I still think cancelling a show in any state because of a government or court decision is the wrong move; Raleigh included. They should have gone on a media blitz stating their opposition to it, and if they were positioned to lose money on the cancellation anyway, then play the show and send that portion of your profit margin to a useful organization. Live stream it for free; use your platform to advocate for good. Taking your ball and going home does nothing.
So, if everyone received their return with interest for two plus years, and the band cancelled, it’d be okay? Seems it’s just about money and investments, right?
Women, and the men that support women, on this issue, should strike. Sick outs. Not show up for work. Stop spending dollars at all level of events. Yo, NFL, MLB, tourism, etc.
Boycott
Divest
Sanction
Let them build walls like other countries have. Stop your dollars from supporting your own oppression. PJ should only play states and venues that protect a woman’s right to CHOOSE.
It sucks when there’s consequences for bullying, right?
I have no idea how you made the leap from what I said to "it's all about money".
Because you said you disagreed with PJ canceling their Raleigh show and yet, with PJ not the only one to boycott the state, they reversed their bathroom bill when they realized it was going to cost them in sporting/concerts, convention and tourism dollars. Others were lamenting the fact that if PJ has held their money for two + years and then canceled, it would be akin to, well, I’m not sure? Bernie Madoff, maybe? So yea, it’s about the money.
There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations. To think otherwise is naive. There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing. If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks. No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk. And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower??? I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on. But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution. It will never happen in the US.
I still think cancelling a show in any state because of a government or court decision is the wrong move; Raleigh included. They should have gone on a media blitz stating their opposition to it, and if they were positioned to lose money on the cancellation anyway, then play the show and send that portion of your profit margin to a useful organization. Live stream it for free; use your platform to advocate for good. Taking your ball and going home does nothing.
So, if everyone received their return with interest for two plus years, and the band cancelled, it’d be okay? Seems it’s just about money and investments, right?
Women, and the men that support women, on this issue, should strike. Sick outs. Not show up for work. Stop spending dollars at all level of events. Yo, NFL, MLB, tourism, etc.
Boycott
Divest
Sanction
Let them build walls like other countries have. Stop your dollars from supporting your own oppression. PJ should only play states and venues that protect a woman’s right to CHOOSE.
It sucks when there’s consequences for bullying, right?
Do you really think Mitch McConnell and SCOTUS give a shit if people boycott the NFL, MBL and tourism? they don't. they clearly don't care about the will of the people. We are not a representative democracy anymore. the only way to change it is to Vote Dems. If the GOP cleans up in the mid-terms and in 2024 we are all completely fucked for decades to come.
No, but state legislatures might if they start seeing revenue losses from cancellations and businesses leaving but I also tend to agree with you that it’s too late. The March to a fascist nation is well underway.
why should a human being have to compromise a human right in the first place?
and if we're talking compromises, maybe every man who gets a woman pregnant who can't get a legal abortion should have to submit to a vasectomy. My guess is unplanned pregnancies would plummet.
There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations. To think otherwise is naive. There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing. If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks. No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk. And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower??? I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on. But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution. It will never happen in the US.
Have you considered without a robust system of prenatal care stuff like severe birth defects, cognitive abnormalities, and even conditions that are 100 percent fatal to a baby once they are born aren’t detected that early
im not disagreeing necessarily but there are instances where you are getting into 1. don’t unnecessarily subject a newborn to a short life of pain an invasive procedures, and 2. who’s going to pay for this lifetime of assisted living care in the event a condition requires it?
That gets into both a compassionate and economic argument
Equating a late term abortion to being unethical is like equating food stamps to being unnecessary because of the one guy who buys expensive lobster with them. Those videos always go viral
There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations. To think otherwise is naive. There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing. If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks. No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk. And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower??? I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on. But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution. It will never happen in the US.
1. If you're unethical enough to put profit over health, you won't give two fucks about the regulations on late-stage abortions, you'll just charge more and have to do it in more unsafe scenarios. To add to this, the fact that you put fraudulent billing and patient raping on the same line with respect to abuses shows me you have a weak comprehension of nuance
2. Every time abortion is brought up, the conversation shifts to 'at what point is a fetus a human', and very few good faith arguments follow from that - it's often used as a way to say "see, we'll never agree, we're just too different", and the conversation fizzles yet again. This is not by accident, and history tends to repeat itself
3. If late-stage abortions require nuance to evaluate risk to both mother and child, then it's not acceptable to put a binary rule on it judicially, when people who are trained in harm reduction (doctors) are far better equipped to make those judgment calls
4. Again - the all or none is a byproduct of zero wiggle room given from those who unequivocally condemn abortions
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations. To think otherwise is naive. There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing. If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks. No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk. And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower??? I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on. But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution. It will never happen in the US.
1. If you're unethical enough to put profit over health, you won't give two fucks about the regulations on late-stage abortions, you'll just charge more and have to do it in more unsafe scenarios. To add to this, the fact that you put fraudulent billing and patient raping on the same line with respect to abuses shows me you have a weak comprehension of nuance
2. Every time abortion is brought up, the conversation shifts to 'at what point is a fetus a human', and very few good faith arguments follow from that - it's often used as a way to say "see, we'll never agree, we're just too different", and the conversation fizzles yet again. This is not by accident, and history tends to repeat itself
3. If late-stage abortions require nuance to evaluate risk to both mother and child, then it's not acceptable to put a binary rule on it judicially, when people who are trained in harm reduction (doctors) are far better equipped to make those judgment calls
4. Again - the all or none is a byproduct of zero wiggle room given from those who unequivocally condemn abortions
for 3 - are you stating that because doctors are the experts therefore there should be no laws on it?
Cause that would wipe out a lot of laws as politicians are rarely the expert. Perhaps I'm mis-understanding.
There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations. To think otherwise is naive. There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing. If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks. No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk. And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower??? I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on. But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution. It will never happen in the US.
1. If you're unethical enough to put profit over health, you won't give two fucks about the regulations on late-stage abortions, you'll just charge more and have to do it in more unsafe scenarios. To add to this, the fact that you put fraudulent billing and patient raping on the same line with respect to abuses shows me you have a weak comprehension of nuance
2. Every time abortion is brought up, the conversation shifts to 'at what point is a fetus a human', and very few good faith arguments follow from that - it's often used as a way to say "see, we'll never agree, we're just too different", and the conversation fizzles yet again. This is not by accident, and history tends to repeat itself
3. If late-stage abortions require nuance to evaluate risk to both mother and child, then it's not acceptable to put a binary rule on it judicially, when people who are trained in harm reduction (doctors) are far better equipped to make those judgment calls
4. Again - the all or none is a byproduct of zero wiggle room given from those who unequivocally condemn abortions
for 3 - are you stating that because doctors are the experts therefore there should be no laws on it?
Cause that would wipe out a lot of laws as politicians are rarely the expert. Perhaps I'm mis-understanding.
Good question. I'm not saying there should be no laws on it - but if doctors were to state unequivocally that harm could come to either mother and/or children depending on the situation, why should it be the court to decide on something so clearly in a health practitioner's wheelhouse?
I do recognize that can of worms that opens, cincy, and I'm not sure the answer. The problem of laws being made by people who aren't versed in the laws' impacts is a real problem. Just watch any hearing with a technology company, and you'll find a congressperson with a lack of understanding asking the questions. I can't imagine health care is any simpler to explain than Facebook.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations. To think otherwise is naive. There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing. If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks. No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk. And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower??? I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on. But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution. It will never happen in the US.
1. If you're unethical enough to put profit over health, you won't give two fucks about the regulations on late-stage abortions, you'll just charge more and have to do it in more unsafe scenarios. To add to this, the fact that you put fraudulent billing and patient raping on the same line with respect to abuses shows me you have a weak comprehension of nuance
2. Every time abortion is brought up, the conversation shifts to 'at what point is a fetus a human', and very few good faith arguments follow from that - it's often used as a way to say "see, we'll never agree, we're just too different", and the conversation fizzles yet again. This is not by accident, and history tends to repeat itself
3. If late-stage abortions require nuance to evaluate risk to both mother and child, then it's not acceptable to put a binary rule on it judicially, when people who are trained in harm reduction (doctors) are far better equipped to make those judgment calls
4. Again - the all or none is a byproduct of zero wiggle room given from those who unequivocally condemn abortions
for 3 - are you stating that because doctors are the experts therefore there should be no laws on it?
Cause that would wipe out a lot of laws as politicians are rarely the expert. Perhaps I'm mis-understanding.
Good question. I'm not saying there should be no laws on it - but if doctors were to state unequivocally that harm could come to either mother and/or children depending on the situation, why should it be the court to decide on something so clearly in a health practitioner's wheelhouse?
I do recognize that can of worms that opens, cincy, and I'm not sure the answer. The problem of laws being made by people who aren't versed in the laws' impacts is a real problem. Just watch any hearing with a technology company, and you'll find a congressperson with a lack of understanding asking the questions. I can't imagine health care is any simpler to explain than Facebook.
Got it. It certainly makes things difficult (tech laws are a good example of that). I suppose laws could be written that state the qualification someone needs in order to make a decision after a certain time frame though.
There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations. To think otherwise is naive. There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing. If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks. No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk. And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower??? I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on. But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution. It will never happen in the US.
1. If you're unethical enough to put profit over health, you won't give two fucks about the regulations on late-stage abortions, you'll just charge more and have to do it in more unsafe scenarios. To add to this, the fact that you put fraudulent billing and patient raping on the same line with respect to abuses shows me you have a weak comprehension of nuance
2. Every time abortion is brought up, the conversation shifts to 'at what point is a fetus a human', and very few good faith arguments follow from that - it's often used as a way to say "see, we'll never agree, we're just too different", and the conversation fizzles yet again. This is not by accident, and history tends to repeat itself
3. If late-stage abortions require nuance to evaluate risk to both mother and child, then it's not acceptable to put a binary rule on it judicially, when people who are trained in harm reduction (doctors) are far better equipped to make those judgment calls
4. Again - the all or none is a byproduct of zero wiggle room given from those who unequivocally condemn abortions
for 3 - are you stating that because doctors are the experts therefore there should be no laws on it?
Cause that would wipe out a lot of laws as politicians are rarely the expert. Perhaps I'm mis-understanding.
Good question. I'm not saying there should be no laws on it - but if doctors were to state unequivocally that harm could come to either mother and/or children depending on the situation, why should it be the court to decide on something so clearly in a health practitioner's wheelhouse?
I do recognize that can of worms that opens, cincy, and I'm not sure the answer. The problem of laws being made by people who aren't versed in the laws' impacts is a real problem. Just watch any hearing with a technology company, and you'll find a congressperson with a lack of understanding asking the questions. I can't imagine health care is any simpler to explain than Facebook.
Got it. It certainly makes things difficult (tech laws are a good example of that). I suppose laws could be written that state the qualification someone needs in order to make a decision after a certain time frame though.
That's sort of what I was thinking - some sort of medical arbitration board who would make the call. My grandmother had medically-assisted end of life two years ago, and there was a panel of therapists and doctors who had to prove certain criteria in order for her to be approved. I wonder if that could work here in the 'grey zone'.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I have been surprised at the number of my FB "friends" (generally vocal tRumpsters) who have posted that they don't agree with the SC related to Roe v Wade.
Let's hope this motivates dems to vote in a few months
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I still think cancelling a show in any state because of a government or court decision is the wrong move; Raleigh included. They should have gone on a media blitz stating their opposition to it, and if they were positioned to lose money on the cancellation anyway, then play the show and send that portion of your profit margin to a useful organization. Live stream it for free; use your platform to advocate for good. Taking your ball and going home does nothing.
So, if everyone received their return with interest for two plus years, and the band cancelled, it’d be okay? Seems it’s just about money and investments, right?
Women, and the men that support women, on this issue, should strike. Sick outs. Not show up for work. Stop spending dollars at all level of events. Yo, NFL, MLB, tourism, etc.
Boycott
Divest
Sanction
Let them build walls like other countries have. Stop your dollars from supporting your own oppression. PJ should only play states and venues that protect a woman’s right to CHOOSE.
It sucks when there’s consequences for bullying, right?
PJ should play states that they have already committed to play.....after that, they should do what they have always done and decide where they want to schedule concerts based on whatever process they care to follow.
Let's take a look at their current tour... Hungary - legal up to 12 weeks...some things can extend to 24 (this is actually true for several of the locations) Poland - legal only if health of the mother is at risk or pregnancy was the result of a crime
in 2018 they played Brazil: Abortion in Brazil is a crime, with penalties of 1 to 3 years of imprisonment for the pregnant woman, and 1 to 4 years of imprisonment for the doctor or any other person who performs the abortion on someone else. In three specific situations in Brazil, induced abortion is not punishable by law: in cases of risk to woman's life; when the pregnancy is the result of rape; and if the fetus is anencephalic.[1][2]
They also played Chile: Abortion in Chile is legal in the following cases: when the mother's life is at risk, when the fetus will not survive the pregnancy, and during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (14 weeks, if the woman is under 14 years old) in the case of rape
So I guess when does it matter and when does it not matter?
Seems Poland and Hungary are the most extreme and I'd fathom a guess as to both religion, heavily catholic, and previous/current declining birth rates. I'm assuming other forms of birth control are available as well. These speak to the morning after pill. The religious right doesn't want you to discuss birth control, never mind making it available and forget "free" birth control.
In Brazil, women have free access to contraception through the public health system, yet delays in appointment may contribute to contraceptive gaps or switches to non-prescription contraception.Aug 29, 2019
The Chilean government recently decided that contraception will be publicly available for all women over the age of 14. According to IPS, all public health centers must dispense birth control, including emergency contraception (EC), free of charge.
Three Hungarian NGOs are seeking answers from the state health authority after it decided against granting over-the-counter access to a morning-after pill out of concern for women's health.
The three organizations condemn the decision of the Hungarian government. The pill can be accessed without a prescription in 22 of 28 EU member states. Following the recommendation of the Commission, even Poland, which has very strict abortion laws, announced that it would remove the need for prescription. It seems Hungary is again swimming against the current, and putting the safety and health of Hungarian women at risk.
In Poland, all EC pills (LNG and UPA) are only available by prescription from pharmacies. However, doctors are not allowed to prescribe EC to women under 18 years of age without parental consent.May 6, 2022
there is an American stuck there now (or at least last week)
she is having a miscarriage and she might die from infection and/or bleeding. Pregnancy is no longer viable, but there is a heart beat still so they can’t help her.
Doctors wouldn’t certify her as fit to fly so she was having trouble getting to Spain. Once she is actively dying they can intervene
this is what we can expect here. Especially with how you define protecting the life of the mother. How close to death do you need to be.
There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations. To think otherwise is naive. There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing. If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks. No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk. And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower??? I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on. But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution. It will never happen in the US.
Benjs has already addressed some of the assumptions in your post, so I'll just tackle one more.
You say that the "% would likely increase as time goes on", by which I think you mean the percentage of late term abortions (or possibly all abortions) would only increase over time without laws restricting them. What are you basing that on? Canada has not had any laws restricting access to abortion since 1988 and abortions have not gone up, either in absolute numbers or percentages, including no increase in later abortions. And why would they? Late abortions are not anything that people want to have happen - they happen when something terrible has occurred, due to fetal abnormality or maternal health issues or tragic life circumstances or the like.
Ample data worldwide demonstrates that abortion rates do not go up overall where abortion is safely and legally available; in fact, they often go down, because access to safe and legal abortion is usually present along with access to safe and legal contraception and maternal-fetal care.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations. To think otherwise is naive. There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing. If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks. No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk. And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower??? I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on. But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution. It will never happen in the US.
Benjs has already addressed some of the assumptions in your post, so I'll just tackle one more.
You say that the "% would likely increase as time goes on", by which I think you mean the percentage of late term abortions (or possibly all abortions) would only increase over time without laws restricting them. What are you basing that on? Canada has not had any laws restricting access to abortion since 1988 and abortions have not gone up, either in absolute numbers or percentages, including no increase in later abortions. And why would they? Late abortions are not anything that people want to have happen - they happen when something terrible has occurred, due to fetal abnormality or maternal health issues or tragic life circumstances or the like.
Ample data worldwide demonstrates that abortion rates do not go up overall where abortion is safely and legally available; in fact, they often go down, because access to safe and legal abortion is usually present along with access to safe and legal contraception and maternal-fetal care.
Agreed. I don't believe for a second that a law is what is keeping late term abortions from taking off. They just don't happen unless there is some extenuating circumstance.
and people keep forgetting that access to these services also includes access to sexua/reproductive education, which dramatically decreases unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions. but the right doesn't want to talk about that.
Comments
Now you know how I made the leap. Ha, ha, ha!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower??? I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on. But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution. It will never happen in the US.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
and if we're talking compromises, maybe every man who gets a woman pregnant who can't get a legal abortion should have to submit to a vasectomy. My guess is unplanned pregnancies would plummet.
www.headstonesband.com
im not disagreeing necessarily but there are instances where you are getting into
1. don’t unnecessarily subject a newborn to a short life of pain an invasive procedures, and
2. who’s going to pay for this lifetime of assisted living care in the event a condition requires it?
Equating a late term abortion to being unethical is like equating food stamps to being unnecessary because of the one guy who buys expensive lobster with them. Those videos always go viral
2. Every time abortion is brought up, the conversation shifts to 'at what point is a fetus a human', and very few good faith arguments follow from that - it's often used as a way to say "see, we'll never agree, we're just too different", and the conversation fizzles yet again. This is not by accident, and history tends to repeat itself
3. If late-stage abortions require nuance to evaluate risk to both mother and child, then it's not acceptable to put a binary rule on it judicially, when people who are trained in harm reduction (doctors) are far better equipped to make those judgment calls
4. Again - the all or none is a byproduct of zero wiggle room given from those who unequivocally condemn abortions
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Cause that would wipe out a lot of laws as politicians are rarely the expert. Perhaps I'm mis-understanding.
I do recognize that can of worms that opens, cincy, and I'm not sure the answer. The problem of laws being made by people who aren't versed in the laws' impacts is a real problem. Just watch any hearing with a technology company, and you'll find a congressperson with a lack of understanding asking the questions. I can't imagine health care is any simpler to explain than Facebook.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
well they playing Poland in 2-3 weeks.....
SHOW COUNT: (149) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=89, US=109, CAN=15, Europe=19 ,New Zealand=2, Australia=2
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
Upcoming: Sacramento, Vegas x2, Manchester, London, Chicago x2, NYC x2, Fenway x2, Aucklandx2, Gold Coast, Melbournex2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Let's hope this motivates dems to vote in a few months
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
In Brazil, women have free access to contraception through the public health system, yet delays in appointment may contribute to contraceptive gaps or switches to non-prescription contraception.Aug 29, 2019
The Chilean government recently decided that contraception will be publicly available for all women over the age of 14. According to IPS, all public health centers must dispense birth control, including emergency contraception (EC), free of charge.
Three Hungarian NGOs are seeking answers from the state health authority after it decided against granting over-the-counter access to a morning-after pill out of concern for women's health.
The three organizations condemn the decision of the Hungarian government. The pill can be accessed without a prescription in 22 of 28 EU member states. Following the recommendation of the Commission, even Poland, which has very strict abortion laws, announced that it would remove the need for prescription. It seems Hungary is again swimming against the current, and putting the safety and health of Hungarian women at risk.
In Poland, all EC pills (LNG and UPA) are only available by prescription from pharmacies. However, doctors are not allowed to prescribe EC to women under 18 years of age without parental consent.May 6, 2022
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
there is an American stuck there now (or at least last week)
she is having a miscarriage and she might die from infection and/or bleeding. Pregnancy is no longer viable, but there is a heart beat still so they can’t help her.
Doctors wouldn’t certify her as fit to fly so she was having trouble getting to Spain. Once she is actively dying they can intervene
this is what we can expect here. Especially with how you define protecting the life of the mother. How close to death do you need to be.
Benjs has already addressed some of the assumptions in your post, so I'll just tackle one more.
You say that the "% would likely increase as time goes on", by which I think you mean the percentage of late term abortions (or possibly all abortions) would only increase over time without laws restricting them. What are you basing that on? Canada has not had any laws restricting access to abortion since 1988 and abortions have not gone up, either in absolute numbers or percentages, including no increase in later abortions. And why would they? Late abortions are not anything that people want to have happen - they happen when something terrible has occurred, due to fetal abnormality or maternal health issues or tragic life circumstances or the like.
Ample data worldwide demonstrates that abortion rates do not go up overall where abortion is safely and legally available; in fact, they often go down, because access to safe and legal abortion is usually present along with access to safe and legal contraception and maternal-fetal care.
www.headstonesband.com
Playing Poland and some of their other concerts and skipping any states for already scheduled concerts would be pretty hypocritical.
I hope we are all ready to move on and learn from this now.
www.headstonesband.com