Hacker News Reader

The problem is, even when there is never the plan of having an abortion, healthcare support for women suffers greatly from the abortion plans. Because it gets legally problematic for doctors to provide healthcare for women. Sooner or later you will have a patient with a medical emergency during a pregnancy. There are already enough incidents where critical ill women don't get medical treatment because they also are pregnant.

While I agree with you I think you are missing the point made by parent which is seems to me that it's not a psychologically pressing issue.

It still seems wild to me because I don't share that psychology but am probably biased because I live in a place with a social safety net and most criminals don't have access to guns here so crime is less scary to me : Muggings are rare probably because it's not very profitable and is more of desperate/drug-addict thing.

Being a drug dealer seems much more profitable and I don't feel targeted as a person. Shootings remain rare

And I was trying to make the point that it already is a pressing problem for any woman living in those states and of course any male who feels attached to them. Because medical support for women of any age is strongly decreasing.

> and most criminals don't have access to guns here so crime is less scary to me

I'm the parent and you did an excellent job of clarifying what I was trying to say.

I do want to respond to this statement, however, since I'm Canadian and in one of those countries where abortion is federally protected (and Canadians strongly favour that across partisan lines for the most part) and I live in what used to be one of the safest cities in Canada.

10 - 20 years ago, homicide was virtually unheard of in our city. I mean, it was like a once in a decade event and almost always domestic violence. Today, we can't go a week without hearing about another stabbing or shooting that happened out in public.

Recently our street saw every single vehicle broken into, including ours. We all filed police reports but no one ever showed up or even gave us a follow up call. The message was clear: the police either don't have the capacity or just don't care to deal with certain crimes now. To contrast, I remember my house being broken into when I was around 13 or 14 years-old, so mid 1990s, and I remember watching the detective powder the windows for prints.

Times have changed here in scary ways. We pay the same taxes and have the same expectations of our government as we always did. Canadians value the social safety nets and gun regulations that we have. The problem is that those don't seem to be working as well as they used to. We earn less due to inflation, pay the same or higher taxes, and get less in return. Most of us know of people who travel to the USA for health care due to our long waiting lists while hearing from Americans how great our free health care is.

What city is this? Toronto metro homicides have been ~100 per year for the last 50 years despite Toronto metro population skyrocketing. Basically all Canadian cities show the same pattern.

Abbotsford is my guess. That place went from a peaceful farming community to a gang warzone in 20 years. There are a LOT of targeted homicides there and it is very visible. I have family there and there have been multiple shootings within a few hundred meters of their home. How can you feel safe?

Almost all of the homicides are targeted gang violence between ethnic groups, but it still makes you concerned for your safety that you are going to take a stray bullet.

Abbotsford is basically metro Vancouver at this point, and they're basically experiencing Vancouver crime now. Crime going up in Abbotsford and going down in Vancouver is terrible for those in Abbotsford but doesn't support the narrative that "crime is going up".

The USA is sort of like two separate countries that share a common geography. Muggings and other violent street crime are largely confined to a handful of neighborhoods in certain cities. In my city we have literally zero shootings most years. So people have completely different experiences depending on where they live and end up talking past each other.

It has never been about it being "pressing", or even about ideology. It's about cold, calculated electoral math.

Abortion is what's called a Wedge Issue[1]. It is so because the public opinion on the US is divided roughtly 50% for it and 50% against it.

On top of that, the US presidential election is a First-past-the-post[2] system. So if I manage to get 52% of the votes and you only get 48%, I win everything, you lose everything. You can probably imagine where this is going: Instead of convincing 51% of the people I only need to convince 3% of the indecisive, and I win.

Finally, the US is a very polarized country. The "other" is always bad, "we" are always good. So the wedge issues tend to "align". If you and I agree on abortion, we will probably also agree in most of the other wedge issues.

All of these factors together result in that both Democrats and Republicans are forced to "optimize", so their campaigns all revolve around the same wedge issues. They must, if they want to win.

If you ask me, the least complex way to get the country out of this rut would be changing the voting system to something other First Past The Post.

Unfortunately, the people who are in a position to make such a change are the least motivated to make it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

rising crime rates.

What can you do about a low information voter?

they're not planning on needing an abortion ever, let alone any time soon.

People rarely plan to get an abortion. Setting that aside, more than anything, from a political perspective, this is an issue about freedom. I'm not planning on buying a firearm any time soon, but I wouldn't support a firearm ban (and thankfully, I don't have to worry about this because no mainstream politician is running on this policy). It doesn't matter what your thoughts about abortion are, women should have the freedom to have autonomy over themselves. Also, the anti-abortion laws are also preventing women from getting medicine for treating some chronic disease.

> What can you do about a low information voter?

I already explained this in another reply, but while crime rates might be going down across the board, I'm talking about what my daughters, my wife and their friends are telling me. And they are not low information voters, because crime rates are sky rocketing in our area and the data supports that. We live in what used to be considered one of the safest cities in all of Canada, and now we hear about a new shooting or stabbing in public just about every week. Mostly drug and gang related.

Everything else you said, especially about the abortion issue being a freedom issue, is preaching to the choir. I agree with you. I'm talking about the mindset of my wife, my daughters and their friends and what they say matters to them.

> What can you do about a low information voter?

Crime has increased in the US. The official numbers were wrong and were recently corrected, instead of dropping by 2% they actually increased by over 4%.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41859346

This is something that the average person saw. The only people who didn't were in a bubble.

The article you're linking to makes claims about FBI data, but its only evidence are links to and images created from another website [0], and not the FBI data it is referencing. Further, following the link, the site claims "the data is here" and links only to self hosted excel files and not to the referenced FBI data.

0 - A website which happens to have a conservative bias and has failed several fact checks according to Media Bias/Fact Check: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-cen...

And even if they were low by U.S. standard, they're still much higher than other countries, and much higher than people would like. Imagine if someone responded like that to other issues:

"I think we should do more to reduce childhood hunger."

"Childhood hunger is already lower than it used to be, you must be a low information voter."

**

"I think we should do more to reduce traffic fatalities."

"Traffic fatalities are already lower than they used to be, you must be a low information voter."

**

"I think we should reduce carbon emissions."

"Carbon emissions are already lower than they used to be, you must be a low information voter."

If these are important issues for you, you're not going to want to be on the same team with the people who respond like that.

The original discuss was around "rising crime rates", not "high crime rates". Even if you want to have this separate discussion, you're leaving out the obvious context of "crime rates are lower than they used to be when Trump was president immediately prior to this", so, if you think crime is too high, the answer is not someone who presided over even more crime.

> What can you do about a low information voter?

You can cite various statistics to a person up until the point their car or house is broken into. Or, until they don't feel safe at night any longer in the neighborhood they grew up.

We can double down and say these are "ignorant" voters, maybe even insult them, but I doubt that will help win them over. Even worse, it will alienate them.

At what point do you think you should look a little more locally for the problem when nationwide trends are going the other way?

Why do you think crime is down?

Looking at 12 month running averages from FBI UCR since 2012, crime has been in a generally increasing trend from the last minimum, which was in the 12 months starting Jan 2020, to a maximum in the year starting Dec 2022.

https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crim...

Going by the recent FBI report: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-cr...

>this is an issue about freedom.

There is a fundamental issue that pro-choice people (of which I am, as well) continuously overlook with this argument: a fetus isn't merely a clump of cells up until it leaves the woman's body. At some point it's a viable human being and also deserves rights. Is that 3 months? 6 months? 8 months? I don't know, but it's somewhere.

Most people in the world share that view; why are pro-abortionists so ignorant of it?

Who exactly do you think gets abortions? When and why? Because this is another obvious lie we hear from the Trump's campaigning: “They will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month and even after birth.”

93.5% of abortions happen before 13 weeks. 0.9% happen after 21 weeks [0]. Since Texas' trigger laws have been put into place, the maternal mortality rate rose by 56% [1]! In 2022, there was an 11.6% increase in infant mortality! Before that, across the years 2014-2021, infants death fell nearly 15% [2]. On top of this, 4 pregnant women have died because they couldn't get the care they needed and and again, women are finding they can't get certain medicines for chronic diseases because doctors are afraid to prescribe them. If you respect these lives, I would invite you to consider what is happening in the real world alongside your thought exercises about cells.

0 - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7209a1.htm#:~:text=....

1 - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/texas-abortion-...

2 - https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/20/health/texas-abortion-ban-inf...

You are capturing why I think abortion is a good wedge issue but a poor campaign issue.

* Men aren't directly affected by it (~50% population)

* Woman over 40 aren't generally affected by it

So woman between 18-40 who can vote are the group most affected by abortion policy. And as you point out, even they aren't directly affected until they actually need one. So the skin-in-the-game for most people is very low. Most people vote and are opinionated on it as a sort of proxy for woman's rights.

However, some issues like house affordability, crime, employment, etc are very high for skin-in-the-game. People are currently affected or know people currently affected by these issues.

I would absolutely be affected by my wife dying from something which should be preventable but has been made pretty much illegal.

I would absolutely be affected by my friend dying from something which should be preventable but has been made pretty much illegal.

I am not an 18-40 woman and I am affected by the abortion policies in my state.

So your response confirms why I called it a wedge issue.

Most Americans don't like abortion laws the don't take into account the health of the mother. So that type of law becomes a wedge among Republicans.

Conversely, if a state passes a six week ban (Florida), that's going to draw out these distinctions among Democrats.

I'm not making a moral claim. I'm commenting on the politics of campaigning on it. I think politicians are advantaged at avoiding wedge issues and focusing on material concerns that affect the most people.

> don't like abortion laws the don't take into account the health of the mother.

Texas's law allegedly takes into account the life of the mother. And yet mothers are dying because of this law. When you make it that the OB office needs to have the legal team on speed dial to make sure they're not facing life in prison on a regular life or death healthcare your law is abhorrent policy.

The politics of campaigning on it is to make people think only unplanned pregnancies are affected by these laws. I am making a moral claim on that; it's reprehensible.

[flagged]

Funny you mention contraception here, that's another thing the GOP is openly talking about making more difficult for people to access.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/thomas-wants-...

Even then, no contraception is 100% effective. The only 100% effective thing is abstinence. Just like getting into a car accident, the only way to not have any risk is to not get in the car. But good luck living in the US without getting in a car or being around moving cars.

I'm just pointing out the reality of their choices. They're acting like the only people who get a D&C are people who planned to get one before they were even pregnant. Most people who get this kind of care don't go into it planning on doing it. It's like thinking people planned to break their legs or planned to get cancer.

>Funny you mention contraception here, that's another thing the GOP is openly talking about making more difficult for people to access.

Buddy, we are long past believing NBC's interpretation of a complicated legal ruling. Your guys have been scare mongering for way too long. Believe it or not, there are lots of sensible conservatives.

> In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell

Buddy, if you can't understand what these very direct words mean I don't know what to tell you. This isn't some "NBC interpretation of a complicated legal ruling", he's openly and directly saying these decisions should be overturned. He is directly stating we should reconsider contraception access, throwing gay people in prison for being gay, and recognizing gay marriage.

The modern GOP is openly talking about repealing the court decisions which legalized wide access to contraception, disallowed throwing people in prison for being gay, and requiring states to recognize gay marriage. This isn't some fringe conspiracy theory or complicated legal ruling fear mongering, its directly what they're saying.

Quit burying your head in the sand and listen to what your own party is actually saying.

Accidental pregnancy is preventable, but abortion restrictions also undermine the safety of women who are pregnant by choice. We saw this recently with Nevaeh Crain, for example, who died because doctors were afraid that treating her might harm her baby. Sadly the baby died anyway.

You can't protect against random medical emergencies.

Many women get pregnant and want a kid and experience complications. Roughly 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Restrictions on abortion care must necessarily negatively affect care for pregnant women who have not sought & don't want abortion. The care for complications of abortion and miscarriage are essentially identical. Incentives are aligned for doctors to deny care for either. There is no medical, civil, or criminal recourse for women who die or have their health affected by improper care for pregnancy complication, miscarriage, or complication of abortion; there is no punishment for doctors who fail to provide medical standard of care; there is an affirmative effort by some states to punish doctors who would provide such care.

We've asked you before not to attack other users here. Doing that will get you banned if you keep doing it, so please don't do it any more.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I agree with you but you're missing the point.

As I said, women's reproductive issues ARE important to them. It does come up in discussions.

The point is that people often tend to be single-issue, or few-issues voters... and there are policy issues that are just way more important to them right this very second. Issues like the economy and the housing crises.

My wife and I were living on our own and starting a family when we were our daughters' age. Our daughters not only still live with us but they have abandoned any hopes of ever being able to own a home of their own.

Our oldest daughter, who will turn 25 soon, wanted nothing more in life than to have a family and she is seeing the time window for that slip by. She thought she'd be married with a home and kids by now. She found her partner, he lives with us now too. Why would the abortion message resonate with her when what's bothering her most is that she wants kids?

From what I've heard in the news, the women who were single-issue-voters on abortion tended to be older women who are concerned about the rights of their daughters and grand daughters.

But I do wonder how many young women are in similar situations to my oldest daughter. Women who are more concerned about whether or not they can have kids versus whether or not they could terminate an unwanted pregnancy. They might not be a huge voting block, I honestly don't know. But I can't imagine that the abortion message resonated with this demographic at all.

> Why would the abortion message resonate with her when what's bothering her most is that she wants kids?

Anyone thinking about possibly becoming pregnant should absolutely be worried about whether their doctors will be able to save their lives when something goes wrong, which is very often. If you think "abortion" rights are only about unwanted pregnancies you've got far too narrow of an understanding of the reproductive process and what can go wrong. You think Nevaeh Crain's child was unwanted, or the many other women whose deaths were just like hers?

> they have abandoned any hopes of ever being able to own a home of their own

Project 2025 pretty much ensure affordable housing pretty much won't get built anywhere near jobs are. It doubles down on NIBY housing policies and prevents densification of areas. It doubles down on requiring a car to drive to work on a long commute. Maybe they'll be able to afford a new build in a suburb 70 miles from their jobs eventually.

> Issues like the economy

Looking forward to that new 20%+ sales tax on imported (read: most things) you buy. That'll really do a lot for the economy. Good choice.

> they're not planning on needing an abortion ever, let alone any time soon.

Accidents happen. Do they not have sex ever?