Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for abortions and other treatments
bbc.com
bbc.com
The headline has pulled out abortion specifically for the clicks, all that's happening is Amazon isn't making its employee's healthcare choices for them.
So it's not just for the clicks. Abortion is a kind of healthcare which is illegal to provide in some places. If Amazon commits itself to defying those laws, that's a very big deal.
Shame on the BBC for intentionally sensationalizing this by deliberately pulling out abortion, when all that's happened is Amazon hasn't decided that it gets to choose what medical care its employees get.
An equivalent title, which will hopefully illustrate why your reaction is not reasonable, and is more a deliberately induced by BBC's choice of headline:
"Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for cancer and other treatments"
"Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for heart surgery and other treatments"
"Amazon will pay US staff travel expenses for organ donation and other treatments"
The war on abortion has always targeted indirect participants, they aren't going to stop doing that once they’ve been given the go-ahead to criminally punish the direct ones.
Also not relevant to what I said: This is paying for travel for all medical procedures, obsessing over one that you don't like - solution: don't have one - is kind of pointless.
The way I think about it is if I had a twin brother and he was dying and urgently needed a liver or a kidney and I could save his life by donating to him but it would clearly have lifelong consequences to me there would be no question that he had no right to my organs.
To me it's a question of personhood. Until the fetus can survive on its own the mother's health and thus choice must take precedence. Furthermore, we as a society (in the US) are not even taking care of the children already living. If someday every kid in the Us is fed, educated and loved maybe we'll have discovered a safe and easy way to remove an unwanted fetus, grow it in an artificial womb find them a loving and supportive home and this whole controversy will go away.
https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts
Anyways this is clearly an argument that will change very few minds and that's fine.
You need to alter your analogy such that you made some conscious decision that you knew could injure your twin brother, rendering him in need of one of your kidneys to live. At that point you have to show why it’s moral for you to withhold the organ donation.
This is gonna be fun.
Rulings like this clearly attack all women in America, which is over 50% of all Americans. They don't get to just ignore it. It was also realistically a planned ruling - from the GOP deliberating preventing the nomination of an SC under Obama (because it was a "lame duck" session, also "the replacement should also be conservative"), before placing their own appointment on the court, or when they then replaced RBG with a hyper conservative judge in a few weeks despite it being a lame duck session mere weeks prior to the election.
The reality is one major american party has stated, very clearly, that its core principles are: removing women's bodily autonomy (check), removing LGBT rights (multiple states have even started passing legislation to explicitly allow bullying LGBT kids at school), suppressing votes of non-white americans (even republican judges, appointed by republican controlled state governments, in republican states have repeatedly declared numerous actions taken by the GOP to be unconstitutional).
The fact that you're literally threatening to flag me, because you disagree with me politically, about a matter of whether all humans have rights no less, is quite revealing in of itself.
And yet a great many women voted for the person who put the definitive votes on this case. Including a majority of white women.
I concur with you that this constitutes women attacking other women. I'm merely pointing out that this is the case.
Nah, we should actually do something to reduce the need for abortions like vasectomies for every male in an anti-choice state. The procedure can be reversed once they can prove they are able to be an effective father, etc - and it causes less long term damage than forced pregnancies.
Goes to show how much they care, I guess?
But none of that matters, because the purpose of this ruling has nothing to do with protecting children, and everything to do with controlling women.
The single most effective thing you can do to reduce abortions, is comprehensive sex ed. Something that every conservative state fights tooth and nail, because it's more about forcing the religious belief of conservatives on children.
These "pro-child" states also offer the least support to pregnant mothers, don't cover the costs of *natal checkups and care, don't cover any kind of support after child birth, and then systematically defund education. They are very clearly anti-women, not pro-child.