Misinformation about overturning Roe v Wade and public onion

[Tiramisusu]

I've noticed a lot of mainstream media outlets reporting misinformation about the the leaked Supreme Court document and also massively misrepresenting public opinion. All the news articles and radio broadcasts I've heard have presented it as meaning the banning of abortion in the US, and also as suggesting it goes against public opinion, especially that of women.
All it would take is a quick Google for these journalists to understand that the matter is is actually about whether these powers should lie with the federal government or with individual states. This would mean that public demand and the legislature of individual states would determine whether abortion laws either change or continue there. So places like New York would be likely to liberalise the laws further, and other states can obtain tougher restrictions.
What's even more deceitful is the way outlets are claiming that overturning Roe V Wade would go against the wishes of women... this is just not true. Polling (like the Marist Poll www.kofc.org/en/resources/communications/kofc-marist-polling-crosstabs2022.pdf) has shown that 60% of women either want abortion to be banned, or for the matter to return to the the states.
69% of women believe that abortion should be available at most during the first three months of pregnancy; allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother; or not permitted at all. 52% of those call themselves pro-choice believe abortion should also be restricted to these cases.
82% of American women, 76% of those who call themselves pro-choice, and
79% of those who support the Democrats want laws to protect both the health of the women and the unborn baby.
The media has also been speaking as if the US has stricter abortion laws compared to the rest of the developed world, but in actuality the median time limit in America is far more generous than that of the EU countries (in the EU, the median is 12 weeks). E.g. in Virginia the limit is 25 weeks, compared to Denmark where the limit is 12 weeks.
I'm feeling pretty angry at how these powerful media companies, even the publicly funded BBC, have been twisting reporting on this issue to fit one agenda. I've never in my life written to Ofcom but this reporting has just been brazenly one sided. It's not about where one stands on the matter, it's about proportionately presenting public opinion and being clear about what the leaked document actually means.

public opinion I meant haha

Gosh, you're feeling pretty angry are you? How awful.

Well when the Supreme Court gets its way I'd imagine the women and girls who'll be forced into motherhood against their will will be feeling pretty angry too.

Have fun writing your little letter.

Is public opinion relevant? Abortion is healthcare. Public opinion might have all kinds of weird moralistic views - all the more reason to legislate to stop the public - and religion specifically - from being in a position to change laws according to religious whim.

The poll you've cited in your post was conducted by an organisation with a mission-based Christian agenda- of course their polls will show a huge percentage in favour of tighter abortion laws.

[waves] You're back? Lots of "I'm just asking the question" and "why are people reacting so strongly". Sure, maybe you're a different poster but I suspect not.

I can't work out if you're just enjoying getting people worked up or if you're just so anti-abortion and seem to think this fakery reasonable comments and "questions" are okay. As for a survey by a catholic organization? hahahahahaha.

You are bursting with misinformation. Try comparing like with like, for starters...

One example: in Denmark, abortion is available on demand up to 12 weeks and is publicly funded. After 12 weeks in Denmark:

'An abortion can be performed after 12 weeks if the woman's life or health are in danger. A woman may also be granted an authorization to abort after 12 weeks if certain circumstances are proved to be present (such as poor socioeconomic condition of the woman, risk of birth defects in the baby, the pregnancy being the result of rape, or mental health risk to mother).[1]'

Its an interesting question; which legislation should be decided at Federal level, and mandatory.
I think the average, sensible, level headed person who does not have an agenda would agree that anything that is a fundamental human right should not be subjected to the whims of local opinion.

So here's a question for @Tiramisusu - Should Government have the right to impose the death penalty on a woman who has committed no crime, just been unlucky in pregnancy? Yes or no?

If you answer no then you have to accept abortion will be necesary in some cases.

I shouldn't engage with these threads but:

1. That poll appears to be as reliable as asking a bunch of 5 year olds if chocolate for breakfast should be law.
2. A state's individual policies are not decided by anything as simple as a 50/50 vote
3. Bodily autonomy, which abortion basically is for women, is a human right and is therefore something that states should not be allowed to opt out. Just like they can't opt out of bans against slavery.

So yes, gauranteed right to abortion is absolutely something that should be decided at a federal level. And as we've seen, that doesn't exactly guarantee easy, convenient access to abortion ....

Listen love, if you don't want a safe and timely abortion, don't fucking have one

I want safe and timely abortions for any woman who wants one for any fucking reason.

The poll you cite is from this organisation:

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A KNIGHT?
It means a life of faith in action, a life of boldness in brotherhood, a life worth living. Join 2 million Catholic men on a mission.

It is an organisation literally run by and for men.

These are the men who run it
www.kofc.org/en/who-we-are/our-supreme-officers/index.html

Take your wide-eyed 'oh it's just about federal vs state' blah blah BS, and take it back to the 2 million Catholic men whose interests it serves.

You’re terribly angry and exercised over biased media reporting and misinformation, but only on this one subject? Hmmmm, interesting…….

Cop on. Overturning Roe v Wade disproportionately affect poor and ethnic minority women. When 25 state ban it outright how do these poor woman afford to travel?? As an Irish women we know what women went through to travel. It’s a basic female health right to have access to abortion. You don’t want one, grand. Don’t step in the way of another woman’s choice

thecritic.co.uk/american-judges-have-chosen-life-so-should-britain/

Is there any particular reason that you've posted this link? Is it just to show that the OP is mostly copied from it?

Not interested in this particular ‘onion’.

You complain about misinformation and then link to the Knights of Columbus 😂

I remember the lies they spread during the prop 8 campaign. Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

I saw an interesting question posed online earlier today:

Can you think of any current laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?

Abortion is a healthcare decision and healthcare decisions should not be legislated against. Banning it is not about protecting "babies" or any of that gubbins, it's about controlling women, keeping them "in their place", limiting their choices, and restricting their opportunities. There are no such laws legislating against medical procedures specific to male bodies or male fertility.

If you don't want any abortion, don't have one. That's what pro-choice is all about - you get to choose - but don't try and force your choice onto other people and prevent them from accessing one if they need/want it.

If you don't want any abortion, don't have one. That's what pro-choice is all about - you get to choose - but don't try and force your choice onto other people and prevent them from accessing one if they need/want it.

I 100% agree with this. But I don't believe that the vast bulk of people who are anti-abortion genuinely believe it's killing babies. For the very small majority of people who genuinely do think it is, I understand how hard it is to accept that it's something other people might do even if they choose not to.

Which is why I don't tend to use this argument. For me, it comes down to bodily autonomy. No one says that I have to give you a kidney if you need one and so similarly, no one should be able to say that I have to let you borrow my body, at potentially significant harm, because otherwise you'll die. For me, this argument works whether or not you think that the foetus is an actual life.

All it would take is a quick Google for these journalists to understand that the matter is is actually about whether these powers should lie with the federal government or with individual states.

These powers should lie with the individual woman. Everyone else needs to fuck off out of decisions that are nothing to do with them.

I 100% agree with this. But I don't believe that the vast bulk of people who are anti-abortion genuinely believe it's killing babies. For the very small majority of people who genuinely do think it is, I understand how hard it is to accept that it's something other people might do even if they choose not to

I've met a few of the "you're killing a baby" people but also a lot of people who are against it from a warped sense of personal responsibility, I guess you'd call it. Like they think you chose to have sex knowing that pregnancy could occur, even if you were taking steps to actively prevent it, and that you shouldn't be able to walk away from that. Very much an attitude of you made your bed now lie in it. I've also met some anti-choicers who think it's a kindness to prevent abortions, that they're saving women from a lifetime of regret and that women are somehow misguided or misinformed about having children - that whole attitude of "no one ever regrets a child once its here" / "my DC were rhe making of me!" / "you'll love it once it's born".

The reasons for being against it are complex but, I agree with you, that it comes down to bodily autonomy. Regardless of personal feelings on the issue, you only get to choose for your body and you have to let other people choose for theirs. It's exactly why emotion, religion, and personal feelings should not be considered when lawmaking.

E.g. in Virginia the limit is 25 weeks, compared to Denmark where the limit is 12 weeks.

Factually incorrect. The limit in Denmark is NOT 12 weeks. 12 weeks is the 'on demand' limit. It is still available to women after this date.

cyber.harvard.edu/population/abortion/Denmark.abo.htm

I'm always amazed by the way the Forced Birther brigade come in, use either outright lies or heavily biased statistics from anti choice organisations and expect Mumsnet not to call them out on it. They really think we're stupid.

No, I think it's because they're stupid. They don't have sufficient deductive reasoning skills to spot the massive flaws in their arguments. They really do think they're unveiling a "ta da" moment that will have the rest of us going, "of course, of course....."

Also OP, it's pretty damn tone deaf to post this shit on the day that this happened to yet another woman.

Forcer birthers want women to die for having sex. Forced birthers want women to go to jail for having a miscarriage. No conscience, no compassion, no human decency.

You want angry? You're going to get a trsunami of angry from women who won't stand for it.

The US is one of the few countries in the UN that doesn't mandate employers have to give new mothers paid maternity leave.

If protestors genuinely cared about the babies, that is one thing they could be campaigning for.