Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

Birth control is not covered on health insurance. Even if the pills are prescribed by a medical doctor for a medical condition and not for contraception. I was on it for years and I had to pay full price for it. It got increasingly more expensive over the years. Viagra, however, was covered by insurance. There is already a double standard when it comes to health insurance. Why wouldn't we ladies think they'll go after birth control?

It will be states going after it. They will feel confident though with this Supreme Court.

Oh I see. That's unfortunate.

What would the plan be then? Could people argue in court, freedom of religion, and thus birth control, condoms, viagra, etc, cannot be disallowed on religions grounds then?

So correction: before I moved overseas 8 years ago, birth control was not covered. Since then, the Affordable Care Act has made it mandatory that insurance companies cover it without out of pocket cost. However, it seems insurance companies still play their shenanigans so as not to pay whenever possible.

Here is one woman's story with it.
https://www.healthywomen.org/amp/my-ins ... 2657015073

Viagra for ED is definitely not covered by Medicare or normal insurance plans. It's only covered for its original purpose, treating pulmonary hypertension.

Oh I see. Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

Well as far as men in the government wanting to control women from being safe from pregnancy, what would the motivation behind that be? A lot of guys like sex from women and would love the idea of sex without pregnant consequences, so why are men for the idea of unintended pregnancy consequences?

Is it because a lot of men want to have kids and women would only be willing to if it was accidental and no access to abortion? Do men in the government feel they are doing guys a favor who want to become dad's and that's it?

Is there any update on the likely arrest and incarceration of women who use IVF embryos and their doctors?
The revoking of Roe Vs Wade is like a never ending nightmare for women in America.

Were women prosecuted for that before roe vs. Wade, before 1972?

In a word... yes. Many died after having botched illegal abortions performed on them.

Oh but I meant prosecuted for IVF embryos as mentioned before in the post.

People aren't prosecuted for having embryos.
That's a big business and it involves creating life.

The problem is if too many are fertilised.
That's beyond the doctor's control.

Some (usually one or two) are implanted and they may develop or not.
If they don't, it would result in a Blighted Ovum, or possibly a Miscarriage.

The fertilised extras that aren't implanted are under scrutiny.
What should people do with them, ethically and legally?

Yes that's what I meant. It's the "spares" that potentially will cause a legal minefield for the mothers and the IVF doctors.

^ And fathers (or co-mothers), because anyone knowing about the consideration of termination is liable.

It's already an ethical minefield for a lot of families, prior to RvW being overturned.
It's expensive to keep them or move them between states / jurisdictions.
Parents don't always know what to do with them.
Do they stay "alive" in perpetuity? Forever in deep freeze?

Pro-Choice doesn't necessarily mean these people want to abort them, they just want the choice to be their own.

Oh I see. But does a woman have to keep all of the fertilized eggs if more than one get fertilized? Can't the hospital and the law just write that off as unintentional happenstance and that's just the way the cookie crumbles?

I thought the overturning of roe vs wade just has to with states deciding what to do with abortion not IVF fertilized eggs.

It's not fair if they allow termination of IVF embryos but not natural embryos.
They can't give the right of choice to some parents and not others.
That would be discrimination and people could fight it on those grounds.

They take eggs from the mother, and select the healthiest ones.
Then they inject them all with sperm to see how many will actually fertilise.
Sometimes, none of them work. Sometimes all of them work.
Then they have to test them to see which are healthiest.
They put one or two of the healthiest in the mother to see what happens.
Some parents use the others for subsequent pregnancies.
Sometimes there's some left over.
Very often the leftovers are "less healthy" even though they are fertilised.
That's another ethical problem.

It costs a fortune to save them, but also a fortune to implant them.

Everyone deserves equal rights though, so there's no easy answer.

That makes sense. But don't the more conversative states still allow termination of either type of embryo as long as it's not past a six week period or something like that?

Last edited by ironpony on 06 Jul 2022, 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

The worst case scenario is that IVF becomes unlawful in certain states which will spur a growth industry in medical tourism. Wealthier clients will cross state borders but less wealthy clients might be forced to "third world" countries offering cut-price IVF or surrogate wombs.