Roe v. Wade.

[Matata]

It’s a sad time to be a woman in this country.

True. But it's a great time to be an angry woman with the power to vote.

 

[Lookinagain]

I just read the syllabus of the decision (not all 38 pages, but will). Maybe I'm being naive or too optimistic, but it seems that if logic follows, someone who actually has been harmed by the FDA decisions would have to file suit. And wouldn't that open the door to challenges to all sorts of drugs approved by the FDA? I assume all, including the one at issue, have warnings about side effects, etc. and that doesn't mean they can't be marketed, even though some may be harmed by taking them. Following what happens next will be interesting, mainly to see what tactic they come up with next......

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Infant mortality has risen 23% in Texas in the last two years.
It has decreased 3% nationally in that time.

More infants have died in Texas after the implementation of the 6 week Heartbeat Bill than before.

More babies died after Dobbs overturned Roe https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-anti-abortion-heartbeat-law-150049517.html The findings in JAMA Pediatrics show that infant deaths rose after Texas’ Senate Bill 8, which banned all abortion after about six...

www.dailykos.com

 

[Lookinagain]

Infant mortality has risen 23% in Texas in the last two years.
It has decreased 3% nationally in that time.

More infants have died in Texas after the implementation of the 6 week Heartbeat Bill than before.

More babies died after Dobbs overturned Roe https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-anti-abortion-heartbeat-law-150049517.html The findings in JAMA Pediatrics show that infant deaths rose after Texas’ Senate Bill 8, which banned all abortion after about six...

www.dailykos.com

I would think some of the abnormalities were discovered well before birth and known to mean the baby wouldn't survive long. But they were given a "chance at life"! Really?

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I would think some of the abnormalities were discovered well before birth and known to mean the baby wouldn't survive long. But they were given a "chance at life"! Really?

Yes. They were given the chance to suffer.

 

[Matata]

I would think some of the abnormalities were discovered well before birth and known to mean the baby wouldn't survive long. But they were given a "chance at life"! Really?

Yes. They were given the chance to suffer.

The actual birth of a child destined to die within its first year is more important than the suffering of the child and its parents. I'll never understand it. To add to the anguish, there is no consideration given to the financial toll caring for a child destined to shortly die has on families with and without insurance. In 2022, according to US Census, there were 4.9 million Texans without health insurance.

 

[Lookinagain]

In 2022, according to US Census, there were 4.9 million Texans without health insurance.

That must be one of the highest number of uninsured in the country. With some of the strictest abortion laws......

 

[Matata]

That must be one of the highest number of uninsured in the country. With some of the strictest abortion laws......

It is @16% uninsured when the other states average 12%.

 

[Lookinagain]

It is @16% uninsured when the other states average 12%.

my state isn't perfect by any means, but our uninsured rate is about 2% and our laws are very protective of women's (and others) rights. It's something to be thankful for.

 

[missy]

Justices seem set to allow emergency abortions in Idaho for now, a prematurely posted opinion says

The Supreme Court appears poised to allow emergency abortions in Idaho when a pregnant patient’s health is at serious risk, as a legal case plays out.

apnews.com

"
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appears poised to allow emergency abortions in Idaho when a pregnant patient’s health is at serious risk, according to a copy of the opinion briefly posted on the court’s website Wednesday and obtained by Bloomberg News.

The document suggests the court will find that it should not have gotten involved in the case over Idaho’s strict abortion ban so quickly. By a 6-3 vote it would reinstate a lower court order that had allowed hospitals in the state to perform emergency abortions to protect a pregnant patient’s health.

Such an outcome would leave the issues at the heart of the case unresolved. It would also mean key questions remain unanswered, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a concurrence.

“Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay,” she wrote.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that its publications unit inadvertently posted a document Wednesday. An opinion in the Idaho case would be issued “in due course,” court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement.


Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are listed as dissenting from the decision.



7 in 10 Americans think Supreme Court justices put ideology over impartiality: AP-NORC poll




The finding may not be the court’s final ruling because the justices’ decision has not been officially released. The decision would mean the case would continue at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, and could end up back before the justices.



The Supreme Court may be reluctant to make an abortion-related decision on the merits – rather than procedural grounds – in an election year, said Greer Donley, a reproductive law scholar and professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 7 in 10 U.S. adults favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies.


The decision would reverse the Supreme Court’s earlier order that allowed an Idaho abortion ban to temporarily go into effect, even in medical emergencies. Several women have since needed medical airlifts out of state in cases in which abortion is routine treatment to avoid infection, hemorrhage and other dire health risks, Idaho doctors have said.

The nation’s top health official, Xavier Becerra, held a scheduled meeting with Idaho doctors and patients to discuss the state’s strict abortion ban in Boise Wednesday. Sarah Thompson, an Idaho OB/GYN, said that if a woman’s water breaks early in pregnancy, when the fetus has no chance of survival, she is unable to treat the patient by delivering the baby early.

“While there’s nothing we can do to save her baby, there is something we can do to preserve her health and her future fertility,” Thompson said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that it hoped the court “listened to the scientific evidence and medical experts and will ultimately affirm the availability of emergency abortion care for people in every state,” said general counsel Molly Meegan.


The case started when the Biden administration sued Idaho, arguing that its abortion ban conflicted with federal healthcare law because doctors wouldn’t be allowed to provide abortions to stabilize pregnant patients in rare emergency cases when their health is at serious risk.

Idaho argued its ban does allow abortions to save a pregnant patient’s life and that federal law does not require the exceptions to expand. The state attorney general’s office declined to comment Wednesday.

Katie Daniel, the state policy director of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said an Idaho state court had ruled that women’s lives don’t need to be in immediate danger to act.

Most Republican-controlled states began enforcing restrictions after the justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, and Idaho is among 14 states that outlaw abortion at all stages of pregnancy with very limited exceptions.

The case is likely to return to the Supreme Court again, said Rachel Rebouche, dean of the Temple University Beasley School of Law and a reproductive law scholar. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a similar case that the federal law does not take precedence over an abortion ban in Texas.


So while the Supreme Court’s ruling would allow abortion in medical emergencies in Idaho, at least for now, Rebouche said, “Nearly 38 million people live in the 5th Circuit. That’s a lot of people whose lives aren’t changed at all by this.”

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that a decision without explicit guarantees that patients could get abortions in medical emergencies would be “catastrophic.”

Reports of pregnant women being turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked after the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning the constitutional right to abortion, according to federal documents obtained by The Associated Press.


If the high court were to rule in Idaho’s favor, it would create a “world in which women would have to lose their reproductive organs,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University health law and policy professor who is an expert on the federal EMTALA law.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit came under a federal law that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide stabilizing care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay. The law is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA.

Nearly all hospitals accept Medicare, so emergency room doctors in Idaho and other states with bans would have to provide abortions if needed to stabilize a pregnant patient and avoid serious health risks such as the loss of reproductive organs, the Justice Department argued.

Idaho argued that its exception for a patient’s life covers dire health circumstances and that the Biden administration misread the law to circumvent the state ban and expand abortion access.

Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, said his group was glad the Justice Department says its arguments apply to rare cases.

Doctors have said Idaho’s law has made them fearful to perform abortions, even when a pregnancy is putting a patient’s health severely at risk. The law requires anyone who is convicted of performing an abortion to be imprisoned for at least two years.

A federal judge initially sided with the Democratic administration and ruled that abortions were legal in medical emergencies. After the state appealed, the Supreme Court allowed the law to go fully into effect in January.

___​

Associated Press writers Amanda Seitz and Linley Sanders in Washington, Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Devi Shastri in Milwaukee and Hallie Golden in Seattle contributed to this report.



"

 

[ShinyPink]

I am SO unbelievably pissed and sickened today! There's going to be no stopping "them" now from coming after women even more. Vote, vote, vote!!!!!

Sorry, but this is the only thread I felt safe posting in, as the decision impacts us in the end.

 

[OboeGal]

From the article Missy posted:

"A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 7 in 10 U.S. adults favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies."

7 in 10....only 7 in 10.....!!

Who in h*ll are the other 30% that believe a woman should die instead of get the rotting remains of a dead fetus removed from her?! WHO ARE THESE "PEOPLE"?!

 

[Matata]

Arkansas abortion rights groups collect enough signatures to advance ballot measure​

"A proposed amendment to enshrine access to abortion care in the Arkansas state constitution got one step closer to appearing on the November 2024 ballot, after the group behind it submitted the required number of valid signatures on Friday.
Arkansans for Limited Government, the group leading the ballot effort, said it had collected the signatures of more than 100,000 registered voters — more than the approximately 90,700 it needed to submit before a July 5 deadline to move forward with the process of getting their proposal on the ballot.

The group — which, unlike the coalitions fighting for similar measures in other states, does not include any support or backing from major national abortion rights groups, such as Planned Parenthood — said it had also fulfilled a requirement under state law that the total include the signatures of registered voters from at least 50 of the state’s 75 counties.

The announcement means that Arkansas is now the final of the nine states where organizers seeking to enshrine abortion rights in state constitutions in November have formally submitted the required number of signatures to advance the process. (In another two, New York and Maryland, lawmakers control the amendment placement process)."

Arkansas abortion rights groups collect enough signatures to advance ballot measure

A measure to enshrine abortion rights in the ruby red state’s constitution is now one step closer to making the November ballot — but major obstacles remain.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[missy]

"

The Supreme Court Did Not Deliver 'Wins' for Reproductive Rights This Term​

— They simply evaded critical questions about access​

by Sheela Ranganathan, JD, Sarah Wetter, JD, MPH, and Lawrence O. Gostin, JD July 17, 2024

Ranganathan, Wetter, and Gostin are experts in health law and policy.
Last month, the Supreme Court returned to the politically charged issue of abortion for the first time since overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022. At first blush, its rulings appear to preserve some access to abortion. But a more clear-eyed assessment tells a very different story of a conservative super-majority on a path to further threaten reproductive freedoms.
In the first case, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicineopens in a new tab or window, the court ruled that anti-abortion organizations and doctors did not have standing to challenge FDA approval of mifepristone, a medication used in 63% of all U.S. abortionsopens in a new tab or window in 2023. In the second case, Moyle v. United Statesopens in a new tab or window, the court issued a unanimous opinion stating it had "improvidently" agreed to take the case, dismissing a case that could have severely limited emergency healthcare for pregnant individuals in the state of Idaho. Neither case settled the crucial issue of healthcare access presented by medication abortions and emergency medical care.

Much of the media badly misreported these cases as "wins" for reproductive rights. They were decidedly not. Patients and providers will continue to be threatened by harsh legal penalties for dispensing abortion medication and treating pregnant individuals in emergency care. Both issues may well come back to the Supreme court in the near future, and a conservative supermajority remains openly hostile to reproductive rights. And if former President Donald Trump is reelected, the threats to abortion may come fast and furious.
A Closer Look at the 2024 Abortion Rulings
In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Supreme Court unanimously heldopens in a new tab or window that while the anti-abortion doctors and associations had "legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections" to mifepristone, they lacked a personal stake in the dispute, given that they neither used nor prescribed the drug, and thus lacked standing to bring the case.
Notably, the opinion did not touch on whether the Comstock Act of 1873 -- which broadly prohibits sending obscene or abortion-related materials through the U.S. Postal Service -- prohibits the mailing of medication abortion drugs. Justice Department guidanceopens in a new tab or window states that the Comstock Act does not apply to abortion medications because they have legal uses in all states -- for example, mifepristone could be used to manage a miscarriage or for an abortion before 6 weeks of gestation. But a new administration or future Supreme Court opinion could take a very different view, threatening nationwide access.

The opinion did provide a blueprint for how other plaintiffs can bring challenges in federal court, leaving the door open to future challenges to mifepristone. Additionally, the opinion broadened the scope of federal conscience laws, holding that physicians could refuse to provide the full range of reproductive care. Moreover, though the court's holding preserves access to medication abortion for now, three states (Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri) that intervened in the litigation have pledged to proceedopens in a new tab or window with the lawsuit -- and such litigation would continue before the same district court judge that granted a nationwide stay of FDA's initial approval of the drug.
Weeks later, the court dismissedopens in a new tab or window Moyle v. United States on procedural grounds as "improvidently granted," meaning that the court should not have taken the case in the first place. The court refused to clarify whether hospitals nationwide had to follow the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires "stabilizing" care in medical emergencies. Under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, federal law supersedes state law. In this case, it should have been an easy decision to require hospitals to provide emergency services to pregnant patients as required by EMTALA.

In dismissing the case, the court acknowledged that it interfered too quickly by keeping Idaho's restrictive abortion law in place while the case was being heard -- according to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, it was a "months-long catastrophe" that was "completely unnecessary." As a result of the dismissal, patients in Idaho may now access abortion care in emergency departments if necessary to preserve their health while the case proceeds in the lower courts. But the court shed no light on whether other states with restrictive abortion bans must comply with this interpretation of EMTALA. Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit's rulingopens in a new tab or window that Texas's abortion restrictions supersede EMTALA is still pending review from the Supreme Court, and Texas continues to restrict emergency abortion care.
Such variation in state law and lack of guidance from the court have posed continued confusion for physicians and devastating barriers to care for pregnant patients.

Ongoing Attacks on Reproductive Health and Rights
Though the court evaded critical questions about access to abortion care this term, the fallout from Dobbs continues to manifest in a slew of follow-up legal questions in lower courts. For example, groups of abortion rights advocates have challenged Idahoopens in a new tab or window and Alabama lawsopens in a new tab or window that criminalize assisting individuals who seek abortions outside the state.
Additionally, a group of professorsopens in a new tab or window has challenged an Idaho law that criminalizes public employees for speaking freely about abortion. And a physician in Idaho has filed a complaintopens in a new tab or window to establish a constitutional right to "medically indicated care," including abortions when appropriate. In Texas, the state attorney general and two professors have challenged Title IX rulesopens in a new tab or window that prohibit sex discrimination in education, arguing that they plan to penalize any student who is absent because they are obtaining an abortion. Meanwhile, constitutional challengesopens in a new tab or window to state legislation abound from both sidesopens in a new tab or window.

There is no shortage of legislative efforts to fill in the gaps. Some statesopens in a new tab or window are moving to legalize abortion via ballot measures in upcoming elections. Many blue states have enacted telemedicine abortion shield laws to protect pharmacists and physicians as well as telehealth data. On the other hand, in recent months, Louisiana and other states have passed lawsopens in a new tab or window to reclassify abortion pills as controlled dangerous substances. And these laws are being litigated too -- for example, in North Carolina, a district judge recently struck downopens in a new tab or window burdensome restrictions on accessing mifepristone.
What Comes Next
Though the Supreme Court punted on critical abortion questions, it took big swings in overturning the Chevron doctrineopens in a new tab or window, making it easier for agency rules -- including those that impact reproductive health -- to be whittled away via litigation.
Though the court has yet to take up any abortion cases for the upcoming term, it has agreed to hearopens in a new tab or window a case about Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. This case could touch on sex-based discrimination and whether minors can access medical services, including reproductive care, without parental consent. And given the many abortion issues being challenged in the lower courts, a number of these could make their way to the Supreme Court's docket.

Importantly, the upcoming term will be accompanied by a grueling presidential electionopens in a new tab or window -- a factor that may have guided the court's decision to shrink away from making substantive abortion decisions. In a second Trump administration, anti-abortion advocates may be less inclined to sue the government on issues like preemption and agency decision-making authority. On the other hand, in a second Biden administration, litigation would likely continue at full force, pushing the right-wing justices to provide clarity on these issues. Either way, the upcoming months are likely to bring turbulent changes to the public health landscape, particularly for pregnant people and their healthcare providers.
In America today, the rights and freedoms of pregnant individuals, women, and all of us are in serious jeopardy.
Sheela Ranganathan, JD,opens in a new tab or window is an associate with the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O'Neill Institute at Georgetown University in Washington. Sarah Wetter, JD, MPH,opens in a new tab or window is a senior associate with the O'Neill Institute. Lawrence O. Gostin, JD,opens in a new tab or window is Distinguished University Professor, Georgetown University's highest academic rank, where he directs the O'Neill Institute. He is also director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National & Global Health Law.

"

 

[ShinyPink]

I can't properly express my anxiety and feelings of hopelessness right now. Why aren't women's health and reproductive rights bigger issues? How can people not understand or care about what's at stake?

 

[Matata]

I can't properly express my anxiety and feelings of hopelessness right now. Why aren't women's health and reproductive rights bigger issues? How can people not understand or care about what's at stake?

Too many people without uteri in positions of authority.

 

[RMOO]

Too many people without uteri in positions of authority.

They lack both uteri and compassion.

 

[OboeGal]

I can't properly express my anxiety and feelings of hopelessness right now. Why aren't women's health and reproductive rights bigger issues? How can people not understand or care about what's at stake?

Like @Matata said - for many, they don't have the uteri to care at best, and at worst, at least for some, they are invested in seeing women back to being hampered in the ability to get an advanced education, build a successful career, or become financially independent due to the burden of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. They very much want us trapped and dependent in relationships that don't serve us, as well as reduced as a source of academic or professional competition for them. And far too many who DO have uteri have been ingrained with powerful messages to conform to that worldview and turn on their fellow uteri-owners to "appease their masters" and hopefully receive somewhat better treatment. These ladies don't think the leopards will eat THEIR faces.

For the overwhelming majority of human history, we lived in hunter/gatherer tribes that generally exhibited a reasonably fair balance of both power and labor between the sexes, give or take a bit. Individual property ownership wasn't a "thing" - objects were to be used by the tribe for the well-being of the tribe. Without a focus on property, no one really cared much about patrilineage - kids were just born, and it was the responsibility of the whole tribe to care for them.

It was only in the very most recent years of human existence that we started to live in settlements, and individuals began to accumulate and own property. They pretty quickly figured out that more property and resources owned = more power and social status, leading to yet MORE resources for them and theirs. Males then used their physical strength, size, and speed to essentially make women into captive property, to be used as they pleased to perform labor, be a captive source of sex that didn't require any effort expended to "woo," and produce offspring to be "owned," put to work, and claimed for purposes of inheritance of property and "legacy." That was the origins of marriage and the "traditional nuclear family;" an artificial construct existing to enslave women and children for purposes of gain in power, wealth, and status for males. To make it easier to do that without triggering too much sense of shame or empathy among some of the men or resistance from the women, the narrative, particularly from religious leaders, became that women are inherently "inferior" to men - not really fully human in comparison. That extends to any fertilized egg in her womb that has even the potential to become a male child - even the potential to be male is inherently more worthy than any aspect of the well-being or desires of a fully sentient woman, and is not to be interfered with. To them, to do so is as heinous as some "lesser" creature, such as a dog or lion or shark or bear, ending the life of a human, especially a human male - a crime against the natural order, worthy of the offending creature being "put down."

It's essentially only been in a blink of an eye in terms of history that women have had the chance to be independent, to have some control over their bodies and the reproductive outcomes that determine their lives' outcomes, to have some (but not yet enough) say in how society really runs, and to truly compete with men in the world. While there are certainly men who don't have a problem with that, or even welcome it, it would be foolish to think that there aren't a WHOLE LOT of men that are unwilling to let that happen without the fight of our lives, and are extremely busy on social media radicalizing other men to feel exactly the same way.

 

[Lookinagain]

Everything you say strikes a chord, but this

and to truly compete with men in the world.

really hit home for me. When I was in law school (back in the late 70's) I actually had someone ask me "why are you taking a man's place?". I could give many examples of these types of things but will stop other than to say what is going on today breaks my heart but also angers me beyond words.

 

[OboeGal]

Everything you say strikes a chord, but this



really hit home for me. When I was in law school (back in the late 70's) I actually had someone ask me "why are you taking a man's place?". I could give many examples of these types of things but will stop other than to say what is going on today breaks my heart but also angers me beyond words.

I heard almost the exact same words from my own father as a preteen girl at the dinner table. "Why should you and other girls take up seats in classrooms? Men need those." My mother said not a word in the moment, as was typical, but took me aside later to tell me that a woman had been hired for a job he had been in the running for, and that had stuck in his "craw" ever since. In retrospect, she didn't say to me everything she should have, and certainly not what I would have said to my own daughter in that situation, but she was at least in her own way trying to tell me to not take his comments to heart.

(They met when he was working on his masters and doctorate degrees, and she was the administrative assistant to the chair of the department in his study area. She LOVED that job, and it was a tremendous source of pride and sense of accomplishment for her - something particularly special and important for her, as she suffered from devastating lack of self-esteem and confidence in every other setting due to her abusive, dysfunctional childhood. Of course upon marriage, he made her quit the job, as it would reflect "poorly" on him as a man and provider, especially in a professional field, if his wife worked. It was years before they had my brother, so she was just supposed to putter around, tending to the house, every moment of every day of her life until then, as a woman with a college degree who was quite intelligent and well-read, and thought quite deeply about things. She absolutely HATED housework and cooking, and didn't have a domestic bone in her body; she was miserable, and by the time my brother and I were old enough for her to perhaps work part-time again many years later, she had lost any sense of confidence that she could get hired or hold down a job. She also suffered horribly financially in her final years in a way that she wouldn't have if she had worked at least some of those years.)

A few years later when I was in high school, I had been following in my older brother's footsteps and taking advanced college-prep math and science classes. I was on a path that would have me taking calculus by my senior year, but to do that, I had to take BOTH geometry and algebra II my sophomore year, which the school required a signed permission slip to do. I brought the slip home for the signature, and my father refused to sign it, saying that I needed to take home ec, not math. The whole family was in the room at the time. My brother, by then 18, stared at him utterly gobsmacked, and then proceeded to say that that was the dumbest thing he'd ever heard, and that it would be horrible to deny me the opportunity to do that level of academic work when I'd proven that I was capable of it. The two of them proceeded to get in an animated argument, while my mother continued to do a puzzle on the couch in silence, as usual, and I left the room in frustration. The next day, she pulled me aside and asked to see the slip. She then signed it, said softly to not say a word to my father about it, and sent me on my way. I did end up taking and passing calculus my senior year!

ETA: This all took place in around the same era as your experience. My parents married in the mid 50s, we were born in the early to mid 60s, and these encounters with my father took place in the late 70s to early 80s.

 

[Lookinagain]

Thanks for sharing that. I think those of us who have been through those times are especially sensitive to what is going on now, and what my come. I will add to my story, that although my father didn't want my mother to work (but she took a part-time job anyway and didn't tell him since he was gone during the day) that he did tell me to make sure I could always take care of myself and never to rely on a man to do it. He was adamant about me getting my education. So I'm grateful for that.

 

[OboeGal]

I think you're right about how our generation of women are being hit especially hard by this.

I'm so glad your father ultimately did right by you in his guidance!

 

[ShinyPink]

AP- More women are ending pregnancies on their own, a new study suggests. Some resort to unsafe methods​

BY LAURA UNGAR
Updated 2:05 PM PDT, July 30, 2024

A growing number of women said they’ve tried to end their pregnancies on their own by doing things like taking herbs, drinking alcohol or even hitting themselves in the belly, a new study suggests.

Researchers surveyed reproductive-age women in the U.S. before and after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. The proportion who reported trying to end pregnancies by themselves rose from 2.4% to 3.3%.

“A lot of people are taking things into their own hands,” said Dr. Grace Ferguson, a Pittsburgh OB-GYN and abortion provider who wasn’t involved in the research, which was published Tuesday in the journal JAMA Network Open.

Study authors acknowledged that the increase is small. But the data suggests that it could number in the hundreds of thousands of women.

Researchers surveyed about 7,000 women six months before the Supreme Court decision, and then another group of 7,100 a year after the decision. They asked whether participants had ever taken or done something on their own to end a pregnancy. Those who said yes were asked follow-up questions about their experiences.

“Our data show that making abortion more difficult to access is not going to mean that people want or need an abortion less frequently,” said Lauren Ralph, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and one of the study’s authors.

Women gave various reasons for handling their own abortions, such as wanting an extra measure of privacy, being concerned about the cost of clinic procedures and preferring to try to end their pregnancies by themselves first.

They reported using a range of methods. Some took medications — including emergency contraception and the abortion pills misoprostol and mifepristone obtained outside the medical system and without a prescription. Others drank alcohol or used drugs. Some resorted to potentially harmful physical methods such as hitting themselves in the abdomen, lifting heavy things or inserting objects into their bodies.

Some respondents said they suffered complications like bleeding and pain and had to seek medical care afterward. Some said they later had an abortion at a clinic. Some said their pregnancies ended after their attempts or from a later miscarriage, while others said they wound up continuing their pregnancies when the method didn’t work.

Ralph pointed to some caveats and limits to the research. Respondents may be under-reporting their abortions, she said, because researchers are asking them about “a sensitive and potentially criminalized behavior.”

She also cautioned that some women may have understood the question differently after the Dobbs decision, such as believing that getting medication abortion through telehealth is outside the formal health care system when it’s not. But Ralph said she and her colleagues tested how people were interpreting the question before each survey was conducted.

The bottom line, Ferguson said, is that the study’s findings “confirm the statement we’ve been saying forever: If you make it hard to get (an abortion) in a formal setting, people will just do it informally.”

The research was funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and a third foundation that was listed as anonymous.

 

[Matata]

An example of doctors choosing malpractice to avoid lawsuits, loss of licenses, and perhaps jail rather than providing necessary care. Those who claimed that women wouldn't die due to the fall of Roe v Wade were wrong.

Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.

At least two women in Georgia died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state, ProPublica has found. This is one of their stories.

www.propublica.org

 

[Calliecake]

Thank you for posting this @Matata. This woman lost her life and her family lost their loved one due to a group of people who refuse to mind their own business. We all knew women were going to lose their lives when these abortion restrictions were put in place. My guess is the number is probably higher. It’s heartbreaking.

The same people who claimed women would not die due to these abortion bans are the same people who claimed there were very few pregnancies due to rape. As of January 2024 there are been over 64,000 pregnancies due to rape since these abortion bans have been put in place. Considering the number of women who report rape this number is probably higher.

Abortion is part of women’s healthcare and these decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor. ALL women should have body autonomy. It’s no secret that a national ban on abortion is a goal.

 

[ShinyPink]

I actually had to explain to a friend that an abortion at 9 months/birth is not a thing! The "execution at birth" rhetoric is insane, yet for some reason there is a segment of the population that believes it. This leaves women having to defend ourselves against baseless accusations. It's all to push a national ban based on lies.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I'm not sure if this has been seen or discussed but I find it important.
This poor terrified young woman and the trauma they added to an already horrible nightmare.
This is the outcome. This is what they want.

South Carolina woman accused of murder after losing her pregnancy

ORANGEBURG, S.C. — Amari Marsh had just finished her junior year at South Carolina State University in May 2023 when she received a text message from a law enforcement officer. “Sorry it has taken this long for paperwork to come back,” the officer wrote. “But I finally have the final report, and...

www.rawstory.com

 

[Matata]

I'm not sure if this has been seen or discussed but I find it important.
This poor terrified young woman and the trauma they added to an already horrible nightmare.
This is the outcome. This is what they want.

I read this a few hours ago on cnn and I'm still trying to process it. The story does not feel complete to me. My initial reaction was frustration with Marsh. Her naivete or being dumb as a rock is stunning. Took only one pregnancy test, no prenatal care, left a hospital twice, didn't know she had a chlamydia infection, neither she nor her boyfriend who was present when she miscarried thought about taking the baby out of the toilet in spite of the dispatcher's instructions. Her reason for all of her inaction throughout the whole mess is that she was scared. I'm having a difficult time with that and I'm uncertain that this has anything to do with Roe v Wade but, rather, it has more to do with a girl who was so inexperienced that she had no idea how to have control over her life.

Incident report: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25165537-23-2586

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I read this a few hours ago on cnn and I'm still trying to process it. The story does not feel complete to me. My initial reaction was frustration with Marsh. Her naivete or being dumb as a rock is stunning. Took only one pregnancy test, no prenatal care, left a hospital twice, didn't know she had a chlamydia infection, neither she nor her boyfriend who was present when she miscarried thought about taking the baby out of the toilet in spite of the dispatcher's instructions. Her reason for all of her inaction throughout the whole mess is that she was scared. I'm having a difficult time with that and I'm uncertain that this has anything to do with Roe v Wade but, rather, it has more to do with a girl who was so inexperienced that she had no idea how to have control over her life.

Incident report: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25165537-23-2586

I partially agree, but it falls under the umbrella for me of keeping girls so ignorant they don't understand their own bodies or processes and punishing them for the ignorance. You get things like this.

 

[Calliecake]

Louisiana has reclassified two abortion drugs (mifepristone and misoprostol) officially controlled and dangerous substances and criminalizes those in possession without a prescription, up to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine. The new law mischaracterizes these drugs to be addictive. Critics fear it could be used as a model for other states.

How many more women are going to die?