Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

IIRC the case before the Supreme Court is one state's new law to restrict the time period you can get an abortion to 30 days. The thinking being that the less time you have to get it done legally, and the harder it is to get one in general, the less likely that someone will be able to get a legal, safe abortion and just give up on the idea. It's not "are they going to outlaw abortion" but rather "are they going to weaken a key provision of Roe v. Wade, which will help defeat the thing it was written to do." If it passes I believe it will be the first ever modification to its ruling, and could lead to the rest of the ruling being called into question.

The current standard of Roe v. Wade is that anything less than 90 days is unconstitutional.

[Vector]

IIRC the case before the Supreme Court is one state's new law to restrict the time period you can get an abortion to 30 days. The thinking being that the less time you have to get it done legally, and the harder it is to get one in general, the less likely that someone will be able to get a legal, safe abortion and just give up on the idea. It's not "are they going to outlaw abortion" but rather "are they going to weaken a key provision of Roe v. Wade, which will help defeat the thing it was written to do." If it passes I believe it will be the first ever modification to its ruling, and could lead to the rest of the ruling being called into question.

Please recall that pregnancy tests do not function before 6 weeks. This is not making it "more difficult," this is making it impossible.

[Maximum Spin]

Please recall that pregnancy tests do not function before 6 weeks. This is not making it "more difficult," this is making it impossible.

There are modern pregnancy tests that can tell as quickly as within 10 days - roughly five days before the first missed period, which is usually around 14 days after ovulation.

[Duuvian]

Are those 10 day tests the kind that are easily and cheaply accessible to all? I don't know anything about what kinds are the usual standard.

[Maximum Spin]

Are those 10 day tests the kind that are easily and cheaply accessible to all? I don't know anything about what kinds are the usual standard.

Nothing is easily and cheaply accessible to all, but they're pretty cheap and pretty accessible. It depends on how you're going about getting them, I suppose.

[Duuvian]

That doesn't really answer the question though. What information can you provide us with about how a person goes about getting a 10 day test? Is it over the counter? Through a doctor or hospital visit etc?

[Maximum Spin]

That doesn't really answer the question though. What information can you provide us with about how a person goes about getting a 10 day test? Is it over the counter? Through a doctor or hospital visit etc?

They're available OTC, yes. You can get them at pretty much any drugstore, Target, Amazon...

[Duuvian]

Lol it's probably in an aisle I don't peer deeply into often

Is it expensive?

[Frumple]

They're accessible, but also wildly inaccurate, easily capable of regularly producing false negatives or false positives.

Functionally, you're not going to get a reliable read until about the point you miss a period, i.e. about a month or so, probably a bit more, near as I can tell. Like this horseshit 30 day proposal, the 10 day tests are more a red herring than actually useful.

[Maximum Spin]

They're accessible, but also wildly inaccurate, easily capable of regularly producing false negatives or false positives.

This is false, studies have found that the accuracy is comparable to conventional pregnancy tests. False positives are particularly rare.

Functionally, you're not going to get a reliable read until about the point you miss a period, i.e. about a month or so, probably a bit more, near as I can tell.

The missed period should be no more than around 14-18 days after conception.

[Duuvian]

This seems to be quite the loggerheads on this issue. Is there supporting medical evidence in regards to the efficiency of the product? As it likely is a subject of medical interest, I would guess such studies abound.

[Starver]

Spontaneous loss of very early pregnancies is very hard to study (because they may happen without knowledge, or at least confirmed conviction, that they were there to lose) so:

a) Apparent false positives of super-early tests could be falsely false, but then the actual pregnancy went wrong, hidden by other factors (conversely, false-negagatives might be hidden by the same mechanism),
b) Post-conception 'periods' might be mere (sic) bleeds, not always fatal to the carrying to term, even if it's a recognised danger sign.
c) The lack of a period (or two) isn't proof positive of pregnancy, as there may be other physiological reasons that spontaneously crop up. Although this could also compound with that possibility of very very early 'miscarriages' in some circumstances.


I really have no knowledge of the efficacy or utility of the current range of tests, no practical experience[1] of having a menstral cycle/possibility-of-pregnancy in a first-hand manner, and please don't take this as a claim of expertise in the minutiae. It's just a rounding up of some of the kinds of confounding factors that certainly make the 30 days limit pretty much beset by practical flaws that might provide for too many edge/over-edge conditions to make it an equitable solution even if you accept the premise of the earliest intervention being the least abhorent compromise.

(Really, once you get to that stage, you might as well go full-Romania. Which, luckily, they can't. Although I imagine there's also enough other pseudo-Romanian practices in effect if you investigate deep enough in the right places.)


[1] Given the acknowledged differences in experience, that'd be somewhat anecdotal but I lack even that concession and not sure I can cross-correlate what little second-hand 'bystander' information I have gathered through the fog of arms'-length non-study (and probably deliberately kept clouded from me).

[MorleyDev]

That there are people who don't realize they are pregnant for the first month invalidates the test argument by itself, because to go get a test you have to realize you may be pregnant and so go get a test. Unless all sexually active women should be getting mandatory weekly pregnancy tests just-in-case?

I mean, sure you can argue "well they should be more careful/paying more attention", yes and everyone should get straight As at school and go to University and never smoke and get black out drunk and never get addicted and always say please and thank you and finish their dinner before they have dessert and...

[Vector]

Yeah, looks like the only viable option if you aren't ready to be pregnant and want to have sex is a pregnancy test every week or two.

Great.

[hector13]

Well yes sex is for procreation not recreation.

/poe