What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

chare · May 19, 2022

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Yep

https://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/VitalStats/Pages/data/ITOP.aspx

So, 2 of 6,240 (0.032%) of abortions performed 2017 - 2021 were >21 weeks gestation.

subee, MSN, CRNA · May 19, 2022

1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:

We do not know if there would be a demand or not. I wouldn't imagine there would be. However this is a concern for some in the public and in politics.

If we are to collaborate and find the best possible practice, both sides need to be able to have their concerns addressed. Otherwise how can we ever come to a amicable conclusion?

Who are these "concerned in public and politics" that letting Row and Wade stand will somehow encourage women in the late stages of pregnancy to show up for an abortion? In the past 50 years, women haven't been showing up demanding these abortions for their convenience. What do you think would change the scenario now if we didn't overturn what has gone on for 50 years? If you looked at the Alaska statistics you will see that there is no demand for such a procedure.

Beerman, BSN · May 19, 2022

34 minutes ago, chare said:

So, 2 of 6,240 (0.032%) of abortions performed 2017 - 2021 were >21 weeks gestation.

Don't you think if restrictions are loosened that they will go up?

Yesterday I linked to a study in which researchers interviewed women who were denied abortions after 22 weeks. Obviously, there are some who seek them.

chare · May 19, 2022

15 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Don't you think if restrictions are loosened that they will go up?

[...]

This is in the absence of restrictions. I'm not sure if it includes the entire 5 year period, but Alaska currently has no gestational age restrictions.

toomuchbaloney · May 19, 2022

31 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Don't you think if restrictions are loosened that they will go up?

Yesterday I linked to a study in which researchers interviewed women who were denied abortions after 22 weeks. Obviously, there are some who seek them.

You are speculating even though the evidence in the absence of restrictions disputes that fear. Obviously, some women have unnecessary barriers and obstacles between themselves and abortion which make requests for abortions after 20 weeks more likely. That information has already been shared in this thread and others.

Women of child bearing age in the USA deserve more support.

Justlookingfornow · May 19, 2022

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

We all know that doctors practice according to legal precedent, policy and protocols, that's why I'm perplexed that there seems to be concern about the judgment of doctors when it comes to collaborating with patients about reproductive health care and procedures.

I'm not sure. I donot have a judgment against for Dr's.

Are you making a argument for abortion laws that do not need defined restrictions because no Dr would ethically perform a later term abortion? It wouldn't happen so no need to add a restriction?

Then where does my body my choice apply? In the first second and third trimesters? My body my choice doesn't apply to later months?

Or does it? In my opinion these are important ideas to address in order to protect everyone's reproductive right and the availability of procedures like abortion.

It's a circular issue. One side says there would not be a demand for late term pregnancy abortion because no one would seek it,so no need to apply a restriction. The otherside says if no one would seek one, then why not put a restriction?

toomuchbaloney · May 19, 2022

12 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I'm not sure. I donot have a judgment against for Dr's.

Are you making a argument for abortion laws that do not need defined restrictions because no Dr would ethically perform a later term abortion? It wouldn't happen so no need to add a restriction?

Then where does my body my choice apply? In the first second and third trimesters? My body my choice doesn't apply to later months?

Or does it? In my opinion these are important ideas to address in order to protect everyone's reproductive right and the availability of procedures like abortion.

It's a circular issue. One side says there would not be a demand for late term pregnancy abortion because no one would seek it,so no need to apply a restriction. The otherside says if no one would seek one, then why not put a restriction?

The argument that I'm making is that ignoring the Roe precedent will increase political and religious interference in the reproductive health care of millions of women living in the USA. That's regressive.

Justlookingfornow · May 19, 2022

1 hour ago, subee said:

Who are these "concerned in public and politics" that letting Row and Wade stand will somehow encourage women in the late stages of pregnancy to show up for an abortion? In the past 50 years, women haven't been showing up demanding these abortions for their convenience. What do you think would change the scenario now if we didn't overturn what has gone on for 50 years? If you looked at the Alaska statistics you will see that there is no demand for such a procedure.

I'm not referring directly to Roe. I guess I'm more referring to The Women's Protection Act that is vague on its stipulation about " as deemed necessary by a woman and her Dr". And "risk to health and/or life". (Paraphrased).

48 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You are speculating even though the evidence in the absence of restrictions disputes that fear. Obviously, some women have unnecessary barriers and obstacles between themselves and abortion which make requests for abortions after 20 weeks more likely. That information has already been shared in this thread and others.

Women of child bearing age in the USA deserve more support.

How can there be evidence of absence when there is restrictions in most States?. Alaska is one such state.

How many people do you think would know that Alaska doesn't have gestational age restrictions? I just learned that now. I think most people believe there is restrictions. That demonstrates a factor flaw in the stats. Unless there is no restrictions and people know their isn't, you cannot form a statistal value of how many women would seek it.

Even so. If some evidence says that it's unlikely, then why not put in a restriction? Even if to appease the side that is concerned about the possibility of later term abortions, to maintain the acces to early pregnancy abortions? Because in theory no one would seek it out anyway.

Justlookingfornow · May 19, 2022

5 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The argument that I'm making is that ignoring the Roe precedent will increase political and religious interference in the reproductive health care of millions of women living in the USA. That's regressive.

I can agree with that. Except the religion part. Other than the personal religion of those that determination the outcomes, religion doesn't dictate legislation.

Unless we should be deciding who to appoint justices based on their religious views.

Beerman, BSN · May 19, 2022

2 hours ago, chare said:

This is in the absence of restrictions. I'm not sure if it includes the entire 5 year period, but Alaska currently has no gestational age restrictions.

Absent of gestational age restrictions. But I do believe has to be nonviable fetus, unless mothers life at risk.

MunoRN, RN · May 19, 2022

7 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

So abortion with some limits.

The term "abortion" already includes the limits you seem to be looking for.

Abortion doesn't include killing your teenager, that's homicide not abortion, just as it doesn't include an infant that would otherwise have a viable, live birth.

The suggestion that abortion might include inducing the birth of a live baby and then killing it or vice-versa is a dishonest tactic used to get people like yourself who are otherwise pro-choice to oppose choice.

Beerman, BSN · May 20, 2022

5 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I'm not sure. I donot have a judgment against for Dr's.

Are you making a argument for abortion laws that do not need defined restrictions because no Dr would ethically perform a later term abortion? It wouldn't happen so no need to add a restriction?

Then where does my body my choice apply? In the first second and third trimesters? My body my choice doesn't apply to later months?

Or does it? In my opinion these are important ideas to address in order to protect everyone's reproductive right and the availability of procedures like abortion.

It's a circular issue. One side says there would not be a demand for late term pregnancy abortion because no one would seek it,so no need to apply a restriction. The otherside says if no one would seek one, then why not put a restriction?

It's not just circular, but the pro-abortion crowd also changes the goalposts. You've seen that here. Now the pillar of their argument for not having restrictions is simply they don't want to believe anyone will seek late term abortions.

Also, there isn't one universal definition or legal standard for the term "abortion". Each state statute defines it differently. Alaska's mentions "nonviable", and that in essence eliminates most late-term abortions even though they don't have a gestation age limit. Many states simply define abortion as a procedure that ends a pregnancy.

California's definition:

"Any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth"

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=123464#:~:text=(a) “Abortion” means,of producing a live birth.