Laurie Corzett’s Post

Abortion bans and restrictions limit women's participation in the workforce, according to a new analysis that quantifies the negative impacts on state economies. #SouthDakota saw an average loss in #GDP of nearly 1% per year between 2021 and 2023, due to a drop in labor force participation by people who became pregnant and didn't have access to abortion care, according to data from the Institute for Women's Policy Research. That adds up to nearly $641 million in economic losses to the state. Dr. Jamila Taylor, president and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said the 16 states with abortion bans or extreme restrictions, including South Dakota, are costing the national economy $68 billion annually. "Not only do these restrictions and bans have a clear impact on the health and well being of people with the ability to get pregnant, they also have an impact on their productivity and their economic position in life," Taylor said. Taylor added abortion access not only helps family finances, but also allows women ages 15 to 44 to engage more broadly in society -- in local communities or politics, for example. Despite restrictions, abortion numbers are rising. The first full calendar year after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade saw an 11% increase in abortions since 2020 - or over one million abortions in the formal health care system in 2023, according to The Guttmacher Institute. If voters pass South Dakota's constitutional Amendment G in November, it will enshrine protections to abortion. Hannah Haksgaard, University of South Dakota law professor, said even if it passes, people seeking an in-state abortion would likely see a lag time before services become available. "There would still likely be state legislation that would try to restrict abortion in certain ways, and then the question would become whether those restrictions violated the new constitutional amendment," she said. Haksgaard added that could make providers move slowly on offering abortion services in the state, until the legal issues are settled.

Are we witnessing the fall of US democracy? It develops in the direction of misogynist teocracies like Iran. And the supreme court that is supposed to protect the US constitution is responsible. The first thing Harris has to do in January 2025 is to restore abortion rights and reduce the power of the supreme court. "Since Roe v Wade was overturned by the US supreme court in 2022, 14 states have passed near-total abortion bans. Ten of those states, including Texas, have no rotexceptions for survivors of rape or incest. A study published earlier this year estimated that 65,000 rape-related pregnancies probably occurred in states with abortion bans since Roe fell. While there are no studies on the numbers of rape-related pregnancies in minors since Roe was overturned, young people in states with abortion bans face unique barriers, according to doctors and advocates who spoke with the Guardian. “States that ban abortions, both with and without rape exceptions, do not have carve-outs for minors,” Dr Samuel Dickman, one of the authors of the study on rape-related pregnancies since Roe fell, said via email. “Many states where abortion care remains legal impose burdensome additional restrictions on abortion access for minors, such as parental consent or notification laws. And of course, the logistical and financial burdens on people trying to get abortions out of state are often worse for minors, who may not have access to transportation or the funds needed to travel and pay for abortion services.”"

Abortion laws in WA which were enacted in September 2023, have now come into effect. The juxtaposition in how we are advancing women’s options, health and safety in WA whilst the aftermath of the overturning of the decision in Roe v Wade continues to play out in the USA is stark. Since Roe v Wade was overturned in June 2022 in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, with the Court effectively saying there is no federal constitutional right to abortion in the US, women’s rights have suffered. A number of State “trigger laws” were enacted upon the release of the Dodds judgement, and many states, particularly those more conservative states in the south and mid-west have severely restricted, if not outright banned (as in Oklahoma), access to abortion. Not only has this threatened women’s physical and mental health and well-being, but the impacts have been felt by the most vulnerable people, particularly those unable to travel to more liberal states for treatment. More broadly those involved in IVF and gay rights are also feeling under threat. I am privileged to live in a place that values women’s right’s; women’s health; and women’s choices, for there are many women around the world who will never experience anything like the freedom I take for granted every day.

Ron Southwick So here's a great article that is reportedly an analysis of the heathcarte issues discussed last night. Its very "truthy" as the distortions and somewhat true statements are framed to be supportive of the media who is sold out for Kamala Harris. While not noting the lie VP Harris told about President Trump advocating for a National Abortion Ban, the author omits her refusal to declare any restrictions on abortion including late term abortions right before a viable child could be delivered. The absolute lack of public support for late term abortions might figure into that omission if observed cynically. There is quite a debate among Doctors whether abortion is actually a healthcare service given its mission to end the life of a baby. Term miscarriages being extremely rare and not usually associated with "bleeding out" the statement is less than credible in the real world. I am intrigued that VP harris is willing to substitute her judgement for the judgement of thousands of State Legislators who passed restrictions on the performance of a healthcare procedure just as they do every day. Do we really need more politicians with a Big Brother complex dictating from on high what every state has to do and believe. Currently with abortion as an issue left to the states by our Constitution and legislation interfering with the State Laws would like Roe be likely unconstitutional and therefore VP Harris is just blowing smoke. We have real problems in healthcare in this country. At no time did anyone discuss the rural provider crisis and the effects of the nearly 20% cuts implemented on Doctors over the last four years who are closing their offices daily because they are no longer financially viable. The rapidly aging population of Doctors retiring because of burnout and despair with the system designed who have sold out by politicians might deserve some discussion as well. Is there any hope we might have a serious discussion about real issues that plague Americans trying to access healthcare service instead of microscoping issues created to stir strife and division? There were no substantial discussions last night maybe by design and maybe just horrible moderation and a BS debating intentions. What I do know is the media should be asking more questions for both and being the voice of the people instead of choosing to be the voice of VP Harris. I know we deserve better Kamala Harris for President, 2024 Donald J. Trump For President 2024, Inc.

Forced Birthers Begin To Splinter The Southern Baptist Convention voted to condemn in vitro fertilization at its annual meeting in Indianapolis this week, over the objections of some members. Conservative lawyers pushing to sharply restrict medication abortion lost a major case at the Supreme Court, after pursuing a strategy that many of their allies thought was an overreach. Former President Donald Trump told Republicans in a closed-door meeting to stop talking about abortion bans limiting the procedure at certain numbers of weeks. In one chaotic week, the anti-abortion movement showed how major players are pulling in various directions and struggling to find a clear path forward two years after their victory of overturning Roe v. Wade. The divisions start at the most fundamental level of whether to even keep pushing to end abortion or to move on to other areas of reproductive health, including fertility treatments. A movement that once marched nearly in lock step finds itself mired in infighting and unable to settle on a basic agenda. In some cases, hard-liners are seizing the reins, rejecting the incremental strategy that made their movement successful in overturning Roe. Other abortion opponents are backing away, sensing the political volatility of the moment. At a lunch at the Southern Baptist Convention this week, Tom Ascol, a prominent conservative pastor from Florida, bemoaned what the fragmentation meant for their cause. “The most important thing is, can we agree on the goal?” he said in a panel discussion. “Is the goal the absolute abolition of abortion in our nation?” Some applauded loudly. Others stayed quiet. For decades, the movement had honed a strategy to achieve a singular goal: ending a constitutional right to an abortion. But after that win, the anti-abortion movement has suffered a series of political losses. Democrats have won ballot initiatives in more than half a dozen states to protect abortion rights in state law. For the first time in half a century, Republicans are trying to win a presidential election without the rallying cry of ending abortion as a mobilizing tactic for their base. The stakes are higher because it is unclear whether Trump will simply defer to their wishes in a second administration as he did in his first. While abortion opponents dominate many conservative statehouses and courts, their efforts to go further — to ban abortion and transform reproductive health — have occasionally backfired. Republicans in swing states, prominent Senate candidates and even their champion Trump have all backed away from the anti-abortion agenda, for fear of more political fallout. Even in anti-abortion strongholds, control is slipping. In Arizona, anti-abortion adherents make up the bulk of the Republican elected officials in the state Legislature, but this spring they narrowly lost their heated fight to reinstate a near-total abortion ban from 1864.

The question of LIFE or ABORTION will be major issues in upcoming elections. Donald Trump (who is personally pro-life) has just declared that abortion should be the decision of the States, and not the Federal government. As a result, he has taken flak from all sides. https://lnkd.in/gjQRBcTp I tend to agree with his position, even though I am also unapologetically pro-life myself. Here's why. In the past, we have tried to decide a few issues via top-down mandates, with some really bad results. Slavery and prohibition were decided, but at the cost of lives and freedoms. It took a Civil War and countless deaths and casualties to outlaw slavery. And prohibition created a black market, Al Capone's murderous crime syndicate and widespread disobedience of the law, and it was repealed. I believe that the question of LIFE must first be an issue of hearts and minds. While laws can be passed to limit, outlaw or criminalize elective clinical abortion, many will disagree and disobey. Laws do not change hearts nor create compliance. Our American system of #Federalism is mode of political organization that unites separate States within an overarching political system that allows each to maintain its own integrity. In other words, the 50 States are an 'R&D lab' where diverse people can try things that either succeed or fail, via elections, according to their unique needs and cultures. If enough people in enough States find an idea (like LIFE or ABORTION) to be good, fair and workable, it can be adopted at the Federal level. Or not. Only time will tell. HERE'S MY POINT. I would love and support a system where ALL unborn children and their mothers are shown kindness and compassion; given hope, supported, loved, protected, educated and trained in self-sufficiency. And I would support a major portion of Federal abortion funding being re-allocated to this purpose. BTW - if you are reading this, you were conceived, became a fetus, then an unborn child, and after a period of pregnancy inside of your mother, you were given the opportunity of life by your mother. I'm glad that happened, and hope you will consider others - both born and unborn - just as valuable as you are.

The impact of limiting abortion rights on Black Americans Nearly 7 million of the country’s 11.8 million black women of reproductive age live in states that have or or planning to implement abortion restrictions, according to a new report from a pair of reproductive rights organizations. In addition, while the national pregnancy-related death toll is decreasing, Black Americans still die from childbirth at higher rates than other races. States with the most extreme abortion restrictions often have the highest Black maternal mortality rates. "And 36% of Black women polled living in states that restrict abortions at 15 weeks or less said they’ve thought about the risk of facing arrest for something related to abortion, pregnancy or miscarriage.  “The loss of abortion rights is deeply personal for Black women, who are facing increasingly difficult decisions about pregnancy and having children due to the risks that abortion bans pose to their well-being,” said Regina Davis Moss, In Our Own Voice’s president and CEO." Visit https://lnkd.in/e4_Qiz4X for links, images and more information.

Supreme Court to hear abortion pill arguments in March BY NATHANIEL WEIXEL - 01/29/24 FILE - Bottles of abortion pills mifepristone, left, and misoprostol, right, at a clinic in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sept. 22, 2010. Medication abortion is the preferred method of ending pregnancy in the U.S., and one of the two drugs use — mifepristone — will now go in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. As states have imposed bans or restrictions or seek to limit abortions after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, demand for the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol have grown. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File) Bottles of abortion pills mifepristone, left, and misoprostol, right, at a clinic in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sept. 22, 2010. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall) The Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 26 in a case that could limit the availability of the common abortion pill mifepristone. The justices will hear an appeal from the Biden administration and the maker of the branded version of mifepristone asking the high court to reverse a ruling from a federal appeals court that significantly curtailed access to the pill, even in states where abortion remains fully legal. The restrictions include banning the pills from being sent through the mail and shortening the window in which mifepristone can be used to terminate pregnancies from the current 10 weeks to seven weeks gestation. About half of all abortions nationwide are performed using mifepristone as the first of a two-pill regimen, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research and advocacy group. It is also used to help manage miscarriages. While the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade and has appeared hostile to abortion, an emergency ruling by the court in April has kept access to mifepristone unchanged. The justices rejected a separate appeal from abortion opponents who challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s initial approval of mifepristone as safe and effective in 2000. The availability of abortion pills has made it more difficult for conservative state leaders to enforce state restrictions on abortion because people can order them through mail-order pharmacies or travel out of state to obtain them. Abortion rights advocates argue that availability is one of the primary reasons leaders in the anti-abortion movement have targeted the drugs and fear that no matter what the Supreme Court rules, a Republican administration will try to eliminate access to them nationwide

WHEN RIGHTS ARE NOT SECURED, CONSEQUENCES HAPPEN Abortion during the first three months of pregnancy was legalized in the United States following a landmark decision in 1973 in the "Roe v. Wade" case. At the time, the argument was that abortion laws went against the US Constitution because they infringed on a woman's right to privacy. From the case onwards, American women had the absolute right to abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. In 2022, the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, annulled this right. With the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022, the Supreme Court allowed states to determine their own abortion laws, and 14 states "completely" banned the procedure, with exceptions for extreme cases. Interestingly, this has resulted in a sharp increase in permanent contraceptive procedures among young men and women. In a study published in the Jama Health Forum, researchers from the University of Pittsburgh and Boston, analyzing data from doctor visits between 2019 and 2023, showed a significant increase in tubal ligations and vasectomies in 18- to 30-year-olds following the Dobbs case. This increase in proceedings shows that a court ruling can have long-term demographic implications that were not initially anticipated. Both parties consider abortion a key issue in the November elections, with Democrats in particular hoping the issue will drive more voters to the polls as the majority of American voters view the 2022 Supreme Court decision critically. As a result, Trump had been avoiding the issue, as more conservative groups in the Republican Party support a national ban on abortion. In April, however, Trump said that, in his opinion, the states should decide the matter, and declared that he was "strongly in favor" of the right to abortion in cases such as rape, incest and life-threatening situations, disappointing some of his followers more conservative. Trump also criticized a decision by the state of Arizona to opt for a near-total ban on abortion, even in cases of incest and rape, and the Arizona Senate repealed the total ban.