The USA wants babies, but not poor parents?

[GGT]

Forget Roe v Wade. Or even Planned Parenthood.

One of the first actions the newly elected Republican House chose to tackle was.....redefining rape or incest, and trying new measures to go beyond the Hyde amendment (banning federal funds for abortions). Their goal is clear: they want to make it so hard for women to get an abortion, no federal law can protect those medical rights. WHY?

States are gonna duke this out. HR3 would preclude employers from getting "normal" tax breaks if they offer abortion services through their employer-subsidized private insurance plans. WHY?

First it was Kansas, now it's South Dakota. State mandated ultrasounds, appointments with "approved social services", repeat ultrasounds, 24 hour or 48 hour waiting periods? In states where abortion providers have been run out of town, weeded out, and poor women have to drive hours just to see the lone remaining doctor (who may only have office hours once a week or once a month), take days off work and find child care for any other young kids at home? WHY?

In places where those state approved "social services" are predominantly religious groups intent on swaying women toward "Life" or "Adoption", who may or may not even register with the state? WHY?

How many loop holes and hurdles do states think they can pile on women facing unintended pregnancy before it becomes unconstitutional? And why do they also want to de-fund federal programs that help poor womens' children, like Medicaid, SCHIPs, WIC, food stamps, or Head Start? WHY?

[agamemnus]

In terms of abortion: it's an easy talking point that's easy to defend (on the basis of religious pseudo-moral outrage). It's a political fad in my opinion. It's horrible social and economic policy to make it more difficult for women to abort because of the costs society will have to bear for these unwanted children born to unprepared mothers.

In terms of the rest of it: because of the anger that people have against people who have multiple kids and ask the state to take care of their finances. It's also a talking point, but much more difficult to defend, and not a fad.

My, and others', reasoning is that if you reduce the incentives, you reduce the births. Removing or limiting all these things at the same time will lead to social unrest, however. These programs evolved over a period of decades. They are entrenched, and they entrench the classes. Reform is difficult. Removing them outright is a good talking point and easy, but will probably never happen.

[Lewkowski]

What is the difference between a premature baby that has been born after 6 months of pregnancy and a 6 month old fetus in the woman's womb? One can be murdered and the other can not. Yes for many conservatives the goal is prevent abortions from occurring. Sorry if that bothers you but that wont' be changing anytime soon.

[wiggin]

What is the difference between a premature baby that has been born after 6 months of pregnancy and a 6 month old fetus in the woman's womb? One can be murdered and the other can not. Yes for many conservatives the goal is prevent abortions from occurring. Sorry if that bothers you but that wont' be changing anytime soon.

6 months is not actually viable, you realize. 24 weeks is pretty much the very earliest a kid can even potentially survive, but chances are awfully slim and the kid will almost certainly have significant brain damage and other developmental problems. Just sayin'.

edit: and at any rate, my understanding of Roe v. Wade is that they legalized abortion only until viability, which obviously comes about somewhere in the 6-7 month period. Furthermore, virtually no abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

[Lewkowski]

6 months is not actually viable, you realize. 24 weeks is pretty much the very earliest a kid can even potentially survive, but chances are awfully slim and the kid will almost certainly have significant brain damage and other developmental problems. Just sayin'.

edit: and at any rate, my understanding of Roe v. Wade is that they legalized abortion only until viability, which obviously comes about somewhere in the 6-7 month period. Furthermore, virtually no abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

6 months is a hypothetical period of time. Of course with about 4 weeks to a month 6 months IS 24 weeks...

[Ominous Gamer]

with about 4 weeks to a month 6 months IS 24 weeks...

Why am I not surprised that its Lewk that introduces fuzzy math into an abortion debate?
Considering only 1 month of the year actually has only 4 weeks in, you're barely halfway through 5 months by the time 24 weeks is up.

[wiggin]

Actually, when you say you're '6 months pregnant' it really means you're in the 6th month of pregnancy, which starts around week 22 or so.

My intention had been to amplify the point that 24 weeks (which is halfway through the 6th month FYI) is the very earliest you might even consider a baby to be viable, but they've only got about a 50% chance then, and a very high likelihood that even those that survive will have serious developmental and mental challenges due to incomplete development. Thus when Roe v. Wade explicitly allows abortion until viability it's a valid debate over whether 24 weeks is viable. Once you get to the 7th month, though, it can easily be made illegal within the bounds of the constitution.

[Nessus]

I wonder if the US's increasing obesity 'epidemic' will have problems with women not realizing they're preggers until it's too late.

[Ominous Gamer]

Actually, when you say you're '6 months pregnant' it really means you're in the 6th month of pregnancy, which starts around week 22 or so.

My intention had been to amplify the point that 24 weeks (which is halfway through the 6th month FYI) is the very earliest you might even consider a baby to be viable, but they've only got about a 50% chance then, and a very high likelihood that even those that survive will have serious developmental and mental challenges due to incomplete development. Thus when Roe v. Wade explicitly allows abortion until viability it's a valid debate over whether 24 weeks is viable. Once you get to the 7th month, though, it can easily be made illegal within the bounds of the constitution.

I didn't even connect it to a pregency timeline, I was only pointing out the overly used and incorrect idea that 4 weeks = 1 month.

I've always been uneasy with using months in a pregency timeline, to break everything that is happening down into 9 monthly slots is simply stupid. With Brandy's pregnancy everything was measured in weeks everywhere we went. The doctor used weeks, heck even the online resources she kept using to compare our child to fruit was in weeks. When Scarlett came early I didn't say she was almost a month early, I said she was 3 weeks early. Even then she wasn't ready; they extended our stay in the hospital and she went home weighing only 4lbs something.

One of the kids Brandy watches was an extremely early baby, I'll have to ask her how early, but that child has all sorts of problems. She spent months in the hospital undergoing all kinds of surgeries. She is "misshapen", can't walk without a walker (even though she is older than scarlett), can't drink fluids because she will drown, wears googles for glasses because she is almost blind, and only last month learned how to point. Thats a hell of a financial burden, only compounded by the "save the fetus, starve the child" mindset thats so popular right now.

[GGT]

....Yes for many conservatives the goal is prevent abortions from occurring. Sorry if that bothers you but that wont' be changing anytime soon.

If the goal is to prevent abortions, that means preventing unintended pregnancies. Where do the conservatives stand on birth control and sex-ed? They're trying to limit those, too. Writing legislation to cancel tax breaks for employer-insurance that covers abortion services (even if the woman never uses those services). Defunding PP, including all its Family Planning and birth control services. Introducing new definitions of rape and incest, just to cast a wider net for women not qualifying for subsidized abortions. Trying to keep comprehensive sex-ed out of public schools, opposing school clinics and condom distribution.

In other words, in their attempts to limit a legal medical service for women they're also going to limit BC that actually helps reduce accidental pregnancies. Women who end up having babies won't be able to find assistance in raising these children, either. Nope, conservatives also want to slash social spending for women and children, even the working poor. They say things like, "poor women are having more children just to get more welfare benefits". Their answer is to force women away from abortion, limit their access to affordable BC and family planning, AND cut assistance once their children arrive. Stupidest "plan" ever.

Oddly enough, the same conservatives will complain when gummint "interferes" with private business or medicine, or peoples' private lives---but here they're telling employers and insurance companies what they can offer employees, and how to underwrite insurance policies. They're going to tell physicians and other health professionals how to define rape and incest, what's defined as medically necessary, and prevent them from performing legal abortions. And they're going to insert themselves between a woman and her physician. Hypocrites.

[agamemnus]

Nah GGT, I am pretty sure that these conservatives are in the minority...

[Dreadnaught]

I wonder if the US's increasing obesity 'epidemic' will have problems with women not realizing they're preggers until it's too late.

There's a reality show where this happens sometimes. It's called Oops I'm Pregnant or something.

[Ominous Gamer]

One of the kids Brandy watches was an extremely early baby, I'll have to ask her how early, but that child has all sorts of problems. She spent months in the hospital undergoing all kinds of surgeries. She is "misshapen", can't walk without a walker (even though she is older than scarlett), can't drink fluids because she will drown, wears googles for glasses because she is almost blind, and only last month learned how to point. Thats a hell of a financial burden, only compounded by the "save the fetus, starve the child" mindset thats so popular right now.

The child was 22 weeks along, stayed in the hospital longer than if she developed full term.

[wiggin]

There's a reality show where this happens sometimes. It's called Oops I'm Pregnant or something.

Many of my friends are physicians in Baltimore city hospitals. The peds and ER docs among them frequently relate about people who don't realize they are pregnant. This is more common than one might think - obviously if you're overweight it helps to conceal the actual baby, but obesity (and other problems) can frequently mess up one's menstrual cycle.

There's other ways this can happen, though, that aren't related to obesity. Irregular periods can happen due to other factors like stress, malnutrition, a previous pregnancy, or (most obviously) from a woman who's using back-to-back hormonal contraceptives and doesn't realize she got pregnant due to misuse. While it's hard not to notice the whole 'growing baby' phenomenon, people can be pretty dense when they're sure they're not pregnant (e.g. they're using birth control), the fetus is smaller than average, etc. They might even be offsetting the weight gain by dieting if they think they're just getting fat, which can put off realizing one is pregnant for a very long time.

One other big culprit is the total lack of education many of these women receive - at least in Bmore, that's a huge problem with mothers in their early teens.

All of these are one of the reasons that practically any woman of child-bearing years who comes to the hospital is likely to get tested for pregnancy. It's surprising how often it tests positive.

[GGT]

One other big culprit is the total lack of education many of these women receive - at least in Bmore, that's a huge problem with mothers in their early teens.

They're the young women who end up delivering a baby in the bathroom, thinking contractions were abdominal/diarrhea pains. When those stories hit the news, even their parents say, "She didn't look pregnant, just a little chubby". Sometimes they only need to unbutton their jeans, not outgrowing their clothes, and never get that protruding pregnant belly. Exactly why there should be more (and better) sex-ed in schools, and public clinics. Not less.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._WSJ_US_News_5

Texas Legislation Adds Conditions on Abortion


By ANA CAMPOY

DALLAS—Texas Gov. Rick Perry is expected to sign a law soon requiring a woman seeking an abortion to have a sonogram and hear a description of the fetus, including whether it has developed fingers, toes or internal organs.

The goal, supporters say, is to improve medical care for women and encourage them to reconsider having abortions.

"We believe that when they see the miracle of life some will change their minds," said Dan Patrick, a Republican state senator who represents part of Houston and who sponsored the legislation, which passed both houses of the state legislature last week.

Abortion-rights supporters say there is no evidence that sonograms, also known as ultrasounds, affect a woman's decision on abortion, and say laws requiring doctors to perform the procedures and describe the results violate patients' rights.

"It discounts women's ability to make health decisions and interferes with the doctor-patient relationship," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York non-profit that opposes restrictions on legal abortion.

The group filed a suit challenging a similar law adopted last year in Oklahoma, contending that it violates state constitutional guarantees of privacy for patients and free speech for doctors. A state judge blocked enforcement of the law until the suit is resolved. The group plans to mount a legal challenge to the Texas legislation, if Gov. Perry signs it.

The Texas bill also calls for a 24-hour waiting period between the sonogram and the abortion, except for women who live more than 100 miles from a clinic. Opponents say that waiting period places more burdens on women.

In the past decade, more than 20 states have passed laws involving sonograms for women seeking abortions. Most simply require that ultrasounds be performed. But the Texas and Oklahoma laws, as well as legislation under consideration in Alabama, go further by requiring a woman who wants an abortion to be told in detail about her fetus's development.

Under the Texas law, all women seeking an abortion must have a sonogram but those who have been raped, are minors or who are carrying a fetus with abnormalities are exempt from hearing the description of the image. All women seeking abortions can sign a waiver and choose not to view the image or hear the fetus's heartbeat.

Groups that oppose abortion say ultrasound can be a powerful tool in persuading a woman considering an abortion to continue her pregnancy.

"Ultrasound is literally a window into the womb," said Kelly Rosati, vice-president of Focus on the Family, a Colorado Springs, Co., ministry. "She actually connects with that child inside of her."

Focus on the Family has supplied grants to install 520 sonogram machines in pregnancy centers run by abortion opponents around the country. Ms. Rosati calculates that the ultrasound images have prevented 90,000 abortions since 2004. The figure is based on patients' stated plans after their sonograms; the centers have no way of determining whether the patients gave birth or had abortions, she added.

Many abortion clinics already routinely perform sonograms to determine a pregnancy's length, said Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a New York group that researches reproductive health and favors abortion rights.

At Whole Woman's Health, a network of clinics in Texas, women seeking abortions can see their sonograms and discuss them with doctors, said Terry Sallas Merritt, a clinic executive. Some women ask for a printout of the image to take home.

"The difference is that it's up to her," said Ms. Sallas Merritt. "It's not the legislators telling her what she must hear before she's allowed to exercise her right to have an abortion or have a child."

What a crock, legislating ultrasounds and waiting periods. Treating women as if they're too dumb to understand what being pregnant means, unless they see "literally a window into the womb". Sucks to be that woman living 99 miles from a clinic, too.

[Flixy]

Many of my friends are physicians in Baltimore city hospitals. The peds and ER docs among them frequently relate about people who don't realize they are pregnant. This is more common than one might think - obviously if you're overweight it helps to conceal the actual baby, but obesity (and other problems) can frequently mess up one's menstrual cycle.

There's other ways this can happen, though, that aren't related to obesity. Irregular periods can happen due to other factors like stress, malnutrition, a previous pregnancy, or (most obviously) from a woman who's using back-to-back hormonal contraceptives and doesn't realize she got pregnant due to misuse. While it's hard not to notice the whole 'growing baby' phenomenon, people can be pretty dense when they're sure they're not pregnant (e.g. they're using birth control), the fetus is smaller than average, etc. They might even be offsetting the weight gain by dieting if they think they're just getting fat, which can put off realizing one is pregnant for a very long time.

One other big culprit is the total lack of education many of these women receive - at least in Bmore, that's a huge problem with mothers in their early teens.

All of these are one of the reasons that practically any woman of child-bearing years who comes to the hospital is likely to get tested for pregnancy. It's surprising how often it tests positive.

There was a scandal here not too long ago, a 12 year old girl gave birth during a school trip, not knowing she was pregnant apparently. As a cherry on top, turned out the girl's father was, well, the father. That was a bit of a disturbing story

[GGT]

Many of my friends are physicians in Baltimore city hospitals. The peds and ER docs among them frequently relate about people who don't realize they are pregnant. This is more common than one might think - obviously if you're overweight it helps to conceal the actual baby, but obesity (and other problems) can frequently mess up one's menstrual cycle.

By "People" not knowing they are pregnant, you really mean to say "females" not knowing they are pregnant? I'll bet your ER and Peds doc male friends don't know (or follow) the menstrual cycles or weight gains of their female sex partners, especially when they're single interns or residents. Funny how that works, innit?

[wiggin]

Actually all of my physician friends in those two fields are women. And obviously I meant female people, but who cares?

I'm not sure what your point is.

[GGT]

Actually all of my physician friends in those two fields are women. And obviously I meant female people, but who cares? I'm not sure what your point is.

Not all things are "obvious" y'know. I was referencing the proposed legislation, which surely didn't come from female doctors in emergency or pediatric medicine. Also, making the suggestion that highly educated medical professions may not be tuned into their own or female sex partner's menstrual cycles, knowing when they're pregnant, so how would lay people be held to a higher standard?

[Flixy]

Not all things are "obvious" y'know. I was referencing the proposed legislation, which surely didn't come from female doctors in emergency or pediatric medicine. Also, making the suggestion that highly educated medical professions may not be tuned into their own or female sex partner's menstrual cycles, knowing when they're pregnant, so how would lay people be held to a higher standard?

What does knowing whether you are pregnant have to do with a sonogram before an abortion? I mean, to ask for an abortion you have to already know you are pregnant. And obviously only women get pregnant..

[GGT]

What does knowing whether you are pregnant have to do with a sonogram before an abortion? I mean, to ask for an abortion you have to already know you are pregnant. And obviously only women get pregnant..

Yes, that's what I've been saying. That last exchange with wiggin was more about me being snarky, reiterating that even medical professionals can be clueless about pregnancy in their own lives. ie, how stupid it is to hold laypeople to higher standards than medical interns or residents.

[Veldan Rath]

What, is it really that difficult to understand that when you insert a penis into a vagina a kid may then come out of said vagina 9 months later?

I know it's too simple to tell kids: STOP FUCKING, or at least PUT A DAMN CONDOM ON.

Even better: HE DOES NOT LOVE YOU, HE JUST WANTS TO FUCK YOU.

[Flixy]

What, is it really that difficult to understand that when you insert a penis into a vagina a kid may then come out of said vagina 9 months later?

It's not so much that it is possible, but when it happens. Knowing you can get pregnant isn't the same as knowing you are pregnant. And if you misuse anti conception methods your chances of becoming pregnant are a lot higher than you might think, not to mention that a lot of people think anticonception is 100% safe.

[Ominous Gamer]

or anywhere near 100% The real life effectiveness of anticonception methods are way lower than what their lab studies point to.

[GGT]

What, is it really that difficult to understand that when you insert a penis into a vagina a kid may then come out of said vagina 9 months later?

I know it's too simple to tell kids: STOP FUCKING, or at least PUT A DAMN CONDOM ON.

Even better: HE DOES NOT LOVE YOU, HE JUST WANTS TO FUCK YOU.

Sex is messy and hormones are complicated. Might as well say to males: THAT CONDOM MAY NOT BE ENOUGH. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO FUCK HER SO BAD YOU'RE WILLING TO BE A DADDY?

For that matter, ask men if they're prepared to risk any number of STDs, since diseases can be transmitted....without any possibility for pregnancy....and condoms can't prevent everything. Is it really that difficult to understand?

[Illusions]

Yes for many conservatives the goal is prevent abortions from occurring.

You know what a good way to reduce the amount of abortions that occur is?

1. Proper sex education so that accidental pregnancies don't occur in the first place.
2. Providing a safe and cheap alternative to abortion, by making prenatal care either free or cheap to parents who cannot afford it.

I don't think conservatives have actually positively influenced these things, and in fact with attempts to limit or end funding of Planned Parenthood, funding or providing only abstinence only sex education in schools, etc. are in fact actively harming them.

[Nessus]

What, is it really that difficult to understand that when you insert a penis into a vagina a kid may then come out of said vagina 9 months later?

I know it's too simple to tell kids: STOP FUCKING, or at least PUT A DAMN CONDOM ON.

Even better: HE DOES NOT LOVE YOU, HE JUST WANTS TO FUCK YOU.

If only kids were given factual information about condoms.

And the existence of long-term love as a meaningful concept is pretty much up for debate anyway; sex is fun, why not go for it? Magic sky pixies?

[Lewkowski]

You know what a good way to reduce the amount of abortions that occur is?

1. Proper sex education so that accidental pregnancies don't occur in the first place.
2. Providing a safe and cheap alternative to abortion, by making prenatal care either free or cheap to parents who cannot afford it.

I don't think conservatives have actually positively influenced these things, and in fact with attempts to limit or end funding of Planned Parenthood, funding or providing only abstinence only sex education in schools, etc. are in fact actively harming them.

LOL sex ed. Kids know how babies are made. There already is sex education in schools. Kids know about condoms.

According to NAF only 19% of abortions are done one women 15-19 years of age. The vast majority of abortions are done on women who are adults. Sex education is a red herring.

[Enoch the Red]

And the existence of long-term love as a meaningful concept is pretty much up for debate anyway; sex is fun, why not go for it? Magic sky pixies?

Other than the inherent health risks associated with having multiple sexual partners and the woefully inadequate use/failure rates of common contraceptives?

You know, that whole personal responsibility thing?

[Nessus]

Other than the inherent health risks associated with having multiple sexual partners and the woefully inadequate use/failure rates of common contraceptives?

You know, that whole personal responsibility thing?

What about the risks associated with owning a fire-arm, or driving a car? Being responsible means knowing the risks and acting accordingly, right? But I doubt the only responsible option you'd support were giving up owning cars, or fire-arms.