Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[SaintForLife]

Rs will not stop lying about late term abortions. It’s infuriating.

Most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions.

Late-Term Abortion and Medical Necessity: A Failure of Science

Roe V. Wade (1973) placed the concept of medical necessity at the center of the public discourse on abortion. Nearly a half century later, 2 laws dealing with late-term abortion, 1 passed in New York and 1 set aside in Virginia, are an indication that ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More:

Essentially, Roe allowed abortion without any regulation in the first trimester of pregnancy, but made abortions in the second and third trimesters contingent upon demonstrated threats to the pregnant mother’s health. Along with rape and incest, therefore, medical necessity became the pathway to unrestricted abortion access. It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other.1,2

However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4 It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually. Since the Roe framework essentially medicalized abortion decisions beyond the first trimester, and since abortions in the United States are now performed on demand and only rarely for medical reasons which could end the life of the mother, what can we conclude about the value and impact of medical necessity determination in the case of induced abortion? A prescient proabortion author predicted today’s events with remarkable foresight when he concluded that the “rhetoric of medical necessity” is a mistaken strategy because “it is not the empirical evidence of what is or is not medically necessary which is important,” but rather “who possesses the ability to interpret necessity within key political contexts.”5

...The abortion science infrastructure, defined by the availability of valid data and research funding, is woefully inadequate. The abortion reporting system in the United States is demonstrably limited. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Abortion Surveillance System is voluntary. Three states (California, Maryland, and New Hampshire) do not report at all, and they account for 20% of the total US abortions. There is no uniformity in the data provided by reporting states so that major variables of interest such as race are available for only subsets of states and for intermittent time periods. Data are provided in aggregate tables and no individual event-level information is available, seriously constraining its analytical power. As a result, CDC abortion reporting has very limited value as a research resource. The Guttmacher Institute provider and patient surveys are likely a more complete source of abortion incidence data because they survey all states. However, Guttmacher does not do a survey every year, nor is its data openly available to all investigators. These inadequacies in abortion reporting also erode the quality of science in related areas such as maternal mortality.8 Research funding for abortion studies is also inadequate. According to the National Institutes of Health Research Condition and Disease Categorization System, developed to provide transparency in the reporting of funded research, abortion is essentially nonexistent as a subject for research funding. The system annually reports 282 different, presumably researchable conditions and categories including climate change, adolescent sexual activity, eczema, and food allergies. However, there is no category for abortion. A query of the system using abortion as the search term returns the following response: “No estimate of funding information is found.” So, the available data are compromised and minimal. Available funding is sparse. In the nation which has revolutionized the application of data and analytics, no one can say with certainty how many induced abortions are performed, what are the characteristics of the affected population of women, nor the characteristics, volumes, and outcomes of the providers who have performed them. There is no vibrant transparent exchange of data, findings, and policy interpretations occurring in the US peer-reviewed professional and scientific journals.

I wonder why the data on abortions is inadequate? I'm guessing that's on purpose.

 

[coldseat]

Most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions.

Late-Term Abortion and Medical Necessity: A Failure of Science

Roe V. Wade (1973) placed the concept of medical necessity at the center of the public discourse on abortion. Nearly a half century later, 2 laws dealing with late-term abortion, 1 passed in New York and 1 set aside in Virginia, are an indication that ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More:

Essentially, Roe allowed abortion without any regulation in the first trimester of pregnancy, but made abortions in the second and third trimesters contingent upon demonstrated threats to the pregnant mother’s health. Along with rape and incest, therefore, medical necessity became the pathway to unrestricted abortion access. It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other.1,2

However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4 It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually. Since the Roe framework essentially medicalized abortion decisions beyond the first trimester, and since abortions in the United States are now performed on demand and only rarely for medical reasons which could end the life of the mother, what can we conclude about the value and impact of medical necessity determination in the case of induced abortion? A prescient proabortion author predicted today’s events with remarkable foresight when he concluded that the “rhetoric of medical necessity” is a mistaken strategy because “it is not the empirical evidence of what is or is not medically necessary which is important,” but rather “who possesses the ability to interpret necessity within key political contexts.”5

...The abortion science infrastructure, defined by the availability of valid data and research funding, is woefully inadequate. The abortion reporting system in the United States is demonstrably limited. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Abortion Surveillance System is voluntary. Three states (California, Maryland, and New Hampshire) do not report at all, and they account for 20% of the total US abortions. There is no uniformity in the data provided by reporting states so that major variables of interest such as race are available for only subsets of states and for intermittent time periods. Data are provided in aggregate tables and no individual event-level information is available, seriously constraining its analytical power. As a result, CDC abortion reporting has very limited value as a research resource. The Guttmacher Institute provider and patient surveys are likely a more complete source of abortion incidence data because they survey all states. However, Guttmacher does not do a survey every year, nor is its data openly available to all investigators. These inadequacies in abortion reporting also erode the quality of science in related areas such as maternal mortality.8 Research funding for abortion studies is also inadequate. According to the National Institutes of Health Research Condition and Disease Categorization System, developed to provide transparency in the reporting of funded research, abortion is essentially nonexistent as a subject for research funding. The system annually reports 282 different, presumably researchable conditions and categories including climate change, adolescent sexual activity, eczema, and food allergies. However, there is no category for abortion. A query of the system using abortion as the search term returns the following response: “No estimate of funding information is found.” So, the available data are compromised and minimal. Available funding is sparse. In the nation which has revolutionized the application of data and analytics, no one can say with certainty how many induced abortions are performed, what are the characteristics of the affected population of women, nor the characteristics, volumes, and outcomes of the providers who have performed them. There is no vibrant transparent exchange of data, findings, and policy interpretations occurring in the US peer-reviewed professional and scientific journals.

I wonder why the data on abortions is inadequate? I'm guessing that's on purpose.

Things that are easily dismissed by rational people, anti-abortionist masquerading as scientist.

===========
“As part of the investigation, we are looking into Dr. Adkins’ concerns as well as any concerns related to conflict of interest,” Sage spokesperson Camille Gamboa told States Newsroom in an email. The lead author of the paper, James Studnicki, who works for the anti-abortion think tank Charlotte Lozier Institute, is also on the editorial board of “Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.” Gamboa said that Studnicki, in accordance with his journal’s ethics guidelines, was “not involved in the decision-making process for this article.”

Adkins dissected this paper the way he used to as a onetime peer reviewer. He told States Newsroom that the authors exaggerated their findings and visually misrepresented them in ways that are “grossly misleading.” And that’s led to legal consequences. Except, he said, their study doesn’t actually show what Kacsmaryk said it does: that medication abortion leads to significantly high rates of complications.
=============

Study cited by Texas judge in abortion-pill case under investigation • Wisconsin Examiner

Questions arise about the accuracy of a 2021 study authored by anti-abortion doctors that helped inform a court ban on mifepristone

wisconsinexaminer.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Things that are easily dismissed by rational people, anti-abortionist masquerading as scientist.

===========
“As part of the investigation, we are looking into Dr. Adkins’ concerns as well as any concerns related to conflict of interest,” Sage spokesperson Camille Gamboa told States Newsroom in an email. The lead author of the paper, James Studnicki, who works for the anti-abortion think tank Charlotte Lozier Institute, is also on the editorial board of “Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.” Gamboa said that Studnicki, in accordance with his journal’s ethics guidelines, was “not involved in the decision-making process for this article.”

Adkins dissected this paper the way he used to as a onetime peer reviewer. He told States Newsroom that the authors exaggerated their findings and visually misrepresented them in ways that are “grossly misleading.” And that’s led to legal consequences. Except, he said, their study doesn’t actually show what Kacsmaryk said it does: that medication abortion leads to significantly high rates of complications.
=============

Study cited by Texas judge in abortion-pill case under investigation • Wisconsin Examiner

Questions arise about the accuracy of a 2021 study authored by anti-abortion doctors that helped inform a court ban on mifepristone

wisconsinexaminer.com

Are only pro-abortion scientists credible?

Are you claiming this information from the Guttmacher Institute, which was founded by Planned Parenthood, isn't accurate:

The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4

 

[coldseat]

Are only pro-abortion scientists credible?

Are you claiming this information from the Guttmacher Institute, which was founded by Planned Parenthood, isn't accurate:

The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4

Anti-abortion activist masquerading as scientist aren't credible. They will twist anything to support their desired narrative.

 

[SaintForLife]

Anti-abortion activist masquerading as scientist aren't credible. They will twist anything to support their desired narrative.

Translation: You only think pro-abortion scientists are credible.

I guess you aren't taking issue with the information from Guttmacher Institute since you didn't comment on it.

 

[coldseat]

Translation: You only think pro-abortion scientists are credible.

I guess you aren't taking issue with the information from Guttmacher Institute since you didn't comment on it.

I would actually have to find a link to the Guttmacher Institute study/report to see what they actually said. I'm certainly not going to go assume that an abstract from the study of an activist anti-abortion scientist is going to contextualize it correctly. I'm not going to do all of that because I'm to lazy and I already know what I will find if I actually took the time to look for it and read it.

 

[MT15]

SFL you are epically bad at discerning when someone has an axe to grind. They are all lying to you and taking you for a fool and you are just following along.

You work in health care for cripes sake. You should know better. This is embarrassing for you.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Law enforcement carried out nearly 1,400 arrests of people for allegedly endangering “unborn life” between 2006 and the fall of Roe v Wade in 2022, according to a new report released on Tuesday, which found a sharp rise in how often people face criminal consequences over pregnancy.

The report is the only comprehensive accounting of how law enforcement criminalized pregnant people during the Roe era. Notably, relatively few of the cases captured in the report involve abortion. Instead, they focus on individuals who lost pregnancies or were accused of “child abuse” while pregnant.

In total, the group behind the report, Pregnancy Justice, uncovered more than 1,800 cases where law enforcement or healthcare workers criminalized people for their pregnancies in the half-century between Roe’s emergence in 1973 and its end in 2022.

“Pregnant people are, simply by virtue of being pregnant, vulnerable to criminal charges: child abuse or endangerment if they are accused of exposing their fetus to some perceived or actual risk of harm; or murder, feticide, or manslaughter if they experience a pregnancy loss,” Lourdes Rivera, Pregnancy Justice’s president, wrote in the report. “Now, without the protections of Roe, we can expect pregnancy criminalization to continue to increase.”

Pregnancy Justice is a legal advocacy group that defends people facing criminalization related to pregnancy. Its latest report builds on a 2013 study, also by Pregnancy Justice, that examined cases where women were criminalized for being pregnant between 1973 and 2005. While that study uncovered 413 cases, the Tuesday report picks up where that study left off and found roughly 1,400 more.

In 2020, Oklahoma police arrested a 19-year-old woman who had a miscarriage in her second trimester of pregnancy. Alleging that she had used meth, police charged her with first-degree manslaughter of the fetus (which could not yet survive outside the womb). A medical examiner had identified five other potential factors that may have led to the miscarriage.

In 2021, the woman was convicted and sentenced to four years in state prison. She decided not to appeal, because she was afraid that she might end up facing a life sentence.

Almost 85% of all the cases in the report involved people who were classified as “indigent”, which typically means that they could not afford an attorney. This suggests that poor people make up the bulk of pregnancy criminalization cases.

The cases were also wildly concentrated in the southern United States. Almost 80% of all cases documented in the report took place in Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Mississippi. (Nearly 47% of all cases, or 649 cases, took place in Alabama alone.) For two years, Tennessee had a provision known as the “fetal assault law” that penalized people whose newborns had been exposed to or harmed by a drug. Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma have expanded the legal meaning of “child” to include fetuses in their criminal law..............

Steep rise in criminalizing pregnant people during Roe era, new data shows

Nearly 1,400 arrests were made of pregnant people for allegedly endangering ‘unborn life’ from 2006 to 2022, report shows

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

This:

 

[Optimus Prime]

Former president Donald Trump is facing sharp blowback from some antiabortion activists and conservative governors, including his top challenger in the Republican presidential primary, reflecting the intraparty divisions over an issue the GOP has struggled to navigate since Roe v. Wade was overturned last summer.


The tensions center on Trump’s recent comments disparaging an abortion ban after six weeks of pregnancy and pledging to work with “both sides” on a federal ban, though abortion rights advocates staunchly oppose such a restriction.

Among those rebuking Trump are Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is running a distant second behind Trump in many polls, and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who has frequently appeared with DeSantis on the campaign trail despite staying neutral in the primary. Both signed state laws barring many abortions, setting the bar at a point before many even know they are pregnant.


The former president returned to Iowa on Wednesday, the first GOP nominating state — and one where abortion is a potent issue for many social conservatives expected to participate in January’s caucuses. During remarks in Dubuque, he touted his role in overturning Roe.


“And last year I was able to do something that nobody thought was possible,” Trump said. “And you have to really think about this, study this, because its very important, we ended Roe v. Wade. I did something that for 52 years people talked, they spent vast amounts of money in fighting it, but they couldn’t get the job done. Fifty-two years they fought and they fought hard. … They couldn’t get the job done. I got the job done. I got it done.”

He also warned against Republicans taking positions such as banning abortion even in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother.

“Without the exceptions, it is very difficult to win elections,” he said. “We would probably lose the majorities in 2024 without the exceptions and perhaps the presidency itself.”


The frictions have cast a renewed spotlight on Trump’s long shifting posture on the issue of abortion. Even as he faces criticism from some in his party, Democrats are seeking to remind voters of the steps he took to curtail abortion rights as president.

And many Republicans have been quiet about his posture, in part a reflection of his strength in the party and the belief by many that he will be the nominee.

Over the years, Trump’s publicly stated positions have spanned from his support of abortion rights as a private citizen, to his Supreme Court nominees who helped overturn Roe, to his more recent efforts to appear less extreme on a divisive topic.


“His comments left a lot of folks in the life movement confused because he did such a great job in undoing Roe v. Wade,” said Roger Severino, a vice president at the conservative the Heritage Foundation who led the federal health department’s civil rights office during the Trump administration………

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2023/09/20/trump-abortion-republicans-presidential/

 

[DaveXA]

Former president Donald Trump is facing sharp blowback from some antiabortion activists and conservative governors, including his top challenger in the Republican presidential primary, reflecting the intraparty divisions over an issue the GOP has struggled to navigate since Roe v. Wade was overturned last summer.


The tensions center on Trump’s recent comments disparaging an abortion ban after six weeks of pregnancy and pledging to work with “both sides” on a federal ban, though abortion rights advocates staunchly oppose such a restriction.

Among those rebuking Trump are Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is running a distant second behind Trump in many polls, and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who has frequently appeared with DeSantis on the campaign trail despite staying neutral in the primary. Both signed state laws barring many abortions, setting the bar at a point before many even know they are pregnant.


The former president returned to Iowa on Wednesday, the first GOP nominating state — and one where abortion is a potent issue for many social conservatives expected to participate in January’s caucuses. During remarks in Dubuque, he touted his role in overturning Roe.


“And last year I was able to do something that nobody thought was possible,” Trump said. “And you have to really think about this, study this, because its very important, we ended Roe v. Wade. I did something that for 52 years people talked, they spent vast amounts of money in fighting it, but they couldn’t get the job done. Fifty-two years they fought and they fought hard. … They couldn’t get the job done. I got the job done. I got it done.”

He also warned against Republicans taking positions such as banning abortion even in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother.

“Without the exceptions, it is very difficult to win elections,” he said. “We would probably lose the majorities in 2024 without the exceptions and perhaps the presidency itself.”


The frictions have cast a renewed spotlight on Trump’s long shifting posture on the issue of abortion. Even as he faces criticism from some in his party, Democrats are seeking to remind voters of the steps he took to curtail abortion rights as president.

And many Republicans have been quiet about his posture, in part a reflection of his strength in the party and the belief by many that he will be the nominee.

Over the years, Trump’s publicly stated positions have spanned from his support of abortion rights as a private citizen, to his Supreme Court nominees who helped overturn Roe, to his more recent efforts to appear less extreme on a divisive topic.


“His comments left a lot of folks in the life movement confused because he did such a great job in undoing Roe v. Wade,” said Roger Severino, a vice president at the conservative the Heritage Foundation who led the federal health department’s civil rights office during the Trump administration………

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2023/09/20/trump-abortion-republicans-presidential/

I'm not ever gonna vote for Trump, but he's not wrong in that much of the party has taken the abortion issue too far and that will cost them elections. Ultimately, he's recognizing that the R party hard line position on abortion is gonna kill his chances in the general. He knows he needs enough moderates and independents to have a chance in the general.

When Roe was overturned, the party became the dog that caught the car and...now what? I don't think the party ever stopped to say, hey, the issue they had to drive voters to the polls is no longer a win for them and they haven't adjusted. It's weird thinking Trump is ahead of the curve on this, but here he is.

We have to take him seriously. Don't ever say he can't win, because he certainly can. I'm not making that mistake again.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'm not ever gonna vote for Trump, but he's not wrong in that much of the party has taken the abortion issue too far and that will cost them elections. Ultimately, he's recognizing that the R party hard line position on abortion is gonna kill his chances in the general. He knows he needs enough moderates and independents to have a chance in the general.

When Roe was overturned, the party became the dog that caught the car and...now what? I don't think the party ever stopped to say, hey, the issue they had to drive voters to the polls is no longer a win for them and they haven't adjusted. It's weird thinking Trump is ahead of the curve on this, but here he is.

We have to take him seriously. Don't ever say he can't win, because he certainly can. I'm not making that mistake again.

If that is true, again, he's not saying it for the good of the nation, or for the good of women

It's for his own good and benefit

"Hey, this thing that I did, this Pandora's Box that I intentionally opened, may be bad for me? That's not good"

 

[DaveXA]

If that is true, again, he's not saying it for the good of the nation, or for the good of women

It's for his own good and benefit

"Hey, this thing that I did, this Pandora's Box that I intentionally opened, may be bad for me? That's not good"

No doubt. It's all self-serving, which is part of why I won't vote for him.

 

[MT15]

No doubt. It's all self-serving, which is part of why I won't vote for him.

I cannot imagine that any of the moderate and independent women will be fooled by Trump into voting for him. Not in any significant numbers. He is promising to take over the government and make it serve him and him alone. It would be the end of democracy as we have known it. Plus women don’t forget the way he treats women, the way he talks about them, the general misogyny that exudes out of him.

 

[DaveXA]

I cannot imagine that any of the moderate and independent women will be fooled by Trump into voting for him. Not in any significant numbers. He is promising to take over the government and make it serve him and him alone. It would be the end of democracy as we have known it. Plus women don’t forget the way he treats women, the way he talks about them, the general misogyny that exudes out of him.

Oh, I get all of that, but it's not going to stop him from trying. He's going to massage his messaging in general election. This I have no doubt. Whether voters forget or don't forget is an open question. A lot of voters are fickle when they get in the booth.

 

[V Chip]

Are you claiming this information from the Guttmacher Institute, which was founded by Planned Parenthood, isn't accurate:

Did you read the study (or at least a summary of it)? I doubt it. The biggest reasons for 20+ week abortions were obstacles to obtaining abortion services (accessibility, cost (travel cost and procedure cost), legal requirements/ waiting periods, age restrictions), partner disagreements and domestic violence situations, they were young and late to realize they were pregnant, or they were addicted to illicit substances.

Further, the study did not claim what that quote said it did: “Guttmacher study […] concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment” is completely incorrect and to be honest a blatant lie. The actual study didn’t conclude that, it simply stated some of the reasons cited for 20+ week abortions. The language used above was inserted by the PubMed author James Studnicki, who just so happens to work for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, an extreme right wing anti-abortion group with a history of incorrect and misleading science. It’s a complete fabrication of the study’s conclusion.

But I sincerely doubt you will care.

 

[MT15]

Did you read the study (or at least a summary of it)? I doubt it. The biggest reasons for 20+ week abortions were obstacles to obtaining abortion services (accessibility, cost (travel cost and procedure cost), legal requirements/ waiting periods, age restrictions), partner disagreements and domestic violence situations, they were young and late to realize they were pregnant, or they were addicted to illicit substances.

Further, the study did not claim what that quote said it did: “Guttmacher study […] concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment” is completely incorrect and to be honest a blatant lie. The actual study didn’t conclude that, it simply stated some of the reasons cited for 20+ week abortions. The language used above was inserted by the PubMed author James Studnicki, who just so happens to work for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, an extreme right wing anti-abortion group with a history of incorrect and misleading science. It’s a complete fabrication of the study’s conclusion.

But I sincerely doubt you will care.

I feel fairly confident that SFL NEVER reads the source material - he only reads the dishonest tweets of his favorite propagandists and then runs with it.

 

[V Chip]

I feel fairly confident that SFL NEVER reads the source material - he only reads the dishonest tweets of his favorite propagandists and then runs with it.

Probably.

I mean one of the biggest clues to this being biased is how the intellectual-integrity bereft anti-abortion movement addresses the issues by deliberately conflating two separate things: abortions at 20+ weeks, and “late-term” abortions (also frequently just reduced to “9th month” abortions, which are the things that don’t occur). About 1% of abortions are at 20+ weeks, but the vast majority of that ~1% are at the early stages — week 20-26. Very very few are in the third trimester, and almost none are 8th or 9th month. Yet what this paper attempts to do is run those two things together. The vast majority of those past 26 weeks and into 8th or 9th month (33+ weeks on) are for fetal abnormality or the life/heath of the mother, as no woman decides at that stage they simply don’t want to have the baby. The anti-abortion movement knows this but like most conservatives they don’t care if they have to lie about things to get what they want and can fool the vast majority of their followers with falsehoods.