This isn't the main reason that SF didn't relocate. It's the civil rights and body rights restrictive laws that Alabama has passed that affect readiness. Any state that has these laws is going to see, at the very best, no growth in military presence. This is a good breakdown. Short watch at under five minutes: Regardless, we do need an 'Alabama FAFO Tracker' thread. I'd like to say it's the dumbest state in the country politically but there are so many contenders in that field, including Texas.
I guess I am not surprised that you compare access to a medical procedure impacting the heath of the soldier with surfing and salmon fish. You might as well just say you don't really care about the health of the soldier and only wish to impose your political beliefs on them.
Access to abortion will have little to no impact on the health of the soldier. 97% or so of abortions are not done for medical reasons, per the Gutmacher Institute. The military as a class will also be generally younger and healthier than the general population, so that number would be lower in that cohort. I never understand why the pro-choice side always tries to make abortion about saving the life of the mother. If it is fine and you are just disposing of a parasitic clump of cells, why not just say they do it because they want to? Why pretend it is for health care purposes?
Nice dodge. Are most abortions done to save the life of the mother? Does not getting an abortion have serious negative impacts on the health of the mother in most cases? Why obfuscate? You think women should be able to get abortions because they don't want to have a baby, why pretend it has anything to do with health?
"Dodge"? You are the one that brought up "save the life of the mom". More noise. Its access to a medical procedure that you would deny a soldier in one state that a soldier in another state can have access to. I am arguing that soldiers should all have the same access. That's only fair. You are also bringing up the reason why a soldier would want or need to get one. That is more noise that shouldn't come into the discussion, as I believe it is the soldier's choice. And having safe access to the medical procedure does have to do with health.
Because even accepting the stats you cite that there is a percentage that such a procedure would be life saving. Consider if a soldier had a rare cancer and was stationed in TX. There was a small chance that a procedure at Mayo Clinic could save them. Would you say they shouldn’t be granted medical leave for it?
There is no mental health condition that requires an abortion to cure. Okay, you brought up caring about the health of the mother. These abortions are not being done to protect the health of the mother. [quote[Its access to a medical procedure that you would deny a soldier in one state that a soldier in another state can have access to. I am arguing that soldiers should all have the same access. That's only fair.[/quote] A breast augmentation is a medical procedure. I don't support giving extra leave and pay to someone to get a breast augmentation either. I am pointing out that soldiers don't need them, they want them. That makes the whole thing elective. Having safe access to the medical procedure of breast augmentation has to do with health, in that if you get a boob job in a back alley it is probably dangerous. It isn't dangerous just to not get the boob job in the first place. Same with abortion. If it would be life saving, they wouldn't need to travel for it.
A breast augmentation is a medical procedure. I don't support giving extra leave and pay to someone to get a breast augmentation either. I am pointing out that soldiers don't need them, they want them. That makes the whole thing elective. Having safe access to the medical procedure of breast augmentation has to do with health, in that if you get a boob job in a back alley it is probably dangerous. It isn't dangerous just to not get the boob job in the first place. Same with abortion. If it would be life saving, they wouldn't need to travel for it.[/QUOTE] Then why do people travel from all over the country and world to go to MD Anderson and the Mayo Clinic?
A breast augmentation is a medical procedure. I don't support giving extra leave and pay to someone to get a breast augmentation either. I am pointing out that soldiers don't need them, they want them. That makes the whole thing elective. Having safe access to the medical procedure of breast augmentation has to do with health, in that if you get a boob job in a back alley it is probably dangerous. It isn't dangerous just to not get the boob job in the first place. Same with abortion. If it would be life saving, they wouldn't need to travel for it.[/QUOTE] Again, you continue to not care about the health of the mother by comparing it to breast augmentation. Its not breast augmentation (which as far as I know isn't unavailable in any state). But if you want to go there... a soldier that had breast cancer would certainly want breast augmentation. Which wouldn't need to happen in a back alley since it hasn't been made illegal and its available to soldiers in every state. In the same way, abortion as a safe medical procedure should be just as available to soldiers regardless of what state they are stationed in.
A breast augmentation is a medical procedure. I don't support giving extra leave and pay to someone to get a breast augmentation either. I am pointing out that soldiers don't need them, they want them. That makes the whole thing elective. Having safe access to the medical procedure of breast augmentation has to do with health, in that if you get a boob job in a back alley it is probably dangerous. It isn't dangerous just to not get the boob job in the first place. Same with abortion. Huh... People travel all the time for life saving procedures. Last month a friend of mine traveled to get a pancreas transplant. I know you don't live in Houston but many people from around the World travel to MD Anderson in Houston for life saving procedures. Besides that though the very stats you cited show there is a percentage, granted small, of times that an abortion is medically necessary procedure.
Again the stats you cited show there is a small percentage of abortions that are deemed medically necessary. That’s not a stat provided by me or another poster but one that you believe support your argument. A state that outlaws abortions you would have to travel than for that abortion. This isn’t a theoretical argument we know that there have been cases in Texas where women weren’t able to obtain an abortion even when it was deemed medically necessary and have miscarried leading to damage to their physical health. In Ireland a few years ago a woman trying to obtain an abortion died before she could travel to the UK to receive one as her condition deteriorated rapidly and couldn’t get an abortion that would’ve saved her life in Ireland. They led to the overturning of Ireland’s ban on abortion.
No state outlaws abortions to save the life of the mother. Citing another country is irrelevant. More importantly, it wouldn't matter if the state did, because the military doctors can perform an abortion to save the life of the mother. If a pregnant Marine is shot and treating the gunshot wound will result in killing her fetus, the military doctor won't refuse to treat her. You wouldn't need to have leave and extra pay to get that lifesaving treatment, it would be done on an emergency basis where you are stationed. The policy has nothing to do with that, it is to allow extra leave and extra pay to go get an abortion because you don't want to have your baby.
Speaking from experience I can tell you that abortion decisions are made based on risk assessment decisions and discussions between the doctor and patient/mother/father far before there's life-saving treatment happening. What normal non right wingers want is the ability for mothers and the doctors to be able to make a decision themselves based on the risks to avoid being in a "Life Saving" situation. The laws are written now to extract that decision making process in a safe way, and adds confusion to where the doctors and the mothers don't really even understand exactly what the laws are at any given time so it adds unnecessary complications to the evaluation of risks, and decision making process. .... I for one cannot understand why a "Mr. Libertarian" like yourself would want Joe Biden, or Donald Trump, or Gregg Abbott there in the hospital room with you essentially telling your wife, your doctor, and you what you have to do to make the most humane decision possible in a risky pregnancy. The fact that you are trying to make this case really destroys any credibility you have in calling yourself a "Libertarian."
