Idaho Doctors can Refer Patients for Out-Of-State Abortions, Judge Rules

[Bradskii]

OK. I'm discussing US law so "need" is not really in the picture. The US law has long recognized that laws require the government to have a "compelling interest" in the subject at hand and it has long been determined that reproduction falls into that category. I'm not seeing any distinction here that would allow people to allow one but block the other.

Then I'll ask: should the government have a responsibility to keep their citizens safe? And the follow up is: should the government have any say in a woman's reproduction cycle?

 

[Bradskii]

Is there data to suggest that there's massive numbers of people being denied medically necessary abortion procedures?

That there is or isn't is irrelevant. It's wrong. Period. It doesn't get less wrong if it hardly affects anyone. It doesn't become right if it affects no-one.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Who said anything about medically necessary? Probably most of next-state-over referrals were for the typical early term elective abortions that used to be legal in the home state.

Actually, it's the outlier scenarios that get most of the media attention.

For instance, if there's a story about a woman who couldn't get treatment for an ectopic pregnancy due to an incompetent doctor (or a disingenuous one who wants to use state laws to claim they're afraid to perform it), the media outlets are off to the races and it's the "go-to" story for pro-choice activists to claim "this is why you should do what we want".

The story about the extreme outlier scenario of the young girl who was raped and had to go to another state went viral. The thread started about it back over year ago was still getting activity a week or two ago.

Story of 10 year old denied abortion goes viral; Update arrest made

I can't say for sure why you keep repeating this obvious fabrication, but the clear implication is a hatred for immigrants. There's no evidence for this whatsoever, and it makes no logical sense. Why would the woman pay an illegal immigrant because he was allowed into the US? There are...

www.christianforums.com

So to pretend that nobody is clinging to the most sympathetic outlier scenarios in order to push for something much broader is false. And I played it fair in my previous post and pointed out that the right also clings to outlier scenarios in order to "make a point". Super late term elective abortions are also very rare, but they use those to further a "give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile" vibe.

There's not too many MSNBC headlines or debate threads about "23 year old college woman acts a little carelessly at a party and accidentally gets pregnant, now has to make a 4 hour road trip to get procedure done". (although you've acknowledged that's the overwhelmingly more common scenario)


For this next part, to clarify, I'm not advocating for or promoting abortion as that would be a violation of CF rules:

Just speaking in terms of public opinion, the Clinton-era sentiment of safe, legal, and rare (whether one believes it's right or wrong) seemed to have a lot of public agreement.

As soon as the "rare" was taken off the end, that's when I noticed a lot of backlash starting to build.

Many saw it as a case where something that was supposed to be an absolute method of last resort, was starting to become a little too commonplace and being viewed as "just a form of preventing having a baby among many others" and started to have the tinge of merely enabling irresponsibility.

In 2016, per a CDC survey, among women having abortions, of the people polled:

Nearly half weren't using contraception, and of that group, only half of a percent were the result of sexual assault (which should be a protected scenario)

Of the half using contraception, in more cases than not, the contraception was being improperly used (part of the blame for that facet can be laid at the feet of conservatives who've pushed for abstinence only education)

Per Guttmacher Institute (an NGO that's actually pro-Reproductive rights/health and pro-choice)
About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even pro-choice ones.

When "safe, legal, and rare" turns into "safe, legal, and if I didn't have time to get to the pharmacy...no big deal, I'm still hooking up with him, I'll just get an abortion if something happens" and that kind of decision starts getting celebrated as some sort of "shining beacon of women's empowerment", and criticism of that position are met with accusations of "well I guess that means you don't care about rape victims" that's when some public opinions start to shift.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then I'll ask: should the government have a responsibility to keep their citizens safe? And the follow up is: should the government have any say in a woman's reproduction cycle?

Would now be a bad time to mention that despite previous attempts at downplaying it, the covid vaccines actually did have an impact on women's cycles?

Menstrual changes after Covid vaccines may be far more common than previously known

A study found that 42% of people with regular menstrual cycles said they bled more heavily than usual after their Covid vaccination.

www.nbcnews.com

Per the pro-vaccine and pro-choice publication NBC:
An analysis published Friday in the journal Science Advances found that 42% of people with regular menstrual cycles said they bled more heavily than usual after vaccination. Meanwhile, 44% reported no change and around 14% reported a lighter period. Among nonmenstruating people — those post-menopause or who use certain long-term contraceptives, for example — the study suggests many experienced breakthrough or unexpected bleeding after their Covid shots.


It would seem like mandating women to do something that can either disrupt their menstrual cycle or cause them to have to put off having a baby if they want one, is, in fact, having a say in their reproduction.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That there is or isn't is irrelevant. It's wrong. Period. It doesn't get less wrong if it hardly affects anyone. It doesn't become right if it affects no-one.

So what makes a restriction "right"?

If not the potential externalities (real or perceived), then what?

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, it's the outlier scenarios that get most of the media attention.

For instance...

But we're not talking about media coverage. We're discussing whether it's right or wrong. And one doesn't need real life examples to determine that. A state can reasonably determine what can and cannot happen within it's borders. It has no jurisdiction over what someone living in that state does anywhere else.

 

[Bradskii]

It would seem like mandating women to do something that can either disrupt their menstrual cycle or cause them to have to put off having a baby if they want one, is, in fact, having a say in their reproduction.

I think you forgot to add the little eye-rolling icon. Because you surely don't expect me to take that seriously.

 

[Bradskii]

The only compelling reason to restrict someone from doing something is that the act could cause a negative effect or imposition on someone else.

And wandering about the countryside with a highly contagious and deadly disease fulfills that criteria. Being pregnant doesn't. There's an argument that the first could, or even should be restricted. None whatsoever for the second. If you already understand that, what on earth are you arguing about?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think you forgot to add the little eye-rolling icon. Because you surely don't expect me to take that seriously.

Feel free to point out where what I said was inaccurate...

If you advocate for requirements to take the covid vaccine, you're advocating for women to take something that had 42% rate of disrupting menstrual cycles.

You make think the pros outweigh the cons for that situation, but if you have a problem with the actual content of the link I provided, you'll have to take that up with the writers and editors over at NBC, I didn't write the article.

 

[Belk]

Then I'll ask: should the government have a responsibility to keep their citizens safe?

Yes

And the follow up is: should the government have any say in a woman's reproduction cycle?

No


I don't think you are understanding my position. I do not disagree that we SHOULD be able to limit travel in the one case and not the other. It is a matter of I don't think you CAN under US law.

 

[durangodawood]

Actually, it's the outlier scenarios that get most of the media attention.

For instance, if there's a story about a woman who couldn't get treatment for an ectopic pregnancy due to an incompetent doctor (or a disingenuous one who wants to use state laws to claim they're afraid to perform it), the media outlets are off to the races and it's the "go-to" story for pro-choice activists to claim "this is why you should do what we want".

The story about the extreme outlier scenario of the young girl who was raped and had to go to another state went viral. The thread started about it back over year ago was still getting activity a week or two ago.

Story of 10 year old denied abortion goes viral; Update arrest made

I can't say for sure why you keep repeating this obvious fabrication, but the clear implication is a hatred for immigrants. There's no evidence for this whatsoever, and it makes no logical sense. Why would the woman pay an illegal immigrant because he was allowed into the US? There are...

www.christianforums.com

So to pretend that nobody is clinging to the most sympathetic outlier scenarios in order to push for something much broader is false. And I played it fair in my previous post and pointed out that the right also clings to outlier scenarios in order to "make a point". Super late term elective abortions are also very rare, but they use those to further a "give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile" vibe.

There's not too many MSNBC headlines or debate threads about "23 year old college woman acts a little carelessly at a party and accidentally gets pregnant, now has to make a 4 hour road trip to get procedure done". (although you've acknowledged that's the overwhelmingly more common scenario)


For this next part, to clarify, I'm not advocating for or promoting abortion as that would be a violation of CF rules:

Just speaking in terms of public opinion, the Clinton-era sentiment of safe, legal, and rare (whether one believes it's right or wrong) seemed to have a lot of public agreement.

As soon as the "rare" was taken off the end, that's when I noticed a lot of backlash starting to build.

Many saw it as a case where something that was supposed to be an absolute method of last resort, was starting to become a little too commonplace and being viewed as "just a form of preventing having a baby among many others" and started to have the tinge of merely enabling irresponsibility.

In 2016, per a CDC survey, among women having abortions, of the people polled:
View attachment 334298

Nearly half weren't using contraception, and of that group, only half of a percent were the result of sexual assault (which should be a protected scenario)

Of the half using contraception, in more cases than not, the contraception was being improperly used (part of the blame for that facet can be laid at the feet of conservatives who've pushed for abstinence only education)

Per Guttmacher Institute (an NGO that's actually pro-Reproductive rights/health and pro-choice)
About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even pro-choice ones.

When "safe, legal, and rare" turns into "safe, legal, and if I didn't have time to get to the pharmacy...no big deal, I'm still hooking up with him, I'll just get an abortion if something happens" and that kind of decision starts getting celebrated as some sort of "shining beacon of women's empowerment", and criticism of that position are met with accusations of "well I guess that means you don't care about rape victims" that's when some public opinions start to shift.

You just cannot seem to settle down and discuss the issue at hand.

If we want to discuss whether and when elective abortion should be legal, lets start a thread to discuss it (tho Im not totally sure one is allowed to take the affirmative on this forum).

If we did go that route, the proper way to discuss it is based on the facts and values of the matter - not based on what other things proponents or opponents might also want to allow or restrict. Nor based on the character or motives various people might hold. Appeals to all that are basically fallacies - for good reason.

But thats not even the point of this thread. This is about a state restricting referrals of adults to other states to engage in activities that are legal in those other states.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And wandering about the countryside with a highly contagious and deadly disease fulfills that criteria. Being pregnant doesn't. There's an argument that the first could, or even should be restricted. None whatsoever for the second. If you already understand that, what on earth are you arguing about?

I asked this question before (maybe you replied and I missed it...which if that's the case, my bad for not seeing it).

When things like the vaccine passport systems were getting implemented, which wave of Coronavirus was that happening in?

As noted before, the "communal benefit" to the covid jabs faded away after the alpha variant. Anything delta and beyond, the vaccine was a personal benefit.

And it still boils down to an ideological conflict.

For those who are pro-life (a camp which I'm not in but I know enough of them to know their position), they see unborn as lives being terminated via abortion (in the US to the tune of 500k per year), so it would still come down to what they see as protecting life vs. what you see as protecting life.

 

[Bradskii]

Feel free to point out where what I said was inaccurate...

The accuracy isn't being disputed. It's the logic in using it. And I'm not interested in discussing covid related menstruation rates any further, so please stay focussed on the op.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You just cannot seem to settle down and discuss the issue at hand.

If we want to discuss whether and when elective abortion should be legal, lets start a thread to discuss it (tho Im not totally sure one is allowed to take the affirmative on this forum).

If we did go that route, the proper way to discuss it is based on the facts and values of the matter - not based on what other things proponents or opponents might also want to allow or restrict. Nor based on the character or motives various people might hold. Appeals to all that are basically fallacies - for good reason.

But thats not even the point of this thread. This is about a state restricting referrals of adult to other states to engage in activities that are legal in those other states.

I've already stated a few times that I'm not in favor of a home state punishing someone who goes to another state to do something legal there.
(I believe the examples I used were gambling, weed, and prostitution)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The accuracy isn't being disputed. It's the logic in using it. And I'm not interested in discussing covid related menstruation rates any further, so please stay focussed on the op.

I'm not the one who used the talking point "the government shouldn't have any say in womens' cycles".

You introduced that talking point, I just responded to it by pointing out a contradiction.

Given that the NBC article demonstrates that they did have an impact on women's cycles and that entities were mandating them, there's really no argument to be had on the premise, it's just a matter of arguing where the line is and what kind of "cost measured in human lives" constitutes an extraordinary enough circumstance for that line to be crossed.

You would say that a virus that killed 1 million humans in the US meets that threshold.
A Christian pro-life person who feels that abortion is responsible for 500k human deaths per year (every year for the past decade) meets that threshold.

 

[Bradskii]

I asked this question before (maybe you replied and I missed it...which if that's the case, my bad for not seeing it).

When things like the vaccine passport systems were getting implemented, which wave of Coronavirus was that happening in?

I gave you the actual date. What version of covid was current I have no idea without checking. And I'm not interested.

It was decided by the government, on the best medical advice available that it was a good idea. The vast majority of us agreed. It was no big deal. We're not known for being paranoid down here so we all got our jabs, downloaded the app and went on with our lives. The ones that didn't were restricted in what they could do and where they could go. That was their call. I really didn't care.

 

[durangodawood]

I've already stated a few times that I'm not in favor of a home state punishing someone who goes to another state to do something legal there.
(I believe the examples I used were gambling, weed, and prostitution)

Its not just about the person who goes to the other state. Its about the person who gives information to others about what's legal in another state.

This attempt at a permanent basis intrusion upon liberty is kind of shocking to me.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I gave you the actual date. What version of covid was current I have no idea without checking. And I'm not interested.

Well, it should interest you...

I, for one, would definitely want to know whether or not my government was implementing a very strict measure during a time when it was still useful or if they were doing it after it was to a phase where the experts knew it was pointless in order to promote some sort of social conformity.

It was decided by the government, on the best medical advice available that it was a good idea. The vast majority of us agreed. It was no big deal. We're not known for being paranoid down here so we all got our jabs, downloaded the app and went on with our lives. The ones that didn't were restricted in what they could do and where they could go. That was their call. I really didn't care.

So if the vast majority in a deep red state agreed that the best option for saving lives was to prevent people from being able to travel for abortions, would that make it okay?

And those types of decisions here in the US (our two countries' timelines may have differed) weren't made on the best medical data at the time. They knew by the time we got to delta that it wasn't blocking transmission like it was with the original strain and alpha...thus the reason they started asking those of us in the two-jab crowd to wear masks again at social gatherings. If the best medical evidence suggested that it blocked transmission to any significant degree during that time, there should've been no problem with two fully vaccinated people hanging out at a bar maskless.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Its not just about the person who goes to the other state. Its about the person who gives information to others about what's legal in another state.

This attempt at a permanent basis intrusion upon liberty is kind of shocking to me.

You're preaching to the choir on that aspect...I still have a lot of my libertarian tendencies.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think you are understanding my position. I do not disagree that we SHOULD be able to limit travel in the one case and not the other. It is a matter of I don't think you CAN under US law.

In the case of a covid 'passport' I would assume in any case that the restriction would be on entering a state. I can't imagine you could be prevented from leaving one. So in that sense it could be limited in the case of a pandemic. But being pregnant? What could possibly be the justification for that? And if the state you enter can give you an abortion then the state you came from has no say in the matter.