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

[Lursa]

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:

How will the "bad ones" be punished for accidentally sterilizing a woman or nearly killing her, who was receiving an illegal procedure and cannot go to the police (or the ER)? How will the bad ones be punished when the woman tells no one she's getting an illegal procedure and then dies at home?

 

[multivita-man]

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.

I think you're the one missing the point here. If Joe Schmo and his family buy a home from some developer who hired shoddy, unlicensed contractors to cut corners to keep costs down, that's a problem for the second consumer, even if the first consumer valued the unlicensed contractor. This happens a lot, actually. More so with homeowners passing on shitty contract repairs or remodels to unsuspecting consumers. Or general contractors sub it out to unlicensed subs.

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.

Would you fly commercial aviation if there were no licensing requirements or standards for pilots? Would the general public? I think not. There are indeed examples of industry restricting the number of participants as a means of protectionism, but that doesn't negate the value of such requirements.

 

[Gordy327]

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

Risk of harm is a medical determination by a doctor. Choosing to consent to interventions to reduce or eliminate risks is for the woman to decide for herself. Abortion restrictions in effect eliminates that choice and forces the woman to endure (increasing) risk associated with gestation and birth.

 

[Rogue Valley]

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

Yes there is. The lure of profit oftentimes will lead corporations to cut corners.

That mindset won't do when we are talking about human beings and medicine.

 

[Questerr]

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.

Abortion protections were lost due the undemocratic aspects of our system, not because of democracy.

But you’re right. No one should be able to tell women they can’t have an abortion except the landowner who own the land on which they live. Their power on the other hand should be unlimited and without any oversight.

 

[Questerr]

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:

How will they be punished exactly?

 

[Questerr]

Agreed, and both of them came out of the progressive movement.

Both had far more to do with religious fundamentalism. How will the market protect against that?

 

[Questerr]

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.

Yeah, if people want to have their mechanic brother in law perform surgery on their kids, they should be able to, right?

 

[Questerr]

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.

When America had its smallest government and greatest amount of capitalism, slavery was legal in every state in the country. So therefore capitalism is pro-slavery, yes?

 

[Questerr]

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.

It will provide better quality *for the rich* and lower prices along with lower quality for everyone else.

But then again, you think poor people who can’t afford doctors should pay their untrained relatives to perform surgery on them.

 

[Questerr]

I'm pro-choice on everything.

Unless that choice is to go against someone’s “property rights”.

 

[AZRWinger]

How will the "bad ones" be punished for accidentally sterilizing a woman or nearly killing her, who was receiving an illegal procedure and cannot go to the police (or the ER)? How will the bad ones be punished when the woman tells no one she's getting an illegal procedure and then dies at home?

There aren't even requirements for reporting the total number of abortions. The most widely quoted estimate is from the pro abortion Guttmacher Institute.

Despite Bans, Number of Abortions in the United States Increased in 2023

www.guttmacher.org

In Minnesota the provider can be anyone certified to slaughter the unborn. No MD license is required. But why worry when there is no visibility of malpractice.

I am unable to find examples of US laws that punish patients for illegal abortions. Punishment is specified for providers. I can't locate any legal ban on ER care or a specific abortion reporting requirement.

 

[Gordy327]

There aren't even requirements for reporting the total number of abortions. The most widely quoted estimate is from the pro abortion Guttmacher Institute

Explain how the Guttmacher Institute is "pro-abortion."

In Minnesota the provider can be anyone certified to slaughter the unborn. No MD license is required. But why worry when there is no visibility of malpractice.

Not seeing the issue here.

I am unable to find examples of US laws that punish patients for illegal abortions. Punishment is specified for providers. I can't locate any legal ban on ER care or a specific abortion reporting requirement.

There shouldn't be any such laws either. Why should anyone face legal repercussions for removing a gestational parasite feeding off their body against their consent?

 

[Lursa]

There aren't even requirements for reporting the total number of abortions. The most widely quoted estimate is from the pro abortion Guttmacher Institute.

Despite Bans, Number of Abortions in the United States Increased in 2023

www.guttmacher.org

In Minnesota the provider can be anyone certified to slaughter the unborn. No MD license is required. But why worry when there is no visibility of malpractice.

Yes, so?

I am unable to find examples of US laws that punish patients for illegal abortions. Punishment is specified for providers. I can't locate any legal ban on ER care or a specific abortion reporting requirement.

I guess you havent read the laws in the red states that have the restrictions/bans then. It's very clear they target providers. If you perform an abortion on another, you are providing that service. None of them state anything about credentials.

Do you have a point?

 

[Gordy327]

Do you have a point?

I doubt it. It sounds more like an irrational complaint. One can tell as soon as the term "pro abortion" is tossed around.

 

[AZRWinger]

Explain how the Guttmacher Institute is "pro-abortion."

Read the about section on their website.

Not seeing the issue here.

The claim is victims of botched illegal abortions aren't seeking medical or repoting to law enforcement out of fear.

There shouldn't be any such laws either. Why should anyone face legal repercussions for removing a gestational parasite feeding off their body against their consent?

Gestational parasite for an unborn child perfectly encapsulates the absence of any respect for human life

 

[Gordy327]

Read the about section on their website.

What about it? Where does it say they are "pro abortion?" Guttmacher provides citations, information, and education.

The claim is victims of botched illegal abortions aren't seeking medical or repoting to law enforcement out of fear.

Certain states want to criminalize women who have abortions. But the issue is, medical providers are in fear of providing any service which can result in or be construed as an abortion attempt or procedure. Women are therefore becoming desperate and seeking back alley abortions.

Gestational parasite for an unborn child perfectly encapsulates the absence of any respect for human life

Spare me the emotionalism. It won't work on me.

 

[AZRWinger]

Yes, so?

So, there is no impartial reporting of the total number of abortions. There is no reporting of botched abortions. No way to identify incompetent providers. Abortion is still legal but it's still in the backroom.

I guess you havent read the laws in the red states that have the restrictions/bans then. It's very clear they target providers. If you perform an abortion on another, you are providing that service. None of them state anything about credentials.

The hyperbole was that women who have been injured in illegal abortions are too afraid to seek medical help or contact law enforcement so abortion restrictions cost lives. It's a claim completely disconnected from the law.

Do you have a point?

Only that the hyperbole around abortion guard rails costing women's lives isn't based on facts.

 

[Lursa]

So, there is no impartial reporting of the total number of abortions. There is no reporting of botched abortions. No way to identify incompetent providers. Abortion is still legal but it's still in the backroom.

The states dont do so? Please cite that.

The hyperbole was that women who have been injured in illegal abortions are too afraid to seek medical help or contact law enforcement so abortion restrictions cost lives. It's a claim completely disconnected from the law.

How so? They would face legal penalties, right? So why wouldnt they be afraid and more likely to take the risks?

Only that the hyperbole around abortion guard rails costing women's lives isn't based on facts.

You have provided zero facts to prove that.

 

[AZRWinger]

The states dont do so? Please cite that.

Prove a negative for your unsupported claim. No you show stste abortion statistics.

How so? They would face legal penalties, right? So why wouldnt they be afraid and more likely to take the risks?

Cite US abortion regulations that punish the patient. None of my research shows any.

You have provided zero facts to prove that.

You have made the claim that abortion guard rails cost lives but offer no credible evidence only conjecture. You have displayed ignorance of the relavant statistics and laws. Brilliant. Do you even have a point?

 

[Lursa]

Prove a negative for your unsupported claim. No you show stste abortion statistics.

Here ya go. So...you you just lied out of convenience, eh?

WA St link

MN link

Iowa link

NM link

Cite US abortion regulations that punish the patient. None of my research shows any.

There are no US regulations for that. It's not a federal issue any longer.

You have made the claim that abortion guard rails cost lives but offer no credible evidence only conjecture. You have displayed ignorance of the relavant statistics and laws. Brilliant. Do you even have a point?

I havent been making that argument here. I've been showing that the new focus on ALL these incidents related to pregnancy/childbirth, whether relate to abortion or not, show that the anti-abortite mantra about pregnancy/childbirth being safe is bullshit in general. Now, because of national interest in abortion, we're seeing more reporting on the actual risks and costs of pregnancy/childbirth.

To support my position that it's immoral for anti-abortites to demand women be denied the much safer medical procedure of abortion.

 

[AZRWinger]

Here ya go. So...you you just lied out of convenience, eh?

WA St link

MN link

Iowa link

NM link

You presented abortion statistics from 1 state . The next 2 are from Kaiser Family. The last is from Lozier. 3 out of 4 are estimates. The challenge was to provide reliable national figures from health department reporting.

There are no US regulations for that. It's not a federal issue any longer.

You claimed Red states had regulations punishing abortion patients.

I havent been making that argument here. I've been showing that the new focus on ALL these incidents related to pregnancy/childbirth, whether relate to abortion or not, show that the anti-abortite mantra about pregnancy/childbirth being safe is bullshit in general. Now, because of national interest in abortion, we're seeing more reporting on the actual risks and costs of pregnancy/childbirth.

To support my position that it's immoral for anti-abortites to demand women be denied the much safer medical procedure of abortion.

No reliable statistics to support your claim of abortion safety or visibility of bad providers. No support for your claim red states have laws punishing the abortion patient. Instead you are thrashing around trying to change the subject.

 

[Lursa]

You presented abortion statistics from 1 state . The next 2 are from Kaiser Family. The last is from Lozier. 3 out of 4 are estimates. The challenge was to provide reliable national figures from health department reporting.

They all have abortion stats for those states. Every one. And all the states have them.

You claimed Red states had regulations punishing abortion patients.

Where?

No reliable statistics to support your claim of abortion safety or visibility of bad providers. No support for your claim red states have laws punishing the abortion patient. Instead you are thrashing around trying to change the subject.

You are lying. You didnt read the links I gave you. Every single one has them.

 

[aociswundumho]

It will provide better quality *for the rich* and lower prices along with lower quality for everyone else.

1) There's nothing wrong with lower quality at lower prices.

2) Capitalism is constantly improving goods and services for the poor. Virtually every product in a competitive market improves over time.

But then again, you think poor people who can’t afford doctors should pay their untrained relatives to perform surgery on them.

 

[aociswundumho]

When America had its smallest government and greatest amount of capitalism, slavery was legal in every state in the country. So therefore capitalism is pro-slavery, yes?

Gee, that sounds like a government problem to me. Don't forget that your beloved government also prohibited black people from owning firearms.