Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
You're confused. That's not the media saying that. That's the media repeating one hundred years of social sciences research.bluefete wrote:The sad thing about the overturning of Roe v Wade is the narrative being spun by the media.
This is going to affect "minorities" the most because they do not have access to health care. You all know the coded inference of that saying.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 626866002/
This One is from Quite 2018
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... verturned/
In other words, we would not be able to murder / butcher "minority" unborns like before and that is going to interfere with our agenda.
Take it however you want.
adnj wrote:You're confused. That's not the media saying that. That's the media repeating one hundred years of social sciences research.bluefete wrote:The sad thing about the overturning of Roe v Wade is the narrative being spun by the media.
This is going to affect "minorities" the most because they do not have access to health care. You all know the coded inference of that saying.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 626866002/
This One is from Quite 2018
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... verturned/
In other words, we would not be able to murder / butcher "minority" unborns like before and that is going to interfere with our agenda.
Take it however you want.
Fact: women who are finanacially disadvantaged AND have unwanted pregnancies face educational and further financial hurdles as a consequence - even with newborn adoption as the goal. And even within universal healthcare systems.
In the United States, black and Latino minorities are disproportionately economically disadvantaged. Look at Central America, Malaysia or China and the same will hold true albeit with a somewhat different affected group.
Before you start reflex typing some shitt in rebuttal, run out there and find real proof that I'm wrong.
adnj wrote:You're confused. That's not the media saying that. That's the media repeating one hundred years of social sciences research.bluefete wrote:The sad thing about the overturning of Roe v Wade is the narrative being spun by the media.
This is going to affect "minorities" the most because they do not have access to health care. You all know the coded inference of that saying.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 626866002/
This One is from Quite 2018
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... verturned/
In other words, we would not be able to murder / butcher "minority" unborns like before and that is going to interfere with our agenda.
Take it however you want.
Fact: women who are finanacially disadvantaged AND have unwanted pregnancies face educational and further financial hurdles as a consequence - even with newborn adoption as the goal. And even within universal healthcare systems.
In the United States, black and Latino minorities are disproportionately economically disadvantaged. Look at Central America, Malaysia or China and the same will hold true albeit with a somewhat different affected group.
Before you start reflex typing some shitt in rebuttal, run out there and find real proof that I'm wrong.
bluefete wrote:adnj wrote:You're confused. That's not the media saying that. That's the media repeating one hundred years of social sciences research.bluefete wrote:The sad thing about the overturning of Roe v Wade is the narrative being spun by the media.
This is going to affect "minorities" the most because they do not have access to health care. You all know the coded inference of that saying.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 626866002/
This One is from Quite 2018
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... verturned/
In other words, we would not be able to murder / butcher "minority" unborns like before and that is going to interfere with our agenda.
Take it however you want.
Fact: women who are finanacially disadvantaged AND have unwanted pregnancies face educational and further financial hurdles as a consequence - even with newborn adoption as the goal. And even within universal healthcare systems.
In the United States, black and Latino minorities are disproportionately economically disadvantaged. Look at Central America, Malaysia or China and the same will hold true albeit with a somewhat different affected group.
Before you start reflex typing some shitt in rebuttal, run out there and find real proof that I'm wrong.
You are spewing from the same media / science garbage that is put out there for non-critical thinkers to believe. Some people's heads are really buried deep in the sand.
Them fellas does look ridiculous, but the kinda crap they get away with... Is Palpatine level power trading going on.The_Honourable wrote:Mitch McConnell might be an SOB but he's a smart and tough SOB to swing the Supreme Court conservative over the last few years.
The beatup over the next few days going to be epic.
DMan7 wrote:Hover would love this one.
viedcht wrote: Just wish I could live long enough to see that hot lil vixen aoc become President
shogun wrote:viedcht wrote: Just wish I could live long enough to see that hot lil vixen aoc become President
Dred, what it is about her f'real though? Something about her kinda damn sexy. Think her dance video when she was in college seal the deal for me. Yeah, AOC could geh it.
adnj wrote:bluefete wrote:adnj wrote:You're confused. That's not the media saying that. That's the media repeating one hundred years of social sciences research.bluefete wrote:The sad thing about the overturning of Roe v Wade is the narrative being spun by the media.
This is going to affect "minorities" the most because they do not have access to health care. You all know the coded inference of that saying.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 626866002/
This One is from Quite 2018
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... verturned/
In other words, we would not be able to murder / butcher "minority" unborns like before and that is going to interfere with our agenda.
Take it however you want.
Fact: women who are finanacially disadvantaged AND have unwanted pregnancies face educational and further financial hurdles as a consequence - even with newborn adoption as the goal. And even within universal healthcare systems.
In the United States, black and Latino minorities are disproportionately economically disadvantaged. Look at Central America, Malaysia or China and the same will hold true albeit with a somewhat different affected group.
Before you start reflex typing some shitt in rebuttal, run out there and find real proof that I'm wrong.
You are spewing from the same media / science garbage that is put out there for non-critical thinkers to believe. Some people's heads are really buried deep in the sand.
THAT is another of your infamous reflex posts. Take your thumb out of your assholle and try to look up what you apparently have no fuckking clue about. "Science gabage" vs. what? Your personal opinion? That's pure - I love that shitt.
bluefete wrote:adnj wrote:bluefete wrote:adnj wrote:You're confused. That's not the media saying that. That's the media repeating one hundred years of social sciences research.bluefete wrote:The sad thing about the overturning of Roe v Wade is the narrative being spun by the media.
This is going to affect "minorities" the most because they do not have access to health care. You all know the coded inference of that saying.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 626866002/
This One is from Quite 2018
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... verturned/
In other words, we would not be able to murder / butcher "minority" unborns like before and that is going to interfere with our agenda.
Take it however you want.
Fact: women who are finanacially disadvantaged AND have unwanted pregnancies face educational and further financial hurdles as a consequence - even with newborn adoption as the goal. And even within universal healthcare systems.
In the United States, black and Latino minorities are disproportionately economically disadvantaged. Look at Central America, Malaysia or China and the same will hold true albeit with a somewhat different affected group.
Before you start reflex typing some shitt in rebuttal, run out there and find real proof that I'm wrong.
You are spewing from the same media / science garbage that is put out there for non-critical thinkers to believe. Some people's heads are really buried deep in the sand.
THAT is another of your infamous reflex posts. Take your thumb out of your assholle and try to look up what you apparently have no fuckking clue about. "Science gabage" vs. what? Your personal opinion? That's pure - I love that shitt.
Make it make sense, nah!
“Abortion restrictions are racist,” said Cathy Torres, an organizing manager with Frontera Fund, a Texas organization that helps women pay for abortions. “They directly impact people of color, Black, brown, Indigenous people ... people who are trying to make ends meet.”
https://apnews.com/article/abortion--su ... 37305df5e2
Reflex posts you say:
Let me tell you something - ALL data marginalize one group more than others. When sampling a smaller population, your percentages will be larger.
ALL the data put out is NEGATIVE! There is nothing positive when it comes to one particular group. It is just sickening. Go on. Read the stats below.
And in EVERY case, across the board, IT IS THE WOMAN'S FAULT: For not having access to medical care, for failing to prevent herself from getting pregnant, for not accessing high quality contraceptives and the list goes on.
Let's look at the stats:
Primary nationwide abortion statistics for the United States are available from two sources—privately from the Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and publicly from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Guttmacher’s numbers, published every three years, come from direct surveys of all known and suspected abortion providers in the United States. The CDC numbers, published annually, are derived from actual counts of every abortion reported to state health departments.
https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_a ... tatistics/
The usual stories:
RELEVANT DATA AND ANALYSIS
Disparities in Unintended Pregnancy and Medicaid Coverage
Low-income people and people of color are more likely than other groups to experience unintended pregnancy and abortion—and people of color are more likely to rely on Medicaid.
Women of color are more likely than White women to be low income and enrolled in Medicaid. In 2018, 31% of Black women and 27% of Hispanic women aged 15–44 were enrolled in Medicaid, compared with 16% of White women.1
Women of color are much more likely than White women to experience unintended pregnancy. In 2011, Black and Hispanic women had an unintended pregnancy rate of 79 and 58 per 1,000 women, respectively, compared with a rate of 33 per 1,000 among White women.3
https://www.guttmacher.org/evidence-you ... e-abortion
Am J Public Health. 2013 October; 103(10): 1772–177
Disparities in Abortion Rates: A Public Health Approach
Christine Dehlendorf, MD, MAS,corresponding author Lisa H. Harris, MD, PhD, and Tracy A. Weitz, PhD, MPA
Women of lower socioeconomic status and women of color in the United States have higher rates of abortion than women of higher socioeconomic status and White women. Opponents of abortion use these statistics to argue that abortion providers are exploiting women of color and low socioeconomic status, and thus, regulations are needed to protect women.
This argument ignores the underlying causes of the disparities. As efforts to restrict abortion will have no effect on these underlying factors, and instead will only result in more women experiencing later abortions or having an unintended childbirth, they are likely to result in worsening health disparities
In 2008, the abortion rate for non-Hispanic White women was 12 abortions per 1000 reproductive-age women, compared with 29 per 1000 for Hispanic women, and 40 per 1000 for non-Hispanic Black women.
In the past several years, the differences in rates of abortion have received increasing political attention, with those opposed to abortion rights citing differences in abortion rates as evidence of the diabolical nature of the “abortion industry.”
Abortion rights opponents point to racial/ethnic differences in abortion rates as evidence of racism and coercion among those who support the right to obtain abortions.3,4
Not only do these messages explicitly blame those providing abortion for targeting communities of color, they also assign guilt to women of color who decide to have abortions by implying that they are falling victim to a racist conspiracy.
Differences in abortion rates by income are also seen as evidence of exploitation by abortion providers, who are claimed to be aggressively profiting from public funding of abortion for low-income women.5
Although there is no evidence of racial targeting6 or routine profiteering by abortion providers, from the perspective of those who espouse these views, the problem of disparities in abortion rates can only be solved by limiting access to and utilization of abortion services.
National studies have consistently shown that Black adolescents initiate intercourse at younger ages than White adolescents.30,31 By contrast, Hispanics have the oldest mean age of sexual initiation, at age 18 years.
A recent analysis of a nationally representative survey indicated that skepticism about the motivation of family planning providers is widespread; 42% of Blacks and 51% Hispanics surveyed believed that the government promotes birth control to limit minorities, compared with only 25% of Whites.70
Finally, women of color have been found to be more likely to perceive themselves to be infertile, which may decrease their motivation to use contraception.71
In fact, these fears of infertility are not unfounded as women of color and low-SES women have substantially higher rates of infertility than White women and women of higher SES.(WTAF????)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780732/
Pew Research on Abortion in the USA (2022):
In the District of Colombia and 29 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to the CDC, 38% of all women who had abortions in 2019 were non-Hispanic Black, while 33% were non-Hispanic White, 21% were Hispanic, and 7% were of other races or ethnicities.
A pie chart showing that in 2019, most abortions were for women who had never had one before
Among those ages 15 to 44, there were 23.8 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic Black women; 11.7 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women; 6.6 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic White women; and 13 abortions per 1,000 women of other races or ethnicities in that age range, the CDC reported from those same 29 states and the District of Colombia.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... the-u-s-2/
Guttmacher Policy Review
Volume 11, Issue 3, Summer 2008
Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture
Susan A. Cohen
At every income level, black women have higher abortion rates than whites or Hispanics, except for women below the poverty line, where Hispanic women have slightly higher rates than black women.
Among the poorest women, Hispanics are the most likely to experience an unintended pregnancy. Overall, however, black women are three times as likely as white women to experience an unintended pregnancy; Hispanic women are twice as likely.
Because black women experience so many more unintended pregnancies than any other group—sharply disproportionate to their numbers in the general population—they are more likely to seek out and obtain abortion services than any other group.
In addition, because black women as a group want the same number of children as white women, but have so many more unintended pregnancies, they are more likely than white women to terminate an unintended pregnancy by abortion to avoid an unwanted birth.
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2008/08/ ... er-picture
adnj wrote:Fact: women who are finanacially disadvantaged AND have unwanted pregnancies face educational and further financial hurdles as a consequence - even with newborn adoption as the goal. And even within universal healthcare systems.
In the United States, black and Latino minorities are disproportionately economically disadvantaged. Look at Central America, Malaysia or China and the same will hold true albeit with a somewhat different affected group.
Dizzy28 wrote:Any of the trinis who vex about the US judgement planning anything here for our even more Draconian abortion laws?
Would like to attend
teems1 wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Any of the trinis who vex about the US judgement planning anything here for our even more Draconian abortion laws?
Would like to attend
Trinidad copies what the US does, which is why big changes like this affect us.
Take any homophobic church goer, let them go spend 2 weeks in NYC with their relatives, and they come back thinking gay people aren't so bad after they've been exposed to them.
Lord knows when we will update our archaic laws, especially that idiotic summary offenses actDizzy28 wrote:teems1 wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Any of the trinis who vex about the US judgement planning anything here for our even more Draconian abortion laws?
Would like to attend
Trinidad copies what the US does, which is why big changes like this affect us.
Take any homophobic church goer, let them go spend 2 weeks in NYC with their relatives, and they come back thinking gay people aren't so bad after they've been exposed to them.
This can't affect us until we actually do something to our law. Outrage can't and doesn't trump the legislation of a country.
A 10-year-old girl was denied an abortion in Ohio after the Supreme Court ruled last week that it was overturning Roe v. Wade, demonstrating the tangible impacts that the high court’s decision is having on patients seeking access to the medical procedure.
A child abuse doctor in Ohio contacted Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indiana, after receiving a 10-year-old patient who was six weeks and three days pregnant, the Indianapolis Star reported.
That patient is now heading west to Indiana given that an abortion ban in Ohio, which prohibits the medical procedure when fetal cardiac activity begins, around six weeks, had become effective quickly after the high court issued its decision.
Ohio is among a number of states that have rolled back abortion access since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/
RedVEVO wrote:^^
Biden cannot do anything - it's all politics for the Democrats
The Judges just said this is not a constitutional matter and the Federal Gov't should not meddle .
Each State will now decide on how to handle this matter per it's constituents .
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 227 guests