Roe vs. Wade was overturned two weeks ago. Access deserts quickly popped up, as shown in red on the Kaiser Family Foundation figure below. This will only grow with time. Although the Biden administration announced an executive order to protect access to reproductive health care services (including IUDs, interstate travel, data privacy, and legal services), it’s not clear how much rubber will hit the road. For example, it doesn’t fund interstate travel and doesn’t direct the Department of Justice to sue states that ban abortion pills.
Thank you for this post and your conversation with Robin Marty. One of the really important things she said, that needs to be said over and over and over, is that "6 weeks" of pregnancy - the point at which 6-week abortion bans take effect - is really just 2 weeks after the earliest a person might find out they are pregnant. I wish that journalists talking about reproductive health care and rights would more often clarify that "6 weeks" is really just 2 weeks - at most!
Another area where people really need better information, and where I bet you could help, Dr. Jetelina (and/or you might know other epidemiologists who could), is about 2nd trimester abortions (and even the very rare 3rd trimester ones). Information about numbers of 2nd trimester abortions and the reasons for having an abortion then rather than earlier needs to be widely shared and clarified. Due to a lack of information, (and plenty of other factors), people have misconceptions that lead them to say things like that they support restrictions on "late-term" abortion, or on abortion past the 1st trimester. How many 2nd trimester or later abortions are happening because people couldn't get access earlier? What were the barriers to access? How many are due to medical reasons that weren't known until the 2nd trimester?
I was also really glad to hear her remind us that in addition to all the other reasons it is a problem for people who need an abortion to need to travel long distances to get that care, that there is also the increased risk of covid to consider if someone has to travel!
The people who base their opposition to abortion on biblical authority resort to the injunction to "be fruitful and multiply,." But how's that working out for us...all that multiplying? Diminishing resources. A wrecked ecosystem, massive species extinctions. Poisoned atmosphere, oceans, and soils. And now that injunction is leading to half the population being reduced to chattels and the nation riven into two warring camps. Perhaps those people should rethink this issue at a level deeper than they have up to now...
It's a dystopian political system that results in extreme outcomes like this. Most countries in Europe allow for reasonable compromises because they run on multi party governance. A bipolar system only allows for extremes, particularly when rural (conservative) electorates hold a disproportionate amount of power. We figured that out in NZ 30y ago and changed to proportional representation. The USA is long overdue for such change.
Sorry Katelyn, but these suggestions are just bandaids. To begin with, there are more women in the U.S. than men. If women want to have rights, I suggest they vote out the politicians advocating laws that take away their rights. On the other hand, men also have a stake in this, as they will end of paying "child support". The bottom is that we cannot change the minds of extremists - we need to vote them out of office.
It is an issue of choice, but even more fundamentally it is an issue of sovereignty. At issue is whether any official whether high or petty, any magistrate, legislature or agent of the state may dictate to any person the disposition of that person's body and usurp that person's will and sovereignty thereof. We say no. We cannot, under our system of ordered liberty, allow such a tyranny to establish itself and this is a banner under which both conservatives and liberals may jointly rally.
Limited access to abortion is a public health issue: How you can help
Thank you. You're on the side of the angels.
Thank you for this post and your conversation with Robin Marty. One of the really important things she said, that needs to be said over and over and over, is that "6 weeks" of pregnancy - the point at which 6-week abortion bans take effect - is really just 2 weeks after the earliest a person might find out they are pregnant. I wish that journalists talking about reproductive health care and rights would more often clarify that "6 weeks" is really just 2 weeks - at most!
Another area where people really need better information, and where I bet you could help, Dr. Jetelina (and/or you might know other epidemiologists who could), is about 2nd trimester abortions (and even the very rare 3rd trimester ones). Information about numbers of 2nd trimester abortions and the reasons for having an abortion then rather than earlier needs to be widely shared and clarified. Due to a lack of information, (and plenty of other factors), people have misconceptions that lead them to say things like that they support restrictions on "late-term" abortion, or on abortion past the 1st trimester. How many 2nd trimester or later abortions are happening because people couldn't get access earlier? What were the barriers to access? How many are due to medical reasons that weren't known until the 2nd trimester?
I was also really glad to hear her remind us that in addition to all the other reasons it is a problem for people who need an abortion to need to travel long distances to get that care, that there is also the increased risk of covid to consider if someone has to travel!
The people who base their opposition to abortion on biblical authority resort to the injunction to "be fruitful and multiply,." But how's that working out for us...all that multiplying? Diminishing resources. A wrecked ecosystem, massive species extinctions. Poisoned atmosphere, oceans, and soils. And now that injunction is leading to half the population being reduced to chattels and the nation riven into two warring camps. Perhaps those people should rethink this issue at a level deeper than they have up to now...
It's a dystopian political system that results in extreme outcomes like this. Most countries in Europe allow for reasonable compromises because they run on multi party governance. A bipolar system only allows for extremes, particularly when rural (conservative) electorates hold a disproportionate amount of power. We figured that out in NZ 30y ago and changed to proportional representation. The USA is long overdue for such change.
Sorry Katelyn, but these suggestions are just bandaids. To begin with, there are more women in the U.S. than men. If women want to have rights, I suggest they vote out the politicians advocating laws that take away their rights. On the other hand, men also have a stake in this, as they will end of paying "child support". The bottom is that we cannot change the minds of extremists - we need to vote them out of office.
It is an issue of choice, but even more fundamentally it is an issue of sovereignty. At issue is whether any official whether high or petty, any magistrate, legislature or agent of the state may dictate to any person the disposition of that person's body and usurp that person's will and sovereignty thereof. We say no. We cannot, under our system of ordered liberty, allow such a tyranny to establish itself and this is a banner under which both conservatives and liberals may jointly rally.
It seems that you are advocating for late term abortions. Is that the case?