I just "starred" your post as I think you laid out a reasonable thought. Also, the "nuance" does bother me. Civ uses it frequently. That word is overused when debating, in my opinion. Nothing against you personally…Packchem91 said:Meh, i guess with fresh eyes, i could have used "context". IE, it is not extreme to say "lack of abortion access will result in more unwanted babies hitting "the system", of which a likely outcome is some of those will fall victim to crime, drugs and sex trafficking", because we know the system today generates thatcaryking said:
The word "nuance" really bothers me…
BTW, the Supreme Court ruled that the repeal on "stay in Mexico" Trump policy can be reversed by Biden. Now, I disagree on the policy decision, by Biden; however, it's the absolute correct decision, by the Supreme Court!
It would be (IMO) extreme to make this the #1 issue out of this decision. Or to use it as the entire talking point for why not to stop abortions.
**To PG's original question though -- I 100% think there are plenty of people going overboard with worse-case scenarios that will occur from this decision. Might some of those things occur in some scenarios...yes, but you'd think from reading some articles and comments, childbirth deaths are going to revert to 1890 numbers because of this.
Quote:
Abortion supporters often claim that they're "pro-choice," not "pro-abortion," a claim that regularly collides with their actual policies. When government policy is bent relentlessly to favor abortion, supporting a woman's "right to choose" abortion isn't distinct in any meaningful way from supporting abortion itself.
But abortion supporters reveal how shallow their "pro-choice" ideology is when they oppose helping pregnant mothers make, or even learn about, any choice other than abortion. The most recent example is on display in Congress, where four Democrats are targeting pregnancy resource centers, purporting to "prohibit disinformation in the advertising of abortion services."
Warren also signed on to a letter in which members of Congress tried to pressure Google into suppressing search results for such centers which was followed by a similar letter from the office of New York attorney general Letitia James.
Nationally, pregnancy resource centers outnumber abortion facilities three to one, and in some states by as many as eleven to one. Knowing that many women choose abortion because they feel that they have no other option, the pro-life movement has placed tremendous resources into these centers, which exist to offer alternatives to abortion, usually at no cost. That help takes many forms: pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, other prenatal care, pregnancy counseling, assistance considering adoption and navigating the adoption process, and financial or material support for women in need.
It's easy to see why abortion supporters and especially those who profit from the provision of abortion would want to undermine those who offer women choices other than abortion. Research suggests that the model works. One 2021 study found that pregnant women who visit a pregnancy resource center are about 20 percent less likely to choose abortion than pregnant women who don't visit one.
Storm, if you can answer that question, then you can probably understand why they are there, in the first place…. None of it makes sense to me.TheStorm said:
I just have a semi-related question... why is it when I see recent photographs of the protestors in these neighborhoods of the Supreme Court Justices, that 9 out of 10 (or closely thereabout that ratio) are wearing some type of mask to obscure their identity?
If anybody has any insight that they can share on that, I would be greatly appreciative...
Also, somewhat confused by the photo I saw last week from a protest that showed the rainbow striped flag with a black antifa logo printed in the middle of it... what's the connection there?
Thanks.
PackFansXL said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/elizabeth-warrens-war-on-pregnancy-resource-centers/Quote:
Abortion supporters often claim that they're "pro-choice," not "pro-abortion," a claim that regularly collides with their actual policies. When government policy is bent relentlessly to favor abortion, supporting a woman's "right to choose" abortion isn't distinct in any meaningful way from supporting abortion itself.
But abortion supporters reveal how shallow their "pro-choice" ideology is when they oppose helping pregnant mothers make, or even learn about, any choice other than abortion. The most recent example is on display in Congress, where four Democrats are targeting pregnancy resource centers, purporting to "prohibit disinformation in the advertising of abortion services."
Warren also signed on to a letter in which members of Congress tried to pressure Google into suppressing search results for such centers which was followed by a similar letter from the office of New York attorney general Letitia James.
Nationally, pregnancy resource centers outnumber abortion facilities three to one, and in some states by as many as eleven to one. Knowing that many women choose abortion because they feel that they have no other option, the pro-life movement has placed tremendous resources into these centers, which exist to offer alternatives to abortion, usually at no cost. That help takes many forms: pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, other prenatal care, pregnancy counseling, assistance considering adoption and navigating the adoption process, and financial or material support for women in need.
It's easy to see why abortion supporters and especially those who profit from the provision of abortion would want to undermine those who offer women choices other than abortion. Research suggests that the model works. One 2021 study found that pregnant women who visit a pregnancy resource center are about 20 percent less likely to choose abortion than pregnant women who don't visit one.
Quote:
AMA Journal of Ethics: Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers are Legal but Unethical
Crisis pregnancy centers are organizations that seek to intercept women with unintended pregnancies who might be considering abortion. Their mission is to prevent abortions by persuading women that adoption or parenting is a better option. They strive to give the impression that they are clinical centers, offering legitimate medical services and advice, yet they are exempt from regulatory, licensure, and credentialing oversight that apply to health care facilities.
Because the religious ideology of these centers' owners and employees takes priority over the health and well-being of the women seeking care at these centers, women do not receive comprehensive, accurate, evidence-based clinical information about all available options. Although crisis pregnancy centers enjoy First Amendment rights protections, their propagation of misinformation should be regarded as an ethical violation that undermines women's health.
Hundreds of these centers together form an industry that seeks to be perceived as providing health care while simultaneously seeking to elude the need to be held to evidence-based standards of caring for women with unexpected pregnancies.
Women who visit CPCs typically do not realize that they are not in an abortion clinic and are surprised to find that abortion is not considered an option at these centers.
CPCs have received criticism from lawmakers, physicians, scholars, and reproductive rights organizations for many of their practices. They strive to appear as sites offering clinical services and unbiased advice. Lay volunteers who are not licensed clinicians at CPCs often wear white coats and see women in exam rooms. They also purport to provide medical advice on a variety of issues, including sexually transmitted infections, early pregnancy, and abortion. Because centers are sometimes located close to abortion clinics and have names and logos similar to nearby abortion clinics, women could mistakenly seek care there rather than at the intended clinic. They also seek to target women who are most likely to seek abortion, particularly low-income women and women of color. These strategic practices appear designed to mislead abortion clinic clients.
Despite looking like legitimate clinics, most CPCs are not licensed, and their staff are not licensed medical professionals.
PackFansXL said:
Given the dishonest track record of proponents of the abortion business, one has to wonder about the picture painted in the article you posted. The abortion business is worth a great deal of money to Planned Parenthood and other clinics. They have an obviou$ interest in misrepresenting everything done at CPCs.
The mission of CPCs is to save lives. They perform their services under great pressure from the pro-abortion crowd and often under threat of personal harm. I don't believe they receive any federal funds and rely on donations to operate.
The portrayal of these mothers as incapable of discerning the difference between an abortion clinic and a crisis pregnancy center is yet another example of the judgmental arrogance of elites in the Democratic party. They feign concern for their constituents and pretend to do something for them while simultaneously using them purely for political power.
IMHO, theliesmisrepresentations shouted from the pro-abortion leadership are loud and endless.
Civ, this is not meant as a personal attack, well, unless you are a leader in the pro-abortion movement.
The authors of that report revealed their bias in the sentence quoted above. The religious ideology of these centers' owners and employees places equal priority on the health and well-being of both the baby and the mother. That is their mission statement. It comes from a loving, purpose driven life. They can't function in any other capacity and be true to themselves.Quote:
Because the religious ideology of these centers' owners and employees takes priority over the health and well-being of the women seeking care at these centers, women do not receive comprehensive, accurate, evidence-based clinical information about all available options.
Civ, go work in a CPC for one week. My wife has! Actually, she did for multiple years. It was on Hillsborough St. in Raleigh. I will say that organization was very, very good. I went to a number of functions with them. I can't speak to all facilities; however, that one (dang, the name is escaping me) cared about the girls, whether they chose life or not. Once a girl comes in, the facility would help, in any way they can, with the girls.Civilized said:PackFansXL said:
Given the dishonest track record of proponents of the abortion business, one has to wonder about the picture painted in the article you posted. The abortion business is worth a great deal of money to Planned Parenthood and other clinics. They have an obviou$ interest in misrepresenting everything done at CPCs.
The mission of CPCs is to save lives. They perform their services under great pressure from the pro-abortion crowd and often under threat of personal harm. I don't believe they receive any federal funds and rely on donations to operate.
The portrayal of these mothers as incapable of discerning the difference between an abortion clinic and a crisis pregnancy center is yet another example of the judgmental arrogance of elites in the Democratic party. They feign concern for their constituents and pretend to do something for them while simultaneously using them purely for political power.
IMHO, theliesmisrepresentations shouted from the pro-abortion leadership are loud and endless.
Civ, this is not meant as a personal attack, well, unless you are a leader in the pro-abortion movement.
CPC's relying on donations to operate is strategic, not simply benevolent. It allows them to not be bound by health care industry oversight and regulations since they are providing pro bono services in many cases.
You say "[PP and other clinics] have an obviou$ interest in misrepresenting everything done at CPCs."
But the article wasn't written or published by PP or abortion clinics. It was published by the AMA Journal of Ethics. 75% of OB clinics in the US do not perform abortions and OB's make more money delivering babies than by performing abortions anyway so OB's (and by extension their medical association) are not financially incentivized to perform abortions in lieu of delivering future babies.
And nothing about this conversation has felt like a personal attack XL, but I do appreciate you clarifying.
As you're fond of telling me Cary, that's a very emotional response.caryking said:Civ, go work in a CPC for one week. My wife has! Actually, she did for multiple years. It was on Hillsborough St. in Raleigh. I will say that organization was very, very good. I went to a number of functions with them. I can't speak to all facilities; however, that one (dang, the name is escaping me) cared about the girls, whether they chose life or not. Once a girl comes in, the facility would help, in any way they can, with the girls.Civilized said:
CPC's relying on donations to operate is strategic, not simply benevolent. It allows them to not be bound by health care industry oversight and regulations since they are providing pro bono services in many cases.
You say "[PP and other clinics] have an obviou$ interest in misrepresenting everything done at CPCs."
But the article wasn't written or published by PP or abortion clinics. It was published by the AMA Journal of Ethics. 75% of OB clinics in the US do not perform abortions and OB's make more money delivering babies than by performing abortions anyway so OB's (and by extension their medical association) are not financially incentivized to perform abortions in lieu of delivering future babies.
And nothing about this conversation has felt like a personal attack XL, but I do appreciate you clarifying.
Good people were there while my wife worked…
Daviewolf83 said:As far as viability is concerned and I mentioned this in a previous post you may have missed, the current medical view is at 22 weeks, plus or minus a couple of weeks. This is how I settled on my opinion that abortion up to 15-20 weeks is an acceptable proposal (NC is currently at 20 weeks).statefan91 said:
Davie - since you've been in the data, do you know if the abortions after the 10th week have any data behind it on viability of the baby or potential for mortality of the mother? Feels like that's relevant as well as to if those abortions that are further along may be due to significant health concerns or issues.
As to mortality of mothers, are you asking about mortality of mothers who are having an abortion? If so, I saw one set of data that said there are less than 5 deaths per year of a person who undergoes an abortion. There was no specific timing provided as to the timing of the abortion in relationship to the term of the pregnancy. I want to investigate this data more fully, so I would caution assuming this to be accurate data.
When I was looking for some statistics, I also found a handy chart that shows the current abortion laws by state.
Civ, good point! That was emotional.Civilized said:As you're fond of telling me Cary, that's a very emotional response.caryking said:Civ, go work in a CPC for one week. My wife has! Actually, she did for multiple years. It was on Hillsborough St. in Raleigh. I will say that organization was very, very good. I went to a number of functions with them. I can't speak to all facilities; however, that one (dang, the name is escaping me) cared about the girls, whether they chose life or not. Once a girl comes in, the facility would help, in any way they can, with the girls.Civilized said:
CPC's relying on donations to operate is strategic, not simply benevolent. It allows them to not be bound by health care industry oversight and regulations since they are providing pro bono services in many cases.
You say "[PP and other clinics] have an obviou$ interest in misrepresenting everything done at CPCs."
But the article wasn't written or published by PP or abortion clinics. It was published by the AMA Journal of Ethics. 75% of OB clinics in the US do not perform abortions and OB's make more money delivering babies than by performing abortions anyway so OB's (and by extension their medical association) are not financially incentivized to perform abortions in lieu of delivering future babies.
And nothing about this conversation has felt like a personal attack XL, but I do appreciate you clarifying.
Good people were there while my wife worked…
No matter how well-intentioned CPC's may be, presenting themselves as clinical medical facilities but skirting all the associated oversight and regulations of actual medical facilities is a problem.
CPC's at heart are unregulated and unlicensed faith-based pro-life counseling centers. At a minimum they should be staffed by actual clinicians or counselors and be regulated and licensed just like normal mental health or medical practitioners.
packgrad said:
Several states don't even require a licensed physician to perform an abortion and we're concerned about CPC's skirting medical oversight? Lol. The hypocrisy is endless.
Planned Parenthood is at heart an abortion center.
Pro choice is at heart pro abortion.
Civilized said:packgrad said:
Several states don't even require a licensed physician to perform an abortion and we're concerned about CPC's skirting medical oversight? Lol. The hypocrisy is endless.
Planned Parenthood is at heart an abortion center.
Pro choice is at heart pro abortion.
Licensed nurses/midwives, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants that perform abortions are all medical professionals that are educated, trained, and regulated with significant oversight.
GodCivilized said:packgrad said:
Several states don't even require a licensed physician to perform an abortion and we're concerned about CPC's skirting medical oversight? Lol. The hypocrisy is endless.
Planned Parenthood is at heart an abortion center.
Pro choice is at heart pro abortion.
Who educates, trains, regulates, and oversees the counseling and prenatal care offered by CPC's?
BBW12OG said:
Can't believe the post.... Wow... Just Wow...
Imagine going to an LPN for a major surgery... Or anyone not a LICENSED MD.
Any of you willing to put your closest family member(s) in that situation other than killing a baby?
I'll hang up and listen.
Yes...Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Can't believe the post.... Wow... Just Wow...
Imagine going to an LPN for a major surgery... Or anyone not a LICENSED MD.
Any of you willing to put your closest family member(s) in that situation other than killing a baby?
I'll hang up and listen.
You are aware you don't have to be a licensed MD to deliver a baby right?
🚩 #1. A pregnant 10 year old is evidence of a heinous crime against a child but in every article (and there are SO MANY) thre is no mention of criminal investigation, no police involvement, not even a town where this allegedly occurred. pic.twitter.com/pRuwtmWoR4
— Megan Fox (@MeganFoxWriter) July 5, 2022
apparently this actually is a true story. And the Dr/abortion activist is being served with a HIPPA violationHigh Travoltage said:
No police contacted about the 10 year old who was raped, totaly true, rape story....🚩 #1. A pregnant 10 year old is evidence of a heinous crime against a child but in every article (and there are SO MANY) thre is no mention of criminal investigation, no police involvement, not even a town where this allegedly occurred. pic.twitter.com/pRuwtmWoR4
— Megan Fox (@MeganFoxWriter) July 5, 2022
Do you happen to have the link for that?hokiewolf said:apparently this actually is a true story. And the Dr/abortion activist is being served with a HIPPA violationHigh Travoltage said:
No police contacted about the 10 year old who was raped, totaly true, rape story....🚩 #1. A pregnant 10 year old is evidence of a heinous crime against a child but in every article (and there are SO MANY) thre is no mention of criminal investigation, no police involvement, not even a town where this allegedly occurred. pic.twitter.com/pRuwtmWoR4
— Megan Fox (@MeganFoxWriter) July 5, 2022
hokiewolf said:apparently this actually is a true story. And the Dr/abortion activist is being served with a HIPPA violationHigh Travoltage said:
No police contacted about the 10 year old who was raped, totaly true, rape story....🚩 #1. A pregnant 10 year old is evidence of a heinous crime against a child but in every article (and there are SO MANY) thre is no mention of criminal investigation, no police involvement, not even a town where this allegedly occurred. pic.twitter.com/pRuwtmWoR4
— Megan Fox (@MeganFoxWriter) July 5, 2022
You just need to have a lefty narrative, ideology or "cause" to promote and you can have the lemmings in the MSM repeat it ad nauseum.bigeric said:
How do you determine how long a woman/girl is pregnant?
Steve Videtich said:
Actually... not entirely!
https://nypost.com/2022/07/12/activist-tale-of-a-10-year-old-rape-victims-abortion-looks-like-a-lie/
The girl may be real, but the story lacks verification. No report of rape in Ohio or Indiana, I believe. Ohio AG says that they allow for abortion in these cases, but no report of rape anywhere. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story liberal media, Mr. Biden and everyone else that jumped all over this.
BREAKING
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) July 13, 2022
A man has been charged with impregnating a 10-year-old Ohio girl, whose travel to Indiana to seek an abortion led to international attention.
Gershon Fuentes was arrested after police say he confessed to raping her on at least two occasions. https://t.co/X3MQRrxc9o
Here you go....bigeric said:
My question still stands, and unanswered.
Here you go....bigeric said:
My question still stands, and unanswered.
What page do I need to look for your question?bigeric said:
My question still stands, and unanswered.
??caryking said:What page do I need to look for your question?bigeric said:
My question still stands, and unanswered.