Teledoc and mail-order pharmaceuticals.Dees83ag said:
I read this will lead to only a 13% reduction in abortions annually. I understand the abortion pill can be mailed to any address even if the address is in a state that restricts/bans abortions.
oldyeller said:It's easy for middle class and affluent women to cross state lines, quite another for those without much free income and far from a state where abortion is legal to do the same. An impoverished woman in rural Georgia, Mississippi, or Alabama might have been able to secure a ride to a large city in her state to secure an abortion before this decision, quite another to be able to travel several states away to gain access to the procedure. This decision is likely to have a disproportionate impact on poor women, particularly in the South, and hence concerns about impact to entitlement programs seems a valid concern. The WIC program in states where abortion is/will be illegal are going to face additional strains.Underdog91 said:
Actual abortions will only reduce maybe 10% max. It's too easy to cross a state line to achieve it so there will be minimal impact OP is worried about.
RockTXAggie said:Eso si, Que es said:
Maybe people decide to be responsible and 200,000 of those babies are never born because they practice safe sex. As a reward for taking responsibility for their lives they change their ways and become an actual productive member of society, living for a greater good rather than instant gratification.
Maybe 200,000 of the remaining parent realize the gift from God that these babies are and they decide to do any and everything for these babies, knowing they are solely responsible for their health and well-being, they become productive members of society, living for a greater good rather than instant gratification.
Maybe 100,000 of the remaining babies are adopted and go on to lead extremely happy and productive lives, like my wife who was born just before RvW. She probably would have been aborted 6 months later, but instead she was adopted and became the mother of my children. She makes society better with all of her selfless actions.
Hypothetically, what if we had a society that believed in delayed gratification, and did not think they were owed anything? What if people realized that their lives were a reflection of years of decision making? Maybe people would be happier and more fulfilled if they had to work for everything they owned, and lived to raise the next generation of Americans. Could you imagine a world where everyone was happy, and fulfilled, and working hard to raise the best children possible? It's easy if you try.
Let's be honest here. Do you REALLY think that impoverished kids growing up in single parent households largely raising themselves are all the sudden going to make responsible life choices?
No, they won't. You know it, and I know it. That goes for kids of all races. Poor people are poor for a reason 99% of the time. It's because they make poor decision after poor decision for generations.
Most oh the companies jumping on that bandwagon are also companies that don't have stores in rural areas. I agree that actual decrease in physician supervised abortions may be minimal, but still maintain that the burden to access will primarily fall to those who are also most likely to already be on some form of public aid, or very near to qualifying for it, and as such those programs will face additional burdens. Non-profits may be willing to help, but I suspect most of that aid will still be concentrated in the cities so the rural poor will have to first make it to the city to access the non-profit who from there can assist them getting to an abortion friendly state. It's simply another hurdle for them that may make it less likely they will choose to terminate, leading to them needing more public aid as a result of more mouths to feed. How this plays out in the rural South and Appalachia will be telling.Clown Baby said:oldyeller said:It's easy for middle class and affluent women to cross state lines, quite another for those without much free income and far from a state where abortion is legal to do the same. An impoverished woman in rural Georgia, Mississippi, or Alabama might have been able to secure a ride to a large city in her state to secure an abortion before this decision, quite another to be able to travel several states away to gain access to the procedure. This decision is likely to have a disproportionate impact on poor women, particularly in the South, and hence concerns about impact to entitlement programs seems a valid concern. The WIC program in states where abortion is/will be illegal are going to face additional strains.Underdog91 said:
Actual abortions will only reduce maybe 10% max. It's too easy to cross a state line to achieve it so there will be minimal impact OP is worried about.
Seemingly every major corporation has come out and said they will pay for it and I guarantee you there are dozens of "non-profits" right behind them.
This doesn't even start to take into account the NUMEROUS D.A.'s in major cities located within red states that have already come out and said they won't prosecute regardless of what the law says.
I'm sorry, the idea that overturning Roe vs Wade is going to meaningfully reduce abortion in practicality is fanciful. Do you apply the same logic to guns? Hypothetically, if the Surpreme Court were to outlaw everything beyond a glock pistol tomorrow, do you think that would have any significant impact on gun ownership in those categories in reality? Of course you don't.
But we want parents to fight for their kids. That's apart of the whole 'take responsibility' bit. But simply put there are millions of parents out there who are unequipped to handle a baby/child. Its hard enough when you have a job, money, safety nets, time, family support, and are not addicted to drugs. The issue is that our courts and government dictate and determine if you are qualified to be a parent. And once you're within the system, the children are used as pawns and leverage by parents, government bureaucrats, and the courts.Quote:
People often confuse the foster care problems with adopting newborns. These are VERY different situations.
Ultimately what foster families are doing is fostering kids mostly being taken away from their families, many of which, will fight to take back custody of their child, grandchild, niece, or nephew.
tysker said:Poverty is good thing for women? Teaches them to be tough right?AggieKatie2 said:
So again....OPs premise is death is preferable to the potential for poverty.
