StateofTrance
12-19-2007, 12:46 PM
We go to same university.
Overturning Roe w. Wade and making safe & legal abortion a "states' rights issue"? No, thank you.
This is a women's health issue, not a state government issue. Before Roe v. Wade, doctors that gave abortions were often jailed. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it is more than likely that the enforcement of anti-choice legislation would be the same now (at least, I would certainly hope that mothers wouldn't be the ones penalized!). But it's problematic no matter what: Jail the doctors and you leave women who are looking to terminate pregnancies with several dangerous options and few safe ones (to say nothing in terms of expense).
Several states already have laws on the books that would make abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade were overturned; Many of these laws do not even make exceptions for rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother. The reason abortion has been kept legal since 1973 is because of the toll that illegal abortions and particularly rough pregnancies had on the health of women. Making abortion illegal -- as time has proven again and again, and as we can learn in observing countries that do not have laws protecting this procedure -- does nothing to preserve the sanctity of life, but rather puts women's lives at risk.
The U.S. already has a pitifully low healthcare standard when compared to other countries in the developed world, especially where women and children are concerned. Creating a country where abortion is only available to those who live in "progressive", more prosperous places like California, New York, or other places like that does nothing to address the problem of healthcare for women at the nationwide level, and would create a model wherein women who benefit from economic and racial privelege can have access to procedures that women without those priveleges do not -- despite the fact that the only reason abortion has been made legal at all is so women who do not have that sort of access, wealth and privelege can attain a degree of health care that is of comparable quality to women who do.
It bothers me greatly to see issues of women's health discussed so dismissively and in terms so abstract. It baffles me that anyone else in Louisiana would actually defend a so-called "states' rights" platform or seek to rely on the Louisiana state government to protect any civil rights whatsoever (seriously -- study the history of civil rights legislation in Louisiana sometime!). And it really disturbs me that some would see not *failure*, but *opportunity* in observing in the state government's notorious fumbling when it comes to issues of social programs and civil rights.
Ron Paul is most DEFINITELY not the type of leader who would bring any good to the citizens of Louisiana (to say nothing of his economic platform, which I won't go into here). And it frustrates me that people don't realize this.
Overturning Roe w. Wade and making safe & legal abortion a "states' rights issue"? No, thank you.
This is a women's health issue, not a state government issue. Before Roe v. Wade, doctors that gave abortions were often jailed. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it is more than likely that the enforcement of anti-choice legislation would be the same now (at least, I would certainly hope that mothers wouldn't be the ones penalized!). But it's problematic no matter what: Jail the doctors and you leave women who are looking to terminate pregnancies with several dangerous options and few safe ones (to say nothing in terms of expense).
Several states already have laws on the books that would make abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade were overturned; Many of these laws do not even make exceptions for rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother. The reason abortion has been kept legal since 1973 is because of the toll that illegal abortions and particularly rough pregnancies had on the health of women. Making abortion illegal -- as time has proven again and again, and as we can learn in observing countries that do not have laws protecting this procedure -- does nothing to preserve the sanctity of life, but rather puts women's lives at risk.
The U.S. already has a pitifully low healthcare standard when compared to other countries in the developed world, especially where women and children are concerned. Creating a country where abortion is only available to those who live in "progressive", more prosperous places like California, New York, or other places like that does nothing to address the problem of healthcare for women at the nationwide level, and would create a model wherein women who benefit from economic and racial privelege can have access to procedures that women without those priveleges do not -- despite the fact that the only reason abortion has been made legal at all is so women who do not have that sort of access, wealth and privelege can attain a degree of health care that is of comparable quality to women who do.
It bothers me greatly to see issues of women's health discussed so dismissively and in terms so abstract. It baffles me that anyone else in Louisiana would actually defend a so-called "states' rights" platform or seek to rely on the Louisiana state government to protect any civil rights whatsoever (seriously -- study the history of civil rights legislation in Louisiana sometime!). And it really disturbs me that some would see not *failure*, but *opportunity* in observing in the state government's notorious fumbling when it comes to issues of social programs and civil rights.
Ron Paul is most DEFINITELY not the type of leader who would bring any good to the citizens of Louisiana (to say nothing of his economic platform, which I won't go into here). And it frustrates me that people don't realize this.