Search Results: pregnancy and abortion

Liberals in the United States are constantly saying that we should be more like Europe. Well when it comes to abortion laws, in most of the countries in Europe, the choice cutoff is between 12 weeks and 20 weeks. In Australia and Japan, the choice cutoff is 22 weeks, 6 days (basically 23 weeks). In all of these mentioned locations, there are the obvious exceptions baked into the law (rape, incest, mother's health, fetus viability, medical emergency, etcetera) if an abortion is medically and/or legally needed beyond the legal deadlines.

Since Dobbs Versus Jackson overturned Roe Verses Wade, I propose that the House and Senate pass a national law allowing each state to set their own abortion choice laws similar to most of Europe, Australia, and Japan, between 12 weeks and 23 weeks. This way, we avoid having states like Texas that are trying to completely eliminate abortions, and also avoid having states like New Jersey and Oregon where abortions are possible into the 39th week of pregnancy. No states would be less than 12 weeks, and no states would be more than 23 weeks (except in cases of rape, incest, mother's health, fetus viability, medical emergency, etcetera). Abortion medication would remain available and legal in all 50 states, up to each state's specified choice deadline.

For full transparency and disclosure, I'm personally morally pro-life, legally pro-choice, and anti-late-term (3rd trimester) abortion. Basically I would hope that life is chosen in most normal and reasonable circumstances, but fully understand the need for everyone's legal right to choose one or the other, up to a reasonable point. In normal and reasonable circumstances, no normal reasonable logical person needs more than 23 weeks to make a decision.

I believe that this is a fair and reasonable resolution to the reproduction rights debate in the United States. What do all of you think and believe? Vote and post your opinions below!

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3akqdy/nebraska-steve-erdman-abortion-great-replacement-theory
Republican Uses ‘Great Replacement’ Theory to Justify Abortion Ban

As Nebraska Republicans moved to ban most abortions in their state on Wednesday, one used arguments straight from the racist “great replacement” conspiracy theory to push for the bill’s passage.

Nebraska Sen. Steve Erdman argued that abortion had caused slow population growth in the state over the last half-century—and argued that it had hurt Nebraska economically.

“Our state population has not grown except by those foreigners who have moved here or refugees who have been placed here. Why is that? It’s because we’ve killed 200,000 people. These are people we’ve killed,” Erdman said during debate, after lamenting that if abortion had been illegal that would have resulted in more people who “could be working and filling some of those positions that we have vacancies.”

Erdman’s comments came during debate over a bill that would ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy—before many women know they’re pregnant. It includes exceptions for rape, incest, and lifesaving procedures. The bill advanced on a Wednesday evening vote.

His views seem to draw from the racist great replacement theory. That theory, in its purest and most extreme form, posits that there’s a conspiracy by globalist elites—in many versions, Jews—to overwhelm western countries with immigrants in order to outbreed and replace the white-majority population and take control of those countries. Abortion is part of the theory—extremists argue that the procedure is part of hastening a “white genocide.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk-mifepristone-ruling-study-abortion-changes-you_n_643724ffe4b05765f3803ff8#comments
Trump-Nominated Judge Who Issued Radical Abortion Pill Ruling Cited An Absurd ‘Study’

New Yorkers boarding subways for their morning commute in 2010 were met with an unusual sight: anti-abortion advertisements, portraying a young, hip woman whose decision to terminate a pregnancy had unalterably marred her future.

“I thought life would be the way it was before,” the ads read, set against a somber portrait of the woman. “I wonder if there was something I could have done to help her,” another one said, showing a man looking solemnly at the floor.

The advertisements, which reportedly numbered 2,000 in the subway system alone in addition to billboards and print ads, all promoted the same website: AbortionChangesYou. com, which offers “healing” to those who’ve been “touched by abortion.” The site features a page where users are invited to read and anonymously write testimonials about the effects of terminating a pregnancy, such as “feeling far away from or angry toward God.

Later in his order, Kacsmaryk referenced the same study again, falsely referring to multiple “studies,” rather than just one, that he said “show eighty-three percent of women report that chemical abortion changed them and seventy-seven percent of those women reported a negative.” As the study’s authors have repeatedly stressed, this may not be surprising for entries to a website called “Abortion Changes You.”

Critics of Kacsmaryk’s ruling have pounced on the study’s inclusion in his order: The New Republic called the study “completely bogus,” and Adam Unikowsky, who had been a clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, observed, “This is roughly like reporting a statistic that ‘83% of people are fans of Judge Kacsmaryk’ without mentioning that the entire sample consisted of posters on JudgeKacsmarykFanClub. com.”

https://news.yahoo.com/conservative-judge-could-block-nationwide-202900593.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
Conservative judge could block nationwide abortion pill access any day now, as Dems fight for even broader access

An upcoming ruling by a conservative judge could lead to a ban on medication abortion in the U. S., but advocates for abortion healthcare filed their own lawsuit Friday to expand access.

U. S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, is expected to rule on a lawsuit filed last year by anti-abortion organizations. The groups seek to force the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its decades-old approval of mifepristone, one of the two medications used for the medical termination of pregnancies.

The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — a prominent conservative legal advocacy organization designated as an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to its decades-long work against LGBTQ rights — on behalf of four organizations and four doctors who object to the FDA’s authorization.

“We ask the court to hold the FDA accountable for its reckless, unlawful behavior,” said Erik Baptist, a senior counsel with the ADF, an organization that was also involved in the Mississippi case that eventually led to the overturn of Roe v. Wade last year.

A ruling is expected any day now, and a decision in favor of the anti-abortion organizations could immediately block the sale of mifepristone.

But a group of Democratic attorneys general fought back Friday with a lawsuit of their own, seeking to make access to mifepristone easier.