|
|
|
|
#1
10-08-2005, 10:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If "Back Alley Abortions" were removed from the argument?
A Hamster ate the first attempt at this thread, so I'll give it take two!
Even if the court restricts or eliminates the right to an abortion, the often-raised specter of a return to back-alley abortions is not likely to be realized, said Dr. Beverly Winikoff, president of Gynuity Health Services, a nonprofit group that supports access to abortion. "The conditions that existed before 1973 were much different than what they are in 2005," she said. "We have better antibiotics now and better surgical treatments." But no change is bigger than the advent of an inexpensive drug called misoprostol, which the federal Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of ulcers in 1988 but which has been used in millions of self-administered abortions worldwide. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, freeing states to ban abortion, this common prescription drug, often known by the brand name Cytotec, could emerge as a cheap, relatively safe alternative to the practices that proliferated before Roe. "We won't go back to the days of coat hangers and knitting needles," said Dr. Jerry Edwards, an abortion provider in Little Rock, Ark. "Rich women will fly to California; poor women will use Cytotec." If Meiers and Roberts are firm pro-life votes (an assumption), and Bush is able to replace Stephens with a third pro-life vote, then Roe is overturned 5-4. At that point, about 15-20 states would probably ban abortion immediately. Logically, the choice movement would begin to take political action to legalize abortion in those states. But if the drugs in this article are safe, would that take some of the wind out of the sails of the choice movement's argument? Because then it would be more of a straight debate about the life of the fetus versus the right of a woman to control her body. The "rights of a woman" have both emotional and intellectual elements to it. However, the concept of the "back alley butcher" is an appeal to raw emotion. As a result it is VERY effective as a (legitimate) scare tactic. It not only appeals to women, it has serious appeal to fathers. Few want to see a girl butchered and scarred for life even if they are pro-life. I think the back alley abortion fears keep America pretty firmly in the "pro-choice" column. It is a key difference maker in the debate. If Roe were overturned and it became illegal to get an abortion in Mississippi, instead of going to back alley abortion clinics, pregnant women seeking an abortion would go to back alley pharmacies. (I'm assuming this pill would be banned). While it would still be illegal, if it were actually a SAFE process, would the public become more complacent in returning the right to an abortion? I think there would be a sizable segment that would look at it and say that there may be no LEGAL alternative, but at least there is a safe one. How would these advances in science technology change the debate itself? (And let's please try to keep this debate on subject. It isn't about propriety. It is about how these advances in science and technology would affect the abortion debate. There are hundreds of threads to debate morality and life vs. choice.) 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
10-08-2005, 10:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You seem to be assuming that the states who "would probably ban abortion" would restrain themselves to forbidding doctors to perform a specific set of procedures.
Wouldn't a state that had decided that the deliberate abortion of a fetus equates to murder also include restrictions on the prescription of misoprostol in their legislation? Back to the alley...
|
|
#3
10-08-2005, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
10-08-2005, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
10-08-2005, 10:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Any state which would ban abortion would also go to whatever lengths necessary to prevent womens' access to any drug which could be used as an abortifacient and we're right back in the same boat. Should we really trust the black market to provide safe drugs? That hasn't exactly worked out well in the past. Plus it still criminalizes desperate and vulnerable women. The Choice movement wouldn't lose any bullets.
|
|
#9
10-08-2005, 11:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#11
10-08-2005, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gotta say, mighty damn tempting. If I could feel assured that reversing RvW would not result in an upsurge in "back alley" abortions, a lot of my motivation would vanish. Because I really don't give a shit about the theology or the political principles involved, just the effect on people.
But the real temptation is that such an outcome would take away a tremendous source of power for the Tighty Righty junta. Confusion to my enemies, and all that. So I need to watch myself closely, that I dont allow this delicious prospect to sway me too much. But if we could get this nasty bit of business off the national agenda without sacrificing the well-being of young women......well, like I said, mighty tempting.
|
|
#12
10-08-2005, 11:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#15
10-08-2005, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It doesn't matter whether "back alley abortions" are removed from the argument. The real elephant (pardon the pun) in the room is that the GOP leadership knows that reversal of Roe would be a political disaster for them -- their Falwelloid faction would expect them to actually do something instead of just "working the greivance", and their Respectable Country-Club faction would want them to do no such thing.
|
|
#16
10-08-2005, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've been told that Cytotec that used to be a wonder abortion pill... has changed its formula in order to lessen abortion ability of the drug. This increases the chance of not working as an abortive pill and leads to fetus malformation.
So I'm not sure that back Alley abortions have been removed from the equation... As for the argument itself... Roe vs Wade was about personal liberties not health risks... from what I've read.
|
|
#17
10-08-2005, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The OP asks how advances in technology affect the debate. Technology isn't just pharmacuticals vs. coat hangers--it also includes the internet.
30 years ago, an 18 year old woman in rural Georgia had no way (other than a back alley) to get an abortion, or even ask any questions about it. Today, anyone can surf the net. If Roe v Wade gets overturned, about 20 states will ban abortion. But the other 30 will allow it--and plenty of liberal groups will have web sites offering all the info necessary, and will probably sponsor "halfway house" accommodations for free to any red-state resident . Abortion will still be available to all. (which is why I think the whole issue is being blown way out of proportion.)
|
|
#18
10-08-2005, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
10-08-2005, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
But I think the OP means us to presume that such drawbacks are not entirely relevent. If the "black market" were reliable, that is, made up of people who's primary intent is idealistic rather than profit, and were committed to maintaining the purity and reliability of the drugs offered, this threat could be largely eliminated. Marijuana, for instance, remains illegal, but can be obtained from relatively trustworthy sources at reasonable prices. Or so I've heard.
|
|
#20
10-08-2005, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#21
10-08-2005, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I quite take your point, but think it unlikely that such sabotage could be effectively done. And, as much as I dislike such Rovian cynicism, we should also remember that such actions would have a disastrous impact on the anti-abortion credibility. The first white teeny-bopper to die because of some "pro-lifer" sabotage.....well, there would be hell to pay, you can rest assured.
But to cut to the chase: like many progressives (with a distinct radical tinge) I am almost entirely pragmatic, I thoroughly distrust ideology. If I were assured that faith-based initiatives would be of enormous benefit to the poor and powerless, I wouldn't hesitate to endorse such, qualms about church/state notwithstanding. Similarly, if I could be assured that womens right to choose safely were largely protected, the political issue of RoeVWade would count for nothing, so far as I am concerned. The prospect of having this issue disappear from the political firmament is the sort of thing that makes Karl Rove wake up screaming. A delightful prospect, in other words. (Aside: I think this is to some degree a "generational" thing. Those who were not grown persons in those dark days have no experience of the dreadful results of "back alley" abortion, the risk doesn't seem real. I personally knew a fine young woman who, through fear and ignorance, suffered such consequences: very nearly died, and was rendered sterile. Again? Over my dead body.)
|
|
#22
10-08-2005, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#23
10-09-2005, 06:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hate to tell you all this, but you act like a black market trade in abortifacients isn't already occurring.
In Ireland, where abortion is illegal in most circumstances, Chinese immigrants who can't travel to the UK for an abortion (as it violates the conditions of their visas) are having relatives in China send them Misoprostol (Cytotec), Mifepristone (RU-486/Mifeprex) and traditonal Chinese herbal remedies in the post. The drugs are all easily and cheaply available in China. Others are having relatives send the drugs, and are then selling them on to desperate women, at about $200 a pill. I predict that online drug companies not based in the USA, a similar thing with immigrants from countries with legal abortion and easily available drugs or an increase in bogus "ulcers" would all occur should Roe vs Wade be reversed in the US. Since these drugs are only effective in 95% of cases, and can cause severe bleeding, the risks to the women of using these drugs without medical supervision is not something to be ignored.
|
|
#24
10-09-2005, 07:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Folks, I just don't see this leading to a good place, I'm afraid. Frankly, there is simply no possible scenario, no advancement in technology, no change whatsoever that I can envision, where back alley abortion deaths will not be rampant if we let the states decide this issue. You could have the technology to go back in time and not have sex to avoid the pregnancy, and women would still submit to back alley abortions rather than take the time machine risk. (Think about Back to the Future. What if the woman began to disappear because she inadvertently changed the past somehow? Is anybody thinking about that?) No, no sir, we must never go back.
|
|
#25
10-09-2005, 07:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#26
10-09-2005, 08:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
IF Roe was overturned, it would doubtlessly be much easier to get abortions in some states than others. Some might look the other way regarding abortion-inducing pills, some may aggressively investigate doctors that prescribe these drugs for women. Some might ban any medication that could be used to induce abortion. A woman's right to control her body would vary tremendously depending on where she lived.
I think the speculation is moot in that Roe is not going to be overturned. A few months ago I heard a Wayne State law professor on WJR's Mitch Albom show. He was very adamant that Roe is never going to be overturned, citing that there has never been an individual right affirmed by one Court and later overturned by another. Whether that's right or not I'll leave to the more diligent. But he pointed out that this is not the US Abortion Court and that Roe is not the only matter of importance. I'm not sure I share his faith completely but I found it quite reassuring.
|
|
#27
10-09-2005, 09:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Back-alley medication is still back-alley. There's a reason doctors go through all that schooling and stuff: to make sure, after an interview and exam, that a procedure is likely to be safe for this particular patient right here, not for some percentage of women in general.
It's still a pharmaceutical drug, and still has it's risks and side effects. Which drug am I talking about? Any of them. Doesn't matter. Nothing is 100% safe for every person, and nothing is 100% effective unless it's surgical. There will always be a risk that a pill won't work. Unfortunately, the vast majority of abortifaceants (pharmaceutical or herbal) will create horrid birth defects in any pregnancy they don't correctly end. I do know legal, non-prescription herbs that will, with good efficacy, end an early pregnancy. I very rarely refer to them by name, and only to women who have commited to a surgical abortion if an herbal one fails. Why? Because they make you very sick, and if they don't work, you need a surgical abortion anyway, or you have a good chance of ending up with a horribly deformed baby. So we have several bad possibilities here: Scenario A: woman takes back-alley drug, woman dies from it because of some pre-existing condition a doctor would have discovered. Scenario B: woman takes back-alley drug, doesn't abort. She decides to have an illegal back-alley surgical abortion. Scenario C: woman takes back-alley drug, doesn't abort. She decides to have the baby, who ends up deformed and requires expensive medical treatment for life. None of these, to me, is acceptable. Whether the back-alley is peddling illegal drugs or illegal scapels, it doesn't replace qualified medical treatment.
|
|
#28
10-09-2005, 09:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#29
10-09-2005, 10:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
