Overturning Roe v. Wade would be ‘damaging’ to the economy ...
"Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday said eliminating women’s access to abortion would have “very damaging effects” on the US economy, keeping some women from completing their educations and reducing their lifetime earnings potential and participation in the labor force.
Yellen’s comments at a Senate Banking Committee hearing came just over a week after the leak of a draft Supreme Court decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion. The pending decision has raised fears that many more states would enact far-reaching abortion restrictions.
The issue dominated a hearing about Treasury’s Financial Stability Oversight Council annual report.
Yellen, the first female Treasury secretary, said in response to a senator’s question that research has shown that Roe v. Wade had a favorable impact on the well-being of children and that denying women access to abortions increases their odds of living in poverty or on public assistance.
“I believe that eliminating the rights of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades,” Yellen said
Yellen’s comments drew a rebuke from Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who said her framing of the economic consequences of the abortion debate were “harsh” and inappropriate for such a painful social issue.
“I think people can disagree on the issue of being pro-life or pro-abortion. But in the end, I think framing it in the context of labor force participation, it just feels callous to me,” said Scott, adding that he was raised by a Black single mother in poverty.
Yellen responded by saying that reproductive rights allow women to plan “fulfilling and satisfying” lives, which includes having the financial resources to raise a child.
“In many cases, abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often Black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability often to continue their education to later participate in the workforce,” Yellen said.
“So there is a spillover into labor force participation, but it means the children will grow up in poverty and do worse themselves,” Yellen said. “This is not harsh. This is the truth,” she added."
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) later in the hearing pressed her on her answer, arguing that framing the issue of abortion around labor force participation “feels callous to me.”
“It means that children will grow up in poverty and do worse themselves,” Yellen responded. “This is not harsh. This is the truth.”
Scott said there was plenty of room to discuss child care, financial literacy and child tax credits to improve outcomes for American kids.
“I’ll just say that as a guy raised by a Black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here as a United States senator,” he said."
Margret Sanger would have been so pleased with Yellen's sentiments.
A ban on abortion, In certain states or the federal ban which Mitch McConnell is floating will definitely profoundly affect lower income women . They simply won't have the means to travel out of state or eventually out of the country to receive the abortion that their financially well off counterparts will be able to. Research has also made clear that denying women access to abortions increases "their odds of living in poverty or in need for public assistance."
Let's just look at Mississippi.
Mississippi is one of the poorest states, and people in low-wage jobs often don’t receive health insurance. Women can enroll in Medicaid during pregnancy, but that coverage disappears soon after they give birth. The Legislature killed a proposal to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage in 2021.
Mississippi has the highest infant mortality rate in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Black infants were about twice as likely as white infants to die during the first year of life in Mississippi, according to the March of Dimes.
Across the country, U.S. Census Bureau information analyzed by The Associated Press shows fewer Black and Hispanic women have health insurance, especially in states with tight abortion restrictions. For example, in Texas, Mississippi and Georgia, at least 16% of Black women and 36% of Latinas were uninsured in 2019, some of the highest such rates in the country.
Problems are compounded in states without effective education programs about reproduction. Mississippi law says sex education in public schools must emphasize abstinence to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Discussion of abortion is forbidden, and instructors may not demonstrate how to use condoms or other contraception.
Outside the only abortion clinic operating in Mississippi, protesters hand out brochures that refer to abortion as Black “genocide” and say the late Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and a proponent of eugenics, “desired to eradicate minorities.” The brochures compare Sanger to Adolf Hitler and proclaim: “Black lives did not matter to Margaret Sanger!”
The Mississippi clinic is not affiliated with Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood itself denounces Sanger’s belief in eugenics.
if the U.S. Supreme Court allows states to further restrict or even ban abortions, minority women will bear the brunt of it, according to statistics.
In Mississippi, people of color comprise 44% of the population but 80% of women receiving abortions, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks health statistics.
In Texas, they’re 59% of the population and 74% of those receiving abortions. The numbers in Alabama are 35% and 70%. In Louisiana, minorities represent 42% of the population, according to the state Health Department, and about 72% of those receiving abortions.
These are just the facts. Nearly half of women who have abortions live below the federal poverty level. Of course the upcoming Supreme Court ruling Will disproportionately affect people of color.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/10970653 … le-of-colo
https://19thnews.org/2021/09/abortion-e … texas-law/
Yes, access to abortion gives lower income women better lives- they don't have to raise children in impoverished circumstances. They can have the opportunity to better themselves educationally & socioeconomically so when they DO & IF they have children, such children would be raised in better circumstances.
Yellen is right. When girls & women didn't have access to abortion, many had their goals slashed. Many had to raise children in poverty. Many had hellish lives. This is THE UNADULERATED truth which pro-lifers REFUSE to acknowledge through their myopic rose-colored delusion. Having access to abortion means that girls & women don't have to give up their educational & socioeconomic goals. Yellen IS RIGHT. NEXT.
Of course, Tim Scott must "parrot" the party line or pay politically.
I hope this Abortion issue stirs up the Left like the CRT thing got the Rightwinger climbing the walls.
For conservatives to imply genocide against the Black community due to availability of abortion is just another trick. Conservatives and Republicans otherwise couldn't care less about the well being of underserved people in this society.
When it comes to conservatives and their objectives, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you will never fool me at any time.
This is an interesting articles that points to the flaws in Justice Alioto's judicial reasoning on this issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/opin … ntion.html
Are you sure "imply" was the word you wanted? You have historical statistical data supporting the thought that Blacks will be disproportionately impacted. Still, I think dozens of reasons cause that data, and a conservative desire for Black genocide isn't one of them.
On matters like this, I think everyone's "conservative" label requires a conditioner to be most accurate: '[R]religious', as in Religious conservatives. You can add other choice adjectives, but I think it's only fair to add that conditioner. Otherwise, your brush is so broad you are painting your neighbor's house too.
But, GA, aren't you all marching to the beat of the same drummer? Well, most of you, anyway.
We are disproportionately impacted in almost every negative indicator in this society, as it is.
While your argument makes a point, the availability of safe abortion is not being coerced. You are right, as statistics show that more black females have resorted to abortion in the last few years. But, the poor and economically disadvantaged would tend to do that. In a society that would deny assisting school age children with lunches, the ability to control the size of your family and not incur an economic burden everytime one choose a "roll in the hay" is crucial. That is not genocide as the Right likes to refer to Margaret Sanger and involuntary sterization. Assist in improving the economic circumstances for people is how you reduce the need for abortions.
Black women as a group will tell you that the conservatives' arguments are just so much bunk.....
Do all of you march to the same drummer? Otherwise, your points are fair ones, even your agreement that this contraception issue isn't about conservatives pushing the genocide of Blacks. Their efforts are not an implication that they do.
As for conservative arguments, (in this case, about personal responsibility and choices), being "bunk", consider how casually you dismissed a primary reason for unwanted pregnancies: ". . . everytime one choose a "roll in the hay" . . . ".
If a chance of an unwanted pregnancy is completely avoidable, solely by a personal choice, then your finger shouldn't be pointed at everyone else but the decision-maker.
Wait, you don't get to chide me about the reality of the irresistible force of human nature and its sex drive, I readily admit it is real. Still, it does involve a choice, and it should be hard to defend an irresponsible one. And certainly inappropriate to blame someone else, (like conservatives).
What is the Supreme Court suggesting?
Is it that it is not protected under the constitution?
Are they making it illegal or merely leaving it to states?
Does this mean that all the hyperbolic concern is that the right of determining when and how an abortion is performed is reverting to the States?
The Supreme Court in striking down Roe is saying that abotion is not protected under the Constitution. They will end a half-century guarantee of federal constitutional protection of abortion. That means it automatically reverts to the states.
So, it reverts to the States to decide what's acceptable and what is not.
This doctor gives testimony to a House committee as to what abortion is, and how it differs based on how many weeks have passed.
At some point, it goes from removal of cells that are becoming a human, to murder of a human.
I am not arguing one way or the other, but I like to deal with reality. Both my boys were C-sectioned in the eighth month, I consider the abortion of a child in the eighth or ninth month to be murder.
But that's just my opinion.
I am not arguing one way or the other, but I like to deal with reality. Both my boys were C-sectioned in the eighth month, I consider the abortion of a child in the eighth or ninth month to be murder.
Nobody is arguing that aborting a fetus at the 8th or 9th month should not involve the authorities as the fetus at this level of development may well be viable or could survive outside the womb. But a zygote?
It looks as if (quick research) there are a few states that have progressed past roe vs Wade to have no limits on abortions.
We need to nail down where those exceptions are and I make it clear that I oppose that.
That is the ultimate problem, is it not?
So to what Faye posted "criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”)."
Comes the question, when does that pregnancy become a person with rights and constitutional protections of life?
This is most likely why you will see "personhood legislation' advanced by conservatives. Essentially declaring a fetus a person.
"Comes the question, when does that pregnancy become a person with rights and constitutional protections of life?"
Does that begin with a zygote? How fair is that to the woman who does not want her entire life intimidated over her intimate relationships and reproductive functions.
The fetus can be realistically designated a person once it is able to live independently of the mother's body. It is not fair to the fetus as a living person to be aborted.
There can any variety of points where "personhood" may be declared.
I am just pissed at the Right because they want their interpretation( personhood for a zygote at conception) as rule as law without any other consideration. Why should it be THEIR way or the highway?
Because no one on the Hill is capable of compromise any more. Because no one on the Hill will work with the enemy on the opposing party. Because no one on the Hill has any integrity any more. Because they can't get re-elected without party support, and the party demands obedience.
Because people will call them Dino's (or Rino's) if they don't follow their orders. This I'm now seeing even in my state elections.
Because it is well understood that if one does compromise in the middle that evil enemy will be back next year demanding the rest of what they want.
"Does that begin with a zygote?"
Here we all are, a bunch of former zygotes having a conversation about current and future zygotes. I would think having been one at one time people would feel more of a connection to them.
"The fetus can be realistically designated a person once it is able to live independently of the mother's body."
There is an argument to be made that a newborn needs its mother for food, security, bonding and more. It is dependent on its mother. These days there are children dependent on their mother into their 20s.
"Why should it be THEIR way or the highway?"
Why would you ask someone to agree to something they believe is murder?
"The fetus can be realistically designated a person once it is able to live independently of the mother's body."
But a newborn can physically LIVE without the mother's physical body. A slave can live without its masters, as I know of the lame comparison conservatives make between slavery and abortion.
It is only the zygote that simplyceases to exists if the mother does not from her own body function provide the ability for it to do so.
Don't you feel a connection to them being a former zygote yourself?
The majority of abortions, according to the CDC take place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.
Sadly there are conditions (neurologic anomalies, multiple malformations and chromosomal anomalies) that may necessitate abortion later on in a pregnancy. But also very sadly, One-third of late terminations of pregnancy could have been avoided by more efficient screening in the second trimester. Many women are receiving little to no prenatal care whatsoever. In this debate I hear little to nothing about the lack of healthcare and resources that may help reduce the number of abortions in our country.
I also believe it is awfully callous to believe that these later term abortions are women who just decided on a whim at a later date to abort and a doctor had no problem ethically going along. I believe that in more cases than not these are women who planned on delivering a healthy baby yet were met with catastrophic complications.
I'm awfully tired of usually men, vilifying women who seek abortion as some kind of monsters. In this instance especially We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen the name, women who have purchased the crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or baby that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice.
Just to clarify, these cells you speak of are already humans. They were humans at conception. They did not become humans at some later point. As my son likes to say, "It is not as if women give birth to toasters".
Here is the consensus of biologists.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm … iologists,(5212%20out%20of%205502)
Then you would essentially outlaw contraception?
The Left is particularly fond of making assumptions. What is your point? Is this your version of a “gotcha” moment?
You may want to review Ken’s video, by the way. You may learn some things.
If you are that worried about contraception, just know that mother nature has a natural and effective method (which has been used throughout the ages) to prevent pregnancy.
But never fear, abortion and contraceptives are here to stay. Roe vs Wade was a faulty decision. It is only right that the decisions regarding abortion go back to the people of America, rather than advocates like Dr. Bernard Nathanson who lied about the reality of abortion.
No decent person should defend the elimination of minority children for any reason. Morality matters.
There's no gotcha moment in it at all. You're making a point for outlawing contraception. You're making a point for personhood at the moment of fertilization. The rhythm method? And it's percent of efficacy??
The doctors viewpoint is irrelevant to me. He is one of millions of doctors who have an opinion.
And yes I'm sure that the "left" are completely and totally all homogeneously very fond of making assumptions. You know this constant mantra of red and blue and left and right and how there are no in- group differences and that they are all in lock step is ridiculous and really doesn't lead to any meaningful conversation. Stop generalizing and oversimplifying.
That is your wrong assumption, as usual. I am sorry you could not appreciate the scholarly report for what it was without reading some sort of nefarious meaning into my motives.
But that’s on you.
What was the nefarious meaning? No such thing was implied. I guess I'm just completely missing any type of point you're trying to make it all. No problem I'll just sit here in my usual wrongness. I find it really interesting on all of these forums that is soon as people identify others as left/Right, They will interact with them in a specific manner. If you have identified me as a "leftist" you'll be constantly confrontational. Not even trying to understand any point I may have. But on the other side you'll be quite friendly to those on your team regardless of baseless arguments or opinions they may put forward. This is why we never get anywhere in this country. But ultimately, you don't know what I am or what I stand for. Stop assuming. Stop labeling. It makes you look uninformed and shortsighted.
You know a person recently made a point to me about abortionists and serial killers. There are similarities.
A serial killer doesn't think of their victims as human. They are inanimate objects to them. They have no compassion or feeling for their victims. It's similar to an abortionist.
They have to think of an unborn child as a clump of cells or an object. They can show no compassion or feeling toward the unborn child. That is why they find it easy to discard an unborn human child.
Aren't the similarities between the two striking?
Except that serial killers have a mental disorder (DSM-5), "a consistent disregard for rules and social norms and repeated violation of other people’s rights."
Serial killers cannot be rehabilitated but the abortionist can have a change of heart.
A full-time abortionist, knowing full well the fetus is fully human at conception, can compartmentalize, He is motivated by money at $500 (or so) a pop for approximately 10 minutes of work. Planned Parenthood charges $750 and up. They are money-making, machines. It is laughable that they refer to their services as reproductive care.
And anyone who believes that the powerful words of a few (or even one person) can have no impact on the masses must never have picked up a history book, heard about effective lawyers, or read about the Sophists.
But I digress.
You do realize that planned Parenthood offers a lot more than just abortion services?
Faye, don't try to convince them. It is BEYOND hope to do so.
How can an abortionist "know full well the fetus is fully human at conception" when it is not? Just pretend to the point that imagination becomes reality for them? Wouldn't that just be another mental disorder?
From the moment of conception, your baby has the genetic information to become a boy or girl. You need o pick up a textbook on the formation of a human.
Abortion is the act of killing a human or a growing organism that is human from the moment of conception.
Any doctor that is performing abortions is well versed in the science of conception and gestation which is the period of time between conception and birth when a baby grows and develops inside the mother's womb.
There is an argument that your answer would be more accurate as your interpretation of what the Court will say. What the Court will, (most likely), really say is that the Roe Court's reasoning was wrong.
It appears they are saying that the Roe Court was wrong because it used an incorrect extrapolation. Your statement could, (probably, possibly?), be true relative to the result of their decision, but it hasn't been shown that this Court's deliberations involved the constitutional status of abortion in any scope other than that of the Roe Court.
This Court isn't saying abortion is not protected, it is saying it isn't protected the way Roe said it was.
As a note, relative to this comment, it all comes from media and forum presentations. I don't have much depth but I think what I do know is true and covers what I said. Still, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Unfortunately, there are some states that are progressive while there are some that are downright medieval into primitive-need I say more.
They used to leave Slavery, Jim Crow laws up to the States too, Ken. Who would get on board with that? Merely leaving it to the states may well not be good enough.
Well, Mitch McConnell has already signaled a willingness to entertain a federal ban on abortion should Republicans be in the position to do so in the future.
It is things like this that make me believe they all (those long tenured DC corrupt politicians) are in cahoots.
Why else would you take such a agitative position and make it public unless you wanted the 'other side' to be able to use it to rally support and energize the base.
Of course, it does make sense when considering the economy issues we are having, anything to distract from those issues.
And you can bet that the "old crow" could not resist the opportunity. So it has moved from an issue of states rights to an outright control over women's bodies, nationwide.
What can be done?
Thank you. Anyone who stresses state law doesn't have an understanding of history. That is why there is federal law. I am totally aghast at the logic of some people Credence.
Hmm . . . Those look like 'leading' questions Ken. I will channel Cred's* answers for you.
This Court is "suggesting" that the Court of the Roe decision was wrong, abortion is not a constitutional right.
Yes, the Supreme Court is saying that abortion isn't constitutionally protected. I say it is, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck.
Sure, they say they are leaving it up to the states, but look what the states are preparing to do, and those Rightwing Justices knew they would, so yes, they're just using the backdoor to make it illegal.
Our concerns aren't hyperbolic, the Rightwing states are showing our concerns are very real and as serious as heartburn.
*Forgive me Cred, I had time on my hands and that devil on my shoulder. Go ahead and give me a return shot. I deserve it, but, if we can't pick on our buds, who can we pick on?
** If it helps, I remember criticizing 'horseback' a lot, a bunch of years ago, and even Wilderness, once, when Obama was president, (I think). ;-)
I don't see how you come to the conclusion that abortion is protected by the constitution.
It has been, for almost 50 years.
Roe v. Wade, was the legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).
You going to have to wait for Cred on that one. I was just the warm-up act.
Then what is the basis that any activity that might be considered as private be protected by the Constitution?
It is not protected. The Constitution gives humans the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unborn humans are still humans.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was behind Roe vs. Wade. "He admitted that he and other doctors manipulated the media by inflating the number of “back-alley abortions” performed and deaths resulting from them to make them seem far more dangerous than they were in reality to the public eye.
He also said,
“Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally,” he wrote. “In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.”
As for Yellen, it is an abomination that she would suggest that abortions are a way to control the economy. Black women and all minorities deserve better than that. I should know. I am one of them and I raised my son with little money. Today, he is an outstanding young man. My life and this world is so much better because he is in it.
*Forgive me Cred, I had time on my hands and that devil on my shoulder. Go ahead and give me a return shot. I deserve it, but, if we can't pick on our buds, who can we pick on
What is there to forgive, GA? You said it as least as well as did I.
Unwanted pregnancies is always a risk associated with sexual relations. And if I did not know better, but I probably do, the real impetus behind all of this is population control. If you give the zygote rights of a fully developed infant and you know that you could be prosecuted from the moment or even before you know that you have become pregnant, it would put a damper on any sexual relationships, as that risk is constantly over your head. The Rightwinger is both dirty and dastardly and I would not put this past them. A nice way to keep Minority women from procreating, by inhibiting them from "making babies" in the first place.
It is beyond the pale to create these sorts of provisions in the law, they are already after the "morning after" pills. Next it will be IUD and tying women up to prevent their leaving the state for an abortion. It is all spelled out in the article. So, you think that I can believe anything the Right proposes or not acknowledge the rightwing activism of today's Supreme Court?
"A nice way to keep Minority women from procreating, by inhibiting them from "making babies" in the first place."
Or as Yellen said make sure the poor mostly black women can continue to get easy abortions... My God, his words are so racist, and you seem to let that go over your head.
She more or less said we need to consider the economy, and abortion of black babies would help decrease economic problems. by mom being able to continue her education. Nice bandaid.
Hey, she was very much honest about what she feels needs to be done with poor and black women to decrease our Country's economic problems.
This sits poorly with me. Again I feel education is the best solution to most problems, not the simple solution of abortion to make sure these poor and black children do not become a burden on our
economy. Yes, I can see her point, but it's a stark solution.
And I will add -- I am 100% positive if a Republican would had made that statement -- black people would be up arms.
And they would have been very justified in pointing out such a racist statement.
Ok, I am weighing in on this.
I don't think that any abortion is "easy". The choice under the conditions of Roe vs Wade was still theirs to make. Conservatives seem to indicate that Black women are being exploited regarding the choices that they themselves make. It the same old concept that other people know more about your situation than you do when you are the one directly affected.
The structural inequities of this society makes this perfect, ideal nuclear family situation out of reach for many black families.
Education is an adjunct to not legislating draconian law that can only serve to make a bad problem worse.
I am not upset by the statement because abortion and its necessity are often times governed by economic circumstance, nothing new there. But I may not have put that in quite the way she did, however.
This sits poorly with me. Again I feel education is the best solution to most problems
Yes, why are we always scrambling to address issues in this country after the horse is already out of the barn? We are sitting on quite a lot of research and data that could help to shape programs that would reduce the number of abortions in this country, isn't that the goal? Instead of criminalizing why aren't politicians moving toward prevention? Is this not a moment for bipartisanship?
Holy cow. I get it now. You started smoking weed, didn't you?
A motive of population control? You go bro. Power to the people.
*I know, I gotta stop, but you gotta help me. Stop leaving so many open doors to walk through. ;-)
Regressives want women to return to the Dark Ages, pure & simple. To the regressive, a woman's function is to be an incubator.
I'm so confused. Or maybe you misunderstood? I believe the argument was that one of the anti-choose conservatives talking points is that Planned Parentood (and abortion in general) wants/are guilty of Black Genocide.
Fay: Outside the only abortion clinic operating in Mississippi, protesters hand out brochures that refer to abortion as Black “genocide”
Cred: For conservatives to imply genocide against the Black community due to availability of abortion is just another trick.
GA: Still, I think dozens of reasons cause that data, and a conservative desire for Black genocide isn't one of them.
Cred: In a society that would deny assisting school age children with lunches, the ability to control the size of your family and not incur an economic burden everytime one choose a "roll in the hay" is crucial. That is not genocide as the Right likes to refer to Margaret Sanger and involuntary sterilization.
GA: even your agreement that this contraception issue isn't about conservatives pushing the genocide of Blacks.
Wasn't that his point from the beginning?
You're confused, and I was lost.
♫But now I am found. ♫
I did misunderstand the point of "implying" and went off-track criticizing it.
But that criticism wouldn't have been wrong if I had been right. My misunderstanding could be Cred's fault. If he hadn't strung the tripwire of painting all conservatives with the actions of a minority of radicals, (like you, with your "anti-choosers talking points?), then I would have strolled merrily along without falling for his bait.
Yep, like I said. It's Cred's fault.
OK, Now, I take offense, my fault?
Look at the majority GOP state legislatures, there has to be a lot of Rightwingers on board with the draconian policies for such a thing to see the light of the day among so called reasonable people. Looking at Republican policies today, and how so many of you adhere and embrace them, then you all have to be radicals under the skin.
Yep, it's your fault. It has to be somebody's fault and there are only two of us involved, so it must be your fault.
I was wrong once back in '78, so now it's your turn.
But that criticism wouldn't have been wrong if I had been right. My misunderstanding could be Cred's fault.
You can't help it, huh?
I've just read what I wrote. LOL
Conservatives want women to be non-sexual except in marriage, being submissive to the husband & for procreative purposes. Are we going to become quiverfull? Well, that is what the conservatives want-quiverfull women.
Gus, low income women i.e. the underclass, lower, working, & lower middle class women(regardless of race) will be negatively affected by the overturning of Roe vs Wade. Solidly middle class & more affluent women regardless of race won't be thus affected. Credence2's argument is sound.
The abortion issue is my Man of La Mancha. I have been for abortion rights since college. I have got into countless arguments w/my late mother over the issue of abortion. I am staunchly for abortion which I consider healthcare. Why should a girl or woman be punished by having an unwanted pregnancy/unwanted children. That idea is beyond draconian on its premise. "Justice" Alito or rather Henchman Alitio wants women to return to the Dark Ages literally.
The question I have, is why do we care what Yoda... I mean Yellen's opinion is?
Did she have the stats and statistics proving her point? Has history shown it makes s difference on poverty levels?
I think poverty has a lot more to do with corporations, CEOs, Wall Street, politicians ensuring the people get fleeced while the rich get richer, than whether it is legal to have an abortion at 9 months or not.
Women who want an abortion but are denied one are more likely to spend years living in poverty than women who have abortions. Many study's have shown links.
Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term quadrupled the odds that a new mother and her child would live below the federal poverty line, researchers reported in the American Journal of Public Health
Additionally, "We find that being denied an abortion has large and persistent effects on financial distress that are sustained for five years following the intended abortion," wrote the report's authors, Sarah Miller of the University of Michigan, Laura Wheery of the University of California at Los Angeles and Diana Foster of of the University of California at San Francisco.
Economists also have applied these robust statistical tools to study the causal effects of abortion access. Research drawing on methods from the “credibility revolution” disentangles the effects of abortion policy from other societal and economic forces. This research demonstrates that abortion access does, in fact, profoundly affect women’s lives by determining whether, when, and under what circumstances they become mothers, outcomes which then reverberate through their lives, affecting marriage patterns, educational attainment, labor force participation, and earnings.
I won't overburden with more.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/what … ens-lives/
Well, then, should women who carry their child to term and find themselves in a bad economic situation, should they then be permitted to "terminate" their children for economic reasons? If economic reasons are the reason to "terminate" a child, what is the difference between it being a pregnancy or having a child? According to you, children are the cause for a woman's economic distress. In one instance, you can legally take a life, but once they are born, it's against the law.
What's difference does it make?
If economics is the major determining factor, shouldn't that determine if a child lives or dies whether in the womb or outside of it?
No, all I'm saying is that I agree with Janet Yellen's statement that abortion has economic consequences in our country. Research and data supports this as well. What I'm saying is that it would certainly make some sense to focus on prevention. Family planning centers that provide education and contraception have been shown to reduce the rate of abortion that in turn has positive effects on poverty and the economy. I feel it's shortsighted for politicians in this country to be focusing on this issue as if banning abortion is the only option. It's certainly will not stop the procedure and it does absolutely nothing to address prevention. But additionally, If we know the economic impacts that carrying these pregnancies to term will be, then where are the programs to ameliorate difficulties on this end? Maternal healthcare, prenatal care, affordable daycare, universal Pre-K? Banning abortion isn't a solution to anything. Politicians talking about bolstering their foster care system in expectation of the ban is not a solution either. It's yet another Band-Aid. I wish that people could get more riled up about the governments inability to effectively deal with issues with tangible solutions.
You didn't answer the question.
If you can take the life of an unborn child because a mother is in a difficult economic situation, why shouldn't a mother be able to take the life of a born child if they are difficult economic circumstances.
If economic situation is the determining factor for deciding on letting a child live or die, what difference does it make if it is in the womb or born?
According to you the economic situation a woman finds herself should determine if a child lives or dies.
What difference does it make?
Your question gets to the argument of when life begins and is viable. You really see no difference between a child that has been born or a non viable fetus? Also no one said that an economic situation should dictate abortion. The impact was noted on the economy of our country as well as the economic situation of the individual. Recognizing a situation doesn't mean you're automatically promoting it. You're reducing this down to a premise that is entirely over simplistic. Women choose a legal abortion within the time frame stated by law for many reasons.
Your argument sounds like you are advancing the idea of personhood at the moment of fertilization.
"You really see no difference between a child that has been born or a non viable fetus?"
Nope, this, right now is two former zygotes having a discussion.
"The impact was noted on the economy of our country as well as the economic situation of the individual."
And your solution to remedy this economic situation is the death of unborn children...right?
"Women choose a legal abortion within the time frame stated by law for many reasons."
I bet one of them is a desire to not take responsibility for their actions.
"Your argument sounds like you are advancing the idea of personhood at the moment of fertilization."
Yes, said the former one celled person to another.
"And your solution to remedy this economic situation is the death of unborn children...right?"
No. Again I have not said that. You're oversimplifying my view. I understand the issue of abortion to be so much more complex than apparently most do. My solution would be to have programs to address these women and girls where they are in life. Family planning clinics, contraception and counseling. Do you realize that in Mississippi, a state with the second-highest teen pregnancy rate ( 76 pregnancies per 1,000 women ages 15 to 19 ) , teachers are forbidden from demonstrating how to use a condom?
This is an issue that should be between a woman and her doctor not a woman and her state representative. I also do not accept the argument that abortion is solely and merely the result of irresponsibility on the woman's part. Where's the counterpart in this? Like I said before, vasectomies are irreversible. Should we have a national program of vasectomy at 12 for males which can be reversed when they have proven to the state that they are financially and mentally stable to care for a child. How about child support beginning at fertilization? It takes two tango. I'm sorry, all abortions are not sought purely out of irresponsibility.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you are that concerned about abortion you would pressure your representative for programs that are based in research and have shown success to address the issue. Abortion bans will never stop abortion. Also, You would support programs that would help these babies when they are born to have a shot at a normal productive life rather than being surrendered to the foster care system or dropped off at the fire station. Like I said before, you would be all for universal health care, universal daycare and pre-k. It's not pro-life it's whole life.
"How about child support beginning at fertilization? It takes two tango."
I completely agree. Males should be held responsible for any woman's pregnancy. It is up to the women to hold the men responsible. Too many women don't want to bother the father. This is wrong. He should be bothered and required to financially support that child into adulthood. We now have DNA testing, so there is no excuse for men not being made responsible for any female they get pregnant. Unfortunately, this is also a woman's choice.
"You would support programs that would help these babies when they are born to have a shot at a normal productive life rather than being surrendered to the foster care system or dropped off at the fire station."
Yes, it's called making men responsible for their actions. Making them pay for the children they helped create. Also, there are many children who are born and raised in bad families. They don't have a chance at a productive life. Should they be "terminated"?
Do you know about the pro life candidate running for the Senate in PA?
Her name is Kathy Barnnette and she has an incredible story.
"I am the byproduct of a rape," Barnette declared. "My mother was 11 years old when I was conceived. My father was 21. I was not just a lump of cells. As you can see, I'm still not just a lump of cells. My life has value."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kathy- … nia-senate
"you would be all for universal health care, universal daycare and pre-k."
I don't agree with that at all. Unwed mothers get care. There are many federal programs for them and where I live as well as many state programs that provide everything from diapers, school, childcare etc. They get so much care they don't feel they need to have the father of their children in their life. These guys get a free ride because the government takes over their responsibility. I don't think dependence on the government helps anything. It only makes things worse.
I like Kathy Barnette from what I have learned of her thus far.
Mike, Something is off here with our friend above. We have a woman who responds like Twitter bots, day or night, who make false allegations such as, "You're making a point for outlawing contraception" a thoroughly false statement... who then promptly denies having made such an assertion, a person who cannot even define Truth, yet who believes Nina Janowicz is the purveyor of Truth and who further believes Newsweek and Twitter have the all the answers. She or they believe in Yellen's economics, which is clearly ridiculous to anyone who understands even a little bit about economics.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I'm so over it.
Respond directly then. Back up your statements. Why would you speak about me through someone else?? Show some backbone already. You give the impression of thinking you are so informed but Have nothing of substance to really base your claims. You generally respond in ways that are condescending, overly simplistic, full of generalizations and lacking any factual foundation. You are quite off base the way you read into others motives. Have the courage to at least have an honest conversation.
And as far as Kathy Barnette, fingers crossed She wins the primary. From your lips to God's ears.
Again +1000000000000000. Again, women's issues according to conservatives are deemed subversive & must be squashed somehow.
Thank you Faye. This is why I believe in abortion. Nothing reduces a girl or woman to poverty than to have unplanned children or large families.
Because Yellen is RIGHT. I knew this as a young teen. That is why I am staunchly pro-contraceptive & believe in total reproductive freedom which includes abortion. I know that teen pregnancy condemns a person to lifetime poverty-it is worse than being in a concentration camp.
by IslandBites 9 months ago
More than 2 dozen states to restrict abortions after Roe v Wade overturned in Dobbs decisionThirteen states in the country are poised to enact immediate abortion bans and at least 13 more could quickly follow suit after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, leaving abortion rights up...
by Sharlee 10 months ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
by American View 9 years ago
The President of the United States Asks God to Bless an Abortion FactoryOBAMA: Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It's not going anywhere today. It's not going anywhere tomorrow. (applause) As long as we've got a fight to make sure women have access to quality...
by Credence2 12 months ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … eme-court/Here is another link in case you have paywall issues with WP.https://news.stlpublicradio.org/health- … t-of-stateIt was bad enough in Texas where the law allowed civil suits against those that provide assistance to women seeking...
by Scott Belford 6 months ago
If the leaked Supreme Court Decision on Roe v Wade becomes reality, then it won't be a Woman's Right to Choose and control her own body that goes by the way-side in Conservative States - it is any previous ruling that is based on the Right to Privacy which will vanish as well.That is what these...
by AnnCee 12 years ago
The House will vote, perhaps today, on Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to the Continuing Resolution which would zero out taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood last year received $363 million in money yanked out of the wallets of Americans, many if not most of them pro-life, and...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|