10 year old rape victim can't get abortion in Ohio

Pro-Choicers: "You don't support medicare for all, so I get to kill my son, right?"

Pro-Lifers: "No."

Pro-Choicers: "Hypocrite!"

I'm also pretty sure that even if poverty was a complete non-issue in America, as in 0 poverty, pro-choicers would still support a right to abortion. If it's a woman's right, the reason doesn't matter, socio-economic status doesn't matter.

 

Yes, because ultimately the anti-abortion position is about control, and the pro-choice position is about freedom

 

Making this a whole day trip would be a terrible and costly inconvenience for many poor families. What if they don't have a car, or the budget for gas, or a parent cant get a day off work without getting fired, etc ... not that I think republicans care about poor people, just pointing out the obvious, that turning healthcare into a road trip may make it prohibitively expensive for the poorest people, and a minor inconvenience for the middle class. Making the poor poorer (republicans high-five).

 

Now do guns.

 

I bet you could get enough donations from THFSG to completely fund the trip alone. People are more sensitive to these issues than you realize.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Maybe a 10 year old rape victim and her family seeking an abortion would want more privacy than resorting to a "go fund me"... especially when she will undoubtedly be inundated with good Christians screaming "murdered" at her...

 

There are plenty of discreet ways to do this. People discreetly seek medical funding assistance all the time.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Most solutions a compromise is readily available. I'd be willing to have a 15 week deadline for all abortions, if the Hyde Amendment was abolished, and government funds were available for 1st trimester abortions. 93% of all abortions are first trimester already, and the #1 reason a woman waits is lack of available funds.

But if the only compromise you are offering is a rape exception, then I need you define what is an acceptable line for what is rape that qualifies for an abortion, and what is not. If you can't do that, then there is no compromise. And if you can define it, then be prepared to defend the large gray area that blurs your line.

 

Won't go through whole because I feel awful today.

Glimpses-- no asking for definining what constitutes rape, medical, etc doesn't mean no compromise. It means safety for all. Prolifers claiming "well of course there's exceptions for life of the mother". What is the line? Imminent death? Certain death (ie cancerous brain tumor). What's the definition?

Same as rape. Does she claim it? Is it a charge? Conviction?

Problem is too much gray because no one sat down and thought of the varying scenarios. It's why in some states technically a C section would be an abortion. Getting anesthesia could carry an offense. Etc. So common sense delineation.
You'll find very very few that want abortion to the last minute. If any. The reason it's therr is to avoid situations where a woman carries a "dead" (brain dead, stillborn, etc) fetus around for another few months until it "naturally " comes out. Removing a fetus like that qualifies as an abortion.

Repeatedly most people fall on the 12-18 week mark. Allows for time, decisions ,etc, w no restrictions for rape/health. Even founding fathers had formulas for abortions because it was legal til "the quickening"(15 wks or so). This wasn't even an issue for the Republicans until the Evangelicals around 40 yrs ago. Heck it wasn't til the late 1800s when the Catholic church got involved that quickening shifted to bans.

70% of the country favors legal abortion w limits. So compromise. But how do you compromise w a side telling a 10 yo rape victim what happened was a gift from God, and that sets what amounts to private bounty hunters loose on people? Bans arthritis medicines? Demands ectopic pregnancies be reimplanted? Wants to ban birth control?

You need common sense compromise based on facts, not "feelings".

 

IF you're going to ban everything, then men need to be hit, too.

1. Immediate maternal and child support order retroactive to conception.

2. Insurance companies need to provide full and separate individual coverage for the fetus. (You know why that doesn't happen now? Because a fetus isn't a person)

3. Expansion of maternity leave from 6 weeks (sometimes unpaid) to fully paid with benefits from the 5th month of pregnancy to 6 months after birth. Other countries offer major maternity leave benefits.

4. Zero chance of custody for a rapist, abuser, or their families. Rapist or his family responsible for paying child support and restitution to the victim. Increase penalties for rape. This country isn't serious enough about rape.

5. Full child support until age 18, 21 if in school full time.

6. Actual serious enforcement of child support. Too many deadbeats skipping out. If there's a worry about misuse, have bills sent directly to dad to pay. Or provide receipts like I do for my ex. Some men are behind YEARS and joke about getting away w it. Meanwhile moms left w all bills.

7. Expand PTO benefits. Workers don't get enough PTO and mothers unfairly are the ones most often to take PTO for a sick child, thus limiting earning potential/chances for advancement.

8. Free no copay birth control pills. Free no copay IUDs.

If none of the above, then Mandatory vasectomies at 16.

 

Now. Why women don't report rape. Because those that are courageous enough get blamed (even happened here), disbelieved, told to keep quiet, etc. Then the ones that do get a charge have to get a judge/jury to believe them. Years after usually. Thousands upon thousands of rape kits sitaround waiting for trials and nothing. It's not a priority. Too many don't feel spousal rape is a thing. That if you're a married woman it's your job to put out no matter what.

Then you're lucky enough for a guilty verdict. And have a judge like the one who gave a rapist 3 years (served way less) because he showed "consideration" for wearing a condom. Etc.

So what are women supposed to do?

 

Since this has jumped here...medical necessity.

Part of the uproar is that the doctors can't settle what's necessity--the legislature is doing it, sometimes using laws in the books from the 1800s. With ectopic ruptures, you don't have days. Sometimes you have HOURS. For aggressive cancers you don't have weeks to sit in front of a panel. You have to start yesterday and hope you're on time. So the easiest thing is to leave the specifics out. If a patient comes in with rupture and a doctor had to do a D&C (kind of like an abortion) and then do chemical therapy after to expel the tissue, he didn't do it for fun. There's a reason. But if they're going to face jail over it they have to get with a lawyer, have the lawyer check, check with an agency....meanwhile you have a patient in pain, getting septic, bleeding into the abdomen, etc, waiting on a decision...then you have a problem. A massive one.

Politicians are idiots. Both parties. There's very few smart ones. Most have the common sense of a rock. These decisions need to be left to the doctors. Period.

So for the pro full ban prolifers I hope I gave you food for thought. Because if you don't want to help women and hold men way way more accountable, but you want to fully control women and force them to have full-term pregnancy, then it's not really about the life of the "baby", but about controlling women.

So the best compromise so people can live their lives is viability (21 wks is youngest successful birth), so 18-20 wks (16 is workable), no limits for health of the mother, rape/incest. Even if you remove rape/incest, at that time frame its plenty of time. Trust me. Even if drugged you either know for sure or within a few days of being raped. You don't forget...unfortunately.

No one is fully happy but at least it's fair. The problem is too many aren't interested in fair. That's why I've pushed so hard - and trust me this is hard right now. Because some need to understand that it's not cut and dry.

Bye for now...

 

Let's say I say yes to all of these conditions (minus mandatory vasectomies)... would you be okay with an outright abortion ban, then?

 

As long as you leave an opening for health of the mother, then while I wouldn't be "okay" with it, it would address a good chunk of what folks feel are elective abortions. And by providing the proper tools (birth control, for example) it would pretty much leave health of the mother or rape/abuse. One of my fellow women in support had her husband continuously flushing her pills until she went in secret to get an IUD. Yes she did leave him. She did get orders against him so that'd fall under abuse...but she wanted a baby just not with him. So with resources she would've probably kept it if she got pregnant.

You'll need to leave rape because girls normally aren't on the pill til 14 or so because they need to be developed, regular, etc. So girls like this 10 yo wouldn't be able to be on the pill. IUDs carry surgical complications and you have to be 18+.

So TL;DR - I still think forced births are wrong but at least those steps would make it acceptable. WITH the exceptions that I said (health, rape).

 

In addition....make it easier for women to get their tubes tied/cut/ get hysterectomies. Women shouldn't need consent from men they haven't even met to do this. Or consent from their husbands. I had to have my ex approve mine.

 

So if it wouldn't move the needle, why would anybody make those concessions unless they already agree with them (I happen to support some of them)?

 

By the way. If you can force a woman to carry a pregnancy, why not force men to get vasectomies? What's the difference?

Edit - getting off for real now but think on that. Why is one (forcing women to do things) okay but not the other?

 

You consented to the possibility of pregnancy in having consensual sex.

"Forcing" men to get vasectomies is obviously not consensual.

A more accurate comparison to forced vasectomies is forcing women to tie their tubes.

 

Actually you're consenting to sex. If she asks and he refuses to put on a condom, or it fails, or takes it off...that's not exactly something she consented to.

Now, pregnancy is supposed to be 50/50, which is why I said if no agreement to the other things on my list then forced vasectomies. Because while consent may be implied in accepting sex, it doesn't mean the responsibility is only on one party.

I can see your point and what it would equal though.

Btw you'll find A LOT of women who are looking to get tubes tied that aren't being allowed to. Both are reversible, but vasectomies are way easier.

 

Sorry just saw this. You asked in what scenario.

I stand with forced births being wrong. By my list you take care of a massive percentage of abortions. You can't account for mother's health because that happens to too many, even prolifers. Complications happen. So unless you want dead women you HAVE to make an exception there.

As to rape, you need that there because the precautions mentioned (IUD, birth control) aren't available to younger girls. So for THEM to get help you'd need an exception.

So yes that list would absolutely move the needle.

The problem is, no one is willing to do that legally. You have people preaching that we need to go back to the days women didn't have "rights" (which to this one guy include being able to ask for a divorce), judges giving reduced sentences for wearing a condom during a rape, women needing male consent for procedures...

Then states like Mississippi refusing to expand Medicare past the 1st month for a baby. Breast feeding moms getting discriminated in the workplace. States looking to or already making birth control illegal, and pharmacists emboldened to lie about stock/outright say they're not filling prescriptions because they don't "believe" in premarital sex (even if they don't know what it's really prescribed for). Women unable to get arthritis meds because of bans. Heck Advil is in the same category. Women denied chemo. C-sections having to go through legal. IVF treatments banned.

And then this case...people calling this a "gift".

I gave what would make a ban palatable. None of that will happen because women's rights overall are just going backwards to the delight of some.

So we're back to square one. Women have the right to choose because it's THEIR lives at stake, THEIR futures on the line, and as so many men like to point out THEIR responsibility. So if folks are putting it all on a woman, it's HER choice, or a combination of HER and her DOCTOR. Because forced births are bad enough, but then saying forced birth AND you get no help?

Off to an infusion. Another thing women in some states can't have.