The same way it keeps bad teachers and bad cops from being punished. The whole point of regulation is to prevent market forces from working.
Agreed, and both of them came out of the progressive movement.
Abortion restrictions are not progressive. They're regressiva and draconian.Agreed, and both of them came out of the progressive movement.
Regulations helps ensure standards of quality and safety.
Regulations are written to ensure public welfare.Regulations are written by lobbyists in order to restrict entry into the field which in turn means higher prices and higher profits for those being regulated.
From your own source: "...since Roe became the law of the land, the medical landscape of abortion has changed drastically. Today, abortion is extremely safe..."
You got a problem with that?
Progressives gave us abortion restrictions?
But can't patients just decide not to see a bad doctor? Market regulations don't prevent them from doing that.The same way it keeps bad teachers and bad cops from being punished. The whole point of regulation is to prevent market forces from working.
Yes, because state control of doctors allows politicians to restrict abortions, thus harming women.
In the heart of the progressive movement, abortion was illegal in every state in the country.
No, poiticians making medical decisions on behalf of women and passing state restrictions is what is harming women. Anti-abortionists do not seem to care either.Yes, because state control of doctors allows politicians to restrict abortions, thus harming women.
Progress is establishing and ensuring abortion rights. Not taking them away.In the heart of the progressive movement, abortion was illegal in every state in the country.
And we know what happens in that case anyway. Blame the woman for being a slut and getting pregnant, then going underground, not following the back alley abortionist's orders, etc. versus getting legitimate healthcare. The anti-abortion zealots have already done that.As if some crooked doctor would get the same coverage as an international energy corporation that cut the power from a state.
I did a quick control F of the quote. He's trying to use some outdated fact from 1910 to bolster his claims.How did making abortions safer harm women?
lol, you want me to pour over a 21 page document to find evidence that supports your assertion?
Dude, you got nothing but your rigid ideology bent to suit whatever issue comes up no matter how bent its got to be.
In 100 years of existence, public health doubled life expectancy. And you think its wrong. Just, wow.
Yes, because the red states banning abortions in this era are the "progressives"!!! It's the conservative red states leading the way on this era's prohibition of illegal drugs!Agreed, and both of them came out of the progressive movement.
That's ok. It's not like anyone is taking his claims or arguments seriously anyway.I did a quick control F of the quote. He's trying to use some outdated fact from 1910 to bolster his claims.
Regulations are written to ensure public welfare.
lol, you want me to pour over a 21 page document to find evidence that supports your assertion?
By 1910, every state had anti-abortion laws, except Kentucky whose courts judicially declared abortions to be illegal.
Yes, because the red states banning abortions in this era are the "progressives"!!!
It's the conservative red states leading the way on this era's prohibition of illegal drugs!
"Nuh uh" isn't an argumentThat's simply nonsense.
So you have nothing but outdated (by more than a century) documentation?Control f is your friend:
No, poiticians making medical decisions on behalf of women and passing state restrictions is what is harming women.
You don't need "state control of doctors" to ban abortions. You start with a bad premise to make a stupid conclusion from that premise. Do we need 'state control of the citizenry' to ban murder, theft, rape? Of course not.Yes, because state control of doctors allows politicians to restrict abortions, thus harming women.
Yes, and it was so "progressive" for women in this country in 1910 that women didn't have the right to vote, and only gained that right in 1920, when the 19th amendment passed with the bare minimum of states ratifying the change. By the mid 20th century, this progressive time, blacks were still subject to Jim Crow laws, and when RBG graduated law school at the top of her class, she got ZERO offers from major law firms. Not one.In the heart of the progressive movement, abortion was illegal in every state in the country.
It was, to a dregree, until Dobbs. Now women are sufferering and fighting for their rights again. History repeats itself.That's why the state needs to be kept out of it completely.
I see you look at it as an "all or none" type of thing.You can't have it both ways. If you want the government to regulate a particular market, then you are giving politicians the ability to impose restrictions. The verb regulate means to control.
because in a free market, if you performed just one bad abortion, your reputation would be destroyed, and your career as an abortionist would be over. Same with booze.
Last I checked the year is 2024. In this reality, it's not the progressives pushing modern day prohibition or passing laws making abortions a felony. It was progressives that got the 19th amendment passed, progressives who fought for abortion rights for women, for civil rights for blacks, for removing restrictions on women in the work place, it's progressive who are now at least making small movements against the War on (Some) Drugs, and pushing for women's rights to make their own healthcare decisions with regard to child bearing, contraception.That has nothing to do with the claim.
lol, the drug war was also started by progressives. It's amazing to me how little you people know about your own ideology.
View attachment 67540983
That's your assumption. You assume that there's total transparency in a free market, which there's not.
I agree, it's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be better than the alternative.
See post 23.
Pretty much, but at least in a free market, the bad one will be punished. In a highly regulated market, the bad ones just keep on being bad:
You're arguing that an unregulated black market that criminalizes participants if discovered is better at providing healthy abortions than a regulated legal market in which providers are able to provide their services without fear of criminal punishment?
Hint: There's a reason women favor legalized abortion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?