ABORTION PILL RULING: Judge SUSPENDS FDA Approval of Mifepristone

The majority of Americans who respect reproductive liberty will not be dictated to by a radical minority, extremists who fancy that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a person. Anyone who facies such a notion is free to never have an abortion, not even under life-threatening circumstances.

Capital punishment, the State killing an actual person in cold blood, is vehemently opposed by some as well, but they don't get to dictate.

 

So then at what point does the woman lose her right to choose? Unless you’re saying she should have the right to choose up until birth or maybe even after like some of these other nut jobs out here?

See you call them extremists. But unless you support abortion until the moment of birth then the only difference between you and the “extremists” is when you decide at which point in the pregnancy the woman loses her ability to choose.

 

Seems I am not the only one who got that impression

 

Any time it threatens her life and health yes? Canada has NO abortion restrictions - how come women in Canada do not have late term abortions?

 

Whose life is more important - the foetus or the woman?

 

At any time and over many things, a lot of people don't look further than their first reaction. Since I can't control your reaction, I don't take responsibility for it.
I do take responsibility for making myself as clear as I can. It is your impression; it is not what I said.

 

Unless you have the statistics on how many abortions are performed in Canada, what % of Canadian abortions are performed after 20 weeks and what the cause of those terminations are, you don’t know that they don’t.

 

That depends. Is the fetus going to grow up to be a doctor who saves thousands of peoples lives and the mother a drug addict who commits petty theft to fund her habit and whose greatest accomplishment in life was dropping out of school and getting knocked up at 25 by her dealer?

You tell me whose life is more important.

 

That's false. He didn't say that. Here is a saved page from Trump's campaign Website:

Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

 

That page doesn’t fully display. I don’t know in what way you think my statement is false.
I do know that you grabbed a page from December 2016, after Trump had won the election and was already back tracking on getting Mexico to pay.

Here is a summary from earlier in the campaign.

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/05/473109475/trumps-plan-to-make-mexico-pay-for-the-wall

 

The Constitution's message is not about what they can't do, but what they can. Any power not specifically granted doesn't exist, though we may tolerate a lot of governance that assumes it does.
I believe that should be stopped.

Denying freedom of choice? That's a phrase that doesn't consider anyone else's rights. As far as I'm concerned, your freedom of choice is open until you use it to transgress on someone else's rights or to impose obligations not agreed to. It depends WHAT is being chosen, who it affects, and the extent to which they are directly involved.

There are a lot of views on abortion- and many of them are from people totally not involved dictating to others. The usual reason is the value of life. I'll go out on a limb and detail that.
Life can be a living hell, or fabulous. And regardless of what they say- all people see life as negotiable for one reason or another. If you had a hamburger today, a cow died so you could- and while it is "just" a cow, its life was as meaningful to it as yours is to you. I value the quality of life above the state of it; I love to see people thrive, and that takes a good start. The person who has to provide that quality has the right to decide if an unexpected pregnancy is badly timed and should be ended. That person carries the entire burden of providing that quality, those who would dictate what she should do have none. So- I'm a pro-choce person. I don't think anyone else has a say in it.

 

I support what most Americans support: a woman's right to make private decisions concerning reproduction before a viable, sentient life has developed during gestation, in consultation with medical and spiritual advisers whom she trusts, and, of course, I support her access to proven, safe medical means without the State seizing her mail or prohibiting her right to such medical care.

No one should be forced to or prevented from make such a personal decision by Statist politicians and bureaucrats.

 

Your claim was that this was going to be done via executive action and not legislative, but your link states that administration rule making is based on the Patriot Act section 326.

In other words, legislation.

 

He would make an EO under the Patriot Act. Not rely on Congress to pass new legislation.

 

So you were against all of the force used to make people take the Covid vaccine right?

I love all the people who are bent out of shape over the sacred right of an individuals ability to choose what they do with their body are the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who had no problem with people being forced to take the Covid shot or lose their ability to support their families with a job or have their children not be able to get an education unless they took an experimental vaccine.

The irony is so absolutely ****ing egregious it’s almost funny

 

Well the fact is that, first, most abortions occur within the first 12 weeks (this is also when mifepristone works best). In both the U.S. & Canada, IIRC, it is 97% or more of them. More than 99% occur by week 20 or 21. So, for practical purposes, there really aren't any abortions after the 24th week or so, except when there are either medical complications, endangering the mother, or on the rare occasions that a birth defect that had escaped earlier notice, is discovered late in the pregnancy.

Nevertheless, the implication that there is no restriction of abortion in Canada, is not really true-- it is just the medical profession, which does the regulating. According to the medical authority which sets this guideline, 23 weeks and 6 days, is the latest they should be performed (except in those two extraordinary types of cases, I'd mentioned). Still, the statistics make very clear that the idea in the heads, or at least coming out of the mouths, of some Pro-Lifers, of many women carrying their pregnancies into their third trimester, just because they couldn't find the time to get around to an abortion, is an absolute farce. Also, as the chemical abortion, for which mifepristone is used, is the most convenient way-- to take that away, could only lead to abortions occurring later in a pregnancy.

Actually, though, this is only one of two drugs which are typically used together, so women could still use the remaining one, on its own, if mifepristone were de-certified. But it's efficacy would be reduced and so, again, the only practical result will be women, for whom the single pill doesn't do the job, going for medical abortions later than the point, when they would have already been done with the pregnancy. Of course, those cheering this move to ban mifepristone, also want to narrow the abortion window as much as possible. So maybe they will measure success, by seeing women forced to carry to term, an incompletely aborted fetus-- I'm sure that would have no lasting effects on the child, right?

 

Let’s assume you’re right and it’s “just 1%” (although for the record the number is closer to 3% than 1).

“The CDC says there were 620,327 abortions nationally in 2020 in the District of Columbia and 47 states, a 1.5% decrease from 629,898 in 2019. Guttmacher’s national total for 2020 was 930,160, a 1.5% increase from 916,460 in 2019.”

So given those numbers, at 1% we are talking of a range between 6,299 - 9,302 babies aborted in late term abortions. Yes the abortion advocates kill babies at a PROLIFIC rate and murder hundreds of thousands of them a year, but that doesn’t make the 5000-10000 in late term abortions any less significant.

And even with Canada significantly reduced population and your 1% statistic they’re still doing around 1000 late term abortions per year.

And please spare us the bit about caring for the child when you support murdering it in the first place.

 

I even approve of the government's having apprehending and isolated Typhoid Mary in the interests of public safety. It had a responsibility to do so.

Yes, the government has a responsibility to protect the public against pandemics and prevent their spread. If folks have a phobia against inoculations, they are free to self-isolate themselves and their kids rather than present a threat to everyone else.

The anti-medical science crowd was respected: Biden said he did not intend to mandate that all citizens receive a COVID-19 vaccine, rather challenging their intelligence: "I will do everything in my power as president to encourage people to do the right thing and when they do it, demonstrate that it matters."

You are free to bray at all matters of public health, however irrational, if you are so disposed.

How does a woman making a private decision concerning reproduction threaten the public at large?

 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Pregnant women may experience conditions such as premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta late in pregnancy that endanger their lives.

“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion,” the ACOG

Do you oppose medical care for women under such tragic circumstances?

... a medical emergency is determined by a physician or health care professional, not by the state, and there are multiple medical conditions that could result in a medically necessary abortion.

One common reason is the effect of pregnancy on the heart, specifically the tremendous strain it can place on it by disrupting blood flow and increasing the risk of blood clots from elevated hormones. "Some people are medically in conditions where that would be too much for their system and so it's either terminating a pregnancy or basically signing a personal death warrant," said Dr. Duke.

Ectopic pregnancies—during which a fertilized egg implants itself outside of the uterus (mainly in one of the fallopian tubes)—are another example of medical emergencies. Ectopic pregnancies only occur in 1%-2% of pregnancies, but make up about 2.7% of all pregnancy-related deaths. A fetus cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy, which, left untreated for too long, can be harmful or fatal for the pregnant person.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, other life-threatening conditions for the pregnant person include: severe preeclampsia, newly diagnosed cancer that needs treatment right away, and an intrauterine infection known as chorioamnionitis following a premature rupture of the amniotic sac. A placental abruption, in which the placenta separates from the uterine lining, may also be considered a medical emergency in some cases of extensive bleeding.

Still too, lethal fetal abnormalities may lead to a nonviable pregnancy during which abortion may be preferred. According to Dr. Duke, when health care providers discover abnormalities that would make the fetus incompatible with life, parents may choose to compassionately terminate the pregnancy to prevent the fetus from being born only to pass shortly after. These fetal abnormalities—which may only be detected on a 20-week fetal anatomy scan—include anencephaly (an underdeveloped brain and incomplete skull), renal agenesis (absence of one or both kidneys), and hydrops fetalis (extensive fluid build-up and swelling).

https://www.health.com/news/abortion-medically-necessary​

 

You mean other than the fact there are literally tens of millions of dead babies that would have contributed to society?

 

Unfortunately for you the VAST majority of late term pregnancies are performed for the EXACT same reason that early term abortions are. They’re used as a form of birth control due to financial struggles or change in relationship status or “undue hardship” on the mother that’s not medical in nature like having to get childcare.

I’m happy to source that for you if you’d like. But to answer the question I can accept abortion in the case of incest, rape and legitimate risk to the mothers health in the rare cases that it occurs.

 

Most aborted pregnancies are early-stage, self-administered procedures. You can fantasize whether such microscopic, mindless amalgams of cells might have developed into future Nobel Prize recipients or Hitlers as you choose.

Nevertheless, Americans much prefer reproductive freedom to State coercion in such private matters.

 

Why would a woman seriously risk her health by needlessly delaying the termination of a viable pregnancy? Where do you get your peculiar insights?

 

It’s not a peculiar insight. It’s a fact.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/reasons-for-abortions#reasons-for-later-term-abortions

 

As your link notes, "Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion."

Politicians have no business preventing women from getting vital medical care.