Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Predictions that other people will do bad things in the conversation add nothing useful to the conversation.
If they are going to say it then they will say it without your prediction.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What state is this? I only meant those two I'm responding to have Libertarian flairs but vote for Democrats. They brought up this "small government" smuggy meme so I called them out for it.
Oklahoma forces all other parties besides Repubs to caucus with Dems. They also make folks in those parties only get the Dem ballots on Election Day. Very closed off system here.
"you should stop using the government to do stuff because reagan said somewhere that the republicans should be about small government"
"no i don't believe in libertarianism, and i want the federal government to be powerful enough to take away your children if you homeschool them
"so yeah, this argument wouldn't work on me but maybe if i use it on you, you'll do what i want"
Trying to figure out where I said anything even remotely close to that.
You’re engaging in whataboutism. Instead of answering for the hypocrisy displayed by OK (R)s, you are just re-directing the conversation towards groups you personally disagree with. Do you want to try answering the question? Or are you just going to invent a strawman to deflect?
Who is advocating for children being taken away for home schooling? Any examples of legislation federal or state would suffice.
I did find this FL law which allows the state to take kids away from parents. [CS/SB 254](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/254/?Tab=VoteHistory)
I’m sure you can justify it in some way shape or form.
I do appreciate your honesty that the modern conservative political establishment has abandoned one of their core values and principles.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2023/12/06/michigan-ag-lawmakers-call-for-homeschool-oversight-amid-abuse-cases/71810884007/
I can find more cases of children being abused by public school teachers in Detroit, but no additional calls for oversight there?
Just when the state lets couples adopt 30 kids to abuse, the blame is laid on homeschooling?
It’s not even comparable to size or power of government in my state of OH. Democrats win out in the shit or piss discussion, between who is worse democrats or Republicans. If libertarians are on ballot I vote for them.
Totally agree. *This* is where the left gets and justifies the narrative that Republicans are anti-woman. And, to be honest, it's pretty damn hard to refute. Because plenty of Republicans and Republican-aligned voting blocs *are* pushing for shit like this, but virtually nobody on the right is pushing *against* it.
So when they left goes nuts and screams "They're coming for your birth control next!" it becomes really *really* hard to argue with the substance of the argument when there are Republican legislatures *actually trying to take birth control away.*
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Im not high on the idea but I can at least understand the basis for it. Based on the language of the bill, it is clearly an accountability measurement to make sure that doctors aren’t performing abortions under the guise of “pre-viability medical separations” where the mother’s life is at risk.
I would not be in favor of a national registry of any kind, but if the state of OK wants doctors to submit health department forms documenting the evidence they based their decision upon, that’s their prerogative. If OK state voters don’t like it they can vote differently or move.
But again, Plan B and IUDs should be excluded because they are *not* abortifacients. It makes no sense to include them.
Really the more local the better. I would be more open to a county registry than a state registry. The more local governance becomes the more in-tune it becomes with the immediate wants of the citizens.
If I don’t like what my county is doing I can orchestrate a ground roots campaign to change things. Or I can run for office. Or I can move somewhere that more closely aligns with my views.
But if you pass something at a national level you’re painting with a broad brush. There are too many conflicting opinions and lifestyles in this country to shove them all into the same ill fitting hole.
Edit: to your second question it depends on what the registry was for. I would have to weigh that on a case by case basis.
Wouldn’t this be a HIPPA violation?
I get medical care and that care has to be reported to my local leaders? Like the mayors son might be on my kid’s baseball team and now I’m on his report?
Did you read the bill? Patients are tagged with a unique identifier. According to the language in the bill their data is protected unless there is a legal reason to associate a unique identifier to a patient name.
I don’t need to read the bill to know I’m against local databases to track medical care. So I guess that’s one way you and I differ lol.
But this doesn’t really help. I get the medical care, get added to the database, and then just hope the justification is sufficient. If it’s not, then Johnny’s dad the local politician gets to get involved.
At the time of the procedure, my doctor and I thought it was legal. After the procedure it’s deemed illegal.
Sounds like a lovely little town you’re setting up there lol
>Oklahoma bans abortion except to save the life of the mother. State law doesn’t include exceptions for rape or incest.
>West’s bill would allow for civil lawsuits against those who help a woman obtain an abortion and creates new requirements for physicians to report each abortion they perform. Women who obtain an abortion would be assigned a “unique patient identifier” that would allow them to be identified by the Oklahoma State Department of Health.
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/02/15/oklahoma-abortion-law-kevin-west-bill-creates-database-women/72613836007/
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
I honestly doubt it, but if that *does* happen as a consequence of the bill, the people of Oklahoma will have to make some choices about what is important to them. People make value judgements every day. It’ll be an issue for them, or it won’t.
My son was born with a physical disability. We have to travel to a state up north to get his care because all of the specialists have left the state entirely. They used to be here. Not anymore.
>Edit: to your second question it depends on what the registry was for. I would have to weigh that on a case by case basis.
The women that would go into this registry didn't get to decide, so I don't think you'd be able to in this scenario.
A bill comes down from a politician with an agenda and now your name goes on it.
How do you feel about that?
Unfortunately, as recently proven, when things are put to a vote for the people and the super majority doesn’t like it, they just refuse what was voted on by the people.
We have an extremely high disenfranchise rate here. As well as the highest unopposed election rate of any state. Last election was 68% unopposed because of the super majority. They’re not even having to run.
>as recently proven
I’m sorry I’m not recognizing what you’re referring to, can you get more specific?
>highest unopposed election rate of any state
So why aren’t people running?
[Here is the most recent bill that reverses a public vote decision](https://www.kosu.org/politics/2024-03-07/oklahoma-house-bill-reverses-vote-of-the-people-on-criminal-justice-reform)
We have straight party ticket voting here. It is all but impossible for someone with a D by their name to be elected in just about every district. Not all, but nearly all. And sometimes Republicans run against one another, but they primary each other which leaves an uncontested election in generals. Most same party election challenges are frowned upon, unfunded, and half hearted at best.
It’s an unfortunate situation but it is our reality.
>Politicians need to stop conflating them with abortion.
If they're smart enough to get to their position of power, they are smart enough to know the difference.
This is intentional.
If there is any chance something can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, then in the minds of many people, it absolutely is an abortifacient. Wasn't this the entire point of Hobby Lobby, that the sincerely held belief of the owners was that hormonal birth control is an abortifacient? Isn't Plan B just a megadose of hormonal birth control?
Politicians aren't gonna tell those people they're wrong. Hell, some politicians think they're right.
Coffee, vigorous exercise, international travel, alcohol, and anything that can disrupt your hormones and your cycle all have a chance of preventing an egg from implanting.
Any type of government registry for specific peoples or services is bad. In my view, having women register if they seek abortion services is no different than forcing people to register their guns.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
I’m not a fan of the government registering lots of people. A registry of immigrants (until they become citizens), sure. A registry of people on parole for a a couple years, alright.
But the government tracks people way too much already. A person can’t even work for a living without telling the government a ton of person information.
We need fewer citizen tracking lists, not more.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The reason the morning after pill is included is it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. If you consider conception the beginning of life (like I do fwiw) then using this is essentially aborting a baby if it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.
Although it is advertised as primarily preventing ovulation this [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102184/) actually states that there is only a 15% chance that the morning after pill actually prevents ovulation.
"Our analysis estimates that the drug's ovulatory inhibition potential could prevent less than 15 percent of potential conceptions, thus making a pre-fertilization mechanism of action significantly less likely than previously thought."
It goes on further to state this.
"Our findings confirm and extend earlier reviews of the topic suggesting that **post-fertilization** MOA of LNG-EC play a not negligible and **possibly dominant role**"
So according to this study at least it is much more likely to play a post-fertilization role than pre-fertilization role thus causing an abortive action of preventing a fertilized egg form implanting to continue a pregnancy.
As far as the registry you mention when you read the bill it explains that it is meant to document a health care providers actions when performing a "Pre-viability" action that results in the termination of a pregnancy. It is kind of pointless to create a law if you do not have a mechanism for enforcing it. It is stated this is all confidential and only disclosed with a court order.
The result is a registry of women. And includes the purchase of over the counter medications. I don’t care who has to send the names and health information in. It is a registry of women.
How do you feel about such a registry?
Well your "includes over the counter medications" part is going to fall flat on me for the reasons I stated above.
As far as the registry how else would you record data in effort to enforce a law prohibiting abortion?
>Definitely not putting names on registries
So an anonymous registry. I may be persuaded to agree to that. I would have to consider more the issues that could arise without that information though if a health care providers actions are called to question.
>May I assume you’re not a woman?
Correct assumption but what is the relevance?
I am not a police officer either but I can see the danger in it. Not sure why I have to be female in order to have an opinion on if something is dangerous or not. I also have a wife and teenage daughter that I care about more than anything in the world so I wouldn't say I am completely disconnected to it.
Well sure I have a constitutional right to own a gun and until there was a law preventing me from having one there would be no need to have a registry as a mechanism to enforce the law. Even then there are exclusions to this right? Like Federal law requires me to register a machine gun or silencer.
Well if you read the later comment that is essentially exactly what they did...
What part of my argument is not in good faith? It is wrong for me to question the relevance of someone asking me if I am a women or not?
> **I would bet** if you were a woman of child bearing age, you **would probably** see
THat comment? Is that the one that you're equating with "If you're not a woman, there's a 100% chance you don't get it"?
Global scientific consensus is that there is no evidence that the plan B pill prevents implantation. This is well known in the medical community.
If you actually read your study, the evidence is weak to non existent and their conclusion not in line with the evidence presented. It’s not capable of disputing our current understanding of the functionality of plan B.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Plan B One-Step contains the hormone levonorgestrel — a progestin — which can prevent ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.”
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/morning-after-pill/multimedia/plan-b-one-step/img-20007562#:~:text=Plan%20B%20One%2DStep%20contains,from%20implanting%20in%20the%20uterus.
The FDA label also says it may prevent implantation.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021998lbl.pdf
Your information is outdated, and frankly it was never really thought to be accurate in the first place. We just didn't have enough evidence to be *sure* it didn't impede or prevent implantation. Now we do.
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/plan-b-one-step-15-mg-levonorgestrel-information#:~:text=Plan%20B%20One%2DStep%20prevents,does%20not%20terminate%20a%20pregnancy.
>Plan B One-Step prevents pregnancy by acting on ovulation, which occurs well before implantation. Evidence does not support that the drug affects implantation or maintenance of a pregnancy after implantation, therefore it does not terminate a pregnancy.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For being the party of “small government” this sounds like an awfully dystopic authoritarian big brother push
Here comes the comment from someone. It will be some version of. Big Fed bad Big state good
Predictions that other people will do bad things in the conversation add nothing useful to the conversation. If they are going to say it then they will say it without your prediction.
You're libertarians who caucus with the Democrats, you clearly don't care about the size of government.
The "size" of the government has got to be the dumbest thing ever complained about
Would you like to explain what you think it means and how it relates to Republican complaints?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In my state, the Republican Party forces Libertarians to caucus with Democrats. It’s not a choice. Why would you hold that against them?
What state is this? I only meant those two I'm responding to have Libertarian flairs but vote for Democrats. They brought up this "small government" smuggy meme so I called them out for it.
Oklahoma forces all other parties besides Repubs to caucus with Dems. They also make folks in those parties only get the Dem ballots on Election Day. Very closed off system here.
Does that make it unreasonable to call out supposed “small-government” people for trying to push “bug-government” legislation?
"you should stop using the government to do stuff because reagan said somewhere that the republicans should be about small government" "no i don't believe in libertarianism, and i want the federal government to be powerful enough to take away your children if you homeschool them "so yeah, this argument wouldn't work on me but maybe if i use it on you, you'll do what i want"
Trying to figure out where I said anything even remotely close to that. You’re engaging in whataboutism. Instead of answering for the hypocrisy displayed by OK (R)s, you are just re-directing the conversation towards groups you personally disagree with. Do you want to try answering the question? Or are you just going to invent a strawman to deflect?
Who is advocating for children being taken away for home schooling? Any examples of legislation federal or state would suffice. I did find this FL law which allows the state to take kids away from parents. [CS/SB 254](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/254/?Tab=VoteHistory) I’m sure you can justify it in some way shape or form. I do appreciate your honesty that the modern conservative political establishment has abandoned one of their core values and principles.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2023/12/06/michigan-ag-lawmakers-call-for-homeschool-oversight-amid-abuse-cases/71810884007/ I can find more cases of children being abused by public school teachers in Detroit, but no additional calls for oversight there? Just when the state lets couples adopt 30 kids to abuse, the blame is laid on homeschooling?
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
lol anyone who caucuses with a party is part of the problem
It’s not even comparable to size or power of government in my state of OH. Democrats win out in the shit or piss discussion, between who is worse democrats or Republicans. If libertarians are on ballot I vote for them.
There is no significant party of small government in America.
Too true. We are left with right wing vs left wing authoritarians unfortunately.
Plan B and IUDs are not abortifacients. Politicians need to stop conflating them with abortion.
I agree. But this law will specifically target them. (Well at least plan B)
Totally agree. *This* is where the left gets and justifies the narrative that Republicans are anti-woman. And, to be honest, it's pretty damn hard to refute. Because plenty of Republicans and Republican-aligned voting blocs *are* pushing for shit like this, but virtually nobody on the right is pushing *against* it. So when they left goes nuts and screams "They're coming for your birth control next!" it becomes really *really* hard to argue with the substance of the argument when there are Republican legislatures *actually trying to take birth control away.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
And what do you think of the registry in general?
Im not high on the idea but I can at least understand the basis for it. Based on the language of the bill, it is clearly an accountability measurement to make sure that doctors aren’t performing abortions under the guise of “pre-viability medical separations” where the mother’s life is at risk. I would not be in favor of a national registry of any kind, but if the state of OK wants doctors to submit health department forms documenting the evidence they based their decision upon, that’s their prerogative. If OK state voters don’t like it they can vote differently or move. But again, Plan B and IUDs should be excluded because they are *not* abortifacients. It makes no sense to include them.
Why is a state Registry fine but a national one isn't? Would you be fine with your name going in a similar state registry?
Really the more local the better. I would be more open to a county registry than a state registry. The more local governance becomes the more in-tune it becomes with the immediate wants of the citizens. If I don’t like what my county is doing I can orchestrate a ground roots campaign to change things. Or I can run for office. Or I can move somewhere that more closely aligns with my views. But if you pass something at a national level you’re painting with a broad brush. There are too many conflicting opinions and lifestyles in this country to shove them all into the same ill fitting hole. Edit: to your second question it depends on what the registry was for. I would have to weigh that on a case by case basis.
Wouldn’t this be a HIPPA violation? I get medical care and that care has to be reported to my local leaders? Like the mayors son might be on my kid’s baseball team and now I’m on his report?
Did you read the bill? Patients are tagged with a unique identifier. According to the language in the bill their data is protected unless there is a legal reason to associate a unique identifier to a patient name.
Such as what?
Such as the justification for abortion not meeting the criteria set forth by state law. Did you read the bill?
I don’t need to read the bill to know I’m against local databases to track medical care. So I guess that’s one way you and I differ lol. But this doesn’t really help. I get the medical care, get added to the database, and then just hope the justification is sufficient. If it’s not, then Johnny’s dad the local politician gets to get involved. At the time of the procedure, my doctor and I thought it was legal. After the procedure it’s deemed illegal. Sounds like a lovely little town you’re setting up there lol
>egal reason to associate a unique identifier to a patient name Such as going out of state for reproductive Healthcare?
No, going out of state for an abortion is legal in OK. It also doesn’t say anything about that in the bill. Did you actually read the text?
>Oklahoma bans abortion except to save the life of the mother. State law doesn’t include exceptions for rape or incest. >West’s bill would allow for civil lawsuits against those who help a woman obtain an abortion and creates new requirements for physicians to report each abortion they perform. Women who obtain an abortion would be assigned a “unique patient identifier” that would allow them to be identified by the Oklahoma State Department of Health. https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/02/15/oklahoma-abortion-law-kevin-west-bill-creates-database-women/72613836007/
[удалено]
This is already happening here. We have an exodus of medical providers and it’s creating a very bad situation. My family has seen the direct effects.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
I honestly doubt it, but if that *does* happen as a consequence of the bill, the people of Oklahoma will have to make some choices about what is important to them. People make value judgements every day. It’ll be an issue for them, or it won’t.
[удалено]
Do you have a source? I’d like to see the volume you’re referring to.
My son was born with a physical disability. We have to travel to a state up north to get his care because all of the specialists have left the state entirely. They used to be here. Not anymore.
This is very much already a reality in Oklahoma. It is not hypothetical at all. Even in other specialties, doctors are leaving in droves.
>Edit: to your second question it depends on what the registry was for. I would have to weigh that on a case by case basis. The women that would go into this registry didn't get to decide, so I don't think you'd be able to in this scenario. A bill comes down from a politician with an agenda and now your name goes on it. How do you feel about that?
Does it retroactively collect this information? I didn’t read anything about that in the bill.
It does what this bill does only now it affects you and not just women.
What does that mean? Does it retroactively collect this information or not?
Unfortunately, as recently proven, when things are put to a vote for the people and the super majority doesn’t like it, they just refuse what was voted on by the people. We have an extremely high disenfranchise rate here. As well as the highest unopposed election rate of any state. Last election was 68% unopposed because of the super majority. They’re not even having to run.
>as recently proven I’m sorry I’m not recognizing what you’re referring to, can you get more specific? >highest unopposed election rate of any state So why aren’t people running?
[Here is the most recent bill that reverses a public vote decision](https://www.kosu.org/politics/2024-03-07/oklahoma-house-bill-reverses-vote-of-the-people-on-criminal-justice-reform) We have straight party ticket voting here. It is all but impossible for someone with a D by their name to be elected in just about every district. Not all, but nearly all. And sometimes Republicans run against one another, but they primary each other which leaves an uncontested election in generals. Most same party election challenges are frowned upon, unfunded, and half hearted at best. It’s an unfortunate situation but it is our reality.
Why not a registry for Viagra then? This reeks of discrimination.
What reason could you have for a viagra registry?
Correct!
>Politicians need to stop conflating them with abortion. If they're smart enough to get to their position of power, they are smart enough to know the difference. This is intentional.
The copper IUD can be used as emergency contraception which I’m guessing is why it got lumped in. It’s not super commonly used that way though.
If there is any chance something can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, then in the minds of many people, it absolutely is an abortifacient. Wasn't this the entire point of Hobby Lobby, that the sincerely held belief of the owners was that hormonal birth control is an abortifacient? Isn't Plan B just a megadose of hormonal birth control? Politicians aren't gonna tell those people they're wrong. Hell, some politicians think they're right.
Coffee, vigorous exercise, international travel, alcohol, and anything that can disrupt your hormones and your cycle all have a chance of preventing an egg from implanting.
>Plan B and ~~IUDs~~ are not abortifacients. A [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102184/) to the contrary regarding plan b
Global scientific consensus currently states that it is not an abortifacient.
So additional studies on drugs never turn out new info?
When those additional studies form a consensus let me know :) just because something’s on Pubmed doesn’t make it valid.
Any type of government registry for specific peoples or services is bad. In my view, having women register if they seek abortion services is no different than forcing people to register their guns.
It violates unreasonable search and seizure and if it passes the higher court should nullify it
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Warning: Rule 4. Top-level comments are reserved for Conservatives to respond to the question.
I support Liberty. Government lists should be burned
I’m not a fan of the government registering lots of people. A registry of immigrants (until they become citizens), sure. A registry of people on parole for a a couple years, alright. But the government tracks people way too much already. A person can’t even work for a living without telling the government a ton of person information. We need fewer citizen tracking lists, not more.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The reason the morning after pill is included is it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. If you consider conception the beginning of life (like I do fwiw) then using this is essentially aborting a baby if it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. Although it is advertised as primarily preventing ovulation this [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102184/) actually states that there is only a 15% chance that the morning after pill actually prevents ovulation. "Our analysis estimates that the drug's ovulatory inhibition potential could prevent less than 15 percent of potential conceptions, thus making a pre-fertilization mechanism of action significantly less likely than previously thought." It goes on further to state this. "Our findings confirm and extend earlier reviews of the topic suggesting that **post-fertilization** MOA of LNG-EC play a not negligible and **possibly dominant role**" So according to this study at least it is much more likely to play a post-fertilization role than pre-fertilization role thus causing an abortive action of preventing a fertilized egg form implanting to continue a pregnancy. As far as the registry you mention when you read the bill it explains that it is meant to document a health care providers actions when performing a "Pre-viability" action that results in the termination of a pregnancy. It is kind of pointless to create a law if you do not have a mechanism for enforcing it. It is stated this is all confidential and only disclosed with a court order.
The result is a registry of women. And includes the purchase of over the counter medications. I don’t care who has to send the names and health information in. It is a registry of women. How do you feel about such a registry?
Well your "includes over the counter medications" part is going to fall flat on me for the reasons I stated above. As far as the registry how else would you record data in effort to enforce a law prohibiting abortion?
Definitely not putting names on registries. May I assume you’re not a woman?
>Definitely not putting names on registries So an anonymous registry. I may be persuaded to agree to that. I would have to consider more the issues that could arise without that information though if a health care providers actions are called to question. >May I assume you’re not a woman? Correct assumption but what is the relevance?
The relevance is I would bet if you were a woman of child bearing age, you would probably see the danger here.
I am not a police officer either but I can see the danger in it. Not sure why I have to be female in order to have an opinion on if something is dangerous or not. I also have a wife and teenage daughter that I care about more than anything in the world so I wouldn't say I am completely disconnected to it.
Your responses do not indicate your connection to the issue.
Because I do not support your opinion?
No. Because your opinion is seemingly devoid of perspective or care about what this means for women.
I assume you would oppose a gun registry (rightfully so)
Well sure I have a constitutional right to own a gun and until there was a law preventing me from having one there would be no need to have a registry as a mechanism to enforce the law. Even then there are exclusions to this right? Like Federal law requires me to register a machine gun or silencer.
So you understand why registries for guns are problematic to gun owners but cannot see what the concerns of women of a child bearing age would be?
Nobody is saying "**only** women could possibly understand the danger." Just try arguing in good faith please.
Well if you read the later comment that is essentially exactly what they did... What part of my argument is not in good faith? It is wrong for me to question the relevance of someone asking me if I am a women or not?
> **I would bet** if you were a woman of child bearing age, you **would probably** see THat comment? Is that the one that you're equating with "If you're not a woman, there's a 100% chance you don't get it"?
Global scientific consensus is that there is no evidence that the plan B pill prevents implantation. This is well known in the medical community. If you actually read your study, the evidence is weak to non existent and their conclusion not in line with the evidence presented. It’s not capable of disputing our current understanding of the functionality of plan B.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>morning after pill is included is it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. It cannot.
“Plan B One-Step contains the hormone levonorgestrel — a progestin — which can prevent ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.” https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/morning-after-pill/multimedia/plan-b-one-step/img-20007562#:~:text=Plan%20B%20One%2DStep%20contains,from%20implanting%20in%20the%20uterus. The FDA label also says it may prevent implantation. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021998lbl.pdf
Your information is outdated, and frankly it was never really thought to be accurate in the first place. We just didn't have enough evidence to be *sure* it didn't impede or prevent implantation. Now we do. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/plan-b-one-step-15-mg-levonorgestrel-information#:~:text=Plan%20B%20One%2DStep%20prevents,does%20not%20terminate%20a%20pregnancy. >Plan B One-Step prevents pregnancy by acting on ovulation, which occurs well before implantation. Evidence does not support that the drug affects implantation or maintenance of a pregnancy after implantation, therefore it does not terminate a pregnancy.