The two most pervasive and harmful conspiracy theories of all

BACKGROUND

Those of us who are not addled laugh at those who believe the conspiracy rantings of QAnon, Alex Jones, and numerous others of like ilk.

The Holocaust never happened. Princess Dianne was murdered.

The Sandy Hook mass shooting was fiction.

Hillary Clinton runs a sex ring.

Donald Trump was cheated out of the election.

Hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of these nonsense stories float and are believed by many.

The latter, the Donald Trump lie, fathered a mush-brained attempt to overthrow the U.S. government by people who incredibly thought they were being patriots by violently breaking into Congress.

Such is the mind of the believer.

One commonality among Conspiracy Theories (CT) is that facts don’t matter. You might think that a demonstration of counter-facts would show even the least intelligent that a CT is utter nonsense. The opposite happens.

The demonstration of counter-facts “proves” in the believers’ minds that the CT must be true, and the facts only show how some unknown “they” are hiding the truth.

We’ll begin this exposition by giving you the facts, of which there essentially is one: The U.S. federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has 100% control over the U.S. dollar. Neither the federal government nor any of its agencies can run short of dollars.

The government has absolute control over the value and the supply of dollars. Even if the federal government collected $0 taxes, it could keep spending forever. For that reason, the federal government does not borrow dollars.

(The primary effect of federal taxes is to control the economy. Taxes discourage what the government wishes to discourage, and tax breaks encourage what the government wishes to encourage. Unlike state/local taxes, federal taxes do not provide the federal government with spending money.)

Despite repeated mischaracterizations, T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds do not represent borrowing. They represent deposits into Treasury Security accounts, the purpose of which is to stabilize the dollar. Who says so:

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Ben Bernanke when he was on 60 Minutes: Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending? Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.

Statement from the St. Louis Fed: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”

That means the government’s so-called “borrowing” does not help the government spend. The European Central Bank, which also is Monetarily Sovereign, agrees.

Press Conference: Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, 9 January 2014 Question: I am wondering: can the ECB ever run out of money? Mario Draghi: Technically, no. We cannot run out of money.

I have never met anyone who believes the U.S. government can run short of its sovereign currency. In that vein, the usual reply to questions is, “It always can print more.”

The response is not 100% true — the government does create dollars but does not print them. It prints dollar bills- receipts for dollars, not dollars themselves- but the federal government’s infinite dollar creation ability is correct.

Unlike state and local governments, the federal government pays all its bills by creating new dollars, which it has the infinite ability to do.

O.K., here they are:

THE TWO MOST PERVASIVE, HARMFUL CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

THEORY I. Federal spending causes inflation. We have discussed this here, here, and elsewhere. The federal spending/inflation myth has two rationales.

Pumping money into the economy increases the supply of money. When you increase the supply of anything, without increasing the demand, the value of that thing goes down. When the value of money goes down that is inflation.
When people have more money to spend, they will increase their spending, which increases the demand for goods and services. Increased demand without an increase in supply causes prices to rise, i.e. inflation.

Both those rationales are based on faulty logic.

The first assumes increased federal spending does not increase the demand for dollars. The second assumes increased federal spending does not increase the supply of goods and services. Both are wrong.

Increased federal spending provides growth dollars to manufacturers and suppliers, which invest those dollars to increase the supply of goods and services.

When people begin to purchase items that are not necessities, this increases the demand for and prices of all goods and services. Increased federal spending also provides more dollars for previously unaffordable spending, especially for larger ticket items and luxuries. The result: THEORY II. Federal Spending is Unsustainable. For this, we turn to our favorite conspiracy theorist:

The following is a statement from Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB):

Inflation is surging, interest rates are rising, and debt is growing unsustainably. It is well past time for policymakers to work together to get our fiscal house in order.

The thing commonly called federal “debt” is not a debt or borrowing in the usual sense.

When someone borrows or accrues debt, the purpose is to use the borrowed dollars for spending. But federal “debt” is not something used for spending.

It is the total of dollars deposited into T-security accounts. These accounts resemble safe-deposit boxes in that the holder (the government) never touches the contents, which are owned by the depositor.

T-security accounts give people (and nations) a safe, interest-paying place to store unused dollars. This safety and interest payments help stabilize the value of the dollar.

The government creates new dollars to pay all its bills; it never uses the dollars owned by T-security account holders. It merely holds them, occasionally adding interest to them, and upon maturity, the government sends the dollars back to the owners.

Even under CBO’s outdated economic assumptions and current law policy assumptions, debt will hit a new record in 2031 and rise to an unprecedented 185 percent of GDP in 30 years. We’re entering uncharted territory.

That relationship, Debt/GDP, often falsely is used as a measure of the federal government’s ability to pay off its so-called “debt.”

The assumption is that the higher the ratio, the more difficulty the government has in paying its debt. It is a fale assumption.

“Debt” is deposits into T-security accounts. GDP is total spending in the U.S. by the government, the private sector, and those who import U.S. goods and services. The two figures are not related or comparable.

Worse than an apples/oranges comparison, the Debt/GDP ratio is a monkeys/monkey wrenches comparison: Two unrelated numbers. The federal government pays its debts by creating new dollars, not by raiding T-security accounts.

The evidence that federal “debt” has nothing to do with fiscal health can be seen in the following table. You might expect the nations with the lowest ratio to be the healthiest. Not so. Here are the highs and the lows:

There sits Japan with a 259.0% ratio and the U.S. with a 134.2% ratio. Compare them to Afghanistan, Haiti, Russia, and Myanmar, which have low ratios.

Which are the healthier economies? Which are less likely to default on their financial obligations? There is no financial meaning to the oft-quoted Debt/GDP ratio. It by itself is a conspiracy theory.

Debt scare mongers have been crying wolf about the federal “debt” since at least 1940 perhaps longer, when they called it a “ticking time bomb.”

Over 80 years of ticking and it still has not exploded.

Rising interest rates are fanning the flames of this already dangerous situation. Assuming relatively low rates, interest will hit a record 3.3 percent of GDP by 2032 and more than double that record by 2052.

Again, interest as a percentage of GDP is meaningless, a number that is supposed to scare you. But, rising interest rates are not the result of increased federal spending. They are the Fed’s intentional, though wrongheaded, attempt to cure inflation.

By 2049, interest will be the single largest federal government expenditure, and in combination with health and retirement spending it will make up nearly three-quarters of the budget by 2052.

Translation: By 2049, interest payments will pump more growth dollars into the economy than will any other government expenditure.

The federal government has infinite dollars. The private sector (also known as “the economy”) needs growth dollars. Federal interest payments are affordable for the government and stimulative for the economy.

If interest rates follow CBO’s higher interest rate path, debt would reach 235 percent of GDP. And if policy followed CBO’s costly alternative scenario, debt would increase to 262 percent of GDP by 2052.

Again, the DEBT/GDP ratio is meaningless.

All this is a reminder to those who argued we should amp up our borrowing in years past because rates would always remain low that this was a dangerous bet with real consequences.

“Borrowing” means deposits into T-security accounts. The federal government can spend infinite dollars and never “borrows.” Remember what the Fed said, “. . . the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”

Today’s outlook is all the more reason we need a deficit-reducing reconciliation package focused on generating budgetary savings and controlling inflation.

We need to take action today, before debt and interest costs spiral out of control.

So-called “debt” and interest costs never are out of control for a Monetarily Sovereign entity. They are under total Federal control, whether or not there is inflation, deflation, growth, recession, or depression.

Deficit reduction does nothing to help the federal government but deficit reduction harms the economy.

**Deficit growth reduction leads to recessions (vertical gray bars) which are cured by increased deficit growth.**

The conspiracy theory repeatedly espoused by the CRFB and others of that ilk can be stated simply: “Federal finances are like private sector (including state/local government) finances.”

But federal finances are nothing like private sector finances.

The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. We people and our states, counties, and cities are monetarily non-sovereign.
The federal government is the infinite creator of dollars. We are finite users of dollars.
The federal government writes the laws regarding dollars. We obey the laws regarding dollars.
The federal government cannot run short of dollars. We can, and often do, run short of dollars.
The federal government never borrows. We often borrow.
The federal government needs no income. We need income in order to spend.
The federal government arbitrarily creates interest rates. We use the interest rates that exist.
The federal government spends to acquire goods and services and to grow the economy. We spend only to acquire goods and services.
Even wasteful federal spending is economically stimulative. Our wasteful spending merely is wasteful.

Every conspiracy theory requires three things:

A story
Conspirators
A purpose.

The story: Federal finances are like private sector finances.

The conspirators: The people, the CRFB, the media, the university economists, and the politicians.

The purpose: Multiple purposes. Many people spread the story out of ignorance. They’ve heard it so many times they’ve come to believe it. And it sounds so logical

Why does the CRFB so avidly promote the theory that federal finances are like private sector finances? They have the same motive as the media, the university professors, and the politicians. They all are bribed by the very rich.

The rich, who run America, always want to be richer. They become richer by widening the income/wealth/power Gap below them. Were it not for the Gap, no one would be rich. We all would be the same.

So the rich bribe the CRFB et al. via contributions. The rich bribe the media via advertising dollars and ownership of media. Politicians are bribed via campaign contributions and promises of employment after they leave office. University professors and other economists are bribed via endowments to universities and jobs in think tanks.

Almost all your sources of information have been bribed by the rich.

To widen the Gap, your information sources convince you not to ask for government benefits.

So you accept, with only minimum complaint, the levying of the unnecessary FICA tax, which hits you much harder than the rich. It is applied only to salaries, not to other forms of income favored by the rich. And, it stops at about $140K salary, a pittance for the rich.

You accept the increases in Social Security’s qualification ages when the government easily could begin Social Security at age 0.

You accept that Medicare is mainly for the elderly when the federal government easily could provide free Medicare to every man, woman, and child in America.

You accept that Medicare pays only 80% of costs, forcing you to pay the rest or spend money on supplementary insurance.

You accept that there are tax breaks for the rich that you didn’t even know existed — tax breaks that allow billionaires to pay lower taxes than you do.

You accept that there are tax breaks for corporations that allow them to write off every expense, while your write-offs are not only negligible but actually are limited by a “standard deduction.” (You are pleased that the standard deduction goes up because of inflation when it is an increasing limit.)

You accept that you not only must pay income taxes but also spend your time and money computing your income tax when the federal government destroys every penny of taxes you send them.

Finally, you not only accept the Gap-widening, but you are so indoctrinated that you angrily defend it if anyone brings it to your attention. You have become an active participant in spreading the conspiracy theory. And your friends spread it. And their friends spread it.

And now, it has become so embedded into your belief system no one even questions the idea that the federal debt and deficit are too large, or the government can’t afford Medicare for All, or taxes must be increased lest Social Security becomes insolvent. Study explores how gossip spreads in social networks

If you listen closely, you will hear the rich laughing at you as you forget or refuse to believe what you just have read or even promulgate it.

Perhaps, you just feel helpless, that you are a voice in the wind, so what is the use to complaining?

But if enough people contact their representatives again and again, eventually, those voices become the wind that blows away the conspiracy.

———————/////——————–

[No rational person would take dollars from the economy and give them to a federal government that has the infinite ability to create dollars.]

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics. Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps: Ten Steps To Prosperity:

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Federal drug-price controls or divide pharmaceutical companies?

Should we have government drug-price controls? A good article exploring this subject is titled, “Government Regulated or Negotiated Drug Prices: Key Design Considerations.” This is from that article:

What process should HHS use to set the price for a drug?
Will the new system set prices only for a limited number of high-cost drugs that lack therapeutic alternatives or more broadly by including drugs that compete with other medicines?
Does the specified price represent the actual price for all sales of a drug, or is it a “ceiling” price, with payers retaining the ability to negotiate lower prices?
Will drug prices set by HHS apply to a narrow or broad population (e.g., only Medicare Part B or Part D beneficiaries or all patients, regardless of their insurance coverage)?
How would HHS assess and incorporate the value of a drug when establishing its acceptable price?
How should HHS select drugs for lowered prices?

The answers are complex, filled with “It depends” and “Maybes.”

The truth is we already have quite a bit of federal price controls, some helpful, some not. The question arises because many people now favor government negotiation of pharmaceutical prices.

Consider this brief video. It shows a woman weeping. She was suffering because the cost of a lifesaving drug was beyond her ability to pay.

In response to many thousands of similar, heart-rending stories:

U.S. Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Mark R. Warner (D-VA) reintroduced legislation to help lower the costs of needed medical care and prescription drugs for children.

The Fair Drug Prices for Kids Act would give states the ability to purchase prescription drugs at the lowest price possible, reducing the cost of prescription drugs for children who receive coverage through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and generatingimmediate savings for states and the federal government.

Actually, it’s not “the lowest price possible.” It’s the lowest price being offered, anywhere. And it’s state governments that would negotiate.

But that is a digression from our real question. Should the federal government determine prices for pharmaceuticals?

Senior living: Medicare could get to negotiate drug prices under Democratic bill By KAISER HEALTH NEWS | PUBLISHED: July 25, 2022 Democratic senators recently took a formal step toward reviving President Joe Biden’s economic agenda, starting with a measure to let Medicare negotiate prices with drugmakers and to curb rising drug costs more broadly.

A similar proposal died in December when Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., decided to oppose Biden’s $1.9 trillion Build Back Better bill, which also included provisions allowing for Medicare drug negotiations.

Reining in drug costs has long been wildly popular with the public, with more than 80% of Americans supporting steps such as allowing Medicare to negotiate and placing caps on drug price inflation.

The bill revealed in early July would do both. It would also limit annual out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries to $2,000, make vaccines free for people on Medicare and provide additional help for lower-income seniors to afford their drugs.

The heart of the bill is the negotiation provisions.

Under the legislation, Medicare could start the new pricing procedures next year, with the secretary of Health and Human Services identifying up to 10 drugs subject to bargaining. The resulting prices would go into effect in 2026. As many as 10 additional drugs would follow by 2029.

The use of the word “negotiate,” when talking about the federal government, is ludicrous if one side has all the power.

The federal government arbitrarily can set an unprofitable price for any drug. But, that drug won’t be sold, which is unacceptable to the public or drug companies.

The populace, which has a limited amount of money available for any spending, always wants, often needs, feels it deserves, and usually will vote for, lower prices.

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has an unlimited amount of spending money.

With no more effort than to touch a computer key, it can pay the full, asking prices for any drugs, or it can set prices by law. Clearly, when people are made to suffer from high prices, market forces are not working.

So why not either:

Have the federal government pay the asking price for all drugs and offer them free to the people or,
Have the government set an “affordable” price for all drugs, despite what the drugmakers want.

Solution #1 has problems: Healthcare providers, including pharma makers, would jack up prices to astronomical levels, and simply feed off the government’s trough.

There would be no profit motive for the Research & Development of new drugs, because the current drugs would provide infinite profits.

Government price-setting is a risky business. It often has the opposite results from what one would hope. Rent controls are a perfect example.

Limit rents, and landlords will refuse to maintain or upgrade apartments.

Research & Development World — **Costly, time-consuming, not itself profitable.**

Limit profits, and fewer people will become doctors; fewer hospitals will upgrade ; fewer new drugs will be created; fewer patients will be served.

Solution #2 also has problems. It too would not provide the profits needed for the Research & Development of new drugs, especially drugs for rare diseases and low-profit categories (anti-biotics, for example).

Since the Orphan Drug Act was signed into law in 1983, the FDA has approved hundreds of drugs for rare diseases, but most rare diseases do not have FDA-approved treatments.

The FDA works with many people and groups, such as patients, caregivers, and drug and device manufactures, to support rare disease product development.

In one sense, Medicare already does #2.

Without negotiation, it sets the healthcare prices it is willing to pay, on a take-it or leave-it basis with healthcare practitioners.

That policy has generated the “concierge doctor” system. For annual fees, primary care (usually) doctors can limit their practices to a manageable 600-800 patients, allowing plenty of time to devote to each patient.

This compares with the more typical 2500+ patient load, characterized by quick, robotic diagnoses, treatments, then on-to-the-next.

There is a commonality to the problem of all federal price setting. It doesn’t pay for improvements.

When rents are controlled, landlords don’t maintain or upgrade. When doctor’s fees are controlled, doctors are not rewarded for being better doctors. They are not rewarded for doing the daily “R&D” to keep themselves up to date with the latest procedures. Nor are they rewarded for taking more time with patients.

When the primary reward is numbers sold — how many apartments, how many patients, how many sales — hospitals, convalescent homes, pharmaceutical companies, etc. are rewarded for more, but not for better.

Impressions of Jan 6, 2021, a date which will live in infamy

Zombie Horde Of Zombies GIF - Zombie Horde Of Zombies Hungry Zombies - Discover & Share GIFs

What is an abortion? When is an abortion? How is an abortion.

Abortion has been much in the news lately, And everyone seems to have a different opinion. Despite claims that abortion is murder, the abortion argument is not based on a moral issue. Nor is it a health issue. Nor is it a biological issue. Nor is it a logical or scientific issue. Nor is it a social issue. The life importance of a sperm and egg, vs. an embryo vs. a fetus vs. a mother vs. a child is a digression from the real argument. The heated battle over abortion rights fundamentally comes down to a religious issue. All discussion of which religion is right and which is wrong are exercises in futility.

Are conservative and reform Jews right and Roman Catholics wrong? Are Hindus right and Unitarians wrong? The questions are senseless, and the answers are equally senseless. They have been debated for thousands of years, and will be debated for thousands more. Further, all people claiming membership in any one religion don’t think alike. Some Catholics support abortion; some Jews don’t. The abortion debate is comparable to debates about which city is better or which college is better. Logic means nothing. Taking sides means everything.

Supreme Court: 6-3 rulings foreshadow a sharper right turn | CNN Politics — **Our religion bans all abortions. Yours doesn’t. We don’t care about your religion. Our religion rules.**

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” But we face arguments about what “establishment” and “free exercise” mean. Many of our ancestors came across an ocean to avoid the one-religion-for-all Church of England. It was why our founders attempted to build a wall between the government and religion, the so-called “separation of church and state.” Of late, the right-wing has narrowed that separation, and the overturning of Roe is just one of several recent decisions in that vein. Any discussion of abortion involves four main questions: I. What is abortion? II. When is abortion” III. How is abortion? IV. Why is abortion? I. What is Abortion? There are many definitions:

Bing.com defines abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy

British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS): Abortion is when a pregnancy is ended so that it doesn’t result in the birth of a child. Sometimes it is called ‘termination of pregnancy.

Harvard Medical School: Abortion is the removal of pregnancy tissue, products of conception or the fetus and placenta (afterbirth) from the uterus.

American Pregnancy Association: Abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus.

Wikipedia: The termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus. An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or “spontaneous abortion“; these occur in approximately 30% to 40% of pregnancies. When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently, “induced miscarriage.” The unmodified word abortion generally refers to an induced abortion.

Britannica: The expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation).

Immediately, we see many differences in what people mean by “abortion.” Is it the expulsion of a fetus? Is it the removal of an embryo? Can abortion happen even before an embryo is formed? When drafting laws, specificity is necessary. There is a vast difference between an embryo and a fetus, or between expulsion and removal. Birth is a highly complicated procedure that begins with all the preparations of the human male and female bodies, even prior to insemination. Any interruption or change in these preparations can prevent a live birth, and be called an “abortion,” depending on one’s viewpoint. There are religions that consider contraceptives to be a form of abortion that should be prohibited. Any law banning abortion should be clear. To be illegal, must “abortion” be deliberate or can it be accidental? What about a woman who takes any drug (alcohol included) or does any strenuous activity that results in an abortion? Has she broken a law? Is it her purpose or her state of mind that is the deciding factor? The law must take all these variables into consideration. II. When is an abortion? Begin with the question, “What is pregnancy?”

Gestational age can be confusing. Most people think of pregnancy as lasting 9 months. And it’s true that you’re pregnant for about 9 months.

But because pregnancy is measured from the first day of your last menstrual period — about 3-4 weeks before you’re actually pregnant — a full-term pregnancy usually totals about 40 weeks from LMP — roughly 10 months.

This is important, because some abortion laws specify time periods when abortion is legal or illegal. Yet, there are significant differences among the various measurements of when pregnancy has begun.

In the first 2 weeks of your menstrual cycle. You have your period. About 2 weeks later, the egg that’s most mature is released from your ovary — this is called ovulation.

After it’s released, your egg travels down your fallopian tube toward your uterus. If the egg meets up with a sperm, they combine. This is called fertilization.

So far, we are up to 4 weeks into the pregnancy process and still no fetus.

The fertilized egg moves down your fallopian tube and divides into more and more cells. It reaches your uterus about 3–4 days after fertilization.

The dividing cells then form a ball that floats around in the uterus for about 2–3 days.

Fetal development begins from the ninth week after fertilization (or eleventh week gestational age)

Georgia bans abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy. There is no agreement about when “pregnancy” begins. But under any circumstance, Georgia’s ban comes well before the existence of a fetus. III. How is an abortion? There are two types of abortion: Medical and surgical.

In a first-trimester medical abortion, a patient usually begins by taking a mifepristone pill. The medicine, also known as RU-486 or the “abortion pill,” blocks the hormone progesterone, which stops the fetus from growing.

The second drug, misoprostol, is usually taken 24 to 48 hours later. It causes the uterus to contract and empty.

Seven states — Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Utah — require patients to be told that abortions by mifepristone can be reversed with doses of progesterone, despite a lack of scientific evidence.

At the end of the first trimester, the average fetus is about the size of an adult’s little finger.

A first-trimester surgical abortion is called vacuum or suction aspiration.

A suction device is used to empty the uterus in a procedure that can be done in five to 10 minutes.

A second-trimester surgical abortion is called dilation and evacuation.

For this type of abortion, the process of dilating the cervix may need to begin the day before the procedure.

On the day of the procedure, a numbing agent may be given, or sedation may be offered. A health-care provider uses forceps and a suction device to remove the fetus and placenta.

The procedure itself usually takes between 10 and 30 minutes. It is done in a clinic or operating room.

Dilation and evacuation can generally be performed throughout the second trimester of pregnancy. It accounts for an estimated 95 percent of abortions performed in the second trimester in the United States.

A second-trimester medical abortion is called an induction.

Medication is given to induce labor by causing the uterus to contract and expel the fetus and placenta.

Different medications can be used, including a combination of misoprostol and mifepristone, or misoprostol alone. In some cases, high-dose oxytocin is delivered through an IV.

The process can take 12 to 24 hours and generally occurs in a hospital.

Induction abortions mostly take place after 16 weeks and can be used throughout the second trimester.

Induction abortion is less common than dilation and evacuation, but one study found it is the primary method of termination in cases of fetal abnormalities in the late second trimester and early third trimester.

Third-trimester abortions are performed in only a handful of clinics and hospitals in the United States. Methods for third-trimester abortions vary based on the circumstances.

Confusion sometimes crops up over what is and is not abortion. Abortion is a medical intervention that ends a pregnancy.

Pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Methods used to prevent pregnancy before it occurs are called contraceptives.

The morning-after pill is an emergency contraceptive that primarily works by stopping the release of an egg from an ovary but may also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

It is taken orally. The over-the-counter version, sold under brand names including Plan B, is generally taken within three days of intercourse, and the prescription version, Ella, can be taken within five days of intercourse.

An intrauterine device (IUD) is a contraceptive that works mainly by reducing sperm’s ability to fertilize an egg.

There are two types: copper and hormonal. In copper IUDs, copper ions decrease sperm’s ability to move.

In hormonal IUDs, progestin thickens mucus in the uterus, making it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and reach an egg. A hormonal IUD may also prevent implantation.

An IUD is placed into the uterus by a health-care worker and can remain in place for five to 10 years, depending on the type.

IV. Why is an abortion?

A number of factorsmay lead a woman to decide that abortion is the best option in her circumstances.

Every woman’s reasons for abortion will be different, and it’s impossible to fully understand the circumstances each woman is facing that leads her to her abortion decision. However, here are some of the common reasons why women have abortions, according to a survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute:

Social Reasons for Abortions: Almost always, women choose abortion in response to an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Oftentimes, an unplanned pregnancy happens at a less-than-ideal time, and women may choose abortion for one (or more) of the following reasons:

A baby would have a drastic impact on their current life.

They are having relationship problems with the baby’s father.

They are done having children.

They are not ready to have a baby at their age or maturity level.

Financial Reasons for Abortion: Having a baby is expensive, and raising that baby to adulthood is even more expensive. In addition to the various medical costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth, it costs an average of $245,000 to raise a child to age 18.

They are unmarried and concerned about affording a baby on one income.

They are pursuing higher education (or planning to pursue higher education) and can’t afford the costs of raising a baby while being a full-time student.

They are unemployed.

They feel they can’t afford to adequately care for themselves and their children.

While social and financial concerns are the most common reasons why women have abortions, there are also some other, less common (but just as valid) reasons why a woman might choose abortion:

Pressure from others. Only 0.5 percent of women surveyed choose abortion because they feel pressured to do so by the baby’s father, their parents or other people in their lives.

Non-consensual sex. A woman may choose abortion if conception was the result of rape or sexual assault.

IN SUMMARY Abortion is argued on many levels: Moral, health, biological, medical, and scientific. There is no widespread agreement on such variables as:

What is abortion?
When is abortion?
Why is abortion?
How is abortion

The life importance of a sperm and egg, vs. an embryo vs. a fetus vs. a mother vs. a child vs, society is a digression from the real argument. The heated battle over abortion rights fundamentally comes down to a religious issue. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: