Abortion is legal in this country, and any woman can go to the hospital (as in the ER), or at a consultorio familiare to initiate the process. Both options are free of charge and free of judgement, especially the latter. As to why these two websites were rendered inaccessible it beats me, as there are many other local alternatives one may peruse, and they're all accessible. Hell, even the Italian Government Website has resources[1][2]!
> Both options are free of charge and free of judgement, especially the latter.
Maybe they are free of charge, idk, but they doesn't seem to be free of judgement. From the article:
Even if an abortion seeker is within the 12 week gestational limit and has access to a local hospital, a doctor can turn them away on the basis of conscientious objection, which legally allows any doctor to deny a patient an abortion on moral grounds. In 2019, it was reported that 67% of Italian gynecologists were registered as conscientious objectors and multiple hospitals reported having a 100% conscientious objection rate.
Even finding a doctor seem to be an issue, because most of them would tell you that they are more moral than you think and wouldn't do an abortion.
If a care seeker can find a doctor who is willing to perform an abortion, they must endure a 7-day waiting period between their initial request for an abortion and the procedure (which can push care seekers past the 12 week gestational limit).
So they believe that women are probably mistaken and don't know what they want, don't they? Or maybe they just want to make it harder to fit abortion in the 12 week limit?
In April 2024, the Italian parliament passed a measure allowing anti-abortion activists to enter abortion consultation clinics.
These activists I'm sure wouldn't judge. No way. Would they?
Let me help answer that question by abstracting away the charged element and disambiguating the most common point of actual logical contention:
Should doctors be forced to perform <P:procedure> they don't ~~condone~~[A:believe is medically safe and appropriate for a diagnosis|B:wish to support or endorse on non-medical grounds].
To me, and for most reasonable people I've properly been able to have a conversation with on this subject, the answer is universally an emphatic NO for the vast majority of possible procedures P, in both cases A and B. However, where things diverge is that most people believe there should be consequences for the doctor refusing on grounds B to perform a procedure other doctors would consider to fit the criteria of A, for virtually every P I've thought of. These consequences typically include removal of their license to practice medicine, and may include civil or criminal penalties in egregious cases where a doctor might claim religious objection to something like CPR in a situation where they were the only doctor working at an ER and the CPR was clearly medically necessary, for example.
> Should doctors be forced to perform abortions they don't condone?
No person should be forced to perform actions they don't condone.
But there is no unalienable right to be a doctor. If someone wants to be a doctor and not perform health care procedures, then that's not compatible with being that kind of doctor.
They are entirely free to switch careers to do something else.
> As to why these two websites were rendered inaccessible it beats me, as there are many other local alternatives one may peruse, and they're all accessible.
Because, presumably, abortion is legal only in specific circumstances (first trimester, I imagine) and these websites are bypassing that.
FTFA:
> Today, Women on Web facilitates online access to abortion pills
I'd expect any website that provides access to non-over-the-counter pills is operating against the law. I mean, it'd be nice if I can buy antibiotics online, but I can't in my jurisdiction.
Ah that does it. Abortion pills are not candies. There's a reason why they are expected to be used in a hospital setting, with medical personnel nearby. If these websites facilitate the distribution of prescription meds, they're no different from other "online pharmacies" and get the same treatment
>There's a reason why they are expected to be used in a hospital setting, with medical personnel nearby.
Not really true. They've been repeatedly shown in studies to be safe for home use. They're evaluating packaging and instructions for possible OTC sale in the the future:
> They've been repeatedly shown in studies to be safe for home use.
In that case I fully support the organisations involved to campaign to make abortion pills OTC legal. That does not mean that I support them skirting the law as it is now.
There is ample evidence that video appointments followed by pills through the mail are safe and effective with very low rates of complications that can be addressed in a local ER if needed.
In Hungary abortion is technically legal but only surgically, and the public health system is mental torture including being forced to listen to the heartbeat of the fetus (thanks to our local fascist party). Women on Web is a million times more humane. It's not like anyone thinks "oh I'm pregnant I'll just pop a pill and it's solved".
in this part of the world, Mexico is known for public pharmacies that sell wildly-strong drugs of different kinds easily.. I doubt there are any websites that list what you can actually get if you walk in with cash
It's an unreasonable argument because the people who treat medication like candy are far less common than the people who are restricted from seeking medical assistance due to repressive family situations.
In Italy these services are thankfully not restricted in the same way they are in, say, America - but there are still plenty of life situations (like suffering SA from a family member) where shame, social pressures and threats can cause the regular medical system to be hard to access.
That is a far more reasonable scenario than "I just love popping abortion pills!"
No one claimed that people just "love popping abortion pills". At least my reading of their comment is that these pills are considered dangerous to take alone in your bedroom, without monitoring and follow-up by health professionals, and are therefore expected by the health system to be used in a hospital setting. That sounded reasonable to me.
Finding an obiettore is a somewhat rare circumstance in a hospital, but it's unlikely in a consultorio familiare; those are structures whose only purpose is reproductive health, gynecological care, social services, and psychological consult, especially aimed at teens and women. If you're an objector you generally don't go out of your way to work there.
I’m sure you’re aware that it _greatly_ depends on the region you’re living in. The fact that consultori are for reproductive health doesn’t mean that there are no obiettori: for some of them the purpose of those structures are exactly to prevent abortions. There are many accounts of women who were pushed to not interrupting a pregnancy.
Read the article. It's 67% of registered obgyns and fully 100% of some hospitals. Why would you believe it's 1 of 1000 in a world where countries consistently successfully create legislature targeting women?
In 2022 there were about 65k abortions in Italy, two thirds of which were with ru486. All of them completely legal and paid for by the national health care. Not sure there is a need for pills over mail.
> In 2019, it was reported that 67% of Italian gynecologists were registered as conscientious objectors and multiple hospitals reported having a 100% conscientious objection rate.
I couldn't find any information, either. The only thing I was able to find were many posts on Reddit from women trying to get these websites to send them abortion pills.
I assume that this might be the reason why they got blocked--or if not a possibility.
I don't understand why women would need these websites, there are plenty of free resources like local hospitals and doctors who are generally completely fine with abortion.
It is indeed legal, but gynaecologists can object to help for conscientious reasons (65% do) and in quite a few hospitals, 100% do object, especially in the south. So in practice access to it is not always that easy.
Agree about that. The question is whether all websites providing black-market potentially generous medications are being targeted or specifically just abortion pills. I genuinely do not know, this might be making the news but actually be part of a wide blockage.
> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution.
Indeed, access must be made easy. Abortion, through a pill or otherwise, should be accessible anywhere, freely, and any medical record should be kept absolutely secret, including from the family, especially if she’s underage.
I don’t think that’s the direction they’re headed though. I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible.
That is my point. If access is not easy, selling prescription drugs to anonymous buyers is not the solution - access must be made easy.
> I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible.
I don't think so. No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. That choice must be totally theirs to make, not the states.
I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.
> No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being.
I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important?
> I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.
France, and many other countries, makes it a crime (misdemeanour I think?) not to help people. If I see someone about to die, and I could prevent that, and I don’t, then I could go to jail.
This is textbook compelled action, and I fully condone it. If you don’t help someone from immediate danger you’re trash, and you should pay the consequences.
> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution.
The only way is to make access easy. If you make it hard, then demand for black market drugs will drive supply. Which in turn would drive a repressive machine. Sites blocked, people convicted and so on.
I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.
> I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.
The pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on stupid people - see above where a pro-choicer is arguing that abortion 1 day before delivery should be legal.
Sure, but access is easy enough. Not worse than anything else than the government does.
Much better than--let's say--getting an MRI.
Looks like this thread has gotten the attention of weird activists that want to find injustice everywhere and jump to conclusion--as long as the conclusion is women oppressed and censored.
I don't think GP was making that argument (well, I didn't read it that way). He's just saying that access may not be easy.
[EDIT: I see GP did reply to parent, and he apparently was making that asinine argument :-/ Oh well, at least I interpreted original GP comment charitably]
of course doctors should not be forced, that's ridiculous, but the SSN should prioritise hiring non-objecting doctors, at least in areas where there isn't enough coverage (in the same way it should prioritise hiring other specialities as needed).
> of course doctors should not be forced, that's ridiculous, but the SSN should prioritise hiring non-objecting doctors, at least in areas where there isn't enough coverage (in the same way it should prioritise hiring other specialities as needed).
I agree, they should!
But what do you do if your society just does not have enough people (nevermind doctors) who share the beliefs of pro-choicers?
At the point where you cannot find enough people to carry out an order for one side of an issue, it's a signal that the society itself has already taken a stand on the issue.
It's bizarre to me that countries in Europe can just compel their ISPs to block websites completely without any judicial review. That kind of thing would run afoul of all kinds of first amendment litigation in the US. The FBI will occasionally seize a domain, but only after a court order.
It is a temporary solution. Events of these kind tend to escalate up to a obligatory VPN for just using Internet, and beyond that to VPNs that resist blocking, like amnezia-wg, xray and suchlike.
You see, they block, then they notice that blocks do not work, they try harder. And still harder, till the situation comes to impasse, when to try harder means to shut off the Internet. It stops there, everyone is using some kind of DPI resistant VPN, paying more for internet access, and ISP spending more to block what politicians deem worthy of blocks. A pure waste of money. Though datacenters are happy, because they host a ton of VPNs.
absolute freedom of speech is not a value or constitutional right in most european countries. I don't understand why americans can't get comfortable with the notion that other countries have different laws. There's plenty of things that could be considered bizarre and arbitrary in the US form the perspective of a european, I know full well being one living in California for 20 years.
I think Americans get that other countries have different laws. But freedom of speech, an ideal we lifted from European enlightenment thinkers, is so important to our culture and national mythos that it is a little surprising how differently it's valued in much of Europe.
I'm sure the culture shock goes both ways though, as you say. Curious about your perspective on the the most bizarre / arbitrary things in the US?
If other websites exist about this topic, why are these two specifically being censored and by who? If abortion is legal (within a set of guidelines), what laws exist that these sites are breaking or close to breaking that might lead them to be censored?
> If abortion is legal (within a set of guidelines), what laws exist that these sites are breaking or close to breaking that might lead them to be censored?
Mailing out prescription drugs without a prescription.
This is obviously a contentious issue, but it's important to understand why.
Catholics are "pro birth" in general, but it really doesn't have much in scripture to support it; there is of course the "Quiverfull" movement which aims for each birth to be "an arrow in the quiver of God's army"
So for all of that, it's clearly a religious viewpoint and that raises serious 1A questions.
A question I've never seen addressed by those who hew to this belief system:
Apparently roughly 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage, which is (using the belief system above), God is performing an abortion. How does that reconcile with that stance.
My personal take is simple: "every baby should be a wanted baby"
The politics of it started half a century ago, and the politicizing of abortion was very much intentional:
I'm arguing in good faith and welcome valid criticism.
Please note that I'm not trying to troll (the bit about God doing abortions may seem like it but that point stands on its own: if an abortion is the cessation of the development of a fetus or proto-human, then a miscarriage is effectively an "abortion"). The question becomes "why did that happen". This is an important question to ask because women are being imprisoned for miscarriages and the "passionate pursuit of the matter" does not always lead to justice.
As for any strawmen from me, my conflation of Catholic teaching and the Quiverfull movement -- I'll own that outright as being lazy on my part.
Politics can be construed in different ways. Yes, there have been laws and movements, but not under the banner of any US political party. I'm talking about as a partisan platform issue. I remember, I was there. It's very well documented and there's an even less palatable facet to that movement as it has been documented that it was intended to succeed segregation as a politically activating issue.
Now back to your points:
Conflating infanticide with "abortion" is an Equivocation — using a single term or concept across two things that differ in a morally or legally. Also known as a false equivalence. It also begs the question, since the equivalence between fetus and infant is precisely what's in dispute.
I'm engaging here in self-defense, because there are parties actively trying to make this country a theocracy and I think thats a very bad idea.
But I would add, I don't think we can define a person as anything other than a genetically distinct individual of the species Homo sapiens. If a definition were to be proposed not on the basis of what something is, but rather how it functions, where it exists, or its level of dependence on other persons, then personhood ceases to be an inherent property and becomes a conditional privilege. And historically, whenever society has tried to separate biological human status from legal 'personhood,' it has paved the way for dehumanization and injustice.
To preserve human equality, personhood must be tied strictly to objective biological reality.
[1] https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/tema/salute-della-donna/
[2] https://www.salute.gov.it/new/it/tema/salute-della-donna/int...