New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West

[LonerMatt]

Well there are 10+ types of contraception out there, several of which are very cheap and readily available everywhere in the United States. 

Sure, some children are conceived by rapists, and some diseases can be detected in utero, but the overwhelming number of abortions occur because people lack self-control in a modern world where modern, safe contraception is plentiful and inexpensive.

So what, though?

Should folks have to have a pregnancy and birth because they lacked self-control? Doesn't seem like a consequence-meets-action situation to me.

[LonerMatt]

No one who doesn't want to be pregnant should have to be pregnant. Regardless of how they got there. It's a big deal and a stressful process, even for those who are really keen. Who benefits from making people stick with it? So fucking patronising.

Abortion can be the most responsible choice someone can make. It would be good to acknowledge that while beating the personal responsibility drum. I'm 100% certain if you gave someone facing an abortion a do over they'd act more responsibility, but that ship has sailed. Does that mean they should have to give birth?

[PDXTabs]

1. Are they truly easily available everywhere? 

There are these things called gas stations.  Walgreen's.  CVS.

Condoms are great. They are inexpensive and the prevent some STIs very effectively. They are also only 98% effective.

So what cheap and easily available methods are you thinking of other than condoms?

Birth control pills.  Under $500/year.  A shot or shots.  Under $500/year.  Low-income people can probably get them for free.  The Planned Parenthood clinic near my house has a giant bucket of free condoms sitting on the front counter.

I have personally lived through the mini pill failing. It's notoriously shit, but safe for breast feeding mothers. It is somewhere between 91-99% effective depending on how good you are at taking it at exactly the same time every day.

My point being that this is the law of large numbers. Also, if your birth control is 98% effective that doesn't mean in your lifetime, that's in one year. How many people are having sex for how many years during child bearing age? I'd be curious to know but I couldn't find that stat.

EDITed to add that the CDC has worse stuff to say about the mini pill.

[OtherJen]

1. Are they truly easily available everywhere? 

There are these things called gas stations.  Walgreen's.  CVS.

Condoms are great. They are inexpensive and the prevent some STIs very effectively. They are also only 98% effective.

So what cheap and easily available methods are you thinking of other than condoms?

Birth control pills.  Under $500/year.  A shot or shots.  Under $500/year.  Low-income people can probably get them for free.  The Planned Parenthood clinic near my house has a giant bucket of free condoms sitting on the front counter.

I have personally lived through the mini pill failing. It's notoriously shit, but safe for breast feeding mothers. It is somewhere between 91-99% effective depending on how good you are at taking it at exactly the same time every day.

My point being that this is the law of large numbers. Also, if your birth control is 98% effective that doesn't mean in your lifetime, that's in one year. How many people are having sex for how many years during child bearing age? I'd be curious to know but I couldn't find that stat.

EDITed to add that the CDC has worse stuff to say about the mini pill.

Yeah, my friend and her husband ended up with twins because of a pill failure.

According to your efficacy stats, if 10 million heterosexual couples used condoms for every sexual encounter during a year, at a 98% success rate, that could possibly result in 200,000 possible unplanned pregnancies per year.

Of course, that assumes consistent, correct use. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2940206/

So, men, always wearing a condom doesn't mean that you won't get your partner pregnant, even if you've both done everything right.

[GodlessCommie]

Low-income people can probably get them for free.  The Planned Parenthood clinic near my house has a giant bucket of free condoms sitting on the front counter.

Probably? That's a lot of confidence.

Condoms only work if a man is willing to use them. And not quietly remove mid-act, which is a thing.

Not everyone has PP clinic near their house.

You can get pregnant quite young. There are states that actively prevent youth from learning about contraception. Mississippi, for example, mandates abstinence-only or abstinence-plus sex ed.

[Metalcat]

Uh...there are A LOT of us women who have most birth control contra indicated due to medical reasons.

Just having a history of migraine with aura, which is HIGHLY common among women is enough to contraindicate the majority of hormonal birth control.

It's not like most women are out there getting abortions every year. The incidence is probably less than the proportion of women who medically cannot safely take birth control, and have to balance significant risks with their own health to stay on it.

I love how some people act like hormonal birth control isn't a serious medical intervention.

Of all the women I know personally who have had abortions, none of them have happened because they were just lazy sluts who couldn't be bothered to care.

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

[sui generis]

1. Are they truly easily available everywhere? 

There are these things called gas stations.  Walgreen's.  CVS. 

So what cheap and easily available methods are you thinking of other than condoms?

Birth control pills.  Under $500/year.  A shot or shots.  Under $500/year.  Low-income people can probably get them for free.  The Planned Parenthood clinic near my house has a giant bucket of free condoms sitting on the front counter.

2.  Have men improved their behavior that much since the time I was dating? 

Well women in their 30s are still pulling that stunt where they tell their boyfriends they don't want kids or they can't have kids and OOPSIE now they're a daddy. 

People on this website like to gloat over people having no control over their finances - tons of emotional purchases, etc.  Yet you're the bad guy if you call out people who can't figure out how to avoid unplanned pregnancies.

All of this is just hypocritical in that the same people that don't want abortion are the ones that prohibit teaching sex ed and want to restrict the use and availability of contraceptives.  Not to mention create an atmosphere of shame around sex and use of contraceptives so that....people still have sex because of course they are going to, but don't use the contraceptives.  If there were people that were against abortion that actually went out and taught biologically accurate sex ed to teenagers and made sure they knew how to use contraceptives properly and were provided with access AND created an atmosphere of acceptance and encouragement around using them if they choose to have sex (i.e. truly judgment free), I would at least be happy to not call them a hypocrite.  I'm not sure any of those people exist though.

In the meantime, people point to purported availability of contraceptives, even though they would fight that availability, as a reason to outlaw abortion.  Make no mistake, access to contraceptives is next on the list for these judicial activists. Pointing to the limited access we have now is hypocritical.



Also, these people should be careful of making babies a punishment for something.  Babies and pregnancy shouldn't be punishments.  Someone acting irresponsibly, even if they were, do not deserve punishment and our society shouldn't frame babies as the punishment you get for being irresponsible. 

[CodingHare]

Uh...there are A LOT of us women who have most birth control contra indicated due to medical reasons.

Just having a history of migraine with aura, which is HIGHLY common among women is enough to contraindicate the majority of hormonal birth control.

It's not like most women are out there getting abortions every year. The incidence is probably less than the proportion of women who medically cannot safely take birth control, and have to balance significant risks with their own health to stay on it.

I love how some people act like hormonal birth control isn't a serious medical intervention.

Of all the women I know personally who have had abortions, none of them have happened because they were just lazy sluts who couldn't be bothered to care.

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

Yeah, I have a history of very occasional migraines.  If they pick up I will need to switch BC again.  The implant made me suicidal, and I had to have it dug out stat once I realized it was severely harming my mental health.  I want an IUD for the improved failure rate, but I am scared to switch to the copper IUD since I had really heavy periods and awful cramps when I wasn't on hormonal BC.

But it is just soooo easy to be responsible, women who want the backup of abortion are all sluts.  /s  And women must remain available for sex or we aren't seeing to our men's needs, which totally gives men a license to cheat (at least in conservative circles I was raised in)

[the_fixer]

You all want to use this thread to debate where the law should draw the line on abortions.  Meanwhile, 12.6 million actual, already alive, real women live in Texas.  They have to wonder about the consequences for failure rates in birth control.  They have to wonder if Plan B will be denied to them by a pharmacist because it is against that pharmacist's beliefs.  They have to schedule a flight to another state if they can afford it, a potential 6 hour drive depending on where they live plus hotels plus getting that time off from work.  They have to worry about other private citizens suing them for the mere suspicion of having an abortion (who wants to bet black women get disproportionately reported under this ludicrous system?)

It's hard not to feel like you don't care if that above suffering gets 20 words of "of course this is too far" but then you spend 10,000 words debating BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS EDGE CASE?  AREN'T WOMEN MURDERERS AND INCONSISTENT?  It's exhausting. Doesn't feel to me like the thread cares about the real women here, because you don't want to talk about their struggles.

Lets start with abortion access for everyone in every state up to viability.  Then, once people actually have access (and not just one clinic per state heavily picketed by people screaming about murder), then we can wait and see if there are real cases of women using late term abortions to murder.  Because it just doesn't happen (or if it does, show me the stats), so why legislate for it when you don't have evidence of it happening?

I came here to say just this.  I cannot believe the navel gazing, how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin discussion here.  Where people are ignoring real life and talking ad nauseum about hypothetical situations about which they have no knowledge.  It's total bullshit and makes me literally nauseated by the assholery on display here.

In my FIRE, one thing I've decided to do is work for a practical support organization.  One day a week all day, I help people get to their abortions or pay for their abortions.  I help people who are still early enough to take the pill find info about how they can do a self-managed abortion, I help people who have to fly across the country for a later-term abortion and everything in between.  I've been doing this for almost 3 years now.  As you might guess, I'm working with exclusively poor people.  Rich people will always get all the abortions they want, so talking about them having an abortion the day before they go into natural labor is a waste of time.  You could outlaw it and it won't stop anyone, to the extent it happens.  Poor people are not deciding on a whim to abort.  Your lack of imagination about why they are terminating a pregnancy at 27 weeks doesn't mean there aren't myriad reasons that would make sense to everyone here. (and no I'm not going to make a list.  I've got shit to do today and it would take me all weekend anyway.)  No one does something on a whim that costs $10-20k (just for the surgery) except people who are rich.

Thank you for helping those that are in need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GodlessCommie]

I'm just going to write from personal experience for a minute, but I caucused for Sanders and I voted for Warren (in the primaries). I gave money to both of them. But what did the party do? They closed ranks to get HRC the nomination and then somehow Biden was the right candidate for the job. But no one loves Biden. Lefties in particular shouldn't love his tax and fiscal policies. Meanwhile it really doesn't matter as long as the Senate is the Senate. So why should I care anymore? Hell, I wrote Obama begging him to let the Bush tax cuts expire and he didn't even return my letter. Thanks Obama!

Why should I ever spend another dime on national politics when it will just result in more tax cuts for well off, brought to you by both parties? I'd rather send my hard earned dollars to Virunga National Park or some other organization that will actually put them to good use.

EDITed to add: also, Sanders championed a carbon tax for decades before basically abandoning it because poor people like driving cars too. We are doomed.

Thank you for the excellent example. Anti-abortion activists toiled for decades to get what they felt was right, as misguided as I think their efforts are, no matter what conditions within their party was. You, on the other hand, are saying that you'll only be involved if a majority of the party unconditionally surrenders to the demands of a minority to which you belong. And you do it after once cycle, not after decades of grueling work.

Now, it's your right to be engaged or disengaged. You did more than most of our fellow citizens, and you have my respect for that. But the difference is clear. It is clear who will get what they want, and who will not. They are getting it now.

[PDXTabs]

I'm just going to write from personal experience for a minute, but I caucused for Sanders and I voted for Warren (in the primaries). I gave money to both of them. But what did the party do? They closed ranks to get HRC the nomination and then somehow Biden was the right candidate for the job. But no one loves Biden. Lefties in particular shouldn't love his tax and fiscal policies. Meanwhile it really doesn't matter as long as the Senate is the Senate. So why should I care anymore? Hell, I wrote Obama begging him to let the Bush tax cuts expire and he didn't even return my letter. Thanks Obama!

Why should I ever spend another dime on national politics when it will just result in more tax cuts for well off, brought to you by both parties? I'd rather send my hard earned dollars to Virunga National Park or some other organization that will actually put them to good use.

EDITed to add: also, Sanders championed a carbon tax for decades before basically abandoning it because poor people like driving cars too. We are doomed.

Thank you for the excellent example. Anti-abortion activists toiled for decades to get what they felt was right, as misguided as I think their efforts are, no matter what conditions within their party was. You, on the other hand, are saying that you'll only be involved if a majority of the party unconditionally surrenders to the demands of a minority to which you belong.

Now, it's your right to be engaged or disengaged - but the difference is clear. And it is clear who will get what they want, and who will not.

But if my reasoned opinion is that "we" can't control the Senate (remind me again who confirms the supreme court justices?) then continuing to fight this losing battle is throwing good money after bad. It is the sunk cost fallacy. Better to save some gorillas in the Congo than continue to set money on fire. Or just pay for some women to travel to CA from TX to get an abortion.

The Senate is the original sin of the country.

EDITed to add that I'm not sure that supporting the Clinton tax rates makes me a fringe minority of the party. IMHO the Democrats continuing to ratify GOP tax cuts is the party apparatchiks caving to the swing voters, not representing their own members.

[boarder42]

Well there are 10+ types of contraception out there, several of which are very cheap and readily available everywhere in the United States. 

Sure, some children are conceived by rapists, and some diseases can be detected in utero, but the overwhelming number of abortions occur because people lack self-control in a modern world where modern, safe contraception is plentiful and inexpensive.

So what, though?

Should folks have to have a pregnancy and birth because they lacked self-control? Doesn't seem like a consequence-meets-action situation to me.

we should stop allowing people with type 2 diabetes to receive treatment.  Anyone obese with heart disease sorry no room for you here.  If you were born able bodied and make choices in your life that have you need any medical attention at all you are not allowed to receive it.  if you ever smoked anything or stood near a bonfire in your life you're not allowed to be treated for any lung disorders.  if you've eaten smoked meat sorry your digestive track is not allowed to receive medical attention.

[Hash Brown]

1. Are they truly easily available everywhere? 

There are these things called gas stations.  Walgreen's.  CVS.

Condoms are great. They are inexpensive and the prevent some STIs very effectively. They are also only 98% effective.

So what cheap and easily available methods are you thinking of other than condoms?

Birth control pills.  Under $500/year.  A shot or shots.  Under $500/year.  Low-income people can probably get them for free.  The Planned Parenthood clinic near my house has a giant bucket of free condoms sitting on the front counter.

Of course, that assumes consistent, correct use. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2940206/

So, men, always wearing a condom doesn't mean that you won't get your partner pregnant, even if you've both done everything right.

I grew up in the 80s when AIDS dominated public affairs.  There were endless celebrity endorsements of condoms.  I remember REM's Michael Stipe taking the stage at one of the MTV awards shows wearing a t-shirt that read "wear a condom" and the cool kids all cheered him on.   

Meanwhile, the contemporaneous abstinence campaigns sponsored by religious groups (I recall one called Postponing Sexual Involvement) warned that condoms weren't 100% effective. 

Now I'm being told by the Michael Stipe cool kids that condoms aren't effective, meaning they've aligned themselves with Postponing Sexual Involvement.

Here is the MTV clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoXuba_uaNo

[Metalcat]

1. Are they truly easily available everywhere? 

There are these things called gas stations.  Walgreen's.  CVS.

Condoms are great. They are inexpensive and the prevent some STIs very effectively. They are also only 98% effective.

So what cheap and easily available methods are you thinking of other than condoms?

Birth control pills.  Under $500/year.  A shot or shots.  Under $500/year.  Low-income people can probably get them for free.  The Planned Parenthood clinic near my house has a giant bucket of free condoms sitting on the front counter.

Of course, that assumes consistent, correct use. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2940206/

So, men, always wearing a condom doesn't mean that you won't get your partner pregnant, even if you've both done everything right.

I grew up in the 80s when AIDS dominated public affairs.  There were endless celebrity endorsements of condoms.  I remember REM's Michael Stipe taking the stage at one of the MTV awards shows wearing a t-shirt that read "wear a condom" and the cool kids all cheered him on.   

Meanwhile, the contemporaneous abstinence campaigns sponsored by religious groups (I recall one called Postponing Sexual Involvement) warned that condoms weren't 100% effective. 

Now I'm being told by the Michael Stipe cool kids that condoms aren't effective, meaning they've aligned themselves with Postponing Sexual Involvement.

Here is the MTV clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoXuba_uaNo

Literally no one has said condoms aren't effective, but they've always, ALWAYS been acknowledged to not be perfect protection.

Wait... why am I bothering?

[CodingHare]

I grew up in the 80s when AIDS dominated public affairs.  There were endless celebrity endorsements of condoms.  I remember REM's Michael Stipe taking the stage at one of the MTV awards shows wearing a t-shirt that read "wear a condom" and the cool kids all cheered him on.   

Meanwhile, the contemporaneous abstinence campaigns sponsored by religious groups (I recall one called Postponing Sexual Involvement) warned that condoms weren't 100% effective. 

Now I'm being told by the Michael Stipe cool kids that condoms aren't effective, meaning they've aligned themselves with Postponing Sexual Involvement.

Here is the MTV clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoXuba_uaNo

I don't see the conflict between "not 100% effective at pregnancy and STD prevention" and "still a really good idea if you are trying not to get sick or pregnant."  The latter is something a lot of abstinence only education obfuscated, to the point that kids thought condoms weren't worth using.  Surprise, lots of teen mothers as a result of that misinformation.

[OtherJen]

1. Are they truly easily available everywhere? 

There are these things called gas stations.  Walgreen's.  CVS.

Condoms are great. They are inexpensive and the prevent some STIs very effectively. They are also only 98% effective.

So what cheap and easily available methods are you thinking of other than condoms?

Birth control pills.  Under $500/year.  A shot or shots.  Under $500/year.  Low-income people can probably get them for free.  The Planned Parenthood clinic near my house has a giant bucket of free condoms sitting on the front counter.

Of course, that assumes consistent, correct use. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2940206/

So, men, always wearing a condom doesn't mean that you won't get your partner pregnant, even if you've both done everything right.

I grew up in the 80s when AIDS dominated public affairs.  There were endless celebrity endorsements of condoms.  I remember REM's Michael Stipe taking the stage at one of the MTV awards shows wearing a t-shirt that read "wear a condom" and the cool kids all cheered him on.   

Meanwhile, the contemporaneous abstinence campaigns sponsored by religious groups (I recall one called Postponing Sexual Involvement) warned that condoms weren't 100% effective. 

Now I'm being told by the Michael Stipe cool kids that condoms aren't effective, meaning they've aligned themselves with Postponing Sexual Involvement.

Here is the MTV clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoXuba_uaNo

I know that statistics and the law of large numbers are difficult concepts for many. This seems to be in play here.

Was the rest of that supposed to be insulting? Might want to work on your insult game.

[RetiredAt63]

As your social historian (my cred is good, born in the 50s) the condom was never used by itself by couples who were serious about birth control.  It was condom, AND diaphragm AND spermicidal jelly.  And even that wasn't 100% effective.  A condom by itself was a last minute protection, heat of the moment thing.  Because a diaphragm (had to be fitted) and spermicidal jelly take planning.

And all the heavy work was done by the women, then and now.  Hmm, maybe we should involve the men more?  Every time there is sex with a new partner, a large trust account is set up for support of any resulting offspring.  Trust to be dissolved only after 6 months of the relationship breaking up.   Don't like that?   Legal automatic support from salary or other income on proof of paternity.

Because really the purpose of marriage was to provide social guarantees of offspring being provided for.  And as a biologist I can give you multiple examples from the animal kingdom (and some plants) of arrangements that make sure offspring are provided for.  So totally natural.

[PDXTabs]

Meanwhile, the contemporaneous abstinence campaigns sponsored by religious groups (I recall one called Postponing Sexual Involvement) warned that condoms weren't 100% effective. 

Now I'm being told by the Michael Stipe cool kids that condoms aren't effective, meaning they've aligned themselves with Postponing Sexual Involvement.

What, exactly, is your point? And how does it relate to bodily autonomy for my wife when her POP failed?

[js82]

California may write a similar law except for gun control. I hope 20 million lawsuits get filed within a week and just drown the NRA.

I'm not anti-gun, but am anti-NRA for sure.

Texas' Abortion law is garbage, and if California passes a similar law Re: guns, it would be a garbage law as well.

The only good thing about California enacting such a law is that it might get the Supreme Court to rule that the garbage law is not merely garbage, but *unconstitutional* garbage.

Asking citizens to get up in others' business to act as vigilantes is awful, and it's an embarrassment that this law exists(and has been allowed to continue its existence).  Seriously, screw the legislators and "think tanks" that came up with this garbage, and the supreme court justices that are letting them get away with it.

[sui generis]

California may write a similar law except for gun control. I hope 20 million lawsuits get filed within a week and just drown the NRA.

I'm not anti-gun, but am anti-NRA for sure.

Texas' Abortion law is garbage, and if California passes a similar law Re: guns, it would be a garbage law as well.

The only good thing about California enacting such a law is that it might get the Supreme Court to rule that the garbage law is not merely garbage, but *unconstitutional* garbage.

Asking citizens to get up in others' business to act as vigilantes is awful, and it's an embarrassment that this law exists(and has been allowed to continue its existence).  Seriously, screw the legislators and "think tanks" that came up with this garbage, and the supreme court justices that are letting them get away with it.

If we enact that law here in CA it's strictly for making the point that it's bad law, not because anyone here wants to actually bounty hunt gun owners like conservatives actually do want to bounty hunt women getting abortions and people that would dare help them. But, conservatives should learn that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, they *should* learn that, but I have no doubts about their ability to make some intellectually dishonest arguments about why bounty hunters to monitor women's bodies are ok but not anything else

[GodlessCommie]

If we enact that law here in CA it's strictly for making the point that it's bad law, not because anyone here wants to actually bounty hunt gun owners like conservatives actually do want to bounty hunt women getting abortions and people that would dare help them. But, conservatives should learn that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, they *should* learn that, but I have no doubts about their ability to make some intellectually dishonest arguments about why bounty hunters to monitor women's bodies are ok but not anything else

I mean, didn't we already learn that state rights are only good for enslavement, and states that want to give refuge to humans fleeing from slavery can kiss Federal Marshalls' ass? Not only that, their residents can be deputized against their will to re-enslave their neighbors?

Why a similar equal standard can't be applied to the rights of blue and red states? It would be totally in keeping with historical precedent, something that the majority of justices are sure to appreciate.

[PDXTabs]

If we enact that law here in CA it's strictly for making the point that it's bad law, not because anyone here wants to actually bounty hunt gun owners like conservatives actually do want to bounty hunt women getting abortions and people that would dare help them. But, conservatives should learn that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, they *should* learn that, but I have no doubts about their ability to make some intellectually dishonest arguments about why bounty hunters to monitor women's bodies are ok but not anything else

I mean, didn't we already learn that state rights are only good for enslavement, and states that want to give refuge to humans fleeing from slavery can kiss Federal Marshalls' ass? Not only that, their residents can be deputized against their will to re-enslave their neighbors?

States rights extend to the right of the state not to enforce federal law. This is why I can buy cannabis for recreational purposes even though it is a felony under federal law. Montana is trying something similar with gun laws, but it is more complicated because of the commerce clause.

This country is basically that half drawn horse meme.

[Abe]

California may write a similar law except for gun control. I hope 20 million lawsuits get filed within a week and just drown the NRA.

I'm not anti-gun, but am anti-NRA for sure.

Texas' Abortion law is garbage, and if California passes a similar law Re: guns, it would be a garbage law as well.

The only good thing about California enacting such a law is that it might get the Supreme Court to rule that the garbage law is not merely garbage, but *unconstitutional* garbage.

Asking citizens to get up in others' business to act as vigilantes is awful, and it's an embarrassment that this law exists(and has been allowed to continue its existence).  Seriously, screw the legislators and "think tanks" that came up with this garbage, and the supreme court justices that are letting them get away with it.

Agree. Only if someone pokes one of their sacred cows will they flinch.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I'd like to see a multi-pronged approach.  The problem with the California law is that it ultimately amounts to a bluff of sorts right?  And there's nothing that would make SCOTUS have to call that bluff.  They don't have to issue a ruling on it, they could just deny it a hearing, or leave it rotting on their docket until California starts to have legit problems with people bringing cases which causes them to drop it.  So you'd need to not do it as one bluff, but as so many.  Like, don't introduce one bill that places bounties on guns, introduce dozens in every state that place bounties on fuckin everything.

I'm talking people wearing green shirts.  People drinking soda.  People drinking bottled water.  People eating meat.  People with pets. People who sit on the SCOTUS and refuse to ban bounties.  Lets get that one passes ASAP in as many places as possible.  Here's some draft language: It shall henceforth be required that any member of SCOTUS rule against legislation requiring bounties.  Any member of the public may bring a civil suit, where the minimum reward is $100,000.00, against any member of SCOTUS that fails to rule against bounties.

A broad shotgun approach that threatens not just the fabric of society in general but also threatens to BURY SCOTUS in cases.  None of those folks are particularly interested in working that hard, or it wouldn't take them so long to clear their docket.

So that's prong 1.

Prong 2 is federal legislation providing immunity to healthcare providers from bounty type lawsuits or something similar.  Attack the "mechanism" rather than the issue.

Prong 3 is federal legislation to establish abortion as a right, up to 934 weeks (open to negotiation).

[Just Joe]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

[former player]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

You still need to know what to look for, and you still need to get past the social conditioning that is against you knowing what to look for or how to find it.   There are also privacy/embarassment issues: not all teens have private and uninterrupted access to the internet and some would have internet access taken away if they were found to be looking up information on contraception.

[jeninco]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

You still need to know what to look for, and you still need to get past the social conditioning that is against you knowing what to look for or how to find it.   There are also privacy/embarassment issues: not all teens have private and uninterrupted access to the internet and some would have internet access taken away if they were found to be looking up information on contraception.

Also, if you don't have a planned parenthood (or similar, and conservatives/evangelicals are working HARD to close family planning clinics that serve teens) close to you, purchasing decent condoms at a drugstore isn't that "cheap" on a part-time teenager salary. Especially if you're helping support your family.

[GodlessCommie]

Prong 3 is federal legislation to establish abortion as a right, up to 934 weeks (open to negotiation).

If we solve the Manchin/Sinema problem before 2023 - sure.

[chemistk]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

You still need to know what to look for, and you still need to get past the social conditioning that is against you knowing what to look for or how to find it.   There are also privacy/embarassment issues: not all teens have private and uninterrupted access to the internet and some would have internet access taken away if they were found to be looking up information on contraception.

Also, if you don't have a planned parenthood (or similar, and conservatives/evangelicals are working HARD to close family planning clinics that serve teens) close to you, purchasing decent condoms at a drugstore isn't that "cheap" on a part-time teenager salary. Especially if you're helping support your family.

And that's even if you're allowed to purchase condoms. I've heard more than a few stories of drugstore/pharmacy cashiers refusing to ring up contraception for someone they thought looked underage.

But going back to the understanding of birth control, or even sex ed - I went to a school that had a huge population of homeschooled and/or kids who grew up in oppressively conservative Christian households. At least one girl was having unprotected sex with her boyfriend, but she was never even taught about sex. Her boyfriend convinced her that sex was 'snuggling' and so she would just tell people she was going to 'snuggle' with her boyfriend.

Even my wife, until high school, believed that sex was physically impossible unless you were married.

There's a very significant segment of the population who doesn't have adequate sex ed. nor has good access to contraception. And even if they do, they may not be able to use it. And even if they understand how to use it, they may be ostracized and/or punished for doing so.

[GodlessCommie]

But going back to the understanding of birth control, or even sex ed - I went to a school that had a huge population of homeschooled and/or kids who grew up in oppressively conservative Christian households. At least one girl was having unprotected sex with her boyfriend, but she was never even taught about sex. Her boyfriend convinced her that sex was 'snuggling' and so she would just tell people she was going to 'snuggle' with her boyfriend.

Even my wife, until high school, believed that sex was physically impossible unless you were married.

There's a very significant segment of the population who doesn't have adequate sex ed. nor has good access to contraception. And even if they do, they may not be able to use it. And even if they understand how to use it, they may be ostracized and/or punished for doing so.

That's the biggest damn hypocrisy of the anti-abortionists. It's mostly the same people who work to ban abortions who also work to ban sex-ed and access to contraception - two things that actually drive abortion numbers down.

[Kris]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

We have people rejecting proven vaccines in favor of dewormer to treat Covid. Does it really seem impossible?

[GodlessCommie]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

We have people rejecting proven vaccines in favor of dewormer to treat Covid. Does it really seem impossible?

To your point, there are enough flat-earthers to charter a cruise https://www.livescience.com/65053-flat-earther-cruise-antarctica-ice-wall.html

The problem with our information age is to get to factual and useful information before you sink into the quicksand of useless, baseless, or misleading.

[chemistk]

But going back to the understanding of birth control, or even sex ed - I went to a school that had a huge population of homeschooled and/or kids who grew up in oppressively conservative Christian households. At least one girl was having unprotected sex with her boyfriend, but she was never even taught about sex. Her boyfriend convinced her that sex was 'snuggling' and so she would just tell people she was going to 'snuggle' with her boyfriend.

Even my wife, until high school, believed that sex was physically impossible unless you were married.

There's a very significant segment of the population who doesn't have adequate sex ed. nor has good access to contraception. And even if they do, they may not be able to use it. And even if they understand how to use it, they may be ostracized and/or punished for doing so.

That's the biggest damn hypocrisy of the anti-abortionists. It's mostly the same people who work to ban abortions who also work to ban sex-ed and access to contraception - two things that actually drive abortion numbers down.

As adults, it's easy enough to see (if you're willing to hear the arguments) why sex is used as control over people. You can look back through hundreds or even thousands of years of history (ignoring the shit that goes on today) to find mounds of evidence of how sex is nothing more than a tool to control teens and women.

But when you're a child up through (and often well past) young adult being raised in that environment (and mine wasn't even that bad, just a conservative household & private school), it's not even talked about often until high school, depending on how many secular friends you might have. And then when it is talked about, it's with the sole intent to shame and demean you for even thinking that you might want to become sexually active. Of the few sex ed courses I had the luxury of attending in school, the messaging wasn't how to use contraception or how to communicate with a partner about wants/needs or how to recognize abusive behavior. It was abstinence is the only way/girls are whores (lightly veiled) if they have sex before marriage, porn is a sin, contraception is a no-no, and abortion is off the table.

In fact, if any of it occurred in a religious context, the messaging was extremely clear that you were going to be damned for all eternity if you had sex outside marriage, had lustful thoughts, used porn, used contraception, had an abortion, or a bunch of other crap that I've chosen to block out.

Further and worse, high schools and colleges within a days' drive of DC (and especially Catholic schools) strongly encourage and subsidize kids to go to DC and participate in the march for life. It's a badge of honor. The messaging is highly incongruent - spew shame and hate towards those who choose to have an abortion while also not creating a healthy dialogue over this fundamental aspect of human biology.

[OtherJen]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

You still need to know what to look for, and you still need to get past the social conditioning that is against you knowing what to look for or how to find it.   There are also privacy/embarassment issues: not all teens have private and uninterrupted access to the internet and some would have internet access taken away if they were found to be looking up information on contraception.

Also, if you don't have a planned parenthood (or similar, and conservatives/evangelicals are working HARD to close family planning clinics that serve teens) close to you, purchasing decent condoms at a drugstore isn't that "cheap" on a part-time teenager salary. Especially if you're helping support your family.

And that's even if you're allowed to purchase condoms. I've heard more than a few stories of drugstore/pharmacy cashiers refusing to ring up contraception for someone they thought looked underage.

But going back to the understanding of birth control, or even sex ed - I went to a school that had a huge population of homeschooled and/or kids who grew up in oppressively conservative Christian households. At least one girl was having unprotected sex with her boyfriend, but she was never even taught about sex. Her boyfriend convinced her that sex was 'snuggling' and so she would just tell people she was going to 'snuggle' with her boyfriend.

Even my wife, until high school, believed that sex was physically impossible unless you were married.

There's a very significant segment of the population who doesn't have adequate sex ed. nor has good access to contraception. And even if they do, they may not be able to use it. And even if they understand how to use it, they may be ostracized and/or punished for doing so.

This. I think it is hard for many people to understand how sheltered many children and teens are in the USA with respect to even basic clinical facts about sex and pregnancy.

Comparatively speaking, I had a much more liberal upbringing but still had no financial means or transportation to access contraception until I was at least 17 and was allowed to get a driver's license and drive myself to work. My Catholic elementary and middle school surprisingly provided fact-based sex ed in the 1980s and 1990s (they now seem to have regressed in that area thanks to heavy right-wing pressure), but safe sex was not covered at all in the public high school, and free condoms certainly weren't available. We did, of course, have active Christian and Muslim prayer groups and an active pro-life club.

[PDXTabs]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

We have people rejecting proven vaccines in favor of dewormer to treat Covid. Does it really seem impossible?

To your point, there are enough flat-earthers to charter a cruise https://www.livescience.com/65053-flat-earther-cruise-antarctica-ice-wall.html

The problem with our information age is to get to factual and useful information before you sink into the quicksand of useless, baseless, or misleading.

46% of the population believes in ghosts, 40% of the population believes in creationism, and 41% of the population believes that we will see the rapture by 2050. But none of that is new, the information age didn't cause that. The Delusion of Crowds by William J. Bernstein is half devoted to all the times that the rapture didn't come, and how it hurt/killed people to believe in it.

The flat-earthers are actually my favorite group that believes in nonsense. There aren't that many of them and they don't seem to be doing much if any harm. I'm not even sure that they believe it or if it is a big inside joke.

[OtherJen]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

We have people rejecting proven vaccines in favor of dewormer to treat Covid. Does it really seem impossible?

To your point, there are enough flat-earthers to charter a cruise https://www.livescience.com/65053-flat-earther-cruise-antarctica-ice-wall.html

The problem with our information age is to get to factual and useful information before you sink into the quicksand of useless, baseless, or misleading.

46% of the population believes in ghosts, 40% of the population believes in creationism, and 41% of the population believes that we will see the rapture by 2050. But none of that is new, the information age didn't cause that. The Delusion of Crowds by William J. Bernstein is half devoted to all the times that the rapture didn't come, and how it hurt/killed people to believe in it.

The flat-earthers are actually my favorite group that believes in nonsense. There aren't that many of them and they don't seem to be doing much if any harm. I'm not even sure that they believe it or if it is a big inside joke.

Ha, maybe the flat-earthers are like the Birds Aren't Real movement.

[GuitarStv]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

We have people rejecting proven vaccines in favor of dewormer to treat Covid. Does it really seem impossible?

To your point, there are enough flat-earthers to charter a cruise https://www.livescience.com/65053-flat-earther-cruise-antarctica-ice-wall.html

The problem with our information age is to get to factual and useful information before you sink into the quicksand of useless, baseless, or misleading.

46% of the population believes in ghosts, 40% of the population believes in creationism, and 41% of the population believes that we will see the rapture by 2050. But none of that is new, the information age didn't cause that. The Delusion of Crowds by William J. Bernstein is half devoted to all the times that the rapture didn't come, and how it hurt/killed people to believe in it.

The flat-earthers are actually my favorite group that believes in nonsense. There aren't that many of them and they don't seem to be doing much if any harm. I'm not even sure that they believe it or if it is a big inside joke.

Ha, maybe the flat-earthers are like the Birds Aren't Real movement.

OMG, that's awesome and I want a shirt!

[PDXTabs]

The flat-earthers are actually my favorite group that believes in nonsense. There aren't that many of them and they don't seem to be doing much if any harm. I'm not even sure that they believe it or if it is a big inside joke.

Ha, maybe the flat-earthers are like the Birds Aren't Real movement.

OMG, that's awesome and I want a shirt!

They're not real, have you ever looked inside one? It's all gears and springs and stuff.

[OtherJen]

The flat-earthers are actually my favorite group that believes in nonsense. There aren't that many of them and they don't seem to be doing much if any harm. I'm not even sure that they believe it or if it is a big inside joke.

Ha, maybe the flat-earthers are like the Birds Aren't Real movement.

OMG, that's awesome and I want a shirt!

They're not real, have you ever looked inside one? It's all gears and springs and stuff.

It's impressive how they've been engineered to fuel themselves on birdseed and not short out their circuitry in bird baths.

[PDXTabs]

The flat-earthers are actually my favorite group that believes in nonsense. There aren't that many of them and they don't seem to be doing much if any harm. I'm not even sure that they believe it or if it is a big inside joke.

Ha, maybe the flat-earthers are like the Birds Aren't Real movement.

OMG, that's awesome and I want a shirt!

They're not real, have you ever looked inside one? It's all gears and springs and stuff.

It's impressive how they've been engineered to fuel themselves on birdseed and not short out their circuitry in bird baths.

The govmnt did a really good job.

[GodlessCommie]

46% of the population believes in ghosts, 40% of the population believes in creationism, and 41% of the population believes that we will see the rapture by 2050. But none of that is new, the information age didn't cause that. The Delusion of Crowds by William J. Bernstein is half devoted to all the times that the rapture didn't come, and how it hurt/killed people to believe in it.

The flat-earthers are actually my favorite group that believes in nonsense. There aren't that many of them and they don't seem to be doing much if any harm. I'm not even sure that they believe it or if it is a big inside joke.

I'm not saying that information age *created* believe in falsehoods. I'm saying that it enabled explosion of false and misleading information just as it enabled the spread of good and useful one. On net, it didn't allow the improvement that we expected - or at least didn't allow as much improvement as we expected.

And once you add on the new-ish developments in AI-powered suggestions that turn people into literal Nazis, we may (may) even be worse off.

PS thanks for red-pilling me on birds. I opened one, and... OH MY GOD

[PDXTabs]

46% of the population believes in ghosts, 40% of the population believes in creationism, and 41% of the population believes that we will see the rapture by 2050. But none of that is new, the information age didn't cause that. The Delusion of Crowds by William J. Bernstein is half devoted to all the times that the rapture didn't come, and how it hurt/killed people to believe in it.

The flat-earthers are actually my favorite group that believes in nonsense. There aren't that many of them and they don't seem to be doing much if any harm. I'm not even sure that they believe it or if it is a big inside joke.

I'm not saying that information age *created* believe in falsehoods. I'm saying that it enabled explosion of false and misleading information just as it enabled the spread of good and useful one. On net, it didn't allow the improvement that we expected - or at least didn't allow as much improvement as we expected.

And once you add on the new-ish developments in AI-powered suggestions that turn people into literal Nazis, we may (may) even be worse off.

PS thanks for red-pilling me on birds. I opened one, and... OH MY GOD

I would agree with the assessment that the internet just made the spread of information either true or false happen a lot faster. People who want to actually look for facts or specifications or peer reviewed research papers or open source code have a much easier time consuming and disseminating information. Once upon a time information couldn't travel faster than a person on a horse. Then information couldn't travel faster than a steam locomotive. Then radio. But now I can spin up an AWS cluster and disseminate any information that I need to for almost no money (compared to a bunch of printed material or radio stations). But even that isn't necessary because you can just post a video about it on YouTube. Which is where you can find the Birds Aren't Real Documentary which is not marked as misinformation, because it's true.

But in all seriousness and back on topic for this off topic thread, surely a world with an internet where teenagers can access plannedparenthood.org and I can setup a recurring monthly donation from my living room is a net positive even if it isn't perfect. Not that that fixes the stupid Texas law in any way. Also, millions of homes in Texas don't have internet access.

[GodlessCommie]

Also, millions of homes in Texas don't have internet access.

...and that destroys the large part of the argument that abortions can be safely banned, since the information on safe sex and contraception is widely available. It is widely available, but often not to people who need it most. It is also only available if you know to look for it. And many young Americans form conservative and/or poor families, they simply don't know what they don't know, and thus don't ever look for it.

[Metalcat]

What I have seen a fair amount of is teen mothers in homeless shelters who were never properly educated about birth control.

I know you are right but that seems impossible in 2021 when the world is just flooded with information. This isn't 1946 when seeking an answer to awkward questions required creative use of a library.

Are you...serious??

I don't mean that facetiously, I mean really, you don't understand how young women in today's day and age with horrible sex education and rampant sexual pressure and assault could result in teen pregnancy?

Seeking and deciphering good information requires a minimum level of subject matter knowledge. A child who is raised with rampant misinformation and shame around sex and contraception is not going to be very well equipped to seek out and understand good quality information.

Look at how easily people are misled on the internet. Having access to a lot of information doesn't always lead to being better informed.

Basic personal finance information is probably the most readily available info out there, critically important for people and their ongoing safety, and yet almost nobody knows anything about it. And that's adults, not teens.

If you want a more realistic view of the state of sexual knowledge among young people, Google how clueless adult university students are about sex education. It's really, REALLY horrifying.

[Sandi_k]

The flat-earthers are actually my favorite group that believes in nonsense. There aren't that many of them and they don't seem to be doing much if any harm. I'm not even sure that they believe it or if it is a big inside joke.

Ha, maybe the flat-earthers are like the Birds Aren't Real movement.

OMG, that's awesome and I want a shirt!

They're not real, have you ever looked inside one? It's all gears and springs and stuff.

It's impressive how they've been engineered to fuel themselves on birdseed and not short out their circuitry in bird baths.

[Hash Brown]

Meanwhile, the contemporaneous abstinence campaigns sponsored by religious groups (I recall one called Postponing Sexual Involvement) warned that condoms weren't 100% effective. 

Now I'm being told by the Michael Stipe cool kids that condoms aren't effective, meaning they've aligned themselves with Postponing Sexual Involvement.

What, exactly, is your point? And how does it relate to bodily autonomy for my wife when her POP failed?

My point is that the pro-abortion crowd has controlled American pop culture for decades, always presents its current argument as the end-all-be-all, but sweeps its pivots under the rug.  If you shine a light on those pivots, you're the bad guy, since people (and by people I mean mostly affluent liberals) have constructed so much of their personal identity around this issue, even though it rarely directly affects them. 

If Roe is overturned and some states make most abortions illegal, everyone posting here is still going to be able to drive somewhere to get a legal abortion.  So what you're really doing is attempting to gain status amongst your own kind by pointing out that some poor people won't enjoy the luxury of zapping an accidental pregnancy.  You're putting on an act that you care about these people more than the anti-abortion crowd, but you don't.  Nobody holds more contempt for the poor than those who make a big production about how much they care about them. 

The right feasts on leftists who claim to care about people who they don't actually care about.  The right wingers - as dumb as the leftists think they are - see right through this act, every time.  The "angry" marches that the left will stage should Roe be overturned will drive hardcore right wingers to the polls and we might see the return of Trump in 2024 or worse - the nomination and election of Josh Hawley, who I feel is much, much more dangerous than Trump.

So people - chill the hell out. 

[PDXTabs]

My point is that the pro-abortion crowd has controlled American pop culture for decades, always presents its current argument as the end-all-be-all, but sweeps its pivots under the rug.  If you shine a light on those pivots, you're the bad guy, since people (and by people I mean mostly affluent liberals) have constructed so much of their personal identity around this issue, even though it rarely directly affects them. 

Hey, Richard Nixon (who in many ways, but not this way, was the last good Republican) decided to politicize abortion. The GOP doesn't get to be upset about fighting the battle that it started.

During his 1972 presidential campaign, Republican Richard Nixon began staking out anti-abortion positions as part of a strategy to appeal to Catholic voters and other social conservatives. After Nixon won the election and a majority of Catholic votes, Republican strategists began using the same tactics in Congress, as well as forging coalitions with evangelical groups around opposition to abortion. - Vox: How abortion became a partisan issue in America

If Roe is overturned and some states make most abortions illegal, everyone posting here is still going to be able to drive somewhere to get a legal abortion.  So what you're really doing is attempting to gain status amongst your own kind by pointing out that some poor people won't enjoy the luxury of zapping an accidental pregnancy.

So you're saying that the middle class deserves the luxury of abortion but the poor do not? I mean, you can have that opinion, and I can think that you are wrong.

You're putting on an act that you care about these people more than the anti-abortion crowd, but you don't.  Nobody holds more contempt for the poor than those who make a big production about how much they care about them. 

Please cite any data that you have to prove this point.

The right feasts on leftists who claim to care about people who they don't actually care about.  The right wingers - as dumb as the leftists think they are - see right through this act, every time.  The "angry" marches that the left will stage should Roe be overturned will drive hardcore right wingers to the polls and we might see the return of Trump in 2024 or worse - the nomination and election of Josh Hawley, who I feel is much, much more dangerous than Trump.

"The Right?" You mean the GOP? I wish that some actually right leaning politicians could get elected instead. How can the Texas GOP think that a woman has the right to dual wield AKs and purchase unregistered silencers but not to make a medical decision with her doctor? It's the height of government overreach, over-regulation, and hypocrisy. Seriously, I don't even mind the AKs and the silencers just pick a fucking side. In all seriousness I'm really surprised that the GOP decided to go all moral majority on abortion in the 70s instead of taking a more ideologically consistent libertarian tack.

EDITed to add:
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spoke to CNBC about vaccine mandates earlier this month, saying, “I believe in individual freedom. … I think you ought to have the choice to make your own medical decisions with your doctor.”

“We will make our own health choices,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. - Anti-Covid vaccine arguments are being weaponized by Republican men; The new-found GOP opposition to health care mandates exposes a glaring hypocrisy

[rocketpj]

Hypothetical this, hypothetical that.  Every human has the right to control what happens in their own bodies.  That should not be a debatable or negotiable point.  All the rest of this is just awful.

[RetiredAt63]

Hash Brown, I'm tired of quoting.  And I am getting tired of your facile arguments.  If you were a fabric you would be polyester satin lining.

Your posts show that you are male (or doing a darn good job of pretending).  Possibly young, certainly never had to deal with the heavy issues of female existence, like a girlfriend getting pregnant.

Or, of course, you could just be someone who likes making arguments.  I've worked with a few people like that.  One even had a gadfly pin in his lapel.

Lots of women learned a good long time ago that certain parts of society would like to take all our rights away, and find it easy to start with women who are marginalized in other ways.  So, many of us do care what happens to women we will never meet.  Just as a group I belong to here is heavily involved in education for 3rd world women, even though we will never meet them.  We are all sisters.  Shall I fix John Donne?  No woman is an island.

And of course those middle-class women you like to talk about, who are safe from the stupidity of this law.  No they are not.  Please read some history, about what used to happen with unwanted babies.  Foundlings, they were called.  Or what happened to the babies with birth defects.   From my viewpoint your view of history ends about 15 years ago.

May I also point out that one liberal view doesn't mean all views of that person are liberal?  The women's rights movement of the 60s/70s started in part because these idealistic well-educated young white men who were working for black voter registration were treating the equally liberal well-educated young white women they were working with like fetchers of coffee instead of equal colleagues.  Which they realized.  And disliked.  And acted on.

There have been discussions out there in the ether from women of colour debating which gets them treated worse, their colour or their gender.  Because being the embodiment of 2 groups that are marginalized gets to be even worse than being a member of one marginalized group.

[Metalcat]

Meanwhile, the contemporaneous abstinence campaigns sponsored by religious groups (I recall one called Postponing Sexual Involvement) warned that condoms weren't 100% effective. 

Now I'm being told by the Michael Stipe cool kids that condoms aren't effective, meaning they've aligned themselves with Postponing Sexual Involvement.

What, exactly, is your point? And how does it relate to bodily autonomy for my wife when her POP failed?

My point is that the pro-abortion crowd has controlled American pop culture for decades, always presents its current argument as the end-all-be-all, but sweeps its pivots under the rug.  If you shine a light on those pivots, you're the bad guy, since people (and by people I mean mostly affluent liberals) have constructed so much of their personal identity around this issue, even though it rarely directly affects them. 

If Roe is overturned and some states make most abortions illegal, everyone posting here is still going to be able to drive somewhere to get a legal abortion.  So what you're really doing is attempting to gain status amongst your own kind by pointing out that some poor people won't enjoy the luxury of zapping an accidental pregnancy.  You're putting on an act that you care about these people more than the anti-abortion crowd, but you don't.  Nobody holds more contempt for the poor than those who make a big production about how much they care about them. 

The right feasts on leftists who claim to care about people who they don't actually care about.  The right wingers - as dumb as the leftists think they are - see right through this act, every time.  The "angry" marches that the left will stage should Roe be overturned will drive hardcore right wingers to the polls and we might see the return of Trump in 2024 or worse - the nomination and election of Josh Hawley, who I feel is much, much more dangerous than Trump.

So people - chill the hell out.

Well, I'm convinced.

My years of being a medical professional and working with marginalized populations means nothing. None of my opinions are I formed.

Even though I'm not even American, apparently all of my opinions that I've held for.deacdes are based on some weird US Left-Right insanity that I was never even aware of when I formed these opinions.

Good to know, thank you for enlightening me.