(06-27-2022 05:11 PM)umbluegray Wrote: When pro-abortionists talk about the dangers of childbirth to women, it's rare that it's actually due to giving birth to a child. It's much more likely to be due to error.
Quote:Approximately 800 women in the US die each year during pregnancy and within 42 days after delivery. The estimated maternal mortality rate was 26.4 per 100 000 live births in 2015.
Quote:Years of unreliable US maternal mortality data kept the problem under the radar. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics hasn’t published an official maternal mortality rate since 2007. “It’s a total embarrassment that international databases such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development lists a dash for the US’ maternal mortality rate when a country like Mongolia is able to report one,” says Marian MacDorman, PhD, of the Maryland Population Research Center. “Our maternal mortality data are a real mess.”
Quote:More than 60% of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States are preventable, a major 2018 report concluded. Hemorrhage, cardiovascular and coronary conditions, cardiomyopathy, or infection caused nearly half of the deaths, but the leading causes of death varied by race.
Quote:Medical errors, ineffective treatments, and lack of care coordination by clinicians and hospitals are major causes of preventable deaths, according to the report. A mother’s death in the hospital often reflects a lack of preparation to deal with rare or catastrophic complications, says Barbara Levy, MD, vice president, health policy, of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
“Any one hospital is unlikely to have seen a maternal death in the last 5 years because the absolute numbers are relatively small,” Levy says. Consequently, “hospitals put more effort into managing medical emergencies that happen every day versus those that happen once every few years.”
That’s a result of a health care system that prioritizes profit over health outcomes, but that’s not on topic. Either way though you are much more likely to get poor treatment if you are poor, and especially if you are poor and black. The black maternal mortality rate in a lot of states is honestly disgusting, my wife has hammered this home constantly to make sure when we have children to make sure her doctors are taking her concerns seriously and don’t dismiss anything.
Why?
Are you seriously asking why you would get lesser treatment if you are poor? Like actually asking that not jokingly?
Yes. I'm seriously asking. Please explain why poor people get lesser treatment.
(06-27-2022 08:45 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: There’s zero reason to name check those other three cases but leave off Loving.
Yep. Zero legal reasons to leave out Loving, but one great big, right-wing extremist reason named GINNI
I would argue its clear why Loving was left out. Equal protection.
Telling a black man he cannot marry a white woman while allowing a white man to do the same violates equal protection.
You are denying one man the right to do something while allowing another man to do the same thing.
Regardless of your stance and beliefs regarding the issue of abortion, Dr. Naomi Wolf has a piece that is rather thought provoking on the issues. There are so many points she makes that I can't choose which to highlight.
(06-28-2022 11:37 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote: Regardless of your stance and beliefs regarding the issue of abortion, Dr. Naomi Wolf has a piece that is rather thought provoking on the issues. There are so many points she makes that I can't choose which to highlight.
To reflect how far to the left the Progressives have radicalized themselves, I can remember when Naomi Wolf was the poster child for Rush Limbaugh's "feminazi" updates. Now she's writing articles explaining how the lefts policies are wrong.
The leftist abortion activists kept pushing after they "won" because thats their business model. They had to keep pushing for more and more horrific "reproductive rights" because without this new "fight"---they would no longer have a job for their non-profit activist organization. Frankly, I think the global warming movement runs on basically the same model. It started out as a conservation movement that wanted to limit pollution and the damage to our clean rivers, air, and animal habitats. After winning success in the 1960's and 1970's---the effort accomplished most of what it had a wide popular mandate to do. Our air and water was much cleaner and the laissex-faire destructive manner in which industry in the US often operated with respect to the environment was forever altered by the establishment of the EPA. That original green conservation movement has now morphed beyond that into a radical global warming movement that seeks everything from economic redistribution to the end of the modern western lifestyle. They picked a boogie man (the destruction of the earth) and an end goal (end of the western fossil fuel society and redistribution of its wealth) that is almost impossible to attain---thus guaranteeing they will always have a reason to ask for funds for their non-profit activist organizations. Modern day activists are basically just a bunch of capitalist hiding behind some largely faux activist cause.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2022 12:32 PM by Attackcoog.)
(06-28-2022 11:37 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote: Regardless of your stance and beliefs regarding the issue of abortion, Dr. Naomi Wolf has a piece that is rather thought provoking on the issues. There are so many points she makes that I can't choose which to highlight.
(06-26-2022 10:38 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote: First off both parties have blood on their hands…
The same Carol Swain who spoke of values in that video but is controversial for being anti gay and Muslim? Let’s see what she might have left out:
Fact: Democrats introduced and led the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Fact: it was the bloc of conservative Southern Democrats in the Senate who filibustered and voted against the act. The same democrats that thought it was okay to beat, sic dogs onto and shoot water hoses at the people protesting/advocating for those same rights
Fact: The act passed with a Democrat majority in both houses.
The South may not be slow, but you sure are. She just laid it out to you as simple as it can get and yet you are so stiffnecked you cannot receive.
Ok Sparky. I disagreed with her and your point and explained why. Care to refute my argurmenrpt or are you only “fast” enough to insult?
Listen Blockhead the ANSWER is simple and straightforward it’s Family Values and all the rights that go along with protecting that. Southerns didn’t leave the Democratic Party it left them by allowing Leftist Regressives to take over the party and lead it in a direction that is perverted and is he’ll bent on destroying the family unit. Carry on clueless.
Wouldn’t want you leading anyone. You can’t see the forest for all those trees getting in the way. That forest is dense.
I was alive for the last “Family Values” GOP platform. All this going to end the same way. Bunch of dudes putting their pole where it did not belong.
Family Values …
Sparky only you see a forest. I see history repeating itself.
Your skull must be at the very minimum 2 inches thick. Let’s review GOP although not holier than thou will have some bad apples but overall want to keep the sanctity of the family unit. Democrats want to destroy all parts of the family unit at every given opportunity. Not a real hard choice to make if you believe in the sanctity of the family.
Pandora’s box is what the Democrats offer. No thanks.
(06-28-2022 11:37 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote: Regardless of your stance and beliefs regarding the issue of abortion, Dr. Naomi Wolf has a piece that is rather thought provoking on the issues. There are so many points she makes that I can't choose which to highlight.
Quote:Isn’t that situation something to change, via the family, culture, and loved ones around teenage girls, and not simply to patch up via providing children with limitless abortions in the traumatic, confusing context of zero required parental knowledge?
So the pro-choice movement lost the middle of America — as well as losing the moral high ground — by its insistence that, state by state, we must allow teenage girls to be able to choose abortions without parental consent or even knowledge.
BTW, as MA gov, good ol' Mitt Romney signed into law a bill that would allow minor girls to get an abortion without parental consent.
(06-28-2022 11:37 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote: Regardless of your stance and beliefs regarding the issue of abortion, Dr. Naomi Wolf has a piece that is rather thought provoking on the issues. There are so many points she makes that I can't choose which to highlight.
Naomi Wolf has made quite the transition over the past couple years. Back in the 1990s she was considered a feministic icon, an architect of the so-called "third wave" feminism. She wrote 8 best selling feminist books. She was a trusted advisor to the Clintons and to Al Gore during his presidential run. In 2011 she took part in the Occupy Wall Street movement, getting arrested at a protest.
It all changed with a fundamental disagreement with the Left on their strategy for fighting COVID-19, with concerns of side effects of the jab, profits of big pharma, the negative impact of masks on children, vaccine passports, etc. She then ventured into other areas where she felt the progressive left was attacking Liberty. She was canceled on social media and academia went on a crusade to discredit her feminist research from the 1990s.
(06-28-2022 11:37 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote: Regardless of your stance and beliefs regarding the issue of abortion, Dr. Naomi Wolf has a piece that is rather thought provoking on the issues. There are so many points she makes that I can't choose which to highlight.
Naomi Wolf has made quite the transition over the past couple years. Back in the 1990s she was considered a feministic icon, an architect of the so-called "third wave" feminism. She wrote 8 best selling feminist books. She was a trusted advisor to the Clintons and to Al Gore during his presidential run. In 2011 she took part in the Occupy Wall Street movement, getting arrested at a protest.
It all changed with a fundamental disagreement with the Left on their strategy for fighting COVID-19, with concerns of side effects of the jab, profits of big pharma, the negative impact of masks on children, vaccine passports, etc. She then ventured into other areas where she felt the progressive left was attacking Liberty. She was canceled on social media and academia went on a crusade to discredit her feminist research from the 1990s.
You are spot on. The scales started to fall off her eyes and she started to see how the left is treating those who disagree with them. She became a regular on Bannon's War Room with the covid stuff.
Quote:On Tuesday, a federal court allowed Tennessee’s six-week ban on abortion to take effect immediately after an emergency petition was filed by the State’s Attorney General last week following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn federal abortion rights.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals action comes before Tennessee’s so-called trigger law is set to take effect. Both measures would make performing an abortion a felony and subject doctors to potential prison time.
Tennessee currently has a “trigger law” that is set to be enacted 30 days after the ruling. It will essentially ban all abortions when it takes effect. Specifically, the legislation bans abortions for fetuses at six weeks when a fetal heartbeat can be detected or at eight weeks overall.
State supreme courts will be the new battle ground in places with trigger laws. Louisiana and Utah pro abortion activists got a state judge to place their laws on hold
(06-28-2022 03:47 PM)solohawks Wrote: State supreme courts will be the new battle ground in places with trigger laws. Louisiana and Utah pro abortion activists got a state judge to place their laws on hold
(06-28-2022 03:47 PM)solohawks Wrote: State supreme courts will be the new battle ground in places with trigger laws. Louisiana and Utah pro abortion activists got a state judge to place their laws on hold
on what grounds?
State Judges are finding abortion laws in violation of state constitution. Same battle as Roe v Wade just on the state level since outside of states that voted on abortion amendments like Nevada, no state constitution mentions abortion
Already finding success in Louisiana and Utah because clearly a state dominated by Catholicism and another founded by Mormons wanted abortion in their state constitutions.
In Ohio the very progressive cities(Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati*)have expressed they will not prosecute abortions within the city limits. This is contrary to the ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy across the state.
* The city attorneys in Cleveland and Columbus have indicated they will not prosecute. In Cincinnati the mayor has indicated they will will not prosecute, however the county prosecutor has not yet commented on the issue. He indicated temporarily the city will pay for women who want to go to another state to get an abortion (Indiana’s abortion law allows one up to 22 weeks).
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2022 04:27 PM by CliftonAve.)
(06-28-2022 03:47 PM)solohawks Wrote: State supreme courts will be the new battle ground in places with trigger laws. Louisiana and Utah pro abortion activists got a state judge to place their laws on hold
on what grounds?
State Judges are finding abortion laws in violation of state constitution. Same battle as Roe v Wade just on the state level since outside of states that voted on abortion amendments like Nevada, no state constitution mentions abortion
Already finding success in Louisiana and Utah because clearly a state dominated by Catholicism and another founded by Mormons wanted abortion in their state constitutions.
A process that should have played out over the past 50 years is finally happening.
State constitutions vary---so its possible a state constitution might have language that would in fact guarantee such a right (though I doubt any state constitution specifically address's abortion). That said, Texas for instance---is a state where the Constitution is constantly amended because its so restrictive in the powers that it grants that amending the state constitution is the only way to pass many of the laws that the people have demanded over the years---so you never know what might be lurking in our states constitution. Its possible other states have clauses and amendments lurking in those state constitutions that could cause trouble for abortion bans or restrictions.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2022 05:13 PM by Attackcoog.)
(06-28-2022 03:47 PM)solohawks Wrote: State supreme courts will be the new battle ground in places with trigger laws. Louisiana and Utah pro abortion activists got a state judge to place their laws on hold
on what grounds?
State Judges are finding abortion laws in violation of state constitution. Same battle as Roe v Wade just on the state level since outside of states that voted on abortion amendments like Nevada, no state constitution mentions abortion
Already finding success in Louisiana and Utah because clearly a state dominated by Catholicism and another founded by Mormons wanted abortion in their state constitutions.
A process that should have played out over the past 50 years is finally happening.
State constitutions vary---so its possible a state constitution might have language that would in fact guarantee such a right (though I doubt any state constitution specifically address's abortion). That said, Texas for instance---is a state where the Constitution is constantly amended because its so restrictive in the powers that it grants that amending the state constitution is the only way to pass many of the laws that the people have demanded over the years---so you never know what might be lurking in our states constitution. Its possible other states have clauses and amendments lurking in those state constitutions that could cause trouble for abortion bans or restrictions.
Some states like Nevada have had constitutional referendums codifying abortion.
I highly doubt Utah's Mormon influence constitution passed in 1896 endorsed abortion or had any amendments specifically about abortion being a right
I'm not saying all states will ban abortion, but the fight that we are going to see in state courts is long overdue
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2022 05:23 PM by solohawks.)
