Mississippi's De facto Abortion Ban

"This legislation is an important step in strengthening abortion regulations and protecting the health and safety of women," he said after Wednesday's vote, in a statement.

Click to expand...

I hate it when they try to pass off garbage like this as being in the interest of women. The blatant lies, the shamelesness of it, it's horrifying.

Teinz said:

I hate it when they try to pass off garbage like this as being in the interest of women. The blatant lies, the shamelesness of it, it's horrifying.

Click to expand...

Not to mention how patronizing it is, or how offensive that the best people to make decisions about women's healthcare are 60 year old male attorneys. It's ludicrous; the average woman probably knows at least ten times as much about pregnancy and women's health as the average man. My husband and dad are really smart people, and have, I'm guessing, 40 IQ points on these guys, and I am sometimes shocked at what they don't know. Like, for example, they had no clue what an ectopic pregnancy was until I told them, or that tubal litigation is a much more invasive procedure than a vasectomy. It isn't part of their lives so they are completely clueless. How many men have a blessed clue what a chemical pregnancy is, or how birth control pills or pregnancy tests work, or can name a single hormone involved in pregnancy, or...?

In their minds, they may very well be protecting poor little women who cannot possibly have any foresight about the potential emotional effects of abortion due to the inadequacy of their little pink lady brains. But that doesn't change the fact that they are misogynists in the first place for thinking that they know more about what abortion means than women do. Hence, the vast majority of female pro-lifers are much more nuanced about the issue than male pro-lifers. Male pro-lifers are dangerous; the women are typically less so, unless they've internalized the misogyny that's almost inherent to the male version. JMHO.

Anyway, I hate these misogynistic mouth-breathing douchehammers with the fire of a million suns, and it's all the worse because MS is my home state.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Speaking as an ignorant cowardly man who sat as helpless and terrified husband through two very normal pregnancies where I couldn't do anything to help and had no real understanding of what was happening (no sarcasm. That's what it was like),

Click to expand...

I completely understand.

When you read historical fiction novels and there's the whole, "no men allowed in the birthing chamber" thing, that was the normal state of affairs and there was a really good reason for it. It wasn't that men had no vested interest in the outcome or that they didn't love their wives and babies enough to personally involve themselves, so culture just evolved that way; it was because men would panic at a completely normal birthing, escalating tensions and causing worse outcomes for all involved. Women, not men, made this decision. Now that childbirth is a lot safer, men being involved is not such a bad thing, except for the man.

I'd say there's a lot of willful blindness going on from a lot of men.

Willful blindness leads to arrogance (Dunning-Kruger again), and a desire to control. None of this excuses one dram of this kind of behavior, what I'm trying to get at is the ease with which the willfully blind can lead the willfully blind to create disgraceful laws and attitudes like this one.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I really don't know how the ignorance can be anything but willful. I do wonder if they (male pro-lifers) believe that they are the ones who can be truly objective because it's not personal for them or something - they'd be wrong, because they're not being objective at all in their valuations of pregnancies, and of course, they understand far less about them than women do, as a group...

I do wonder if it doesn't begin with willful ignorance, and that what's really going on here is a male tendency for jealousy towards women because we get to create life. I've often wondered if men in general get rather envious at how we experience pregnancy in a much deeper sense than they'll ever get to know, and if this envy, when evilly manifested, results in men wanting to punish women for it, or wanting to assert their control over it. I think this narrative framework makes certain historical events make a lot more sense.

In short, I wonder if what's going on here is not that these men really don't like abortion, but that in their heart of hearts, what they really don't like is that women get to make all the decisions about everything involved with pregnancy and the creation of life, and they desperately want that power for themselves. Then the willful ignorance comes in with the lies they tell themselves to rationalize away those abhorrent desires.

This narrative lens makes a lot of the weirdness of the pro-life movement make more sense to me, such as, for example, why so many of them hate birth control even though birth control prevents abortions; why so many want to starve out Planned Parenthood networks that don't even provide abortions; why so many pro-life men tend to hate pro-choicers a lot more than they hate the women who actually have abortions...

RichardGarfinkle said:

It's not just in the pro-life movement. One of the most disturbing things I found about pre-natal classes was something from the natural childbirth movement.

Click to expand...

There's tons of internalized misogyny within the natural childbirth/pro-breastfeeding/etc. movement. I am frankly astounded that someone else in the universe sees it. I'm always trying to explain to my girl friends that I'm not saying that natural childbirth or breastfeeding isn't good, but that the internalized misogyny that says you are a failure or a bad mum for choosing otherwise is a big problem. Rather than being decisions about what's best for you, your individual wants and needs and circumstances, it becomes "right" versus "wrong." It's another variation of not trusting the individual woman, ergo: misogyny, or perhaps at best, sexism. Almost nobody gets it, probably due to the fact that this movement started out as feminist; the whole point was to take the power from doctors and companies and put it back in the hands of mothers. The misogynist corruption has been quite insidious.

I could tangent on about this forever, but I'm going to exercise remarkable self-restraint and stop here.

"Mississippi lawmakers passed a bill Wednesday that would require any physician performing abortions in the state to be a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and to have admitting privileges at an area hospital."

So, um, does anyone know what the CURRENT qualifications are for performing abortions in Mississippi?

rwam said:

"Mississippi lawmakers passed a bill Wednesday that would require any physician performing abortions in the state to be a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and to have admitting privileges at an area hospital."

So, um, does anyone know what the CURRENT qualifications are for performing abortions in Mississippi?

Click to expand...

They're mostly the same as in most other states. There's no reason a nurse practitioner can't perform abortions without complicated extenuating medical circumstances, and there's no reason to require admitting privileges at an area hospital (for the same reason that, say, your oral surgeon does not need admitting privileges at a local hospital). This is just a transparent effort to shut down Mississippi's lone abortion provider (at which, by the way, all of the doctors fly in from other states).

CNN article said:

The bill is in a period for comment before it will be sent to Republican Gov. Phil Bryant, who has said he wants Mississippi to become "abortion-free."

Click to expand...

No place is ever going to be "abortion-free" until there are no unplanned pregnancies. If that's really what the Governor wants, he should be trying to improve sex education and availability of contraception in his benighted state.

Yorkist said:

They're mostly the same as in most other states. There's no reason a nurse practitioner can't perform abortions without complicated extenuating medical circumstances, and there's no reason to require admitting privileges at an area hospital (for the same reason that, say, your oral surgeon does not need admitting privileges at a local hospital). This is just a transparent effort to shut down Mississippi's lone abortion provider (at which, by the way, all of the doctors fly in from other states).

Click to expand...

Is said nurse practitioner proficient at stopping unplanned hemmorhaging? I'm almost sorry I looked under this rock.

rwam said:

Is said nurse practitioner proficient at stopping unplanned hemmorhaging? I'm almost sorry I looked under this rock.

Click to expand...

Uh... You do know that nurse practitioners often perform routine minor surgeries, right? And that most abortions are medical rather than surgical in nature, and involve taking a pill, prescribed by a nurse practitioner, and later miscarrying at home, right? And that nurse practitioners are licensed in all states to prescribe medication, right? And you do know that it's perfectly legal (at least in most states, not sure about all) for midwives to supervise childbirth with no doctor present, though childbirth is far more likely than abortion to result in hemorrhaging? You know that, right?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're a man. Thanks for proving my point for me, dude. You unintentionally completely nailed it at every level. Bravo.

And by the way, if there were anything unsafe about the way that abortions are currently performed, the providers' malpractice insurance would red flag it far before a bunch of middle aged male attorneys with ZERO medical knowledge and ZERO knowledge about women's health care from even a user's perspective.

Yorkist said:

I completely understand.

When you read historical fiction novels and there's the whole, "no men allowed in the birthing chamber" thing,...and there was a really good reason for it.... it was because men would panic at a completely normal birthing, escalating tensions and causing worse outcomes for all involved.....

Click to expand...

That's the most misandrist thing that I've read today.

Yorkist said:

(for the same reason that, say, your oral surgeon does not need admitting privileges at a local hospital)..

Click to expand...

Actually most out patient surgery centers do have that requirement. The ones that don't have far higher insurance premiums.

Yorkist said:

I do wonder if it doesn't begin with willful ignorance, and that what's really going on here is a male tendency for jealousy towards women because we get to create life. I've often wondered if men in general get rather envious at how we experience pregnancy in a much deeper sense than they'll ever get to know, and if this envy, when evilly manifested, results in men wanting to punish women for it, or wanting to assert their control over it. I think this narrative framework makes certain historical events make a lot more sense.

Click to expand...

I agree. It's the one thing we can't do. And indeed, this male feeling of inequality has been a leitmotif for a lot of the repressive actions of men against women.

Especially in religion. I mean, Yahweh has chosen men to do his bidding. He is mentioned in the bible as being male himself. God the Father in Christianity needs no explaining. Even Jesus called him "abba". I'm pretty sure the same goes for Allah in Islam.

It's easy to understand male logic in this. Why are women capable of creating life, when we can't? God chose us, created us first, we are most important in his creation; why can't we give birth?

And then jealousy kicks in. It's like the spoiled child which, on his own birthday and buried in gifts, throws a tantrum because he can't have the toy of his little sister. And so the sister can't play with it, because parents want to keep the peace.

I wonder how pregnancy and giving birth are seen in more matriarchal societies.

Arizona is trying to beat Mississippi in the idiotic misogyny race. Arizona Lawmakers Trying To Legislate Pregnancy Two Weeks Prior To Conception.

It's getting harder and harder to tell reality from satire.

so upsetting

GeorgeK said:

That's the most misandrist thing that I've read today.

Click to expand...

Um. No, there's no hatred for men either in the concept, historically, or in my phrasing of it. Childbirth used to be a lot more dangerous. Men have a much greater propensity to panic at it than women do, because they don't understand nearly as well what's going on.* (There's a reason why the stereotype of the man fainting during childbirth exists, and that's because it happens a lot. My own dad fainted at my birth, I know this for a fact.) Women in the midst of labor do not do as well when people around them aren't calm. Ergo, men were kept out of the business, because the protection of the mother (and child, too, but especially mother) was paramount.

Saying that this is misandrist is like me calling someone misogynistic because they say that I don't understand what it's like for men with *insert male-only issue here such as ED*, and that female presence messes up X in that regard.

*And, if I may speculate here, men are conditioned by society to DO something to fix a problem, and in the situation of childbirth where there is nothing that they can do, they probably tend to get quite freaked out. But I don't know that, I just wonder.

Actually most out patient surgery centers do have that requirement. The ones that don't have far higher insurance premiums.

Click to expand...

First: cite? Second: again, most abortions are medical, not surgical. Third: regardless, abortion is one surgery for which the medical risk is very low. Fourth: that ain't the law.

Alessandra Kelley said:

I was shocked a few weeks back (during the Rush Limbaugh story, where he betrayed his own utter ignorance) at how many men -- some of them quite well-educated and aware of women's issues -- were completely clueless about how birth control pills worked and how and how often they were taken and their hormonal effects and how they were good for some serious medical conditions apart from pregnancy and how many women relied on them and how much they cost and basically everything about what they were and were for.

I mean, I've never even taken the things and I have known how they work since I was a teenager.

Most people of either gender have at least a passing understanding of men's health issues. It is startling to run across people with almost no understanding of women's health issues.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and same here (that's why I polled my male loved ones about topics like "chemical pregnancies" and "tubal litigations"). I think it's because male is universal and female is "other."

Teinz said:

I agree. It's the one thing we can't do. And indeed, this male feeling of inequality has been a leitmotif for a lot of the repressive actions of men against women.

Especially in religion. I mean, Yahweh has chosen men to do his bidding. He is mentioned in the bible as being male himself. God the Father in Christianity needs no explaining. Even Jesus called him "abba". I'm pretty sure the same goes for Allah in Islam.

It's easy to understand male logic in this. Why are women capable of creating life, when we can't? God chose us, created us first, we are most important in his creation; why can't we give birth?

Click to expand...

These were my precise thoughts.

I wonder how pregnancy and giving birth are seen in more matriarchal societies.

Click to expand...

I've read a few books about the history of women in medicine, and one thing that's interesting about the Middle Ages in western Europe is that prior to the 14th or 15th century, women did almost all of the doctorin' in society. The female heads of households served as basically general practitioners, and midwives were specialists. Then the church didn't like that and essentially banned women from practicing medicine and started doing things like, oh, burning women at the stake for taking drugs to aid in easing labor pains.

Romantic Heretic said:

Arizona is trying to beat Mississippi in the idiotic misogyny race. Arizona Lawmakers Trying To Legislate Pregnancy Two Weeks Prior To Conception.

It's getting harder and harder to tell reality from satire.

Click to expand...

I think this is probably due to ignorance rather than malice. Yeah, how could there possibly be a problem when you have a bunch of male non-doctors legislating women's health care?

Yorkist said:

Uh... You do know that nurse practitioners often perform routine minor surgeries, right? And that most abortions are medical rather than surgical in nature, and involve taking a pill, prescribed by a nurse practitioner, and later miscarrying at home, right? And that nurse practitioners are licensed in all states to prescribe medication, right? And you do know that it's perfectly legal (at least in most states, not sure about all) for midwives to supervise childbirth with no doctor present, though childbirth is far more likely than abortion to result in hemorrhaging? You know that, right?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're a man. Thanks for proving my point for me, dude. You unintentionally completely nailed it at every level. Bravo.

And by the way, if there were anything unsafe about the way that abortions are currently performed, the providers' malpractice insurance would red flag it far before a bunch of middle aged male attorneys with ZERO medical knowledge and ZERO knowledge about women's health care from even a user's perspective.

Click to expand...

Just popping my head in to say I'm a woman, and I didn't know any of that. I mean, I'm well aware of the "morning after pill" aka "Plan B" but that doesn't even require a prescription nowadays and has to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse. It's not an "abortion pill" however as it prevents the sperm from implanting on the ovum rather than terminate an already fertilized zygote.

I'll also point out that although I have a degree in Animal Science, human medical goings on churn my stomach, so I generally, willfully I'll admit, stay ignorant of medical issues unless I or someone I know suffers from them. I'm cool with animals (I've amputated limbs, spayed, castrated, artificially inseminated, etc), but humans? Just the thought of human bodily fluid and tissues makes me want to vomit. Yeah, I'm weird. I'm the kid who literally tried to crawl out of the classroom during "The Miracle of Life" in the 8th grade. I avoid all doctors like the plague--a never ending source of frustration for my husband.

Anyway, I'm especially ignorant women's health issues (go ahead, turn away in disgust) because they creep me out the most (pregnant bellies, ughhhhh). I have no desire to ever have kids and only go to the gyno (I'm 29 and still refer to them as the "bad" doctor and only recently got to the point where I don't cry every single time I have to get naked save for that flimsy paper gown *shudders*) when some sort of medical issue arises.

As a matter of fact, I had to go this week because of a cyst and the nurse practitioner saw me. Which lead to a discussion with my husband (who's mom is a nurse) about what an NP does and can do and how it's different from a physician's assistant. So yeah, all that to say, it's not just men who are in the dark.

Also, I just saw this:

Quote:
Actually most out patient surgery centers do have that requirement. The ones that don't have far higher insurance premiums.

First: cite? Second: again, most abortions are medical, not surgical. Third: regardless, abortion is one surgery for which the medical risk is very low. Fourth: that ain't the law.

Click to expand...

And wanted to say my own oral surgery took place at a hospital. So did everyone I know. My husband is having his out in a couple weeks and it will be in a hospital as well. Just my personal experience with that.

Stiger05 said:

Just popping my head in to say I'm a woman, and I didn't know any of that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and look at you over there not making condescending comments indicating how much more you supposedly know about women's health care than the women you are discussing it with. You wouldn't do that, because you know enough about women's health care to know how little you know. Basically, Dunning-Kruger. That's how he illustrated my point.

I don't know a lot about women's health care, either, but I know a hell of a lot more than the average male legislator, who knows less than nothing.

I mean, I'm well aware of the "morning after pill" aka "Plan B" but that doesn't even require a prescription nowadays and has to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse. It's not an "abortion pill" however as it prevents the sperm from implanting on the ovum rather than terminate an already fertilized zygote.

Click to expand...

Then I think you are leagues ahead of the average legislator.

And wanted to say my own oral surgery took place at a hospital. So did everyone I know. My husband is having his out in a couple weeks and it will be in a hospital as well. Just my personal experience with that.

Click to expand...

Actually, now that I think about that, oral surgery requires general anasthesia usually - abortion doesn't - so that's probably not the best example. Dermatologists, which do perform some routine, low-risk surgeries that don't require general anasthesia, are a better example. Dermatologists don't have admitting privileges at a local hospital most of the time.

Anyway, this legislation is clearly trying to drive up the cost of abortion by treating it as a speshul class of medicine, under the guise of protecting women. Maybe the individuals involved are telling themselves that it's to protect women, but it ain't so, and frankly, they don't know enough about the subject to be tinkering around with it.

I just had three of my wisdom teeth pulled in November and it was done in a private office. Most everyone I know has had theirs pulled in an office as well. The only ones who have had theirs pulled by a dentist in a hospital did so only because that dentist was the only one who took their insurance.

I'd comment on the OP, but I'm not sure I can and remain civil. The more I read stories like this, the more I wish for an asteroid to reset everything.

rwam said:

So, um, does anyone know what the CURRENT qualifications are for performing abortions in Mississippi?

Click to expand...

From te original link, which notes Mississippi has only one abortion clinic:

The clinic's owner, Diane Derzis, said in a telephone interview that all her doctors are obstetrician-gynecologists, but only one has admitting privileges at an area hospital.

Click to expand...

It seems hard to not come to the conclusion that the law was written for no other reason but to make abortions more difficult to obtain.

I can see, for example, a hospital which receives any state money refusing admitting privileges to any doctor who provided abortions.

Anaquana said:

I just had three of my wisdom teeth pulled in November and it was done in a private office. Most everyone I know has had theirs pulled in an office as well. The only ones who have had theirs pulled by a dentist in a hospital did so only because that dentist was the only one who took their insurance.

I'd comment on the OP, but I'm not sure I can and remain civil. The more I read stories like this, the more I wish for an asteroid to reset everything.

Click to expand...

All my dental procedures were done in office as well - all 4 wisdom teeth were pulled, and I had a soft tissue graft performed on my receding gum lines. Went under both times, in the office.

And ditto on the OP comment.

I would just like to stress that this isn't always a clean divide between men and women. There are trans men and female-bodied non-binary folks for whom women's health is a little closer to home. I'm not a woman, and I think I'd be pretty worthless assisting with a childbirth, but I like to think I know a decent amount about reproductive health. I'm hardly an expert, though. These are also laws that could potentially affect me, though I like to think my feelings would be similar even if there wasn't that danger.

Though, I definitely agree that as a rule, men don't relate to this stuff as much and aren't socialized to care. I wouldn't put myself in the role of deciding on women's health, and I don't think cisgender men belong in that role.