What happen to women's rights?

[David.Douchehurst]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Don't understand this obsession with controlling other people's bodies (and lives) or screwing them without hot slippery bodily contact.

Why did meh an' mah boys ramrod our legislamafakayshun through ta put a hitch in tha giddy-up of enny womb-man a-tryin' ta git an aborshun in Tejas?

Well, why do folks climb Mount Everest, 'r swim tha English Channel 'r fly ta tha moon? 'Cos we kin!

Meh an' mah boys held hands in a circle in tha Senate chamber and toldt each other "Kin we pass this h'yar legislamafakayshun?"

"Yes, we kin!"

Whoops! Ah ne'er realized we used old Obama's slogan. Ah hope mah buddy Ol' Guv'nor Good Hair don't take his support away frum mah ree-'lecshun campaign fer thet. But mebbe Ah kin blame Obama fer takin' away abortion rights frum all the l'il heifers in Tejas! Sounds like a win-win ta meh!

[Loxly]

Another failure on the part of the Supreme Court but the real argument always boils down to term stage, which varies from state to state.

It's something that will never be settled to everyones liking.

[mrhamm]

Originally Posted by JennsLolli

Birth control pills only work 99.9% of the time when taken 100% correctly (always a challenge). And Plan B only works if you're under 165lbs. Abortion costs may seem "affordable" but that hardly takes into account accessibility. That's all.

Jenns is right on point here. The information on Plan B is fairly new and isn't widely known. "HRA Pharma scientists discovered Norlevo began losing its effectiveness when women reach about 75 kilograms, or 165 pounds, Gainer said, and showed an "absence of effectiveness" at about 80 kilograms, or about 176 pounds."

I do think abortion costs themselves are fairly affordable. I paid for an abortion when I was a lowly hourly employee. I also got to take a day off work and drive the nice lady two hours to the big city of Austin for the procedure.

Access is the big hurdle now, even more so than when I made the trip 15 years ago. The lack of access to abortion facilities (driven by new laws treating abortion facilities as operating facilities) will only result in more unwanted children being neglected and abused in impoverished homes, particularly in west Texas. Now, a two hours drive to an abortion clinic, won't be too bad. There are going to be ladies in west Texas who drive six hours for an abortion and then need to drive six hours back. Chances are good now they need a hotel room, which raises the cost higher, all because the male politicians with no true sense of the world we live in are restricting access.

Insurance isn't going to do anything to fix these problems. As Jenns said, access is now the problem. Planned Parenthood does some good work, but this initiative involving insurance is a waste of resources.

[Centaur]

It would be interesting to know whether progestogen's decreased blood concentrations in women over 75kg is the result of insufficient dosage or the body's inability to metabolize enough of the drug beyond a certain threshold. With some medications the body will only uptake so much before the kidneys filter the rest out of the system before it can be effective. This is an evolutionary defense system to prevent substances that become toxic in large dosages from reaching dangerous concentrations. However, it did not evolve in the presence of modern pharmacological drugs and so it may limit drugs that are not actually harmful in greater concentrations. Blood infusions are one way doctors bypass this limitation. But it doesn't always work to simply inject the same drug into the bloodstream. Many, though not all, orally taken drugs are actually precursors designed to be metabolized into the required drug. It's also possible that the researchers have difficulty obtaining permission from their ethics board to test increased progestogen dosages in human subjects due to a risk of unknown side-effects.

Of course we'll likely not know in the near future because academic and corporate research institutions do everything in their power to limit public access to scientific research – often to the frustration of the scientists – and proprietary secrets are even more tightly protected by NDAs that promise any leakers will be sued or even potentially face jail time for informing the press or public about the findings of their own research.