Georgia/Arizona push abortion law to 20 weeks

[Ashmada]

Why try to convert heatens anyway? Might Cthulhu doesn't care. He eats all, regardless of belief.


(edit: point of this post, since it might not be that clear: engaging Moosey in serious discussion is lulz)

[MaachaQ]

I wish my post about IVF and medically needed abortions would be addressed, I'd like to hear how someone militantly pro-life would respond.

For IVF, should the remaining embryos be forever kept frozen? Forever in limbo? Or would the "right" thing to do be for the couple to continue having embryos implanted until they have none left in the freezer, no matter how many children they actually want? I don't think it's legally possible to "adopt" a frozen embryo yet, but if it was possible would that be an alternative that pro-lifers would be happy with?

In the case that a pregnancy would cause the death of mother, fetus, or both, what is the right choice for pro-lifers? Should a woman with an ectopic pregnancy keep carrying that baby until her fallopian tubes burst and she dies of internal bleeding, taking the fetus with her? Should a woman be forced to carry a fetus to term and give birth even though it has a congenital defect that will kill it within hours or days of birth?

[MaachaQ]

So, umm, yeah... just found this...

http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-bill-...-abortion-387/

Arizona bill declares women pregnant two weeks before conception

Published: 05 April, 2012, 23:35

A new bill up for vote in the state of Arizona would ban abortions for some expectant mothers, but that’s only the start of what lawmakers have in store. If the legislation passes, the state will consider a child to exist even before conception.

Under Arizona’s H.B. 2036, the state would recognize the start of the unborn child’s life to be the first day of its mother’s last menstrual period. The legislation is being proposed so that lawmakers can outlaw abortions on fetuses past the age of 20-weeks, but the verbiage its authors use to construct a time cycle for the baby would mean that the start of the child's life could very well occur up to two weeks before the mother and father even ponder procreating.

On page eight of the proposed amendment to H.B. 2036, lawmakers lay out the “gestational age” of the child to be “calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” and from there, outlaws abortion “if the probable gestational age of [the] unborn child has been determined to be at least twenty weeks.”

The architects of the amendment say that prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — except in cases of medical emergency — is necessary for the safety of both mother and child. By designating a life to begin weeks before even possible, however, some critics are condemning Arizona lawmakers for looking for a way to involve itself in abortion matters before it can even become an issue.

“Certainly, they are trying move the gestational cutoff from what had been over the last two years a 20-week gestational cutoff to an 18-week gestational cutoff,” Guttmacher Institute’s State Issues Manager Elizabeth Nash tells Raw Story. “At the same time, they are trying to say, ‘Oh, this is a 20-week abortion ban.’ And they get away with that with the definition of gestational age that’s in the bill.”

“Considering that it’s anti-choice nuts we’re talking about, it’s safe to assume that they’d simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now,” RH Reality Check’s Amanda Marcotte adds in a recently-penned editorial. “Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age.”

In extending her support for the legislation, however, sponsor Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark. Also favoring the proposal, Senator Steve Smith (R-Maricopa) adds that lawmakers also need to consider “the 50 million-plus children who have been killed” since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v Wade.

"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''

Mother Jones adds in their own reporting, however, that while the law could be explained as an effort to deter complications that come from late-term abortions, opening up the window for the gestational age to begin before conception can hurt the parents in the long run. Essentially the act would outlaw abortion after 18 weeks, not 20 as the legislation claims, which could keep some concerned parents from making a decision about pregnancy before some medical procedures that gauge the health of the child are able to be determined. While some tests can be conducted soon after conception to catch potential life-threatening conditions and other impairments, outlawing abortions after the eighteenth week could keep parents from opting for abortion after other tests can be carried out (before the 20-week mark).

H.B. 2036 passed in the Arizona Senator by 20-to-10 and will soon go before the state’s House. To Raw Story, Elizabeth Nash says she believes the bill has a “very good chances of passage.”

[Eurell]

Hasn't it always been counted since the end of your last cycle?

[Acturus]

Hasn't it always been counted since the end of your last cycle?

No. Not at all.

Woman pees on a stick, it comes back positive, she calls her doctor. The doctor does a blood test that confirms, and the point of conception is estimated based on the information given by the blood test and the woman's own recount of her past couple of weeks. You then project out 39 weeks from the point of assumed conception. (I may remember that wrongish, it's been three years since my son was born).

It's not something that's automatically pinpointed to an exact day.

Also, how the fuck can the last day of the previous menstrual cycle even be legislated? Not every woman is regular. What happens when someone with an ovarian complication has three periods in a year. The point of conception is automatically four months ago? Shit balls, that's a 13-month pregnancy.

[Day]

stop getting trolled nubs

[Eurell]

No. Not at all.

Woman pees on a stick, it comes back positive, she calls her doctor. The doctor does a blood test that confirms, and the point of conception is estimated based on the information given by the blood test and the woman's own recount of her past couple of weeks. You then project out 39 weeks from the point of assumed conception. (I may remember that wrongish, it's been three years since my son was born).

It's not something that's automatically pinpointed to an exact day.

Also, how the fuck can the last day of the previous menstrual cycle even be legislated? Not every woman is regular. What happens when someone with an ovarian complication has three periods in a year. The point of conception is automatically four months ago? Shit balls, that's a 13-month pregnancy.

First website I checked said

http://www.pregnancyguideonline.com/wk1.htm

Fetal Development:
Female Reproductive SystemBecause we are counting with the gestational age method, week one begins with the first day of your menstrual period. Conception hasn't yet occurred, but you already get to start counting. Such a deal - see how time flies when you're having fun!

[Byrthnoth]

It is possible to make an argument for each method.
* Egg descends and implants into the uterus.
* Begins building up vascular tissue/etc. to hold it in place and stabilize it.
* If exposed to sperm at the right time (something like a three day window each cycle?), fertilization occurs.
* And then baby.

The first two steps must happen and take a set amount of time. I don't know how heavily the eventual birth date of the baby depends on the exact day in the ~three-day fertility window that it was fertilized, but it accounts for a pretty minor portion of the variance compared to the woman's cycle. Still, you could measure it from either one if you wanted. Fertilization day might be more accurate (if you could exactly nail it down), but cycle start is going to be more accurate if you can't.

[Helm]

Arizona is really pushing to win the craziest state award.

[MaachaQ]

Not all pregnancies proceed at the same rate. Some kids are fully developed and labor commences at 36 weeks, while others might not pop out until 42+ weeks. The magic number 40 for human gestation is simply an average.

When I was pregnant, the due date was determined during my ultrasound by measuring the size of the fetus's various parts. Because I was in a stable relationship, having sex fairly often, and had never had very regular periods, using the end date of my previous period wasn't helpful at all. For my second child I became pregnant pretty much as soon as my Depo-provera shot had worn off, never having a period for over a year before that while I was getting the shots. Depo is supposed to take some time to get out of your system and you become fertile again, especially if you've been on it for a while, but after checks at the doctor we counted back and I must have gotten pregnant the same week I had been due to get another shot. We'd planned to get pregnant, but hadn't expected it so soon...

[The Blackrose]

Arizona got this guy to write the bill:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...f5e4df07fa.jpg

[Ksandra]

First website I checked said

http://www.pregnancyguideonline.com/wk1.htm

Initially they will go off your menstrual cycle until an utrasound is made (which isn't until like 3~4 months in). However both of these are highly inaccurate. We're still pretty archaic actually when trying to figure out the conception date lol.

[Acturus]

First website I checked said

http://www.pregnancyguideonline.com/wk1.htm

That's interesting. Being totally not a woman, it was never explained to me that the days start counting from that point. It's still an estimation, though, augmented by the first ultrasound and the quality of the mother's memory of events leading up to the pregnancy. Because even if we count 280 days from the last cycle, the kid still isn't guaranteed to arrive on Day 280.

Also, my second point still holds, not every woman has such an exact cycle, so I'm curious if other legislation revolves around this metric in the same way, and how it's operationalized.

Still, thanks for pointing me to that site, I went to Google to see what else was around, and that form of measurement is fairly consistent in the 10 minutes I spent looking at cartoon depictions of uteruses (uterii?).

[Eurell]

Oh, I agree that it's an inaccurate way to do things. Just saying that you will never ever meet someone that is 1 week pregnant. Most people will find out when they are 5ish weeks in which is right after they miss their next period.

I still don't agree with the other stuff in that bill, but people are getting all excited about something that isn't even changing.

[Eurell]

That's interesting. Being totally not a woman, it was never explained to me that the days start counting from that point. It's still an estimation, though, augmented by the first ultrasound and the quality of the mother's memory of events leading up to the pregnancy. Because even if we count 280 days from the last cycle, the kid still isn't guaranteed to arrive on Day 280.

Also, my second point still holds, not every woman has such an exact cycle, so I'm curious if other legislation revolves around this metric in the same way, and how it's operationalized.

Still, thanks for pointing me to that site, I went to Google to see what else was around, and that form of measurement is fairly consistent in the 10 minutes I spent looking at cartoon depictions of uteruses (uterii?).

haha, you posted 5 seconds before me lol. Yeah, I actually forgot that's how it was counted till I started to discuss this with my wife. We just had a baby a year ago (and she's a doctor), so all this info is still pretty fresh in her head. I wish she would post a bit more since she could explain things way better than I could lol, but I supposed it's good she doesn't, makes me put in a little research for myself.

[MaachaQ]

I don't think there was much doubt, but the bill was signed into law:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...abortions?lite

Arizona governor signs law banning most late-term abortions
By Reuters

PHOENIX -- Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law on Thursday a controversial bill that bans most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, giving Republicans a win in ongoing national efforts to impose greater restrictions on abortion.

The measure, which state lawmakers gave a final nod to on Tuesday, would bar healthcare professionals from performing abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of a medical emergency. Only a small number of these abortions are performed in the state.

With Brewer's signature, Arizona joins six other states that have put similar late-term abortion bans in place in the past two years based on hotly debated medical research suggesting that a fetus feels pain starting at 20 weeks of gestation.

Georgia lawmakers approved a similar bill in March that now awaits the signature of Republican Governor Nathan Deal.

Late-term abortions will still be allowed in Arizona in situations where continuing a pregnancy risks death or would "create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." This is to be determined by a physician's "good faith clinical judgment."

The law also requires a woman to have an ultrasound at least 24 hours prior to having an abortion, instead of the one hour previously mandated under state law.

State officials are required to create a website that details such items as the risks of the procedure and shows pictures of the fetus in various stages.

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortions nationwide in 1973 but allowed states to ban the procedure after the time when the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb, except where a woman's health was at risk.

[Ragnus]

I swear Arizona is just a state sacrificed to a social experiment to see if what a pure "Republican America" would look like at this point.

[Kohan]

I swear Arizona is just a state sacrificed to a social experiment to see if what a pure "Republican America" would look like at this point.

No experiment is necessary. All they have to do is look at Mexico itself for a prime example. On the anti-immigration front, they're following in its footsteps rather nicely. A further ruined economy should be right around the corner.

[Thunder]

It's like this:

Cold does not exist, it is the absence of Heat.

Darkness does not exist, is the absence of Light.

Evil is an absence of Good = Sin does not exist, it is the absence of Good.

Sin isn't a created thing, it's a lack of something, a void.

Oh man, just saw this on my facebook wall and it fooled me into reading some retarded dialogue between a religious "student" and his "professor" who gets beaten in a theism argument. Then I see it quoted in this thread, go figure.

When did you figure this idea out, or when did you see it go around? I'm genuinely curious since I haven't seen anyone try and peddle evil is an absence of good

[Helm]

Please don't summon him back to the thread. :<