Utah criminalizes miscarriage

[sdhonda]

I'mma throw some oil back into this fire.

Should the government fund abortion?

[Matt]

if the government funds other health-care, yes. NOT funding the is going to cost them more in social support and welfare anyhow.

-m

[Master Gunner]

Under the Canadian style of health care, I'd say yes, so long as it is medically necessary. Beyond that, I'm not sure I'd be entirely comfortable with my taxes going towards that (while I have no real objections to early-term abortions, especially considering how many pregnancies fail in the first couple weeks anyways, it still something that.....well, I'm really glad I won't ever have to make the call, it's a horrid one to make either way).

[Arius]

Unicorn sighting: I agree with Matt.

Abortion is a medical procedure and should be covered under the same laws. Yes, it is often optional, but so is reattaching a leg.

[evilgenius]

Yeah but that becomes a real sticky issue in the US. the government doesn't fund health-care in most states here so its not as easy a leap. not to mention the fact that the Republicans would cry "Communism" were you to even think it. I agree they should but because of the politics we'll probably see Duke Nukem Forever first

Edit: responding to matt. didn't think the thread would have such a quick turn over lol.

[Mister Fiend]

Gotta take the "under certain conditions" stance on that one. It would have to coincide with some actually factual and useful safe sex education. I heard Henry Rollins tell a story about two teenage couples once, both having sex in the same car. They had only one condom, and decided to share it. After one couple finished the guy handed the used condom to his friend, who promptly TURNED IT INSIDE OUT BEFORE APPLYING IT and the having sex with his girlfriend. So then Girl B, despite having sex with Boy B, got pregnant with Boy A's semen. Upon questioning the teens didn't understand how the pregnancy happened because they TOOK PRECAUTIONS AND WORE A CONDOM.

What's that adage about an ounce of prevention, in this case education?

[Metcarfre]

Abortion is a medical procedure and should be covered under the same laws. Yes, it is often optional, but so is reattaching a leg.

Carrying a child to term does not pose significant health risks (I say significant because there is always some small risk to the mother in any childbirth) to the mother. Not all medical procedures are or should be covered by our health plans.

On the one hand, abortions are not generally medically necessary to most women; on the other, fees for such a service serve to discriminate against those of the least means and ability to care for a child in the first place.

I'm torn on the issue of abortion as it is, and public funds paying for it even more so.

[Arius]

Not having a leg doesn't pose many health risks either. You don't need legs to function nowadays. Hell, if you have only one arm and no legs, you can survive in today's world.

Should we refuse to reattaching legs because it's not necessary?

[Metcarfre]

Reattaching a leg can drastically improve the life of an amputee.

[evilgenius]

Gotta take the "under certain conditions" stance on that one. It would have to coincide with some actually factual and useful safe sex education. I heard Henry Rollins tell a story about two teenage couples once, both having sex in the same car. They had only one condom, and decided to share it. After one couple finished the guy handed the used condom to his friend, who promptly TURNED IT INSIDE OUT BEFORE APPLYING IT and the having sex with his girlfriend. So then Girl B, despite having sex with Boy B, got pregnant with Boy A's semen. Upon questioning the teens didn't understand how the pregnancy happened because they TOOK PRECAUTIONS AND WORE A CONDOM.

What's that adage about an ounce of prevention, in this case education?

interesting point although making any state government (can only speak for the US) that doesnt meet a sex ed standard pay for abortions in their state would be a great way to get better sex ed in schools

[Arius]

And not forming babbie can drastically improve the life of a woman.

Quick story: When my mother was pregnant with me, she worked in a factory in upstate New York. Her boss knew in a couple months she'd be taking maternity leave and he'd have to pay for it. So, he put her in a position where she'd have to regularly lift 50 lbs... While pregnant... He couldn't fire her, because he'd have to pay unemployment plus risk getting sued. So, he made her quit.

[Metcarfre]

It's amazing people even bother to have children by that logic.

[Mister Fiend]

I know WAY too many underage parents. Abstinence is the only 100% effective contraceptive, Abstinence-only education is 100% FAIL.

[Arius]

It's amazing people even bother to have children by that logic.

You just made my mobile facepalm. Which is rather difficult because it has neither a face nor palms.

[Metcarfre]

I'm amazed your mobile is sentient.

All I'm saying is that they're not equivalent situations and you picked a bad example.

[Interruptor Jones]

Carrying a child to term does not pose significant health risks (I say significant because there is always some small risk to the mother in any childbirth) to the mother.

If there were no significant health risks, late-term abortion would not be necessary. Gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, stroke, blindness, I could go on but I'm sure you know how to Google.

http://www.uppercasewoman.com/wastedbirthcontrol/2008/03/speaking-to-the.html

The woman who wrote this was lucky to have access to one of ONLY TWO doctors in her city who knew how to perform a D&X, which is often referred to as a 'partial-birth abortion'. Under current legislation, she'd have had no choice but death. Any woman in need of this procedure will face the same fate - and while there may not be hordes of them, well, nonetheless they'll just have to die because someone felt squeamish and wanted to make a law.

[Metcarfre]

Well, then it's medically necessary, isn't it? So of course it should be covered. I meant uncomplicated pregnancies.

And I'll have to apologize for joining the conversation just before bedtime, so if there's anything further I'll get back to you later.

...I hate that squirmy feeling of an imaginary debate in my head as I try to fall asleep.

[Interruptor Jones]

It's been illegal in America since 2004. No medical reason is accepted, there is a total ban on late-term abortion.

Edit: no worries, I'm off as well. Til then, I suppose?

[Heathen]

It's been illegal in America since 2004. No medical reason is accepted, there is a total ban on late-term abortion.

I'm sure you weren't trying to mislead, but this is completely untrue. What you're referring to, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 2003, didn't ban all late-term abortion, it banned one particular, rarely used, method known as IDX*.

Further, while the Act asserts that there isn't a medical reason for performing the procedure, and that doctors should choose alternative methods, it does in fact allow for a defence where it can be objectively shown that the procedure was necessary to save the life of the mother. So, even this one method of foetal extraction is still permitted, if officially discouraged to the point of potential prosecution.

All other procedures for late term abortion are still permissible, subject to State law, which may not place a ban on abortion entirely (per Roe, as is well known) nor on late term abortion unless said legislation provides exceptions for medical necessity (also per Roe, as is less well known).

Moreover, medical necessity, given as "necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother" in Roe, includes the mental health of the mother and isn't particularly narrow in its later elucidations thereof.

The state of play in the US according to SCOTUS is as follows:

• No State may ban abortion entirely (Roe).
• The States may ban certain methods of abortion, or abortion beyond a statutory point of 'viability' (Webster), almost always 24 weeks.
  
  • In doing so, the State must still allow for exceptions to the ban where the mother's health is at risk (Roe).
• Congress may also ban methods of abortion but is still subject to the Roe requirements, which stem from the superior requirements of the fourth, ninth and fourteenth amendments (obiter dictum in Gonzales).

I hope that cleared it up a little. There was a real quake in the international legal community when Gonzales was decided but nothing compared to the protests that would have occurred had it sought to completely ban late-term abortion.

*The Act itself doesn't make reference to IDX, or 'intact dilation and extraction', instead referring to 'partial birth abortion', Gonzales specifically held that the Act referred only to IDX.

[Jillers]

I'm gonna make one carefully calculated post here before the lock, and basically this will be it, I don't think I really have anything else to add except for maybe clarifying something I posted here that wasn't clear.

It is my strong belief that the greatest atrocities of mankind occur and are made possible when people devalue human life.

This is a major factor in genocide, slavery in all it's forms, hate crimes of any kind, and abortion.

Yes, I consider abortion here, partially because of the numbers (thankfully now below 1 million, that is annually), but mostly because I do indeed ascribe "personhood" to the fetus, even to the zygote, thus I equate it to killing and frankly I do not agree with the reason for the killing. Really it's always been rather obvious to me that a child, even preborn, is a person regardless of the number of cells. Why? In short, religious reasons.

I'm stopping you right there because:
I do not believe in your religion. Why should I live my life based on its rules?

Edit: I guess I should add my own actual opinon here, which is this:
Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean you have to have an abortion.
Abortion being illegal also doesn't mean a women won't get an abortion, but it does mean she'll do something like paying someone to beat the crap out of her, tossing herself downstairs, and use clothing hangers, which is neither 100% effective in aborting the fetus, nor is it 100% safe for her.

I'd like to also point out the possibility that this woman, who paid someone to beat the crap out of her, could have also done so because she didn't want to carry it to term for whatever her personal reasons, and, due to her religious upbringing (hypothetically) thought it was wrong to get an abortion. This would take the blame off of her, because it was someone else beating her up, and it was that action that could cause a miscarriage, which is something that happens anyway, freeing her mind from any guilt.

Bottom line: Keep your religion out of my government.

[epocalypse]

I know WAY too many underage parents. Abstinence is the only 100% effective contraceptive, Abstinence-only education is 100% FAIL.

you know what? In my experience, abstinence breaks a HELL of a lot more often than a condom does. It's like Sarah Palin's daughter claiming that she's learned her lesson from her previous abstinence phail and will now be abstinent until marriage when she already has a kid out of wedlock. If she'd learned her lesson she'd be promoting condom use.

[Theremin]

I have nothing to add, I just think abortions are fine, and sometimes fun.

Make them an option for those who want them, if you don't agree with them, don't get one. It's very simple.

[Bananafish]

And not forming babbie can drastically improve the life of a woman.

Quick story: When my mother was pregnant with me, she worked in a factory in upstate New York. Her boss knew in a couple months she'd be taking maternity leave and he'd have to pay for it. So, he put her in a position where she'd have to regularly lift 50 lbs... While pregnant... He couldn't fire her, because he'd have to pay unemployment plus risk getting sued. So, he made her quit.

I think it's actually gotten worse, the amount of power that US employers currently hold is goddamn ridiculous, partly thanks to at-will employment meaning you can be fired practically for any reason (or no reason) with no liability on the employers part.

any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,"

Meanwhile,




This is important because decrease in minimum wage and net worth is actually contributing to abortions because less families are capable of actually supporting a child. Why not instead help worker reform that would actually improve a lot of people's lives instead of trying to campaign against the legality of abortion?

[sdhonda]

Well, as Milton Friedman once said, "Why not make the min wage 200 dollars an hour"?

There's limits to what can actually be done to improve working conditions.

[Bananafish]

Working conditions are a different matter, a working salary that's actually capable of letting someone live without a fear of whether they'll be able to eat, pay rent, buy gas, or pay medical bills should not be beyond our grasp. Why is it that the bottom 40% are getting screwed while everyone else is profiting? Why is it that corporate profits have actually increased while the minimum wage has decreased, and we haven't even experienced a trade-off of receiving more benefits.

e:

The incomes of the top 400 American households soared to a new record high in dollars and as a share of all income in 2007, while the income tax rates they paid fell to a record low, newly disclosed tax data show.

In 2007 the top 400 taxpayers had an average income of $344.8 million, up 31 percent from their average $263.3 million income in 2006, according to figures in a report that the IRS posted to its Web site without announcement that were discovered February 16. (For the report, see Tax Analysts Doc 2010-3372 .)


The figures came at the peak of the last economic cycle and show that widely published reports in major newspapers asserting that the richest Americans are losing relative ground and "becoming poorer" are not supported by the official income data.

The long-term data show that under current tax and economic rules, the incomes of the top earners rise when the economy expands and contract during recessions, only to rise again. Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007.

Taxpayers on the 95th to 99th steps on the income ladder paid an effective income tax rate of 17.52 percent, according to calculations by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit research group that favors less taxation and lower rates. Taxpayers in this category earned between $255,000 and $451,000 in 2007, compared with an average daily income of almost $945,000 for the top 400, who paid lower effective tax rates on average.

Payroll taxes did not add a significant burden to the top 400, not changing the rounding of rates by even one decimal. With payroll taxes taken into account, the effective tax rate of the top 400 would be 17.2 percent in 2006 and 16.6 percent in 2007, my analysis shows -- the same as not counting payroll taxes. As a point of comparison, about two-thirds of Americans pay more in Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes than in federal income taxes.

The top 400's share of all income grew from 1.31 cents out of every dollar earned by all Americans to 1.59 cents.

Adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the top 400 enjoyed a 27 percent increase in their income, or nine times the rate of increase for the bottom 90 percent, based on an earlier analysis of tax data published by Profs. Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, economists at the University of California at Berkeley who have been studying global income trends.

Here you go

This was some IRS data collected on the top 400 earners in the country, it was kept hidden during the Bush administration and has only recently come out.