[Rugoz]

So Kansas voters rejected an amendment to the Kansas Constitution to end its current recognition of abortion as a right, 59% to 41%. Kansas is a conservative state, so what would happen if other states held their own referenda on this matter?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/us/k ... -vote.html

The Kansas Senate approved it 28-11 (72%) and the Kansas House of Representatives 86-38 (69%).

Representation seems to be failing big time in this case. Would be interesting to research why.

P0D is correct. While the outcome of this referendum is a reason for rejoicing, referenda themselves are not always democratic.

Unless the rights of minorities are protected, then you don’t have a democracy.

Minority rights are deliberatively anti-democratic, unless they protect the rights strictly necessary for democracy to function, i.e. the right to vote and the right to be elected.

However, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to prove that legislative majorities/supermajorities or supreme courts protect minority rights better than popular majorities. Especially in the US courts have a history of upholding discrimination.

[Rancid]

The Kansas Senate approved it 28-11 (72%) and the Kansas House of Representatives 86-38 (69%).

Representation seems to be failing big time in this case. Would be interesting to research why.

State level gerrymandering and other practices that disenfranchises voters. This is how the Republican party gets around their demographic problem. Bbasically, they give a smaller and smaller group of people more power over the rest. Which, is very anti-democracy.

Republicans want to turn the US into Russia basically, and each state into mini-Russia's. They want both federal and state level authoritarianism (they hide this state level intention under the guise of "states rights" of course).
Kansas republicans will likely move towards unbalancing this even further. Those percentages you noted will go up in the coming years. YOu'll see things where 90%+ of the legislature passes things that are only 30% popular. That is the future of America, that is what Trumpism is bringing.

[Rugoz]

State level gerrymandering and other practices that disenfranchises voters. This is how the Republican party gets around their demographic problem. Bbasically, they give a smaller and smaller group of people more power over the rest. Which, is very anti-democracy.

I cannot find district results (percentages) for state sentate/house elections.

I would agree that lopsided districts are a big problem, since single-member district FPTP voting only works if districts are competitive. But I think it's not only due to gerrymandering, but also strong party identity. Basically, candidates cannot adjust their political program to the district, since they are seen as either Democrat or Republican regardless. Proportional systems need strong parties but for plurality systems it's bad.

[wat0n]

@Rugoz @Rancid I also think there's a "national politics" issue to consider, as in the decision may have been made by the RNC.

But this vote is a warning, I think, if more conservative states hold votes like Kansas did, and voters in several vote like Kansas voters did then it will have effects nationally.

[Rancid]

I cannot find district results (percentages) for state sentate/house elections.

I would agree that lopsided districts are a big problem, since single-member district FPTP voting only works if districts are competitive. But I think it's not only due to gerrymandering, but also strong party identity. Basically, candidates cannot adjust their political program to the district, since they are seen as either Democrat or Republican regardless. Proportional systems need strong parties but for plurality systems it's bad.

Agree. The culture of America itself is very locked into D v R. It will result in many people who are pro-choice, voting for Republicans simply because that's their team and not because this is something they actually believe.

One thing that would help combat all of this is rank choice voting. However, both parties are against this for obvious reasons.

[Rancid]

@Rugoz @Rancid I also think there's a "national politics" issue to consider, as in the decision may have been made by the RNC.

But this vote is a warning, I think, if more conservative states hold votes like Kansas did, and voters in several vote like Kansas voters did then it will have effects nationally.

It is a warning, I agree. A warning that tells them they will need to undermine democracy even more.

Basically Republicans cannot rely on popular votes even at the state level within states they control. This is something they assumed they could do. Basically, they have done a decent job of diminishing the power of voting blocks that tend of vote against them at the national level (evidence is how they lose the popular vote often). They thought they didn't have to do that at the state level, but this shows them that perhaps they do need to work on that. What we will start to see is more state level Republican antics around diminishing voting power and voting rights.

Again, they are after authoritarianism at national and state levels.

[BlutoSays]

The Point of No Return
Thomas Sowell, August 2, 2022

This is an election year. But the issues this year are not about Democrats and Republicans. The big issue is whether this nation has degenerated to a point of no return — a point where we risk destroying ourselves, before our enemies can destroy us.

If there is one moment that symbolized our degeneration, it was when an enraged mob gathered in front of the Supreme Court and a leader of the United States Senate shouted threats against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying "You won't know what hit you!"

There have always been irresponsible demagogues. But there was once a time when anyone who shouted threats to a Supreme Court Justice would see the end of his own political career, and could not show his face in decent society again.

You either believe in laws or you believe in mob rule. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the law or agree with the mob on some particular issue. If threats of violence against judges — and publishing where a judge's children go to school — is the way to settle issues, then there is not much point in having elections or laws.

There is also not much point in expecting to have freedom. Threats and violence were the way the Nazis came to power in Germany. Freedom is not free. If you can't be bothered to vote against storm-trooper tactics — regardless of who engages in them, or over what issue — then you can forfeit your freedom.

Worse yet, you can forfeit the freedom of generations not yet born.

Some people seem to think that the Supreme Court has banned abortions. It has done nothing of the sort.

The Supreme Court has in fact done something very different, something long overdue and potentially historic. It has said that their own court had no business making policy decisions which nothing in the Constitution gave them the authority to make.

Get out a copy of the Constitution — and see if you can find anything in there that says the federal government is authorized to make laws about abortion.

Check out the 10th Amendment, which says that the federal government is limited to the specific powers it was granted, with all other powers going to the states or to the people.

Why do we elect legislators to do what the voters want done, if unelected judges are going to make up laws on their own, instead of applying the laws that elected officials passed?

This is part of a very long struggle that has been going on for more than 100 years. Back in the early 20th century, Progressives like President Woodrow Wilson decided that the Constitution put too many limits on the powers they wanted to use.

Claiming that it was nearly impossible to amend the Constitution, Progressives advocated that judges "interpret" the Constitutional limits out of the way.

This was just the first in a long series of sophistries.

In reality, the Constitution was amended 4 times in 8 years — from 1913 through 1920 — during the heyday of the Progressive era.

When the people wanted the Constitution amended, it was amended. When the elites wanted the Constitution amended, but the people did not, that is called democracy.

Another great sophistry was using the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce to call all sorts of other things interstate commerce. In 1995, elites were shocked when the Supreme Court ruled — 5 to 4— that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce.

States had a right to ban carrying a gun near a school, and most of them did. But the federal government had no such authority. Nor did the Constitution give the federal government the right to make laws about abortion, one way or the other.

What both state and federal laws do have the right to stop is threats against judges and their families.

This is not a partisan issue. The Republican governor of Virginia is providing protection to Supreme Court Justices who live in that state. But the Republican governor of Maryland seems to think that harassing judges and their families is no big deal.

Voters need to find out who is for or against mob rule, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. We are not going to be a free or decent society otherwise.

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-so ... -no-return

[Pants-of-dog]

If SCOTUS judges want to be treated like humans, they should not take human rights away.

[Drlee]

If SCOTUS judges want to be treated like humans, they should not take human rights away.

Show me again where it says in our constitution that a woman has the right to kill her baby? The only thing the SCOTUS took away was their own "right" to make laws outside of the powers they have in the constitution.

I find your comment disgusting as it calls for treating people as animals but I will leave that as just another of your uncontrolled emotional outbursts. What I will draw your attention to is the the fact that the SCOTUS took no rights from anyone. A woman in California or Oregon can still have an abortion. The people who took rights away from women were the state legislators for whom some of those woman may well have voted. And the solution is simple and obvious. We have already seen one example of it work flawlessly.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Drlee

You are basically agreeing that they took away a right, and then adding ways some people can still access the same right.

And since I have pointed out that your constitution was written by slave owners, it is obvious why rights to control one’s own body will not be found on that document. You never disagree whenever I mention this, so it seems to be us going in a circle.

[Drlee]

@Pants-of-dog

You are basically agreeing that they took away a right, and then adding ways some people can still access the same right.

No I am not.

And since I have pointed out that your constitution was written by slave owners, it is obvious why rights to control one’s own body will not be found on that document. You never disagree whenever I mention this, so it seems to be us going in a circle.

Nonsense. This is an idiotic diversion on your part. Our current constitution was written by people who abolished slavery at the cost of 1/2 million lives. We are not going to buy these facile arguments from the left anymore. You simply have to do better than that.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog



No I am not.

Tell me where I am wrong:

1, Roe v Wade had the practical effect of making access to abortion (during the first trimester, et cetera) a federal right.

2. The effect of overturning this court decision made abortion inaccessible for a significant portion of the US population and is projected to make it illegal for about half the population.

Nonsense. This is an idiotic diversion on your part. Our current constitution was written by people who abolished slavery at the cost of 1/2 million lives. We are not going to buy these facile arguments from the left anymore. You simply have to do better than that.

No, some amendments were attached afterwards, onto the original constitution written by slave owners.

Significant numbers of women did not even have voting rights in the US until a few years before Roe v Wade. Specifically, many black and Indigenous women.

[Drlee]

1, Roe v Wade had the practical effect of making access to abortion (during the first trimester, et cetera) a federal right.

Wrong. What it did was confer on their doctors the right to privacy WRT abortion. This let women obtain an abortion. And this gave some of them access to abortion in places where such access was restricted by law. Not everywhere. In fact, before Roe V. Wade, there were states where abortion was legal in the US. See the numerous quotes I have posted by RBG.

2. The effect of overturning this court decision made abortion inaccessible for a significant portion of the US population and is projected to make it illegal for about half the population.

True. But your comment denies a simple fact. The decision had no effect on over half of the women in the country. And since the decision one more state codified a woman's right to an abortion.

I understand that you want this to be a "national" problem. It is, not a national problem and likely never will be. Why do you cling to this fantasy so strongly? Women are a clear majority of voters in the US. But in some states the majority of women prefer for abortion to be illegal.

You get excited by a problem which, in many states, the majority of people do not believe IS a problem. It is really just a question of democratic action. Either women want the right or at least prerogative to have an abortion and will claim it in their own state or they will not. Simple. Next question?

[Godstud]

@Drlee If Roe V. Wade being overturned was not a blow against women's rights, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If it wasn't truly important, then they wouldn't have overturned it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Wrong. What it did was confer on their doctors the right to privacy WRT abortion. This let women obtain an abortion. And this gave some of them access to abortion in places where such access was restricted by law. Not everywhere. In fact, before Roe V. Wade, there were states where abortion was legal in the US. See the numerous quotes I have posted by RBG.

None of this shows I was wrong.

Try again.

True. But your comment denies a simple fact. The decision had no effect on over half of the women in the country. And since the decision one more state codified a woman's right to an abortion.

I understand that you want this to be a "national" problem. It is, not a national problem and likely never will be. Why do you cling to this fantasy so strongly? Women are a clear majority of voters in the US. But in some states the majority of women prefer for abortion to be illegal.

You get excited by a problem which, in many states, the majority of people do not believe IS a problem. It is really just a question of democratic action. Either women want the right or at least prerogative to have an abortion and will claim it in their own state or they will not. Simple. Next question?

And none of this contradicts anything I have said.

[BlutoSays]

@Drlee

You are basically agreeing that they took away a right, and then adding ways some people can still access the same right.

And since I have pointed out that your constitution was written by slave owners, it is obvious why rights to control one’s own body will not be found on that document. You never disagree whenever I mention this, so it seems to be us going in a circle.

You have this alternate plane of reality you live in. He did not state what you are telling us.

Slaveowners? fuckingnutz.jpg



Newsflash:

2+2=4

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... s-the-link?

Maternal Mortality is Likely to Rise Post-Roe: The Reasons May Surprise You

Maternal mortality rates are expected to increase in states with restricted or banned abortion access, with People of Color more likely to be affected.
While some people may resort to unsafe measures to terminate an unplanned pregnancy, many others may die from untreated pregnancy complications or even maternal homicide.
Education around contraceptives, prenatal care, and agencies that help subsidize abortions in states where they’re legal could be life-saving.
The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade poses many threats to the physical and mental health of anyone who could become pregnant.


What’s most concerning about restricting or banning abortion access is the anticipated increase in maternal mortality rates, with Black women more likely to be affected.

Even before Roe’s reversal, the United States had the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source shows that in 2020, the maternal mortality rate was nearly 24 deaths per 100,000 live births.

In many situations, abortions can be life-saving, and experts say banning them or severely restricting them can increase maternal mortality.

But a rise in maternal mortality is unlikely to be largely attributed to abortions that are self-managed, particularly those that are managed with FDA-approved abortion medicationsTrusted Source. Instead, experts say the reasons maternal mortality may increase due to abortion bans are complicated.

Abortions are safer than childbirth

Abortions are statistically safer than childbirth. Research from 2012 shows the risk of death during childbirth is 14 times higher than a safe and legal abortion.

What’s more, research from 2022 indicates that even self-managed abortions, when performed under the guidance of a physician, can be safe and effective. In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued a permanent approval for prescription abortion pills by mail, permitting doctors to meet with out-of-state patients via telemedicine and prescribe the medication.

Dr. Sarah Prager, MAS, a UW Medicine professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, told Healthline the primary way people will likely try to self-manage an abortion will still be with medication regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol. But these medications are only approved for up to 10 weeks gestation, which means that self-managed abortions beyond 10 weeks are unsafe.

Prager warned that the safety of managing an abortion outside of a medical system will diminish as a pregnancy continues. “People who cannot access abortion [may] become desperate quickly and will resort to any means they can to not be pregnant.”

Abortion bans and maternal mortality: What’s the link?

Maternal mortality can affect anyone who becomes pregnant.

Experts have warned that people of all backgrounds will die from untreated pregnancy complications, such as an incomplete miscarriage. Others have expressed concern for pregnant people experiencing intimate partner violence, which could increase the number of maternal homicidesTrusted Source.

But restricted abortion access is more likely to increase maternal mortality rates among People of Color, especially Black women. The CDC reportsTrusted Source that Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native (AI/AN) women are 2 to 3 times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes than white women.

According to the CDCTrusted Source, contributing factors to higher pregnancy-related deaths among People of Color may include:


structural racism and implicit bias
lack of access to quality healthcare
underlying chronic conditions
social determinants of health that prevent people from receiving fair opportunities for economic, physical, and emotional health (i.e., rural location, transportation issues, lack of insurance)


Here are some ways that being denied access to safe abortion could be lethal.

Limitations on miscarriage care

Research from 2022 estimates that 26% of pregnancies end in miscarriage — that’s over a quarter of all pregnancies.

Miscarriage care, including medications or medical procedures, is similar to abortion care.

Limitations on medical miscarriage care due to pregnancy complications can be fatal, putting medical professionals in a complicated ethical position in the emergency room.

“Doctors are ethically obligated to treat patients, and it may [also] be a violation of the states’ anti-abortion laws,” Prager said. “Even if it’s not in violation, there will be confusion for many clinicians about what is and is not allowed, which will also potentially create confusion about how they can legally proceed.”

Already media reports have cited stories from people who faced obstacles in getting miscarriage care.

Ruptured ectopic pregnancy

Ectopic pregnancies — when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus — affect about 1–2% of all pregnancies. These pregnancies are not viable and can result in a medical emergency. Delaying treatment due to abortion bans may cause further complications or even result in death.

“A [person] with an incomplete miscarriage can bleed to death if the uterine contents aren’t evacuated, an ectopic pregnancy can rupture and the [person] can bleed to death,” said Kecia Gaither, MD, MPH, FACOG, the director of Perinatal Services at NYC Health + Hospitals/Lincoln in New York City. “In both cases, intervention is necessary.”

Maternal sepsis

Maternal sepsis, or “septic uterus,” affects 11% of maternal deaths globallyTrusted Source. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) reportsTrusted Source that maternal sepsis is the third most common cause of maternal mortality.

For instance, if a pregnant person’s water breaks before 20 weeks gestation, it could cause a severe bacterial infection and sepsis (or blood poisoning) if left untreated. Sepsis may also occur during an incomplete miscarriage.

In these cases, physicians may be forced to wait for the patient to become severely ill before providing an abortion or wait until the fetal heartbeat stops.

Delayed care for cancer patients

In some cases, cancer care during pregnancy may be delayed since it may cause harm to the fetus.

“A variety of cancer treatments compromise the immune system and suppress bone marrow, which increases the risk of bleeding,” explained Mitzi Krockover, MD, host of the women’s health podcast, Beyond The Paper Gown. “Denial of [abortion] care can cause a patient to lose too much blood or become septic.”

Krockover added that delaying cancer treatment that could harm a fetus, such as chemotherapy or radiation, could decrease a person’s chances of remission, thus decreasing their overall chances of survival.

In some scenarios, Krockover explained, doctors may elect to use suboptimal therapy that is less harmful to the fetus but not as effective for successful cancer treatment.

Other complications

Pregnant people with significant comorbid conditions face additional risks if they cannot terminate a pregnancy, which may result in death.

A cohort study of California mothers delivering between 1997 and 2014 published in 2020 shows that severe maternal mortality (SMM) increased by 160% during that time. The study noted that medical comorbidities made up a substantial number of maternal mortality rates, increasing 111% during the study period. Obstetric comorbid conditions increased by 30% to 40%.

According to Gaither, comorbidities elevating the risk for maternal mortality may include:


underlying cardiac malformations
high blood pressureTrusted Source
cardiac dysfunction
advanced kidney disease
Suicidal ideation and attempt


According to the American Psychological Association (APA), restricting abortion access may increase the risk of mental health issues.

Being denied an abortion may lead to an increase in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and even suicidal ideation, according to the APA.

Suicide is a leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States. In fact, a 2021 studyTrusted Source looking at data from 2006 to 2017 shows that suicidal ideation and self-harm significantly increased among pregnant people during the year before and after giving birth.

“According to the Turnaway study, people who were denied abortion access experienced higher levels of depression and anxiety and overall worse mental health outcomes than people who were allowed to have an abortion,” said Dr. Mary Jacobson, chief medical officer at Alpha Medical.

By contrast, Jacobson cited another study, which showed that levels of suicidal ideation were similarly low between people who had abortions and people who were denied abortions.

The researchers concluded there’s not enough evidence to suggest that having an abortion increases a person’s risk for suicide. They noted that some studies had shown a higher risk of deliberate self-harm among women denied an abortion but concluded that more rigorous research is still needed.

“Based on these facts, one may hypothesize that maternal mortality due to suicidality may increase, but this hypothesis is debatable,” Jacobson said.

Domestic violence and maternal homicide

Research from 2021 shows that homicide is another top cause of maternal mortality in the United States, with marginalized groups and People of Color more likely to be impacted, particularly those of younger ages.

Data shows there were about 4 homicides per 100,000 live births among people who were pregnant or within 1 year postpartum, which was 16% higher than homicide prevalence among nonpregnant and nonpostpartum people of reproductive age.

Intimate partner violence is associated with maternal mortality. Advocates for survivors of domestic violence have said that pregnant people are especially at risk for an increase in intimate-partner violence in a post-Roe world if they’re denied an abortion.

What can be done?

According to Jacobson, there are a few ways you can help support pregnant people who may be seeking an abortion, particularly those who may be dealing with intimate partner violence or those in marginalized groups:

Spread accurate information about contraceptives (i.e., the pill, patch, ring, injection, implant, and IUD), which help prevent unplanned pregnancies.
Recognize that sexual coercion and domestic violence exist regardless of socioeconomic status.
Engage and educate people about intimate partner violence.
Screen and rescreen patients for sexual coercion and domestic violence.
Provide resources and alternatives for people in abusive relationships.
Recognize and learn from our own implicit biases and take the Implicit Association Test.
To help reduce the risk for maternal mortality overall, Gaither said that anyone who can become pregnant should educate themselves on the availability of:

Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCS)
States that perform safe and legal abortions
Early entrance into medical care upon positive pregnancy testsTrusted Source
Agencies that can assist with costs and access to abortion services (i.e., the National Abortion Federation)
In addition, you can cast your vote for legislators who are sympathetic to a person’s right to choose.

Takeaway
Any pregnant person living in a state with restricted or banned abortion access may face an increased risk of maternal mortality from obstetric and other causes — but these risks affect People of Color disproportionately.

If you live in an area where abortion access is restricted and are concerned about limitations on miscarriage care, it’s important to be aware of your options and understand the potential consequences of being denied treatment. In addition, if you know someone who may be pregnant and is in an abusive relationship, you may wish to offer your support to help ensure their safety.

[Drlee]

Takeaway
Any pregnant person living in a state with restricted or banned abortion access may face an increased risk of maternal mortality from obstetric and other causes — but these risks affect People of Color disproportionately.

That is not the correct takeaway. The correct takeaway is "Any woman having sex without proper contraception is placing herself in increased danger. A danger, though very small, that cannot be ignored."

Were she or the man with whom she is having sex, to choose to practice proper contraception, she would be at virtually no risk for the dangers involved in unwanted pregnancies. And it is only unwanted pregnancies with we are concerned about here.

[wat0n]

Dobbs does not allow states to ban abortion to save maternal life. That is named explicitly as a state interest that is subject to the usual constitutional scrutiny (rational basis), so a state law so broad as to ban abortion when it may be necessary to save maternal life would be unconstitutional.

This is no different from Roe, which also did not allow states to ban abortions to save maternal life, even if the fetus was already viable ("(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.")

[ingliz]

@Drlee

How do you define "at virtually no risk"?

For people taking the pill, typical use means the chance of pregnancy is 9% in a given year.