City of San Francisco to cut Massachusetts ties because we're too restrictive on abortion

But I for one can't wait to hear the opinions of a bunch of angry men about this

I am confused. The first two sentences in this part of the article seem to contradict one another:

San Francisco Mayor London Breed's office says all the banned states “restrict abortion before viability of the fetus to live outside of the womb.” Massachusetts allows abortions up to 24 weeks. After that, abortions are only allowed in cases where the woman’s life or health is at risk.

I thought the age of viability was widely held to be about 24 weeks (at this point in history). Does SF use a different standard?

I'm asking sincerely, not trying to bait anyone, so please don't bite my head off if I've missed something obvious.

How many states are not on the blacklist?

“These sites are just littered with tons of trash, human waste, feces, female products.” – Mark Fragoso, Bargaining Unit Coordinator, Southern California International Union of Operating Engineers

Mayor Walsh should return the favor with a scientifically based ban on Boston city workers traveling to San Francisco due to the public health emergency. Of course he's a fellow Democrat, so he will probably work to increase abortion in Boston instead.

It's a long walk from San Fran to Boston. No doubt city workers are already banned from superfluous carbon generating travel modes like airplane, bus, car. GoToMeeting and other platforms have eliminated the need for most cross country executive travel anyway. Thus, the "travel ban" on city workers traveling to Boston has little significance aside from this being the home to some of the best business and technical minds, much needed in San Fran right now. With San Fran on the brink of an infectious disease superstorm, they worry there aren't enough abortions? Don't forget, Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

For being represented by lunatics.

San Fran is a shit hole. Add Seattle to that list.

It’s an absolute neoliberal nightmare. It’s what every other rising coastal city should strive not to be.

You misspelled "San Francisco Government Establishes Grandstanding Moral Smokescreen to Distract from Inability to Solve Greater Problems"

A professionally performed abortion should be as readily available as chewing gum, and you can get those here. If that's not to the satisfaction of those in San Francisco government who procure services, then perhaps the boycott could have been registered quietly. This act does nothing to improve my regard for San Francisco.

not the best use of political capital. American cities like SF and Boston have similar serious issues that need serious solutions. However you feel about it, abortion access is a red herring.

But calling those problems a function of progressive policies is delusional, counter-factual. Income inequality and the resultant dearth of affordable housing, the cutting of the social safety net for people with mental illness, the opioid crisis? You can thank Republican lawmakers, Republican presidents, and amoral, mostly Republican capitalists for all of those. That shit you're stepping in has the stink of the GOP wafting from it.

This is the same city (SF) that has tried to ban male circumcision for all reasons except health. So if we were to meet their abortion criteria, they'll come up with something else wacky to impose their will on the rest of us.