Good.
What happened to morning after?
I thought RU-486 was the morning after pill, not the ten week after pill. If you are sexually active and don't want to conceive, us birth control. Lack of compliance is the biggest factor in cases where it is "ineffective". If you had sex without protection and you know you don't want a baby, you should be taking the pill right away.
3
I understand why some people disapprove of abortion. I never saw a baby I didn't want to pick up and cuddle. It breaks my heart to see one suffer. And that is why I am pro-abortion. We have been given this wonderful gift -- the ability to control human reproduction -- with its promise of reducing human suffering manyfold. Some day (if our race survives) we will look back and ask, why did we permit so much suffering in the world, when we had the power to prevent it?
15
THIS DRUG HAS BEEN AVAILABLE IN EUROPE FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS!
Why has the "United" States been controlled by such far-right religious nonsense and medical industry criminality for so long? When I lived in Europe 50-some years ago, I remember two young women who took that pill, having bought them over the counter, and had no difficulty with their chosen abortions.
Selfish interests and religious backwardness rule the USA. What a disgrace! Think of the probably millions of young women who were made to suffer, physically and emotionally -- not to mention the gone-to-term children who were not wanted and probably have lived disadvantaged lives. Shame!
Why has the "United" States been controlled by such far-right religious nonsense and medical industry criminality for so long? When I lived in Europe 50-some years ago, I remember two young women who took that pill, having bought them over the counter, and had no difficulty with their chosen abortions.
Selfish interests and religious backwardness rule the USA. What a disgrace! Think of the probably millions of young women who were made to suffer, physically and emotionally -- not to mention the gone-to-term children who were not wanted and probably have lived disadvantaged lives. Shame!
12
"Anti-abortion groups said that the change did nothing to improve safety for women, and that some women fell ill or died after taking the drug,"
Another senseless pronouncement from the right. People die for a variety of reasons, including a bad reaction to medication. Should we force everyone who takes medication to go to the doctor's office when taking their medication, to make sure they will be safe?
Another senseless pronouncement from the right. People die for a variety of reasons, including a bad reaction to medication. Should we force everyone who takes medication to go to the doctor's office when taking their medication, to make sure they will be safe?
3
Would President Trump put the FDA in jail?
3
Love how this article was right next to Trump's inane blabbering (once again) about something he knows nothing about (abortions) and once again having zero empathy or thoughts about women (or anyone). Thank you FDA! thank you NYT. Shoving medical sense into that gaping hole in Trump's face with this article is awesome.
7
There are good reasons why women who miscarry are not required to obtain death certificates or arrange funerals.
9
'“It appears this has been done for the convenience and the profitability of the abortion industry,” said Randall O’Bannon, the director of education and research for the National Right to Life Committee."'
What?? There's an abortion lobby? Jesus, what will these ati-choice groups think of next?
What?? There's an abortion lobby? Jesus, what will these ati-choice groups think of next?
8
"...an election campaign in which both parties covet the women’s vote."
The right-wing and religious conservatives, Republicans and Donald Trump sure do have a strange, dare it be said 'counter intuitive', way of campaigning for the women's vote...
The right-wing and religious conservatives, Republicans and Donald Trump sure do have a strange, dare it be said 'counter intuitive', way of campaigning for the women's vote...
13
Nice work...so the civilized world will restrict and maintain the birth rate while the rest will breed like pigs and replenish and populate the earth. A responsible Government in the Free World may encourage' Be Fruitful and Multiply'...,so we don't become a frightful minority.Strength in numbers...No other way.
1
> Be Fruitful and Multiply'
I wouldn't go for the population arms race approach. We should promote education for countries that have over birth and over population problems. There are too many people in the world already.
I wouldn't go for the population arms race approach. We should promote education for countries that have over birth and over population problems. There are too many people in the world already.
1
Holy smokes, the F.D.A. does something right. And something really important.
But recently the FDA approved a drug company marketing its drug off-label. If you don't know what "off-label" means, just look at the recent J&J fine of $2.2 billion; and see how Bristol Myers did the same thing about 8 years ago, for a $515 million dollar fine. People died, fine paid, profit counted.
But recently the FDA approved a drug company marketing its drug off-label. If you don't know what "off-label" means, just look at the recent J&J fine of $2.2 billion; and see how Bristol Myers did the same thing about 8 years ago, for a $515 million dollar fine. People died, fine paid, profit counted.
In the year 2016 with the advent of the "morning after pill" and free abortions (no questions asked)......who knows just how far little 12 and 14 yr old girls will go. The sky is the limit. Well, at least this decreases the world's surface population, correct? Who needs God or Christian churches when 9 supreme court jesters are doing just fine dictating morality and decency to 300+ million Americans. Marijuana (pot) is now recreational and legal, and soon to come......legal and recreational heroin and cocaine. Americans say that they do what they want because the constitution gives them the right, whether their wants are humane or inhumane, right or wrong, moral or immoral, or decent or indecent.
Yes there are negligible few number of women who via rape or medical condition may need to have an abortion. However, the preponderance of abortions are had primarily by little girls in their teens, 20's, and 30's who go out on a weekend and boogie, she is not on the pill and the boy does not wear protection.....she gets pregnant...then wants to abort the bothersome fetus so she can go out and boogie again as soon as possible. The wacky idiotic scenario is that the little girl could have also contracted AIDS, syphilis and many other sexually transmitted diseases along with her pregnancy. But constitutional freedom means everyone has the right to do whatever they want to do to their bodies, right?
Yes there are negligible few number of women who via rape or medical condition may need to have an abortion. However, the preponderance of abortions are had primarily by little girls in their teens, 20's, and 30's who go out on a weekend and boogie, she is not on the pill and the boy does not wear protection.....she gets pregnant...then wants to abort the bothersome fetus so she can go out and boogie again as soon as possible. The wacky idiotic scenario is that the little girl could have also contracted AIDS, syphilis and many other sexually transmitted diseases along with her pregnancy. But constitutional freedom means everyone has the right to do whatever they want to do to their bodies, right?
What on earth are you talking about? Where are you getting your information from?
Newsflash, if you don't want unprepared kids to engage in risky behavior, start supporting sex education and contraception. Studies have shown that kids who get good, comprehensive sex education delay sexual activity. Time to get a clue.
Newsflash, if you don't want unprepared kids to engage in risky behavior, start supporting sex education and contraception. Studies have shown that kids who get good, comprehensive sex education delay sexual activity. Time to get a clue.
4
Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. None of that corresponds to reality.
6
What is the source of your "information"?
2
Why aren't so many of the anti-abortion folks pro sex education and pro contraception?
It seems that having good access to information and contraception would prevent so many abortions.
It seems that having good access to information and contraception would prevent so many abortions.
18
Having seen both sides of this (I was a Republican for many years), I can tell you that it's not about limiting the number of abortions, it's about controlling women and playing on the sympathies of well meaning but misguided people who genuinely think they are doing something good (protecting the unborn) but who don't realize how the real world works.
21
The good folks who want to outlaw abortion view pregnancy as punishment for a woman who enjoys sex. That is why they are opposed to contraception and sex education that is based in fact.
7
This is excellent news for women's reproductive rights. This new ruling is in accordance with scientific evidence, not religious proclivities to which the majority of women do not prescribe. It takes the power from illiterate politicians and returns the power to the individual woman and her doctor, a Supreme Court decision made years ago.
14
As an aging Baby Boomer who has no moral issues with abortions and who's had two clinical abortions in onsite clinics/medical facilities, I'd never have opted for an 'abortion pill' where I'd have swallowed a pill and then waited at home for labor to begin, all alone perhaps and with absolutely no medical professionals nearby to intervene if things did not go as planned.
As an aside from one who's had two first-term abortions, the procedure is best completed under the watchful eye and care of a trained medical professional, not in one's bedroom.
As an aside from one who's had two first-term abortions, the procedure is best completed under the watchful eye and care of a trained medical professional, not in one's bedroom.
4
That's a matter of individual preference. Some people may find the medical version more convenient. The actual rate of complications when women do this at home is very low, and they're given instructions on what to do if those arise. All of the available evidence supports that medical abortion is quite safe and effective.
8
There's copious amounts of evidence that medication abortions are safe and easy-to-do at home. Many women prefer it. It's been used far longer in Europe with little contraindications with similar here since 2000.
In the case of contraindications (again, rare) one can call the doctor, 911 or go to an emergency room just like any other health "emergency".
In the case of contraindications (again, rare) one can call the doctor, 911 or go to an emergency room just like any other health "emergency".
12
Or you could allow each individual woman to do what they think is best for them after they have their own private, individual discussion with their doctor. Just a thought.
4
It's amazing to me how women, who make up over 50% of the American population, still take commands from male legislators when it comes to medical rights.
Why do women vote for a party that wants to limit the medical choices one can make for themselves?
Until women, en masse, reject an entire party, they will still have to deal with inane abortion, contraception, and sex education laws.
Why do women vote for a party that wants to limit the medical choices one can make for themselves?
Until women, en masse, reject an entire party, they will still have to deal with inane abortion, contraception, and sex education laws.
23
It was a victory for science! Not a victory or loss for anti or pro choice folks. Ir would be good if the NYT didn't editorialize in straight reporting.
9
Excellent! available, affordable contraception and abortion are important to the welfare of our country. Every advanced country that has these two things have far lower abortion rates than those, like the US who have barbaric bans in place.
This isn't the bronze age, fundie loons. We currently live in an overpopulated, very expensive world with dwindling resources. Having unplanned babies that can't be cared for is immoral.
This isn't the bronze age, fundie loons. We currently live in an overpopulated, very expensive world with dwindling resources. Having unplanned babies that can't be cared for is immoral.
20
This is good news and long overdue. Unfortunately, those people who want to deny women equal rights to make their own medical, moral and religious decisions will begin to try to roll back access. In my state, the head of Ohio Right to Life, Mike Gonadakis, has already talked about how this endangers women and "babies." Unfortunately, Governer Kasich appointed Gonadakis who lacks any medical credentials or expertise to the Ohio State Medical Board. One need only connect the dots.
20
So what are the new guidelines? That information was strangely absent from this report.
The guidelines were mentioned in the article.
6
Not that I expect the anti-freedom zealots to be rational, but their conflicting claim,"Anti-abortion groups said that the change did nothing to improve safety for women, and that some women fell ill or died after taking the drug," is laughably insane. The dose of a drug they say kills women is cut by two thirds and they say it does nothing to improve safety for women after demanding in many states that it be kept at the higher level of the out-of-date previous regulation. This demonstrates that all the recent hand wringing by the anti-freedom, anti-women crowd is all about control, not concern.
19
When Bush was president he had a republican majority in BOTH houses almost the whole time he was in office plus a majority in the supreme court and the republicans did NOTHING about abortions.
They ONLY care about abortions when there is a democrat in office, that should tell you right there that republicans are just doing this because they hate women and want to make their lives miserable.
If they cared even an ounce about abortions, they would have done something about it when they had 100% control over all laws.
They ONLY care about abortions when there is a democrat in office, that should tell you right there that republicans are just doing this because they hate women and want to make their lives miserable.
If they cared even an ounce about abortions, they would have done something about it when they had 100% control over all laws.
13
Hmmm...I wonder what Trump's positions will be on this one? Ask him quickly, before he changes his mind. Oh wait, ask him before AND after he changes his mind.
8
With all the sham safety requirements that have been promoted by those who are anti-abortion, how will we ever know if a legitimate safety issue exists?
7
Great news, but in some states will women be required to take opiates because non-medical, republicans say the fetus will feel the pain. That seems counter to the "just say no" crowd. Forcing women to take oxi. A new low by any standards.
11
It might be instructive to find out if the Americans United for Life are as active in the adoption arena as in politicizing the woman-physician relationship.
13
I rather hope that they aren't... The history of religious involvement in the adoption arena has been complicated, to put it mildly.
6
ll those who call themselves "pro-life" in fact were, then the U.S. would by now have joined the overwhelming majority of civilized nations that have banned capital punishment, either completely or in practice - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries .
14
Just make sure the pregnancy is intrauterine before aborting. The one drawback to unfettered OTC access would be an increased risk for undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy, especially in those rural areas where access to care is suboptimal.
4
At 56 days gestation, the fetus has familiar external features. All of its internal organs are present. Brain waves have been able to be recorded for about two weeks already.
And your point is.....what, that women should be forced to host fetuses that they do not want/cannotafford to raise/etc/etc?
Exactly how many unwanted children have YOU "hosted" via pregnanacy or adopted after birth?
Exactly how many unwanted children have YOU "hosted" via pregnanacy or adopted after birth?
19
When we have religious groups trying to impose their views on everyone else, because these are religious views, they can't simply agree to disagree. Some of these people are so extreme in their righteousness that they entertain the ridiculous notion that life begins at erection, seeking a ban on the contraception through constitutional amendment. Fetuses do not have rights; they are not people. When a fetus is born, then it has rights and deserves the protection of the state.
13
Even those who oppose abortion should give at least grudging acceptance for this FDA change because it likely increases 1st trimester terminations for unwanted children and lessens the incidences of 2nd trimester abortions. Allowing 2nd trimester abortions, ruled by SCOTUS, places the US as an outlier in the "civilized" or "progressive" world; most - not all - Western Euro countries don't allow or highly restrict 2nd trimester abortions.
Yes - even Bernie's favorite European country - Denmark - restricts to 1st trimester. Because this pill will be used widely in the 1st trimester it may actually begin to deflate the emotionally led opposition to abortion.
Yes - even Bernie's favorite European country - Denmark - restricts to 1st trimester. Because this pill will be used widely in the 1st trimester it may actually begin to deflate the emotionally led opposition to abortion.
3
Second trimester abortions are relatively rare in the US, and they're typically only performed under circumstances where (e.g.) the woman or fetus has significant health problems, in cases of rape or incest, etc.
Many European countries do allow exceptions to their time limits under similar circumstances. So there's not really that much difference.
Many European countries do allow exceptions to their time limits under similar circumstances. So there's not really that much difference.
5
The FDA is appropriately responding to current scientific evidence. Surely, the way must be eased for women to make their own decisions, and this action helps. "Pro Life" is among the most devious, nefarious, and unfortunately, successful public relations gimmicks ever. It is nothing but a cover for men's intent to control women. The old white Republican men who continually devise ways to impede women's rights are among the most evil members of our society.
11
This is a welcome news for women all over the country. It warms my heart. So many "Family values" politicians have clearly demonstrated that they are human too, by engaging in sex outside of the marriage. What would they have their women do, in case of an unplanned, unwanted, untimely pregnancy? The actor that so eloquently spoke to a chair during the 2012 Republican Convention had himself collaboratively made the decision to have his woman terminate two of her pregnancies.
Pregnancy happens naturally in and outside of committed relationships. I am certain that terminating a pregnancy is a decision that's not made casually by any woman. It's personal and should not have any guilt or shame attached to it.Trump trumpeted his position on punishing women very openly. Many lawmakers have stated that a woman that has a natural miscarriage should report the matter to the police / sheriff's office. For what purpose? The decision to keep or terminate a pregnancy is a private matter and so should it remain.
Pregnancy happens naturally in and outside of committed relationships. I am certain that terminating a pregnancy is a decision that's not made casually by any woman. It's personal and should not have any guilt or shame attached to it.Trump trumpeted his position on punishing women very openly. Many lawmakers have stated that a woman that has a natural miscarriage should report the matter to the police / sheriff's office. For what purpose? The decision to keep or terminate a pregnancy is a private matter and so should it remain.
5
Actually there are some women who don't take the possibility of pregnancy seriously enough and we need to address this as part of sex education. Women need to know that even when abortion is an option, it still carries risks. I'd like to see much more emphasis on avoiding unwanted pregnancies. I don't feel that either side of the abortion debate pays enough attention to this and it's the one area where both sides can find some common ground.
4
The abortion pill being legal gives control to a woman who wants terminate pregnancy. This makes the long running debate between prolife and pro choice obsolete and minimizes the role of any illegal intervention on behalf of the person who decides to have an abortion. Presumably there will not be restrictions on taking the pill under legal medical supervision and subsequent medical care following the abortion. Prevention is better than cure and birth control should be preferred route to prevent the need for abortion. Let us all celebrate life and let the woman who is pregnant decide how best to deal with her pwn individual situation in a healthy manner. Americans need to let go this very complex and volatile issue and keep their diverse opinions from influencing the legal and medical practice of safe birth and caring parenthood and not use abortion as the frontline for birth control but should it be used the woman should not have to bear guilt or punishment. It is good that Trump has promptly withdrawn his statement about punishing women who have abortions done by unlicensed doctors or unauthorized clinics.
4
On the terminology relating to fetuses: Words like baby or human being have no specific scientific definition. It is neither correct nor incorrect to use these words to describe a fetus. It is simply irrelevant whether they are used or not.
Fetuses are inarguably human. They are human fetuses, unlike horse fetuses, hamster fetuses etc. The species is determined by the genome.
Fetuses are organisms. Fetuses are clearly not organs or tissues. Tissues express a limited range of cell types and organs and tissues both have the same genome as their parent organism. Fetuses have a distinct self genome, express a full complement of human cell types, and they have their own set of tissues and organs.
The standard used globally to define life in a human organism is intact basic brain function. This is a measurable entity. The absence of blood circulation and organized cellular activity in the brain is globally accepted as a high level of evidence of death. It is clear from our knowledge of embryological development that many fetuses would fail this test and therefore not be considered dead.
So you have a human organism that is not dead. In medical terminology, that constitutes a patient.
Fetuses are inarguably human. They are human fetuses, unlike horse fetuses, hamster fetuses etc. The species is determined by the genome.
Fetuses are organisms. Fetuses are clearly not organs or tissues. Tissues express a limited range of cell types and organs and tissues both have the same genome as their parent organism. Fetuses have a distinct self genome, express a full complement of human cell types, and they have their own set of tissues and organs.
The standard used globally to define life in a human organism is intact basic brain function. This is a measurable entity. The absence of blood circulation and organized cellular activity in the brain is globally accepted as a high level of evidence of death. It is clear from our knowledge of embryological development that many fetuses would fail this test and therefore not be considered dead.
So you have a human organism that is not dead. In medical terminology, that constitutes a patient.
Just to be clear, before at least 10 weeks (until around 24 weeks) there is no brain activity and therefore an abortion at this point can be justified as it is not yet a living human being. The vast majority (about 99%) of abortions are done before there is brain activity.
5
the most recent data say somewhere between 70 and 80%. Where are you getting 99% from?
It would be nice if SABRINA TAVERNISE, had also included relevant information that appears to be missing.
The way it's published presents it to the reader that the FDA acted unilaterally to make those changes.
It appears this is not the case, instead the manufacturer filed an application to expand the use by 21 days, and to allow doctors to adjust amounts.
Leaving that relevant information out, left me to believe that the FDA was acting in an incompetent way, by making the changes and announcing the ignoring of labeling, without updated clinical trial data.
The way it's published presents it to the reader that the FDA acted unilaterally to make those changes.
It appears this is not the case, instead the manufacturer filed an application to expand the use by 21 days, and to allow doctors to adjust amounts.
Leaving that relevant information out, left me to believe that the FDA was acting in an incompetent way, by making the changes and announcing the ignoring of labeling, without updated clinical trial data.
1
I remember when my youngest Aunt lost her only child in a miscarriage.
She remembered her death every year.
Now medical induced miscarriages will be common
as a form of a post-contraceptive.
Something is terribly, terribly wrong here.
She remembered her death every year.
Now medical induced miscarriages will be common
as a form of a post-contraceptive.
Something is terribly, terribly wrong here.
1
Not at all. Abortions would be very rare if everyone in this country made sure that all our citizens have access to affordable medical care, contraception and sex education. Unfortunately Republicans are opposed to all of these things.
15
Your aunt was sad because she wanted a child. Women who do not want a child do not feel sad whether they have an abortion or a miscarriage. Please understand the difference. Your aunt did not lose a child. She lost a potential child. Please do not try to restrict women from doing what they know is right for themselves!
8
I'm sorry about your aunt. But she lost a wanted pregnancy; this discussion is about unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.
9
The F.D.A. said its actions were based strictly on medical science. Why does this appear to be a political statement?
3
While I whole welcome it, I think there should be a age restriction, as to whom it should be sold or made available. School kids or adolescents should not be given easy access to it, as it would only encourage unnecessary encounters, which may result in transmission of various diseases. When a woman has every right to decide about her pregnancy, she should also be made aware of health issues. Therefore, I feel, this pill should be distanced from school kids and adolescents.
On what planet do you live that a pill transmits various diseases? Are you trying to imply that having access to a medication through a doctor would encourage young girls to have unprotected sex? Maybe you should be promoting comprehensive sex education to deal with that and let individual circumstances dictate what individual people do with their bodies. Anyone who menstruates should have access to these medications. And if you're implying that a young girl doesn't have enough information to take care of her own health, you are equally implying she doesn't have the capacity to take care of a baby. Your arguments are clearly based on a lack of ability to talk about sex with your kids and wanting to just forget they explore everything at early ages.
10
People have been arguing for years that access to sex education and birth control (or cervical cancer vaccines!) somehow "encourages" young people to have sex. And they have yet to produce ANY evidence to support that.
What the evidence does show is that, in places where young people have access to accurate information and contraceptives, they have far lower rates of unintended pregnancies and STDs.
What the evidence does show is that, in places where young people have access to accurate information and contraceptives, they have far lower rates of unintended pregnancies and STDs.
7
On the contrary, adolescents should definitely be aware of the possibility of medically ending a pregnancy - perhaps that knowledge will prevent a few suicides.
Well, whatever eases the consciences of women who choose to kill their child in utero is the way much of society wants these days.
3
@Lise P. Cujar,
Much of society also remembers and respects that each woman's conscience and her personal decisions are just that: her business and no one else's.
3-31-16@2:06 am
Much of society also remembers and respects that each woman's conscience and her personal decisions are just that: her business and no one else's.
3-31-16@2:06 am
11
Much of society wants affordable contraception, sex education and health care so that women don't have to face unplanned pregnancies but Republicans are determined to keep these things out of reach.
9
There is no child when you use this method in the first 10 weeks. There is a 1/2 inch clot of tissue that is identical to blood clots many women have during their periods.
10
The sad thing is that there are people who are celebrating this ruling. No matter what you think about it abortion is never something to celebrate. Not for the child who is poisoned, not for the mother kill her child at its most vulnerable time, and not for the doctor who has to assist in blocking the ways in which the mother's body naturally cares for her child so that the child dies. Even for people who support abortion I hate to see anyone celebrate such a ruling since it's so sad for everyone involved.
12
@AVR - you are confusing "celebrating" making women's access to healthcare with "celebrating" abortion, which no one is actually doing. As to the child being "poisoned," that is not what happens in medically induced abortion. Rather labor is induced. AND, yes, abortion is sad. If women had better access to contraceptives and used them better (see current fight over "Obamacare") and better access to child care (you know, affordable, readily accessible), good jobs etc., maybe we could cut down on the number of abortions.
27
At a maximum 10 weeks gestation, it is a fetus, not a child.
10
Blah blah blah. It is not sad, that is your opinion. Abortion is not a bad thing. It is probably a good thing in the long run. People can live a happier life without being forced to do something they don't want to do. The expense of raising a child is astronomical. Most people don't have the resources. Child hunger and a abuse is rampant. It is time to end this. Anything to prevent misery is a good thing.
14
NOW what will the Republicans pander to their base on?
9
There's always gay marriage.
2
We pay women to get birth control pills that are nearly 100% effective. Many believe that abortions are murder and all they ask is that women take their free pills as directed. Virtually all women who get pregnant simply don't do what they should be doing. Virtually every abortion is the result of a careless mistake by a woman a mistake that she has been paid to avoid. Women claim that those who are anti-abortion seek to control their bodies. Bur the fact of the matter is that if women responsibly attended to their own bodies, they could assure that nobody else would get involved.
5
Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about.
34
Awful, ignorant comment.
10
Women do not get free birth control pills. We pay for them. I pay $48 for mine each month and it is a generic. Also, due to age or health issues, many women cannot use the pill. The abortion pill just causes a woman's period to begin and the 1/2 inch clot of tissue comes out, usually unseen.
9
Let every child be a wanted child. This is a forward step in that direction.
27
I wonder how many of these "pro-choicers" would even be here if their mothers had easy access to this abortion pill? How does the thought of that make you feel? Just wondering at what point in your human development your mother's choice to abort should have been withheld?
5
My mother had easy access of abortion. She had several. She had me because she wanted to have me and was the best mother in the world whose untimely passing I'll mourn till I die. It makes me feel wondetful, knowing that I am a child of choice. How does it make you feel, knowing that your mother was forced into giving both to you and that every time she looked at you she saw you as a curse instead of a blessing?
12
@Bill Beaulac,
Did the article mention an automatic decision of every woman to abort, now that access is easier? Is a woman's right to choose the course of her own life really such a threat or so offensive? Particularly if she's a complete stranger?
How do I feel? Fine, actually. At what point? That would have been entirely up her. That's what being an autonomous human being is about: her living her life on her terms rather than someone else's terms, especially not a complete--and intrusive--stranger's terms. Let's remember something. If I hadn't been born I wouldn't have been alive to be aware of missing anything. With respects, I don't find your hypothetical question moot--at all.
3-31-16@2:44 am
Did the article mention an automatic decision of every woman to abort, now that access is easier? Is a woman's right to choose the course of her own life really such a threat or so offensive? Particularly if she's a complete stranger?
How do I feel? Fine, actually. At what point? That would have been entirely up her. That's what being an autonomous human being is about: her living her life on her terms rather than someone else's terms, especially not a complete--and intrusive--stranger's terms. Let's remember something. If I hadn't been born I wouldn't have been alive to be aware of missing anything. With respects, I don't find your hypothetical question moot--at all.
3-31-16@2:44 am
8
@Bill Beaulac,
Oh, you wanted to know when, during my development, I think my mother's right to choose should have been withheld? NEVER.
3-31-16@2:50 am
Oh, you wanted to know when, during my development, I think my mother's right to choose should have been withheld? NEVER.
3-31-16@2:50 am
12
As long as there are people who believe that sex is for procreation, not recreation, these same people want to punish those who do not agree, by requiring them to keep the unwanted result. They should just call themselves anti-sex, not pro life. I am also sure that a good percentage of these same folks are for capital punishment.
32
Women holding veto power for their own or their family's destinies? I'm not holding my breath, as the suggestion that women understand some things better than men flies in the face of all monotheistic religions, not to mention a general world culture that deems women as sex objects as breeders.
13
Interesting in that of the two anti-abortion groups noted, both are helmed by men. Didn't know men could get pregnant; must be evolution.
25
Men should have no say in this issue. It's like having other country telling us what we can or can not do inside our country.
28
Yes, but my country does try to be diplomatic with other countries.
3
May I suggest you read up a little on history?
8
I think a neglected part of the debate is whether men's grounds for divorce from a woman who aborts over his explicit opposition can not be legally contested. By extension, her right to abort, does not extend to a right to frustrate his right to free himself of obligation to her and be free to reproduce with another woman.
2
@WEH,
I think that's neglected? I think it's nobody's business but the couple's. I also think a wife is an independent human being and not simply a body in service as a vessel.
3-31-16@3:02 am
I think that's neglected? I think it's nobody's business but the couple's. I also think a wife is an independent human being and not simply a body in service as a vessel.
3-31-16@3:02 am
5
Since 2010 there has been a new ground for divorce called No Fault divorce in NY in which the relationship between husband and wife has irretrievably broke down in a period of 6 months. Usually reproducing with another woman will do it.
2
Hmmm. That sounds like a couple's issue not a policy issue. Women are not brood mares. If one wants children and the other doesn't, treating the woman like a non-cooperative uterus is likely to end in divorce anyway. Trying to convince any woman like she is pretty much just a highly desirable uterus isn't going to get the guy very far. Just saying.
7
A society that eases restrictions and inconveniences associated with snuffing out the life of a genetically formed perfect human being in the womb just to appease the radical left pro abortion lobby is a sorry society indeed. There was a time not to long ago, indeed less than 50 years, when abortions were illegal and rare, and society was just fine. Now today those who are pro life are looked upon as ogers, and anathemas for daring to believe that the voiceless and most vulnerable in the womb should be protected from the merciless vacuum of an abortionist. What's next? Perhaps vending machines that dispense these dastardly pills? Shame on us.
8
A good alternative is tying up boys at birth, and re-connect them when they are fully prepared to be a dad.
5
Merciless vacuum? Didn't even read the article?
8
My Mother, the daughter of an Italian immigrant, who died a year ago at 100 years old told many stories of how every woman in their neighborhood knew someone who knew someone who could help with an unplanned pregnancy. Birth control was hit or miss at best. Women had no power and they were struggling to feed the children they did have. When desperate enough they resorted to horrifically desperate means. 50 years ago, 75 years ago, 100 years ago. The struggle for women to maintain control of their own bodies had always existed.
119
It's not the FDA's job to determine if a fetus is alive or not. It is the job of any physician who is asked to operate on a fetus or prescribe a medication that would affect the fetus.
Right now, physicians asked to destroy a fetus don't even check if it is alive or not. No system of checking even exists, although the technology is available and the biology is known. This is obviously a violation of the scientific chain of evidence and of basic standards of medical ethics.
That's where the problem lies. Not in the courts, not in the state legislatures, and not at the FDA.
Right now, physicians asked to destroy a fetus don't even check if it is alive or not. No system of checking even exists, although the technology is available and the biology is known. This is obviously a violation of the scientific chain of evidence and of basic standards of medical ethics.
That's where the problem lies. Not in the courts, not in the state legislatures, and not at the FDA.
4
Whether the fetus is "alive" is a philosophical issue that an individual physician can't be expected to determine. There is no possible medical test for that.
Viability is the usual legal standard that physicians are asked to determine, in certain circumstances. And there are certainly objective criteria for that (e.g., the percentage of infants that survive outside the womb at X weeks' gestation).
Viability is the usual legal standard that physicians are asked to determine, in certain circumstances. And there are certainly objective criteria for that (e.g., the percentage of infants that survive outside the womb at X weeks' gestation).
18
There are absolutely medical tests to determine life or death. Hospitals couldn't function without them. It is not a hazy philosophical issue.
The idea that these measurements cannot or could not be used for fetuses is just obscurantism. The biological functions are there waiting to be measured.
The idea that these measurements cannot or could not be used for fetuses is just obscurantism. The biological functions are there waiting to be measured.
5
What exactly is your point? Of course the fetus is assumed to be alive.
3
hallelujah! Thank you, FDA. It's about time.
35
If you want to hold onto this advance and want more like it, vote Democrat in November and every two years thereafter. The Presidency by itself is not enough.
46
@richard schumacher,
Oh, I will. You can count on that.
3-31-16@3:05 am
Oh, I will. You can count on that.
3-31-16@3:05 am
5
Just in time for the election.
2
Wow, amazed at the amount of emotion with abortion. The thing is the more technology increases the more the reality that you are taking a life. Putting aside the usual rape, incest, arguments it's astounding that people view an unwanted pregnancy with such disdain. I witness people now on planes pamper their dogs and then yell if an infant is crying. Pregnancy is everything that has gone right with sex not wrong. It's not a disease or the same as an abscess tooth or infected appendix. We pass off the Planned Parenthood videos as being faked or staged and jump on the slightest inclinational that a politician is God forbid, Pro life or says something in anyway shape or form negative about Abortion, Abortion "Doctors" or the women who have them. A sad, dark world in which we dwell.
11
I guess it's easy to be "unemotional" about this issue when you can't personally get pregnant. It's also easy to write off the many physical, emotional, and practical consequences of pregnancy, when it's not your body or your life at stake.
You sound like someone who has never raised children, if you think it's that simple. (Or, perhaps, one of those guys who sits and reads the paper while their spouse does all the hands-on child care).
You sound like someone who has never raised children, if you think it's that simple. (Or, perhaps, one of those guys who sits and reads the paper while their spouse does all the hands-on child care).
31
> it's astounding that people view an unwanted pregnancy with such disdain.
Not that hard to understand. Try having someone get you pregnant and see how you like it. Believe me, it's a life changing experience.
Not that hard to understand. Try having someone get you pregnant and see how you like it. Believe me, it's a life changing experience.
14
The only reason for the emotion, Miguel, is because people are trying to take away my legal rights as a woman.
Would you like to have a law requiring all men to use a condom before engaging in sex? Or, would you resent that law and consider it an intrusion on your rights. Hmm......I wonder.
Would you like to have a law requiring all men to use a condom before engaging in sex? Or, would you resent that law and consider it an intrusion on your rights. Hmm......I wonder.
26
Good maybe now we can hear about the issues facing this presidential election.
8
Yeah, like raising the minimum wage to a "living" wage.
13
Please remember, abortion is legal. So the FDA is not stepping into the politics of abortion, it is simply doing its job by monitoring appropriate dosages minimally required to do the job and making medication available. Medical abortions are still necessary and need to be readily available to all who seek them. No questions asked.
189
This is a step towards expanding freedom of choice. It will be welcomed by women all over the country.
It is baffling to me that the GOP, who loudly applaud freedom in all other forms, is against freedom of choice for women.
It is baffling to me that the GOP, who loudly applaud freedom in all other forms, is against freedom of choice for women.
61
Apparently, the GOP wants to possess women's bodies rather than letting them make their own health decisions.
27
A major step in the right direction made by the U.S. government. Women everywhere deserve the right to choose between accepting or rejecting abortion as an option. This is an exciting moment!
37
It won't take long, if it hasn't started already, for the conservative, republican, evangelist-pandering politicians to state, "I'm no doctor, but......fill in the blank with same-old-same-old/yadda yadda yadda yadda."
39
Trump is already saying that women who have illegal abortions should be punished.
9
He flipped. Now, it's jist their doctors and nurses.
4
This is very good news for women, especially women in rural areas.
Now I have a bone to pick with the NY Times, based on this quote: "Some require medical professionals who administer the drug to be licensed physicians, and not nurses or physician assistants." I have seen nurse practitioners referred to simply as "nurses" here on the Times site before, while physician assistants get their full title. I am a nurse practitioner. My patients call me a nurse practitioner. I have an advanced degree as an advanced practice nurse, that recognizes me as a nurse practitioner. I am certified and licensed by my state as a nurse practitioner. Like physicians and physician assistants, I diagnose and treat a wide variety of medical problems. My legal scope of practice is not that of a nurse, but a nurse practitioner. It is disrespectful of the Times to not refer to nurse practitioners by their full title. Please change your policy.
Now I have a bone to pick with the NY Times, based on this quote: "Some require medical professionals who administer the drug to be licensed physicians, and not nurses or physician assistants." I have seen nurse practitioners referred to simply as "nurses" here on the Times site before, while physician assistants get their full title. I am a nurse practitioner. My patients call me a nurse practitioner. I have an advanced degree as an advanced practice nurse, that recognizes me as a nurse practitioner. I am certified and licensed by my state as a nurse practitioner. Like physicians and physician assistants, I diagnose and treat a wide variety of medical problems. My legal scope of practice is not that of a nurse, but a nurse practitioner. It is disrespectful of the Times to not refer to nurse practitioners by their full title. Please change your policy.
57
I agree. My primary care physician is a nurse practitioner and so is the man who takes care of one of my family members. The public needs educating about this very valuable skill set.
17
Exactly, and I even believe the qualifications for Nurse practitioner are more rigorous than physician's assistant.
11
I agree – I’m currently visiting a nurse practitioner as my primary care physician, under Obamacare. She’s great, and after a few quick questions (doctor? nurse?) I even know what to call her… her first name.
12
There is, in this country, so much shame associated with women's sexuality. There is still this idea about a woman either being the chaste mother or the shameful slut. It's pretty clear that the most repressive countries have the highest rates of the viewing of pornography and violence against women (by men...). It seems clear to me that when women have the most control--economically, psychologically, physically (earning the same amount/wearing what they choose/choosing when to have a family) everyone is happier.
Do women have control over their existence in America? How valued, exactly, are women in America?
What ever happened to sex education? Do kids these days know how a woman gets pregnant, or do they discover this information on the internet one afternoon while hanging out with their friends? Maybe they learn something, but do they learn it from responsible adults at an early enough age? Do kids know what contraceptive methods are out there? Do kids have access to these methods without shame or repercussion? Why aren't condom dispensers in school bathrooms?
If sex education with information about contraception is encouraging sex--you've got to be kidding. Even if they don't have sex, kids are definitely interested in it.
We can talk about abortion--but where's the conversation about how the egg got fertilized in the first place...? So much information and so many options are out there--but without knowledge, it's meaningless..
It's America--let's get Puritanical.
Do women have control over their existence in America? How valued, exactly, are women in America?
What ever happened to sex education? Do kids these days know how a woman gets pregnant, or do they discover this information on the internet one afternoon while hanging out with their friends? Maybe they learn something, but do they learn it from responsible adults at an early enough age? Do kids know what contraceptive methods are out there? Do kids have access to these methods without shame or repercussion? Why aren't condom dispensers in school bathrooms?
If sex education with information about contraception is encouraging sex--you've got to be kidding. Even if they don't have sex, kids are definitely interested in it.
We can talk about abortion--but where's the conversation about how the egg got fertilized in the first place...? So much information and so many options are out there--but without knowledge, it's meaningless..
It's America--let's get Puritanical.
20
Those who oppose abortion should fight for the rights of MEN to have their wages garnished to support the offspring they engender.
50
I used to work for Child Support Enforcement in Florida and there are already laws in place which force men to contribute to the support of their children. However, one problem I saw was that some men produce so many children with several women, and as a result, each child gets very little support.
6
The issue of abortion is not about being or not being a parent but about the right to one's bodily integrity. Try to understand the distinction.
24
I would also second that those who oppose abortion should also support more resources to mothers and fathers. It is incredibly expensive to raise a child and the expense of day care, the deplorable condition of play grounds and the horrible lack of paternal leave for when a child is born makes it that much more difficult to do a good job at providing a safe nurturing beginning. If pro lifers are that, pro life, than be concerned with the entire child, not just the zygote.
Until I hear the proliferation crowd advocate for all children of all ages and all mothers, I will continue to believe that all pro lifers are only interested in imposing their will and punishing women for having sex.
Until I hear the proliferation crowd advocate for all children of all ages and all mothers, I will continue to believe that all pro lifers are only interested in imposing their will and punishing women for having sex.
40
Reading most of the comments of the New York Times readers is quite depressing. They are so gleeful and happy at the thought of more babies being lost to the abortion pill that was just approved. What does this say about our humanity and compassion? That these innocent lives do not matter, do not count. I am really afraid for our country and the thought of having more babies taken from us in this deplorable way is frightening. I consider life in the womb as a developing baby and I am not alone in this reasoning. I will defend life as it is one of the most precious things there is. If we are blasé about this, what next?
13
What does it say that you have more compassion for a zygote than for a girl or woman who is being forced to carry a pregnancy she is unable or unwilling to properly care for? Women cannot be reduced to just a means to end, regardless of how good you believe that end to be.
31
Oh really? Cut and paste please, a comment that expresses gleeful happiness for, as you state "the thought of more babies being lost..." I see a lot of sentiment expressing relief that women don't have to run through non-medical impediments to obtain this legal drug. That is NOT the same, is it? And after you've hunted in vain, maybe you should consider reordering your priorities and begin defending the planet itself, as the babies everywhere could sure use that kind of help.
20
Then feel free to adopt all the unwanted babies you have the room and the resources for. Other Americans will avail themselves of a legal abortion when it is felt necessary. The right to an abortion is trampled on by people who will have no part in the devastated life that remains to a woman or couple who can't be parents at the moment it is necessary. This is a step in the right direction toward unrestricting access to a constitutional right.
40
Hurray for women and girls and the men in their lives too.
29
Many of these men who are publicly against abortion have had abortions--meaning, their wives and mistresses and mothers and daughters have had abortions. Ronald Reagan had abortions (see Seth Rosenfeld's SUBVERSIVES). Donald Trump has had a ton of wives and mistresses and brags about his inseminator and talks about his sexual escapades. And is against abortion and believes women should be punished for it? Come on. Get these clowns out of here.
61
Your opening line: The Food and Drug Administration stepped into the politics of abortion on Wednesday, relaxing the requirements for taking a medication that induces abortion, a move that is expected to expand access to the procedure.
Let me correct that for you: The Food and Drug Administration, based on scientific evidence, amended the requirements for taking a medication that induces abortion, a move that is expected to expand access to the procedure.
Let me correct that for you: The Food and Drug Administration, based on scientific evidence, amended the requirements for taking a medication that induces abortion, a move that is expected to expand access to the procedure.
65
Thanks for that necessary correction, Elizabeth. When I first read that opener, I also thought, "Wow. Editorialize much?" >:-[
5
I'm a Trump voter.
I read earlier today that he would criminalize the seeker of abortions, vs the provider - which latter we used to do
Politically this is very dumb, the anti-abortion (anti-choice) people do not have the votes, if they did this might be a smart political move
He then backed off, which makes him a waffle, welcome to the club
IF!!! the fetus is a person, abortion is murder; societies historically have killed unwanted babies, we even have a name - infanticide -
If the fetus is not a person, this is not an issue about protecting life
Is the fetus a person? (for purposes of legal protection that is, not spiritual or moral or whatever)
Madame Justice Ginsburg once wrote, of the form, the path of American jurisprudence, is the ever expanding inclusion of who/ what is a person, for purposes of legal protection, and listed many, blacks, women, sick people, native Americans (those who were here before the European etc arrivals, 'native' sometimes comes from natal or born here...)
Some who think the fetus is a person, are waiting for the list to be completed or at least extended
It is impossible to find abortion in our Federal Constitution, no sentient or intellectually honest/ honorable person can, but the impossible rarely stops people
Abortion belongs in the State legislatures, where we can um vote; the vote to deprive one life form (maybe) if done by nine robes, can deprive others
I read earlier today that he would criminalize the seeker of abortions, vs the provider - which latter we used to do
Politically this is very dumb, the anti-abortion (anti-choice) people do not have the votes, if they did this might be a smart political move
He then backed off, which makes him a waffle, welcome to the club
IF!!! the fetus is a person, abortion is murder; societies historically have killed unwanted babies, we even have a name - infanticide -
If the fetus is not a person, this is not an issue about protecting life
Is the fetus a person? (for purposes of legal protection that is, not spiritual or moral or whatever)
Madame Justice Ginsburg once wrote, of the form, the path of American jurisprudence, is the ever expanding inclusion of who/ what is a person, for purposes of legal protection, and listed many, blacks, women, sick people, native Americans (those who were here before the European etc arrivals, 'native' sometimes comes from natal or born here...)
Some who think the fetus is a person, are waiting for the list to be completed or at least extended
It is impossible to find abortion in our Federal Constitution, no sentient or intellectually honest/ honorable person can, but the impossible rarely stops people
Abortion belongs in the State legislatures, where we can um vote; the vote to deprive one life form (maybe) if done by nine robes, can deprive others
1
No. The decision to terminate a pregnancy belongs to the pregnant woman. It does not belong to state legislators.
31
and who decides if the fetus, or the infant, or the adult, is a person?
1
Certainly you don't get to! Me, my partner/spouse, my health care practitioner. No legislator or court or religion has one iota of business intruding unless a woman wishes to low tow to male domination. #takebackourlivesandfutures
13
Legalized murder. Terrible.
4
So how many unwanted children have you adopted?
Related to this article is Trump's assertion (AND, yes, subsequent "correction")that abortion needs to be criminalized and women should be punished for seeking it out. Note... just as the GOP attempts to distance themselves from racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. attitudes they've tacitly encouraged for decades, pro-life organizations are now scrambling to distance themselves from Trump's initial comments. Ms. Penny Nance closed the NY Times article saying: "The reality is that pro-lifers are compassionate people who deeply care for broken women and their babies.” Ms. Mancini added that "No pro-lifer would EVER want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion.”
Really? There are plenty of people capable of disagreeing with abortion while maintaining their composure but is that REALLY what "pro-life" organizations are known for? Their "compassionate" approach to this sensitive issue? I've never had to walk into an abortion clinic... and I'm thankful for that because I don't think I could deal with the "compassionate" pro-life advocates lining the sides. How many clinics have been bombed? How many have been shot up? Are the terms "murderer," "baby-killer," "sinner," and much, MUCH worse evidence of a compassionate concern... or is it evidence of self-righteous anger at the exercise of an established right? Bear in mind, this is even obvious to me as a man who doesn't have to deal with the insults and violence. Whatever compassion exists is drowned out by rage.
Really? There are plenty of people capable of disagreeing with abortion while maintaining their composure but is that REALLY what "pro-life" organizations are known for? Their "compassionate" approach to this sensitive issue? I've never had to walk into an abortion clinic... and I'm thankful for that because I don't think I could deal with the "compassionate" pro-life advocates lining the sides. How many clinics have been bombed? How many have been shot up? Are the terms "murderer," "baby-killer," "sinner," and much, MUCH worse evidence of a compassionate concern... or is it evidence of self-righteous anger at the exercise of an established right? Bear in mind, this is even obvious to me as a man who doesn't have to deal with the insults and violence. Whatever compassion exists is drowned out by rage.
49
Regarding Trump's comment and this latest, welcome news: Women who are denied access to abortion and contraception are ALREADY being punished.
26
Oh, trust me, our Neaderthal Republican state legislatures are already drafting bills that will require all pill users to sleep over at the doctor's home and be xrayed to be certain the pill was actually swallowed and then return 6 times for 6 D&Cs.
39
I was prescribed this medication after a miscarriage for a very wanted baby, and at 600 mg I ended up in the ER twice, first with significant blood loss and a day later, hemorrhaging. It was absolutely terrifying. I'm glad for every woman who would ever take this that the dosage has been rectified. I'm pro-choice, but this is a reminder that this medication can be prescribed in other scenarios too, and the new research is essential.
33
Well this may not last long, if Trump becomes president, women who buy the abortion pill will be prosecuted and sent to jail for several years, based on his latest hastily retracted statements.
9
I wish he had refused to retract. Stick it in the faces of the anti-abortion people. They think women who choose to have abortions are too stupid to make their own decisions. They shouldn't be punished because they were too stupid to know what they were doing.
5
So glad to see the restrictions being eased to reflect scientific information. Given the remarks by Donald Trump today, which he later "explained" about criminally punishing women who have abortions, it is timely. It is a move to a more private approach to pregnancy termination.
Donald Trump, and the other Republican contenders for the Presidency who would only allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is threatened (Ted Cruz would not allow it even then) only serves to underscore why electing Democrats from state legislators on up to the President is so important, and why women above all should support them.
Donald Trump, and the other Republican contenders for the Presidency who would only allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is threatened (Ted Cruz would not allow it even then) only serves to underscore why electing Democrats from state legislators on up to the President is so important, and why women above all should support them.
33
This is great news for the women of America and reproductive healthcare!
117
Shouldn't we wait to see what Trump says -- then unsays -- about this? I guess not. He just killed his presidential hopes, reverting to his default setting: loud, foot in mouth re using the law to punish women who undergo abortion.
14
Actually he just states out loud where the republicans are going. Just wait if they got Roe vs Wade reversed. They are already prosecuting women.
10
Isn't that what anti-choice proponents have been praying (!) for for all these years? Dirty women who have sex outside of wedLOCK deserve to be punished. Why is everyone suddenly so horrified to hear someone say out loud what they only scream at women going into clinics?
21
Before Roe v. wade, the main users of abortion were married women with 2 or more children.
12
1. Let's stop with the dishonest framing of the abortion debate. Not all men oppose abortion rights for women. And not all of those who oppose abortion rights for women are men --- many vociferous opponents of abortion are women.
2. Men should stay out of the abortion debate altogether. It is a women's issue through and through. If you are against abortion, keep it to yourself, or avoid women who you know are pro-choice. Life will go on.
2. Men should stay out of the abortion debate altogether. It is a women's issue through and through. If you are against abortion, keep it to yourself, or avoid women who you know are pro-choice. Life will go on.
16
In response to the pro lifers: an unimplanted fertilized egg is not a baby. Butt out of other people 's bedrooms. Mind your own business.
62
Punish the men. Easy to discover them with DNA testing. Life in prison?
16
Finally! If men got pregnant this would have been done years ago.
And speaking of men, I don't know what kind of life form Trump is. But if he had ever gotten knocked up, I'm sure he would have demanded an abortion and gotten one. Even before Roe v Wade!
Republicans get abortions too, you know. Conservatives too. But they go out of state so they won't sully their reputations.
And speaking of men, I don't know what kind of life form Trump is. But if he had ever gotten knocked up, I'm sure he would have demanded an abortion and gotten one. Even before Roe v Wade!
Republicans get abortions too, you know. Conservatives too. But they go out of state so they won't sully their reputations.
44
The unborn babies in the womb are not celebrating. They are in tears over this FDA decision. Hopefully this will be overturned with the help of pro-life groups across the nation. They are powerful.
2
I must respond, respectfully as you are entitled to your opinion of course, that not everyone considers a fetus to be a baby. To some, a fertilized egg is not a baby - even though you catagorize it as "unborn" baby. It isn't really a baby at that point.
58
They're fetuses, not babies, and as a young woman with no intention of becoming pregnant, I am overjoyed at this announcement. Retrograde, puritan thinking is on its way out!
20
How many babies are you willing to adopt? Are you willing to provide prenatal care for the mother? If the infant is severely ill and requires surgeries and life-long care will you pay for it? Can the mother put her infant in a basket and leave it on a church's steps?
All of the above should be the responsibility of the pro-life groups. Anybody can stand on a street corner holding a sign.
All of the above should be the responsibility of the pro-life groups. Anybody can stand on a street corner holding a sign.
27
Good news, but it is puzzling that there are so many unplanned pregnancies when there are so many more birth control options than there were in decades past, when the unplanned pregnancy rate was much lower.
Eventually, this country will join the civilized world and have a single payer system (but don't kid yourself, everyone's taxes will go up to pay for it) and birth control will be free for all women.
And next stop, male birth control pills!
Eventually, this country will join the civilized world and have a single payer system (but don't kid yourself, everyone's taxes will go up to pay for it) and birth control will be free for all women.
And next stop, male birth control pills!
15
Taxes will go up but insurance premiums will go down (like to zero). If it's done right - low overhead on both the payer and biller side, get rid of most fee per service arrangements - many of us should come out even or ahead.
12
Well, it's not THAT amazing-- there's huge conservative opposition to teaching effective sex education, and those same folks have been doing everything they can to shut down family planning clinics, prevent Medicaid expansion, etc. And there are still millions of people without health insurance or access to primary care.
Even for middle-class people with insurance, it can be challenging-- some doctors require you to come in every three months to get a prescription refill (which can involve missing work, arranging childcare, etc.) And birth control just fails sometimes.
Even for middle-class people with insurance, it can be challenging-- some doctors require you to come in every three months to get a prescription refill (which can involve missing work, arranging childcare, etc.) And birth control just fails sometimes.
12
FSMLives: Countries with single payer insurance pay substantially less for health care, per capita, than does the US.
So while taxes might be a higher (US governments pay for about 50% of all US health care), the total bill will be significantly smaller.
So while taxes might be a higher (US governments pay for about 50% of all US health care), the total bill will be significantly smaller.
12
If I understand correctly, the FDA's changes blow out of the water lawsuits that were intended to limit the use of the pill based on restrictions that are now outdated. This is a case of science refuting arguments of law. Surely, the anti-abortion crowd will attack the FDA, as have liberals in the past. The sad truth is that both parties view science as tainted and so the arguments of both sides persist despite what science tells us.
13
The sad truth is that a certain type of man views women as inherently tainted and lives to punish them to exercise medieval misogynistic glory.
If we're going to regulate uteruses, then we should be regulating testicles in the interest of equal representation under the law.
....and then watch men suddenly all lose interest in regulating people's body parts.
If we're going to regulate uteruses, then we should be regulating testicles in the interest of equal representation under the law.
....and then watch men suddenly all lose interest in regulating people's body parts.
87
Yeah Socrates, men like Trump.
6
Thank the "global warming" uhem, scientists for that...
Abortifacient substances have been known, used, or attempted in various cultures for millenia.
Surprisingly, the Bible sanctions and even demands abortion in the case of adultery, Numbers 5:11-31. A man would denounce his unfaithful wife before the Priest, who would then administer "the Bitter Waters". This potion would cause it to "rot", "fall out", or "miscarry", depending on translation. Not every pregnancy was considered innocent life, and there is no record of
Jesus abolishing the bitter waters procedure. Pope Pius IX in 1869 declared abortion a mortal sin in all cases. Previously it was unlawful only after the fetus was "ensouled" as evidenced by fetal movement.
The abortifacient herb Silphium was well known in the ancient Mediterranean area. It is depicted on Roman coins, but became extinct in antiquity from over harvesting. Then as now, a case of need vs. availability.
Surprisingly, the Bible sanctions and even demands abortion in the case of adultery, Numbers 5:11-31. A man would denounce his unfaithful wife before the Priest, who would then administer "the Bitter Waters". This potion would cause it to "rot", "fall out", or "miscarry", depending on translation. Not every pregnancy was considered innocent life, and there is no record of
Jesus abolishing the bitter waters procedure. Pope Pius IX in 1869 declared abortion a mortal sin in all cases. Previously it was unlawful only after the fetus was "ensouled" as evidenced by fetal movement.
The abortifacient herb Silphium was well known in the ancient Mediterranean area. It is depicted on Roman coins, but became extinct in antiquity from over harvesting. Then as now, a case of need vs. availability.
39
Very interesting history. Thanks.
9
Intelligent and knowledgeable, as opposed to the "pro-life" position.
4
Stop calling abortion a political issue. It is NOT a political issue. It is a personal medical issue involving my uterus. My uterus. That's as personal as it gets.
78
An important decision based on science and not religion or politics is refreshing. I'm certain that "the Donald" and Cruz will think this is the devil's work. Good job FDA.
31
The FDA made the correct decision here based on medical science, it was not a political decision. I am entirely supportive of a woman's decision to choose and believe the government has no place in interfering with that decision.
I'm a just little disappointed in the cavalier tone of many comments, especially those that label adoption as a poor or unacceptable alternative. My family (gay) and the family of close friends (unable to conceive) were fortunate to adopt four children between us. The mothers of those children decided to carry the children to term (and not because they were opposed to abortion) but because they understood that the children would become part of loving and supportive families. I am in no way advocating that this is the right choice for everyone, I'm just relaying my experience and my hope that this is an alternative that is thoughtfully considered.
It is a difficult and highly contentious issue that should be discussed thoughtfully, respectfully and civilly without a lot of the rancor that exists in some of these posts.
I'm a just little disappointed in the cavalier tone of many comments, especially those that label adoption as a poor or unacceptable alternative. My family (gay) and the family of close friends (unable to conceive) were fortunate to adopt four children between us. The mothers of those children decided to carry the children to term (and not because they were opposed to abortion) but because they understood that the children would become part of loving and supportive families. I am in no way advocating that this is the right choice for everyone, I'm just relaying my experience and my hope that this is an alternative that is thoughtfully considered.
It is a difficult and highly contentious issue that should be discussed thoughtfully, respectfully and civilly without a lot of the rancor that exists in some of these posts.
13
I haven't seen the comments that "label adoption as a poor or unacceptable alternative" but I'm guessing that they mean that it's not necessarily an acceptable alternative for some women. It about what they've determined is best for them and their family.
Expecting or forcing women to carry a pregnancy and give birth is reducing her to a birthing vessel. As well, both are fraught with negative health implications. Trust me, women give tons of thought to pregnancy termination and alternatives. And if they don't - so what? It's her body and her choice.
Expecting or forcing women to carry a pregnancy and give birth is reducing her to a birthing vessel. As well, both are fraught with negative health implications. Trust me, women give tons of thought to pregnancy termination and alternatives. And if they don't - so what? It's her body and her choice.
13
Adoption is a fine choice for people who want to do that, but it IS an unacceptable alternative for many individuals who don't want to go through pregnancy and childbirth (which can involve physical and emotional trauma). I wouldn't personally be able to do it.
That's not a reflection on you or other adoptive parents-- merely an acknowledgement of how gut-wrenching and difficult the reality can be for birth mothers.
That's not a reflection on you or other adoptive parents-- merely an acknowledgement of how gut-wrenching and difficult the reality can be for birth mothers.
11
Thats pro choice. Thank you.
6
This is such sad news. I guess pro-life groups have their work cut out for them. I just renewed my membership to my pro-life group in Boston and now will have to send another donation to help them with this new war on babies in the womb. It is imperative for us to stop the killing of innocent life who are unable to defend themselves. How truly sad but we pro lifers never give up hope. There are many dedicated folks in the movement who will not let babies die this way or through other forms of abortion.
of innocent life who cannot defend
of innocent life who cannot defend
3
Why don't you save your money and use it to adopt unwanted children who are actually alive right now?
Why do pro-lifers ignore the needs of children as soon as they're born?
Why do pro-lifers ignore the needs of children as soon as they're born?
24
Do you also support policies that would ensure women are able to care for their children after giving birth?
19
Just curious if you are also renewing your membership and contributions to the homeless shelters and food shelves to house and feed all the babies born to women who cannot support them.
17
One more step in the direction of allowing the only person who should be allowed to make a decision on their body to make that decision: the woman who inhabits it.
Bravo!
Bravo!
73
What possible issue could these so-called "pro-lifers"? have with the idea that every child should be wanted, planned, adequately cared for by a mother who is prepared, and cherished? Extremists whose concern for the well-being of a child ends the moment it leaves its mother's uterus are anything but Pro-life. They are pro-fetus and, it seems to me, anti-child. Let's be honest, use the correct words, and at least stop the anti-choicers from taking cover under the rosy term "pro-life."
81
Actually, "pro-life" people are the most likely to adopt for reasons unrelated to inability to have children. Many support pregnancy centers that provide ongoing care, diapers, clothing and parenting classes to single moms. Many I know babysit at no cost for single moms, help with house repairs and provide transportation solely as a way to provide help, or have provided short term, free housing in their homes for single moms who needed emergency housing. This is just not "newsworthy." Few pro-choice-leaning media outlets are interested in seeking these kinds of stories (people being helpful is boring, and conflict gets more attention). And probably primarily, most of those involved (I can think of many people just among my acquaintances) are not seeking attention or praise. It is just how they live.
2
Those "pregnancy centers" that you're talking about peddle misinformation and provide very little in the way of practical assistance.
Their main purpose is to mislead and delay women who might seek abortion, until it's too late for them to legally get one.
Their main purpose is to mislead and delay women who might seek abortion, until it's too late for them to legally get one.
13
The source of your information? The plural of anecdote is not data.
This drug, as you know, is also called RU-486.
I was a bartender for a while, in Santa Fe, and when you wanted to get rid of something (say, old lemons, etc) you'd "86-'em." Bartender talk. (Long history behind this "86"-term.)
So, many years later, when RU-486 came out -- I was astounded that no one seemed to catch the meaning there: "RU 486" = "Are You for 86?"
That is, "86-ing" the baby. Getting rid of it.
Is everyone already aware of this? I have never seen anything at all written on it.
I was a bartender for a while, in Santa Fe, and when you wanted to get rid of something (say, old lemons, etc) you'd "86-'em." Bartender talk. (Long history behind this "86"-term.)
So, many years later, when RU-486 came out -- I was astounded that no one seemed to catch the meaning there: "RU 486" = "Are You for 86?"
That is, "86-ing" the baby. Getting rid of it.
Is everyone already aware of this? I have never seen anything at all written on it.
4
Nice one, never thought of that, and sure it makes sense, maybe not what the namers had in mind though. And to the question 'are you for 86'ing the fetus', I'd say, if it's an unwanted baby that would have had a terrible life and ruined that of the parents as well, then yes I'm all for it.
6
RU-486 was originally developed by French scientists in the '80s as a potential breast cancer drug. The RU stands for Roussel-Uclaf (the pharmaceutical company), and it was apparently given that name because it was the 38,486th compound they synthesized.
It wasn't originally intended to terminate pregnancies, and I doubt they use much 1940s American restaurant/ bar slang in France.
It wasn't originally intended to terminate pregnancies, and I doubt they use much 1940s American restaurant/ bar slang in France.
13
I always thought that was intentional.
1
Safe is RU 486?Oh really...These are the warnings to be on the alert for when taking Mifepristone :
Call your doctor right away if you notice any of these side effects:
Allergic reaction: Itching or hives, swelling in your face or hands, swelling or tingling in your mouth or throat, chest tightness, trouble breathing
Dry mouth, increased thirst, muscle cramps, nausea, or vomiting
Fast, pounding, or uneven heartbeat
Fever
Increased hunger or thirst
Lightheadedness, dizziness, or fainting
Heavy vaginal bleeding or severe cramping
Severe abdominal pain
Shortness of breath or trouble breathing
Swelling in your hands, ankles, or feet
Unusual tiredness or weakness
Please read the rest of the properties and uses and adverse effects here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0011221/?report=details#sid...
Call your doctor right away if you notice any of these side effects:
Allergic reaction: Itching or hives, swelling in your face or hands, swelling or tingling in your mouth or throat, chest tightness, trouble breathing
Dry mouth, increased thirst, muscle cramps, nausea, or vomiting
Fast, pounding, or uneven heartbeat
Fever
Increased hunger or thirst
Lightheadedness, dizziness, or fainting
Heavy vaginal bleeding or severe cramping
Severe abdominal pain
Shortness of breath or trouble breathing
Swelling in your hands, ankles, or feet
Unusual tiredness or weakness
Please read the rest of the properties and uses and adverse effects here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0011221/?report=details#sid...
If this concerns you so much, you probably shouldn't look into what happens in a Tylenol overdose.
17
Many Over-the-Counter medications have exactly the same profile. Why aren't you protesting the use of those medications?
17
hives
facial swelling
asthma (wheezing)
shock
skin reddening
rash
blisters
stomach bleeding
increase risk of heart attack or stroke, either of which can lead to death.
Over the counter ibuprofen.
Don't even look up acetaminophen.
facial swelling
asthma (wheezing)
shock
skin reddening
rash
blisters
stomach bleeding
increase risk of heart attack or stroke, either of which can lead to death.
Over the counter ibuprofen.
Don't even look up acetaminophen.
13
This, coming on the same day as Trump's call to punish women for terminating a pregnancy brought to mind a bumper sticker I saw in Florida last week. It read:
"If you can cut of my reproductive choice, can I cut off yours?"
"If you can cut of my reproductive choice, can I cut off yours?"
40
As the Food and Drug Administration relaxes the requirements for taking a medication that induces abortion.....Donald Trump is preparing to re-implement the Salem Witch Trials and 'punish' all those 'bad girls'.
It's 1692, America.
Please rise for Judge Trump and let the trials begin !
“The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.”
There they are, those bad women....get them...hurt them...punish them for their sins !!
It's 1692, America.
Please rise for Judge Trump and let the trials begin !
“The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.”
There they are, those bad women....get them...hurt them...punish them for their sins !!
42
I'm not certain that Trump's position is so horrible; I'm not certain that it isn't. I am concerned that the anti-choice crowd is vehemently opposed to women who have an "illegal" abortion (after it is outlawed) being considered an equal perpetrator in the "crime". The "abstinence-only, no abortions, no birth-control not sanctioned by "The Church"" devotees have been very successful in portraying women who obtain abortions are "victims" and those providing the services as "evil". Consequently, the number of providers continues to decline.
I'm unwilling to side with the "women do not have reproductive choice rights" groups. I wish Trump had not disavowed his original statement so we could have the discussion. It might have made some of these "embryo's are the more valuable" people re-think their philosophy.
I'm unwilling to side with the "women do not have reproductive choice rights" groups. I wish Trump had not disavowed his original statement so we could have the discussion. It might have made some of these "embryo's are the more valuable" people re-think their philosophy.
If Donald Trump did indeed say that if or when abortion is banned women who obtain illegal abortions should be punished, he is exactly right and he is being honest and responsible in saying so. When a law is violated, lawbreakers must be punished. His Republican opponents, all of whom support banning abortion, have not been so honest. What would they do with the women who get illegal abortions? They should have been asked for a straight answer long ago. Should it be a misdemeanor or a felony? Should it be punished as premeditated murder or voluntary manslaughter? How would cases be made and evidence gathered? Would the accused women be forced to undergo medical exams to prove a pregnancy has been voluntarily aborted vs. a spontaneous miscarriage? Would the aborted fetal tissue have to be produced as evidence? Lots of questions need to be answered by those politicians who want to go down this road.
20
Forced to undergo medical exams to prove a miscarriage and not an abortion? Perhaps women need to arm themselves and become proficient in using a gun because if I lived under your scenario, I would shoot you before I would put up with your nonsense. The older I am the more it appears that some people are just obsessed with the topic of abortion.
7
I apologize, I totally misread your comment. I thought you were advocating a system that required proof in order to avoid criminal charges. Again, I am sorry.
2
It's interesting that the people who insist that women must see a doctor to obtain this medication are the same ones who refuse medical coverage for the appointment.
65
Seeing a doctor for this kind of medication is common sense.
3
Trumps statement that women should be punished for abortions is shocking but logically sound. If abortion is such a horrible crime, OF course all parties involved should be punished. But Republican's don't (usually) seek it, because they know it would be politically unpalatable.
Yet another example of their immense hypocrisy on all kinds of issues - 22 kids killed in a school in CT, "Hey, stuff happens". 30 killed in Brussels - "Why isn't Obama doing something??" or "We refuse to do what the Constitution states, in order to have a chance to get another Strict Constructionist on the Supreme Court."
Yet another example of their immense hypocrisy on all kinds of issues - 22 kids killed in a school in CT, "Hey, stuff happens". 30 killed in Brussels - "Why isn't Obama doing something??" or "We refuse to do what the Constitution states, in order to have a chance to get another Strict Constructionist on the Supreme Court."
29
Controlling one's reproductive choices is an important, Constitutional right. Let no man say otherwise.
52
Or woman.
26
Human life flush away easily like, (....)
4
Human life flush away easily like, (....)
And you know women do this "easily" how? You have been in each of their heads? You have been at the discussions with their spouses? You have been in the meetings with the Doctors? No?
Oh, you just hate women I guess. You think women routinely just end pregnancies easy breezy. Your empathy is astonishing.
And you know women do this "easily" how? You have been in each of their heads? You have been at the discussions with their spouses? You have been in the meetings with the Doctors? No?
Oh, you just hate women I guess. You think women routinely just end pregnancies easy breezy. Your empathy is astonishing.
34
We have over 7 BILLIONS humans already in the planet!... is good to be able to slow it down.
15
You do know that fertilized eggs pass through women's bodies everyday, everywhere, right? You do know that women have miscarriages, yes? You do know that women and children die in childbirth?
19
It's just a matter of time that science, technology, and individual awareness, crushes the last remnants of the Republican right's medieval social agenda. The signs of desperation are everywhere, from the refusal of the senate to confirm a new Supreme Court justice, to Republican controlled states attacking Planned Parenthood. The clock is ticking. Someone tell Republicans that their 1952 Packard is getting towed away.
63
Don't tell the Repubs the end is coming. Let them find out for themselves. They've earned it.
12
Heres my modest proposal. For all those lawmakers who want to force women to risk their lives to have babies they don't want and can't take care of, let's create a registry. Those lawmakers who sign up can vote for restrictions on abortion. For each such vote they make, they immediately become the permanent legal guardian of one or more of the many thousands of American children waiting for homes. From that point, they must raise the child or children they receive from their own funds. A social worker will make periodic visits to ensure proper care is provided. If not, the children will be reassigned, but the lawmaker and his or her spouse will be incarcerated under a new statute for this purpose. In this manner, lawmakers will be subject to their own reproductive policies, except that they won't face the risks and hardships of pregnancy.
103
MAGNIFICENT!
8
This is not about children and never has been.
It is about punishing women for having sex.
End. Of. Story.
It is about punishing women for having sex.
End. Of. Story.
37
I think there is actually a man involved somewhere here in the process. Shouldn't he also be punished? I mean, fair is fair.
7
In related good news, I'm pretty sure Trump just said something that will finally be his undoing: that women who illegally obtain abortions should be punished.
27
Actually, JJ, Trump just today uttered ANOTHER proclamation in a very long history, that should finally be his UNDOING, actually any ONE of them.
PEOPLE! Have you no shame? Do the right thing, and renounce Trump. NOW.
PEOPLE! Have you no shame? Do the right thing, and renounce Trump. NOW.
5
And in Trump's world, with abortion banned, the men get off the hook entirely? Does this man not think before he speaks? What about the husband who strongly feels that he can't make ends meet with one more child? So his wife gets the abortion and she's the one who risks the punishment? Can you imagine what this presidential candidate would say if the tables were turned, and some female candidate were recommending punishment for all men who get a woman pregnant without her written consent?
9
I think he was asked if women should be punished if abortion was made illegal and he said yes because it would be a criminal act. Why should just the provider be punished? Perhaps the fact that the anti-choice crowd is vehemently opposed to punishing the mother should be considered. At least we now know that he is not in constant communication with them (unlike Raphael "Ted" Cruz and probably Kasich).
I also think it was wrong for the media to only report that Trump reneged on his agreement to support the eventual candidate. All three reneged on their agreements in the same interview but that part was typically buried at the end of the news story.
Am I a Trump supporter? No. But, anything that the anti-choice/anti-women groups oppose with such vehemence is something that I want to examine more closely before I agree with them.
I also think it was wrong for the media to only report that Trump reneged on his agreement to support the eventual candidate. All three reneged on their agreements in the same interview but that part was typically buried at the end of the news story.
Am I a Trump supporter? No. But, anything that the anti-choice/anti-women groups oppose with such vehemence is something that I want to examine more closely before I agree with them.
I support this 100 percent.
I also support the principle that people pay for their own kids. The religious get tax payer money for children they cannot care for.
I do not want to pay for people to have kids they want but cannot afford- financially or emotionally.
I also support the principle that people pay for their own kids. The religious get tax payer money for children they cannot care for.
I do not want to pay for people to have kids they want but cannot afford- financially or emotionally.
14
This needs to be available over the counter.
33
Only if the pharmacist providing the drugs is able to screen and educate the woman receiving it. There are some medical conditions that could cause her some harm however it is still far and beyond much safer than pregnancy.
5
Good. GOP, stop your war on woman.
36
God forbid that any woman has to make that decision and that is the worst decision to make in the world. I dont really feel good about allowing it to be easier for women to have abortions, but I identify as progressive or left. I think that its a terrible decision to make and hopefully a woman chooses life over death but I gotta say that this is the worst decision to ever have to make and it should not be taken lightly, its a life or death matter.
4
It is of no concern whether you feel good or bad about allowing it to be "easier" for a woman to obtain an abortion. Your condescending, paternalistic attitude (regardless of whether you're male or female) is the problem. Women's private health decisions are none of your business.
29
No one else would identify you as a progressive - just another controlling person who thinks that they know what's best for woman. Let others run your life and let us know how you like that.
16
No, actually, its not the worst decision in the world to have to make. Its actually quite easy and, unless you are the pregnant person, its also NONE of your business.
25
Let's see if GOP has the courage to go after Big Pharma, the way they've toyed with Planned Parenthood.
41
This will make life easier for women who want to have abortions for whatever reason when it's early in their pregnancy. This is the way abortion should work in America: a decision made by the woman with assistance from her physician, assuming that she has one. Of course we could go back to hangar abortions where women put a unsterile object up their cervix and into the uterus and stood a good chance of infecting themselves or rupturing the uterus or having an incomplete abortion. I realize that the anti-abortion crowd is against any and all abortions, even if it's to keep the woman alive so I expect that this decision will be met with the usual comments about the sanctity of life, how an embryo or fetus is more important than the living, and how easy it is to avoid intercourse.
If we want people to stop having children they cannot afford we have to make sure that all sexually active adults have access to contraception. We also have to make sure that all women have access to abortion since contraception can fail. One further consideration might be the fact that the world is running out of space, resources, etc. Just look at how many children and adults in America are slipping into poverty because of a lack of jobs, money, etc. There's more to life than giving birth.
If we want people to stop having children they cannot afford we have to make sure that all sexually active adults have access to contraception. We also have to make sure that all women have access to abortion since contraception can fail. One further consideration might be the fact that the world is running out of space, resources, etc. Just look at how many children and adults in America are slipping into poverty because of a lack of jobs, money, etc. There's more to life than giving birth.
67
"...sexually active adults..."
Sexually active minors should have access to contraception (and abortion) as well.
Sexually active minors should have access to contraception (and abortion) as well.
15
The true hypocrisy of the anti abortion bunch comes out when they tack on the caveat "except in cases of rape or incest".
If all life is holy, why do fetuses of rape or incest have less tights? It is not THEIR fault. Just socially inconvenient for the mother.
If all life is holy, why do fetuses of rape or incest have less tights? It is not THEIR fault. Just socially inconvenient for the mother.
13
wobbly - so a 12 year old girl needs parental permission to get her ears pierced but not to get an abortion - how does that make any sense?
2
Only when our society provides pre and post natal health care for mother and baby, child care centers for all working mothers, preschool through university education for all students, that they may rise to the highest level their talent and hard work permits, only then can it be argued that society is making it safe to reconsider having an unplanned, unwanted child.
54
Even then it can not be. Why should a woman have to go thru a pregnancy if she doesn't want to? Pregnancy is dangerous, hard on the body and expensive.
6
I'm an Ohio resident who got a medical abortion under the restrictive laws. By the time I found out I was pregnant (5 weeks), I had just about a 10-day window to come up with $800 and take time off work for 3 separate appointments before I was too far along to qualify for the pill. Appointments were 2-5 hours each because of demand at the clinic. (These clinics are underfunded and overcrowded, so it's far from a pleasant wait.) I was fortunate that I had the means to do this; however, it meant I had to save up for another few months before I could leave a bad relationship.
All that just to pass a yolk sac containing an embryo that wasn't even visible to the eye! These laws don't prevent abortion for wealthier/more privileged patients; they target those who cannot afford the cost and/or the time.
Unfortunately, the new regulations don't address mandatory transvaginal ultrasound, a part of the process that is violating, unwanted, and medically unnecessary. All this just so people can make responsible decisions for themselves and their families!
All that just to pass a yolk sac containing an embryo that wasn't even visible to the eye! These laws don't prevent abortion for wealthier/more privileged patients; they target those who cannot afford the cost and/or the time.
Unfortunately, the new regulations don't address mandatory transvaginal ultrasound, a part of the process that is violating, unwanted, and medically unnecessary. All this just so people can make responsible decisions for themselves and their families!
158
Completely agree with you on the first part, and I've been there too.
However, as unpleasant as the transvaginal ultrasound is, it's medically necessary to check that an early pregnancy is in the uterus (as opposed to an ectopic pregnancy). It's extremely dangerous to take the abortion pill with an ectopic pregnancy. The transvaginal ultrasound has to be used because the stomach ultrasound doesn't have a clear enough view in early pregnancy when the embryo is so small.
However, as unpleasant as the transvaginal ultrasound is, it's medically necessary to check that an early pregnancy is in the uterus (as opposed to an ectopic pregnancy). It's extremely dangerous to take the abortion pill with an ectopic pregnancy. The transvaginal ultrasound has to be used because the stomach ultrasound doesn't have a clear enough view in early pregnancy when the embryo is so small.
3
An ectopic pregnancy will reveal itself much earlier than when the medical abortion takes place. The TVU/s is not medically necessary per ACOG Good Clinical Practice guidelines when having a medical abortion.
And an ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening emergency that must be resolved surgically.
And an ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening emergency that must be resolved surgically.
10
I've read multiple interviews with abortion providers who mentioned that they always do a transvaginal ultrasound prior to the procedure.
I've had this type of ultrasound for other reasons (cysts) and it was far less uncomfortable than a pap smear.
I've had this type of ultrasound for other reasons (cysts) and it was far less uncomfortable than a pap smear.
2
If you haven't seen it already, Trump told Chris Matthews he would ban abortions and punish women who have abortions.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/30/donald-trump-women-aborti...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/30/donald-trump-women-aborti...
39
OMG!
15
yeah, but not to worry – he'll change his mind tomorrow, or maybe even in a couple hours.
12
Oh, but he doesn't really mean it, say his supporters about his outrageous statements. He is truly terrifying.
6
This is a victory for women in a controversial area based on the findings of the FDA. I suspect I'm in the minority on this but I think a statement from Planned Parenthood serves no particular purpose other than to anger the anti-abortion crowd. By rubbing in this victory, Planned Parenthood encourages the opposition to find ways to retaliate. I think Planned Parenthood has a tendency to stoke the fires. Sometimes it's better to just say nothing.
2
Indeed, hunker down and hope they don't kick you. Nope.
Good for Planned Parenthood. Standing up for a woman's right to control her own body is nothing to be timid about. The anti-woman brigades will continue their assaults regardless. If you think making nice is going to cool their jets, then you don't know them.
Good for Planned Parenthood. Standing up for a woman's right to control her own body is nothing to be timid about. The anti-woman brigades will continue their assaults regardless. If you think making nice is going to cool their jets, then you don't know them.
25
What you and others don't understand is that aggressive defense of women's health needs can be counterproductive. It is a typically male strategy to fight fire with fire. And that strategy is often doess not work. The better strategy is to focus on women's needs and not to be excessively confrontational, What is important is that women get the abortion services they need. Outshouting the opposition may result in psychic satisfaction. But it is likely to result in more aggressive opposition to basic rights.
Planned Parenthood "stokes the fires"? That's ludicrous.
Planned Parenthood is constantly under attack from Republicans and religious groups. Your comment is exactly what they want you to believe - their distracting and falsehoods clearly work.
Planned Parenthood is constantly under attack from Republicans and religious groups. Your comment is exactly what they want you to believe - their distracting and falsehoods clearly work.
10
Could we call the folks who want to allow women freedom of choice activists for "reproductive rights" rather than "abortion rights" ?
78
Why? You think obfuscation and sugar-coating is going to win the war? I don't.
2
Even better, let's just leave the choice of what happens to a woman's body up to the woman. Why is it so hard to understand that this is only a choice the woman in question can make? The decision itself is hard enough. Judgement by anyone else has no place here. This is the same dignity of choice that a man would demand - if enough men stopped long enough to think about it. That appears to be beyond dinosaurs like Trump and Cruz.
24
Yes. In the 1990s the right wing hijacked the clinical term for "dilation and extraction" or "D&X" by renaming it the emotionally loaded term"partial-birth abortion." As they promoted the term through media outlets, news providers first referred to the made-up term in quotes and then supplied the scientific term. Eventually, reputable media dropped the quotes and the scientific term and tacitly legitimized the right wing's term, which connotes infant more than fetus and implies murder rather than a legal medical procedure.
The right is very good at sculpting language to further its propaganda efforts. The left would do well to take Ms Drew's suggestion to frame our concerns for our own health and welfare with the accurate, encompassing, and less emotionally loaded term, "reproductive rights." Someday, media might even drop the quotes.
The right is very good at sculpting language to further its propaganda efforts. The left would do well to take Ms Drew's suggestion to frame our concerns for our own health and welfare with the accurate, encompassing, and less emotionally loaded term, "reproductive rights." Someday, media might even drop the quotes.
14
Well, Trump just announced that women who obtain abortions should be punished. Cruz believes all doctors who perform abortions should be punished.
The Republican's war on women continues.
The Republican's war on women continues.
86
No, failure to expand Medicaid and defunding education is the war on children.
7
A fertilised egg is not a child. It has no brain, no consciousness, no organs, etc.
do what you want with your uterus; everyone else's is none your business and should certainly not be the government's.
Don't Republicans want government to leave people alone? Why doesn't this include women?
do what you want with your uterus; everyone else's is none your business and should certainly not be the government's.
Don't Republicans want government to leave people alone? Why doesn't this include women?
15
No, Lise, it's about a war on teen and women's reproductive decisions, their emotional and financial health, their self-determination and their bodies.
Children = post-birth human beings.
Children = post-birth human beings.
5
It is nice to have scientific evidence determine protocols for women's health just like for everything else. Thank you FDA.
76
Now to get an accurate insert for Plan B. It has been studied and there is no evidence it stops implantation. It works by stopping ovulation. It is vital that women who are anti-abortion know this so that they take it immediately if they were raped or had unprotected sex. Let woman decide what they need to do, without feeding them false information when they make their choices.
8
Trump just said that when/if abortion is made illegal that there must be "some form of punishment" for those who abort.
Get ready for the trials, workhouses, jailings, and vermillion red "A's" to be burned into foreheads.
One step forward, Ladies, one step backwards... or haven't you noticed?
Get ready for the trials, workhouses, jailings, and vermillion red "A's" to be burned into foreheads.
One step forward, Ladies, one step backwards... or haven't you noticed?
54
Somehow, I don't see nice, white, wealthy women who summer in the Hamptons going to jail for "getting a D&C" (that's what they called abortions when I worked as a part-time admitting clerk at hospitals in the late '60s to put myself through college).
I see poor women, women of color (i.e. the usual suspects) being penalized. If this toxic nonsense ever comes to pass, it will be selectively applied. Of that you can be sure.
I see poor women, women of color (i.e. the usual suspects) being penalized. If this toxic nonsense ever comes to pass, it will be selectively applied. Of that you can be sure.
30
You are absolutely right, c2396.
NONE of this impacts women who are above the poverty level.
It ONLY impacts those who have no resources.
It ONLY impacts POOR WOMEN who are being held hostage to that philanderer Henry Hyde's "Hyde Amendment".
The Hyde Amendment must GO!
NONE of this impacts women who are above the poverty level.
It ONLY impacts those who have no resources.
It ONLY impacts POOR WOMEN who are being held hostage to that philanderer Henry Hyde's "Hyde Amendment".
The Hyde Amendment must GO!
12
It's indeed a politically-motivated, though curious action by Obama-FDA, a pre-emptive move designed to soften the upcoming SCOTUS decision widely expected to reaffirm Texas' laws on abortion, more specifically, rule that occasional trips to clinics 150+ miles away is not undue burden.
What we have today with the FDA revision is an admission by the FDA, not just expecting SCOTUS to not find undue burden in Texas, but doing whatever it can to reduce burden even if it doesn't rise to "undue". In other words, the FDA have reconciled to defeat in Texas and are now working to take away the thunder of victory from them.
Which begs the question, what took the FDA so long, why now and not years earlier? When exactly was the supplemental application filed and why wasn't it filed earlier Mr. Big Pharma? Were you guys working hand-in-glove with the FDA to protect excess dosage profits for as long as possible? Not entirely unthinkable, given the FDA's eagerness to be courted by pharma lobbies and the FDA's affinity for popuar press, as was the case with the female libido pill last year.
This stuff should be investigated and appropriately sued; think class-action. It's a scandal really. Let's hope the NYT gets to the bottom of the matter.
In the meantime, the news is indeed heartwarming to many women, happy to share in their joy (for now).
What we have today with the FDA revision is an admission by the FDA, not just expecting SCOTUS to not find undue burden in Texas, but doing whatever it can to reduce burden even if it doesn't rise to "undue". In other words, the FDA have reconciled to defeat in Texas and are now working to take away the thunder of victory from them.
Which begs the question, what took the FDA so long, why now and not years earlier? When exactly was the supplemental application filed and why wasn't it filed earlier Mr. Big Pharma? Were you guys working hand-in-glove with the FDA to protect excess dosage profits for as long as possible? Not entirely unthinkable, given the FDA's eagerness to be courted by pharma lobbies and the FDA's affinity for popuar press, as was the case with the female libido pill last year.
This stuff should be investigated and appropriately sued; think class-action. It's a scandal really. Let's hope the NYT gets to the bottom of the matter.
In the meantime, the news is indeed heartwarming to many women, happy to share in their joy (for now).
12
Someone must have a Supreme Court crystal ball.
It can end up being a 5 - 3 decision in favor of choice.
It can end up being a 5 - 3 decision in favor of choice.
13
@Philip
It can, sure, but you gotta smoke somethin' special to believe that. Otherwise no crystal ball necessary, just some non-decaf coffee (rumored to be in short supply at The Times).
It can, sure, but you gotta smoke somethin' special to believe that. Otherwise no crystal ball necessary, just some non-decaf coffee (rumored to be in short supply at The Times).
1
I see many fat heads filled with tiny minds exploding across this country today. This is good news for the rest of us.
40
Medication abortion makes it a better choice re it is easily transportable, attainable and can be more of a private decision.....bravo FDA...a very timely decision.
26
How is your top line that the FDA "stepped into the politics of abortion" accurate?
It seems to me the first line should have read that they "stepped away from the politics of abortion in using scientific evidence to update their label."
It seems to me the first line should have read that they "stepped away from the politics of abortion in using scientific evidence to update their label."
109
American women are finally in the 21st century!
20
Perhaps you meant to state that rhe FDA has caught up with needs of the American Woman. At last.
Yes. Indeed.
Yes. Indeed.
13
I applaud the FDA's decision to update decades old information and to clear away the bureaucracy that may have prevented this advancement.
But the whole "abortion is a universal right" has to be refuted. Some of you are confused about why the less-government Repubs want to "control a woman's uterus." It may seem counter intuitive so I'll explain the reasoning: sometimes, a person's right to do something (even to """themselves""" which is already debatable in the case of abortion), should not over-rule the well being and integrity of society as a whole.
The culture that abortion-promotion creates is a culture of death. Perhaps consider for a moment that a significant amount of women think abortion is the default option when they have an unexpected child, and may not stop to think of whether they truly, personally, want that.
But the whole "abortion is a universal right" has to be refuted. Some of you are confused about why the less-government Repubs want to "control a woman's uterus." It may seem counter intuitive so I'll explain the reasoning: sometimes, a person's right to do something (even to """themselves""" which is already debatable in the case of abortion), should not over-rule the well being and integrity of society as a whole.
The culture that abortion-promotion creates is a culture of death. Perhaps consider for a moment that a significant amount of women think abortion is the default option when they have an unexpected child, and may not stop to think of whether they truly, personally, want that.
4
I am not at all confused. I find your comment insulting and condescending. I am as clear-eyed as I've ever been. I am a woman and I take the right to control my own body. Period. Do not make decisions for me. I am of sound mind and body.
87
I don't care *why* you want to control uteri and wombs, Tammy. You want to deny me autonomy over my body and you are, quite simply, out of line. And who is it put you in charge of defining " the well being and integrity of society as a whole?" Because you know what? I have my own closely held religious belief that I have autonomy over my own body, and you don't get to legislate otherwise.
42
"It may seem counter intuitive so I'll explain the reasoning: sometimes, a person's right to do something (even to """themselves""" which is already debatable in the case of abortion), should not over-rule the well being and integrity of society as a whole."
This may be one of the stupidest arguments for restricting abortion I've heard yet. People (that includes women) have an absolute right to bodily determination. We do not restrict people's bodily integrity to promote "societal integrity."
" Perhaps consider for a moment that a significant amount of women think abortion is the default option when they have an unexpected child, and may not stop to think of whether they truly, personally, want that."
Please. Spare me. How stupid do you think women are? I, personally, think that women can and do consider their own interests when making decisions. Further, the fact that some women have abortions they "don't want" is no reason to restrict the procedure.
This may be one of the stupidest arguments for restricting abortion I've heard yet. People (that includes women) have an absolute right to bodily determination. We do not restrict people's bodily integrity to promote "societal integrity."
" Perhaps consider for a moment that a significant amount of women think abortion is the default option when they have an unexpected child, and may not stop to think of whether they truly, personally, want that."
Please. Spare me. How stupid do you think women are? I, personally, think that women can and do consider their own interests when making decisions. Further, the fact that some women have abortions they "don't want" is no reason to restrict the procedure.
27
Hallelujah! While I don't believe that women need to seek government permission to make essential health and life choices, I do appreciate when government agencies make the right move anyway.
61
Very well said. Thank you.
6
Yes, the new regulations are a victory for abortion rights activists in states determined to deny women autonomy. And in that it is a victory for all of us. Women are the ones who have the babies. The inability of men to have babies really does not give them the patriarchal right to legislatively take control of unteri and wombs they do not possess.
67
This is great news for women, medicine and science. Bravo to the F.D.A.!! On the flip side however, abortion proponents will step their attacks against women, the medical and scientific communities using scare tactics, junk science, pro-life medical professionals who use junk science. Perhaps it's time that they understand, and use, basic common sense: If they truly want to reduce the number of abortions, they would welcome any opportunity a woman has unfettered access to birth control. Clearly, keeping an aspirin between one's knees isn't working very well ...
30
Thinking out loud:
Is there any other medical procedure - of any kind - that receives so much press and has so many laws aimed specifically at it, in multiple states?
Is there any other medical procedure - of any kind - that receives so much press and has so many laws aimed specifically at it, in multiple states?
37
Good to see science prevail.
28
“...medication abortion has been subject to legislative attacks in various states across the country ..." With respect to climate change they claim not to be scientists, but when it comes to women's repro issues they are MDs.
101
Dang....I want to Recommend X 100. Indeed! Non-scientists about absolutely settled science, but scientists about women's choice about their own pregnancies, their own bodies.
15
Jeff - I appreciate your comment. But they do what they do in the name of religion, not because they consider themselves MDs. The same people who see abortion as murder applaud the death penalty - because, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
8
Talk about a blanket stereotype. Many pro-life folks are opposed to capital punishment as well.......because both extinguish life. And not everybody walks around quoting the Old Testament either. Modern science on neo-natal development is what informs my views.
If the men in the ahem religious right red states had to go through an unwanted pregnancy and long, painful labor, I wonder if abortion would be such a hot-button, thorny, crisis-of-faith dilemma for them. Good for the FDA.
38
If men were the ones to get pregnant, there would be abortion ATMs on every corner.
38
Yep, and a fair number of churches would make it a de facto sacrament.
5
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
~ Gloria Steinam
~ Gloria Steinam
8
It's great to finally seeing women getting some of their rights the republicans have been legislating away. The war of women by republicans is being pushed back.
29
Ending n pregnancy is “a personal decision of only the mother in the first trimester.’ So says the Supreme Court In qualifying Roe v. Wade.
Conservatives proclaim "We believe that a pregnancy is a covenant between God and the Birth mother. To end a pregnancy is a tragedy... and is
something that no person other than the mother can comprehend.”
That is exactly correct... “no person besides the mother and God...” certainly not Conservatives, or anyone else for that matter.
In the past, Conservtive politicians have claimed God speaks to them... and they seem to believe it.
In view of that, isn’t it conceivable God could also speak to a pregnant woman when she is searching for guidance?
Perhaps God, speaking to this mother... even a deeply religious mother... lets her know that somewhere in the life of her unborn, some horrible, unthinkable consequences will occur due to it's birth. Perhaps God and this mother-to-be decide between themselves that it would be better if those consequences could be avoided, for the sake of many. That IS between them, and no one else. And honestly... who is there to dispute that?
That should be where all comments end, because no more need be said. Everything said between the expectant mother and God covered the situation. That is something that “no person other than the mother can comprehend.”
Especially hypocritical Conservatives.
Conservatives proclaim "We believe that a pregnancy is a covenant between God and the Birth mother. To end a pregnancy is a tragedy... and is
something that no person other than the mother can comprehend.”
That is exactly correct... “no person besides the mother and God...” certainly not Conservatives, or anyone else for that matter.
In the past, Conservtive politicians have claimed God speaks to them... and they seem to believe it.
In view of that, isn’t it conceivable God could also speak to a pregnant woman when she is searching for guidance?
Perhaps God, speaking to this mother... even a deeply religious mother... lets her know that somewhere in the life of her unborn, some horrible, unthinkable consequences will occur due to it's birth. Perhaps God and this mother-to-be decide between themselves that it would be better if those consequences could be avoided, for the sake of many. That IS between them, and no one else. And honestly... who is there to dispute that?
That should be where all comments end, because no more need be said. Everything said between the expectant mother and God covered the situation. That is something that “no person other than the mother can comprehend.”
Especially hypocritical Conservatives.
16
Which god?
6
The one with a capital "G"
This is a positive step. These TRAP laws which claim to be for women's health are making abortions later and more dangerous. Medical abortions (induced by medicine) have fewer risks than surgical abortions. Hopefully this chance in FDA labeling will mean that more women can, again, access medical abortions should they need one.
19
Give the people what they want, one way or another. Now if the FDA would just tackle sugar....
Hey! Leave my sugar alone. Unless you're talking high fructose corn syrup. Now that's some bad stuff.
7
Today the Indiana Legislature passed a bill that would restrict a woman's right to an abortion if the abortion is sought because of the sex, race, or abnormality of the fetus, regardless of how far along the pregnancy may be.
So let's cheer hard for the FDA's appropriate decision in easing the requirements on the abortion pill. Remember, however, that FDA regulations not withstanding, women in Indiana (and other "red states" that are gearing up to pass similar legislation) won't be able to obtain medical abortions to terminate a pregnancy where the fetus is found, for example, to have Trisomy 18, a disastrous chromosomal abnormality that results in the death of 90% of babies with this condition before their first birthdays.
So let's cheer hard for the FDA's appropriate decision in easing the requirements on the abortion pill. Remember, however, that FDA regulations not withstanding, women in Indiana (and other "red states" that are gearing up to pass similar legislation) won't be able to obtain medical abortions to terminate a pregnancy where the fetus is found, for example, to have Trisomy 18, a disastrous chromosomal abnormality that results in the death of 90% of babies with this condition before their first birthdays.
37
Thank goodness. With all the fight going on about Planned Parenthood and access to abortion for women this gives women more control over their bodies, reduces surgical risk to both pregnant women and unborn babies. No sane woman wants to have an abortion. It's a painful process physically, emotionally and spiritually. This is a step forward to reduce surgical abortion, yet retain women's rights to control their bodies
11
"No sane woman wants to have an abortion"? Really. So glad to hear that rapists are now targeting only the insane. Now if I could just figure out how to not end up with that label....
3
As always, the NYT misleads readers into thinking that Planned Parenthood is a single nationwide organizations with state branches or subsidiaries. The Nat'l org'n is Planned Federation of America, Inc., whose website itself refers to "59 independent affiliates across the country that operate under the Planned Parenthood name”.
And your point is...?
Are you suggesting that the local Planned Parenthood affiliates would somehow be opposed to the statement issued by the CMO of the national organization?
Are you suggesting that the local Planned Parenthood affiliates would somehow be opposed to the statement issued by the CMO of the national organization?
5
My take away is that any Legislator that requires a doctor to follow the FDA label is clearly an ideologue.
1
Are the pro-birth forces aka pro-life) now going to go after pharmacies for dispensing this medication?
11
I don't speak for anyone but me, In my opinion, this news is only good news for those who already believe that abortion is not murder. We sure love to whitewash what we do as a society with nice terms - "getting medication we need" and exercising "reproductive rights" and promoting "women's health." As a woman, my so called "reproductive rights" are exercised when I decide to slip into bed with my partner, and even then, God gets the final word. With that as my guidepost, if I have any morals at all, I'd exercise my true reproductive rights responsibly, knowing full well the possible outcomes, and take real responsibility for my actions. This FDA move affects me not one bit. And for those who see this as good news, well we were never on the same page to begin with.
2
Good for you that you (so far) always get to choose the partner you slip into bed with.
19
Your theocratic POV applicable to yourself is duly noted.
25
You have every right to feel that way but I'm not sure why you feel the need to share it with the world.
20
It is high time state legislatures were prohibited from committing medical malpractice in some kind of social and economic competition against each other.
If states cannot justify themselves as anything other than instruments of unequal protection of law, what are they really good for?
If states cannot justify themselves as anything other than instruments of unequal protection of law, what are they really good for?
14
cheering this as a scientific victory is absurd; any scientist has a moral code or lack thereof, by which he interprets his *SCIENTIFIC * findings. so no, FDA and its *scientists* did step in into politics.
1
It wasn't "politics" until authoritarian politicians (aka Republicans) realized it could be used as a way to distract the electorate. Add guns and gays and they've cornered the distraction market.
9
Telemedicine should eliminate most women's need to go to a clinic and navigate their way through hostile crowds. Later abortions should be provided in a hospital setting like they used to be. What would the pro-forced birth crowd do then when they couldn't intimidate every woman or young girl wanting to exercise her Constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy? Think of how different things could be.
34
As a medical professional I find it sad that we keep having the same illogical conversations.
"People would NOT have abortions if it was so easy to get them! So keep them illegal and RARE."
There is no one who is "pro-abortion!" No one! But despite every advance in birth control 50% of ALL pregnancies in the USA are unplanned. 50%. No method of BC works 100% of the time--except for total abstinence. And even then a young girl or any woman who wants to abstain from intercourse doesn't have much choice when she is raped. Or incest occurs.
HOWEVER everywhere there is open access to good sex education, where there is full access to affordable birth control...abortions are indeed rare.
But not here in the United States. Because many states REFUSE to fund or even allow good sex education in schools. Education laying out all forms of BC and emphasizing safe sex to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. No our federal government only funds one type of BC that educators can discuss--abstinence.
Access to EVERY type of BC should be free and available to every person of child-bearing age. In the United States, the average age for a girl to get her first period is 12. A girl can start her period anytime between the ages of 8 and 15. Yes! 8 year olds can get pregnant and they DO get pregnant and it's always because of incest or rape.
The ONLY way to decrease abortions is by prevention of pregnancy. NO law can stop nature. Good sex education, complete affordable BC now!
"People would NOT have abortions if it was so easy to get them! So keep them illegal and RARE."
There is no one who is "pro-abortion!" No one! But despite every advance in birth control 50% of ALL pregnancies in the USA are unplanned. 50%. No method of BC works 100% of the time--except for total abstinence. And even then a young girl or any woman who wants to abstain from intercourse doesn't have much choice when she is raped. Or incest occurs.
HOWEVER everywhere there is open access to good sex education, where there is full access to affordable birth control...abortions are indeed rare.
But not here in the United States. Because many states REFUSE to fund or even allow good sex education in schools. Education laying out all forms of BC and emphasizing safe sex to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. No our federal government only funds one type of BC that educators can discuss--abstinence.
Access to EVERY type of BC should be free and available to every person of child-bearing age. In the United States, the average age for a girl to get her first period is 12. A girl can start her period anytime between the ages of 8 and 15. Yes! 8 year olds can get pregnant and they DO get pregnant and it's always because of incest or rape.
The ONLY way to decrease abortions is by prevention of pregnancy. NO law can stop nature. Good sex education, complete affordable BC now!
104
Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than it performs.
Wasn't it Reagan's Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop-"pro-life" to the core-who figured out that the best way to prevent abortion is to promote contraception?
He was taken aback by the howls of protest by his "allies" on the Right.
Wasn't it Reagan's Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop-"pro-life" to the core-who figured out that the best way to prevent abortion is to promote contraception?
He was taken aback by the howls of protest by his "allies" on the Right.
10
Some thoughts from Mother Theresa regarding abortion:
1994 at the National Prayer Breakfast in front of President Bill Clinton, Hillary, VP Al Gore and Tipper Gore.
Subject: Mother Theresa On Abortion
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.
And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.
By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.
And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.
Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
1994 at the National Prayer Breakfast in front of President Bill Clinton, Hillary, VP Al Gore and Tipper Gore.
Subject: Mother Theresa On Abortion
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.
And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.
By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.
And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.
Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
6
Maybe she was wrong.
26
greatest destroyer of love and peace probably overpopulation caused in large part by governments and patriarchs who view women as uterine factories, nothing more, greatest destroyer of love and peace probably these same misogynistic forces which withhold both pre- and postnatal care, which refuse maternal leave both as national and private-industrial policy, which slash TARP / preschool / early education funding for those in need, etc. neither Jesus nor M. Teresa to the best of current knowledge had any children as personal responsibility so it's incomprehensible they might preach in their ignorance to the mother giving birth to her eighth . . . thank god for recent NYTimes op-ed and comments addressing the pointlessness - yet continuing savagery - of religious dogma in the 21st century
29
Spoken by a woman who chose chastity instead of procreation.
If those words are a direct quote it does not reflect well on her as someone who doesn't know the difference between a fetus and a child, or abortion and murder. These accusations are false, and explain why we've seen so much violence (and real murder) directed at physicians and clinics. For shame.
If those words are a direct quote it does not reflect well on her as someone who doesn't know the difference between a fetus and a child, or abortion and murder. These accusations are false, and explain why we've seen so much violence (and real murder) directed at physicians and clinics. For shame.
30
"F.D.A. Eases Requirements on Abortion Pill Label" YEAH ****
8
Good news for women's health in Ohio, Texas and North Dakota from the FDA.
This is one issue that Trump has right, Planned Parenthood provides assistance for women with reproductive health issues. Those services by PP should never be taken away, only expanded. Looks like medicated abortion is the future in dealing with unwanted pregnancies.
This is one issue that Trump has right, Planned Parenthood provides assistance for women with reproductive health issues. Those services by PP should never be taken away, only expanded. Looks like medicated abortion is the future in dealing with unwanted pregnancies.
16
You might want to check out Trump's latest comments on abortion. He says it should be banned and women who have them should be punished.
4
Marcia - I don't think he said they should be banned. I think he said that if they are banned, then women who have them should be punished. It is an unpopular position but why punish only the providers if a criminal act is committed?
Besides, the anti-choice crowd vehemently disagrees with punishing the woman. Why? Is it possible that they believe that adopting such a position would greatly reduce the number of their supporters?
If a woman was criminally charged for having an abortion, the number of women who support the right to choice might increase dramatically. It might also cause some of the younger women and men who are "too busy" or who think politics are boring/icky (fill in the blank) comprehend that they must protect the rights that those before them fought to gain. They might take time out of their "busy lives" to register and then vote. A disaster for the anti-choice crowd.
There may be method to Trump's madness. Or not.
Besides, the anti-choice crowd vehemently disagrees with punishing the woman. Why? Is it possible that they believe that adopting such a position would greatly reduce the number of their supporters?
If a woman was criminally charged for having an abortion, the number of women who support the right to choice might increase dramatically. It might also cause some of the younger women and men who are "too busy" or who think politics are boring/icky (fill in the blank) comprehend that they must protect the rights that those before them fought to gain. They might take time out of their "busy lives" to register and then vote. A disaster for the anti-choice crowd.
There may be method to Trump's madness. Or not.
One great tool to fight global warming!
9
Perhaps I'm really stupid, "but the original labels, based on clinical evidence from the 1990s, were outdated and... went against accepted medical practice." So, if I'm reading this correctly, legislators in these Red states are far less interested in a woman's health than in forcing her to carry a fetus to term, no matter the cost? Am I also supposed to doubt that the wives, daughters and sisters of these legislators would have access to the same medication that they wish to prohibit to other women? Ah, I get it; abortion politics. Silly me!
40
So, if I'm reading this correctly, legislators in these Red states are far less interested in a woman's health than in forcing her to carry a fetus to term, no matter the cost?
BINGO. You win a new Cordoba with Corinthian Leather!
BINGO. You win a new Cordoba with Corinthian Leather!
6
According to the CDC, despite falling over the last quarter of a century, the US teen pregnancy rate is substantially higher than in other western industrialized nations. The US teen pregnancy rate is especially high in the USA amongst the least educated girls in the poorest African American and Mexican communities.
http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm
These facts alone are surely sufficient to ensure that every jurisdiction in the USA permit medicated abortion on demand.
Further, inducing miscarriage using the chemical abortifacients of mifepristone taken in combination with misoprostol, are, provided the decision is made early enough, generally the best choice for girls and women who decide early on that they want to terminate their unwanted and unsought pregnancy.
http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm
These facts alone are surely sufficient to ensure that every jurisdiction in the USA permit medicated abortion on demand.
Further, inducing miscarriage using the chemical abortifacients of mifepristone taken in combination with misoprostol, are, provided the decision is made early enough, generally the best choice for girls and women who decide early on that they want to terminate their unwanted and unsought pregnancy.
23
Now make the birth control pill over-the-counter. This has been recommend by all the same organizations quoted in this article. Stop stalling.
50
Would it be an astute guess to posit that Planned Parenthood would be very opposed to this?
1
By making them OTC you may find some insurance will not pay for them.
7
Yes, it should be over the counter. But I suspect there will also be a black market, as with other drugs. Not the best solution, but better than a coat hanger.
2
Why is this "stepping into the politics of abortion?" I'd say the FDA doing it's job based on science, medicine and the law is exactly the opposite of "politics."
A little more care should be taken in keeping the viewpoint of the writer out of the reporting on this issue.
A little more care should be taken in keeping the viewpoint of the writer out of the reporting on this issue.
57
It's always amazes me how the party that cloaks itself in compassion can have such malice and hatred for unborn babies. Funny how we never hear them advocate having sex responsibly in the first place. Nope, just have at it. if a person begins to develop in your womb, just murder it. Problem solved.
9
If your fantasy that an accidentally fertilized egg is an “unborn baby” or “person” wasn’t clouding your judgment, you might muster some concern for an actual living, breathing, thinking person: the woman whose life would be horribly impacted by an accident of contraception.
23
You really don't pay attention do you? Democrats are the ones who want to fund health care, affordable contraception, sex education etc., all of the things that help prevent unplanned pregnancies.
I consider myself pro-life and this is why I'm no longer a Republican. Republicans don't care about children before or after they are born and they certainly don't care about women.
I consider myself pro-life and this is why I'm no longer a Republican. Republicans don't care about children before or after they are born and they certainly don't care about women.
30
We always advocate freer access to birth control, but people like you are the first to support ridiculous groups and companies like Hobby Lobby and others who object to such things on nonsense religious grounds. NO birth control method is 100% effective...do you then judge those who use birth control as irresponsible? Somehow, I imagine you do. Just as you support those pregnancies that result from rapists and incest, as well as those babies born with severe birth defects who die within hours, days or weeks. I hold no malice for unborn babies. I don't think there should be any in the first place. You just want people to suffer.
22
Legislators claimed theypassed laws requiring women and doctors to follow the outdated and harmful FDA label to protect women's health. Does anyone actually believe this nonsense? The scientific evidence shows that the old label hurts women, while the new label is in line with current medical knowledge.
The Republican party is anti-woman and relies on an ignorant voter base. No wonder they don't support teaching science in schools.
The Republican party is anti-woman and relies on an ignorant voter base. No wonder they don't support teaching science in schools.
80
Welcome to the 21st Century!
38
If the dosage of mifepristone is reduced from 600mg to 200mg I hope the price of the drug to the patient is also proportionately reduced. It would be nice if the FDA would make this an OTC medication with free access to a 24/7/365 hotline phone manned by a rotation of OB/GYN or nurse practioners. That would circumvent all the states that are continuing to restrict access to this procedure.
53
Additionally, will states reluctant to offer the drug add additional obstacles? I foresee enacting laws that may allow providers ( doctors, pharmacists) who object to abortions and, perhaps, more contraceptive choice, to not service the woman coming to them or their businesses. It is sad that I think this may occur.
6
I think it really is useful to be able to be sure of dates, etc.. So there needs to be some form of communication with medical staff trained for this purpose. Plan B should be everywhere though.
There have always been abortions. In the past the stigma was so high that they were hidden as much as possible. Because the stigma was so high, they were often self-induced and done in an unsanitary and unsafe manner.
I think it's much better to acknowledge that they are sometimes necessary and desirable, to allow the mother to make the difficult choice whether to risk it, and to make resources available to make the procedure as medically safe as possible.
Of course, the availability of contraceptives and their conscious use greatly reduces the need for abortions (yay!), but contraceptives do sometimes fail. Also, sometimes a congenital or other problem is detected only after conception.
I think it's much better to acknowledge that they are sometimes necessary and desirable, to allow the mother to make the difficult choice whether to risk it, and to make resources available to make the procedure as medically safe as possible.
Of course, the availability of contraceptives and their conscious use greatly reduces the need for abortions (yay!), but contraceptives do sometimes fail. Also, sometimes a congenital or other problem is detected only after conception.
54
True that there have always been abortions. Not true that they were hidden. In the 19th century, e.g., Madame Restell, a famous abortion provider, practiced in New York and advertised on the FRONT PAGE of the New York Times.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=madame+restell
She had franchises in other cities.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=madame+restell
She had franchises in other cities.
2
Considering the fact that accuracy in journalism is so important, it is disappointing that the author's first paragraph is so off base. For the FDA to choose to follow the wealth of scientific evidence and thus, improve product labeling, is anything but "stepping into the politics of abortion." I keep coming back to the same question- common NYT, is anyone editing anything over there?
97
"The changes announced on Wednesday reduce the number of trips women have to make to a doctor from three to two in most states, and also increase the number of days that she has to be able to use medication to induce abortion from 49 to 70 days after the beginning of her last menstrual period, experts said."
Evidently not since "she" and "her" are used in reference to "women."
Evidently not since "she" and "her" are used in reference to "women."
3
Federal vs State controls: who is supreme? Collision of constitutional law. Your article says new FDA regulation overrides state laws. Do the state laws have criminal penalties for violation? I think so. Foster, retired attorney
1
I once had that question and asked my father who is an attorney. He explained the concept of federal preemption, which invalidates a state law that is in conflict with federal law.
36
Federal Rules! Go back to law school.
12
These new changes shouldn't conflict with (or override) existing state laws.
As I understand it, the laws in question merely state that doctors have to prescribe drugs according to the FDA label. It's clearly within the FDA's purview to determine what that label says (in terms of medical indications, recommended dosages, etc.)
So doctors who follow the new guidelines WILL be following the law, because they're doing exactly what the label says.
As I understand it, the laws in question merely state that doctors have to prescribe drugs according to the FDA label. It's clearly within the FDA's purview to determine what that label says (in terms of medical indications, recommended dosages, etc.)
So doctors who follow the new guidelines WILL be following the law, because they're doing exactly what the label says.
4
One step forward, two steps back here in Louisiana where two members of state legislative committee believes there is no need to survey teens on sexual behavior because God takes care of those matters. Louisiana is 7th highest in the nation for teen pregnancies.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/louisiana_teen_sex_survey...
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/louisiana_teen_sex_survey...
28
I find these people simply terrifying, so much so that Ted Cruz's candidacy seems even worse to me than Trump's.
7
Only 7th? Give them time--if they strive hard enough, they could easily climb to #1.
3
Long overdue but at least FDA is finally on board. Good news for women.
22
NYT says: "...a medication that induces abortion, " which is not accurate. The medication induces uterine contractions ... which will result in a non-spontaneous abortion...
The implications of this formerly drug in clinical trails coded RU 486 are for some of us frankly, SCARY! That because no mention is made of the effects of both the drug and those to the woman's body-never mind the destruction of live cells of the zygote being destroyed.
Those of us who have had *spontaneous abortions -some of us chronic and multiple episodes-can tell of the pain (physical and emotional) and the problems which come in consequence of an act that is harsher on the body than a normal labor and delivery. The more abortions-natural or not-the more medical consequences are created. Inducement speeds up the process of labor... making it precipitous and often dangerous if vessels burst in the process of delivering the fetal tissue..
Induced labor as well as induced non-spontaneous abortions are monitored to ensure-as much as humanly possible-the safety of the woman and the baby in cases of the 'labor', and the safety of the woman undergoing an abortion by choice.
Who monitors the woman or minor taking the formerly named RU 486 for signs of precipitous expulsion, hemorrhage or other major obstetrical problems? Who advises her of the ramifications of this procedure? And why is this new drug any different than the back alley abortionist or worse, the coat hanger?
The implications of this formerly drug in clinical trails coded RU 486 are for some of us frankly, SCARY! That because no mention is made of the effects of both the drug and those to the woman's body-never mind the destruction of live cells of the zygote being destroyed.
Those of us who have had *spontaneous abortions -some of us chronic and multiple episodes-can tell of the pain (physical and emotional) and the problems which come in consequence of an act that is harsher on the body than a normal labor and delivery. The more abortions-natural or not-the more medical consequences are created. Inducement speeds up the process of labor... making it precipitous and often dangerous if vessels burst in the process of delivering the fetal tissue..
Induced labor as well as induced non-spontaneous abortions are monitored to ensure-as much as humanly possible-the safety of the woman and the baby in cases of the 'labor', and the safety of the woman undergoing an abortion by choice.
Who monitors the woman or minor taking the formerly named RU 486 for signs of precipitous expulsion, hemorrhage or other major obstetrical problems? Who advises her of the ramifications of this procedure? And why is this new drug any different than the back alley abortionist or worse, the coat hanger?
3
Um, WOW. Such rambling garbage. So much lunacy. So few accurate facts. This is painful to read.
12
In reply to Rachida,
You wrote, "And why is this new drug any different than the back alley abortionist or worse, the coat hanger?" The answer is quite simple. It is vastly safer and have been proven so by medical research. You may not like abortion and that is fine. But when you try to argue against the well established science, I'm afraid that you lose your argument.
You wrote, "And why is this new drug any different than the back alley abortionist or worse, the coat hanger?" The answer is quite simple. It is vastly safer and have been proven so by medical research. You may not like abortion and that is fine. But when you try to argue against the well established science, I'm afraid that you lose your argument.
20
There are two medications used in the medical abortion process; one (mifepristone) stops the pregnancy and the other (progesterone) causes the uterus to contract and thus expel the products of conception. It is proven to be safe up to ten weeks of pregnancy in most cases. And actually, pregnancies have more "obstetrical problems" than a medical abortion. (for women up to ten weeks) I am touched and saddened by your personal history, but try not to confuse the subjective with the objective.
14
It's refreshing to see something positive in regard to women's healthcare options. I'm grateful that science and data— and the desire to keep human beings safe and able to make their own healthcare decisions has— won over narrow minded magical thinking and disrespect toward women.
37
"tearing the fetus limb from limb"
How very hyperbolic of you. 89% of all abortions are performed within the first trimester. Not much there to "tear limb from limb."
How very hyperbolic of you. 89% of all abortions are performed within the first trimester. Not much there to "tear limb from limb."
10
@Veronica: 11% is still a LOT -- out of a million abortions a year, that's 100,000 fetuses that are 2nd or 3rd trimester and large enough to tear 'limb from limb".
Also without larger older fetuses -- what the heck is Planned Parenthood selling to researchers? Nobody is buying zygotes for experiments. They want hearts and livers and brains from late term pregnancy fetuses.
Anyone who actually WATCHED THE LONG VIDEO (3 hours) heard PP execs talk about this in excruciating detail -- "the crunchy parts", etc. These are not "crunchy" six week zygotes.
Also without larger older fetuses -- what the heck is Planned Parenthood selling to researchers? Nobody is buying zygotes for experiments. They want hearts and livers and brains from late term pregnancy fetuses.
Anyone who actually WATCHED THE LONG VIDEO (3 hours) heard PP execs talk about this in excruciating detail -- "the crunchy parts", etc. These are not "crunchy" six week zygotes.
1
Bears repeating: How very hyperbolic of you.
You seem to be under the impression that women have late term abortions because they just wake up one day thinking, "Nah, don't want it. Think I'll have an abortion." Late term abortions are performed for specific reasons such as fetus no longer viable, fetus severally neurologically damaged, the life of the mother is at risk. Further, who are you to dictate to a complete stranger whether they can donate tissue for medical research? Who made you the boss of women world-wide? No one so better to just mind your own business instead of injecting yourself in between a woman and her doctor.
In terms of PP, I see you still perpetuate the lie (this is one reason why I have zero respect for "pro-lifers). As every single investigation at state and federal level have concluded there was no "selling fetuses" nor was there any evidence of wrong doing on PP's part. AND, as has been investigated and PROVEN, the "long videos" were deemed heavily edited (gee, if the pro-life movement were so honest and concerned for women's health, why does it find the need to lie, deceive and use junk science? Gee, so honest that Daledian and his cohorts are facing charges for ... fraud).
Step away from the delusions and falsehoods. You have as much right to get between a woman her doctor as I have of getting in between you and your doctor. It's called PRIVACY.
You seem to be under the impression that women have late term abortions because they just wake up one day thinking, "Nah, don't want it. Think I'll have an abortion." Late term abortions are performed for specific reasons such as fetus no longer viable, fetus severally neurologically damaged, the life of the mother is at risk. Further, who are you to dictate to a complete stranger whether they can donate tissue for medical research? Who made you the boss of women world-wide? No one so better to just mind your own business instead of injecting yourself in between a woman and her doctor.
In terms of PP, I see you still perpetuate the lie (this is one reason why I have zero respect for "pro-lifers). As every single investigation at state and federal level have concluded there was no "selling fetuses" nor was there any evidence of wrong doing on PP's part. AND, as has been investigated and PROVEN, the "long videos" were deemed heavily edited (gee, if the pro-life movement were so honest and concerned for women's health, why does it find the need to lie, deceive and use junk science? Gee, so honest that Daledian and his cohorts are facing charges for ... fraud).
Step away from the delusions and falsehoods. You have as much right to get between a woman her doctor as I have of getting in between you and your doctor. It's called PRIVACY.
1
Bravo FDA.
29
Finally some encouraging news about women's reproductive choices. It's downright scary how brazen these red-state legislatures are becoming in their attempts to control women's rights. However, I'm sure there is more obstruction on the horizon. We can only hope our new President will nominate a Supreme Court Justice that will help the High Court strongly rebuke and overturn these ridiculous laws! Vote, vote, vote!!
50
"Arizona legislators have passed yet another measure that tries to maintain the original F.D.A. protocol"
If it passes, requiring those in Arizona to use a protocol deemed by the FDA to be less safe (e.g. in terms of dosage), and anyone is harmed, will Arizona be guilty of malpractice?
If it passes, requiring those in Arizona to use a protocol deemed by the FDA to be less safe (e.g. in terms of dosage), and anyone is harmed, will Arizona be guilty of malpractice?
50
Thank "God" for sovereign immunity. If our Arizona state legislators could be found liable for their public sins they would all be bankrupt.
19
At best, suit against Arizona in court of claims; fat chance of winning.
2
No but if a Doctor violates a state criminal law, the FDA label will not be a valid defense.
1
What happened to "pro-choice"? I'd like to see the NYT choose its words more carefully. There was another recent article with a comment about the inclusion of the word "pro-abortion," an inaccurate reflection of the values of rights advocates. We could also do away with "abortion rights advocates," as we are really talking about "reproductive rights advocates," people who believe women should have some choice regarding their bodies, families and futures.
66
Easily available abortion is one of the best measures to reduce crime rate, as you can nip these future criminals in the bud
8
You are kidding.
7
At long last, an honest leftist.
2
You are disgusting and I believe you came here just for that purpose.
5
Finally some common sense amid the assaults on women's rights at the state level.
35
If the medication can make the shouting matches and the intimidation from protesters a thing of the past, the anti abortion movement loses one of their most powerful theatrical tools. This is a day they've long feared.
50
I've gone to a number of women's health clinics where no abortions were performed on the premises-- in my experience, those folks are still happy to harass women who are just there for Pap smears and birth control refills. Their real problem is with women having sex.
10
As the article indicates, the FDA changes were widely anticipated by doctors, who were following the new practices even before approval, based on off label use. This newspaper has called for tightening the restrictions on off label use and has frequently argued that it causes all kinds of abuses by the medical community, including both "Big Pharma" and doctors. Here, the doctors were ahead of the curve and doing a service to women in need of the pill. To simply note that off-label use is common, as the article does, without admitting that the Times has often criticized it, glosses over the fact that Times recommendations would have been anti-women here. The fair approach would be to admit that, in this case, restrictions on off label use would have been undesirable.
8
Through three pregnancies, all high risk, two successful, my wife and I spent a great deal of time with her OB. What struck me is how often accepted practice differed from labels.
At one point, I am at the pharmacy discussing the drug, misoprostol, that will cause my wife to expel the lingering tissue of a failed pregnancy. The drugs, despite the label, were to be taken vaginally and not orally.
It is well past time for the FDA to update the label on misoprostol to match sound and modern medicine.
At one point, I am at the pharmacy discussing the drug, misoprostol, that will cause my wife to expel the lingering tissue of a failed pregnancy. The drugs, despite the label, were to be taken vaginally and not orally.
It is well past time for the FDA to update the label on misoprostol to match sound and modern medicine.
21
If you don't approve of murder, don't commit one. But don't infringe on my rights to choose as I please.
5
Who is asking YOU to do anything???>????
5
So, if misoprostol "induces miscarriage," which seems to be the cause of much celebration among commentators here, is it safe to say that we should no longer grieve with women that have natural/unplanned miscarriages? I mean, really, if it is not a life you are choosing to abort . . . why the grief and sense of loss among most women after a miscarriage?
Better question; aside from rape victims, why not choose contraceptives?
Better question; aside from rape victims, why not choose contraceptives?
2
How sad. Thanks for mansplaining how women should feel.
31
Oh my god. Why even bother commenting if you have no clue what you're talking about?
"So, if misoprostol "induces miscarriage," which seems to be the cause of much celebration among commentators here, is it safe to say that we should no longer grieve with women that have natural/unplanned miscarriages? I mean, really, if it is not a life you are choosing to abort . . . why the grief and sense of loss among most women after a miscarriage?"
It's about consent. You grieve a miscarriage because the pregnancy was wanted. You celebrate the right to abortion because the woman does not want to be pregnant. It's nothing to do with the nature of the fetus at all, but rather, hinges on what the woman wants to happen to her body. Sort of how sex is really great when it is wanted, but it's also really bad when it's unwanted. This is so simple, but you're trying to make it complex.
"Better question; aside from rape victims, why not choose contraceptives?"
Over half of women who obtain abortions used birth control during the month they became pregnant. Pro-tip: birth control fails. Pro-tip: birth control is not always easy to access. I'll guarantee you that 99% of rational women will choose to use birth control, if they are able too, rather than experience an unwanted pregnancy and then pay $500 for an abortion. Gee, don't you think that's obvious? And you know that's the case, as well, you just want to paint women as irresponsible.
"So, if misoprostol "induces miscarriage," which seems to be the cause of much celebration among commentators here, is it safe to say that we should no longer grieve with women that have natural/unplanned miscarriages? I mean, really, if it is not a life you are choosing to abort . . . why the grief and sense of loss among most women after a miscarriage?"
It's about consent. You grieve a miscarriage because the pregnancy was wanted. You celebrate the right to abortion because the woman does not want to be pregnant. It's nothing to do with the nature of the fetus at all, but rather, hinges on what the woman wants to happen to her body. Sort of how sex is really great when it is wanted, but it's also really bad when it's unwanted. This is so simple, but you're trying to make it complex.
"Better question; aside from rape victims, why not choose contraceptives?"
Over half of women who obtain abortions used birth control during the month they became pregnant. Pro-tip: birth control fails. Pro-tip: birth control is not always easy to access. I'll guarantee you that 99% of rational women will choose to use birth control, if they are able too, rather than experience an unwanted pregnancy and then pay $500 for an abortion. Gee, don't you think that's obvious? And you know that's the case, as well, you just want to paint women as irresponsible.
33
Other than because you lot are attacking that too?
15
it's great that we're moving in the direction of more family planning and focusing on QUALITY of life! to me, this isn't even about women - it's about bringing children into homes where their parents are well equipped to take care of them and love them. I was a 'mistake' and had a pretty unstable childhood. I'm soooo grateful that I brought my son into a loving marriage and stable situation. luckily, I never had a birth control malfunction before him, but I definitely would have chosen abortion (for the child's sake) if there had been a mistake. having a child is such a serious event for all involved, and it should never happen just because someone had an oopsie.
29
Science
~ science is tireless in its goal to make civilization accessible and as self applied as possible.
The state has decided rightfully in favor of choice and personal freedom. When governments try to impede or cancel those rights then Science moves quickly to self determination and the freedom of privacy.
We have watched the Printing press and literacy stop the control of knowledge and information. We have watched the phone connect us over unlimited distance, the Internet exponentially reveal access to paperless and and micro storage of phenomenal amounts of data.
Also cancelling the exclusivity of limited TV and Radio signals and their ability to throttle news, information and entertainment.
Science has provided comfort from untold amounts of blistering screaming personal pain and the defeat of disease and infection.
It has given us the amazing access to repairing our organs and extractions and transplants. Family planning becomes more private and less choked off by parochial and intrusive religious points of view.
Rights and freedoms are always the correct policy because they persevere and they win if they don't hurt others. Progressives that don't think hope and change are happening better keep their majority by voting and staying optimistic.
~ science is tireless in its goal to make civilization accessible and as self applied as possible.
The state has decided rightfully in favor of choice and personal freedom. When governments try to impede or cancel those rights then Science moves quickly to self determination and the freedom of privacy.
We have watched the Printing press and literacy stop the control of knowledge and information. We have watched the phone connect us over unlimited distance, the Internet exponentially reveal access to paperless and and micro storage of phenomenal amounts of data.
Also cancelling the exclusivity of limited TV and Radio signals and their ability to throttle news, information and entertainment.
Science has provided comfort from untold amounts of blistering screaming personal pain and the defeat of disease and infection.
It has given us the amazing access to repairing our organs and extractions and transplants. Family planning becomes more private and less choked off by parochial and intrusive religious points of view.
Rights and freedoms are always the correct policy because they persevere and they win if they don't hurt others. Progressives that don't think hope and change are happening better keep their majority by voting and staying optimistic.
13
Abortion should be a medical consideration between a woman and her doctor. That is all it should be.
63
Finally! The FDA does something that makes sense for women. All women, regardless of race, age, or religious persuasion. At last science wins. Thank you, FDA, for doing something positive for women.
48
I have no interest in anyone on the planet telling me what I can do with me so while I have my reservations about abortion, it is a woman's decision and not really any man's business to stand in the way of a woman's right to make choices regarding her body
Glad this one is settled in favor of the only ones who have a right to make that choice.
Glad this one is settled in favor of the only ones who have a right to make that choice.
30
The father of a child has rights just as the woman does. There is an argument being ignored: the man deprived of his child.
1
lonesome1 - You are confusing a fetus with a child. Not the same thing.
10
Please. Boohoo. Men don't have the right to force women to gestate babies for them.
Want a baby? Find a woman willing to give birth to it for you, and then get her pregnant.
Want a baby? Find a woman willing to give birth to it for you, and then get her pregnant.
13
It is inconceivable to me that anyone in the United States, in the year 2016, believes they have a right to tell a woman what she may or may not do to her body.
63
Not sure when you were a youth, but in the 50s and 60s, estimates of the number of illegal abortions ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year in the US. In 1930 botched illegal abortions were officially listed as cause of death for 2,700 women. By the 60s the death rate was down in the hundreds, mostly due to improvements in the ability to treat infection; however, right up until abortion was legalized in the 70s, emergencies stemming from illegal abortions were a major staple of ERs and urban hospitals.
Moreover, millions of women were (as they increasingly are now) unable to access any kind of abortion and consequently were forced to have children they did not want, and were thus forced to stay in abusive relationships, to give up on education, to raise children without the means to do so decently and so on.
WOMEN are human beings, fetuses are a PART of the woman's body, wholly dependent on her, which have the POTENTIAL to become human beings (upon being born). Yet your "calculation" values these fetuses more than the lives, health and dreams of actual human beings.
Finally, must note that you seem to consider having children as punishment for people failing to use contraception. Yet the anti-abortion forces are also in the forefront of trying to restrict or ban contraception.
Moreover, millions of women were (as they increasingly are now) unable to access any kind of abortion and consequently were forced to have children they did not want, and were thus forced to stay in abusive relationships, to give up on education, to raise children without the means to do so decently and so on.
WOMEN are human beings, fetuses are a PART of the woman's body, wholly dependent on her, which have the POTENTIAL to become human beings (upon being born). Yet your "calculation" values these fetuses more than the lives, health and dreams of actual human beings.
Finally, must note that you seem to consider having children as punishment for people failing to use contraception. Yet the anti-abortion forces are also in the forefront of trying to restrict or ban contraception.
49
In my 9th grade home-room class, the not-yet 14 yr old girl sitting across from me died from an illegal abortion.
In Ireland, an estimated 3k to 4k women died due to lack of Choice. With a population about 10x that high, you can see how disastrous non-Choice could be in the United States.
In Ireland, an estimated 3k to 4k women died due to lack of Choice. With a population about 10x that high, you can see how disastrous non-Choice could be in the United States.
25
This rule change makes sense and the prior conflicting procedures were nonsensical. This allowed abortion opponents to make stupid harmful laws but now these idiots got their hands slapped. I wonder how they all are going to respond to this now.
18
We need to move beyond the outdated 60s western white feminist ideology that family planning is only a 'woman's issue'. It's not. An unsought and unwanted pregnancy taken to full term has an effect that goes well beyond the girl or woman who finds herself pregnant.
Many of those who claim to oppose the termination by choice of unwanted pregnancies on the grounds that it is 'murder', have had a vested interest in seeing vulnerable girls taking their pregnancy to full term, so that they can then snatch the baby from the unfortunate mother and make the baby available for adoption. This has had, and still has, enormous ramifications both for the mother and for her adopted child.
In Ireland, forcing young, vulnerable girls to take their pregnancy to full-term ensured that well-to-do couples, who could not produce a healthy baby, had a ready supply of babies they could adopt. In return, the couple made a handsome contribution to the Roman Catholic Church.
The poor young mother not only had her baby snatched from her, but was forced to work as slave labour for the Irish Church in its laundries. The baby, snatched from his mother at birth, grew up either not knowing the truth or believing that her biological mother had abandoned her.
Young girls who are forced to take their pregnancy to full-term, already vulnerable, then have the burden of becoming a mother when they should still be at school. This burden, of course, typically ends up falling upon the young mother's own mother.
Many of those who claim to oppose the termination by choice of unwanted pregnancies on the grounds that it is 'murder', have had a vested interest in seeing vulnerable girls taking their pregnancy to full term, so that they can then snatch the baby from the unfortunate mother and make the baby available for adoption. This has had, and still has, enormous ramifications both for the mother and for her adopted child.
In Ireland, forcing young, vulnerable girls to take their pregnancy to full-term ensured that well-to-do couples, who could not produce a healthy baby, had a ready supply of babies they could adopt. In return, the couple made a handsome contribution to the Roman Catholic Church.
The poor young mother not only had her baby snatched from her, but was forced to work as slave labour for the Irish Church in its laundries. The baby, snatched from his mother at birth, grew up either not knowing the truth or believing that her biological mother had abandoned her.
Young girls who are forced to take their pregnancy to full-term, already vulnerable, then have the burden of becoming a mother when they should still be at school. This burden, of course, typically ends up falling upon the young mother's own mother.
29
For women -- like my daughters, wife sisters, mother, aunts, cousins, friends -- who don't want their liberties with their bodies to be subservient or subject to the self-righteous morality of men -- this is terrific news.
For women, who believe abortion is immoral and would never have one themselves, this is also terrific news because no one is requiring or asking you to compromise your choice not to have an abortion.
For women, who believe abortion is immoral and would never have one themselves, this is also terrific news because no one is requiring or asking you to compromise your choice not to have an abortion.
86
I agree in part, but please don't suggest that this is a battle between women and meddling men. There are plenty of men who feel that women should make their own choices here.
7
I trust that the Republicans will recall their repeated statements, concerning global warming, that they are not scientists.
36
Just because science as allowed a way, it doesn’t morally justify it. Abortions are the leading methodology of modern eugenics. Congrats to all abortion supporters for this recent advancement of one of the most well marketed unethical practices and violation of civil rights in human history. Signed a Pro-Life Feminist
6
Yes, forced gestational slavery isn't a civil rights violation at all.
54
Using your (DHenry's) logic, if women don't have unprotected sex after ovulation each month, they are also partaking in modern eugenics. And male masturbation? Oh, the humanity! "Every sperm is needed in your neighborhood."
Seriously: your fear of sex is your problem...don't make it ours.
Seriously: your fear of sex is your problem...don't make it ours.
40
If you are opposed to abortion, I suggest you never have one. You are certainly entitled to you opinion and you get to make those decisions that affect you directly. Those of us who feel differently will do the same.
41
Good news and about time. This should at least put a kink in the religionists' abortive (sic) efforts to deny women the right to decide whether the fetus should evolve into the kind of life they can provide for it.
17
Thankfully so, but already past the necessary time for such a labeling change.
9
Ted Cruz should be relieved. Sensible access to the abortion pill should reduce the surgical abortions at the clinics he wants to close for the women who've been impregnated by the violence of rape and incest.
23
And when you take this pill you won't have to run the unprotected gauntlet through the packs of so called religious zealots that surround a clinic where you can get an abortion.
47
Unfortunately, in most places, you do still have to run the unprotected gauntlet to get this pill. In states like Texas, you have to be given it in an ambulatory surgical center. In states like Mississippi, there has to be a registered nurse present with a physician when the pill is handed to the patient. Leaps and bounds beyond us, this medication is available in pharmacies in places like Australia; that is the kind of regulation that ensures access and privacy.
This label change is a good step, but there are many more to go.
This label change is a good step, but there are many more to go.
15
Finally, some limited good news, in my opinion, on this contentious issue. Or, now must I worry about being shot by the likes of Mr. Dear leaving Rite Aid carrying nail polish and cat litter?
22
Let's continue moving closer to the day when a medical abortion is safely and freely available in the early stages of pregnancy to every woman in the privacy of her home. It's no one else's business, and medical abortion promises to make that day a reality.
44
If a woman is putting her live in danger by having a child and the Dr. agrees on stopping the birth of a child and with the Dr. knowing that the child want make it at full turm then have the child removed saving the life of a mother i lost one at 7 1/2 month by secession and i had died on the operation table I had a second appendion and the baby died two minutes and the Dr.like to lost me
Finally, we're getting to a point where women can manage their reproductive choices privately in most cases.
30
This ease of access should not also ease thorough sex education in middle schools. The right-leaning, conservative legislators and our culture in general has hindered straight-forward, open, scientific talk about sex and reproduction in schools; It's become safe and saccharine, not honest and real. Maybe it has always been that way. We do our children and young adults a disservice by not preparing them in public schools, then letting them manage with pills after the fact. Yes, ease access to this pill, but also increase funding for sex education in public schools so even this pill becomes
a novelty.
a novelty.
19
This is a good step to empower women. I advocate free and easy to access birth control too.
29
And without a prescription would be nice. Like Aspirin, safe, legal and available everywhere.
8
AMM - Seriously? This kind of thing shouldn't be available without a prescription, complications from this could be very serious.
The big concerns with birth control pills is how many women are taking them and how the hormones in them are affecting our environment and water supply. There is a clear and present danger presented when people (especially kids) are getting regular doses of progestin and estrogen through their drinking water. The other issue is the long term health ramifications on women who take birth control pills. I'm not anti-birth control at all- just the opposite- but I am concerned about hormones and chemicals polluting our planet.
2
The FDA is not "stepping into the politics of abortion". They're updating information on an FDA-approved drug based on recent studies which is nothing out of the ordinary for the FDA. Hopefully we'll eventually reach the day where healthcare that affects half of the population is not seen as radical. Anyway, I'm glad these new recommendations will make it easier for women to receive the medication when they need it.
52
I hope that these drugs are available to women where the zika virus is present.
28
Sadly, a lot of those women live in countries where abortion is completely banned under all circumstances. (And where access to reliable contraception is basically non-existent).
1
Clash of the Titans, 1981.
Thetis: What a dangerous precedent. What if there are more heroes like him [Perseus]? What if courage and imagination become everyday mortal qualities? What will become of us [the Gods]?
Zeus: We will no longer be needed.
Thetis: What a dangerous precedent. What if there are more heroes like him [Perseus]? What if courage and imagination become everyday mortal qualities? What will become of us [the Gods]?
Zeus: We will no longer be needed.
8
Until otherwise ruled by the Supreme Court, abortion is legal. Under the Constitution, women have access to abortion (though just what that entails remains a legislative and political question). Regardless of one's beliefs regarding abort, women should have access to the best medications and treatment protocols available. To pretend otherwise or prevent doctors from following the best evidence-based practices is an affront to women's access to modern healthcare and the doctor's duty to provide the best care.
28
While this is a win for reproductive rights, medication abortion remains the riskier option. There are numerous side effects to both drugs, including life-threatening hemorrhage. Medication abortion is less effective than surgical abortion and requires two visits to confirm the pregnancy has passed. Surgical abortion is completed and confirmed in just one visit. Access to abortion options is important, but women need to know that medication abortion is not the more convenient and safer choice.
9
Let's let women define what "convenient" means for themselves. While a second trip to the clinic may very well be less convenient for some women, others might find the ability to bypass an invasive procedure a relief worth a follow up visit. The more options a woman has for reproductive health care and the longer those options are available to her based on the most recent science, the better.
12
A note here: I hemorrhaged with a normal birth. Anything can happen at full term in the hospital.
6
The FDA is not "stepping into the politics on abortion". They're updating information on an FDA-approved drug based on recent studies which is nothing out of the ordinary for the FDA. Hopefully we'll eventually reach the day where healthcare that affects half of the population is not seen as radical. Anyway, I hope these new recommendations will make it easier for women to receive the medication when they need it.
29
Great news! Now let the backlash begin! And to those who say we should limit abortion, my response is "if you don't approve of abortions, don't have one. But don't infringe on my body and my rights."
163
I so much in favor of abortion that I sorry I can't have one since I'm a male.
2
That's a great response. I give the same when someone says they don't approve of war. I simply tell them "If you don't support war, don't enlist as a soldier." They go away with new understanding.
4
Yes, that is correct. If there was a draft and so many people had not have volunteered to join the military, we would not have spent several trillion dollars invading, overthrowing the governments, and occupying countries in the Middle East, and it would not be in the giant mess it is in today.
1
I don't understand why we would make it easier for the general public to gain access to abortion -- we should be doing the exact opposite: limiting the availability of abortions. In addition, the public should be provided with free birth-control, regardless of insurance, so they can properly prevent "unwanted" pregnancies. Limit/eliminate abortion except for rape/high-fatality and increase access to birth control. Absolutely disgusted by the direction we're taking.
2
We have plenty of unwanted babies; we don't need more.
26
But GM, the problem seems to be that the same people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control.
41
The "general public"? What in the world does that mean?
13
Finally leaving the Stone Age behind!
67
Well thank goodness. Finally some great news regarding abortion. Thanks FDA!
73
Amen!
If men can get Viagra with ease, women should have access to birth control and the abortion pill with similar ease.
I'm middle aged and do not want a pregnancy; good to know that I have options, should there ever be an "oopsie."
If men can get Viagra with ease, women should have access to birth control and the abortion pill with similar ease.
I'm middle aged and do not want a pregnancy; good to know that I have options, should there ever be an "oopsie."
93
By the same token, don't indulge in sex if you are concerned about pregnancy, or at least make sure that you and your partner are using appropriate "protection". This ruling is no more than the continued war on women and children by the democratic Party. Without the abortion controversy, Democrats would loose one of their decisive wedges.
2
Vermonter - I'm a woman, a mother and a grandmother. I left the Republican party because Republicans don't care about women or children. Denying women health care, contraception and sex education is heinous, as is the refusal to provide children with a clean, safe environment to grow up in (e.g. tainted water).
13
How is it a "war on women" to deny us the ability to make our own decisions? That's not a war, that's a citizen's birthright.
5
Good... a small triumph for science, reason, and evidence in their continual struggle against ignorance, rigidity and narrow-minded moralizing. May there be many more...climate change, evolution, gun violence, criminal justice reform. Let the facts speak for themselves, and listen to what the facts say, Americans!
80
As usual, a lot of comments on here are celebrating "women's rights" and condemning men for trying to control womens' bodies. Please respect that many women don't consider this a women's rights issue and that, for those of us who oppose abortion, the issue has nothing to do with that. The argument here is a moral question about when life begins. I accept that people disagree with me, but as a woman, I find it very insulting when people act like all women are on the same side of this issue and that it's solely a women's health thing. It's more complex than that.
10
The problem is even though "many women don't consider this a women's rights issue" does not mean it isn't. It is more complex than a "women's health thing". But it still is a "women's health thing".
22
Not that I speak for all pro-choicers here, but I don't think anyone on "my" side here has ever considered that all women are on the same side of the issue. They are not, and never were. We recognize that.
The issue has to do with whether the government can legislate that choice on her behalf. THAT is the "women's rights" issue at hand here -- whether a person like you can choose to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term, or whether someone unlike you can terminate a pregnancy under the care and guidance of her physician.
Women will control their childbearing by any means necessary whether you like it or not. If you cannot bear to live in a country with this level of freedom, then you can petition for a theocracy. I don't think you will have many takers on that.
The issue has to do with whether the government can legislate that choice on her behalf. THAT is the "women's rights" issue at hand here -- whether a person like you can choose to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term, or whether someone unlike you can terminate a pregnancy under the care and guidance of her physician.
Women will control their childbearing by any means necessary whether you like it or not. If you cannot bear to live in a country with this level of freedom, then you can petition for a theocracy. I don't think you will have many takers on that.
38
Understood that it is more complex for you. As such, you don't have to have an unwanted pregnancy or abortion.
For those who do not agree with you, it is much simpler.
We are a country of laws and elections and, thankfully, we are moving in a direction that allows people to take responsibility into their own hands by the consensus of the public at large, scientists, and medical professionals.
We do not live in a theocracy, but we have been coming close to it these past few decades.
For those who do not agree with you, it is much simpler.
We are a country of laws and elections and, thankfully, we are moving in a direction that allows people to take responsibility into their own hands by the consensus of the public at large, scientists, and medical professionals.
We do not live in a theocracy, but we have been coming close to it these past few decades.
26
I disagree with the statement that the FDA waded into the politics of abortion with this decision. The FDA exercised scientifically sound judgment which is the exact opposite of politics. Those who would deny abortion rights due to outdated recommendations are politicizing a medical issue.
366
In my youth we had no contraceptives and no abortions. Then contraceptives came along and the message was that abortions would be very rare because women and men who used contraception would find that their effectiveness to be excellent. Fast forward to 2016 and we now average 1.3 million abortions per year. Yes, I am female and opposed to abortions, as outside of the very small percentage that are rape, I cannot balance paying with a human life because a couple failed to use today's contraceptive devices. While I'd prefer abortions be banned, I will compromise with abortions should be very, very rare -- given the alternative options. This does not help abortions be rare.
34
There have always been abortions.
49
I have 3 points:
1) There certainly were abortion when you were in your youth. Rich women procured the safest ones secretly, but many poor women lost their lives or their fertility procuring unsafe ones. Just because it wasn't spoken about doesn't mean it didn't happen.
2) We actually don't know how many abortions are due to rape. The information on the "small percentage" you claim is from a voluntary survey from 30 years ago. We know today that rape is a woefully underreported crime. A lot of women don't speak up because they are afraid. We don't actually know how many women are in abusive relationships where they experience partner rape on a regular basis.
3) And on that matter of rape, why do pro-life people preach the sanctity of life yet maintain that a fetus begotten from rape is somehow less? At least be consistent.
1) There certainly were abortion when you were in your youth. Rich women procured the safest ones secretly, but many poor women lost their lives or their fertility procuring unsafe ones. Just because it wasn't spoken about doesn't mean it didn't happen.
2) We actually don't know how many abortions are due to rape. The information on the "small percentage" you claim is from a voluntary survey from 30 years ago. We know today that rape is a woefully underreported crime. A lot of women don't speak up because they are afraid. We don't actually know how many women are in abusive relationships where they experience partner rape on a regular basis.
3) And on that matter of rape, why do pro-life people preach the sanctity of life yet maintain that a fetus begotten from rape is somehow less? At least be consistent.
47
Since you are anti-abortion, never have one. Problem solved.
41
Undoubtedly GOP women who turn a blind eye to the GOP´s extremist assault on women must be having a sissy fit. GOP congresswoman McMorris Rodgers for example who voted against the Fair Pay Act arguing that women do get paid equally (not), sees no problem with overturning roe vs wade taking away a woman´s right to choose or dismantling planned parenthood entirely, supports the personhood law essentially abolishing abortion entirely, and banning the pill through constitutional amendment. Expect a GOP move to defund the FDA.
40
How about a move to defund the GOP?
14
What GOP? The party as we know it, is in tatters.
Trump supports Planned Parenthood while the former establishment GOPers are against abortion. Don't look for an organized response from the GOP, or whatever they are today, soon.
Trump supports Planned Parenthood while the former establishment GOPers are against abortion. Don't look for an organized response from the GOP, or whatever they are today, soon.
2
What we really need to restrict access to is religion. That is, as far as I can tell, the source of most of the world's problems. Stone Age magic invented to control and consolidate power in elites no longer has a constructive place in a modern world.
247
Thank you, Garrett! So many people agree with you. We are sick and tired of old religions pretending that they have solutions to real world problems, when in truth all they're interested in is amassing politcal power, wealth, and control over people's thoughts. Disgusting.
16
YES! There should be a 24-hour waiting period before children age 6-18 can be permitted to attend religious activities, and parental consent should be necessary. Moreover, these children and their parents should first be required to watch a film about priests, ministers, and other clergy sexually molesting children. Finally, all religious activities should be permitted only in facilities with equipment to monitor clergy behavior, and in the presence of armed security personnel--to "protect" the children from the widespread sexual exploitation by religionists.
14
The anti-woman, anti-choice crowds' heads just exploded on hearing this news.
67
Good.
7
Is this a bad thing?
4
Welcome to the 21st century, American women.
(The 4th century will still be available in Christian Shariah Law states for those who really despise female freedom).
(The 4th century will still be available in Christian Shariah Law states for those who really despise female freedom).
414
@Socrates, Downtown Verona, NJ: Please stop! You're laughing me to death!
4
While I do believe that contraceptives, day after pills etc. should be easily available. many of the readers of the NYT have a fantasy about what women in red states think or want. They think that women in these states are all progressives, but are suppressed by the brutal patriarchs.
But remember that Kim Davis, someone whom YOU guys wanted in prison was not only a woman but in fact a Democrat.
And here is a quote from a recent article:
"In most faiths, especially Christianity, women are more faithful than men
The United States is one of the countries where the gender gap is large. Some 60% of American women consider religion very important, against 47% of men. Daily prayer is practised by 64% of female Americans against 47% of males; and weekly church-going is a habit among 40% of American women versus 32% of men. "
And what is the source? "Faux News"?
No, it is the Economist.
The policy in southern states has been jointly arrived at by the men and the women in these states. To pretend otherwise is fantasy.
But it fits with a "narrative" which is popular here.
But remember that Kim Davis, someone whom YOU guys wanted in prison was not only a woman but in fact a Democrat.
And here is a quote from a recent article:
"In most faiths, especially Christianity, women are more faithful than men
The United States is one of the countries where the gender gap is large. Some 60% of American women consider religion very important, against 47% of men. Daily prayer is practised by 64% of female Americans against 47% of males; and weekly church-going is a habit among 40% of American women versus 32% of men. "
And what is the source? "Faux News"?
No, it is the Economist.
The policy in southern states has been jointly arrived at by the men and the women in these states. To pretend otherwise is fantasy.
But it fits with a "narrative" which is popular here.
30
do want you want to do, but let the non religious do what they want too!
No need to impose your restrictions on others!
No need to impose your restrictions on others!
77
Women in the red states, Kim Davis included, can pray all they want. God bless them (excuse the expression). But they can't limit the rights of other women, which is what the religious right is always trying to do. The FDA announcement is a step which permits people to exercise their own civil rights and prevents faith-based ignorance from controlling us.
44
Thanks for the reminder that it is fanatical religious fundamentalism which oppresses women, and that both women and men can be fanatical religious fundamentalists.
32
absolutely awesome news!
29
Shameful how Conservative men harmed women by requiring them to take more meds than necessary.
31
Why did this take so long?
31
Conservatives who want a government so small it will fit inside a women's uterus.
17
Science! Yes! Thank goodness.
58
Just another reminder that in our country there's that 'little' bit about 'separation of church and state'.
About time we start joining the 21st century. This pill has been easily accessible in many other countries for decades now.
My advice is to stock up before the illogical, religious right manage to rescind this somehow. Or you can take a trip to Canada or elsewhere, where a women's right to her own individual body is the norm.
About time we start joining the 21st century. This pill has been easily accessible in many other countries for decades now.
My advice is to stock up before the illogical, religious right manage to rescind this somehow. Or you can take a trip to Canada or elsewhere, where a women's right to her own individual body is the norm.
53
Great news!! About time women get a break from these outdated laws that are being thrust upon us!!! Hopefully this will just be the beginning of the end for the men who try to control our choices
47
It's certainly a victory for those of us who feel that women and their doctors should be the ones to decide.
155
An associate of mine when told about an east coast university having RU-486 or plan B available in vending machines for $20 went ballistic. The only females having access to these machines were all 18 and over.
Of course he lives in TX and has a worthless degree in religion - guess he is still mad about.
Of course he lives in TX and has a worthless degree in religion - guess he is still mad about.
33
Has anyone here actually seen a vending machine selling RU-486 or Mifeprex? It sounds improbable, like hyperbole made up by a radio show host.
7
It's hard enough to get it at an actual pharmacy, in many parts of the country...
1
OR if her period is recently missed, a woman can reach into her kitchen cabinet, take out her thyme, make a strong tea and drink it 3 times a day for 3 days and obtain the same result. I certainly did. Herbal remedies like this have been used since ancient times. It's outrageous that our male-dominated, profit-driven medical/pharmaceutical complex still suppresses and belittles such information--once the province of women who knew the uses of herbs that grew in their gardens. Religion, seeking dominance, called them witches and burned them at the stake. The stigma against the herbs that God put in every field remains. But some of us long ago took back the power of herbal knowledge and pay no attention to doctors and courts.
14
If this method works what the heck, this should be known to all.
3
Time for thyme? Three thymes three?
2
Wow. Is this true ? That thyme tea will cause an early spontaneous abortion?
2
The first sentence indicates that the FDA "stepped into the politics of abortion".
Doesn't this decision, based on science and data, indicate that it has stepped OUT of the politics?
Doesn't this decision, based on science and data, indicate that it has stepped OUT of the politics?
361
Science has become political. The right wants creationism taught in public schools, it doubts global warming; they believe any method that makes abortion easier must cause severe health problems for the woman and should be outlawed.
6
NYT - oops!
Good step by the FDA but the fact is that this method of preventing an unwanted pregnancy should be available over the counter. Women were given by their creator the inalienable right to decide what to do with their own bodies and will end unwanted pregnancies however they have to. This is another prime example of why women - and the men who love them - MUST pass an Equal Rights Amendment to OUR United States Constitution that says, "No law shall be passed in America that discriminates against women." These radical christian attacks on women's rights MUST be stopped.
70
@njglea
"but the fact is that this method of preventing an unwanted pregnancy ," you are confusing this medication with a different medication. The medication described in this article is for women who want to terminate a pregnancy, not prevent one.
"but the fact is that this method of preventing an unwanted pregnancy ," you are confusing this medication with a different medication. The medication described in this article is for women who want to terminate a pregnancy, not prevent one.
11
Until women can buy misoprostol and mifepristone over the counter, women's reproductive rights are conditional on the approval of state governments.
Of course it is better to take strong medicine only under medical supervision by experienced professionals, and no one would choose otherwise who has this choice.
But for many women, especially in the South, this choice is very much in danger.
Of course it is better to take strong medicine only under medical supervision by experienced professionals, and no one would choose otherwise who has this choice.
But for many women, especially in the South, this choice is very much in danger.
319
These are not medications that are safe enough to be sold OTC. 3-5% of medication abortions fail to induce complete miscarriage, leaving a women vulnerable to serious infection and life-threatening hemorrhage.
Reproductive rights should not trump women's safety.
Reproductive rights should not trump women's safety.
8
Enough parsley juice will induce an abortion.
2
That's very true. But the danger is that people other than the pregnant woman will buy these drugs and administer them in stealth.
3
This is welcome news from the F.D.A. for all American women! RU-486 IN 2000, now /MIFEPRISTONE w/ MISOPROSTOL. One wonders how the antidiluvian Conservative Republicans who insist that man has dominion over all womens' bodies will react to this easing of requitements on Abortion Pill Legislation.
39
I don't wonder. I know they will claim, with the uttermost lack of self-awareness, that respect for human life is dead. :-)
12
Sadly, I think we know how they'll react.
12
Hallelujah.
30
Phenomenal news! A rare victory for abortion rights advocates in an environment where Roe Vs Wade has been practically rendered moot. Finally women, who are often treated like little more than pawns in American politics, have a shot at skipping the confrontations with protestors and the shouting matches as they take care of their reproductive health.
74
Great news...but some white male controlled state legislature is sure to try to circumvent this ruling.
42
Technology in this manner will eventually make the anti-abortion crowd irrelevant.
53
I certainly hope so! I'm sick of those people and their religious ranting.
17
There will be an outcry and resistance to this announcement but the majority of Americans will embrace this. My hope is this will start a new discussion about long term birth control like the IUD. It is extremely under utilized because there is reluctance to broaching this topic in general.
31
The adults are in charge once again !
39
Just a matter of time before the men of the GOP in all the Red States reassert their control over women's reproductive systems. The fetus is too good of fundraising tool for the GOP to ever let this issue be settled.
51
Clearly a win for women's rights.
No argument.
That said, at some point it might be useful to have a conversation on the declining birthrates of educated women in secular liberal societies. Right now, Caucasians and Japanese women in particular do not bear sufficient numbers of children to maintain, let alone grow the population.
The world is experiencing over population among the nations, economies and societies least capable of supporting themselves. That is not true in Europe, Japan and the United States.
So, even with a victory for choice, we still are left with something related to consider.
No argument.
That said, at some point it might be useful to have a conversation on the declining birthrates of educated women in secular liberal societies. Right now, Caucasians and Japanese women in particular do not bear sufficient numbers of children to maintain, let alone grow the population.
The world is experiencing over population among the nations, economies and societies least capable of supporting themselves. That is not true in Europe, Japan and the United States.
So, even with a victory for choice, we still are left with something related to consider.
7
I think we've been having that whole, "them white wimmens need to have more babies, or civilization will collapse 'neath a tide of coloreds," conversation for sufficiently long enough a time, thank you very much.
By the way, might want to put down the George GIlder books, and take a look at what's actually happenng to birthrates in India and such, due to the work of the UN, NGOs, and whatever American support the crackpot Right permits.
Guess what happens as women get more education, some minimal health care, and a chance at economic opportunity?
By the way, might want to put down the George GIlder books, and take a look at what's actually happenng to birthrates in India and such, due to the work of the UN, NGOs, and whatever American support the crackpot Right permits.
Guess what happens as women get more education, some minimal health care, and a chance at economic opportunity?
33
The world is experiencing population growth in the nations and societies with the most inequality for women, including their right to control the size of their families. All the more reason to work harder for their equality here and everywhere.
21
Hmm. It might be time. But without paid parental leave and adequate childcare, and a cut-throat job market, you will have a hard time convincing well-educated women (even those who are fairly religious) to have 4, 5, and 6 children. My kids are grown, but I see that the landscape for them in terms of having their own families is not much better than it was 25 years ago when I had my first.
20
Great news. And I absolutely agree with the comment that oral contraceptives should be made available over the counter.
143
That sounds good in theory but there are a lot of different variations of the pill out there and taking the wrong one can prove to be very harmful. It's important to get proper medical care.
4
Women's health based on scientific evidence rather than the politics of male supremacy - a revolution!
967
The floodgates of rationality have opened! Evidence..well-vetted knowledge...we are so ready! Thanks for the comment.
1
Women's health based on scientific evidence rather than the politics of Right-Wing Christian Conservative male supremacy - a revolution!
- There, I fixed it for ya for more specificity.
- There, I fixed it for ya for more specificity.
2
It's a miracle!
Good news! With the nationwide effort to chip away at access to abortion clinics, and the physical intrusions women face there, the availability of such an option is crucial.
44
This is a very, very good development for women. Maybe we can get ahead of the anti-choice states after all.
An even more effective approach is to vote them out of office, of course. But this will help in the interim.
An even more effective approach is to vote them out of office, of course. But this will help in the interim.
47
This is good news for women's healthcare, therefore, Republicans will fight it with all the tools in their shed.
65
With this decision the FDA did not, as the article opens with "step into the politics of abortion". With this decision the FDA did update their recommendations based on thoughtful examination of up-to-date evidence based scientific studies. Appropriate use of moving or translating medical studies into useful policy change.
583
This decision shows respect for motherhood, which should only be undertaken by women who want this incredibly demanding and lifelong job.
229
Gosh, how naive I have been. Until now, I had (apparently mistakenly) believed the the FDA would approve a drug or its uses based on the appropriate evidence presented. I, therefore, would have understood the FDA's action in re Mifeprex as a "victory" for science/medicine.
Silly me.
Silly me.
17
Why is the approval of a medication framed as a political event? The NYT is falling into a trap regarding a woman's right to abortion. It's medical, not political.
100
Because the whole topic of abortion has been co-opted by the so-called Christian right to foment conflict and vilify opponents, that's why. And has been, for decades. That's no secret.
16
As long as the opponents of abortion are acting in the political field and ignoring the medical field, it IS a political event. The NYT is aware that it is a medical issue; they are also aware that the opposition is scientifically brain-dead.
26
Um, Rose, tell that to your Republican friends. I've got news for you: Abortion has been political since Reagan.
25
Wonderful news. Good that the effect will be to remove women seeking abortions from the harassment and attacks they endure at abortion clinics.
88
Medication abortion actually requires more visits to the clinic, not fewer.
5
You don't need a special clinic that then can become a target. Mifeprix can be prescribed and followed up in a doctor's office. Actually, surgical abortions don't need special clinics, either. These only evolved because so many doctors, hospitals and out-patient surgical centers refused to do them. Every hospital and out-patient surgical clinic should also offer abortions, making it much harder for the nuts to target...everyone.
14
Hurrah! A victory for science and for rationality over the the conservative Republican attempts to impose their patriarchal religious beliefs on all women. This is a great step forward toward full emancipation of women over the raft of restrictive laws enacted by Republican state legislatures across the nation attempting to keep them a second-class citizens under male control. It may be a bit early to yell "Free at lest!" and "Equal at last!" but it is worth celebrating, nonetheless.
129
I like the way this administration thinks... and acts.
216
bravo FDA. For once you don't disappoint.
182
About time.
Hopefully the powers that be will soon make oral contraceptives available OTC, and thus we can join the civilized world!
Hopefully the powers that be will soon make oral contraceptives available OTC, and thus we can join the civilized world!
342
BobR, I think you mean well, but OTC contraceptives won't help if women can't afford them. The ACA mandates insurance coverage pay for contraceptives and that is important. Contraceptives are not cheap - making them available OTC will only help those who have money to buy them. Of course ignorant elected officials, politicized judges, and reactionary companies keep finding ways to get around the ACA's requirements. If stupid old men could get pregnant, this would all change in an instant.
33
When the daughters and grand-daughters of stupid old men get pregnant accidentally, many of them get abortions.
18
There are a lot of variations of the pill out there, taking the wrong one can be very harmful. Women need access to medical care for this.
4
Great news! This will put the woman in control and eliminate the unpleasantness of a surgical intervention. I believe surgical abortions are only necessary when it's the question of a fetal abnormality that could not be diagnosed at an earlier stage. Otherwise, the sooner, the better.
338
Actually, I'm an abortion care provider, and surgical abortion must also be available as an option in the first as well as the second trimester. Both medication-induced and surgical abortions are safe and effective methods for early pregnancy termination, but which is best for individuals patients is a matter of personal comfort and circumstances. The Mifeprex and misoprostol regimen induces a miscarriage at home, which some patients simply aren't comfortable with, preferring instead to opt for the 3 to 5 minute outpatient procedure. Also some blood disorders and inflammatory bowel diseases, among other things, are contraindications to the medications, but not the surgery. While I commend the FDA and am thrilled that their recommendations will finally match our commonsense protocols, "early abortion" and "medication abortion" aren't synonymous.
422
@Mor,
I am responding to clarify your statement about surgical abortion. It is not true that surgical abortions are only necessary for fetal abnormalities. A surgical abortion may be performed at gestational ages beyond 6 weeks (6 weeks is way earlier than fetal abnormality diagnosis is possible). Both surgical and medical abortions have advantages and disadvantages.
For example, for a vacuum aspiration, the procedure takes about 5-15 minutes and requires no followup in absence of complications. For a medical abortion, such as the medication described in this article, it requires two visits (one to obtain the medication, the other for an followup to ensure the pregnancy is terminated)
Medical abortion is not necessarily superior vs surgical abortion, and vice versa. Each woman should discuss this with her healthcare provider.
I am responding to clarify your statement about surgical abortion. It is not true that surgical abortions are only necessary for fetal abnormalities. A surgical abortion may be performed at gestational ages beyond 6 weeks (6 weeks is way earlier than fetal abnormality diagnosis is possible). Both surgical and medical abortions have advantages and disadvantages.
For example, for a vacuum aspiration, the procedure takes about 5-15 minutes and requires no followup in absence of complications. For a medical abortion, such as the medication described in this article, it requires two visits (one to obtain the medication, the other for an followup to ensure the pregnancy is terminated)
Medical abortion is not necessarily superior vs surgical abortion, and vice versa. Each woman should discuss this with her healthcare provider.
67
Thank you so much for providing abortion care in your state. You have no doubt saved many women's lives.
57
And now the Baptist Taliban running the red-state legislatures is no doubt busy writing half-baked legislation to preempt this sensible measure by the FDA.
459
They'll just farm the work out to ALEC.
17
Sure they will. It beats working.
10
It is probably all ready written and ready to go.
5
Best news I heard all week except perhaps the upholding of union rights by the split Supreme Court. The supporters of the American version of Sharia Law have been handed a setback. But don't worry these Elmer Gantry's will be back to make women's lives a misery.
241
Only if the women keep letting them. Do not forget - women are the majority of the electorate.
4
Great to see science working properly here.
Reducing the dosage from 600 to 200mg will be safer for women.
Let's hope that non-medically trained politicians refrain from interfering in the thoughtful and difficult decision some women must make.
Reducing the dosage from 600 to 200mg will be safer for women.
Let's hope that non-medically trained politicians refrain from interfering in the thoughtful and difficult decision some women must make.
272
While this is great news on many fronts, the reduction of confusion will only be in abeyance until cynical pols create new hoops to jump through.
45
Diane,
I agree that the cynical pols will vote for new hoops. However, they are not smart enough to create any hoops.
I agree that the cynical pols will vote for new hoops. However, they are not smart enough to create any hoops.
1
Women in Texas, Ohio, North Dakota, etc. should be absolutely outraged that their lawmakers are insisting any medicine be labeled with outdated information.
514
Women in these states have been suppressed for so long they're unaware of their 2nd class political status!
28
And, remember, John Kasich is the governor of Ohio and he is considered the more sane and moderate GOP presidential candidate.
Trust me, he is not.
Trust me, he is not.
15
He is the sane candidate only if you compare him to Preacher Ted!
6
Vote wisely, a significant percentage of Americans want to criminalize this method. Of course only the poor will be jailed.
435
Good news for women. Bad news for news for demagogues and busy bodies...can't wait for Hillary to start making her court appointments.
281
I've recently been thinking of this very eventuality. With the Right's obsession with controlling a woman's uterus, it seemed just a matter of time before the technology of terminating a pregnancy would become more private, and less prone to legal consent. It's about time.
492
Privacy is freedom.
65
Since the 1980's.
1
A victory, I suppose, for Big Pharma over the pro-natalist fanatics who are convinced that the world remains underpopulated with 7.4 billion human beings and counting. But "conservatives" are supposed to take the side of both corporations and the crazed militants who scream epithets and threats at frightened women and girls walking into abortion clinics. Who will they side with in this case?
57
they will side with the crazed militants, of course.
16
HA hahahahaha!
Oops: I mean, yes, it will be a very difficult decision for them.
Oops: I mean, yes, it will be a very difficult decision for them.
8
Frankly when it comes to abortion what any politician, church, or civic authority has to say about it will not alter my view, my rights and my actions ... that there be only two people involved: the doctor/nurse practitioner and the woman. Period.
These religious zealots who insist on unfettered conception regardless of conditions and circumstances invariably and routinely ignore the fate of the unwanted child committed to a life bound in shallows and miseries absent vital necessities.
These religious zealots who insist on unfettered conception regardless of conditions and circumstances invariably and routinely ignore the fate of the unwanted child committed to a life bound in shallows and miseries absent vital necessities.
22
Has this been cleared with the catholic bishops?
45
The new guidelines allow women to reduce their dosage of Catholic bishops as well...
207
Thank GOD YES!
16
What is the non-toxic dosage limit for those?
4