California Joins States Expanding Abortion Rights

California’s new permissive laws include allowing abortions to be done by health people who are not doctors.

This development is, in some ways, more important the Roe v Wade.  By expanding the community of people who can and are willing to perform abortions, it makes ever more difficult the prohibition of abortions sought by religious groups.

This means if abortions are made illegal in some states, there will be such a variety of people trained to perform them, policing will be ever more difficult. Liberalizing the laws as to who can perform abortions should lower the cost and make them more available.

One thing that needs to be done in our country to improve health care and make it available to more people is to remove religious dogma and the accompanying politics.   Anti abortion politics have made health care for women worse, especially lower income women.

The pattern developing in our country of encombent politicians having little competition in carefully drawn districts will probably result, eventually, with states having much different laws about various things like abortion and gay rights.  People will have to travel or move to states where there is less religious influence.  Perhaps national fund raising projects will provide air travel from conservative to liberal states.

The old saying,  “That’s a peculiar way to run a railroad” certainly applies to our country.  But, so long as religion remains a large force in healthcare laws and policies, that’s how it is.

61 Responses

  1. Michael Ross

    “By Planned Parenthood’s own accounting, $363 million – one-third of its budget annually – comes from the American taxpayer,” said president of Americans United for Life Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

    While Congress is discussing going deeper in debt and raising the debt ceiling … our government is quietly subsidizing the world’s largest abortion provider with $1 million a day.

    “California’s new permissive laws include allowing abortions to be done by health people who are not doctors.”

    Why didn’t we just stay with back alley abortions?

    1. Hold on one minute. Those federal funds coming into Planned Parenthood can not be used for abortion services contrary to many people’s understanding. Federal funds are made up of money under Title X as well as Medicaid. These funds are used for women’s health including cancer screening, birth control, and other reproductive health issues. ONLY 3% OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S SERVICES ARE FOR ABORTIONS. That means many women can actually prevent the need for abortions by getting birth control at Planned Parenthood clinics. Let me repeat: Federal money can not presently be used to fund abortions.

      If you take the position that no money should go to them because they choose to use their fund of private donations to fund abortion services, then you will have inadvertently caused more women not to have birth control and therefore an increased need to have abortions. If by chance you think that by simply restricting Planned Parenthood’s funding in the hopes that some of the women who end up getting pregnant because they do not have access to birth control services will not have an abortion, think again. The total number of abortions in the United States has remained constant despite it’s legal status. The difference is that more women will end up dead either because of abortions done by untrained people or because they did not get cancer screenings that could have alerted them to their disease at an early stage.

      Doing an abortion requires training, but it’s not rocket science. The morning after pill has helped reduce the number of surgical abortions that are done as has newer suction methods. The main threat of surgical procedures is unsterile conditions causing devastating infections. The days of back alley abortions were every bit as bad as they sound. Many women died. Most abortions didn’t take place in back alleys, rather, many of these procedures were done in college dorms by sorority sisters or in homes by mothers who were trying to help their daughters. Women died of perforated uteruses as well as infections. Many died of pulmonary embolism because a common technique was to blow air into the uterus through a tube to induce a miscarriage, but in many cases the air traveled into the blood instead. California is on the right track.

          1. Jinx

            It just blows my mind that right wingers and especially, the extreme right, refuse to believe real facts done by credible researchers, scientists and statisticians!

            BTW, I am a former Clinic Manager for a Title X Planned Parenthood clinic and we could not be involved with abortions or we would lose our title X funds.

            When representing Planned Parenthood, all Title X staff cannot favor or support ANY political position!! What we do individually outside of the clinic was our business.

            I found that PP staff represented ALL sides of the abortion spectrum but we had to keep our personal opinions to our self and make pregnant patients aware of all options available to them. With teens, the first thing we talked about was telling their parents/their Mom/Grandma or other close family member (in that order). Then we go on to the options. Keep the baby, if yes, get them on prenatal vitamins and to a Dr. asap while warning about any alcohol, tobacco and drug use. If the woman said she would not keep the baby, then we would go immediately to adoption and give resources for both open and traditional adoptions, plus the same advice on nutrition, vitamins, Dr. and alcohol, drug, tobacco use. We tried to have a list of Dr’s who worked with open adoption. If the woman wanted an abortion, we gave her the same prenatal advice with the reasoning that she may and could change her mind right up to the moment the abortion would start plus the info where she could call and make an appt. for the abortion. If she wasn’t sure what she was going to do, we gave her all of the above information.

            We encouraged pregnant girls and women they could come back and talk with the nurse again alone, with a parent, the baby’s father or other relative. The importatn point is that we give all options in an empathetic, objective, and balanced approach with out judging or trying to influence their decision. That is what PP Federal and state organizations demand of their staff and will fire anyone who will not do so.

            If you read something different about how nasty old PP turns people to abortions, it is simply not true and if it does happen that person is history.

            ANd yes, at the abortion clinic, the woman is told several times, right up to the point of no return, that she can change her mind and the staff will only do what she wants. BTW, if abortion clinic staff feel she is being pressured into the abortion or if she really isn’t sure what she really wants to do, THEY REFUSE TO DO THE ABORTION!!! This is PP nation wide policy and I cannot speak for any other abortion provider.

          2. Thanks for your experience and information, Jinx. We need to provide good information where we find inaccurate, partisan or misleading information. The truth will win out.

          3. Henry

            One of my relatives was an experienced nurse for a number of years at one of the abort clinics in ND. I believe she hasn’t been right since that experience. Apparently, she didn’t have as thick of a skin as some abort workers do.

    1. Brad

      Hey, Mark, maybe you missed the news that California is recovering now that it dumped its Republican governor. Same with Minnesota.

  2. Brad

    I would think that the hard core right wing conservatives would be totally in favor of abortions, the more the better. Dead babies require a whole lot less government assistance than live ones, and after all most of the abortions performed are from low income women who can’t afford to raise a child.

    I would think there would be a point where the fiscal conservatives would grasp this.

    1. Michael Ross

      . “Dead babies require a whole lot less government assistance than live ones, and after all most of the abortions performed are from low income women who can’t afford to raise a child.

      Government assistance produces babies for welfare moms. If you can’t feed’m don’t breed’m.

        1. Wanna B Sure

          Really really thin argument. “The right to life” would assume a life already present. You can’t stop/kill “life” if no life is present. “Birth control” should more accurately be called “conception prevention”. Abortion more accurately defined: “termination of that which has been conceived.” a “baby” by brad’s definition. “Dead babies”.

          1. Brad

            No matter what, you cannot refute the point I made. Babies that are never born, or dead babies, or however you want to define it, are far less of a cost to the government than live ones.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            Especially if the mother is in benefit mode. You will notice I didn’t mention the breeder male contributor.
            That not being the point. Your “dead baby” is the point.

          3. Brad

            Well, you did go off on a tangent from my original point.

            You can make the case that abortion is murder, but it’s irrelevant to my original point. That’s a whole different argument.

      1. Brad

        I just love this:

        Right wingers are doing everything they can to force women to have kids they don’t want, and then complain when a “welfare mom” has the child.

        So they are going to force women to have kids, and then vilify them for doing it.

      2. Jinx

        Michael, tell that to the pregnant 14 yr old girl who was (Pick one or more): molested by her father (step)/uncle/brother/etc., raped, sweet talked by her older boyfriend, and any number of coersive situations.

        Just kills me, right wing element practically goes postal about abortion BUT wants to cut off all those “on the dole” after there born. Great way to build a caste system like India is plagued with.

    2. Wanna B Sure

      @ 1:38: “dead babies”. Not just a mass of cells. To be dead, it must then be killed. “Dead babies”= “Killed babies”. I think you are catching on.

      1. Brad

        It doesn’t matter, because that’s not my point. My point is that people who are never born, or are killed, are much cheaper to care for than people who do live. It’s an inarguable fact.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            That you don’t get the point is obvious. ” Dead babies”–“dead people (or anyone deprived of life through abortion or contraception)”, YOUR WORDS, (with my added qualification of “abortafacients”), so as not to confuse conception prevention with post conception “dead babies”.

            Your point is on par with “no horses, no need for hay.” This has nothing to do with “dead babies”.

      1. Michael 2:57 “Read this and tell me the way out of this quagmire.”

        There is a way out of this quagmire. It’s not that difficult and has been right in front of Congress to 20 years. The solution involves a combination of relatively small adjustments combined with the Affordable Health Care Act.

        There is an obstacle, however. It requires dealing with hard cold facts, not perceptions and political ideology.

      2. Jinx

        Michael, the way out is to give all children an equal chance at a good productive life by: universal programs that teach parenting from birth to teens, good nutrition, access to quality healthcare, preschool, quality education k-12. Sure it costs money but its a lot less than imprisionment for life, poor health and unprepared for a work.

        1. Michael Ross

          We have been going down that road since the Great Society of the ’60s. Look where are now: $17 trillion in debt, fallen from 1st to about 34th in education, no one can afford their healthcare, lowest labor force participation rate since the ’70’s. That’s what “universal programs have produced. And you advocate more of the same snake oil.

          1. “no one can afford their healthcare”

            Someone hasn’t been paying attention. Rates for healthcare are going to be even lower than anticipated with the ACA. You fail to mention that it’s the Republican presidents who have accumulated debt including Reagan and Bush and it’s Democratic presidents who pay it off. Obama has lowered deficits not increased them. States under Republican governors have to take their share of blame for cutting education funding so you really can’t hang that on Democrats. And labor. It’s the Dems that want to keep immigration flowing; it the Republicans who want to cut it off. So think this through one more time.

  3. Brad

    Social Security is doing fine other than the fact that politicians have robbed from the trust fund to pay for Republican wars and other atrocities.

    Nevertheless, there is an extremely simple fix for SS. Just get rid of the cap on the SS tax. Force everyone to pay it no matter what you income is. Problem solved.

    1. Michael Ross

      There nothing in the “trust fund” except worthless government bonds which the Fed is buying at the of $45 Billion/month with funny money. Raise taxes, the liberals solution for everything.

      1. Michael 12:37 “There is nothing in the ‘trust fund’ except worthless governmet bonds which the Fed is buying at the rate of $45 Billion/month wity funny money.”

        I hate to disappoint you, but the government bonds are not worthless and the money is not funny money. If you believe it is, I hope you will arrange to send all the bonds and money to me. I’ll take my chances as to whether it is worthless or not.

          1. Michael 2:44 “Spoken by a true brainwashed Keynesian.”

            If Keynes asked for people to send him the money and bonds they thought were worthless, that makes me a Keynesian.

            I’m just in favor of recognizing what is reality and what is myth. As realist pointed out, it’s a myth the Affordable Health Care will “bankrupt the country”. Instead, it is, and will, lower health care costs and free small businesses from health care cost burdens they now suffer from.

          2. Michael 3:44 “The Fed has to buy…because of it QE program because there is no market for them. They are worthless.”

            If the Fed wants to increase the money supply, it buys securities. If the securities were worthless, no one but the Fed would be buying them. Lot of people in this country and other countries buy them. You are champion in the contest for hyperbole.

          3. Michael Ross

            $45 Billion/mo times 12 months, that’s almost the who budget deficit. Who else is buying? Wallstreet’s primary bond dealers bid at quarterly auctions for what “investors” don’t take which is nothing. What they can’t sell on the secondary market is purchased back by the Fed under the table. Its all a charade. Foreigners still hold $trillions because the need dollars to buy crude oil on the world market but countries like Iran are not longer taking $s for oil. That’s why they are in our crosshairs for the next war. Why do you suppose Saddam is dead and his country occupied? Because in 2000 the announced to the world that he would no longer except $s for his oil. Same with qadaffi in Libya. Some the the $ is backed buy nothing. That’s not true. Its backed by oil and and the US military.

          4. Michael 12:10 “Some say the $ is backed by nothing. That’s not true. It’s backed by oil and the US military.”

            The dollar, or any other currency, is held by people only because when they want to spend it, it will buy something–retain its value. Gold, oil or military might influence their thinking in some way, but mostly its that the US is the longest same government in the world.

            I see by the link in you next post the majority of our debt is held be ourselves. That held by foreign countries is held because it has retained its value better than other currencies. It may be someday another currency is preferred by foreigners. That will not mean the end of prosperity in the U. S.

  4. Brad

    While I wait for someone to refute the original point I made about dead babies costing less than live ones, I will expand on that point:

    Dead people (or anyone deprived of life through abortion or contraception) of any age cost less than live ones. If we simply adopt the right wing agenda and abolish all government assistance to everyone, it would most certainly result in mass starvation and illness and death, but it would solve our fiscal problem. There would be no more debt, and it would remove from this earth anyone who relies on government assistance. It would be like killing 2 birds with one stone – butcher government down, and get rid of all the people Republicans hate.

    Oh, and by the way, those who rely on government assistance of some form or another includes just about all of us, except maybe the top 2% (the super rich).

    1. Your argument will probably not be appreciated by the conservative right anymore than Jonathan Swift’s argument for eating children was but good try. I find the mental gymnastics that the conservatives have to go through to justify their policy decisions could be seen as entertaining if they weren’t so pathetic. It doesn’t stop with the abortion issue either. Conservative immigrants are denigrating present day immigrants; conservatives recipients of corporate welfare are denigrating recipients of welfare for the poor; conservative Christians are denying Muslims their free exercise of their religion and so on and so on.

    2. Wanna B Sure

      “Dead people (or anyone deprived of life through abortion or contraception)—Contraception in the form of abortafacients , (that which stops the life of the conceived). equals “dead people” by the hand of another.

      1. Great. Now the conservatives are after contraception as well as abortion. This is where you lose all support from reasonable people who can see that contraception makes life bearable for many many people including men. But don’t let me stop you from your suicide mission since you are on a “dead people” riff anyway.

        1. Wanna B Sure

          Realist: What did I say? “Contraception in the form of abortafacients”. Condoms are contraception, as are many “Pills”, but not all are contraceptives, they are abortafacients. (key word-abort). I need not tell what that is. Keeping your panties on or keeping your zipper shut also is “contra”, (against) conception. You are showing no sign of “being “reasonable”.

        2. Wanna B Sure

          I refer you to Brad’s 3:49: “Dead people (or anyone deprived of life through abortion or contraception)”.
          Then to my 10:51, followed with my 2:21.

    3. Michael Ross

      You libs gave us the sexual revolution that gave us all the unwanted babies. Instead of advocating going back to traditional moral values you gave us abortion on demand. Then you bankrupted the economy with the welfare state. And now your president will finish us all off with deathCare (aka Affordable Health Care), that no one can afford.

      1. Brad

        That’s quite a twist on history.

        Actually, the sexual revolution was a direct result of the sexual repression and denial that had existed for decades. That’s what happens when you have too much of one extreme. Eventually the pendulum swings to the other extreme.

        The country was first bankrupted with unfettered capitalism during the Republican “roaring twenties” which led to the liberal New Deal. Ironically, the “welfare state” is what saved the country at that point. Then, after 40 years of “welfare state” prosperity came the Reagan Revolution – cut taxes and increase spending and try to legislate morality. That bankrupted the country again, and then Clinton raised taxes which got us back on the right track. Then came Bush and his list of multiple atrocities and more tax cuts and more increased spending and banking deregulation and the “ownership society” (a 2004 Bush campaign slogan) housing bubble which led to the collapse of 2008.

        Now here we are. History proves that Republican policies don’t work. So why would we want to do it again? Just to entertain the delusion that it works?

      2. Brad

        “Instead of advocating going back to traditional moral values you gave us abortion on demand.”

        Versus what we had before – abortion on demand in back alleys. We still had abortion before Roe v. Wade in case you didn’t know.

  5. wolfy32

    The reality is abortion won’t be stopped.. period. It’s as old as humanity is. Anybody thinking that abortion can be completely ended is living in a delusion. NO matter what laws, policies, or legal status abortion is in, it’s not going to end by making it illegal or by limiting the options. As others have said, it will lead to cases where the mother is put in jeopardy and killed as well as the child. That said, I think we as the society of civilized human beings… The elite of intelligence (supposedly) on this planet, need to recognize, the preciousness of life.

    No matter one’s religious beliefs, there is always the potential for genetics within the human genome to go wrong. That Human reproductions slows and/or stops. If one generation of humanity went sterile.. Say it took us 40 – 50 years to find a cure and/or what caused the sterility… Would we think twice about aborting what life was able to spring to life?

    When things are in abundance we take them for granted. We take air, water, food, and for many of us even shelter for granted. There’s 6 billion on the planet, so, what’s it matter if a few are sucked out through a hose?

    Where’s the cut off what if there was only a million? 10 million? 100 people left?
    Is there a cut off, and it’s always a person’s choice, even if there’s only 100 people on the planet and only a few of them are couples capable of reproducing. If the person says no I don’t want kids, we’d let them abort?

    Scenerios we can’t possibly fathom. However, we can’t fathom the accomplishments of the unborn. They could be anything from the next mass murderer, terrorist, hitler, to the next NASA scientist that discovers life on a planet, or a medical doctor that develops a new procedure, to a person on a panel of cancer researchers that leads to the cure for cancer.

    That said, it does cost a lot to raise a child… And it takes a lot of energy and time that many mothers even older mothers are not prepared for.

    I don’t think just allowing anyone to have abortions is the right way to go. If it’s as simple as buying a pack of gum, I think we frivilously throw good lives away. That said, if it’s impossible to get, it will happen in back alleys and many people will be at risk of even greater issues, diseases, and/or death.

    There is no easy answer, other than what we’re doing today, which is a mix of somewhat making it simple, but, making abortion one of the last options.

    Then we have things as a society that are killing babies for us… I just saw an article this morning that Said BPAs in plastics may have a link to miscarriages and the ability to conceive. What happens when the next innovation is even more successful at having that side effect… Globably causing miscarriages and the inability to conceive?

    1. Wolfy32 1:13 “Then we have things as a socity that are killing babies for us…BPA’s in plastics have a link to miscarriages and the ability to conceive.”

      I’ve said here many times, if we as a society are interested in “life”, we should be interested in how many children and adults are needlessly and carelessly killed. There are about 35,000 thousand people killed in car wrecks each year in the U. S. We see absolutely no demonstrations by right to life people over these deaths. Nearly all of the them could be eliminated with strict driving rules and heavy handed enforcement. I think about half are alchohol related. In Norway, the rules about drinking and driving are so strict, mostly people don’t even consider driving after even one drink.

      Now, I’ve read, texting and phone use is causing even more deaths than drinking. I witnessed a crash just a couple of weeks ago–a small truck crashed into the pickup at a stop sign. I saw the driver’s head down, he didn’t touch his brakes. No demonstrations about lives lost by texting.

      It’s just all about demonizing. It’s much more fun to demonize women we don’t know who get abortions than demonize ourselves or people in our own family or friends.

      1. wolfy32

        Exactly. I’m not at all for abortion, at the same time, we have to look at society, and look at real solutions instead of picking an ideology and sticking with it no matter what. It’s said that fundamentalists on either side (Extreme left… a mother should be able to buy an abortion like a pack of gum or a greeting card) or the extreme right that says all mankind must stop abortions no matter what. It’s all wrong, all must stop… The police force it would take to stop them globally would require an extremist police state beyond anything we’ve ever seen in society. An MP with the views of all abortions are wrong would need to be on every street corner and possibly even in every building to monitor whether a mother is attempting to kill their own child in the womb.

        And if that happened they would state the world is in the end times… Which is it? more government or less government? Government where it’s convenient… To eliminate abortions completely would require something beyond anything that has existed. I can’t imagine a world like that, and don’t want to.

        It’s too bad that fundamentalists can create social policy… They’ll be the first to create a police state beyond anything. My parents idolized Bush. I didn’t mind some things, however, I told them I despised the Patriot Act. He’s the one that pushed it. They’re like “why what’s wrong with that…” I said, umm, it’s what destroyed democracy… It allows the feds to label anyone a terrorist and use it as an excuse to invade their privacy… “oh, well, that’s just one thing…” O.k. sure it’s just a small thing to legalize Marxism…

Comments are closed.