Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Solution to the abortion madness? Make vasectomies for men universally available for free/low cost (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=875649)

2ManyTacos 05-16-2019 02:13 PM

Solution to the abortion madness? Make vasectomies for men universally available for free/low cost
 
Maybe I'm opening a can of worms here, and I feel like I have to throw in a few caveats: (1) I am as pro-choice as they come, (2) I think what's happening in Red America re: new abortion restrictions is heinous, and (3) I think even if SCOTUS overrules Roe you'll just start seeing a bunch of Blue states openly ignoring that decision anyway. But still, something I keep thinking is that *maybe* a world with vastly restrictive abortion laws would be more bearable *if* laws & operational norms regarding vasectomies in men were massively liberalized.

I mean, in my own case as somebody who is about as interested in having children as I am in having an un-anesthetized root canal, I found it incredibly maddening when a doctor turned down my request for a vasectomy on the basis that I was too young (26 at the time). I just think that, given that vasectomies are *the* most effective form of birth control, and that most men generally don't want to have kids anyway, a way to get around this Handmaid's Tale-like situation with onerous Red State abortion laws would be to broaden the availability of vasectomies writ large. The procedure could be made universally available to all men above the age of 16 and then subsidized in some way so that it would be either free or low cost.

I obviously don't know how tenable this idea would be - or even what the take up of this policy would look like - but I just think it could constitute some sort of workaround for the potential illegalized abortion era we may be entering. What do you think?

Unreconstructed Man 05-16-2019 02:20 PM

I think it’s a great idea, and hard for the anti-choice contingent to argue against without making explicit their fundie anti-woman agenda.

Personally, I think that if personhood begins at conception, Blue States should pass laws declaring that citizenship begins at conception, too. If a fetus was conceived in America then, regardless of where it was actually born, it’s entitled to full citizenship rights. Hey, you can’t have one definition of person for abortion and another for citizenship.

I don’t know if it’ll do any good, but it sure will be interesting to see how the anchor baby apocalypse crowd squares that little circle.

puddleglum 05-16-2019 02:31 PM

What do you think this would accomplish?

Shodan 05-16-2019 02:40 PM

Quote:

...most men generally don't want to have kids anyway...
I don't think this is the case.

If they ever come up with a reliably reversible vasectomy, this might work out, but probably not otherwise.

I thought I remembered reading about a procedure wherein, instead of cutting and cauterizing the vas deferens, they used a pair of little clamps. The theory was that when and if the guy wanted children, they would remove the clamps, and then re-install them after he was done. I don't think it worked out - too much scar tissue so that the vas never reopened up. Plus, the longer it's been since the vasectomy, the less likely it is that it can be successfully reversed in the sense that you actually get someone pregnant. So a vasectomy at age 16 and a reversal attempt at 26 is going to be different from a reversal at age 35.

When I was snipped, my surgeon told me that I should consider it irreversible.

Regards,
Shodan

l0k1 05-16-2019 02:46 PM

My wife had an abortion when our first child was a year old. She had an IUD and experienced a rare failure. I didn't want a vasectomy, nor did we decide to never have anymore children.

I have friends that have had pregnancy complications, including preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy. At least one legislator in Ohio believe that ectopic pregnancies can be surgically relocated, and that the tubectomy my mother had was an abortion.

Why don't we get the government out of the decision altogether?

clairobscur 05-16-2019 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos (Post 21646291)
given that [....] that most men generally don't want to have kids anyway,

Most men want to have kids. You're an exception, not the norm.

Quote:

The procedure could be made universally available to all men above the age of 16
16 years old aren't even deemed competent to decide if they want to have sex, but you think they are competent to decide that they won't ever want children? I'm quite a bot older than you, and I changed my mind about a lot of things since I was 16.

I understand that you find irritating to be told that you don't know what you want, but :

-Vasectomy is often irreversible

-Wanting to have children or not is something many people drastically change their mind about during their life. In both directions.

If I were a doctor and still 26 yo, I'd probably agree with you and be perfectly fine with operating you. If I were a doctor now, I too would refuse to do this surgery on a 26 yo.


Quote:

but I just think it could constitute some sort of workaround for the potential illegalized abortion era we may be entering. What do you think?
There are plenty of contraception methods that aren't irreversible.

bump 05-16-2019 03:06 PM

AFAIK, a large proportion of health insurance companies already offer free or low-cost vasectomies.

I doubt it's the availability that's holding more widespread adoption of vasectomy back; rather I'm pretty sure it's squeamishness about doctors cutting on one's nutsack and the associated plumbing, along with fear that complications might leave them impotent or de-masculinized.

I don't doubt that an ignorant few don't realize that it's not the same thing as castration as well.

begbert2 05-16-2019 03:28 PM

I'd like to second puddleglum's question - what do you think this will accomplish?

I don't have stats (but I won't let that stop me!), but I suspect that a significant percentage of abortions result from couplings where the man isn't worrying overmuch about the future beyond the next half hour. Waiting to get an invasive surgery first sounds like rather a lot to expect from a horny teenager - or a horny college student - or a horny adult male, for that matter.

Not to mention, the largest opposition to abortion comes from religious fundamentalists - the 'temple of the body' types. You think they're going to consider elective surgery a good approach when they already have the perfectly workable solution of telling other people what to do instead?

Wesley Clark 05-16-2019 03:28 PM

Anti abortion activists are to a good degree motivated by misogyny and religious fundamentalism. If they truly opposed abortion they'd favor sex education and easy access to contraception since these things lower abortion rates. But they oppose them.

Ironically being religious made you more tolerant of abortion, it's religious fundamentalism that makes you opposed.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/sex...on-to-abortion

Either way, this isn't a policy issue that can be solved with policy agendas. It's a moral agenda to its proponents.

Restricting male sexuality won't go over well with these people. But you're free to try.

CAH66 05-16-2019 03:31 PM

Age 16 is waaaay too young IMO. 16 year old kids have foolishly close horizons and very limited world experience when contemplating their futures. I also don't think your statement that "most men don't want to have children" is at all accurate. At best, maybe "at a certain point in their lives most men..."

I got the big V because I had two stepdaughters and they were enough for me. But I love being a father and, even better, Papa to my grandkids. Even though I didn't end up biologically fathering children, I would never have put that irrevocable decision in the hands of adolescent me.

From where I sit, the slight drop in surety of traditional methods of birth control is more than made up by their lack of permanence.

clairobscur 05-16-2019 03:50 PM

nm

l0k1 05-16-2019 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos (Post 21646291)
(3) I think even if SCOTUS overrules Roe you'll just start seeing a bunch of Blue states openly ignoring that decision anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Openly ignore there ability to regulate abortion at the state level?

octopus 05-16-2019 05:35 PM

How pricey is a snip anyways? Why not free whatever contraception? It’d save money.

It is humorous to see the left’s new found respect for states’ rights and limited government in this thread. And what’s with a non human having citizenship? What’s next fetal suffrage?

octopus 05-16-2019 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by l0k1 (Post 21646673)
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Openly ignore there ability to regulate abortion at the state level?

Blue states only need to follow the laws they agree with. Since they are a superior class.

nearwildheaven 05-16-2019 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21646383)
AFAIK, a large proportion of health insurance companies already offer free or low-cost vasectomies.

I doubt it's the availability that's holding more widespread adoption of vasectomy back; rather I'm pretty sure it's squeamishness about doctors cutting on one's nutsack and the associated plumbing, along with fear that complications might leave them impotent or de-masculinized.

I don't doubt that an ignorant few don't realize that it's not the same thing as castration as well.

There are many, many variables. IMHO, the biggest disadvantage to a vasectomy is that it isn't immediately effective; the couple must use a second form of birth control for at least 3 months, until he's delivered a sperm cell-free semen sample. Plus, tubal ligation/removal (see footnote) is often done concurrently with a cesarean section, and while the procedure is more invasive, it's effective IMMEDIATELY. I also read about a woman whose husband offered to have a vasectomy, but she went ahead and had the tubal because that vasectomy wouldn't protect her if she was raped - something she had never experienced but it was a concern of hers. It was the right decision for them.

Footnote: I heard recently that many gynecologists are removing tubes, not tying them, because it doesn't take much longer, and it's believed that a lot of ovarian cancer actually originates in the tubes.

It's like any other birth control decision: Each couple needs to do what is right for them.

2ManyTacos 05-16-2019 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by l0k1 (Post 21646673)
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Openly ignore there ability to regulate abortion at the state level?

I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of something that goes further than overruling Roe; e.g., declaring abortion itself to be unconstitutional and therefore illegal nationwide, which presumably is the dream scenario of anti-abortion fanatics. In that case I just think that a coalition of Blue States will refuse to abide by that decision and continue to allow legal abortion in those states; SCOTUS relies on voluntary compliance, after all.

Max S. 05-16-2019 06:25 PM

People who advocate for widespread access to contraceptives generally mean reversible contraceptives, not sterilization (vasectomy or tubal ligation). Tubal reversal and vasectomy reversal are possible, but incredibly expensive and prone to fail. Also half of men who undergo vasectomy reversal find out they have developed anti-sperm antibodies; enough anti-bodies and the immune system no longer recognizes the sperm as self and seeks to actively destroy it.

~Max

l0k1 05-16-2019 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos (Post 21646714)
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of something that goes further than overruling Roe; e.g., declaring abortion itself to be unconstitutional and therefore illegal nationwide, which presumably is the dream scenario of anti-abortion fanatics. In that case I just think that a coalition of Blue States will refuse to abide by that decision and continue to allow legal abortion in those states; SCOTUS relies on voluntary compliance, after all.

That's not how Constitutional law or the Supreme Court works. That would take an act of Congress.

monstro 05-16-2019 06:51 PM

I'm much more in favor of throwing men in prison if they don't pay child support once their fetus has a heart beat, including picking up their part of the tab for medical bills.

If women are going to be thrown in prison for doing bad things to "precious life", then so should men.

begbert2 05-16-2019 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by l0k1 (Post 21646779)
That's not how Constitutional law or the Supreme Court works. That would take an act of Congress.

I'm sure we can tie this to the commerce clause somehow. Fetuses are future people, so if we assume that human slaves can be taken across state lines...

l0k1 05-16-2019 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21646684)
Blue states only need to follow the laws they agree with. Since they are a superior class.

Try rephrasing this into a statement I can understand.

Gatopescado 05-16-2019 07:00 PM

Even if they were free, I wouldn't get one. Don't want to be cut on, or a knife that close to my junk.

RitterSport 05-16-2019 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21646677)
How pricey is a snip anyways? Why not free whatever contraception? It’d save money.

It is humorous to see the left’s new found respect for states’ rights and limited government in this thread. And what’s with a non human having citizenship? What’s next fetal suffrage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21646684)
Blue states only need to follow the laws they agree with. Since they are a superior class.

I think the second paragraph of your first post here and your second post are really needlessly inflammatory. What is the point of posting those here? Don't we have enough left-right fights already going on?

As for the OP, I agree that all kinds of contraception, including vasectomies, should be cheap or free, but I don't think it will do anything to address the "abortion madness". Men who want to get vasectomies can probably get them.

I further disagree with your view that most men don't want kids. They may not want them when they're young, but I would guess that a large majority of men want children at some point in their lives.

RitterSport 05-16-2019 07:23 PM

Along with my request for more cites in another thread of mine, this cite shows that men want kids more than women do:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/men-wan...firms-studies/

It doesn't, however, provide evidence either way than a majority of men of all ages want to be/wanted to be fathers. Only 1 in 4 men under 24 want kids, and 80% of fathers are happy they have kids, but neither is directly on point.

l0k1 05-16-2019 07:37 PM

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't believe you should have to spend the rest of your life raising a child with some just because you fucked once.

octopus 05-16-2019 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RitterSport (Post 21646829)
I think the second paragraph of your first post here and your second post are really needlessly inflammatory. What is the point of posting those here? Don't we have enough left-right fights already going on?

As for the OP, I agree that all kinds of contraception, including vasectomies, should be cheap or free, but I don't think it will do anything to address the "abortion madness". Men who want to get vasectomies can probably get them.

I further disagree with your view that most men don't want kids. They may not want them when they're young, but I would guess that a large majority of men want children at some point in their lives.

So what? I’m responding to the ridiculous assertion that “blue states” can pick and choose what Supreme Court decisions to abide by with impunity. Why not address that ‘inflammatory’ assertion instead of the response?

As the south learned during desegregation the federal government controls the army.

MichaelEmouse 05-16-2019 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 21646433)
Anti abortion activists are to a good degree motivated by misogyny and religious fundamentalism. If they truly opposed abortion they'd favor sex education and easy access to contraception since these things lower abortion rates. But they oppose them.

Agreed. While there may be a few useful idiots who really are motivated by thinking a fetus is a full human being, the opposition to abortion is much the same as the opposition to gay marriage, sex outside of marriage or the faction in of Creationism, school prayer or Jim Crow: It's an effort to symbolically assert power and control over a whole society ("We're the ones in charge here and we do things our way") to prevent it from changing in a way that will leave oppressors with less status/power over others.

You should be wary of non-reflectively accepting the conceptual framing and declared goals the GOP offers. It's more often than not an effort at manipulation.

l0k1 05-16-2019 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21646958)
So what? I’m responding to the ridiculous assertion that “blue states” can pick and choose what Supreme Court decisions to abide by with impunity. Why not address that ‘inflammatory’ assertion instead of the response?

As the south learned during desegregation the federal government controls the army.

How would overturning Roe v Wade change abortion law in a state like Maryland? The Roe v Wade decision said that women havd a constitutional righg to abortion. If the decision is overturned, that just means that states get to regulate abortion, it doesn't mean that abortion is illegal.

And you can express you opinions in a less dickish manner.

Little Nemo 05-16-2019 10:09 PM

I don't really see this as addressing the center of the abortion debate. The issue is whether women should have control over their own bodies. Men getting vasectomies isn't going to provide that.

Little Nemo 05-16-2019 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by l0k1 (Post 21647002)
How would overturning Roe v Wade change abortion law in a state like Maryland? The Roe v Wade decision said that women havd a constitutional righg to abortion. If the decision is overturned, that just means that states get to regulate abortion, it doesn't mean that abortion is illegal.

I think the majority of pro-life advocates see overturning the Roe decision as only the first step. Then they would push for a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision that prohibited abortions at the national level.

Voyager 05-16-2019 10:37 PM

I'm all for making them cheap and easily available. I think I had to pay for mine, but it was well worth it, and cheaper than flying to Denmark to get my wife another IUD. (This was when they were impossible to get in the US.) Age requirements can be done the same as today.

But I wonder if the religious fanatics who don't want to even let the government pay for free birth control for women employees would have the same snit fit for free vasectomies.

octopus 05-16-2019 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by l0k1 (Post 21647002)
How would overturning Roe v Wade change abortion law in a state like Maryland? The Roe v Wade decision said that women havd a constitutional righg to abortion. If the decision is overturned, that just means that states get to regulate abortion, it doesn't mean that abortion is illegal.

Good point

Quote:

And you can express you opinions in a less dickish manner.
Lol. You must not read any of the comments directed at Republicans or conservatives if you think my tone is overly strident.

Esprise Me 05-16-2019 11:56 PM

I've never met a man who wanted a vasectomy but couldn't afford it, and faced no other obstacles. I have to believe that's not a very common scenario. I'm absolutely in favor of all forms of birth control being free and easily available. But most men I've known don't even bother to wear condoms if they're in a committed relationship with a woman who's on the pill; I don't see them lining up en masse for a surgical procedure. Even if they did, that does nothing for the women with wanted pregnancies that go horribly wrong, the domestic violence victims whose abusers use sexual coercion and pregnancy as a means of control, the teenagers who want children someday but not yet, and a whole host of others who will still need abortion services.

2ManyTacos 05-17-2019 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voyager (Post 21647119)
I'm all for making them cheap and easily available. I think I had to pay for mine, but it was well worth it, and cheaper than flying to Denmark to get my wife another IUD. (This was when they were impossible to get in the US.) Age requirements can be done the same as today.

But I wonder if the religious fanatics who don't want to even let the government pay for free birth control for women employees would have the same snit fit for free vasectomies.

Re: the last sentence of your first paragraph, the problem with age requirements as they are today is that there's presently no law or requirement that men below the age of 45 or whatever cannot get vasectomies; it's more of an operational norm rather than a legal prohibition for docs to deny them to men of a certain age out of concern that such men are 'too young' or likely to change their tune at some inordinate point in the future.

My idea is to just jettison that practice and make it mandatory for docs to provide vasectomies to any willing men above 16+ years old. In a world where abortion is either incredibly restricted or outlawed outright, then this might make that sort of nightmarish environment at least somewhat tolerable.

Voyager 05-17-2019 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos (Post 21647231)
Re: the last sentence of your first paragraph, the problem with age requirements as they are today is that there's presently no law or requirement that men below the age of 45 or whatever cannot get vasectomies; it's more of an operational norm rather than a legal prohibition for docs to deny them to men of a certain age out of concern that such men are 'too young' or likely to change their tune at some inordinate point in the future.

My idea is to just jettison that practice and make it mandatory for docs to provide vasectomies to any willing men above 16+ years old. In a world where abortion is either incredibly restricted or outlawed outright, then this might make that sort of nightmarish environment at least somewhat tolerable.

I should have said guidelines, not requirements.
I'm not terribly in favor of 17 year olds getting vasectomies no questions asked. We're pretty stupid at that age. I was. We really need a pill for men.
But I don't think it would help the abortion situation at all. Men who would get vasectomies are not the men who oppress women, for the most part.

Isamu 05-17-2019 02:58 AM

Just grab your nose and pull it out of other people's business. Easy.

Nava 05-17-2019 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max S. (Post 21646747)
People who advocate for widespread access to contraceptives generally mean reversible contraceptives, not sterilization (vasectomy or tubal ligation).

Actually, many people also mean irreversible ones. Why wouldn't we? :confused: Specially given that the irreversible ones aren't all that easy to get, either, and in this I'm including medically-indicated hysterectomies.

Ronald Raygun 05-17-2019 03:56 AM

I'm not understanding this age requirement. If I can get an orchiectomy at 18, y'all should be able to get vasectomies at 18.

Budget Player Cadet 05-17-2019 03:58 AM

I'm with Little Nemo on this one. Any conversation that doesn't first and foremost address the rights of women is missing the point in a catastrophic manner.

How to stop this madness? Well, maybe care about the issue even a fraction as much as they do. That'd be a start. We don't even have to do crazy things like shoot up Federalist Society meetings (an actual analogue to the Robert Dear types on the right), just... Y'know, fucking fight. And fight as dirty as they will.

Politics in the US is grossly asymmetric and has been for quite some time. Tell me - what's the democratic analogue to the federalist society? To ALEC? To the Kochs? (If you said "George Soros", sit the fuck down.) To REDMAP? There is none. Democrats have opted instead to "take the high ground" in the hopes that being the sane, fair party will go well for them. It hasn't. Instead, they just look like weak, pathetic losers who are unable or unwilling to fight for what they believe in or what's right or even what would be politically expedient for them.

Does Nancy Pelosi care? Maybe? She doesn't act like it. But the Republicans care. They care deeply and passionately about this issue, and they've done the legwork to do whatever it takes to make Abortion illegal again. Before we care enough to fight back that hard, they're going to keep winning.

(This applies to every issue, not just abortion.)

Budget Player Cadet 05-17-2019 04:07 AM

(And for the record I have no interest in a vasectomy and equally no interest in abstinence, not that it's anyone's business.)

Stop ceding ground to far-right radicals. Stop having debates on their terms. Stop going halfway and expecting them to meet you in the middle - they'll just go as far right as you did and make the same demand. Stop framing the debate around "what shitty religious nutters might agree with", because every time you do they just demand more - this is how the overton window rachets further and further right. Stand up and fight for what's right, dammit. Nothing else works anyways, so you might as well.

Maastricht 05-17-2019 05:19 AM

The Alabama law is so heinous because it also criminalizes at home abortions by women taking a drug for a chemical abortion.

https://www.wired.com/story/telemedi...abortion-care/

Anyway, I think most women should stock up for such medication in case they or a friend need it. The hassle and delay of buying it in a drugstore, or waiting for on-line delivery might be enough to miss an important pregnancy deadline. Such medication can be bought for around 100 dollars, free for people who can't afford it. Buying the medication can be done safely through sites like these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_the_Web

The same goes for morning after pills. If I were a woman in a Red State, I'd have a supply of those in my medicine cabinet. Even in Alabama those would be legal, as the woman takes them the morning after, not six weeks after.

Manda JO 05-17-2019 05:37 AM

People who are determined to "Make America A White Christian Nation Again" are not going to be in favor of letting white men opt out of their duty to make more white babies.

Budget Player Cadet 05-17-2019 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manda JO (Post 21647364)
People who are determined to "Make America A White Christian Nation Again" are not going to be in favor of letting white men opt out of their duty to make more white babies.

Yeah, there's a non-trivial overlap between the people saying "we are aborting our future" and the people saying that we have no room for more immigrants or refugees. The white supremacy angle here is very real.

Left Hand of Dorkness 05-17-2019 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maastricht (Post 21647353)
Anyway, I think most women should stock up for such medication in case they or a friend need it. The hassle and delay of buying it in a drugstore, or waiting for on-line delivery might be enough to miss an important pregnancy deadline. Such medication can be bought for around 100 dollars, free for people who can't afford it. Buying the medication can be done safely through sites like these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_the_Web

The same goes for morning after pills. If I were a woman in a Red State, I'd have a supply of those in my medicine cabinet. Even in Alabama those would be legal, as the woman takes them the morning after, not six weeks after.

If women should stock up in case a friend needs it, men should too. No reason to let dudes off the hook.

l0k1 05-17-2019 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21647125)
Lol. You must not read any of the comments directed at Republicans or conservatives if you think my tone is overly strident.

They did it first is a child's argument. The only insults I see on this thread are from you.

MichaelEmouse 05-17-2019 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manda JO (Post 21647364)
People who are determined to "Make America A White Christian Nation Again" are not going to be in favor of letting white men opt out of their duty to make more white babies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21647370)
Yeah, there's a non-trivial overlap between the people saying "we are aborting our future" and the people saying that we have no room for more immigrants or refugees. The white supremacy angle here is very real.

The white supremacist creed goes: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

People more familiar with apartheid South Africa or Northern Ireland into the '70s could give us more information about that mindset.

red fish 05-17-2019 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clairobscur (Post 21646485)
nm

PLS EXCUSE ME I AM NOT ENGLISH I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF "nm":confused: WHAT DOES IT MEAN? THANK YOU

puzzlegal 05-17-2019 06:59 AM

"nm" means "no message", or possibly "never mind"

puzzlegal 05-17-2019 07:03 AM

Vasectomies are irreversible, and many horny young men want children later. That's not a great solution. IUDs on the other hand, are reversible, and last for years of they aren't removed. They have a bad reputation in the US, because the ones used 50 years ago were dangerous. But the ones currently on the market have a good safety record.

Rehabilitating and subsidizing IUDs would go a long way to reducing the demand for abortions. They don't do anything to slow the spread of STIs, of course, but neither do vasectomies.

RitterSport 05-17-2019 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21646958)
So what? I’m responding to the ridiculous assertion that “blue states” can pick and choose what Supreme Court decisions to abide by with impunity. Why not address that ‘inflammatory’ assertion instead of the response?

As the south learned during desegregation the federal government controls the army.

Why don't you address any response you see as inflammatory yourself? How about, "well, if Roe were simply overturned, then the decision to ban abortion would return to the States. However, if somehow it were banned nationwide, I don't think blue states would simply ignore the law. There's not much precedent for that."

Or, do it your way and make sure every thread goes right to the gutter. Whatever floats your boat.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.