Reptile 6 Mens Distress Cowboy Boots Leather White Crocodile Toe 5 Pointy Toroz HT6nT Reptile 6 Mens Distress Cowboy Boots Leather White Crocodile Toe 5 Pointy Toroz HT6nT Reptile 6 Mens Distress Cowboy Boots Leather White Crocodile Toe 5 Pointy Toroz HT6nT Reptile 6 Mens Distress Cowboy Boots Leather White Crocodile Toe 5 Pointy Toroz HT6nT Reptile 6 Mens Distress Cowboy Boots Leather White Crocodile Toe 5 Pointy Toroz HT6nT
-Brand: Toroz

-Label size: 6.5 (mens)...elongated toes

-Please check the measurements below to get the most accurate fit.

-Made in Mexico

-White leather uppers.

-Uppers have a 6 row stitched design

-Feet are white and made to look like crocodile (or gator?)

-Feet have elongated, pointy toes

-Stacked heels

-Lots of scuffs n scrapes at the toes and all around the edges

-Uppers show scuffs and lots of discolorations

-Piping down the sides show wear

-Previous owner painted the feet, the tops of soles have lots of white paint on them

-Previous owners name is on right pull strap of left boot (or maybe it is a famous person's signature?!?!)

-Heel caps are rounded slightly from wear

-Measurements:

-Total height: about 12 7/8"

-Heel height: about 1.5"

-Insole: about 12 3/8" ....extra long, elongated toes

-Ball of Foot: about: 3 3/8"

-Calf opening: about 14.5"

-Can go with many different styles of fashion

-Colors may vary a bit on different monitors and in different lights



I offer an easy return policy.



***BOOT SIZING: NOT ALL SIZES MEASURE THE SAME. PRE-OWNED BOOTS COULD HAVE BEEN STRETCHED OR SHRANK TO FIT THE ORIGINAL OWNER. SOME BOOTS ARE DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE MEN'S OR WOMEN'S, SO WE PROVIDE THE MEASUREMENTS. PLEASE COMPARE THE MEASUREMENTS TO A PAIR OF BOOTS OR SIMILAR STYLES SHOES YOU ALREADY OWN. ***
Early View
8 women Leather 80s us 5 Fur Finland Over in Zip Chocolate Pull Vintage Brown uk Boots Boot Made 38 5 Knee Winter High eu TadHU5qw
CONTEXT

State legislation restricting access to abortion in the clinic setting raises the possibility that an increasing number of individuals in the United States will self‐manage their abortion at home. Medications sourced online represent a potential pathway to abortion self‐management. Yet, very little is known about the reasons U.S. residents may seek abortion online or their experiences finding medications and information.

METHODS

In January–June 2017, anonymous in‐depth interviews were conducted with 32 people from 20 states who sought abortion medications online (30 women and two men seeking medications for their partners). Participants were asked about their (or their partners’) motivations for considering self‐managed abortion, the sources of medications they identified and any other methods they considered. Transcripts were coded and analyzed according to the principles of grounded theory.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed four key themes: Seeking abortion medications online can be a response to clinic access barriers both in states with and in ones without restrictive abortion laws; self‐managed abortion can be a preference over clinical care; online options offer either information or medications, but not both; and the lack of trusted online options can delay care and lead to consideration of ineffective or unsafe alternatives.

CONCLUSION

Current online options for abortion medications leave many important needs unmet, particularly for women who encounter barriers to obtaining clinic‐based abortion services. There is a public health justification to reduce clinic access barriers and to make medication abortion that is sourced online and managed at home as safe and supported as possible.

Authors' Affiliations

Abigail R.A. Aiken is assistant professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs, and faculty research associate, Population Research Center; Kathleen Broussard is a graduate student, Department of Sociology, and graduate research trainee, Population Research Center; Dana M. Johnson is a graduate student, LBJ School of Public Affairs; and Elisa Padron is an undergraduate student, College of Natural Sciences—all at the University of Texas at Austin.

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Guttmacher Institute.

Support Our Work

Your support enables the Guttmacher Institute to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and globally through our interrelated program of high-quality research, evidence-based advocacy and strategic communications.