Women in the U.S. Can Now Get Safe Abortions by Mail | Hacker News Reader

Women in the U.S. Can Now Get Safe Abortions by Mail

theatlantic.com

18 pointscrunchiebones13 comments

I've always been very curious, that given that the American health insurance lobby is as powerful as it is, why it hasn't successfully lobbied for more accessible abortions. It seems that they stand to gain a lot if women who didn't want children didn't have them as the added stresses of having an unwanted child probably reduce long term health.

Because there's a large subset of people that believe God wants all children to live, and simultaneously believe once they're out, they're someone else's problem. They never seem to connect the two.

Did you read what you just said? You're saying there are those who want children to die..How do you justify this to yourself? Also, 'simultaneously believe once they're out, they're someone else's problem. They never seem to connect the two'. Do you have any proof of this? This simply isn't true. Not true at all. Many pro-life agencies work hand in hand with adoption providers to connect saved pregnancies with those who wish to adopt. Can you name even one abortion provider that does this? There are tens of thousands of couples wanting to adopt but can't due to the corruption of the adoption industry trying to make money. I've seen this first hand.

Before making a 'qualified' statement, get your facts straight first.

Uhh, given that anti-abortion politics goes hand-in-hand with opposition to any sort of public benefits for healthcare, its hard to take seriously the notion that pro-life is anything more than pro-birth

You're confusing the source of that -- the typical relationship between the two is a belief in personal responsibility.

For anyone with a stoic, scientific understanding there is a point where both beings become equal during gestation. This probably occurs somewhere around 20 weeks. However, <2% of abortions are had after this time. It is a necessary evil that nobody should feel responsible for unless they are directly involved (even then, the best choice out of two bad options).

You're arguing something completely orthogonal to what I said.

Yeah, caring about life until after gestation is just pro-birth; thanks for confirming that.

Infants don't have personal responsibility, so cutting programs that benefits children hurts them more than the parents.

No, it's pro-personal responsibility and pro not killing children.

The same thing goes for benefits programs -- nobody wants kids to be starving in the streets, but we would rather that people exercise personal responsibility in taking care of their own kids rather than expecting the rest of us to pay for their care.

Those positions are not opposed, and there's a lot of nuance in the whole welfare debate, it's not all or nothing.

So you're willing to let kids starve to prove a point to someone?

The Republican party.

How does this work, given prescriptions can only be issued by physicians licensed in a given state?

Also, how is issuing this particular drug(s) different from any other issued in telemedicine encounters? Why isn't this already prevalent?

She consults with patients online, writes the prescrip herself and fills it in India, then ships to patient for $95 with free customer service by phone or Skype. She is looking for funding to help those who can't pay the $95.

Every month or so, my gf and I always wonder if she's pregnant and what we would do to fix it. She has good insurance, but after copays and gas and time spent at a doctor's office, I bet the total close is very close to $95.

Anyone blocking this form of medicine is a sick individual. Would you tell a person with a broken back to take a walk down to the local pharmacy?

I hope not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com