Back-Alley Abortions or how the market helped women bypass the state

[aociswundumho]

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?

No. I'm arguing that an unregulated free market will provide better quality and lower prices than a government regulated market which restricts competition and often protects bad actors.

 

[multivita-man]

No. I'm arguing that an unregulated free market will provide better quality and lower prices than a government regulated market which restricts competition and often protects bad actors.

So is access to a safer abortion not better quality?

 

[Phys251]

I was reading this article, and something caught my eye:

What The History Of Back-Alley Abortions Can Teach Us About A Future Without Roe

UPDATE (June 24, 2022, 12:33 p.m.): On Friday, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion in 1973, with fi…

fivethirtyeight.com

This is yet another example of the market doing the best it can to provide a needed service against the will of a hostile, immoral, democratic state.

Of course there were people who performed abortions who had no idea what they were doing, just like some people made poor quality bathtub gin during alcohol prohibition. Both of these were caused by the state prohibition, 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.

Hear that, women? The "free market" is going to protect you from dangerous, back-alley abortions. The "free market" is always without error and never gets anything wrong.

 

[aociswundumho]

So is access to a safer abortion not better quality?

I agree a regulated market is safer than a black market, but apparently even black market abortions aren't that dangerous. From the OP:

“The whole phrase ‘back-alley butcher’ is an exaggeration because there were lots of good practitioners who were perfectly safe,” said Leslie J. Reagan, professor of history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and author of “When Abortion Was a Crime.”

Even in the past, the dangers of illegal abortion weren’t about the abortion itself.

 

[multivita-man]

I agree a regulated market is safer than a black market, but apparently even black market abortions aren't that dangerous. From the OP:

There's no barrier to entry. Of course it's dangerous. Could you find providers who were qualified and less dangerous, sure, but for many others, abortions were/are dangerous.

 

[aociswundumho]

There's no barrier to entry.

Good. You don't want barriers to entry for anything. It's my life, if I want to hire someone to work on my body, how is that any of your concern?

 

[JasperL]

I agree a regulated market is safer than a black market, but apparently even black market abortions aren't that dangerous. From the OP:

Right, they were safe for people with money and/or connections. Unsafe for the poor who were unable to access those safe options.

 

[aociswundumho]

Right, they were safe for people with money and/or connections. Unsafe for the poor who were unable to access those safe options.

Yes, but we have no reason to believe that would be the case in a free market, for reasons previously stated.

Regulation protects bad cops, bad teachers, and bad doctors. See post 23.

Healthcare is probably the most regulated market in the country, yet medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the US:

Medical errors have more recently been recognized as a serious public health problem, reported as the third leading cause of death in the US. One study reported that approximately 400,000 hospitalized patients experience some preventable harm each year, while another estimated that >200,000 patient deaths annually were due to preventable medical errors. Moreover, medical errors have a high cost, with some experts estimating adverse events costing the healthcare system $20 billion each year and others approximating healthcare costs of $35.7 to $45 billion annually for hospital-acquired infections alone.

Note that the source isn't some libertarian think tank.

 

[Phys251]

Good. You don't want barriers to entry for anything. It's my life, if I want to hire someone to work on my body, how is that any of your concern?

That's a pro-choice argument. Did you flip sides all of a sudden?

 

[Rogue Valley]

It's my life, if I want to hire someone to work on my body, how is that any of your concern?

Well, YOU can get your healthcare in an alley, if that's the way you want to go. (pun intended)

But most women would prefer their OB/GYN in a hospital sertting.

 

[BirdinHand]

No. I'm arguing that an unregulated free market will provide better quality and lower prices than a government regulated market which restricts competition and often protects bad actors.

History has already proven this to be false.

The only way a person can believe this is to completely ignore all of human history and the reality of what life was like during the course of human history.

 

[aociswundumho]

But most women would prefer their OB/GYN in a hospital sertting.

I agree, but there is no reason for the state to control the hospital.

 

[multivita-man]

Good. You don't want barriers to entry for anything. It's my life, if I want to hire someone to work on my body, how is that any of your concern?

It's not just about you. As I said, people in a marketplace make transactional decisions based on transparency. Probably a majority of people want transparency when making their healthcare decisions. That's part of what a regulatory system offers. A medical doctor who graduates from an accredited medical school, passes licensing exams, and completes a residency has some degree of transparent qualification, as opposed to an abortionist someone might find through word of mouth.

 

[aociswundumho]

That's a pro-choice argument. Did you flip sides all of a sudden?

I'm pro-choice on everything.

 

[Phys251]

I'm pro-choice on everything.

You want Roe reinstated, right?

 

[aociswundumho]

You want Roe reinstated, right?

IMO, according to the constitution, Dobbs got it right. Abortion is a state issue.

You want abortion to be a federal issue, pro-lifers want it to be a state issue, I want government out of it completely.

 

[Phys251]

IMO, according to the constitution, Dobbs got it right. Abortion is a state issue.

That's not pro-choice. You're contradicting yourself.

You want abortion to be a federal issue, pro-lifers want it to be a state issue, I want government out of it completely.

Wrong. We pro-choicers want abortion to be a personal issue.

 

[aociswundumho]

It's not just about you. As I said, people in a marketplace make transactional decisions based on transparency. Probably a majority of people want transparency when making their healthcare decisions. That's part of what a regulatory system offers. A medical doctor who graduates from an accredited medical school, passes licensing exams, and completes a residency has some degree of transparent qualification, as opposed to an abortionist someone might find through word of mouth.

Yes, but they don't want restrictions, which is the purpose of regulation.

Consider the construction industry, and how many thousands of people hire unlicensed contractors. This is evidence that people do not want restrictions on who they may hire.

You're starting with the assumption that the state know what's best for everyone. That assumption is false.

 

[aociswundumho]

We pro-choicers want abortion to be a personal issue.

No, you want the state to regulate, i.e. control, doctors. That's pro-state, not pro-choice.

 

[Kblaster49]

I'm pro-choice on everything.

A person can’t support state level antiabortion laws AND be pro choice.

 

[Gordy327]

Good. You don't want barriers to entry for anything. It's my life, if I want to hire someone to work on my body, how is that any of your concern?

Kind of like how one's abortion choices is anyone else's concern or business? It's not. Neither should there be restrictions on the procedure itself. It's those restrictions which cause women to seek unreputable or unregulated "providers," thus increasing the risk of harm to the woman. Besides, there is simply no rational, logical, or legal based reason to restrict abortion at all.

 

[aociswundumho]

thus increasing the risk of harm to the woman.

That's for her to decide, not you, and certainly not the state.

 

[multivita-man]

Yes, but they don't want restrictions, which is the purpose of regulation.

You're just spouting ideologically-driven crap without taking into consideration the context or the perspective. If you're the patient, you don't want restrictions to abortion access; however, you do want restrictions on who can perform abortions.

Consider the construction industry, and how many thousands of people hire unlicensed contractors. This is evidence that people do not want restrictions on who they may hire.

Consider how many consumers are unaware that their homebuilder has hired unlicensed contractors. Consider how many home buyers are unaware of the fact that repairs stated on a contract disclosure form were performed by unlicensed contractors. Again, transparency.

You're starting with the assumption that the state know what's best for everyone. That assumption is false.

Regulations and laws are often a response to some sort of problem that the market itself failed to correct. It's often constituents who ask people in a legislative or administrative capacity to change the laws, rules, regulations in order to correct market deficiencies, oversights, etc.

 

[Phys251]

No, you want the state to regulate, i.e. control, doctors. That's pro-state, not pro-choice.

With one side of your mouth, you claim to be pro-choice, but with your other side of your mouth, you say that.

Maybe you are into anarchism.

 

[aociswundumho]

Consider how many consumers are unaware that their homebuilder has hired unlicensed contractors. Consider how many home buyers are unaware of the fact that repairs stated on a contract disclosure form were performed by unlicensed contractors. Again, transparency.

That doesn't address the point. If consumers valued licensing and regulation, then illegal contractors wouldn't have any customers. Yet we observe they have plenty.

It's often constituents who ask people in a legislative or administrative capacity to change the laws, rules, regulations in order to correct market deficiencies, oversights, etc.

Milton Friedman studied occupational licensing intensely, and he never found a single instance where licensure was demanded by the public. In every single case, it was the industry itself that demanded licensing in order to make lower cost competition illegal.