I keep dwelling in this article and it is making me want to throw things.
There is so much awful stuff here, but the part about RU-486 is really making me wild. Five states have passed laws requiring doctors who administer it to use a dosage that medical evidence has proven to have greater side effects and be less effective.
Let that sink in. I am really angry about all the stuff here. But we actually have a law on the book that is requiring doctors give women a dangerous, harmful dosage when they could proscribe a dosage that is not only more safe, but also more effective.
If that's not bad enough, one thing the article does not say is that often, surgical abortions can't even be performed until 6-7 weeks into the pregnancy, so RU-486 is the only option for people wanting an abortion at 4-5 weeks. So it's not like women who want a very early abortion just have other choices. They have to live with the fetus in their body for additional weeks, perhaps further jeopardizing their physical and mental health, to avoid taking a dangerous dosage of a drug that could be administered in a safe way.
I keep thinking about this, and it's making me physically ill. If you support a law that requires doctors to give women an unsafe dosage of a drug when a safe and more effective option is available, you are a misogynistic monster.
I'm back to reading and I'm horrified. But yay life!
Post by gibbinator on Sept 9, 2015 17:58:29 GMT -5
That's amazing. I never really thought much into legal restrictions in the guise of safe procedures. It's true that as a society we lump abortions in with surgical procedures when the description in the article of first tri abortion is closer to an office procedure like an IUD insertion.
I volunteered at one of the clinic regions mentioned. And, yes, I saw people from multiple states away who drove a minimum of 8 hours. To be there at 7am on the one day a week the service was offered. Now that state has a wait period.
Even I didn't know how bad it was
I railed against this shit beginning 10 years ago with Bush appointees and was told I was crazy, that we'd never be in days with illegal birth control. Right.
2 steps forward (plan b otc) and 20 steps back.
I think reading about the experience of a person in the surgical suite if it's an asc really gripped me in a way I hadn't thought about.
This is part of the reason I am willing to overlook Hillary's email issue. We NEED a woman in office who believes in women's rights to decide regarding their own healthcare. We NEED a democrat who will nominate SC judges that will uphold RvW and hopefully strike down some of the legislation that limits access to abortions and women's healthcare if/when it comes across their bench. THIS is the shit that matters. Not email.
I find myself becoming almost a one issue voter lately. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone that will regulate my daughter's access to healthcare.
As for what arguments to counter (as asked upthread) I don't know if it's effective as I'm not friends with anti choice people anymore...
Dental surgery. Scary mentally hence a calming environment. Can have major complications such as nerve damage or punctured sinuses. Done in a regular office with anesthesia and comforting pictures on the wall. Abortion is safer.
Knee replacement surgery can be done in a asc. Like, open up your leg, use hammers and saws, put in titanium. Or nose surgery with chisels and skin graft and stuff. Is abortion as involved?
Iud placement also involves dilation the cervix and going into the uterus. Risk of perforation. Done in any office. Now I'm afraid of that argument for fear it too would be under attack. But it's really quite a simple procedure that many have undergone.
I really liked the statistic about colonoscopy as I have to have them regularly (had one a few weeks ago). We think of them as routine and nbd. Though I've had them in full hospitals, I've also had them in small clinics. If it's so routine as to be recommended and standard yet that much more dangerous (as in, not at all) why freak out about abortion.
I keep dwelling in this article and it is making me want to throw things.
There is so much awful stuff here, but the part about RU-486 is really making me wild. Five states have passed laws requiring doctors who administer it to use a dosage that medical evidence has proven to have greater side effects and be less effective.
Let that sink in. I am really angry about all the stuff here. But we actually have a law on the book that is requiring doctors give women a dangerous, harmful dosage when they could proscribe a dosage that is not only more safe, but also more effective.
If that's not bad enough, one thing the article does not say is that often, surgical abortions can't even be performed until 6-7 weeks into the pregnancy, so RU-486 is the only option for people wanting an abortion at 4-5 weeks. So it's not like women who want a very early abortion just have other choices. They have to live with the fetus in their body for additional weeks, perhaps further jeopardizing their physical and mental health, to avoid taking a dangerous dosage of a drug that could be administered in a safe way.
I keep thinking about this, and it's making me physically ill. If you support a law that requires doctors to give women an unsafe dosage of a drug when a safe and more effective option is available, you are a misogynistic monster.
This is the first I heard about the dosage issue. What is stopping the FDA from updating the dosage regulations and fixing this?
Whelp, we had stopped donating to PP in protest of their extraodinarily aggressive fundraising (incl. receiving multiple requests for more donations before they even acknowledged our last one)...but this article has convinced me that we need to donate again. Although there are other worthy women's health advocates, none make the same political statement as PP.