States With Abortion Bans Are Among Least Supportive for Mothers and Children

[maestrob]

They tend to have the weakest social services and the worst results in several categories of health and well-being.

In Mississippi, which brought the abortion case that ended Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court, Gov. Tate Reeves vowed that the state would now “take every step necessary to support mothers and children.”

Today, however, Mississippi fares poorly on just about any measure of that goal. Its infant and maternal mortality rates are among the worst in the nation.

State leaders have rejected the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, leaving an estimated 43,000 women of reproductive age without health insurance. They have chosen not to extend Medicaid to women for a full year after giving birth. And they have a welfare program that gives some of the country’s least generous cash assistance — a maximum of $260 a month for a poor mother raising two children.

Read full article here for free (no paywall)--

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/upsh ... =url-share

[Belle]

Watching William F. Buckley Jnr the other night; recorded in the early 70s. Abortions in the USA 3 million!! What was the population of the USA 50 years ago and wasn't this the era of the contraceptive Pill? I had it before then in a lonely little outpost called Australia.

The premise of this Pravda 1 article from the "Ministry of Truth and Information" (the new moniker for media as government boot-lickers) is FALSE. Because we don't give birth to our children expecting ANY hand-outs from the state (unless we're single mothers today, in which case welfare falls from the sky in Australia); a large number of us think that is undesirable because it leads to.....er, what we've got right now. HISTORIC DEBT. And a dependency mentality, grievance, victimhood, demands and cry-bullies.

NO THANKS.

"Not supportive of mothers"???!!!! With historic levels of educated women now in the workforce!!!??? Somebody is trying to fool somebody else, but not this little black duck.

Over lunch on Thursday we discussed with friends about where all these government hands-outs will lead our country - that and a general contempt for business. Not to mention that dirty word "profits". We decided it was expedient to give our children their inheritance before we die, ensuring government plays no part in this at all. When the national debt rubber and hard times hits the road they'll be in a stronger economic position, without fear that government is going to snatch it. We've already bought a home in Perth for one of them. So sue me!!!

[jserraglio]

Watching William F. Buckley Jnr the other night; recorded in the early 70s. Abortions in the USA 3 million!! What was the population of the USA 50 years ago and wasn't this the era of the contraceptive Pill? I had it before then in a lonely little outpost called Australia.

In the real world I came of age in, the Ohio of 1960 thru the early 70s, a young person couldn’t even buy condoms without navigating a hostile druggist’s interrogation.

Condoms were kept under lock and key. That alone was enough to discourage many if not most without the means to otherwise acquire them. I know, I was there.

The sovereign State of Ohio was, and still is, masterful in setting up monolithic, evangelical-Christian barriers to behaviors that the hayseed pettifoggers in our state legislature happened to disapprove of. You couldn’t buy booze back then in some Ohio counties that had voted themselves completely “dry” after the repeal of Prohibition, and Ohio’s notorious dry laws persist in some form on Sundays to this very day.

Speaking of the Seventh Day of Rest, I was once reprimanded by two farts masquerading as ladies for mowing my lawn on Sunday, in violation of what they termed “the Holy Sabbath”. They’re no doubt sporting MAGA signs on untended lawns right now.

So, it was just this sort of repressive social milieu that prompted the SCOTUS finally to recognize the right to privacy and strike down the last remaining state laws that banned contraceptives outright.

Is it any wonder then that the number of abortions in the US skyrocketed in the wake of Roe? It’s not anything like that high now, but soon may be once again if your cousins on the alt-right, themselves either safely on the Pill or menopausal, get their way and reinstate state bans on contraceptives in general, on the morning-after pill, not to mention on mifepristone and misoprostol.

[Rach3]

We all are risk from the neo-Nazis:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-lawsui ... 24613.html

Yahoo News
Tue, August 9, 2022, 10:47 AM

A lawsuit from Texas is trying to change the way the Affordable Care Act (ACA) forces health insurers to cover certain preventative care services.It specifically takes issue with health plans paying for birth control, HIV medication and testing for sexually transmitted diseases.

If the lawsuit prevails, millions of Americans could risk access to countless free medical services, including cancer screenings, birth control and childhood vaccinations.

A Texas lawsuit that hopes to eliminate mandated health insurance coverage of birth control, HIV medication, sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing and more has quietly been pushing forward through the court system and could eventually end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the case of Kelley v. Becerra, two plaintiffs from Texas argue that the current structure of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandates health insurance providers to cover certain preventative care they argue they do not need and that conflict with their religious beliefs — specifically, contraceptive coverage, STD testing and HIV medications Truvada or PrEP.

One of the lawsuit’s arguments leans on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without a compelling justification. Plaintiffs argue this right has been violated as both are Christian and unwilling to buy health insurance that subsidizes, “abortifacient contraception or PrEP drugs that encourage homosexual behavior and intravenous drug use.”

The lawsuit also takes issue with how the ACA defines preventative care, a decision-making process that has been assigned to various groups, including the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the Preventative Services Task Force and the Health Resources and Services Administration.

These groups have allowed for blood pressure screening, HIV screening, cancer screening, birth control, childhood vaccinations and more to be covered under most health insurance plans with no copays — meaning the services are free for enrolled members.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Plaintiffs take issue with this approach, arguing these groups have far-reaching powers that unilaterally decide what is defined as preventative care that health insurance plans must cover without any cost-sharing arrangements — such as copays.

Though religious exemptions have been allowed, most health insurance plans include coverage of preventative care like birth control and HIV medicines so the options for plans without those elements are few and far between.

The case reached Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas a few weeks ago in late July — the same judge who issued a ruling declaring the ACA was unconstitutional back in 2018.


O’Connor is expected to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and if that happens, the ACA’s preventative services requirement would become voluntary — meaning health insurers could opt out of offering those services or begin charging for them.

However, there are other outcomes possible, including handing the case over to the Supreme Court.

That could also have grave consequences for the ACA, as the court’s conservative justices ruled on a separate case in 2020 that also centered on the ACA’s preventative care rules, Little Sisters v. Pennsylvania.

In the case, Justice Clarence Thomas specifically addressed one of the groups charged with defining preventative care for the ACA, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), writing it had, “virtually unbridled discretion to decide what counts as preventative care and screenings.”

Health care providers have raised alarm bells over Kelley v. Becerra, like the American Medical Association (AMA), alongside 20 other medical trade groups, which stressed how popular the preventative care measure of the ACA has been — with an estimated 151.6 million people receiving free preventative care in 2020 alone.

An adverse ruling would mean millions of Americans would lose access to “vital preventive health care services, such as screening for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, preeclampsia, and hearing, as well as well child visits and access to immunizations critical to maintaining a healthy population,” wrote the AMA.

A coalition of 20 attorneys general also filed an amicus brief in the Kelley v. Becerra case that defended key provisions of the ACA. It argued that not only have public health outcomes more broadly improved since the ACA’s preventative services provision was implemented, but states have also come to rely on those provisions to build and strengthen their own public health systems.

[maestrob]

Only in Texas...

Incidentally, "preventative" is not a word, in spite of its widespread usage. The correct word is "preventive."

Just thought I'd nitpick.