What on earth is going on in America??

[Nanny0gg]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795

How can a supposedly 'civilised' society pass such a retrograde law?

And other states following suit?

BritWife Google the Hobby Lobby case:
"In the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the US Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violated privately held, for-profit corporations' right to religious freedom"

In effect, the employer's right to religious freedom (in choosing what healthcare package to offer their employees) trump's the employee's right to a healthcare package in accordance with their health needs and according to their own religious beliefs (or lack).

The case went all the way up to the Supreme court, but the judgement SCOTUS eventually upheld was ruled on at a state level by For such, who has since been elevated to SCOTUS by Trump.

Gorsuch, not for such. Fucking autocorrect

What happens if a woman's rapist demands paternity rights after she has been forced to give birth - thus ensuring he has the means to further victimise a traumatised woman forever?

And this isn't just a theoretical fear either: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46368991

Is every miscarriage to be treated as a potential 'crime scene'? Will we have to hand over our bloody underwear & sanitary protection for inspection, if we are suspected of having a dead 'human being' in there?

Is bodily autonomy to be abolished for everyone - so we all have to hand over kidneys, blood and bone marrow on demand? Or is it only a woman who is expected to be a conduit for someone else's life? If so, isn't that sexist?

I agree this law is barbaric, deeply misogynistic and unworthy of a country which presumes to call itself civilised.

Over here if you are pregnant and have no health insurance you are covered by Medicaid and CHIP. Don’t believe the horror stories in the British tabloids that people are left on the streets or that they won’t even put you in the ambulance without first taking payment.

This is true - I think the problem is the discrepancy between the care women with good health insurance get, and the care given to those who have to turn to the public health system. There was a really good documentary about this a few years ago. It looked at infant and maternal mortality rates around the world by shadowing midwives working in various countries. In the US, the outcome for women and babies with health insurance was excellent, nearly as good as that provided in the country with the best outcomes (I think it was Norway), but for women who didn't have that the outcomes were much worse. Below the standard you'd find anywhere in Europe.

US maternal mortality rates www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

Infant mortality rates www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

Such a shame the people in US who wish to save foetuses don't devote so much time and effort to improving these.

Although from what I understand, from what I am reading, the government can, and does, tell companies that they have to provide, and not by way of cost-sharing, birth control

Which GOP/Trump Administration have been doing their best to get rid of.
edition.cnn.com/2018/11/07/health/birth-control-exemption-trump-bn/index.html

While things like Viagra are usually covered.
www.apnews.com/8de5483260ae4d3a882cf6b1cc37e15f

The Trump administration has also been cutting funds for foreign aid that involves birth control.
www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-impact-birthcontrol/from-burkina-to-zimbabwe-u-s-aid-cuts-squeeze-family-planning-services-idUSKCN1IN0OV

@Lweji “Which GOP/Trump Administration have been doing their best to get rid of”
Yes, that was part of my original point/question (not sure if you saw that)

Yes, just adding to it.

@Lweji thank you

Janie Haddad Tompkins
@janiehaddad
Erectile dysfunction is a part of God's plan to reduce abortions. We must criminalize the use of Viagra immediately to save us and legislate as much flaccidity as possible.

next on the line for the bleeding hearts is the execution of the Alabama murderer of 4 yesterday. I expect that was wrong as well.

Well, yes. Don't you think it's wrong, Gth1234? Surely if the life of an unborn foetus is sacrosanct, even when that foetus cannot survive to birth, then the life of an adult man is sacrosanct?

Suppose everyone had known before the murderer's birth what he would grow up to be. Would it have been wrong to allow his mother to have an abortion if she wanted it?

Just pointing this out:
Some of us have sex for pleasure, not to reproduce. Shock, horror 😵😵

Hush! Everyone knows women don’t have sex for pleasure, we’re merely sperm receptacles and incubators for god’s holy seed!

www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/bpq6a1/evil/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

*Well, yes. Don't you think it's wrong, Gth1234? Surely if the life of an unborn foetus is sacrosanct, even when that foetus cannot survive to birth, then the life of an adult man is sacrosanct?

Suppose everyone had known before the murderer's birth what he would grow up to be. Would it have been wrong to allow his mother to have an abortion if she wanted it?*

I’d go a step further and suggest that if it becomes illegal to abort a bunch of cells that don’t have the ability to feel pain nor are conscious. Then it should become illegal to slaughter animals that do feel pain & are conscious sentient beings.
(Regardless of the reason).

I genuinely am horrified by what’s happening over there.

More context to the comments in the link Shaggydog99 posted. And when I say more context, I mean the things they said weren't taken out of it. Understanding the context actually makes the comments even worse.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/personal-foul/

Hey agnurse you still on here mate? What does it take to get you to leave the party? Will 50p do it?

Here's a thought. (I pinched this from twitter)

Make EVERY man have a vasectomy. Then every time they have sex, women won't get pregnant, and CAN'T have an abortion.

Then when the man and woman want to conceive, the man has his vasectomy reversed.

SIMPLES

I wonder if men would be up for that? Or would they think it's unfair that someone is controlling their bodies?

Even better, to have a vasectomy reversed, the man has to prove to a committee he is emotionally stable and capable of providing and caring for a child.

You have to understand that the U.S. has this weird concept of states rights. We are a bit smaller than Russia but more autonomous. Different states are, to some extent, allowed to implement their own rules. Along the spectrum, you have extremely conservative states like Alabama, and very liberal states like Oregon. Whatever is implemented through the state house of representatives and senate will be scrutinized by a series of higher courts. Whatever happened in Alabama, and now, Missouri, will be tested in the court system. Bills that are this ill-calculated rarely survive intact as they move up the court circuit. I just wanted to add that in the same day that Missouri followed suit and laid down very strict abortion guidelines, the US House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill that gives the LGBTQ community more rights. Both bills will be subject to scrutiny in court and it will take years it iron out.

texasgurl while the laws are being decided at a higher level/in court do they still apply or do they have to wait until the legal stuff is finished before applying the new laws?

here did you hear that the president is “trying to pass it so that employers don’t have to include birth control”? Never heard anything so ridiculous.

It is not that ridiculous (apart from the passing legislation thing).
Employers can already decide not to include birth control on the basis of the Hobby Lobby decision. A republican-held congress could well extend the hobby lobby decision beyond closely-held for profit organisations.

States can only enact laws that comply with the US constitution. As of now, the US constitution (through Roe v Wade) guarantees the right to abortion. so states cannot outlaw it. What they can do is pass legislation that will be immediately stayed and overturned by state courts, then successive federal courts until they finally find their way to the Supreme court in the hope that that court as now constituted will ignore stare decisis and overturn it.

I can't see the Roberts court doing that in any significant way. What bothers me more is the visceral hatred of and distrust of women that is shown by these pieces of legislation. Where will that end? In one state a female lawmaker tried to make an amendment that would give health care coverage for pregnancy and birth to any woman denied an abortion - it was rejected. culturally and ideologically Alabama is very far from Massachusetts where I live but this is an all-out assault on women's rights and an unmasking of a deep hatred of women. Many of these new pieces of (unconsitutional) legislation put restrictions in place that are worse than those that existed pre Roe-v-Wade.

Interesting @agnurse didn’t answer me last time I asked...

But again: I assume you believe that adults should only ever have vaginal intercourses for the specific reason of conceiving a child?

As NO type of birth control is 100% effective, therefore if you don’t want to be pregnant, you don’t have V.I.

Correct I assume?

I assume that all the senators and average American men supporting this nonsense also only have V.I. With their wives / partners solely to conceive?

Purely to avoid having agnurse coming back to make a fuss, she did actually say somewhere upthread that she does not maintain that adults should only ever have sex for procreation purposes - indeed, her favoured contraception method involves abstaining from sex during fertile periods, which must mean that you can have as much sex as you want at supposedly non-fertile times. And I think somewhere she accepted that people who are infertile or post menopause can be free to have sex whenever they want.

Less than 30% of children in the U.S. foster system are available for adoption.

While that may indeed mean there are more people looking to adopt than children available for adoption, for me, that is more reason not to force people to have unwanted children saying that they can put them up for adoption, because there are far more children, therefore left in the care system, which, by my understanding, is not generally the best life (not that I’m saying if you can’t live your best life, you’re better being dead). Another example, to me, that they don’t have the child’s best interest at heart.

All this has got me thinking more about it all, for example, if they do, at a later stage (presuming it all goes through to the higher courts, in attempt to overturn the constitutional laws etc etc which I’ve read is their plan, sorry if I’m not using the right terminology but hopefully you know what I mean) add then exemptions for rape and incest, what would their criteria be for rape? I’m sure that they wouldn’t just accept the woman's word for it, would the man have to be convicted of it first, I wonder, which could then mean that it is too late