Huh. Who'd have thought that making abortions illegal would force people to have dangerous illicit abortions and have to hide the evidence.
But, yeah, actually, this is way more access than most women in this country have to an abortion. Kudos, Nebraska.
However, in February the state failed to pass a trigger law that would've banned all abortions when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Nebraska legislators have indicated they may call a special session to try again to pass the bill.
Also, despite all those bogus studies (which, for example, don't correct for how much rule of law is upheld when comparing countries), it will reduce the total number of late-stage abortions significantly. That's a win in my books.
Citation required.
Numerous legitimate studies show that limited/no access to abortions leads to more at-home/back-alley abortions[1,2].
They also show that abortion bans will lead to higher maternal mortality rate [3].
But go off and pat yourself on the back for fetuses having more value than the incubation receptacle they're within.
1: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... 2:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1... 3: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/06/30/abortion-bans-incr...
Abortions don't just spontaneously happen. Your style of carefully-worded rhetoric is intentional in that it gives people an impression like they just do. They don't; the mother makes knowing decisions to terminate the life of her child. Now, several states greatly restrict these intentional, knowing, conscious decisions.
1: https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gynecology-and-obs...
2: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020...
3: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/unders...
4: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-los....
The first Lancet one has this as a finding:
> The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05)
They don't seem to have corrected for other factors like rule of law, income, and level of economic development.
The second Lancet one also suffers from the same issue (though at least acknowledge the rule if income), and the authors reveal their biases very soon:
> We developed a new statistical model that jointly estimated unintended pregnancy and abortion that aimed to better inform efforts towards global equity in sexual and reproductive health and rights.
The last one's [1] conclusions seem like they could be broadly correct. If no abortion is allowed at all, you'd expect more maternal deaths. However, the actual amount is disputable as this is based on modelling not concrete data. Additionally, they seem to be assuming a total ban on abortion, which doesn't seem realistic to me.
> But go off and pat yourself on the back for fetuses having more value than the incubation receptacle they're within.
Finally, we need to avoid personal attacks if we are going to have a fruitful discussion.
"Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US. ... Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion." (https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortion...)