UCSF researchers are studying women turned away from abortions due to state restrictions. Their first effort showed that more of them end up in poverty:
In its first analysis of turnaway data published two years ago, the team found that women seek out abortions for complicated reasons, with the most common being a feeling of financial unpreparedness. This earlier analysis also showed that 86 percent of turnaways chose to keep their children, and 67 percent of them wound up below the poverty line a year later. By comparison, 56 percent of women granted abortions in the study were below the poverty line a year later. […]
Their latest effort looks at hope for the future:
Of all the goals measured, 47 percent were achieved. There was little difference between turnaways and women who had abortions when it came to achieving their goals. However, as the researchers write in their paper, women who received abortions “were significantly more likely to have both an aspirational plan and to have achieved it” than turnaways who kept their children. Upadhyay was quick to point out that overall, most of the women’s goals were aspirational. “They all had high hopes,” she said. But Turnaways “were much more likely to have negative goals.”
What this latest phase in the Turnaway study reveals is that not having access to abortion can negatively impact women’s lives. As Upadhyay and her colleagues put it in their paper, “Whether or not a person has aspirational plans is indicative of her hope for the future. Without such plans or hopes, she misses out on opportunities to achieve milestones in life.”
Put bluntly, the Turnaways had fewer hopes, so they had fewer reasons to push themselves toward what they defined as better lives.
It’s not surprising that an unplanned and unwanted child is more likely to make you poor and hopeless – this study just puts a number on the poverty and hopelessness.
I had an unplanned pregnancy when I was 18, and I decided to keep her, although I was certainly filled with ambiguity about what to do. I had only recently stopped attending a Catholic church, and my family is Irish and Catholic, lots of nuns, so I just couldn’t make the choice to have an abortion. It all worked out well in the end, but we did live in poverty for several years, we just also had a lot of middle class family members who were very supportive, I married the father (and we were married happily for a long time, although ultimately we ended up getting divorced) and we took turns being a stay at home parent and pursuing financial and educational opportunities. If I had been younger, if I had been on my own, if my extended family was not financially in a good place, it could have been so much worse. Even as good as my situation was, my dreams did take a back seat for a long time, which is why I didn’t graduate from college until last year, and was mired in jobs that didn’t pay very well for a long time.
Makes one wonder why a certain Democratic Socialist candidate doesn’t see reproductive freedom as an economic issue.
All Lives Matter.*
*except actual lives being lived, where you’re on your own, just like Jesus commanded
@Cacti: And just like that, “It’s ON!”
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
Well, this seems fair and reasonable to me. If sluts are going to have sex, they need to be punished for it, and what better way to punish them than to make them live in poverty? How else are we gonna teach ’em not to spread their nasty legs and work their nefarious charms on helpless men? If they wanted to have sex without consequences, they should have planned better and been born male.
And, once again, it comes down to what a person chooses to do. It helps to have as much information as possible, and one of the nice things about an unplanned pregnancy is that the “life-changing decision” box is already checked. Sometimes we face a situation where the life-changing impact isn’t quite so apparent.
I’m not going to pretend to know everyone’s individual circumstances. If having an abortion is the right thing for you, have an abortion. If carrying the pregnancy to term is the right thing for you, carry the pregnancy to term. I can’t think of any way to draft a public law that’s going to cover every situation. There just isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer for an unplanned pregnancy.
@Cacti: Because of the establishment, maaaan. It’s like a drag. Nothing is more of a bummer than the establishment. It’s a bad trip.
Howzabout, “medical decisions should be made by a patient and her doctor.”?
@Cacti: Somehow, I think your question belies your bias on this issue and not the respective ACTUAL position of that candidate on the issue. But please, burn that strawman.
OR, consider this: Bernie’s Actual Position on Reproductive Rights
Ok, facts now shown. Please continue your previous strawman. Warm up by the fire!
1) DNA test results on file for everyone
2) paternity determined at birth for every child
3) fathers must share 50% financial and time costs of raising child
4) availability of free birth control and abortion on demand guaranteed in perpetuity
/not exactly snark
@Mike J: Exactly. Public law shouldn’t enter into it.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Mike J: That is my view as well.
@Betty Cracker: Yup. Public law – or even public opinion – has no place in the process. Except to the extent that public law should require that only the participants in the medical process are in charge of it. In other words, legalize terminations of pregnancy. Full stop.
Quoth the Bern:
Yes, but luckily those same restrictive states have social programs and tons of support for these poor mothers and their children, right? After all, it is the pro life thing to do.
I noticed that this is from a uni in Cali. Had this been U of Bama, Arkansas, UTenn, or some such other Deep South Uni, you can bet that the State Legy would have threatened to pull research $$ for such a study. The prof would have been asked to resign.
Missouri tried to ban a grad student’s abortion/PP-related research. I think it failed, but the message was clear: do not publish anything remotely positive about abortion rights.
@Cacti: Well, since you’ve decided to base your understanding of the intersection of reproductive rights and economic issues on that one quote, I leave you to it.
I agree with his quote by the way. Even with that quote, one can understand preserving the reproductive rights as they exist right now AND dealing with economic issues is part of the platform. Seems like a weak hook to hang your bash Bernie coat on if you ask me. You might want to broaden your perspective beyond the quote though. But hey, don’t let me get in your way of confirming what you already believe.
Have a wonderful day.
People have their own opinion about abortion, and that is the way it should be. Forced pregnancy should not enter into the conversation.
@Cacti: I am honestly curious to see if Hillary has moved away from the position on abortion that she held when her husband was president. At that point she was treating it as if it were a social issue under the rubric of it should be rare but legal, or legal but rare, whatever the case. My thoughts had been then as they are now it’s nobody’s business how rare it is. It’s a decision made by one individual and not some bit of triangulation.
Anyway, I hope you will be able to show me that Hillary has moved away from a position which back when it was enunciated I always felt it was a bit like an apology.
I know, right?
It’s unfair to even suggest that the guy’s actual words represent his views or something.
Just because he identifies reproductive freedom as a social rather than economic issue doesn’t mean that’s what he believes. Because, revolution.
@Cacti: Nice to see that Bernie “you can’t spell Sanders without NRA” thinks that wanting to deny people basic rights like getting married is that same as not wanting to get shot because some drunk idiot takes his gun to a movie.
@Keith G: I would like it if root canals were rare, because I don’t want people to have to go through, and they can be prevented with good dental care. When someone does have a root canal, I want it to be legal and safe. Saying I want them to be rare doesn’t mean I secretly want to be the king of dental care who decides who can and who can;t get the care they need.
@Cacti: I didn’t suggest any unfairness. Please try not to put words into my mouth. What I was suggesting is that the words don’t mean what you think they mean AND that one quote is not a platform. I did by the way, up thread, supply you with a link that went beyond the quote.
But again, I can tell you’ve made up your mind and I won’t waste any more of your time.
@Keith G: As a woman, (although well past reproductive years) I have no problem with hoping abortion is rare. In case of sickness, isn’t prevention to be preferred to a cure? Isn’t birth control cheaper than an abortion? And easier on the body? Which would you prefer in a car: air bags or air bags and automatic braking when the car gets too close to an obstacle in its path?
Given how many abusive assholes deliberately try to impregnate their girlfriend/wife in order to permanently tie her to said abusive asshole, I’m not so sure about that 50 percent rule there. I do think that there should be an overall assumption that there will be joint physical custody for both parents in the absence of abuse, though.
@Mike J: You type faster than I do.
Revolutionary leader Bernie must not be held responsible for his mouth sounds. Any problems must necessarily be with the listener. ;-)
@Mnemosyne: Good point.
@Mike J: Interesting analogy. I see Keith’s point though, because abortion is an emotionally fraught issue (unlike root canals, which are merely painful), and the “rare” tag could be construed as conceding a point to the fetus fetishists — that abortions are so awful they should be rare. That said, I have confidence that Hillary Clinton would do her best to preserve reproductive rights. Sanders and O’Malley too, for that matter.
Paul in KY
@Cacti: They understand. It’s just not in their marching orders to draw attention to all that.
Where the hell is Burnsie? I’d like his take on this
I’m also on the side that says that “rare” is not an unreasonable public health goal. I understand why the word makes people flinch, but if we said we had a public health goal of making cardiac bypass surgery “rare,” is that automatically a bad thing?
@Calouste: What the fuck does this mean? I cannot even parse this sentence.
Anyone who can take an honest look at the whole of Sanders’ and Clinton’s statements and records on abortion can see that there’s no difference there worth arguing about, unless you want to dishonestly nitpick the statements of one or the other.
I’ll be surprised if Sanders wins more than a couple primaries. He’s a non-threat to the Clinton campaign, once we start counting votes. So why are some commenters making up stuff to bash him like he’s a mortal threat to Clinton? Is there some hidden Sanders strength that makes him a threat to Hillary? I don’t get it.
Steve in the ATL
@Keith G: The Clintons’ position was “safe, legal, and rare.” Not sure if they included the Oxford comma, but it’s a dealbreaker for me.
The “rare” was expected to be the result of education and easy and widespread availability of contraception. You know, the opposite what the ironically named pro-life contingent does.
I’m not sure how else you express “contraception should be easily available and everyone should be taught how to use it” in one word, though. I do think that helping people avoid unneccessary surgery whenever possible is a good public health goal in and of itself.
Now that you mention it, I haven’t seen tax lawyer around in a while.
As a woman who ardently respects and advocates for a woman’s right to choose, I am not the least bit offended at the notion that abortions should be rare. Most unwanted pregnancies can be prevented which is a preferable alternative to medical intervention. We have a long way to go in this culture when it comes to educating, informing, and providing free access to birth control. That said, who does or doesn’t decided to have an abortion, is none of my business and is certainly not the business of the State.
@Betty Cracker: The fact is that abortion rights and easily available contraception are the same battle for all too many of the religious right. They don’t want to allow either. We should all recognize that simple fact by now.
“Rare” has always been my goal and I’ve been fighting goddam abortion fight for over half my life. “Rare” means making sure everyone is given the means and information required to prevent unwanted pregnancies. You know, like supporting Planned Parenthood and NARAL and all those other establishment pigs who must go down in the revolution.
I know several women who have had abortions and gone on with their lives just fine and I’m guessing a couple at least would be living below the poverty line because they just got above the poverty level. Kids are expensive anyway and you aren’t doing the kid any favors when you aren’t financially prepared because you can’t provide him what he needs to succeed. I can’t stand the way this country has into such an unforgiving country. You aren’t forgiven for anything and the punishment has to be excessive*.
*unless you’re rich and then the rules don’t apply.
Paul in KY
@Steve in the ATL: Why is that a dealbreaker (for you)?
It’s now become kind of an overall problem with discussing healthcare across the board, too. It’s hard to discuss things like medical effectiveness boards and monitoring drug production when the other side doesn’t even think the government should be involved with those things. Similarly, it’s difficult to have a rational discussion about ways to reduce the abortion rate (like better/more access to contraception) when the other side won’t be happy until contraception is banned outright.
@Mnemosyne: Agreed, and I’m not personally bothered by the inclusion of “rare,” but I can understand why it ruffles feathers. Like it or not, for many people, the abortion debate involves moral issues that bypass surgery and root canals don’t.
@greennotGreen: i know where you’re coming from, but the immediate goal is not so much to make root canals or any medical procedure really rare as to make them plentiful to those who need them. if “rare” happens as a consequence of better preventative care or whatever, so much the better, but rare isn’t the first-order goal.
re abortion, there’s the political issue along with the medical one. the problem with wanting abortion in particular to be “rare” is that it plays into the anti-choicers’ hands by making the operation seem, even if needed, undesirable.
I’ve never understood the dilemma of the saying, rare and legal. It should be rare and if prevention and education are allowed/free it does become rarer. But is should also be legal, it is a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor and no one else’s business.
For most people it is a hard decision but what is the issue if it isn’t? None. Ease or toughness of the decision should not be a concern of anyone. We have commenters who have stated it was a difficult decision and who say it wasn’t. We have one on this thread who decided to continue with birth and is now glad of that and some who said they never regretted the decision the other way. How many of them wish that they had never had to make that decision? I made the decision that I didn’t want to be the cause of anyone having to make that decision and I took steps to make sure I wouldn’t be, decades ago. Do I regret that decision? In some ways yes but in others no. I couldn’t tell the future then any better than I can now and neither can anyone else. You make that decision when and if you have to, given what you know at the time and what you think it might do for your future and what that means for your entire situation.
IOW Clinton had exactly the right answer then and what really has changed? It should be rare (that fewer people have to make that decision) and it should be legal. I’m going to add it should also be absolutely available, without question or discussion.
At its heart, the “pro-life” movement isn’t about preventing abortion so much as it is a bunch of hard core religionists who want to be the sex police, particularly for women.
@OzarkHillbilly: and you know, some of the feminist bloggers like Marcotte were saying that all along, and while I was strongly in their camp I was like “really? that’s a stretch.”
but it turned out that it wasn’t a stretch at all.
I should probably also say, once you get to the point that you need an abortion, you kind of need to get that procedure taken care of *before* you start discussing prevention. Telling someone who needs a root canal that they need to floss more isn’t going to change the fact that they need a root canal, so you have that discussion afterwards.
Abortion is a last resort. Last-resort actions are supposed to be rare. They are, after all, what you have to do when better alternatives were not available or did not work.
@singfoom: Its Cacti. He/She wakes up every morning thinking “how can I bash Sanders today?”
Because heaven forbid, we should shift the Overton Window to the direction of normalizing socialism in this country.
@Mnemosyne: @Betty Cracker:
It has become obvious to even this Homo Erectus that the abortion/contraception debate is about nothing other than who has control of the lady parts. We certainly can’t allow delicate creatures like women to know the proper course. This is why they still fight sex ed in school.
@mistermix: Can you read? There were three topics listed in that statement by Sanders, and abortion wasn’t the one of the ones I referred to.
But I’ll try to explain it at a level you might understand: guns are not a social issue, they are a safety issue. No one is affected by a same-sex marriage, except the people involved. 30,000 people a year are killed by guns, more wounded, and many more are affected because they have loved lost ones, or because they become traumatized by events involving guns. Sanders shouldn’t equate them. Drunk driving used to be almost a “social issue”, now it is a criminal issue, as it should be. Guns should go the same way.
From a medical POV, any surgery (even minor surgery) is undesirable, even if it’s life-saving. Maybe “suboptimal” is a less fraught word?
@Amir Khalid: Unfortunately the only alternatives acceptable to the antichoicers are abstinence and marriage. And those are quite available, hence all the moralizing the antichoice lobby layers on the decision.
@Hillary Rettig: They are the ones who opened my eyes. They and Hobby Lobby.
@Betty Cracker: Certainly – I think any Democratic candidate at this point would. Its not like any of the three Dem candidates would be squishes on abortion rights. In fact, out of the various standard Democratic Party platform issues, I’d say that abortion is probably one of the issues that Democratic candidates are LEAST likely to be squishes on – as opposed to other issues, like say free trade or union rights or invading Middle Eastern countries or regulating Wall Street – where I’d expect a bit more variation – and even squishiness – amongst the candidates if they were in the White House.
Villago Delenda Est
Sluts need to be punished for their sexytimes.
Not only that, but the only choice they want *within* marriage is abstinence. They want married people to also have to be constantly afraid of pregnancy and avoid having sex whenever possible. They want husbands and wives to be in constant conflict over sex vs risking pregnancy. Because they’re assholes like that.
Villago Delenda Est
@JPL: But forced pregnancy is what the so-called “pro-life” movement is all about. Because sluts must be punished. Even if they’re married, as Mnemosyne points out above.
“I can’t say I have been missing it Bob.”
– Peter Gibbons
@mistermix: “Is there some hidden
SandersObama strength that makes him a threat to Hillary? I don’t get it.”
Hey, it’s millennial suburban Che Guevara, here to do battle with the enemies of the revolution.
Would you like your participation trophy now, or later cupcake?
Gin & Tonic
@Paul in KY: I have a feeling he meant that he can’t support Hillary if she omitted the Oxford comma.
@mistermix: The recovering Republicans of BJ hair turns on fire when an actual democratic socialist shows up at the party and makes it clear that the Establishment Democratic Party has no clothes.
There’s also a lot of short attention span memory around here. Sanders is making the same observation that 50-state strategy Howard Dean made with his “God, guns, gays” comment. And lets not forget when then candidate Obama made a comment about bitter voters clinging to their guns – which comment then candidate Clinton jumped all over him for being “divisive”.
Really? How do you draw this as a conclusion? I thought that the fantasy was that married couples would be fruitful and multiply, and all that jazz.
Lots of countries have tried socialism.
It was a fucking disaster.
India was mostly socialist, until 1991. The economy was stagnant and poverty was higher than now.
Egypt adopted socialism, but has not outperformed less socialist countries.
Large state owned enterprises are often rife with graft and corruption and have been notoriously poor in meeting consumers needs.
There are plenty of reasons to not want socialism and have the government run large sections of the economy. It’s not the cornucopia the left in the U.S. dreams it will be.
And speaking of tax lawyers – wifie has gotten 2 calls today from some asshole scammer claiming to be the IRS and if she does not wire transfer money immediately they are going to file a lawsuit.
Please to explain how Scandinavia, and indeed, most of Europe somehow muddle through with this soshallism of which you speak so authoritatively.
But only if the husband wants to refrain. “I can’t rape my wife, it is impossible.”
Paul in KY
@Betty Cracker: It should be ‘rare’ (IMO), but anyone who has to get 12 of em, should be able to do so.
@Hillary Rettig: There really is far less distance between Teh Secks and Teh Icky Ghey Secks in their universe. Spend some time around antichoicers and homophobes and you’ll see the overlap between the two groups is nearly total.
@Cacti: As usual, you shoot so wide of the mark in your dumbassery, that you wound up hitting a moose in Manitoba.
I’m not a Millenial. One can be exhausted by Boomers and not be a Millenial. I don’t live in the suburbs – never have. I’ve lived in cities all my life. Currently, that means Oakland, California. And I’m not a communist. I’m a democratic socialist – there happens to be a big difference.
But keep shooting at those moose, bub.
@gene108: I was recently over in Europe and I can totally concur that Scandinavia was an absolute hellhole. And France – ohmygod – just a disaster. You had to ride these awful trains that went 200 mph, nobody worked more than 35 hours a week, and the wine – jesus, they actually had decent wine that was socially acceptable to drink regularly.
The horror, I tell you, the horror.
Paul in KY
@Gin & Tonic: Thanks for responding. Guess it was a joke.
It’s tax season. Unfortunately, it also means it’s scam season.
Paul in KY
@Brachiator: If they vote Republican…
I would say that European socialism hasn’t solved all problems. Nativism, racism, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and strict citizenship requirements are evident in the European socialist states. I think some would simply like Bernie and his voters to acknowledge that free health care, free education and a more generous saftey net will not necessarily solve the root causes of inequality.
@Mnemosyne: But birth is quite a bit more dangerous to women then abortion is, so I don’t think that’s a good approach.
They want the only possible choices for married couples to be having 12 children or not having sex at all. Sadly, I saw this in operation in my Catholic family and it ruined at least one marriage when my aunt and uncle decided they couldn’t support more than 8 children and had to start sleeping in separate beds. That was the beginning of the end of their marriage.
Paul in KY
@gene108: You are talking about borderline-Communism. Socialism only advocates for state ownership of public utility things (like healthcare). Private companies & Capitalism still goes, just regulated in a manner that causes the Kochsuckers to have cold sweats.
Hasta la victoria siempre, comrade!
Urban hipsters are even worse than suburban drones.
Paul in KY
@goblue72: Don’t think about it & it will slowly recede in this distance (like the scenery did when you were on that cool 200 mph train…dammit!!)
I saw Sanders’ extended Face the Nation interview where he spent a lot of time justifying his position on gun control. So I heard his best shot. On the face of it, I guess it sounds reasonable that he might have a better shot getting a compromise through Congress because he’s dealt with rural gun owners before. But in reality he probably can’t say that he voted with the NRA just enough times (he has a D- rating) to keep in office and that he won’t have any more luck than any other Democrat who wants to do anything about guns.
Paul in KY
@dogwood: Would probably help it out though, right?
@boatboy_srq: There was a sizable contingent of born-again X-ianists in my high school. Attended one of their youth groups for awhile as a lark. The whole thing was Victorian level prudery dressed up in holy-roller clothes. Sex was the beginning, middle and end of sin for those nuts. Sex was only for “procreation” inside marriage as the good Lord intended and nothing else. Don’t ever use contraception, spit out those babies, and then spit out more babies.
Gay sex, straight sex, solo sex (masturbation) – anything involving the naughty bits they were deathly afraid of. Didn’t stop any of those girls next door from giving hummers in the backseat though.
I do not get X-ianists.
Iowa Old Lady
I got a Clinton mailer yesterday with pictures of Trump and Cruz on the cover under the caption: “They have plans for your health care.” Inside, among several other points, it says the Republicans would “threaten women’s access to safe and legal abortion.” Just a data point.
Also, at the Y this morning, a Republican woman brought up Tina Fey’s SNL spoof of Sarah Palin, and she and everyone else thought it was howlingly funny. Palin’s 15 minutes of fame are long gone even among Republicans, so I don’t know how much her endorsement helps Trump.
Right, but presumably we’re only talking about the women who don’t want or can’t have a child at that specific time of their life and not grouping all pregnant women together. Obviously, a woman who actually wants and can raise a child is going to choose childbirth over abortion regardless of the increased risks of childbirth.
So we’re only discussing women of childbearing age who do not want a child at that time, in which case the ranking of desirable outcomes is:
1) Preventing the pregnancy
2) Early abortion (when it’s safest)
3) Later abortion
If we’re continuing the root canal analogy, you obviously want to get the root canal done at the first signs it’s needed and not wait until the tooth cracks and has to be pulled entirely.
Things are actually worse than folks think. Behold, a blue state Catholic hospital
If these assholes would reset their moral outrage compasses and support effective sex education and access to contraception, the need for abortions would plunge. But they can’t or won’t, directly creating the need for the One Big Thing they spend every waking hour trying to eliminate. Lovely people, the lot of them.
Gin & Tonic
@Mnemosyne: Probably TMI here, but after my wife and I decided we’d had enough children and I went for that quick visit to the urologist, things got *way* better in one respect.
@mistermix: I’d mostly agree with that. Its not like he’s the NRA poster boy. His “NRA voting record” as you note isn’t much different than most Dems, save by a modestly marginal degree that at the end of the day doesn’t amount to a hill of beans of difference to the ammosexuals. On the other hand, Sanders does have a good record as an amendment king over the years, in spite of serving in the minority for most of his years in Congress – so who knows – maybe he’d have some modest luck in getting some modest improvements to gun laws made. (and by improvements, I mean increasing restrictions)
@Steve in the ATL:
This. Because even women who aren’t ashamed or guilty for having had an abortion generally wish they hadn’t needed one.
thank you for this, kind sir.
You would think the Pro-Life movement would support:
-Free prenatal care
-Free care for births including c-sections
-Free education for all children until the age of 18
-Free health care for all children until the age of 18
-Free food/meals for all children until the age of 18
But they don’t because they are not Pro-Life they are are Pro-Forced Birth
One wonders if judges understand how health insurance works these days. If that hospital is the one in her network, she CAN’T just decide to have the procedure done elsewhere.
Iowa Old Lady
@Mnemosyne: Not to mention that sometimes there is no non-Catholic hospital within 50 miles.
Not a Bernie supporter but OK. OTOH all those things you mentioned would go a very very long way to fixing many of the problems currently faced. In addition the added economic security would extend to benefit even farther. Did you know there is not only less economic inequality but greater social mobility in Europe & Scandinavia than in the US? But I was only discussing the economics of the situation and the stupid comment from gene. Add to that the fact that continuing down the current path is not going to solve any of those other issues & will in fact exacerbate them
@goblue72: You haven’t fully grokked the horrors of socialism (vis a vis Cahpitulist Ahmurrrca) until you’ve been to Budapest and had delectable goulash soup, savory beef stew and the domestic red wine all for less than $20 (the wine was 600 forint – $1.75 – a glass), and ridden their horrible subway that takes you from city center to the airport in 30 minutes for a whopping $2.50 (780 forint).
@Iowa Old Lady:
Good point. From the article:
I’d love it if it was decided, “Don’t want to perform certain medical procedures because of your religion? Fine, but you lose your tax-exempt status.’
Villago Delenda Est
@Paul in KY: The sin of socialism is that it socializes the benefits, unlike our current system, that privatizes the benefits and socializes the costs.
@dogwood: Since when was it advertised as such? It is and always has been meant as a treatment of the results of those root causes. It’s those who defend unfettered markets who claim that economic mobility is the cure for all other ills.
Wow, to go all Biden, that’s a Big Fvcking Deal.
I’d have to disagree. I would say, “Don’t want to perform certain medical procedures because of your religion? Fine. Sell your hospital because owning hospitals is not a religious right.” I mean, as far as I am concerned allowing the Catholic Church to decide what are or are not acceptable medical procedures makes as much sense as letting Jehovah’s Witnesses run hospitals.
Paul in KY
@Villago Delenda Est: Right on, VDE! Unless you own one, why would you want a hospital or water company or electric company to be ‘for profit’?! It ain’t your profit, that’s for sure.
Steve in the ATL
@Paul in KY: As valued commenter Gin & Tonic noted, I was making a joke about the Oxford comma.
While I have always preferred it stylistically, we were taught in law school to use it as it adds precision to the statement.
Sorry for the slow response; I am actually in bargaining at the moment and had to wait until the union called a break to consider our latest outrageous, anti-worker, and NLRA-violating proposal.
Steve in the ATL
Well said. Someone buy this man a pig!
And they were told that the Church wanted them to avoid having sex?
In any event, a sad tale. Sad that the easy and obvious solution of birth control was deemed immoral, and that they were unable to feel that they could make that choice.
@Paul in KY:
Don’t know about Egypt, but India was a long way from borderline-Communist. Plenty of private enterprise, but the government involvement in so much of the economy was a drag.
Not every experiment in socialism turns into Sweden. There are examples of socialism gone bad.
OT but wonderful citzens we have here in NC –
Photo with the article included his toddler son.
I really would be very happy if a good man with a gun put Wayne Lapierre out of our misery. Prorbaly the only time I would ever feel that a man with a gun was ‘good’.
Paul in KY
@Steve in the ATL: No problem, Steve. Give em Hell!!!
Paul in KY
@gene108: My take would be the pervasive culture of bribery in both those nations probably contributed a lot to that. Thank you for responding.
@Paul in KY:
The above is incorrect. Socialism and Communism are both premised on public ownership of the means of production, the difference is in degrees of centralized control. Even Market Socialism and Democratic Socialism are premised on the idea of public, social, or cooperative control of the means of production.
If you favor broad social and economic welfare programs in the context of a capitalist economic state, you are a Social Democrat. Ergo, Sanders is a Social Democrat rather than a Democratic Socialist, but for some reason prefers to go by the latter.
Not getting one’s tubes tied is bad enough, but there are several instances of women being put at extremely increased risk because a hospital can not correctly treat septic or hemorrhagic miscarriages until the fetus has no heartbeat. Because of their ironclad anti-abortion policy, not for any medical reason.
This is in cases that are way too early for the fetus to be viable and the mother is literally bleeding to death of experiencing all the life-threatening issues associated with septic shock. How anybody can watch this happening to a patient and call themselves a doctor or nurse is beyond me.
@gene108: If I remember my econ 101 socialism is where the state owns the means of production, i.e. the coal mines, steel industry, etc. Think pre -Thatcher England. Still a democracy and not everything was owned by the government. A social welfare state is where means of production are generally in private hands but a strong social safety net, i.e medicare, unemployment insurance, etc. Lots of different flavors but unfortunately in the US socialism = communism = Stalin. end of story. No shades of grey
Not every experiment in capitalism goes right either (see: America) therefore we must never engage in capitalism given that logic.
@Schlemazel: Most of the industry in Germany remained in private (even if somewhat nervous) hands during the Hitler era. That didn’t turn out so well either.
@mistermix: I agree with you. There is no reason for Clinton supporters to be hostile towards Sanders supporters and vice versa. We need everyone to vote Democratic this November. No need to beat up on the candidate who we are not supporting. I’m sure either Sanders or Clinton would be better Presidents than any Republican and that’s really all that matters.
Thankfully in 2008, Clinton supporters for the most part came out and supported Obama so I assume that’s what will happen this time around.
Also, too, since I keep harping on the root canal comparison, I have to link to Bill Murray in “Little Shop of Horrors” as a dental, um, enthusiast.
There actually is a network of Jehovah’s Witness-run hospitals. However, they are reserved for people who belong to that sect and are not meant to care for the general public, unlike Roman Catholic hospitals.
Correction of the Day: From the Daily Beast
Correction: A previous version of the story indicated that Liz Mair would prefer a “dry dog turd” for president over either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. She would only prefer the turd to Trump.
via kevin drum
@Mnemosyne: You had me scared for a second there.
I want to remind people that the Griswold v. Connecticut decision involved married couples using contraception. Until Griswold, it was illegal for married couples to use any means of contraception in Connecticut and elsewhere. The concept of a right to privacy then extended Griswold to non-married people. I have told people forever that we had to a Democratic president and Congress because they appointed the Supreme Court and we had to protect Griswold.
I’m all for a stronger social safety net, but as you say this does not have to really venture much into the territory of socialism.
I think Sanders sales pitch would be better, if he focused on expanding the social safety net, rather than talking about socialism.
@Mnemosyne: What blew me away was a discussion on transplant surgery for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The person was going on about this amazing new frontier, but all I was thinking that this was a surgeon who really wanted to show off.
@Capri: Also ectopic pregnancies. Catholic hospitals will not perform surgery to end one, yet if the woman continues with the pregnancy she will probably die when the fallopian tube bursts.
I turned against Joe Lieberman when he said of a woman who was turned away from a Catholic hospital in Connecticut that she could find another hospital easily, that there were that many in the state. (I know from a friend that there is a decreasing number of hospitals in CT now.)
@PurpleGirl: That’s what I have always found to be totally illogical. The Church claims that all lives are sacred but to protect the ectopic ‘egg/fetus’ which will never see the light of day they will let a real live living person die. In other words two lives will be lost when at least one could be saved. I can remember my Mother saying in the 1950’s that her catholic girl friends would not go to a catholic hospital to have a baby because the doctor was required to save the baby and not the molter. seems these catholic women weren’t into suicide.
As the old saying goes if men got pregnant in the catholic church abortion would be a sacrament and the pill would be handed out with the bread and wine at mass.
Jack the Second
@Dupe1970: I’d like to start a non-profit / charity / lobbying organization that promotes all of the things you mentioned, along with anything else that would reduce the need for abortions. Other good policies:
1. Basic income (as the report said, economic difficulties are one of the leading reasons people decide to get abortions).
2. Better foster care / orphanages / adoption programs (some of the women choosing to get abortions themselves went through the foster care system; it’s a pretty stunning indictment of The System if they wouldn’t put a child into it).
3. Paid maternity leave (even if you want to give the kid up, you can’t just jump up and go back to work the next day).
And as you mentioned, contraception contraception contraception.
I would call it Plan A, and it would be a shining beacon taunting the anti-choice movement.
Very sadly, as important as this is, this does not help against the conservative strategy of attacking abortion at the state and local level.
J R in WV
Actually, in our experience, great dental care doesn’t prevent the need for root canals, at all. Mrs J and I see a great dentist every 6 months, have dental cleaning, brush with recommended power toothbrush, etc. I have never had a root canal, Mrs J has had a lot. So it seems to be more related to individual immune systems and oral health of a given person. I actually suspect Mrs J does a little better at daily dental cleanliness than I do.
So poor analogy for contraceptive medical care.
A Ghost To Most
“When you are up to your ass in alligators, it is easy to forget that your initial objective was to drain the swamp”.
While I applaud the presence and energy of the Sandernistas, how about we concentrate on the reptiles first? The Overton window is currently well to the right of HRC.
@Cacti: You really have absolutely no clue.
@A Ghost To Most: How about starting with canning the “Sanderistas” crap? Or is that too hard for Hilbots to process?
And they were told that the Church wanted them to avoid having sex?
Yes, couples were told that if they did not want any more children, they couldn’t use artificial contraception. They use the rhythm(natural) contraception or they had to stop having sex. In Catholic theology, every act of sex must be open to the transmission/creation of life. Many couples disobey this tenant of the faith and do use contraception. It is at this point that many couples stop attending mass on a regular basis.
@gene108: We live in an example of a country with capitalism gone bad. Any system can go bad. What’s your point?
@Brachiator: I know. But I keep reminding people anyway about Griswold.
@boatboy_srq: What you are describing sounds like a war crime.
A Ghost To Most
They call themselves that, and you seem to have no problems with nicknames. Chill,it’s not old street fightin men who are your opponents.
Fight the reptiles.
@J R in WV:
Not really — even perfect contraceptive use can fail. The pill’s 99 percent effectiveness rate means that (theoretically) 1 out of 100 women who use it perfectly could still have an unintended pregnancy. So it’s absolutely possible for a woman to do everything right and still have an unwanted pregnancy, just like someone can have perfect oral hygiene and still need a root canal. Shit happens.
Whatever you say, little prog purity princeling.
@D58826: Logic and religion don’t go together. For the most part religion is the means to keep women in their place.
Nobody would fly an airline boasting a “99+% successful landing rate.”
Suppose when priests are preying on boys the chances of an ungodly pregnancy are truly 100%.
@goblue72: Folks used to refer to the Clinton supporters as Clintonistas so lighten up. And Hilbots is better?
@Cacti: You’re so cute when you go insane.
@D58826: The Hilbots jab was intentionally for making the point at how stupid the “Sandernistas” thing is.
There’s a whole lot of complaining about Sanders and Sanders supporters than I see actual Sanders supporters doing the things being complained about.
@D58826: How about Hillaratchik? (That’s copyrighted, btw)
@goblue72: and if you get sick they insist on treating your illness without first checking how much cash you have in your pocket. Some countries don’t under stand what it means to be a real christian.
and OT, just saw a note on twitter that the folks in flint now have an armed militia there to protect them. The militia leader didn’t exactly explain how they were going to clean up the water but they were protecting people’s right to bear arms even if they are thirsty.
@goblue72: I have a revolutionary idea how about Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. Then we can get down to the less important things like clean water for Flint and the make up of SCOTUS going into the next decade.
@gene108: Yes, if you use the old definition of socialism as “the government controls the economy and runs most businesses”. The current definition of socialism as used by movement conservatives is “anything involving government helping people, or raising taxes at all on the people at the top of the economy”.
So Obama is a raging socialist because he wanted to have tax rates go up on high-income taxpayers, and because he thinks people should have health insurance that’s not provided by an employer.
I recall hearing some polling a few years back that a lot of young people now have a positive impression of socialism. It’s because they think of socialism as something that Democrats like Obama support, not the old definition you’re getting at. Of course, movement conservatives are sure that Obama’s socialism will lead inevitably to the old definition, so of course they’re the same thing.
@greennotGreen: Your plan assumes that all dads are good dads. There are women who have had to share custody with their rapists because he is the biological father of that child. Can you see that someone would have an abortion specifically to prevent having to see her rapist every week for the next 18 years? How about if he’s an abusive controlling asshole? Insist that he have half custody even if he’ll beat the crap out of the kid? Would a woman have an aboriton to prevent that? Sure would. Making sure the father in a faled relationship has maximum input doesn’t necessarily make the woman more willing to go ahead with the pregnancy.
@Brachiator: Yes, the fantasy is be fruitful and multiply. But if you’re an actual person who has 8 kids under the age of 10, you’re not eager to have sex if it means you’re going to have another baby 10 months after the last one, giving you 9 kids under the age of 11. Lots of recent childbirth tends to cool the sex drive if it involves risking another pregnancy.
@Mnemosyne:Thought that was Jack Nicholson. Or, are you referencing the 1986 remake rather than the 1960 Corman original?
Paul in KY
@Cacti: I disagree on you saying that all ‘Soc1ialism’ wants public control of the ‘means of production’. A type of that philosophy advocates for that, but many other styles are more in line with what I posited.