Leaked Supreme Court opinion shows conservative majority set to overturn Roe v Wade

Hey! You still didn't refute the estimated findings in the first link by the way. 😉

I guess you thought giving your opinion on semantics was enough?

She also gives facts,

According to the World Health Organization, 23,000 women die from unsafe abortions each year and tens of thousands more experience significant health complications globally. A recentstudyestimated that banning abortion in the U.S. would lead to a 21% increase in the number of pregnancy-related deaths overall and a 33% increase among Black women, simply because staying pregnant is more dangerous than having an abortion. Increased deaths due to unsafe abortions or attempted abortions would be in addition to these estimates.

Numerous international and regional human rights treaties and national-level constitutions around the world protect the right to safe and legal abortion as a fundamental human right.

And the rest is expert analysis from the professor of the practice of public health and coordinator of the Women and Health Initiative at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Surely you know more than her.

You might want to actually read the study next time,

"The toll of unsafe abortion on women’s health is greatest where abortion is highly legally restricted"

So you're not going to attempt to refute it, and agree with it? Nice. Well to be fair, you didn't refute any of my other links either.

He didn't refute any of the facts or data in any of the links lol. Weaksauce. No counter citation will be given on this.

👌

Abortion bans have primarily negative effects. Got a rebuttal (with citation) to this?

Here's some more links I'd like him to "refute" , lmao:

• Limiting Abortion Access Contributes to Poor Maternal Health Outcomes - Center for American Progress
• What can economic research tell us about the effect of abortion access on women’s lives? (brookings.edu)

• Abortion (who.int)

This should be just as funny.

You always mention science. What science are you talking about? The science of women's sports, the science of not calling a woman a woman or a mother a mother. Come on lets hear your science. You talk a lot but say nothing.

@zaryia said:

@comp_atkins said:

@JimB said:

@zaryia said:

"Muh babies"

States pushing abortion bans have higher infant mortality rates (nbcnews.com)

And that's actual babies. Ugh. This is all just tribal politics.

You use NBC for a reference. They have no credibility.

wow that was hard:

from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/infant_mortality_r

ates/infant_mortality.htm

Yeah but a conservative justice made a legal opinion saying Roe should be over turned.

So facts you bring up are invalid. This isn't about facts, it's about my feely feels.

Can it top 53,000,000. That is how many babies were killed last year.

Not think.

Abortion bans are objectively negative as seen through facts and data.

• Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access (guttmacher.org)
• Study shows an abortion ban may lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths | Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine | University of Colorado Boulder

• Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions | School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine (tulane.edu)

• What can economic research tell us about the effect of abortion access on women’s lives? (brookings.edu)
• w26662.pdf (nber.org)

• Abortion (who.int)

@eotensaid:.

Not speculation, not feelings and opinions. Law. There is no other argument on the topic.

You're the only one discussing (legal) opinions. I'm discussing facts and data.

I'm not discussing your opinion on a legal opinion. I'm just discussing the facts and data behind abortion bans, and why they are negative.

There is zero indication I can't discuss the potential medical ramifications of said legal ruling. That's not deflection.

I don't need too - the article says "may" in the headline. It may result in more deaths, or none at all. That's the beauty behind the world "may"! Unless, by chance, you need me to explain how may is defined. Still crazy that over a hundred folks still die in complications though; granted, it's a drop in the ocean compared to the overall births. 22% increase is legit microscopic. More people die from legit just falling out of bed. lol

I'll be honest, I didn't read through the entirely of the Q/A, I merely lol'd at the idea of using a Q/A interview as "facts".

I definitely agree with the idea that children are inherently more expensive compared to not having children. It's why I work the overtime now. Make sure my son's nanny is well compensated!

I'm not sure what other copy-paste mantra you're looking for, but I'm happy to give my thoughts on pretty much anything around this.

For example, my opinion is fairly extreme on the abortion side, unless the fetus (child) can survive outside the womb without assistance on machinery/medical life support, abortion should be allowed. This is a crazy topic though, and normally brings some fairly bizarre mantra from both sides. Muuuuurder..... or .... my bodyyyyy (says the dude).

Are you not able to recognize that this response isn't based on scientific principles?

That is the kind of melodrama I find comical. "Why don't they just strike all amendments then?" Except, SCOTUS doesn't have the power to do that. They enforce those amendments as written, and if something isn't explicitly forbidden by one of them, then it is up to the individual states to determine how the issue is handled.

But this "they're going to get rid of all rights" and "SCOTUS is banning abortions" and all the handmaid's tale references is just over-the-top hysteria that will probably lead to damage and death as very stupid people tend to turn to violence when they don't get their way, or when people they trust exploit their ignorance and lead them towards doing so which is already starting to happen.

Read the constitution, learn about the separate branches of government and their individual duties, educate yourself.

You do realize that overturning Roe v Wade doesn't make abortions illegal, right?

Oh yes sir, it does.

Link

Not only this, but we're just one bad president and congress away from the legislative and executive making illegal nationwide.

I don't accept this. By this logic I can't link hundreds of peer reviewed studies on climate change that use models. Or tons of economic papers using estimates and models. No way. It wasn't an op-ed, it had a detailed analysis with calculations.

Sorry, you have to actually show what she did wrong in her study.

It was an expert analysis with facts baked in. But I guess I get your point, I won't use it in the future - found much better links anyways and already used them in it's stead. The reason I'm easily finding links on this, while no conservative is finding counter links on this by the way. Because my position is correct. Abortion bans primarily only carry negatives, as we have seen with quite a bit of data.

The third link, which is 55 pages, mentions,

"The toll of unsafe abortion on women’s health is greatest where abortion is highly legally restricted".

And to be specific on USA,

Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions | School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine (tulane.edu)

While the link between restricted access to abortion care and maternal mortality is well established in low- and medium-income countries,13,14the evidence base on the impact of abortion restrictions on maternal death in the United States is limited. Using 2007–2015 National Vital Statistics System data files from 38 states and the District of Columbia, a recent study found that the enactment of gestational age limits for abortion was associated with a 38% increase in maternal mortality, and a 20% reduction in Planned Parenthood clinics was associated with an 8% increase in maternal mortality.5In addition, growing evidence has linked abortion restrictions to other maternal and child health outcomes, including infant mortality,15,16child homicide deaths,17negative mental health outcomes among women who were denied abortion,18,19and adverse birth outcomes.20,21

Many people don't realize these kind of abortion restrictions don't change the rates that much, as seen in the unrefuted Guttmacher study. It just results in more injured people. So really, I don't see the point in this.

Relax there Mr. Pretend Lawyer. We said essentially ban from tough restrictions, not "make illegal". Many states would do this, or have already done so after finding out about this opinion OR after a conservative majority was set.

And as my several unrefuted links have shown, this can only result in negative outcomes. No positives.

Abortion restrictions and bans barely budge abortions rates. It just reduces healthcare and medical outcomes.

Also lol "babies".

I mean after Covid? It's undeniable,

@tjandmia:

ah ok. surprise the user been so silent on the subject.

I don't really care what you accept or don't accept. lol They're not "facts" which is what I was poking fun at - they're speculative. Not sure what needs to be "pointed out" in what was "wrong" (relative) about the speculative analysis.

And yes, I know you can copy and paste other people's opinions and analysis. This isn't a shock. lol But carry on.

Sorry, most of it was facts and data analysis. A few lines of opinion, from a link I now replaced with this fact based study and the WHO analysis. I have corrected that minor mistake. I often link studies that go unrefuted, and extremely rarely opinions (and if I do, the opinion will come packaged with several factual links like ITT).

When I say abortion restrictions and bans mostly and primarily result in negative effects, I'm making a fact based statement from a great amount of factual citation. All the data points to this, no data I can find shows it would not be the case. If I am wrong on this conclusion, I would like to see the data even remotely suggesting so.

hahahaha good one.

Conservatives are not pro-life, they're anti-choice.

Again, was poking fun at your fervent usage of "facts" in response to other users while relying on other folk's opinions (which isn't surprisingly). lol

Are there zeropositive effects for the birth of a child? 0.0

Okay, then don't move to those states. And your links are opinions, there's nothing to refute.

What? lol.

I had one link with opinions in it. I removed that a while ago,

• Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access (guttmacher.org)
• Study shows an abortion ban may lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths | Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine | University of Colorado Boulder
• Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions | School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine (tulane.edu)
• What can economic research tell us about the effect of abortion access on women’s lives? (brookings.edu)
• w26662.pdf (nber.org)
• Abortion (who.int)

Cite the incorrect data.

I told you, I don't give a shit. I don't care about your op eds, I don't care about the cherry picked statistics and the "captain obvious" type comments you think are great revelations like "more pregnancies result in more pregnancy related complications" like Duh, no shit. But you don't get it, I don't give a shit, I'm not entirely for, or against abortions. It's not people like me getting them, it's people like you. It's you far left, "progressive" woke types exterminating your own offspring. So what the **** makes you think I'd care one way or another?

But Roe v Wade is probably going by the wayside. SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to make legislation, and nothing in the constitution protects it. It's gone. Now do yourself a favor, go take a civics class, maybe look up some Youtube video and learn how the law works. Give your CTRL+C and CTRL+V keys a break... I just don't care.

@eoten: lol same

Maybe that's why they're obsessed with using schools to groom and indoctrinate other peoples kids... they killed off all their own.

I'm newer to the boards, but it seems like he doesn't actually present arguments. He just post other's arguments and wants you to research against it. It's pretty much trolling.

Democracy is a negative outcome. Letting the people decide for themselves is a negative out come. That is the only thing the supreme court is saying. They did not say abortion is illegal. only that the people in the states should make the decision. For generations many liberals questioned the legality of the Roe V Wade decision.

Also telling that is completely glossed over both studies I provided with no comment. Just diverts and goes on an unrelated tangent.

Quite the opposite actually. You and our usual trolls on the right are continually dismissing facts based evidence when presented with it.

HIs sources got debunked as opinion pieces. He even corrected a link himself.

None of the four links were opinion pieces. One of them contained some expert opinions, on top of facts. No link was debunked. I replaced that one it with 2 fact based links in it's stead to remove any further concern instead of doubling down on it. The opposite of Trolling.

None of the facts (majority) or estimates in them were refuted. I'll post my data set again,

• Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access (guttmacher.org)
• Study shows an abortion ban may lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths | Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine | University of Colorado Boulder
• Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions | School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine (tulane.edu)
• What can economic research tell us about the effect of abortion access on women’s lives? (brookings.edu)
• w26662.pdf (nber.org)
• Abortion (who.int)

You're trolling.

I literally presented my argument multiple times.

I said abortion bans and restrictions primarily have negative outcomes according to science, and barely work in reducing abortion rates. That second part nullifies any subjectively perceived positives. This is my primary claim and argument. I presented the science with facts and data. None of these facts or datasets were refuted.

This is quite simple.

So would abortion rates go up or down if it was banned?

Thank you for including the pieces I posted earlier, which were conveniently ignored by everyone.

You're living in an alternate reality or being purposely ignorant, perhaps a bit of both. There's sufficient evidence to support the idea that banning abortion causes negatives effects across the board.

Of course it has negative effects. It also has really good ones, like not murdering babies for convenience.

See, this is what we call a bad faith argument. You're already making an assumption in your argument. I would expect nothing less from the pro-rape baby crowd.

My data shows this,

According to Guttmacher data, 57 percent of the U.S. decline in the number of abortions from 2011 to 2017 happened in the 18 states, along with Washington, D.C., that did not enact any new abortion restrictions during those years.

Where abortion is legally restricted, the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion has increased by 39 percent over the past 30 years.

...

Countries that have seen falling abortion rates since the ’90s are more likely to be developed countries, which tend to have fewer abortion restrictions and wider access to contraceptives. Abortion rates in developing regions haven’t changed much overall.

“Restricting abortion laws does not eliminate the practice of abortion,” saidGilda Sedgh, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute and one of the report’s authors.

Overall no notable positives, only negatives. Like I've said.

Except less abortions. Also, comparing us to other countries, especially 3rd world is kind of dumb. Apples to oranges.

I don't disagree that there are negatives that would come with banning it. I just think the positives outweigh it. I think the issue is you believe theyr'e "fake deaths" when aborted and I don't.

Uhh, Do you have data for your claims of "less abortions"? How much less? Is it worth all the negative health outcomes and reduced HDI? Speaking of US,

According to Guttmacher data, 57 percent of the U.S. decline in the number of abortions from 2011 to 2017 happened in the 18 states, along with Washington, D.C., that did not enact any new abortion restrictions during those years.

And Gilda never said "except USA". You kind of made that up. Her report includes USA data.

“Restricting abortion laws does not eliminate the practice of abortion,” saidGilda Sedgh, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute and one of the report’s authors.

These perceived positives are entirely subjective. Most abortions are done when the fetus is as small as a quarter, and several months before consciousness develops. The negatives are objective, with poor health outcomes for mothers.

Not to mention, as the data shows, most of those abortions will happen either way. Restrictions or not. In some areas it actually goes up with restrictions.

Usually when something is made illegal, there is less of it? I need to source out the history of common sense?

Not for abortions, at least not a notable amount and in some areas it actually an increase. This is documented in the 55 page study I linked. So yeah, you kind of do need a source.

As far as your opinions, I also need to know how much reduced healthcare outcomes you find acceptable to the amount of reduced abortions of quarter sized unconscious nonbabies is "acceptable". Since this is now entirely in subjective waters.

What we factually know is abortion bans barely work or don't work at all. They just result in poor healthcare and economical outcomes, making a country more 3rd world.

Has there been an abortion ban in another country such as ours?

A lot of the data I linked directly refers to USA as well.

Was there a ban against abortion in our country nation wide?

.

Shifting the argument and stealth editing, come on. lol

Sometimes your wretched baby paste requires drano instead.

Conservatives should quit half-assing this, and go all the way. Life begins at ejaculation… After all, masturbation and sex outside of the purpose of procreation is a sin according to their magic book.