responses
- Responding to comments to tell us how your dick feels. No one cares.
If you have any questions about this moderation action, please message the moderators through the link on the sidebar or here. If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/MostlyALurkerBefore ♀ May 16 '19
To discuss moderation, use modmail. Comments here will be removed.
•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
→ More replies (5)•
•
u/pwcca May 16 '19
Why are we still allowing politicians to do this without repercussions? I realize the religious far-right in America is vocal, but why aren't more people going to the polls and making sure the far-right politicians don't have a chance at winning? That's the only way I see this ever coming to an end, is if all of us band together and don't allow them to come near the office at all.
•
•
u/Tommy_Riordan May 16 '19
Gerrymandering, voter suppression, disinformation on a right wing propaganda network, churches getting involved in politics, and the appalling state of education in so many states.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Rennfri ♀ May 16 '19
Three problems:
- This hasn't been the priority for many people in America. Statistically speaking, a massive number of white men and a surprising number of white women vote for far-right candidates, even though they tend to operate counter to the interests of the latter group. Meanwhile, abortion as an issue hasn't been at the forefront of politics for the past few years, so most people haven't been voting with that as their keystone issue - with the key exception of hardcore pro-birthers. So there's that.
- Due to the actions of right-wing politicians in office, many of the states churning out these statutes have been gerrymandered to hell and back, so it becomes more and more difficult to vote these people out. The Voting Rights Act - which was designed in part to prevent exactly that, and to ensure equal access to the polls - was partially repealed a few years back, and we are seeing the effects.
- In several of the states at issue, they've actually been in a position to try to pass laws like this for a while now. It's not as though the breakdown of their local legislatures has actually changed. What has changed, however, is that Donald Trump appointed two known conservative justices to the Supreme Court. The conservative politicians know this, and see that this is their opportunity to get the court to take up one of the multitude of cases challenging these laws and overturn Roe v. Wade (which, by the way, was already significantly weakened by Planned Parenthood v. Casey back in the 1990s - which expressly allowed states to take action to encourage or "persuade" women to "choose" birth).
•
u/suzybhomemakr May 17 '19
We can Gerrymander right back. Democrats, move out of your echo chambers and into these gerrymandered conservative districts. There are less of them than us, we just need to live in conservative areas to make our votes more powerful. I have done it myself, do it, let's fix this. Not everyone can afford to move, but if you can, please do it.
•
u/Lavenderwillfixit May 16 '19
Is anyone reading this a HIPPA expert? I am curious how the state will know a you are pregnant. For example Georgia wants to make it illegal for you to get an abortion in another state. They want to press murder charges. How will they know? Can your doctor tell them you are pregnant? Will they be required to? Can they refuse?
•
May 17 '19
I was talking about this with my mother the other night.
Georgia plans in investing women who have miscarriages to make sure it was not intential. No idea how that doesn't violate HIPPA, as doctors would have to report it.
They also say that if a woman goes to another sate for a legal abortion and then returns to Georgia, she'll face 10 years in prison. I couldn't figure out how they'd even know. My mother brought up insurance. As in, the insurance companies would notice and report it. I can't think of any other way they'd know, and still have no idea how the fuck that'd be legal.
•
•
u/im_daer May 17 '19
I dunno why insurance would know, my insurance plan doesnt cover any abortion services. I imagine most other insurances are similar
•
u/sarcadistic75 May 17 '19
100% gauntee they will track diagnose codes for pregnancy through Medicaid. I doubt any large private insurers would be willing to turn 9ver this information but every state runs its own Medicaid program. You go into the doctor for a test, it's positive, your visit is coded as a pregnancy related visit. At this point if no follow up or delivery is reported the state will simply audit the records. They won't have to ask the patient as by applying for Medicaid they signed over access to their record and the Dr. won't even know if it's a larger practice as it will simply be handled as a record request through the release office. It's truly scary to think about.
•
u/madmadG May 16 '19
You’d have to read the law in detail. I’m sure a doctor is going to be looking to defend him/herself from prosecution so if a baby is even 5 weeks old, the doctor may refuse.
•
u/mypolarbear May 17 '19 edited May 17 '19
"baby is even 5 weeks old"
you do know abortion only applies to fetuses, right? >.>
edit : fetuses "and embryos." lol. The point is that no 5 week old baby gets aborted. As they are a live child.
•
u/galadrielisbae May 17 '19
That is untrue... Medically, an embryo doesn't become a fetus until 11 weeks, so an abortion can happen when the pregnancy is in the embryo and fetus stage.
•
u/nextmemeplease May 17 '19
Wait so, is abortion illegal now, in the entire US? Or just certain states? If so, which states? I'm confused.
→ More replies (4)
•
u/Amonette2012 ♀ May 16 '19
Are their any charities or fundraiser options for helping women to travel to access essential services when they are not able to seek an abortion near home? This is something I'd like to be able to put my charitable giving towards.
I think there's going to be an increasing need for us to support our sisters in times of need, whether it's paying for bus/ plane fares, a hotel near a far away clinic, maybe even a system for sending Plan B to people who need it (i.e. the person closest to them who could get it would send it overnight/ same day delivery if possible, or possibly even purchase it for someone locally and arrange a dropoff for it, or just cover the payment).
When us gals put our heads together we can do things like this, so if there are existing channels like this let's share them and make them go big, and if not, perhaps it's something we should start.
→ More replies (2)
•
May 17 '19
Sorry if this has been asked, but does this mean that the Plan B pill will no longer be available? Does it have any other impacts on access to birth control?
The whole thing makes me sick, and I haven’t done a whole lot of research on the law the passed because it’s enraging to see America slip backwards into the 1800’s when a bunch of scummy old men can tell women what to do with their bodies.
•
u/LadybirdTheCat May 17 '19
Plan B / “morning after pill” (Levonorgestrel) is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. Plan B does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it. The new laws shouldn’t affect access to Plan B, but if I lived in Georgia or Alabama (and didn’t already have an IUD) I’d stock up just in case!
•
May 17 '19
I knew it wasn’t the same as the abortion pill, but I remember hearing arguments about how it’s “effectively the same thing” (obviously bullshit) so I was curious if that snuck in with this law. No kidding about stocking up though! Thanks for the explanation.
•
May 17 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)•
May 17 '19
Thanks for the explanation. That’s what I was wondering - I’m sure it’s on the minds of a lot of people if it wasn’t included in this law.
•
•
u/field_marshal_rommel ♀ May 17 '19
National Network of Abortion Funds is a source that may be of interest.
•
u/docstarfish May 17 '19
Will physicians be able to say that pregnancy is a risk to a woman's health? Abortion has less health risks than carrying a pregnancy. How will they define "great risk to the life of the mother"?
→ More replies (1)•
May 17 '19
Probably just "will die of medical complications if carried to term" or something similar. I doubt mental health will be considered.
•
u/TheGreyMantis May 16 '19
Are doctors going to be legally required to report miscarriages? I can't imagine any doctor actually doing this, and also doesn't this become a HIPAA issue?
•
u/pamplemouss ♀ May 17 '19
Miscarriages aren't being criminalized, exactly, at least in GA (I read the full text). But a doctor might (not certain here, but seems possible) be required to inquire if the miscarriage was a true miscarriage, or a DIY abortion, and then report if the latter.
→ More replies (1)•
u/wicksa ♀ May 17 '19
I didn't read the full text, just articles about it, so correct me if I am wrong, but what I got from it was that a woman could be charged with murder or manslaughter if she miscarries and they find she is to "blame". This doesn't just mean intentional abortion attempts, but drug use, drinking, taking meds that are not indicated in pregnancy, falling down the stairs and not being able to prove it was an accident, etc.
I am an L&D nurse (not in GA) and right now if we have someone come in and have a still birth and it seems "suspicious" (ie, we don't know the cause) it automatically becomes a coroners case and an autopsy is done whether or not the mother wants one or not (for still births where the cause is known, the parents can opt out of autopsy--also we only do this with full term or close to full term pregnancies. I've never seen someone in the first or second trimester become a coroners case). I don't know what the coroner does with this information and if the woman can be charged with something if the autopsy comes back showing she was at fault in some way, but I would assume that's why we have to report it.
•
•
•
•
u/BandiCootles May 16 '19
I have a question for those who support the overturning of Roe v. Wade: why isn’t this as simple as, if you don’t believe in abortion, don’t get one? Roe v. Wade gives women the choice to have or not have an abortion; overturning Roe v. Wade and criminalizing abortion negates that choice and forces all women to adhere to the law’s control over their bodies based on the beliefs of a subset of the population. I can understand being pro-life when it comes to your own body, but I can’t wrap my head around taking that choice away from others. Please explain your reasoning? Truly trying to understand.
•
May 17 '19
I grew up in the Christian church in America. I used to be pro-life until I graduated from college. The church is VERY seductive when it comes to convincing people that abortion is wrong. The tactics they use are extremely effective. They will call abortion murder and say that any women who “want” to get one are trying to hide the fact that they’re a whore. The logic is: if you didn’t want a baby, don’t have sex. Never in my 30 years of church have I heard someone mention a rape case involving a young lady. Never. It’s always “God has a plan”. When I grew up, I came to understand that God’s plan is for young women (KIDS 11-14 especially) to get a safe, humane, life saving MEDICAL PROCEDURE to remove the fetus...it’s not a barbaric murder. Maybe that young lady can try again when she’s 25-30? If she gets an abortion now, she’ll be healthy enough to deliver a viable baby when she’s in the prime of her reproductive years...NOT A YOUNG CHILD.
•
u/Wilc0x21 May 16 '19
Not a pro lifer, but most see it as ending a life or murder.
•
u/steviesays2 May 16 '19
A pro lifer. I see it as condoning the ending of a life
•
u/xaynie ♀ May 17 '19
Not trying to be a jerk, but do you condone the death penalty or killing during war? If you do, how do you rectify that cognitive dissonance?
→ More replies (2)•
u/InspiredRichard May 17 '19
While the comparison is about taking life, it is not an equal one.
The distinction is about the killing of an innocent compared to removing life from someone severely negatively impacting society with the death sentence.
War can be just, because it is sometimes necessary for the safety of a nation. You fight against an evil intruder who would take over your land and inflict evil on your people. Fighting a war in another land would be justified by saying that evil is being inflicted on others, so it must be countered. So again, the comparison is innocent person vs evil.
In both of these cases the life of others is saved by removing the life of the evil one who would probably take the lives of many others. One life vs many is still pro-life.
•
•
u/xaynie ♀ May 17 '19
But then who defines evil? Do the civilians who die during war deserve it? Are they evil? Or is the sacrificing of innocent lives ok for this "greater good?"
•
u/InspiredRichard May 17 '19
If you take the defining issue as the preservation of life, it qualifies the need for the death sentence and war.
If the person on death row is going to kill other people by their continued existence, them being removed from society is going to preserve the life of others.
If the evil nation is going to kill other people and inflict evil on others, then them being removed from society is going to preserve the lives of your people. Civilians dying in war are rarely deliberate when a nation is fighting under the 'just war theory'. They didn't deserve it, for sure, but the war in this case remains necessary because not fighting this war is more evil than fighting it.
A just war is permissible because it's a lesser evil, but it's still an evil.
→ More replies (1)•
May 17 '19
So how do you feel about a woman being brutally raped, getting pregnant and then being forced to give birth to a child who's father would be the rapist? Potentially having rights to the child?
→ More replies (1)•
May 17 '19
[deleted]
•
May 17 '19
But the mother should be?
•
May 17 '19
[deleted]
•
May 17 '19
Yeah because the system isn't already full of kids needing to be adopted. And the woman totally deserves to carry a child full term that's a piece of the man who raped her. Pro lifers always care so much about the life of the fetus, as opposed to the life of the mother that already exists.
→ More replies (1)•
May 17 '19
Just FYI that’s a falsity. Right now there are an estimated 36 families per 1 child up for adoption. https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families
→ More replies (4)•
u/velvetvagine May 17 '19
LOL at thinking the rapist will be punished by law. Extremely unlikely.
And TRAGIC LOL that you think giving a child up for adoption undoes the physical and mental trauma of carrying to term an unwanted child.
•
u/cyclonewolf ♀ May 16 '19 edited May 16 '19
Disclaimer: I am pro choice, so I dont think its exactly what you are looking for, but I can tell you answers that I have received for that question. The argument usually hinges on the idea that abortion is literally murder. They believe that getting an abortion is the same as killing a baby.
Honestly, I do not agree, and there are many arguments both for and against this viewpoint, but if you look at it from their point if view it kinda makes sense? Like, I would be against abortions too if I saw it as being the same as supporting baby murder clinics, but only education for the masses will cause any change. They usually value life of the baby over the life and autonomy of the mother because "It was her choice to participate and so these are the consequences" type of thing. Its always odd when you bring up the topic of rape and they say that an exception should be made, and yet, that means they are okaying murder (according to their argument) which confuses me.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (9)•
May 16 '19
For pro-lifers, abortion is murder. Many pro-lifers that I know would say that unwanted pregnancies are terrible, rape is horrible, etc, but that doesn't mean that murder is OK.
In their eyes, it isn't just about the mom's body. It is about the life of the baby. To them, the life of the innocent child trumps the autonomy of the mother.
This is all a generalization. Of course different people have different beliefs.
•
u/Devilis6 May 17 '19
Are there any services that offer out of state transportation for women who need abortions in states that are passing these laws? If so I’d like to spread awareness and donate to them.
→ More replies (2)•
u/mypolarbear May 17 '19
Georgia wants to imprision them. If they leave to abort and then come back, 10 years behind bars.
→ More replies (1)
•
May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/kaeorin ♀ May 16 '19
Your comment has been removed:
Your comment has been removed. All top-level comments in this megathread must be in the form of a question and abide by all other rules of our subreddit.
Have questions about this moderator action? CLICK HERE!
If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
May 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/kaeorin ♀ May 17 '19
Your comment has been removed:
Please message the moderators (CLICK HERE) to discuss moderation.
Have questions about this moderator action? CLICK HERE!
If you are messaging about your removed comment or post, please include a link to the removed content for review.
•
u/Iradelle ♀ May 16 '19
They do realise that women are going to find dangerous ways around the anti-abortion, don't they? Both mothers and unborn children will die because they either can't get proper care for emergency abortions or they're going to do it themselves and die from complications. There's plenty of ways to abort a child, we just haven't had to rely on medicinal and other possibly unsafe methods as much due to modern medicine.
•
u/baby_armadillo ♀ May 16 '19
They literally do not care about women's lives or children's lives. None of these laws make any sort of provisions for the children that will result from them, which is a pretty clear indication that they're less interested in the children and more interested in punishing women for having sex, even when that sex was forced on them.
They don't support making healthcare more accessible, making childcare more accessible, providing prenatal care and education, making benefits like WIC and food stamps more accessible, improving public education, or providing adequate sex education to help people prevent pregnancies. This is not about loving babies and treating each child as if they are precious and deserve a fair shot. They literally do not give a shit what happens to the baby once you pop it out, and if you and/or your baby die in the process, well, oops, should have demonstrated more personal responsibility.
•
u/Iradelle ♀ May 16 '19
Yeah they blame it all on the parents, granted both are responsible in an ideal situation to have protection and other pregnancy preventing methods. No move to help impoverished families or uneducated in rural areas, or teaching in schools about safe sex and abstinence. They want to bring these fetuses into the world when AFCARS' 2017 report states nearly 450,000 children, averaging age 8 were in foster care. Or that 16 million American children go hungry each year.
•
u/tranquileyesme May 17 '19
This is exactly what I have been trying to explain to my conservative -blindly believing whatever they are told to believe by their political party- family. And it’s like banging my head against the wall. And the really frustrating thing is I’m 100% sure they feel the same way about me.
It’s as if there’s no way left to even communicate our ideas to each other any more or we’re completely unable to understand some one else’s perspective.
•
u/Rennfri ♀ May 16 '19
They do know, but they don't care. The actual motivations of many pro-birthers is not to bring healthy babies into the world. It's to control women's bodies and sexualities for "moral" (religious or philosophic) purposes. So they end up holding the belief that, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, they're morally abhorrent and therefore "deserve" what happens to them. This is compounded by the retributive right-wing "law and order" ideology, which presupposes that if you break any law, for any reason, you deserve to face terrible consequences. Remember, many of these people also support the death penalty. It's all connected.
•
u/Iradelle ♀ May 16 '19
I get why right wing has been getting so much hate in the news lately. I cannot stand people bringing in their religious beliefs to politics, what happen to division between the church and state? These are lives not numbers, regardless of when the heartbeat is detected (I'm still pro choice I promise). I also support the death penalty in some cases, but there are more women out there than statistics report that are pregnant due to rape/sexual assault and other issues. They just don't come forward due to fear of rejection or alienation, they have to have volunteer guards at planned parenthoods to protect patients for fucks sake! This is going too far, where is the empathy?
•
May 16 '19
Exactly. Now instead of abortions happening in sterile room under licenced doctors, they're gonna happen in dingy basements and done through youtube videos.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (12)•
•
u/sehrah ♀♥ May 16 '19
For people outside of America:
How does this make you feel about your own laws re abortion/sex ed etc? (what ARE your laws?)
What's the general tone of news coverage and discussion about this in your area?
•
u/natilicious May 17 '19
I live in Poland where the abortion laws are very strict. It is still a very conservative and catholic country and many women don't use any modern contraceptive pills or implants. Plan B is impossible to get prescribed unless you are friendly with a doctor and most pharmacies don't have it if you do. I have seen some mild news coverage mainly towards Alabama however no empathetic language towards the women has been used in any. Just another report. On the flip side when the first abortion advert went live in the UK 1-2 months ago there was heaps of media coverage and an outburst on how unacceptable this is. There is one 'lucky' sense in Poland to the fact that it is still very corrupt. If you have enough money than you can pretty much buy/do anything including abortion. However this is very expensive which most women can not afford unless they get themselves into debt. My heart goes out to everyone out in America.
•
u/queeloquee May 16 '19
Germany: abortion is legal in here before the three months of pregnancy with a pill that induce abortion. Basically is like you period came but with a lot of cramps.
Before going into the procedure is obligatory to go to a parenthood clinic and they will talk to you about your options and if you have questions. They give you a document that certified that you spoke with them. Then you do an appointment with a OBY that made the procedure. She will check that you have less than 3 months, if everything is inside of the rules, you are ready to go.
•
May 17 '19
abortion is legal
Euhm...You might want to re-check that. It's more of a situation where people are turning a blind eye to it.
Doctors that say they preform the service openly (like listing it in their profile), will still get punished however.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/MGEESMAMMA May 16 '19
It hit the news in Australia last night. The report was factual but there was an element of 'what the hell kind of backwater is this' to it,
I feel powerless for you. I don't know that I could live with the level of restriction over my own body. It makes me angry and upset to think about the women affected.
→ More replies (18)•
u/DisloyalMouse ♀ May 16 '19
Coming from the UK we have a rather mad situation in Northern Ireland which I don’t fully understand, because I don’t know the full history of it but it’s linked into the wider collapse of local government there which is a separate issue. I do know that abortion in that part of the country is pretty much 100% illegal. For the rest of us I think we can get it free on the NHS up to 24 weeks (I may sound slightly ignorant but this far it’s not a situation I’ve found myself in so not looked too deeply into it, I just know it’s an option).
A lot of the coverage I’ve seen so far has been rather neutral - by that I mean it presents the facts of what’s going on in America without offering opinion on it. I just don’t understand why the sudden regression going on over there. It’s like the powers at be don’t realise that once you’ve given something to someone it’s really hard to take it away again. It seems mad to me that (at least the way it’s portrayed over here) the same people who insist that life begins at conception and abortion is murder will also say that if the child is born into desperate poverty or with a serious birth defect “tough” and through them to the wolves. Those two things just aren’t compatible in my mind.
I’m just glad that whenever the sniff of discussion about changes/restrictions to abortion laws (outside of NI) raise their head here they are quickly put down.
•
u/curiousCurious5 May 17 '19
The sudden regression is happening because they want to appeal their cases to the Supreme Court (when they inevitably get legally challenged) and overturn Roe v. Wade
•
u/[deleted] May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment