40% of young women would like to leave the U.S., with Canada the top destination: poll

[WyattEarp]

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 think you are giving too much concern to choice and access. I am not arguing with the point that abortion is more restrictive in the U.S.
I have merely stated that I do not think it is difficult to get an abortion in the U.S.

My comments you are responding to are clearly my subjective opinions on abortion. We don't really need you pointing out of what it is already obvious.

When people dig into the rhetoric that an abortion is a women's right, they leave themselves no other recourse than to support abortions anytime for any reason that the woman decides. The U.S. aside, this is not the position of most of the Western world. Sorry but that's a fact not an opinion. Do you understand this?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

I have merely stated that I do not think it is difficult to get an abortion in the U.S.

However, the reality is different and it IS difficult and in some cases downright impossible to get an abortion in the US as evidenced by the recent example of a woman who died in Texas, that I posted above.

When people dig into the rhetoric that an abortion is a women's right, they leave themselves no other recourse than to support abortions anytime for any reason that the woman decides.

Correct.
We support a woman's right to get an abortion, for any and whatever reason, if she chooses to do so.
Her body, her choice, at all times.
PS: Yes family, friends can weigh in. But ultimately it is the woman's choice that is informed by her loved ones opinion's/needs, her preferences/needs and medical opinions/needs. Should be simple enough for anyone who supports individual freedom to support this.

 

[jalimon]

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.

If you read project 2025 you see that it's totally in the agenda of the gop to neutralize women. It's as simple as that. You can read between the line all day trying to make some sense to it. It's a waste of time. The only solution is to neutralize this administration before it's too late.

 

[Valcazar]

I'm sorry but you two are spreading outdated propaganda. Jalimon in your special case I know you lack the intellectual curiosity to investigate media propagation. mandrill you should know better but you have a hard on for the U.S.

U.S. abortions are higher than they were when the Supreme Court gave the States authority over abortion in 2022. Telemedicine has made the whole issue completely moot. More and more U.S. abortions are being administered remotely with mail order prescriptions. Not to mention, many women just go to a neighboring less restrictive state if they so choose.

Honestly, I don't know what to do with people on social media who consistently overdramatize or deliberately mislead.

And yet here you are doing just that.
Spreading the approved "no, really, the abortion thing isn''t even an issue" media line.

 

[Valcazar]

Um, you do realize that this is about day after pills right? Thats probably the preference than getting up in the stirrups.

The "day after pills" aren't abortions.
Are you saying that Wyatt is lying by including Plan B usage in the abortion stats?
That would be pretty unfair of him and I don't think that he is, actually.

 

[silentkisser]

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.

This is a fair point that I don't necessarily disagree with. But, that being said, I think that for many women, they here a lot of talk about how men want to erode their rights (yes, I know that might be a little hyperbolic) and to an extent, make them second class citizens. While I highly doubt those who want it will be able to repeal the 19th amendment, but they could change divorce laws and make it harder for a women to leave. And, it sort of goes hand in hand with the abortion issue, but many feel like they could be forced to become birthing machines, since the majority of states do not have any maternity leave longer than six weeks...which is ridiculous. Then, there is the cost of daycare and healthcare....Plus the anti-DEI crap which has made nearly any female in a leadership position suspect of being a token hire and not due to their merit.

For all of those reasons, and many I haven't touched, I totally see why more US women would want to come to Canada.

 

[Valcazar]

Anyone against abortion lumps them together. The states banning it include it and ban the sale of the pills and telehealth lines prescription.

Dude, abortion literally means stopping a pregnancy, when and how doesn't matter.

Just to clarify, is it that you know this is a false definition being pushed by people against "abortion" or is this another "Butler prefers this narrative so therefore it is true" situation?

 

[Valcazar]

I lead a few AI projects.
95% of pilots don't make it to production or fail to deliver measurable financial impact.
AI needs to be constantly tweaked and that creates technical debt too.
So your doom and gloom scenario is a few decades away.
Don't buy into the media hype about it too much.

That does not change the fact that the bosses are being sold the whole "AI lets you fire lots of people" line.
It is very easy to lose your job to something that can't actually do your job if the C-suite people are going to get a stock boom out of it.

 

[Valcazar]

Dude. Plan B is specifically for aborting a fertilized egg. It's not the Pill.

Holy cripes that's basically shit.

Holy shit. This is something you actually believe?
Fucking hell.

 

[Valcazar]

I've watched AI video and how it has progressed in one year. Do I think its actual intelligence? No. It isn't close. But its one hell of a lot closer to the Star Trek computer model than we had 2 years ago. Right now we are at Google + mode. With some added intuitive structure.

But this shit is exponential. Once they figure out how to monetize properly, probably by subscription for an advanced model, with a basic available for public use with advertising, it will be packaged and sold with specific jobs in mind. Legal, payroll, customer service, pizza ordering, whatever.

It will be used to program picking bots in shipping receiving, connected to ordering, payments, hell even 3D on the spot printing.

It's going to come hard and fast. Look what the IPhone did in 2006, Blackberry when it hit. It will change shit in ways the CEOs haven't figured out yet.

Hey, isn't this all the same kind of thing you used to say blockchain was going to do?

 

[Valcazar]

Higher population in two years?

Yes.
Almost always.
Unless the US has experienced a much more dramatic fertility and population crisis than reported, the population would be higher in two years than previously.
Despite that, I don't think it would be sufficient to cancel out the rise in raw numbers of abortions.

The numbers show that telemedicine led to an overall increase in total abortions as clinic abortions only dipped slightly since 2022. This is how women are actually choosing to have abortions. Sure, there's probably some women in restrictive states that didn't want to access telemedicine and instead went to a neighboring state.

The only things that have ever consistently reduced abortions are probably increasing education for women and increasing access to contraceptives.

All the scare tactics and we find that it's not hard to have an abortion in the United States.

This is, of course, a lie.

U.S. politicians don't really talk about abortion much because the drama is over and uneventful. President Clinton would say, that dog don't hunt no more.

Trump won the election, so many believe it isn't worth it because many politicians are deeply cynical.
It also isn't as sexy as a news topic as other shit Trump is doing.

The "total numbers didn't go down immediately, therefore it isn't a problem" has also been pretty effective as a talking point for people who didn't want to think about the issue much.

 

[Valcazar]

Ho I did last Friday!! Got to keep the plumbing in plumbing shape

God damn it! I really gots to learn to pay attention to these and get in on things!

 

[Valcazar]

That's not plan B. And am sure there are medical restrictions on using RU486 pills depending on where the woman is in her pregnancy.

It's an area of contention.
The move to ban or seriously restrict mifepristone is ongoing, and with RFK Jr at CDC, they've accepted to "look at it".
Since you just recently saw their reversal on vaccines and autism, it doesn't look great. (They didn't get to it right away, though, so the struggles the Admin is going through might slow them down.)
The shield laws that have helped people send medical abortions to people in states with bans are being challenged, so we have that to look forward to as well.
There are some other federal laws that got through under Biden which are likely to be targets if the GOP congress wasn't so dysfunctional.

 

[Valcazar]

Again, abortion is virtually a dead political issue. It was a good wedge issue while it lasted.

There are people who care about women's health, though, not whether it is a useful wedge issue.
Just because the GOP got all the juice they think they can get from the squeeze politically doesn't mean people who want to protect reproductive rights are going to stop wanting to improve women's health and it isn't going to stop the true believers who were actually pursuing the bans because it was an ideological issue for them from continuing to try to restrict further.

That it has lost a lot of luster as a political wedge is probably true, the GOP won and you can't use it as a wedge after that.
But the people who viewed it that way were only a portion of the people in power now.

 

[Valcazar]

I have no idea where you are getting this idea from.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1773756830147092955

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1801357901602427254

But that's just Wyatt's point.
Despite people saying that in 2024, Trump and the GOP won anyway.
It simply wasn't powerful enough in the face of other factors.

 

[jeff2]

We could use more women. In the old days there was a shortage of men. Wars, high infant mortality rate(especially for boys). Also, older boomer men could dip down to a huge pool of women(women usually marry men a bit older). That scene reversed with the young boomer men. And contrary to popular belief, our boom was not the same as the U.S. It was more back ended than front ended.

 

[Valcazar]

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.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Was specifically put into question about same-sex marriage by the Dobbs decision thanks to Thomas.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

That's different from having a doctor see you through an abortion.
You really think a pill is the best answer?

 

[Valcazar]

By this line of reasoning, if Canadian women are opting for telemedicine abortions in great numbers access to abortion clinics is restrictive.

That makes no logical sense at all.

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.

I would say that your pragmatism is pretty partisan since it seems to be focused on its effectiveness as a political wedge issue.
But even if I granted you the "non-partisan" thing, all you've done with this statement here is show that your view is a highly ideological one.

 

[WyattEarp]

And yet here you are doing just that.
Spreading the approved "no, really, the abortion thing isn''t even an issue" media line.

Of course, it's an issue.
It's just lost its impact.
It probably didn't have the impact certain media outlets portrayed.
You can believe it's what drives voters to the polls and tips election outcomes.