this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
348 points (99.4% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7227 readers
155 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This doesn't actually address material conditions though. It's just a law that says abortion is legal. It doesn't guarantee that a for-profit healthcare provider will offer abortions. It doesn't guarantee any of the people most affected by abortion bans access to abortions. It literally does nothing but tell the politicians of Ohio that 57% of voters want abortion to remain legal.

Meanwhile over 75% of voters want public health insurance, but I don't see any politicians giving a shit about that either.

[–] SaniFlush@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah it sucks.

[–] drcabbage@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It makes it legal for doctors to perform abortions. I would think free market will dictate who will offer abortions pretty quickly. Doctors gotta get that bag.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Hoping for the free market to resolve your problems is hazardous. Your logic works well enough for local clinics (liberal logic tends to do okay the more localized things are), but remember that doctors are at the mercy of hospital policy and furthermore patients are at the mercy of insurance policy. It is probably already an element of the plan for Republicans to use their levers in other states to pressure insurers not to cover abortions, and then suddenly that means abortions are either not viable or the problem of the danger of back alley abortions is replaced with the problem of medical debt.

What Ohio did was good, but it's not huge and some of the problems with it are foundational to the capitalist mode of production.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

The "free market" already allows everyone who can afford an Abortion access to abortions. This does nothing.