Print

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

[Nikov]

Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court ruling.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

Thus for an insurance company to say it only pays for abortions found needed to protect the woman's health are really just repeating the letter of the law laid out in Roe v. Wade. And since childbirth is incredibly risky (not to mention expensive for an insurance company to pay for) this is little more than a fig leaf.

[olemars]

I'm not sure you're reading it correctly, to me it seems like that ruling gives women the right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester, as long as her doctor says it's medically safe to do so NOT that the doctor will only approve an abortion in the first trimester if the pregnancy is a health risk for the woman.

That would mean that the woman has a right to terminate the pregnancy, but the insurer might refuse to cover it if there was no health-related reason to perform the procedure.

Also, you really have to pay to give birth safely? Wow.

[Nikov]

I'm not sure you're reading it correctly, to me it seems like that ruling gives women the right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester, as long as her doctor says it's medically safe to do so NOT that the doctor will only approve an abortion in the first trimester if the pregnancy is a health risk for the woman.

No, the doctor determines if there's a medical risk to the mother to give birth. The answer is always yes. Believe me, there is a lot of blood, giant needles and unmentionable devices that belong on a torturer's pegboard involved. Literally a 20 gallon trash bin full of bloody gauze. It is a bad place to be, and I wasn't even the one bleeding.

Also, you really have to pay to give birth safely? Wow.

Insurance companies, Medicaide or straight private citizen's pocketbooks (if too wealthy for Medicaide) do. In fact, I did twice. It comes to about three grand each, which due to the quantity of blood was worth every penny. Did I mention that whole room smelled like pennies? During the C-section. Funniest thing. The British don't, and the government cuts 22% of maternity beds to predictable results while birth rates go up 20% in some areas. Of course the reason the government cut beds is because they were paying for it. So yes, you really have to pay to give birth safely, unless I suppose you're good friends with a doctor with his own clinic. Then he pays for it... really seems unavoidable, this paying-for-services thing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, the doctor determines if there's a medical risk to the mother to give birth. The answer is always yes. Believe me, there is a lot of blood, giant needles and unmentionable devices that belong on a torturer's pegboard involved. Literally a 20 gallon trash bin full of bloody gauze. It is a bad place to be, and I wasn't even the one bleeding.

Human Birth: How the fuck did our species survive this long?

(I'm not even joking, we have one of the most hazard-filled reproductive processes on the planet. There's a reason we had so little population growth in all of the Dark Ages compared to Post-Renaissance, despite the former being a much longer period of time.)

[Ochita]

No, the doctor determines if there's a medical risk to the mother to give birth. The answer is always yes. Believe me, there is a lot of blood, giant needles and unmentionable devices that belong on a torturer's pegboard involved. Literally a 20 gallon trash bin full of bloody gauze. It is a bad place to be, and I wasn't even the one bleeding.

Human Birth: How the fuck did our species survive this long?

(I'm not even joking, we have one of the most hazard-filled reproductive processes on the planet. There's a reason we had so little population growth in all of the Dark Ages compared to Post-Renaissance, despite the former being a much longer period of time.)

Well.. I suppose that we were more tougher as a species or something.

[Criptfeind]

It's cause god is real and he hates us.

Anyway, Nikov, you need to learn the difference between logic (In this case the answer always being yes) and reality (In this case being whatever the person thoughts on abortion the doctors and insurance companies have)

[Nikov]

It's cause god is real and he hates us.

Anyway, Nikov, you need to learn the difference between logic (In this case the answer always being yes) and reality (In this case being whatever the person thoughts on abortion the doctors and insurance companies have)

Even if a doctor is willing to lie to himself and say there's no health risk to the mother trying to push a honeydew out of a garden hose with a Cherrio on the upstream end, there's more than one doctor in my little hamlet. Now I'll grant you there's probably a penniless expectant mother without gas in the car who needs an abortion and lives sixty miles from a doctor who isn't a zealot, but that's going from the realm of reality into ridicule.

I've been forum-ing this for something like fourteen hours solid now, so peace.

[blackmagechill]

So, I'm mostly posting this to tag for reading later, and I guess to sort of learn more about whatever Vector is angry about because it's usually a nice political mini-lesson to read. So, about Abortion: I'm kinda on the fence here if it'd be covered by a federal healthcare system (a real one, not the abomination that was passed in the U.S). I mean, it's important to an extent, and in life threatening situations, or, I hate saying this, but rape, yes, that's plausible but other than that you should've probably spent the three dollars on the condom/birth control pill instead of the larger amount of money on the abortion.

[Bauglir]

So, I'm mostly posting this to tag for reading later, and I guess to sort of learn more about whatever Vector is angry about because it's usually a nice political mini-lesson to read. So, about Abortion: I'm kinda on the fence here if it'd be covered by a federal healthcare system (a real one, not the abomination that was passed in the U.S). I mean, it's important to an extent, and in life threatening situations, or, I hate saying this, but rape, yes, that's plausible but other than that you should've probably spent the three dollars on the condom/birth control pill instead of the larger amount of money on the abortion.

And your answer to the small percentage of failures in birth control is? I mean, it happens often enough to need addressing, even if no particular person is likely to be affected. Economies of scale and all that.

EDIT: That comes off as more aggressive than I'd like, I think. Sorry bout that, I'm just tired. Not trying to chase anyone off, I'm just having difficulty being anything but overly blunt right now. Sleep soon, but one more post first.

[blackmagechill]

I was actually going to stick something in there about a broken condom, but decided against it. If it fails, the out of court settlement is probably more than enough to cover an abortion, provided they do that sort of thing (this is another out of 9 million reasons there needs to be a male birth control).

[Vector]

If it fails, the out of court settlement is probably more than enough to cover an abortion, provided they do that sort of thing

That... assumes enough money on the woman's side to take on her boyfriend in court over a broken condom.

[Bauglir]

Or to succeed in suing the condom manufacturer, but I don't think that lawsuits for inevitable product failures are really a valid recourse. It's guaranteed to happen often enough that it can't realistically be said to be anyone's fault. Now, a class action suit in the case of a string of failures coinciding with one another, maybe, if you can establish a link to the manufacturer.

Also, I'm not entirely sure how you ought to rate things like user stupidity (for instance, an unwanted child seems a pretty unfair price to pay for everyone concerned, including the child, for not knowing that latex + oil = condom failure. Yes, that's including adoption, because of the psychological issues for the child and the 9 months of shittiness for the mother, as well as the father to a far lesser extent).

[Askot Bokbondeler]

If it fails, the out of court settlement is probably more than enough to cover an abortion, provided they do that sort of thing

That... assumes enough money on the woman's side to take on her boyfriend in court over a broken condom.

what do you mean? is it her boyfriends fault that the condom broke? why is she suing the guy? dont take it wrong, but that comment came off as a bit misandric

[Blargityblarg]

If it fails, the out of court settlement is probably more than enough to cover an abortion, provided they do that sort of thing

That... assumes enough money on the woman's side to take on her boyfriend in court over a broken condom.

what do you mean? is it her boyfriends fault that the condom broke? why is she suing the guy? dont take it wrong, but that comment came off as a bit misandric

Blackmagechill suggested the legal action; Vector, AFAICT, just assumed it was against the boyfriend.

[Criptfeind]

Yes. Lawsuits are not a valid means of social policy.