(06-25-2022 04:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-25-2022 02:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way the morning after pill is more properly classified as an aborficant than contraception.

And no, I don’t share your paranoia on a state prohibiting IUDs.

When one pops up to do so, I’ll acknowledge I need a little more blue shaded red pill.

Plan B is most commonly known as emergency contraception - absolutely disagree that it is more properly classified as an abortifacient. It works pretty much just like normal birth control by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, stopping fertilization, or stopping implantation. My understanding is that it has a different mix of compounds, and is more likely to work by stopping uterus implantation. Why do you think it’s better classified as a abortifacient?

Because it doesnt work to stop conception for its widest use. One doesnt use a 'morning after' solution for activities 'the night before' to stop conception from the 'night before'. Maybe there is a reason it is known as 'Plan B'. Think about it.

Most often, the step prevents implantation.

Quote:IUDs are technically banned under any law that defines life starting at the fertilization of the egg because some stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

Technically they are. That is why I took attention to them in the manner that I did.

Quote:The thing is, both of these are targets because they often work by stopping a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. So my concern is that some states, which decide to legally define life as starting at fertilization, will deem these methods illegal, since they often operate as described above. There are already examples of lawmakers pushing to ban IUDs.

Broadly speaking there are two avenues --- one is truly a 'contraception' (funny that, against conception, explicitly and literally) which include condoms (tadpoles cant swim out of the kid's pool into the bay) and the normal pill (prevents eggs, so nothing for the tadpoles to meet). Literally preventing conception.

The other avenue is aborficants -- that is they dont prevent conception, they prevent a continued pregnancy. Which strictly speaking are two different methodologies.

Quote:I hope that I am wrong and that neither of these are on the table in any state. But I am going to be skeptical until the dust settles. I was told that states like Louisiana would not be implementing the king of highly restrictive anti-abortion legislation that they have already, that it was just a bill getting out of committee, but look at where we are. The problem with primaries is that the most extreme of both sides are often voted in to office, so nothing is off the table, IMO.

As I said, when an IUD banning measure it put into place, I will acknowledge a lack of blue tinted red pill. For now, it seems idiotic to be squawking about it.

Your prerogative to label that as idiotic, of course. Id prefer to look at the actual evidence out there, which includes now passed laws that call the right to IUDs into question or actions of elected officials in some states, as to whether or not it’s reasonable to worry that IUDs and Plan B are on the chopping block.

Any government official that says they are going to go after IUDs is going to catch a falling chainsaw. That is pretty obvious. That is a reason I am fairly confident IUDs are off the table, notwithstanding the 'sky is falling' stuff you put out there.

Quote:As to Plan B, if you think Plan B has a chance to be banned, logically then IUDs would, as they operate in near similar manners. I think it’s idiotic to believe they would be legally treated differently. It seems idiotic to squawk about how Plan B is an abortifacient, when it doesn’t induce an abortion and works in the same way that other contraceptives do.

Except for the real world issues that you dont seem to realize. Plpan B strikes a nerve politically, IUDs dont. Middle class moms will go apeshit when IUDs are put on the chopping block, not so much Plan B.

Your studied analysis of 'how closely they functionally work' leaves off that real world component. 'Logically speaking' you might be 'logically correct', but at the same time your 'logically speaking' ignores the very real political implications. That is the problem with simply arguing by functional analogies, good sir.

Quote:That said, I’ll gladly eat crow if, in a few years, we see 0 states put forth legislation banning either form of contraception.

Thats not a true equivalence to what I said. Imagine that. Surprise surprise surprise. Nice goalpost move with that.

Not trying to move goal posts there - you’re making a functional distinction between a state passing legislation vs voting on legislation as to whether discussing if a bill might pass is idiotic? That seems like a poor position to take - waiting only until after a law passes to publicly discuss whether or not it might pass…

I think your political calculus is off regarding Plan B and IUDs - both the backlash and the willingness of conservative politicians to ban one but not the other. I do appreciate, that you’re in essence arguing that conservative politicians are willing to be rationally inconsistent due to politics, since there really is no significant difference between Plan B and an IUD in how they function.

Politically, Roe v Wade was popular. Politically, not banning abortion in all instances except when the life of the mother is at risk is not popular. But look at where we and a number of states are. To be frank, I don’t think the political calculus is really appropriate when evaluating where we may go next based on that fact. Again, I’ll gladly eat crow if all of these trigger law states eventually loosen their abortion regulations.

Edit: regarding politics, one other thought. Perhaps we will see conservative politicians pump the breaks and act moderately. But my gut is that this actually does the opposite and emboldens them (see Pence’s comments), and with that, more strict laws that will have real world consequences. Maybe then, they’ll be all voted out and we’ll have a stupid ass game of ping pong with respect to reproductive rights.