Hacker News Reader

Comment by encryptluks2 | Hacker News Reader

> These abortion providers are forgetting an important component of having an at-home abortion,

Nobody is forgetting anything. These healthcare providers are pursuing a harm minimization strategy in the face of laws they believe will deter women from engaging with healthcare professionals.

Anyhow, many other European countries have long heavily relied on at-home, pharmaceutical abortifacients precisely because (and this is probably surprising to most Americans) most European countries actually have more restrictive laws regarding abortion than those to which the majority of the U.S. population are subject--i.e. relative to laws in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, etc. So the track record on outcomes, risks, etc is quite clear from foreign experiences alone, not to mention the domestic record.

> (and this is probably surprising to most Americans) most European countries actually have more restrictive laws regarding abortion than those to which the majority of the U.S. population are subject

Not sure this is a fair assessment. It's true if you measure "restrictiveness" by number of weeks up until it's no longer allowed. In most European countries, 12 weeks is the limit for on-demand abortions (which aligns with the 11 week limit before which abortion pills can be safely and effectively used). [1] However, there are usually exceptions that allow abortions under certain circumstances after 12 weeks, and in many of these countries, abortion is covered under tax-funded healthcare and is offered free of charge.

Meanwhile, in the US, the only federal-level abortion ruling (Roe v. Wade) will soon be overturned. 13 states already have laws on the books that will completely ban abortions in all cases as soon as that happens. [2] And even while Roe was in effect, Texas still somehow managed to implement a ~6 week abortion ban (which is far more restrictive than almost every European country).

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/us-abo...

[2] https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-pol...

No, the risks is not clear from foreign experience alone:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/

Still failing to refute the central point: more harm is minimized by preventing an unwanted birth via abortion than via “caring about their mental health.”

Rhetorically, everyone recognizes that you’re just moving the goalposts by providing one onerous requirement after another.

That isn't my point here. The point is the critical need for mental health services to help some women deal with having an at-home abortion. It can be trauma inducing for some women. You can't pretend it simply doesn't exist when studies clearly indicate otherwise and then simultaneously say others are shifting the goal posts when you are doing just that.

I expect a lot of things to become more traumatic, given that the maternal death rate will probably increase even further, and it gets harder for women to get prenatal care.

Well now is the chance for Democrats to do something. Lets see if they are serious or are just looking for more votes.

Not sure where the "sued into oblivion" justification comes from. Most drugs have side effects, including mental ones. Providers aren't getting sued as long as they disclose them up front. Especially considering you need a prescription in the first place.

Physicians and prescription providers get sued all the time. It is a serious concern that that I've seen firsthand that can cause symptoms similar to postpartum depression, suicide thoughts, etc.

They get sued, sure. Anyone can sue for anything. Has a single doctor or provider been successfully sued because an FDA approved drug caused a side effect that they had disclosed to the patient?

I checked out the website listed, and it was no where on the front page about mental health.

Can you link to the stats on how often the suits are decided in favour or against or dismissed?

https://harrlawfirm.com/news/how-frequently-are-medical-malp....

> About 37% of plaintiffs are successful.

Also, bonus science articles about the rise of mental health risks with abortion:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...

Knowing what we know now, wouldn't follow-up services leave a paper trail for the civil suits?

versus the alternative of giving birth and raising a child you don’t want, which also doesn’t include mental health services and lasts roughly 18 years longer

I agree, the alternative is not ideal either but there are serious consequences either way and so ensuring that both needs are met should be a priority.

Of course, but thats a little higher in the hierarchy of needs here

Adoption

Yeah because the US has a wonderful foster/adoption/childcare system right? anti-abortion people always say adoption and then whine about taxes when they have to pay for it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com