pulling down your pants and bending over isnt the easiest way Dicky Ricardo but I bet its your favorite way to 'check'
40% of young women would like to leave the U.S., with Canada the top destination: poll
- Thread starter Coochy
- Start date
Everything you say is correct. Well maybe, almost everything. However, this is all political rhetoric.
The fact is U.S. women are getting more abortions than they did in 2022 when the drama over Roe vs. Wade came to a head. So the practical matter is that while you and others might think abortion should be more accessible, the Supreme Court ruling didn't really limit abortions.
Haha! Ali G ain't far from the truth.
Most the hot women in London come from immigrant stock.
The fact that there is more now than before Roe breakdown perfectly means that legal abortion is needed in our society. No political party should decide about the right of women to have a baby or not.
Yes, the national abortion numbers actually ticked up.
However, the impact of Dobbs is not evenly spread.
States with bans saw tens of thousands fewer abortions, while states that kept access are bearing the burden of out-of-state patients.
That means people in restrictive states are being forced to travel, which disproportionately hurts low-income people and communities of colour who cannot afford these things.
So what I said is not rhetoric. Just cold, hard facts.
I don't know why it is so hard to understand that is not hard to get an abortion anywhere in the U.S. and Canada.
Mifepristone and misoprostol have made it so. I kind of glanced at an article said that many Canadian women don't find clinics convenient so they opt for these drugs in great numbers. GREAT NUMBERS! Over 50%!
Your beef is with people and communities who oppose abortion. That's a different matter. You want abortion to be as easy and convenient as possible. My opinion is that in 2025 it is. Applying a 1999 sensibility to where we are today with abortion being outlawed in some states, you can argue it is inconvenient. But I still think you are ignoring the practical matter to continue to try to make political arguments.
I tried explaining here in 2022 that I didn't like the Supreme Court giving States the authority to ban or overly-regulate abortion. I am not a State's Rights guy. To me, State's Rights often create legal chaos and acrimony. Not to mention, it also tends to contribute to economic inefficiency.
Now why is that view important. It's important because it allows me to avoid the inevitable hypocrisy. Ex: I don't support sanctuary city laws. Immigration is Federal law and jurisdiction.
Bare with me. I think you alluded to States attempting to ban mifepristone. I think the courts have already supported the FDA on its safety. It is a legalized drug under Federal regulation. The Supreme Court doesn't always decide what one may want, but the judges can surprise with their consistency if you closely follow our law and constitution. I suspect that they won't let the States interfere with the interstate trade of a legalized drug. Remember States have no authority or control in the U.S. Post Office.
You're falling into the trap of championing abortion. It's not a good place to be. Legalized abortion is necessary but it is an unfortunate reality.
I agree, but we do live in societies where individuals are restricted from doing many things that are not harmful to or affect others.
Of course, banning abortions wouldn't put a dent in the number of abortions. That's what some of us were saying in 2022.
Flipping my above 1999 sensibility comment around, the anti-abortion advocates are fighting abortion ignoring the practical reality of 2025.
PS- I am sure you want to label abortion bans a conservative movement. They are more aptly described as religious movements. Many conservatives like myself believe that it is not the authority of any government to ban abortions.
Last edited:
Haha.
Shaq would say this woman needs more free access to healthcare.
I would say she needs less access to the fridge.
It is ridiculous to argue that the supreme court ruling will not have impacts. The issues are still reverberating through the system.
www.kff.org
Currently nine states (AZ, AR, FL, IN, KY, OK, SC, TX and WV) have laws in place explicitly prohibiting the use of telehealth for medication abortion and/or the mailing of medication abortion drugs. Six of these states also have total abortion bans in place, and two have 6-week abortion bans, limiting access to all abortion services in the state. In Arizona, the only state with these laws in place that does not have a law banning or restricting abortion, doctors have filed a lawsuit contending that the state’s telehealth ban and the ban on mailing medication abortion drugs violate the state’s constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion up to viability that was approved by voters in the November 2024 election.
In addition to the laws banning abortion or directly banning the use of telehealth for abortion, other state regulations—including ultrasound and counseling requirements, waiting periods, and specific in-person dispensing mandates—also play a role in limiting the feasibility of using telehealth for medication abortion (Figure 1). In states without these restrictions, people do not need to make any in-person visits to a clinic to safely have a medication abortion under the supervision of a health care provider.
The Intersection of State and Federal Policies on Access to Medication Abortion Via Telehealth after Dobbs | KFF
This brief reviews current state and federal policies, ongoing litigation, and potential federal actions that may impact access to telehealth for medication abortion.
www.kff.org
Currently nine states (AZ, AR, FL, IN, KY, OK, SC, TX and WV) have laws in place explicitly prohibiting the use of telehealth for medication abortion and/or the mailing of medication abortion drugs. Six of these states also have total abortion bans in place, and two have 6-week abortion bans, limiting access to all abortion services in the state. In Arizona, the only state with these laws in place that does not have a law banning or restricting abortion, doctors have filed a lawsuit contending that the state’s telehealth ban and the ban on mailing medication abortion drugs violate the state’s constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion up to viability that was approved by voters in the November 2024 election.
In addition to the laws banning abortion or directly banning the use of telehealth for abortion, other state regulations—including ultrasound and counseling requirements, waiting periods, and specific in-person dispensing mandates—also play a role in limiting the feasibility of using telehealth for medication abortion (Figure 1). In states without these restrictions, people do not need to make any in-person visits to a clinic to safely have a medication abortion under the supervision of a health care provider.
Yes, abortions have increased. But, considering the Supreme Court's decision to pass this onto states, women, even in blue states, worry they could lose body autonomy if things swing to the GOP. And, some of the things MAGA and other righties are proposing include ending no-fault divorce, meaning women would be stuck married to someone even if they wanted out of the marriage. That does part and parcel with the rhetoric of the right, which HATES DEI, and thinks that if any woman is in a leadership position, they probably didn't earn it. Now, I'll admit, a lot of that comes from right-wing influencers on social media. But, I haven't heard many mainstream GOPers refute or condemn these ideas. Now, realistically, would this ever come to pass? Probably not. But I don't think many people thought the courts would end Roe v Wade, especially since all the most recent justices lied and said it was settled case law....
No, this is fabrication.
Getting an abortion anywhere in the US is not easy. It is easy in states that allow it.
You conveniently ignored what I said and attributed it to me having beef with people who oppose abortions, which is not the case because I don't care about the ones who oppose abortions.
In states with total abortion bans or states with severe restrictions on both in state procedures and in state dispensation of mifepristone and misoprostol, it is objectively not easy to get an abortion.
They'd either have to physically travel to a state where it is legal, or use telemedicine and find a provider in a shield state and then travel to get the prescription or have it mailed (which seems to be a grey area) to them.
It is especially not easy for women who most need it who happen to be women of colour from socio-economically backward communities.
Many of the red states that have these total bans or severe restrictions often have communities and cities that look like 3rd world nations, with dilapidated buildings, no access to a bigger city, not even proper internet access.
So the women there are either not aware or are unable to afford, access or travel to states where they can get these abortions and end up having kids they cannot raise.
Of course all these "pro-life" red states, don't give 2 hoots about life once the baby is born. They only care when it is in the mother's womb.
So, my characterization of America having backward abortion laws is accurate.
The increase in abortions due to telemedicine is not an absolute number to look at and make the argument that it is easy to get abortions.
Where do those numbers come from? They predominantly come from states that allow abortions.
What about the ones that don't? We have seen a huge drop in those numbers.
So again, backward.
Case in point:
Last edited:
I don't think that's exactly true. It's just something that has been repeated a lot by liberal commentators.
Over the years, Supreme Court nominees have avoided getting into legal and constitutional debates with specific Senators on divisive issues.
If you look closely at our Constitution, abortion is probably neither a right nor Federal domain. I think Canada has allowed unrestricted abortion while avoiding constitutional questions on the matter.
In my opinion, the Court should have accepted the Roe vs. Wade to stand even if abortion was not a well-defined Federal authority. The 2022 decision to overturn left open all these geographical legal questions. That's why I believe they made same sex marriage the law of the land. It would be stupid to try to administer legal rights of same sex spouses across fifty states with different laws.
By this line of reasoning, if Canadian women are opting for telemedicine abortions in great numbers access to abortion clinics is restrictive. I don't think that's the case, but I also don't think American women have a lot of difficulty getting an abortion.
I'm sorry. I have a somewhat pragmatic view of abortion that allows me to not see the issue through a partisan or angry lens. While I think it should be legal, I don't think it's a women's right. I don't feel that the government should promote abortions in any way subtly or not. While it is a practical reality of life, it is an unfortunate and regretful procedure.
How? It is objectively not restrictive in Canada. Women can either go to a clinic or get telemedicine. Their choice.
This choice is not available in all US states.
So by definition it is restrictive in the US and not in Canada.
I don't think you do.
You are constantly attributing my statements to opposition to abortion which I've said I don't care about.
I am talking about the state of abortion laws and access to abortion, particularly for women in restrictive states and how it disproportionately affects women of colour.
You seem to be trying to shove that under the rug and instead keep repeating it is easy to get abortions in the US. It objectively, is not.
It is absolutely a woman's right. Her body, her choice.
Or at the very least this is a medical procedure that a woman can consent to, without the state telling whether or not she can.
I don't think any government that legalizes abortions is promoting abortions.
That is like saying plastic surgeries are legal and therefore the government is promoting it.
On the other hand, a government should definitely not force a woman to have a baby. That is dystopian to say the least.
That is your personal opinion and not objectively true.
