Because the Texas abortion Bill does not clearly outline exceptions for medical necessity it has given rise to reluctance of practitioners to intervene until the woman is at significant and life threatening risk https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2207423 Added to this is the number of OBGYN practitioners who have now left a state that already had an extraordinarily high maternal mortality rate
For “gun bans” to work there must be a significant reduction in the number of available guns and tracking of existing guns - somehow I don’t think we should do that to women
When someone wants to do harm to a woman, disarming her for her own safety does the opposite. Government has no business telling her she can't have an abortion, carry a gun, or that she has to take a vaccine. You want a bigger, more powerful government, enjoy these abortion bans!
I don’t want abortion bans and despite the rubbish many float about Australia we did not “ban” guns but we did regulate them - successfully As for vaccines - should be like cigarettes which are taxed to help pay for the inevitable increase in healthcare costs from negative outcomes - tax the unvaxxed to cover the costs of increased medical care
That is a fault in the law; over-simplicity. This could go either way, with broad overly open-ended language, that could allow abortion in cases where it should not be allowed, or not allow it in cases where it should be allowed. I've tried to raise this exact same issue in this forum (not related to abortion) and it seems most people are too stupid to comprehend it. Some cases will be more cut and dried than others.
I have no issues with Australia. In the US, we have 2 parties claiming that their brand of overreach is in our best interest. Both are hypocrites, only interested in power.
