You’re just picking one (completely valid) issue and deciding it trumps another, but I don’t see why that’s the case. By all means, let’s have efforts to address both these problems. I don’t have any reason to think the advocates for this plan necessarily oppose the other.
Also, to address @JoshL’s comment, the paper doesn’t go into enough detail to be sure, but I would think it’s pretty likely that a miscarriage D&C would be treated as pregnancy care. When my wife had to have one, it was performed by the same OB/GYN who would have delivered the child.
JoshL
1785
Except that’s very naive because today women aren’t receiving miscarriage care because doctors and pharmacists are (rightfully) afraid they’ll be prosecuted.
It doesn’t smack you as odd at all that the same people that are fighting tooth and nail to get rid of the ACA and get rid of medicare are going to sign on to socialized medicine in this one case? It’s because this isn’t about health care, it’s about telling women what choices they’re allowed to make.
Also I think you tagged the wrong person.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say if someone is a long-time QT3 member and is posting in this thread, odds are extraordinarily high they’re keenly aware of the draconian steps social conservatives are pushing everywhere and how horrible it is.
If someone wants to make child birth “free” (paid with taxes) and isn’t going to slip anything objectionable into such a bill, I’m all for it even if the devil himself brought it forth. The cost of health care in general is obscene, so any step towards single-payer is a good step IN A VACUUM. However, the item linked above is a glossy white page, not a bill. It intentionally lacks details.You and I and everyone else knows tons of added language will be in there if it ever forms the basis of a bill and actually reaches a vote, at which point we’ll all have a proper target to vent against.
Yeah, it’s strikingly weird to ignore context here. And it’s downright funny that the help ends when the child reaches 2 years old. It’s like someone said to the anti-abortion right “why does your much-belabored concern for the well-being of fetuses evaporate the moment they become actual children,” and the response is “oh, yeah, we’ll show you, we will care about them until they are two hahahaha!”
If the right wants to make things slightly less dystopian for pregnant women and babies in their future Handmaiden paradise, I guess that’s swell, but I’d rather not have that paradise, thanks.
Enidigm
1788
The point of the legislation proposal is to reduce the rate of abortions, and also reduce the rate of C-Sections, and make giving birth cheaper. I have no opinion on the rate of C-Sections but the claim is malign incentives push doctors into encouraging a higher C-Section rate than should be “normal”.
But having better access to medical care is hugely needed in the country anyway for women and children - we have the worst statistics by far of any developed nation - so whatever their justifications it’s still a good idea. Though the underlying dislike of c-sections seems to indicate certain ideological preferences I’m unfamiliar with.
Sure, I think everyone agrees that it would be better for women to have health care during pregnancy and birth, and that it would be better for women to have financial assistance to raise children. Also, it would be better for women to have access to contraception, and it would be better for women to have control over their own bodies. It’s a bit like saying “yes, we do want to lock you up, but we want to treat you a bit better while you’re locked up.”
Enidigm
1790
The anti-abortion movement has a wing that looks seriously at the knock on consequences of a nationwide abortion ban. Sometimes the policy recommendations overlap and sometimes they feel like you’re being recruited to Sunday School whether you want to be or not. I think these advocates have a certain Wednesday night potluck midwestern church enthusiasm. They’re baking chicken casseroles to deliver to new mothers with a genuine smile and organizes delivery schedules - and then decide it would be great if we did this as a nation. You can’t really get mad at them when they drop the casserole on the front door.
You can if they’re feeding the new mothers in a cage.
It’s kind of even worse than that. Part of my objection above is the fact that they’ve got all reproductive aged women in the cage, but are bringing casseroles to the new moms and acting like they’ve solved a problem.
Hey, if those other women want casseroles, they should get pregnant.
Perhaps the clarifying question is: Do you think the folks putting forward this proposal would object if a bill went to the floor in Congress that had the assistance lasting for three years?
Those aren’t the people who wrote the proposal nor the people I’d expect to vote for it, no. The pro-life movement is broader than you think it is.
I just don’t understand this perspective. What you phrase as ignoring context looks to me like being so bitter and outraged over past (legitimate) grievances that discussion has become impossible.
Yes, the pro-life movement has historically been extremely evil and hid behind the fig leaf of “we are for life” when all their actions screamed “we are anti-choice, women should get back in the kitchen, sluts should be punished” and that was really odious. No argument at all on that. However, the paper under discussion here is advocating free health care for mothers. Yes it does take a few drive-by potshots at abortion (and oddly C-sections?) but it doesn’t advocate any policy at all tied to abortion. It advocates free health care which is a good thing. Isn’t this what the pro-life movement should have always been if they wanted to be true to their name? Actually doing things to help mothers and children?
I’m honestly confused as to the hostility towards this proposal. It matches my values pretty well. I’d like to see free healthcare for pregnant women and new mothers and babies. Yeah it’s coming from a pro-life movement that is traditionally evil as fuck, but even stopped clocks can be right twice a day.
No, why would they? That will come as a big comfort to the chattel, I’m sure.
I think you’re confusing ‘hostility toward the makers of this proposal’ with ‘hostility toward this proposal’. As I said, if you’re going to lock women up as breeding machines, the least you can do is feed them and care for the babies.
Here is an analogy, perhaps it will help.
We have this problem where cops shoot unarmed black men all the time. Usually after they shoot them, they handcuff them and then let them lie on the payment and maybe bleed out. We say to all of this, it’s bad enough that you shoot them what the actual fuck, but you don’t even help them after you shoot them!? So the police unions fund some legal organization to propose a new law that would require that cops who have shot an unarmed black man must provide medical assistance after the shooting. Of course it’s a good idea to provide medical assistance to someone you have just unnecessarily shot because they’re black, who could oppose a law like that? How can you be so hostile to this proposal?!
If the law saves lives then that’s an unalloyed good. That the law ameliorates a smaller consequence of a larger problem, without addressing the larger problem, doesn’t change the amount of good it does. This reads like the idealised example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
JoshL
1800
What if when the text of the proposed law comes out, we find it only applies to married women? It’s still helping people, right? What if it only applies to women in heterosexual marriages? What if it only applies to women who never had an abortion before? What if it only applies to white women?
All those laws would still help people, right? So they’re all still good?
KevinC
1801
I agree. Don’t get me wrong, I get the giant elephant in the room that isn’t being addressed. But if we can continue to fight about the elephant while giving mothers access to better healthcare, then we should do it. Even if it irks me that it’s being proposed by people that deprived women access to healthcare.
KWhit
1802
Discussion has become impossible. Fuck those people.
Fair enough. I disagree but thank you for stating that we can’t find a middle ground, I won’t chase it any further.
