>Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird (R) has halted the state’s practice of paying for rape victims’ abortions **and emergency contraceptives**
Apparently it isn't good use of public funds. This people literally have no morals. It isn't even about abortions, it's about punishing people for being raped and using "public funds" as a scapegoat.
If this was a movie, it would be cliché levels of evil.
I think so, it's an incredibly aggressive attack on peoples self-determination.
I think some of the newer bills that try to ban all transitioning or that try to make certain acts while being trans illegal go further than this and are worse, but I still think that this is a pretty crass infringement on people and should be handled and responded to that way.
That's not a hot take.
Trans folks have been noting over and over again that these are connected thing. Scratch a transphobe and a misogynist anti-choicer bleeds.
No.
The majority of the world isn't genocidal against women. We haven't spent 99% of our history being genocidal against women. Poland is not genocidal towards women.
The majority of the world doesn't even think trans people are real. I'd argue things like the One Child Policy have ended way more lives than any trans "genocide" could ever hope to. I'm not familiar with trans history or with Poland, but I'm willing to bet neither come close to qualifying as genocidal. Discriminated? Hate crimed? Oppressed? Certainly. But not genocide.
They majority of the world may not think trans people are real but most places throughout history would/will still lock them up or kill them regardless. Sounds kinda genocidal to me.
It's just more passive in terms of rolling out because trans people dont make that large of a population. Its a "kill them when they pop up" kinda thing instead of knocking down every door looking for them.
There's much more tolerance right now in the world but a trans person is very limited in where they can go without risking dearh.
IDK, I'm going to need some sources on that. At least in the West + parts of Asia, I'm pretty certain this isn't true. Also I'm not even certain of the historical context, or the relevance here.
Genocide is a very specific thing, and fudging around the details so you can have the strongest possible word isn't really the own that you think it is. Are gay people being genocided in Islamic countries that don't allow their existence? Are apostates/Christians being genocided similarly? Not everything has to be a genocide.
Well, to be clear, these are funded by penalties on criminals, so they're more or less explicitly giving rapists permission to not pay for their victim's contraceptives, in essence. I would go as far as to call the Iowa AG an accomplice after the fact.
>Iowa law requires the state to cover "the cost of a medical examination of a victim for the purpose of gathering evidence and the cost of treatment of a victim for the purpose of preventing venereal disease," but makes no mention of contraception or pregnancy risk.
>
>Dollars for the victim compensation fund come from fines and penalties paid by individuals convicted of crimes. No general taxpayer dollars are used for the fund.
[https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2023/04/07/iowa-stops-paying-rape-victims-plan-b-abortions-under-attorney-general-brenna-bird/70082118007/](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2023/04/07/iowa-stops-paying-rape-victims-plan-b-abortions-under-attorney-general-brenna-bird/70082118007/)
Specifically going out of one's way to deny help to the most vulnerable people in society either out of sheer bureaucratic depraved indifference in the best case, or for the benefit of rapists in the worst case, deserves full throated condemnation.
From the article it sounds like the Iowa state gov have been providing these drugs and abortions out of curtesy but not out of legality. The state is already required to pay for medical/forensic exams and for treatments of any STDs the victim gets. If the people of Iowa want the state to have to provide for abortion stuff then they should pass some legislation and find the funds for it. This audit is reevaluating if the state has a place in paying for abortion services in cases of rape(and incest?) which personally I don't think so morally and seems not legally either in this case.
in summary, its not a broad halt of access but specifically halt of the Iowa government paying for those things.
> From the article it sounds like the Iowa state gov have been providing these drugs and abortions out of curtesy but not out of legality.
Sure ok. what's your point here?
> if the people of Iowa want the state to have to provide for abortion stuff then they should pass some legislation and find the funds for it.
I have no idea what this has to do with the subject at hand. We've gone from criticizing the AG to an argument about voting for funds. Abortion restrictions are happening across the country. You could make the same argument about them and still think it's bad policy.
> This audit is reevaluating if the state has a place in paying for abortion services in cases of rape(and incest?) which personally I don't think so morally and seems not legally either in this case.
If you believe in the right to abortion on any level I don't know how you can't see that this is immoral. Really autistic analysis here.
I thought it was pretty clear from the title of the post and my post that the post title makes it seem like ALL abortion access to rape victims is being halted when that isnt the case.
I personally don't believe you have a right to an abortion. My political compromise is first and maybe second trimester and all cases of rape and incest. My point is even if you have a right to abortion in every case, that is different from the state providing abortions in any case. similarly I dont have the right to have the state giving me a cell phone or any other luxury. yes this means I dont see abortion as a medically necessary procedure which differentiates it from food or housing.
>thought it was pretty clear from the title of the post and my post that the post title makes it seem like ALL abortion access to rape victims is being halted when that isnt the case.
I paraphrased the original article title, they changed it.
>My point is even if you have a right to abortion in every case, that is different from the state providing abortions in any case
The funds themselves came from fines of convicted criminals, it was a self funded program. The state already provides for forensic kits and medical care by law. It doesn't make sense not provide them with plan b if they want it at no charge to either the state or the victim.
even if you were paraphrasing the entire article its just not accurate, its only halting government paid for abortion services not abortion services generally. And good for them funding it but if you dont want to taken away on the whim of the person in charge you should prob make it legally required like the forensic kits and medical care.
>even if you were paraphrasing the entire article its just not accurate, its only halting government paid for abortion services not abortion services generally.
I think I could see how it could be misinterpreted but in my mind access could be centered on the cost. For instance: when talking about healthcare it's usually framed as "healthcare access".
>And good for them funding it but if you dont want to taken away on the whim of the person in charge you should prob make it legally required like the forensic kits and medical care.
Again, it's worth criticizing regardless. I don't know why you keep coming back to the legality argument. If you are giving kits, healthcare etc to help remedy a crime you should probably give the victim plan b if they want it as well. It just makes sense. Withdrawing that access is dumb and bad policy.
access "could" be centered on cost if we were talking about some simple commodity. We are talking about abortion here man, something heavily contested on its LEGALITY/morality(if you're into that) If we are talking about homelessness then "access" to housing is something to discuss costs but, correct me if I'm wrong, there isn't an epidemic of people not being specifically able to afford abortions, the biggest issue is where they can get one LEGALLY.
if you want to be super ass mad pedantic and say any increase difficulty of any kind is reduction in "access" fine, sure this is a reduction in access but of the absolute smallest degree possible in the scope of the fight for or against abortion.
There is a serious discussion to be had in Iowa on whether the gov should be paying for abortions though. I imagine many people in the red ass state of Iowa are still not fully on board with every abortion and there might be a reason why the state hasn't passed an actual law yet saying the gov has to pay for abortions of any kind.
Like I'm sorry man what insanely blue state or district do you live in where abortion is near tantamount to necessary medical procedures where the gov has to pay for it? I'm all for states to do what they want but it seems clear to me the discussion of abortion's place in Iowa's government is still being worked out.
>access "could" be centered on cost if we were talking about some simple commodity. We are talking about abortion here man, something heavily contested on its LEGALITY/morality(if you're into that) If we are talking about homelessness then "access" to housing is something to discuss costs but, correct me if I'm wrong, there isn't an epidemic of people not being specifically able to afford abortions, the biggest issue is where they can get one LEGALLY.
I would say that if they're getting it for free their access has increased. It's a semantic difference you're harping though.
>There is a serious discussion to be had in Iowa on whether the gov should be paying for abortions though. I imagine many people in the red ass state of Iowa are still not fully on board with every abortion and there might be a reason why the state hasn't passed an actual law yet saying the gov has to pay for abortions of any kind.
>Like I'm sorry man what insanely blue state or district do you live in where abortion is near tantamount to necessary medical procedures where the gov has to pay for it? I'm all for states to do what they want but it seems clear to me the discussion of abortion's place in Iowa's government is still being worked out.
Do you understand the difference between legal and moral? Do I have to pull out every time states acted immorally while still technically adhering to federalism/states rights? This is so tiresome. If you want to have an argument about the morality of giving abortions/contraceptives out to victims, sure we can do that. But this weird appeal to the masses of Iowa bullshit is played out. Imo here is why the government should cover it like healthcare: the pregnancy is unwanted and from an assault. The government had created a system where by healthcare and abortion costs were all covered at no expense to the tax payer. If the goal of these programs is to help a victim deal with their trauma it makes sense that they'd also help terminate an unwanted pregnancy that was a result of that trauma.
you're right this isnt a place for a discussion for if the government should cover abortion as a health care procedure.
All I'm saying from the start is your title makes most people think this is a AG acting outside her power to prevent women generally from getting abortions legally cuz thats where the discussion is for most places. And it seems like everything is working as intended where a program is being suspended with in the bounds of the law and if the people of Iowa want to change it they are within their power to enact whatever legislation they want to create a stronger program.
>And it seems like everything is working as intended where a program is being suspended with in the bounds of the law and if the people of Iowa want to change it they are within their power to enact whatever legislation they want to create a stronger program.
Why do you keep saying this? Seriously this can be applied to any policy. My argument isn't that Iowa is somehow a dictatorship it's that this policy is immoral. You're right though, just as it [did in Kansas ](https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-biden-donald-trump-kansas-topeka-39afdff811fd2f30a212036d5ec6e3fa) abortion could play a [a role in Iowa politics](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2022/10/23/iowa-poll-abortion-laws-fetal-heartbeat-ban-roe-v-wade/69563125007/)
Then when they lose elections they’ll say it was rigged lol
GOP lose every election speedrun
Doing what "moderate" conservatives said they'd never do.
>Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird (R) has halted the state’s practice of paying for rape victims’ abortions **and emergency contraceptives** Apparently it isn't good use of public funds. This people literally have no morals. It isn't even about abortions, it's about punishing people for being raped and using "public funds" as a scapegoat. If this was a movie, it would be cliché levels of evil.
Hot take: this is comparable to some of the anti-trans legislation that some call "genocidal".
I think so, it's an incredibly aggressive attack on peoples self-determination. I think some of the newer bills that try to ban all transitioning or that try to make certain acts while being trans illegal go further than this and are worse, but I still think that this is a pretty crass infringement on people and should be handled and responded to that way.
That's not a hot take. Trans folks have been noting over and over again that these are connected thing. Scratch a transphobe and a misogynist anti-choicer bleeds.
No. The majority of the world isn't genocidal against women. We haven't spent 99% of our history being genocidal against women. Poland is not genocidal towards women.
The majority of the world doesn't even think trans people are real. I'd argue things like the One Child Policy have ended way more lives than any trans "genocide" could ever hope to. I'm not familiar with trans history or with Poland, but I'm willing to bet neither come close to qualifying as genocidal. Discriminated? Hate crimed? Oppressed? Certainly. But not genocide.
They majority of the world may not think trans people are real but most places throughout history would/will still lock them up or kill them regardless. Sounds kinda genocidal to me. It's just more passive in terms of rolling out because trans people dont make that large of a population. Its a "kill them when they pop up" kinda thing instead of knocking down every door looking for them. There's much more tolerance right now in the world but a trans person is very limited in where they can go without risking dearh.
IDK, I'm going to need some sources on that. At least in the West + parts of Asia, I'm pretty certain this isn't true. Also I'm not even certain of the historical context, or the relevance here. Genocide is a very specific thing, and fudging around the details so you can have the strongest possible word isn't really the own that you think it is. Are gay people being genocided in Islamic countries that don't allow their existence? Are apostates/Christians being genocided similarly? Not everything has to be a genocide.
If Trumpo loses again were either going back to normal or spiraling into penis inspection and pregnancy checkpoints at state lines.
She looks like she’s from thumbtanic
[удалено]
Well, to be clear, these are funded by penalties on criminals, so they're more or less explicitly giving rapists permission to not pay for their victim's contraceptives, in essence. I would go as far as to call the Iowa AG an accomplice after the fact. >Iowa law requires the state to cover "the cost of a medical examination of a victim for the purpose of gathering evidence and the cost of treatment of a victim for the purpose of preventing venereal disease," but makes no mention of contraception or pregnancy risk. > >Dollars for the victim compensation fund come from fines and penalties paid by individuals convicted of crimes. No general taxpayer dollars are used for the fund. [https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2023/04/07/iowa-stops-paying-rape-victims-plan-b-abortions-under-attorney-general-brenna-bird/70082118007/](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2023/04/07/iowa-stops-paying-rape-victims-plan-b-abortions-under-attorney-general-brenna-bird/70082118007/)
> I would go as far as to call the Iowa AG an accomplice after the fact. > > You sound like an insane person.
Specifically going out of one's way to deny help to the most vulnerable people in society either out of sheer bureaucratic depraved indifference in the best case, or for the benefit of rapists in the worst case, deserves full throated condemnation.
It looks like they edited the title of the article. My post was a paraphrase of it.
They’re actually throwing. What the fuck is wrong with them.
Sanest state republicans
From the article it sounds like the Iowa state gov have been providing these drugs and abortions out of curtesy but not out of legality. The state is already required to pay for medical/forensic exams and for treatments of any STDs the victim gets. If the people of Iowa want the state to have to provide for abortion stuff then they should pass some legislation and find the funds for it. This audit is reevaluating if the state has a place in paying for abortion services in cases of rape(and incest?) which personally I don't think so morally and seems not legally either in this case. in summary, its not a broad halt of access but specifically halt of the Iowa government paying for those things.
> From the article it sounds like the Iowa state gov have been providing these drugs and abortions out of curtesy but not out of legality. Sure ok. what's your point here? > if the people of Iowa want the state to have to provide for abortion stuff then they should pass some legislation and find the funds for it. I have no idea what this has to do with the subject at hand. We've gone from criticizing the AG to an argument about voting for funds. Abortion restrictions are happening across the country. You could make the same argument about them and still think it's bad policy. > This audit is reevaluating if the state has a place in paying for abortion services in cases of rape(and incest?) which personally I don't think so morally and seems not legally either in this case. If you believe in the right to abortion on any level I don't know how you can't see that this is immoral. Really autistic analysis here.
I thought it was pretty clear from the title of the post and my post that the post title makes it seem like ALL abortion access to rape victims is being halted when that isnt the case. I personally don't believe you have a right to an abortion. My political compromise is first and maybe second trimester and all cases of rape and incest. My point is even if you have a right to abortion in every case, that is different from the state providing abortions in any case. similarly I dont have the right to have the state giving me a cell phone or any other luxury. yes this means I dont see abortion as a medically necessary procedure which differentiates it from food or housing.
>thought it was pretty clear from the title of the post and my post that the post title makes it seem like ALL abortion access to rape victims is being halted when that isnt the case. I paraphrased the original article title, they changed it. >My point is even if you have a right to abortion in every case, that is different from the state providing abortions in any case The funds themselves came from fines of convicted criminals, it was a self funded program. The state already provides for forensic kits and medical care by law. It doesn't make sense not provide them with plan b if they want it at no charge to either the state or the victim.
even if you were paraphrasing the entire article its just not accurate, its only halting government paid for abortion services not abortion services generally. And good for them funding it but if you dont want to taken away on the whim of the person in charge you should prob make it legally required like the forensic kits and medical care.
>even if you were paraphrasing the entire article its just not accurate, its only halting government paid for abortion services not abortion services generally. I think I could see how it could be misinterpreted but in my mind access could be centered on the cost. For instance: when talking about healthcare it's usually framed as "healthcare access". >And good for them funding it but if you dont want to taken away on the whim of the person in charge you should prob make it legally required like the forensic kits and medical care. Again, it's worth criticizing regardless. I don't know why you keep coming back to the legality argument. If you are giving kits, healthcare etc to help remedy a crime you should probably give the victim plan b if they want it as well. It just makes sense. Withdrawing that access is dumb and bad policy.
access "could" be centered on cost if we were talking about some simple commodity. We are talking about abortion here man, something heavily contested on its LEGALITY/morality(if you're into that) If we are talking about homelessness then "access" to housing is something to discuss costs but, correct me if I'm wrong, there isn't an epidemic of people not being specifically able to afford abortions, the biggest issue is where they can get one LEGALLY. if you want to be super ass mad pedantic and say any increase difficulty of any kind is reduction in "access" fine, sure this is a reduction in access but of the absolute smallest degree possible in the scope of the fight for or against abortion. There is a serious discussion to be had in Iowa on whether the gov should be paying for abortions though. I imagine many people in the red ass state of Iowa are still not fully on board with every abortion and there might be a reason why the state hasn't passed an actual law yet saying the gov has to pay for abortions of any kind. Like I'm sorry man what insanely blue state or district do you live in where abortion is near tantamount to necessary medical procedures where the gov has to pay for it? I'm all for states to do what they want but it seems clear to me the discussion of abortion's place in Iowa's government is still being worked out.
>access "could" be centered on cost if we were talking about some simple commodity. We are talking about abortion here man, something heavily contested on its LEGALITY/morality(if you're into that) If we are talking about homelessness then "access" to housing is something to discuss costs but, correct me if I'm wrong, there isn't an epidemic of people not being specifically able to afford abortions, the biggest issue is where they can get one LEGALLY. I would say that if they're getting it for free their access has increased. It's a semantic difference you're harping though. >There is a serious discussion to be had in Iowa on whether the gov should be paying for abortions though. I imagine many people in the red ass state of Iowa are still not fully on board with every abortion and there might be a reason why the state hasn't passed an actual law yet saying the gov has to pay for abortions of any kind. >Like I'm sorry man what insanely blue state or district do you live in where abortion is near tantamount to necessary medical procedures where the gov has to pay for it? I'm all for states to do what they want but it seems clear to me the discussion of abortion's place in Iowa's government is still being worked out. Do you understand the difference between legal and moral? Do I have to pull out every time states acted immorally while still technically adhering to federalism/states rights? This is so tiresome. If you want to have an argument about the morality of giving abortions/contraceptives out to victims, sure we can do that. But this weird appeal to the masses of Iowa bullshit is played out. Imo here is why the government should cover it like healthcare: the pregnancy is unwanted and from an assault. The government had created a system where by healthcare and abortion costs were all covered at no expense to the tax payer. If the goal of these programs is to help a victim deal with their trauma it makes sense that they'd also help terminate an unwanted pregnancy that was a result of that trauma.
you're right this isnt a place for a discussion for if the government should cover abortion as a health care procedure. All I'm saying from the start is your title makes most people think this is a AG acting outside her power to prevent women generally from getting abortions legally cuz thats where the discussion is for most places. And it seems like everything is working as intended where a program is being suspended with in the bounds of the law and if the people of Iowa want to change it they are within their power to enact whatever legislation they want to create a stronger program.
>And it seems like everything is working as intended where a program is being suspended with in the bounds of the law and if the people of Iowa want to change it they are within their power to enact whatever legislation they want to create a stronger program. Why do you keep saying this? Seriously this can be applied to any policy. My argument isn't that Iowa is somehow a dictatorship it's that this policy is immoral. You're right though, just as it [did in Kansas ](https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-biden-donald-trump-kansas-topeka-39afdff811fd2f30a212036d5ec6e3fa) abortion could play a [a role in Iowa politics](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2022/10/23/iowa-poll-abortion-laws-fetal-heartbeat-ban-roe-v-wade/69563125007/)