Abortion Pills, Explained

What happens when a pregnant woman follows the FDA-approved abortion regimen?

By
181
Packages of Mifepristone tablets are displayed on April 13, 2023. (Photo illustration by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

An order Friday night from the Supreme Court has kept the United States’ abortion pill status quo in place for now. The two-drug regimen to induce abortion through the first 10 weeks of pregnancy is still approved, and the drugs in question (mifepristone and misoprostol) are accessible for abortions that are still legal under state laws.

What happens when a pregnant woman follows that regimen?

After receiving a prescription from a certified provider, the woman swallows a 200-milligram mifepristone pill. This blocks the hormone progesterone, killing the embryo or fetus (the medical terminology shifts from embryo to fetus after eight weeks gestation) and allowing the second drug, misoprostol, to work more effectively. (Internationally, misoprostol-only abortions are more common, but they are not approved in the U.S. by the FDA.)

Progesterone is a critical hormone for the developing embryo or fetus. “In general, progesterone is pro-gestation,” said Jessica Lee, an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive services at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. “It is the hormone that supports an early growing pregnancy and makes the uterus a good environment for pregnancy growth.”

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
181
By
Comments (181)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Good explainer. I think you struck the right balance while still presenting the issue in the proper light.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Mleach

    Thank you for this helpful explainer.

    Collapse
  3. Billy Bonkrod

    I'd love to see a report on *how* women are getting access to these pills; what's the percentage difference between Dr. (or US based) providers vs online over-seas providence? How quickly is that percentage changing? How do online providers verify the term of the pregnancy? What happens if the pill duo are taken *after* 10 weeks?
    You note more severe complications in 3-5% of administrations. How confident are we in this data? I am hearing anecdotal evidence of a steep increase in patients presenting with severe complications--possibly because the drug is being administered after 10 weeks. Access is only accelerating, with more supply available online from non US providers. Color me skeptical of both the anecdotes, and the adverse reaction rate provided by one hospital.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Citizen60

      What is your source of the “I’ve been hearing” about an increase in ADRs?

      Collapse
      1. Billy Bonkrod

        Local ER Med Staff and OBGYNs, from 2 out of 3 major hospitals in my town. I work at one of them so have more opportunity to speak with some about it. Don't know how I could have been more explicit that I'm not positing this as fact: "anecdotal evidence" "color me skeptical"

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Magpie

    There's a lot of heated discussion about terminology in these comments. As someone who is pro-choice, I freely accept that in an abortion the fetus is killed. That's how it works: there's a woman and a fetus and the woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy - no more fetus.

    I don't think it matters whether implantation is prevented or implantation takes place and the pregnancy is terminated after that. The end result is the same.

    I am pro-choice because in the case of competing interests of the mother vs the fetus, I think the mother should have priority. This calculus changes for me later on in the pregnancy - i.e. at the point of fetal viability, when elective abortion could be considered off the table, while abortion because of risk to the mother or fetal abnormality should still be an option.

    It's a messy world. Fighting over terminology is, in my opinion, a way of trying to avoid thinking clearly about these difficult real-world situations.

    Collapse
  5. Jim S

    This article was very informative.

    I’d love to see a similar explanation for so-called ‘abortifacients’. Many of the drugs labeled as such by self interested parties in fact prevent implantation. If there is no implantation there is no pregnancy. If there is no pregnancy there is no abortion. It is impossible to have an abortion if you were never pregnant in the first place.

    The haphazard way the term is used to described some common forms of birth control is mostly just anti-abortion propaganda.

    Collapse
    1. Pohl

      Pregnancy begins at implantation is textbookese. The important criterion is life, which begins at conception. The rest is aging.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Thomas Grimmer

        Your pedantic dismissal of textbookese with your own form of textbookese is noted.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          PaulH

          @Thomas: I am not sure what you found so objectionable to Pohl's comment. He was accurately distinguishing between to terms that are used. And he was hardly pedantic.

          Collapse
        2. Pohl

          Objecting to the broken-down syllogism of implantation is pregnancy; there is no implantation; therefore, you’re free to abort because there’s nothing to see here—this is the opposite of pedantry. This is what happens when inappropriate but convenient language is imported from medical textbooks. I wish I could say “life begins at conception” was similarly found in those texts.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Says who? Most abortion abolitionists say personhood starts at conception e.g. when the egg and the sperm meet. There are indeed laws in many red stats now saying exactly this.


      https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/13/texas-personhood-laws-abortion-law/

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Mattjabour

    I appreciate the neutral, clinical language used in this article. It's so hard to trust a lot of stories on this topic because you never know if the author has an axe to grind.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Mudskipper

    "Progesterone is a critical hormone for the developing embryo or fetus" combined with "Mifepristone binds to progesterone receptors and prevents the hormone from functioning, thereby killing the fetus" makes it sound as if Mifepristone acts on the embryo or fetus itself. It does not.

    We've seen this misleading wording from other authors on this site. I believe it is a deliberate obsfucation of the issue, in attempt to get around the fact that Mifespristone acts directly on the woman's uterus. The fact that Mifespristone acts on the uterus, of course, raises the issue of whether or not the woman owns her own uterus and whether she has the right to take medicine that directly acts on the uterus.

    One of the questions you frequently see raised in the abortion debate is the "unconscious violinist" question. This question goes like this:

    "Imagine you wake up one morning connected to an unconscious violinist whose survival depends on the use of your kidneys for nine months. Is it morally permissible to disconnect from him?"

    Many ethicists believe the answer is "yes." And pro-abortion advocates use that answer to support a woman's right to abortion. Pro-lifers generally respond that the analogy isn't an exact parallel to abortion: a woman isn't merely disconnecting from her fetus; she is actively killing it. This is an absolutely reasonable argument to make against the "unconscious violinist" scenario when you are talking about surgical abortions.

    But when it comes to medical abortions with Mifepristone, we are talking a much closer parallel between the "unconscious violinist" scenario and an abortion. The woman is unplugging her uterus from the fetus and not directly killing it. And it is this issue that leads, IMO, to the misleading descriptions on how these drugs work coming from the pro-life community--it is an attempt to side-step the ethical questions raised by this scenario.

    Collapse
    1. Pohl

      Women take abortion pills . . . to effect an abortion. They aren’t taking them to “act on the uterus,” with some serendipitous killing of an embryo or fetus. The failure to kill is considered a failure of the drug’s mechanism. It is completely unlike an “unconscious violinist.”

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Mudskipper

        Women take abortion pills to end their pregnancy. Pregnancy, if you didn't know this, is a condition that affects women and a condition that can confer hardships on women. Right now, the only means by which a woman can do that involves killing the embryo or fetus, but it is not the goal itself. In this respect, ending a pregnancy with a medical abortion is absolutely like the "unconscious violinist" scenario. In both cases, the goal is exercise control over your own body and restore it to the condition you desire. The goal is not to kill, even though that is ultimately what the means does.

        Now, you might have a moral objection on the grounds that the end does not justify the means. But you can't honestly say that an medical abortion is a completely unlike the "unconscious violinist" scenario.

        (BTW, the definition of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Mifepristone fails when it doesn't completely end a pregnancy--something that can occur even if the embryo or fetus is dead, but the woman hasn't been able to expel the entire products of the pregnancy.)

        Collapse
    2. Halvor

      Similarly, must a person discontinue a blood pressure medication upon becoming pregnant if the drug could induce necrosis at the base of the placenta or the lining of the uterus?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Citizen60

        There are few “musts” in medicine. It would depend on the type of BP med, what it would mean for the woman to DC the BP med, is there alternative BP med with a slightly different site of action, etc

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Dusty

      We don’t agree on much, particularly on most issues around this topic, but this is a good comment that provides much to think about.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Mudskipper

        Thanks, Dusty.

        Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Michael Dan Martin

      I didn’t kill him, your honor, I just cut off his air supply.

      Collapse
      1. Halvor

        The fetus has no “air supply” to cut off. But you raise a wonderful point. The fetus can’t use air until God breathes on it the breath of life at birth and it becomes a living soul.

        I’ve never understood why Christians disregard the mystery of birth as a transformation from matter to life and a passage from death to the immortality of spirit.

        Job 33:4
        The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

        John 3:7-8
        7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
        8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Michael Dan Martin

          It's called an illustration. It is informative by juxtaposition. Just as cutting off the supply of air for a person will result in the death of him/her, so will cutting off the supply of progesterone for a fetus result in the death of him/her. If I were to use the defense in my murder trial that I didn't really kill a person, I just withdrew one of the substances vital for him/her to survive, I doubt it would get me very far.

          I am baffled by your use of these Biblical texts. I am not a legalist, nor do I think Biblical writers were inspired with scientific truth. But if you want to interpret Job in a legalist way, you might consider that those words in 33:4 were uttered by Elihu, not Job. And it was Job who was vindicated by God in the end.

          But even then, I can't see how you get from Job and John to the idea that a baby is not alive until it draws its first breath. That is giving way too much preciseness to symbolic references.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Scarlette Tarte

            Except air is made for everyone to use. Cutting off someone else's supply would indeed be murder.

            But the progesterone is the woman's supply. She is not required to give it, if she doesn't want to.

            Jewish people and their religion holds that the fetus is not a living thing until first breath. And there are biblical.passages relating to this.

            To end abortion is to interfere with their religion, it's beliefs and practices.

            Wonder how this court, so keen on religious freedom, is going to respond to that.

            Probably by punting.

            Collapse
          2. Halvor

            You’re right, my biblical commentary is worthless. But no offense, how good is yours? I did have a sincere question, however.

            The fetus doesn’t itself need progesterone! The uterine lining needs it it to remodel itself to supply nutrients and oxygen to the placental blood.

            I think it’s important to understands “air supply” as a consequence of birth. Until then, of course, the fetus lives a fish-like existence through its archaic, external, placental “gills”. The fetus is misperceived as an un-relocated neonatal. This is the criminalizers’ chronic error: prochronism.

            Collapse
          3. Avatar photo
            Ms. SSM

            Uhh it’s a very good defense in your murder trial. ‘I didn’t kill him I just cut the gas off during winter because he owed me money.”

            Collapse
          4. Avatar photo
            Mudskipper

            It's a misleading illustration. A much better illustration would be:

            "I didn't want to kill him, your honor. He hooked me up to his circulatory system so that I would supply him with blood. I just didn't want my circulatory system hooked into his. So I unhooked myself."

            You definitely would get far in a trial in this case.

            Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Brings to mind the “principle of double effect”
      One way many Catholics get around the abortion issue when it comes to a needed abortion for an ectopic pregnancy is to remove the fallopian tube…this has the effect of ending the ectopic pregnancy but does not directly kill the zygote/embryo…
      One thought I’ve often had, when it comes to the whole “you’re not ending a pregnancy, you’re directly killing a human life” is this: what if, instead of directly killing, there was an abortion method that didn’t actually work directly on the embryo/zygote/fetus but had the double effect of ending the pregnancy
      Medication abortions do that
      For later abortions, I don’t know of any similar procedures
      But I seriously doubt that even if there were, those who were anti-abortion would see them as anything better
      As in this article, they’d still see if as “killing” or “murder”

      Collapse
      1. Pohl

        “Double effect” is not casuistry. Abortion is always wrong, which is what the Church means when it calls certain actions “intrinsic evils.” There is no such thing as an abortion cheat, not least because there is no valid reason to risk the death of the fetus other than the scenario of urgent threat to the mother. Medication abortions are still abortions. That’s why they’re popular.

        Collapse
  8. Scianti7

    I was very thankful to have the option of medication after my miscarriages. I didn't need to use it the second time & the first I had surgery. Nevertheless, the second time, if things hadn't happened naturally, I was extremely grateful for the back up of medication instead of surgery.
    Some folks seem to be forgetting about the actual life saving aspect of treatment. Sadly my potential babies didn't grow past a certain point & could have caused a serious infection. All this seems plowed under the crusade, which is too bad.

    My last (successful) pregnancy was very scary, particularly while vacationing in Texas. The likelihood of miscarriage was high, I had blood complications requiring blood thinners, & I felt like I wouldn't be able to seek care there. Fortunately, it all turned out. But it could have been bad, especially if I miscarried & started hemorrhaging. The crusade ignores how scary it is to be in that situation & feel that medical facilities would be hostile (& sometimes are) in an emergency.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Citizen60

      The woman is completely absent in these laws. Except as “the host,” as one Republican legislator stated it.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      I advise any pregnant women not to vacation or visit any of these states while pregnant. It's too risky for their own health.

      In Oklahoma, a woman was told "you have to be crashing before we can abort you".

      Just stay home or visit more liberal states. These places are not friendly for women.

      Collapse
      1. Scianti7

        I would agree. It wasn't a choice exactly. It was a family event planned a year in advance. But in hindsight, it was scary enough to make different decisions in the future. (I doubt a future pregnacy as I'm now 46, but my last was born at the end of last year).

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Rlritt

      That would be scary. I'm glad you finally had a successful pregnancy.

      Collapse
      1. Scianti7

        Thank you. It wasn't exactly planned, but I got a second child & he's doing really well.

        Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Ms. SSM

      My sisters tried to get me to leave TN while I was pregnant. I had similar high risk issues. I decided to remain. We are both alive so I don’t regret it exactly. But there were difficulties and I wonder if the quality of care will always be present in Red states. Not for abortions but for Obstetric care in general. It seems like in the future they will always get the least qualified doctors.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        Are you saying that the fetus is somehow attached to the mothers body and is therefore part of it and not a separate entity? I would wonder about the quality of care for women…if OB GYNs are committed to theirs anti-abortion viewpoint…and something happens? Would they downplay those issues, hoping women wouldn’t get an abortion? Would women have to be on deaths door before they finally acted, even if earlier would have been safer for the woman?

        Collapse
        1. Dlnevins

          We've ALREADY seen multiple cases of women being on death's door before receiving needed obstetric care in several of these states (particularly Texas and Florida).

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Citizen60

        Medical schools are already reporting a steep decline in OB/GYN being chosen as a specialty.

        Collapse
        1. Scianti7

          This will affect all women of any age.

          Collapse
        2. Dlnevins

          And no wonder. Who wants to go into a field where your professional judgment might be called into question by unqualified people, and you risk a felony conviction and prison time for doing your job well?

          Collapse
      3. Dlnevins

        "But there were difficulties and I wonder if the quality of care will always be present in Red states. Not for abortions but for Obstetric care in general. "

        We already know the answer to that question: No! OB/GYNs have already started leaving states like Texas and Idaho which have passed restrictive abortion laws, and this past year the number of medical students willing to do OB/GYN residencies in those states declined.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    Price. Your religious interpretation of the medicien mifepristone is out of order. And you are lying about the word "killing" Your use of the word "Killing" is an outrage to objective science and medicine.

    Did you even read the FDA's Mifepristone Safety and Efficacy insert ? -- NO you did NOT.
    You are manufacturing falsehoods.
    This is the label insert approved the FDA. Your false statement "KILLING" is NOT ever mentioned.

    "Use of MIFEPREX in a regimen with misoprostol disrupts pregnancy by causing decidual
    necrosis, myometrial contractions, and cervical softening, leading to the expulsion of the
    products of conception."

    12.1 Mechanism of Action
    The anti-progestational activity of mifepristone results from competitive interaction with
    progesterone at progesterone-receptor sites. Based on studies with various oral doses in
    several animal species (mouse, rat, rabbit, and monkey), the compound inhibits the activity of
    endogenous or exogenous progesterone, resulting in effects on the uterus and cervix that, when
    combined with misoprostol, result in termination of an intrauterine pregnancy.
    During pregnancy, the compound sensitizes the myometrium to the contraction-inducing activity

    https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/020687s020lbl.pdf
    https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2004/020687s010-lbl.pdf

    Price - you can email anytime to better reseach science, FDA, Medical information

    Collapse
    1. Pohl

      Euphemism seems to be the lingua franca. I think I am free of this affliction, but I invite you to call me out if you see the warning signs. Thanks in advance.

      Collapse
    2. Brandon Hartley

      Ugh. DougAZ, freaking relax. I am fairly pro-choice. I say fairly because it doesn't seem unreasonable to me one whit to have limits on abortion availability, e.g. after 15-20 weeks gestation with rational exceptions for health. Were you paying attention to The Dispatch's writing in totality over this last year you would see quite the shift in their rhetoric in handling the abortion issue. They have, in the past, had difficulty in separating their own personal opinions from policy discussion (accusing liberals of desiring to abort fetuses up to the moment of birth, e.g.). But they have clearly put more thought into these discussions and it is a noticeable improvement.

      Does a woman who takes these drugs intend to kill an embryo/fetus? Of course. Does the use of the verb 'kill' versus some other euphemistic wording (end, terminate, usher lovingly into nothingness) warrant your overreaction? No. It isn't as if she used "tortured" or "obliterated" or something clearly inflammatory.
      Rhetorical inflammation may be subjective, but I for one feel we should be more gracious when someone is clearly attempting to be objective. Otherwise we give writers the impression they can "do no right" and they should avoid the topic altogether. Heaven forbid, because we need more mature discussion of this topic--not less.

      This was an informative and clinical primer for the Dispatch audience and she did a fine job. There is nothing here even remotely worth this level of vitriol, and I say that as someone who has leveled fairly stringent criticisms of this site's writing before.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        I don't find Price to be objective or even good here. He is a junior journalist with no science or medical education of note, training or experience.

        As a Journalist, Price should have had the investigating wherewithal to look up the FDA safety and efficacy inserts I posted. Had his goal been an objective explainer, the words were all in those.

        You think that the Dispatch editors have magically moderated their positions? They still have not declared "Personhood" wrong.

        They still have not argued that the FDA approved drugs 20 yrs ago, with a sterling safety record in millions of uses proves, verifies and validates that approval.

        That "killing" a fetus is an iconic Anti-Abortion phraseology.

        The Dispatch tone on abortion has changed because
        A. The Cons got Roe overturned
        B. But the backlash is strong, growing and utterly incomprehensible to the Dispatch and other Conservatives.
        C. It will be the foundation for increasing losses for conservatives

        So yes, the tone here in abortion changed.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Thomas Grimmer

          I support the right to have abortions, but euphemism, even medical euphemism, is unnecessary and betrays a lack of moral reckoning. "Products of conception" is by and large a fetus, expulsion of which is killing it.

          Collapse
          1. Brandon Hartley

            Indeed. Once you are in the world where saying "products of conception" then you have clearly adopted a political world view. You are one step away from "birthing person". To refuse to use that language doesn't make you a shrill for the pro-choice life camp. It makes you rational and honest, which is what we pay for here.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            DougAz

            In this context, Price relies on the belief that the fetus is a person. Killing the fetus-person.

            That is a false statement medically. It is the Christian view only.

            This fetus-killing concept is not only an egregiously wrong false statement; it is a preamble to the view that the FDA approval itself, under G Bush, was approved by the FDA... to KILL.

            That is just nuts. Crazy.

            Collapse
    3. Halvor

      The drug works like a landlord shutting off the water and electricity. Of course, an embryo or fetus can’t move out. To the criminalizers, this detail is a technicality, but it defines the drug action as denial of service, not killing. The placenta itself isn’t a “human being,” nor (as very widely understood) is a human organism that depends on the placenta a person.

      Collapse
      1. Pohl

        “Very widely understood” is an ironic euphemism for scientifically and philosophically illiterate.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        That's far better than Prices writing.

        It's more like an emetic, which induces 🤢 (Sorry)

        Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Michael Dan Martin

      Too bad all these fetuses can’t read, because they all seem to end up dying, even though no one killed them.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        Neither can your arm read. Your dander. Your urine or exhaled breathes of cells. You saliva hasn't gor a 1st grade education either. They all are not sentient.

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          The persistence of this non sequitur is bemusing. Your examples have more in common than not being sentient; they aren’t even LIVES.

          Soylent green is people! Get your facts straight, Doug. (smile)

          Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Matt Anderson

      So it disrupts pregnancy preventing further fetal development or survival. How is that not killing something?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        "Use of MIFEPREX in a regimen with misoprostol disrupts pregnancy by causing decidual necrosis, myometrial contractions, and cervical softening, leading to the expulsion of the products of conception."

        FDA labeling.

        "Killing" in the context of abortion is a lightening rod. You know this. Anti-Abortion folks, not all, call it murder.

        You and I "kill" cells every minute. Wash hands. Any secretions, breathing, hair and dander loss. There is a rhetorical use like "killing" off an argument. But in this context, Price chose the word for click bait and feeding the religious non medical side of the use of the drug.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Thomas Grimmer

          It's killing the fetus. I for one don't consider that murder, because the fetus does not have an intrinsic right to be in the body of another person under any and all circumstances. Just as no one can morally (or lawfully for now) force me to give an organ, or blood, or marrow without my consent.

          Not all homicide is murder, and not all homicide is unjustified.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        When a Catholic hospital performs
        The procedure to remove the fallopian tube on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy, are they directly killing the embryo? Or are they removing the environment and the embryo does a natural death?
        It’s not directly killing anything- not like say,a surgical abortion, which uses suction, or a later abortion, in which a fetal heart is stopped and then medicines given to begin early labor and expel the fetus.

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          You are talking about a salpingectomy, which is a good illustration of the principle of double effect. Just to clarify for readers, a salpingostomy, which is cutting the tube to remove the tissue and the embryo, is not considered licit by some ethicists. Nor is the common medicinal treatment for ectopic pregnancy. But these illuminate the principle you bring up. The crux is how directly are you acting on the embryo.

          Similarly, it is not permissible for a doctor to save a mother by going straight for the fetus and killing it. If, hypothetically, this is the only way, then both may die. One may not do evil that good may come of it.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Michael Dan Martin

          Two rationalizations do not cancel each other out.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kmregan7

            It’s not directly killing the embryo. And my example was something Catholics, who are well-known for being anti-abortion, accept as not directly killing also…
            Directly killing has a meaning. It should be used accurately.

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Now we can finally put to bed the Republican lie that overturning RvW will "just return it to the states". This was never the plan for the abortion abolitionists, and it never followed their logic of "baby murder". People who believe abortion is murder should be taken at their word and it behoves us to understand the implications of their beliefs:

    1. Abortion should be banned completely (no exceptions) in all 50 states at the Federal level.

    2. Abortion should be treated, legally, exactly the same as the murder of a person, including the use of the death penalty (notable abortion abolitionist Kevin Williamson suggested hanging for instance).

    3. We should institute border controls in our country to keep women from escaping our country in order to have an abortion.

    4. We should build a "War On Drugs" scale police infrastructure in order to enforce all of these new laws, including, for instance, a federal Abortion Enforcement Agency.

    5. This battle is bigger than the US Constitution and democracy itself, and thus subverting the Constitution and the stability of our country is perfectly justified fighting "baby murder".

    Dobbs was just the beginning. This latest ruling was just the beginning. There will be a lot more to come.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rlritt

      Thanks, Pat. You outlined the real issue. A woman was created to give birth to the next generation. She has sex for the purpose of implanting the next generation. Historically, for 1,000s of years that is her main purpose. Henry the 8th killed or set aside his wives who could not give him a son. People thought that was harsh, but understandable.

      To me this is the crux of the issue. A woman is an individual until she gets pregnant. Many pro life and even pro choice people, with exceptions, believe that once pregnant her obligation is to bear a child. For 10s of 1,000s of years this has been the rule. In this century women have the ability to enjoy a sex life without the fear of getting pregnant and that has given women many opportunities they didn't have even 100 years ago. Traditionalist don't like women saying, I'm pregnant and I don't want to be so I am refusing to be pregnant. This defies patriarchy and traditionalists cannot stand that women might have total control over whether or not they have a child.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Michael Dan Martin

      Who are these Republicans you are talking about? I am a Republican and nothing you wrote is my belief.

      Collapse
      1. Brandon Hartley

        The problem, as usual, is that neither side wants to entertain the idea that there is a compromise position. I support abortion up to a point (say 15 weeks) and think it should be illegal after that. Does that make me pro-choice or pro-life? Honestly, I'm not sure. That view has been attacked by pro-lifers for killing children and attacked by pro-choicers for putting your legal hands on women's bodies. It is hard for a moderate position to gain respect, which is certainly why so few politicians run on it.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Scarlette Tarte

        You don't? Then you support women have the legal right to end their pregnancies?

        Or when a woman gets pregnant, does she somehow lose all her bodily autonomy for the 9 months the fetus resides there?

        Collapse
        1. Brandon Hartley

          Again, moderation. I support the right to abortion in the first 3 months or so, and then am strongly opposed after that (with the obvious exceptions).

          Collapse
        2. Pohl

          Location! Location! Location! It doesn’t work here, though, to reduce the mother to a mere domicile, which is objectifying. The principles at stake are that two or more human beings are intertwined, the unborn are completely innocent and vulnerable, and all lives here must be respected, nurtured, and helped to a fruitful, new beginning. Bodily autonomy is the reductive version of this positive, life-affirming outlook, ruined sometimes by our fallen world.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kmregan7

            Prove we are a “fallen world” with actual, scientific evidence.
            And no, it’s NOT “all lives must be respected” because once women become pregnant that’s all that matters- by default, the anti-abortion position is that she comes second…her body autonomy and decision making are not hers to make precisely because she is pregnant…she must give up her uterus, her bodily resources, etc. no matter what her life or health is like unless she hits a point where she is “crashing” and then, and ONLY then, will her life take precedence.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Scarlette Tarte

            Says who? Who says 'all lives must be helped to a fruitful new beginning"?

            Our constitution?

            That is Pohl's view of the world. Not mine. Mine is 'its my body and what I say goes concerning it'.

            And I am pretty sure your bodily autonomy would become very important to you if the government said 'we are going to require you to have an identification chip placed in you for citizenship purposes" or something similar.

            You would not think it so "reductive" then, now would you? And fallen world is religious hoo-ha. Fine if you believe it, but you can't make it apply to everyone else.

            Innocence is a legal term and has nothing to do with a fetus. It's emotionalism, pure and simple.

            Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          Michael Dan Martin

          I believe a woman has bodily autonomy and that a fetus at some point becomes a person who deserves a measure of due process before being killed.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Scarlette Tarte

            This is an honest answer that is open for compromise.

            It's where most Americans are. It recognizes the rights of the woman.

            In my book, her rights are superior. She is the citizen, not the fetus. I am willing to compromise on the time that abortion can be freely obtained, but only if the option to abort remains intact in late pregnancy for health,life and fetal abnormalities issues. With clear cut exemptions written into law.

            I am most comfortable anywhere from 16-20 weeks as a cut off for at will abortions.

            Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        I meant "official" Republicans e.g. elected officials, party operatives, media complex, etc.

        Collapse
    3. Dustin M

      Disagree that "abortion is muder" = no exceptions. If the pregnancy has gone wrong such that the life of the mother is in imminent danger, any pro-life person who thinks about it for more than 5 minutes should realize that it's better to have 1 life than 0, and if you accept that you can only choose 1 the survival odds very clearly favor the mother (i.e. that option is almost guaranteed to work whereas if you force the pregnancy to continue both mother and baby could easily wind up dead).

      Unfortunately, I do have to grant that it seems most pro-life people do not in fact "think about it for more than 5 minutes"...

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        And they don't think of the implications of needing to get police, courts and lawyers involved in these emergency situations, either. Even if there are "exceptions" written into these vague laws, the fear of prosecution alone will lead to many deaths of women.

        Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      In this very article, Price inserts the word "killing". This is never used by the FDA in the safety and efficacy insert of the drug. That is a non-scientific, non-medical religious falsity.

      I posted at top

      Collapse
      1. Brandon Hartley

        Again, I fail to see why FDA wording is at all relevant to which verb a writer is "allowed" to use. FDA can use any description they wish, but that has no bearing on how an audience and a writer communicate to one another.

        We use the word "kill" in any number of ways that denote a wide variety of emotional contexts. I killed my math test this morning, to I'm going to kill you child if you keep forgetting to take out the garbage, to I killed three mice with traps last night, to I killed my fiance with a hammer. It's clear which one of those you heard in your mind, but you are not the only person here.

        This writer is in an impossible position, which is exemplified by your reaction. If he uses euphemisms (ended, or medically induced) then he is accused of bowing to the pro-choice wing. If he is too emotionally laden (murdered, annihilated) then he is accused of being too pro-life. He chose a more generic term and, as a moderate pro-choice advocate, I appreciate his difficulty and his compromise.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Scarlette Tarte

          Yep, words are potent things. Tread carefully.

          This is why we use scientific terms. That's best. That is how we all should talk to each other about myriad subjects just to keep things neutral.

          Collapse
          1. Brandon Hartley

            You are probably right, with the caveat that medical "authorities" are human beings as well. Sometimes they choose words to put their own thumb on the scales behind the scenes, and I have no problem calling it out when I see it. Ultimately, this all boils down to a personal taste of writing. Personally, I do not find it offensive to say that pro-choice individuals (like me, I think) are pro-abortion. Up to a point in pregnancy, I am. Does that mean I am in favor of women taking a drug that will kill a healthy growing proto-human inside their uterus if they choose to do so? Yepper. I think we should own that. Similarly, I am also in favor of a limit on abortion at 20 weeks or so (with normal exceptions). Does that mean I am in favor of 60 year old white dudes telling a woman what she can do with her body? Yep, absolutely. Pro-lifers/anti-abortion folks should own that too. Ultimately, I wish we could get past the hyper focus on the extremes and which word is the right one to use and actually solve this issue. In my mind that means a compromise (plus to a compromise is that we get to discuss this issue a lot less regularly).

            Collapse
    5. DTruitt

      There was never a “lie” by Republicans. The Republican Party is a coalition party. The religious right part of the coalition has never said anything but a determination to end all abortions from the moment of conception. They are a minority of the party, roughly 30% of total membership. The majority of the party members either opposed the SCOTUS Roe decision that outlawed state prohibitions of abortion, returning the issue to the states, along with those Republicans who supported Roe. Just as Democrats are divided too, with a minority supporting abortion at any time for any reason, while a majority favor Roe which did allow restrictions on abortion. Bill Clinton declared an abortion policy of “safe, legal, and rare”.

      Both parties are coalitions not monocultures of robotic extremists as you pretend.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        LOL, by bringing up the "coalition" you explained exactly why they lied this lie for so long.

        Basically the GOP lied to (say) 50% of their voting base to appease the other (say) 50%. (What the exact breakdown is remains to be seen since, well, we're going to soon find out now). They never had to worry about being found out on this lie because of RvW.

        And yes, they were convinced of the false notion of "return it to the states". That's the whole point of my comment. There's no such thing as a Supreme Court ruling that only allows laws to be passed at the state level. There's no legal construct for that.

        I'm not saying the GOP is a monoculture--quite the opposite. It's just that with Dobbs, the GOP now has to finally reckon with this problem.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Michael Dan Martin

          The whole country has to wrestle with the problem. That is the why Roe/Casey needed to go. It is good for us to agonize over moral issues through the democratic process.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            So far it appears that my own side of this argument has benefitted tremendously from Dobbs. Attitudes towards abortion has already shifted drastically in the pro-choice direction as Republicans grapple with their "dog catches car" problem of needing to craft a new police state in order to prosecute women who try to get abortions.

            But I still wouldn't trade it for the absolutely awful legal precedent that is Dobbs, which essentially eliminated the right to one's own body. It will surely be overturned the millisecond Republicans lose control of the SC though.

            I also wouldn't trade it for what Republicans did to the Supreme Court in order to overturn RvW: they burned it to the ground in terms of its sanctity as a bi-partisan institution. Without abortion nobody would care much about the Court and confirmations would still be nearly unanimous like they were in the time of RvW...

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        Personhood is the the Religious Right's position that any and all end to once fertilized egg is murder. Truth.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Michael Dan Martin

          No. My position is that if you kill a fetus it is killing a fetus. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. It is up to us to define a human being and set protections around the right to life for such.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Correct. Abortion abolitionists define a zygote as a person. I don't agree, and you might not either, but that's their position, which is why the justify creating a new "war on drugs style" police state in order to stop women from having abortions.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            DougAz

            My position is that a fetus is a non person and a component of a woman. Her body. Her choice.

            Men should should totally KTF away.

            Unless they agree to my mandatory reversible sterilization. Reversed upon contract of absolute title of 70% of all wealth, assets, incomes lifetime to the woman and child. Then reversible.

            Collapse
Load More