[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

$1:

Exactly. Besides Republicans don’t seem to care about improving their abysmal child mortality rate so it’s unlikely they truly care about birth rates. It’s just another excuse for them to impose their Sharia law on us infidels.

Okay I know you are being sarcastic but your first sentence, total sarcasm or do you truly think Republicans ( I assume in Canada) are like that?

The US is rated badly as far as Child Mortality goes world wide. It think he's being sarcastic, but still has a point. Why ban abortion, but ignore child mortality?

(38th of 175)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... n_division

[Tricks]

Because addressing child mortality means addressing privatized health care.

[DrCaleb]

Which is why Beave laid it squarely on Republicans.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

Because addressing child mortality means addressing privatized health care.

Black people drive our child mortality rate figures even though they have access to significant subsidized health care resources.

I suppose you should be happy that they're #1 for abortions or else they'd probably add to that mortality rate.

Better to kill them before they're born than to have them skew the stats, right?

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicat ... 2asc%22%7D

Note that Hispanics (including illegal immigrants) have a lower mortality rate than native born blacks do yet the Hispanics as a group almost always have less access to health care than do the blacks.

(And a rational statistician would then start to rule out health care as the reason for the disparity)

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Black people drive our child mortality rate figures even though they have access to significant subsidized health care resources.

And are still the second least covered demographic.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

Because addressing child mortality means addressing privatized health care.

Black people drive our child mortality rate figures even though they have access to significant subsidized health care resources.

I suppose you should be happy that they're #1 for abortions or else they'd probably add to that mortality rate.

Better to kill them before they're born than to have them skew the stats, right?

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicat ... 2asc%22%7D

Note that Hispanics (including illegal immigrants) have a lower mortality rate than native born blacks do yet the Hispanics as a group almost always have less access to health care than do the blacks.

(And a rational statistician would then start to rule out health care as the reason for the disparity)

I love how Republicans just try to brush of their terrible social stats by saying ‘oh that’s mostly just black people so it doesn’t count’. As if Blacks aren’t Americans or something. But there’s no racism anymore rigjt ?

Also hasn’t your anti-abortion rant been largely based on how you’re saving black people? Seems a lot suspicious.

Your “access to significant health care resources” is also a lie. Everyone knows America’s health coverage is shit, especially for poor and minorities.

And yes, terminating an unwanted pregnancy is objectively better than giving birth to a child that can’t access the care it needs and watching that child die.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I'm still not sure why you were so intent on demonizing the The Daily Wire article though.

If you'd tried reading it instead, it might have helped you with your wishy-washy understanding of the bill.

Try this bit for instance:

$1:

French provides more in-depth coverage of the legalese surrounding the law's implications. “The heartbeat bill did not repeal a number of Georgia criminal statutes that explicitly apply to abortions and unborn children, and it does not overrule controlling legal authority holding that these statutes bar prosecution of a woman for terminating her own pregnancy,” the conservative columnist explained. He also went through explicit statutes:

First, there is a specific code section that applies to unlawful abortions. Georgia Code Section 16-12-140 states:

(a) A person commits the offense of criminal abortion when, in violation of Code Section 16-12-141 , he or she administers any medicine, drugs, or other substance whatever to any woman or when he or she uses any instrument or other means whatever upon any woman with intent to produce a miscarriage or abortion.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of criminal abortion shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.

“If a person performs an abortion in violation of the heartbeat bill, then Code Section 16-12-140 applies,” explained French, noting that the law “does not impose life imprisonment on anybody, and Georgia courts have held that it does not apply to a woman who self-terminates, only to third parties who perform an abortion.”

For example, the Court of Appeals of Georgia refused to prosecute a woman who shot herself in the stomach to kill her unborn baby, interpreting Section 16-12-140 thus: “This statute is written in the third person, clearly indicating that at least two actors must be involved.”

“Second,” said French, “the Georgia code section that criminalizes ‘feticide’ (such as when a man attacks a woman for the purpose of killing her unborn baby) specifically states that ‘nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of … any woman with respect to her unborn child.’”

We discussed all that at length now stop repeating yourself. It leaves the door open.

Well if we did why are you still finding it so difficult to admit that the Daily wire was right when it informed you regressive leftist websites like Slate were wrong when they took advantage of you and yours unfortunate gullibility by telling you women having abortions in Georgia would be going to jail for life.

The Daily Wire was correct. You were wrong. You owe them an apology for your trash-talking insults. Myself I forgive you but that's because I know that's all you've got.

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh and I see you're having trouble understanding another rather simplistic argument.

Perhaps I can help you with that one then.

Bart isn't simply saying 'stats don't count, cause black people.'

He replying to the argument that blames lack of free medical care for child mortality stats.

He's saying blacks do have access to government subsidised healthcare. Illegal immigrants more often do not. Therefore if black child mortality rates are higher than illegal immigrant child mortality then subsidized healthcare is not the problem.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Well if we did why are you still finding it so difficult to admit that the Daily wire was right when it informed you regressive leftist websites like Slate were wrong when they took advantage of you and yours unfortunate gullibility by telling you women having abortions in Georgia would be going to jail for life.

The Daily Wire was correct. You were wrong. You owe them an apology for your trash-talking insults. Myself I forgive you but that's because I know that's all you've got.

No both are speculating whether a legal argument to convict women would or would not be successful. Both possibilities exist because the Republican Taliban opted to leave it open. Given the American justice systems long and shameful track record of railroading defendants especially poor and minorities nothing can be definitely ruled out.

[N_Fiddledog]

See, now I'm having trouble understanding why you're telling me we already discussed the proof that what you're saying is false when you obviously didn't read it.

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh and I see you're having trouble understanding another rather simplistic argument.

Perhaps I can help you with that one then.

Bart isn't simply saying 'stats don't count, cause black people.'

He replying to the argument that blames lack of free medical care for child mortality stats.

He's saying blacks do have access to government subsidised healthcare. Illegal immigrants more often do not. Therefore if black child mortality rates are higher than illegal immigrant child mortality then subsidized healthcare is not the problem.

Thank you.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh and I see you're having trouble understanding another rather simplistic argument

I agree it is simplistic. Most idiotic arguments are.

$1:

if black child mortality rates are higher than illegal immigrant child mortality then subsidized healthcare is not the problem. (WINK WINK) .

FTFY

Do tell what is the problem with those black people?

Let’s be clear here “subsidized healthcare” in the US means that a week in the hospital only costs $20,000 due immediately upon receipt instead of the usual $100,000 and you practically have to be homeless to qualify for that shitty coverage.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh and I see you're having trouble understanding another rather simplistic argument

I agree it is simplistic. Most idiotic arguments are.

$1:

if black child mortality rates are higher than illegal immigrant child mortality then subsidized healthcare is not the problem. (WINK WINK) .

FTFY

Do tell what is the problem with those black people?

Let’s be clear here “subsidized healthcare” in the US means that a week in the hospital only costs $20,000 due immediately upon receipt instead of the usual $100,000 and you practically have to be homeless to qualify for that shitty coverage.

Okay, one more time.

You're trying to link availability of care to child mortality. Okay...

So blacks have greater access to care than do Hispanics yet the black child mortality rate is higher than that of the Hispanics.

I'm saying the reason for this is not linked to the availability of healthcare at all.

But if you just want to be a thick-headed moron (which would be your choice, of course) we can isolate our analysis just to the statistics at hand and then conclude that:

$1:

1) Black people have a higher child mortality rate than Hispanics have.

2) Black people have more access to subsidized healthcare than Hispanics have.

Sum: Subsidized healthcare is then the reason why black child mortality rates are higher the Hispanic child mortality rates.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

So blacks have greater access to care than do Hispanics yet the black child mortality rate is higher than that of the Hispanics.

Incorrect.

$1:

In recent years, blacks have had worse access to care than whites for about half of access measures used. During the first half of 2014, the percentage of adults ages 18–64 without health insurance decreased more quickly among blacks and Hispanics than whites, but differences in insurance rates between groups remained.

. . .

However, not all states have undergone Medicaid expansion under the ACA, with negative consequences for access and the health status of minorities and the poor. Texas and Mississippi—states with higher percentages of black populations—are among the 17 that have rejected Medicaid expansion [82]. According to the Kaiser Foundation, 40 % of eligible black adults live in states rejecting Medicaid expansion and are two-fold more likely than whites and Hispanics to remain uninsured

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5810013/

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

2) Black people have more access to subsidized healthcare than Hispanics have.

Sum: Subsidized healthcare is then the reason why black child mortality rates are higher the Hispanic child mortality rates.

Also, incorrect.

$1:

Infant mortality rates

Perhaps black infant mortality provides the most transparent view of black health. It has always been at least 2.5 times greater than the white rate since data have been recorded. The total rate for all ethnic groups has declined steadily since reporting was initiated, but the disparity between black and white infant mortality rates persists. Interestingly, there was a pause in the decline for all ethnic groups from 2000 to 2005. This pause was due mostly to the increase in “preterm” and “very preterm” births by minority mothers. In 2005, the infant mortality rates were 6.86/100,000 for all births, 5.76/100,000 for whites, and 13.6/100,000 for blacks.

The decline recommenced for the period 2005 to 2010. While the decline for the total population was 12 % during this period, the black infant mortality declined 16 %—the greatest decline for any ethnicity [39]. However, the total US infant mortality rate was 5.96 infant deaths per 1000 live births in 2013, and that for African American infants was 11.1 per 100,000 live births despite the recent progress [40]. The low birth weight (LBW) level was 6.98 % for non-Hispanic white women and 13.08 % for non-Hispanic black infants in 2013. And, in 2013, the rate of preterm deliveries was 1.6 times higher for African American women. In 2014, low birth weight and preterm births before 37 weeks gestation were the highest among black women, 13.17 and 11.1 %, respectively [37, 41].

In 2002, blacks trailed whites in women receiving prenatal care in the first trimester (75 vs. 89 %) [42]. In 2008, only 59.1 % of African American women giving birth to live babies had any prenatal care vs. 72.2 % of white women. 11.5 % of African Americans who received any prenatal care commenced in the third trimester [43].

Black women were also more likely to report not receiving advice from their prenatal care providers about smoking cessation and alcohol use. There was also less counseling regarding breast-feeding although the difference was not significant in this study [44]. As noted above, the gap between infant mortalities declined slightly between 2007 and 2010, but black infant mortality remains more than 200 % that of whites. Looking at the youngest mortalities, black infants have a significantly higher neonatal and post-neonatal mortality than any other ethnic group [45].

Most sources indicate that more than 75 % of all infants receive well baby care. Therefore, the differences in mortality are due to factors which have already made their impact at the time of birth, such as the health status of the parents at conception, genetics, and environment [46].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5810013/

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

Question... just curious

In these states that would make abortions illegal and if a woman gets an abortion... who would be breaking the law, the woman, the person aborting her or both?

Because if the woman is not breaking the law, she can just go elsewhere, out of state or out of country.

That's a legal gray area.

It used to be that US laws were enforceable upon people only within the jurisdiction of the law.

But then we had Americans getting prosecuted for sex crimes overseas (sex tourism) and that opened up Pandora's Box.

Now we have foreigners who never set foot on US soil being extradited and prosecuted in the US for acts that were not illegal in the jurisdiction where they took place.

Kim Dotcom famously was removed from New Zealand for acts that were not illegal in New Zealand.

Ergo, a woman who gets an abortion even in a state where abortion is legal could face prosecution in Alabama (for instance) even though she's never been to Alabama.

And to be clear, I do not support that possibility. Not at all.