Arkansas Senate passes bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks

[The Straight Story]

(Reuters) - The Republican-controlled Arkansas state Senate approved a measure on Monday to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy except in the case of rape, incest or to save the mother's life.

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act passed the Senate, 25-7, with amendments that allowed for the exemptions in the case of rape or incest. An earlier version of the bill that passed the Republican-controlled House allowed exemptions only for pregnancies that threatened the mother's life.

The bill, which shortens the existing limit of 25 weeks, now returns to the House for consideration of the Senate amendment.

Democratic Governor Mike Beebe has not said whether he would sign the bill into law.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/18/us-abortion-arkansas-idUSBRE91H0S220130218?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reuters+Politics+News%29

[Warpy]

1. This is nuts. The structures that interpret nerve impulses as pain

rather than anything else aren't even there until the last few weeks of gestation and there is some evidence that they're not switched on until after birth, since the trauma of being born with fully functioning pain centers would likely send newborns into shock.

This bill ignores science, which is why it should not be signed. Never mind that it extends constitutional protection to something that is incapable of living anywhere but inside someone else's body.

In any case, severe fetal deformity should be there, also. Forcing a woman to endure months of pregnancy followed by childbirth in the full knowledge the fetus will not survive outside her body is cruel beyond belief.

I guess they think women are the ones who can't experience pain.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I suspect that it's rather they don't care that women feel pain.

And I agree: this is nuts.

[REP]

4. Suggest reading some science instead of propaganda

The only ones denying "the physiology at work" are the politicians writing bad laws based on very bad science.

As for a "woman can't decided what to do before 20 weeks," perhaps becoming educated on things like Tay-Sachs, trisomy 18 and other trisomies, anencephaly, and other conditions incompatible with life that can turn a wanted pregnancy into a nightmare would be a useful thing to do before making ugly, uninformed judgments.

What to do? Well, nothing. Best to let the woman involved make her own decision.

[Camballo]

7. Indeed

I think any and all necessary medical exceptions to the law could be made. I am not talking about those kinds of problems, and maybe the Arkansas bill is not adequate in that regard. My point was that for most women, 20 weeks should enough time.
Maybe you and the next poster are concerned that one restriction will inevitably lead to an overturning of Roe v Wade, but that logic is very much like what the gun lobby uses to keep any laws restricting gun use from succeeding.
And mostly I read this site, articles on Buzzflash etc..., no obvious pro-life propaganda there.
I come by these beliefs honestly from a Catholic family. Do you think it is at all possible that well-meaning and thoughtful people might disagree on this?
My feelings about the sanctity are sincere; they inform my staunch opposition to the drone strikes, too.
Have a heart; being liberal and pro-life has never been easy. I'd be vilified by the right for supporting it up to 20 weeks.

[REP]

9. "Should be enough time"

How prideful it is to presume to know such a thing.

I have a great deal of sympathy for any woman who is considering a termination past 20 weeks. I have none for those who wish to harm countless women with their so-called 'pro-life' politics.

[Camballo]

10. Ok

I think we'll just have to let it go then. I was speaking as a woman who has had two unplanned pregnancies. I have two sons. I read about every week of their growth. You can see their hearts beating on an ultrasound, the first flutters and kicks start happening around that time.
Maybe I'm the wrong place; I thought we all got to share here. Not people who are torn and conflicted and caring, huh?
Who needs people like me when there are people who are so certain they are right? It's one side or the other on this one and I don't belong with either.
Frustrating since it is so clearly an issue with 100 shades of gray or so.

[NaturalHigh]

57. Sorry Camballo, I feel your pain.

Yes, this is a complex issue with many shades of gray. Unfortunately, most (here on DU and elsewhere) see only one clear dividing line. I consider myself pro-life, but I'm not for an all-out ban. I wish contraception and education were both available and encouraged. Nothing would reduce abortions more.

[Camballo]

60. So true

They handed out thousands of condoms, apparently, at the Olympics, so why can't there be discreet condom dispensers all over town? That's not likely to happen, but I was surprised to see that the majority of abortions were performed not on teenagers, but women aged like 20-24 I think it was.
Surely we could get more access to birth control on college campuses because i imagine (not that i know anything about this sort of thing... ha!) that many nights of unprotected sex occur with alcohol involved and maybe if the dorm had a condom dispenser, they'd get used more often.

[NaturalHigh]

62. I like the dispenser idea.

Actually, that's the LEAST that should be done.

[kdmorris]

69. See my other response to you

I agree with you on contraception and education. I don't believe anyone here sees a clear dividing line - other than there is so much grey area that it's impossible to make laws that cover all of the exceptions. The only clear dividing line I've ever been able to come up with in the absence of a clear dividing line is that it's between the mother of the baby, father of the baby and the doctor. Period.

If we are all involved in pregnancies to the point that laws are made to tell women when they are allowed to terminate and when they are not, why are we not all involved in EVERY pregnancy, legislating not just terminations but what you are allowed to do when you are pregnant and not allowed to do? I'm sure you see this statement as ridiculous, but to me, it's the same thing. If you say you need to be involved in a pregnancy to stop a woman from terminating, I don't understand why you don't see the need to be involved in every pregnancy.

[NaturalHigh]

76. I read it. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I also replied back to you.

[OceanEcosystem]

13. I agree with a significant portion of what you said.

I'm probably one of the few posters on this message board who holds pro-life views.

[Camballo]

22. Thanks

I honestly don't want to comment here ever again.
But your note is much-appreciated.

[NaturalHigh]

59. No, I'm with you.

It does bring out the torches, though.

[kdmorris]

68. That's hardly fair

This didn't start with a respectful tone from her, a statement of conflict on this subject or feelings of being pro-life, while at the same time being against legislation that restricts abortion. Since she's self-deleted the original post that upset so many of us, you can hardly judge whether our reaction to her initial (and several posts after that) was "a witch hunt" or justified.

She agreed with this legislation because "women should have made up their minds by 20 weeks" and "what else are we supposed to do, just let them have the baby at 9 months and then terminate?". Basically - she compared abortion to infanticide and thought that this legislation was reasonable.

No mention was made of pro-life feelings or anything else, including any understand of WHY abortions happen after 20 weeks. All of that came later, after many of us took exception to her comparing abortion to infanticide and being OK with restricting abortion through laws.

You are entitled to your opinion on when life begins. I probably even agree with much of it. I'm almost 21 weeks pregnant with twin boys. They are very much real people to me, as we see them grow and move and thrive. We've seen their fingers, toes, faces... they are my babies.

The ONLY place where I part company with this poster (and with you) was in whether my personal feelings should be used to legislate anything. There are too many exceptions to why women get late term abortions to be able to legislate this. So, in my opinion, when it comes to the law - there are only 3 people that should be involved in any decision about a pregnancy (including termination of that pregnancy) - the mother of the baby, the father of the baby(if available) and the doctor. Period.

Human emotion should never be used to make laws. This applies in abortion, death penalty, etc. There's a reason why justice is supposed to be blind.

[NaturalHigh]

75. First of all, congratulations on your pregnancy.

Twins? Wow...my teenagers are two years apart, and that's a challenge. Good luck and best of health to you and your family.

I made a statement that the abortion debate brings out the torches. That might not have been the best choice of words, but I still believe the sentiment behind them. In my opinion, this is a subject that divides our country as much as, if not more than, any other.

From personal experience with a family member, I know a thing or two about terminating a pregnancy later than twenty weeks. In that particular case, the baby had a serious medical condition, had almost no chance of living to a full term pregnancy, and the mother's health was in danger as well. She was a wanted baby, and losing her was a tragedy for everyone.

As for parting company on whether my personal feelings should be used to influence legislation, I would hope that my opinion is made up by much more than feelings. I was never Mr. Spock, but I'm an educated person.

Thanks.

[kdmorris]

77. True, it is a very contentious debate

with strong feelings on both sides. I should have, perhaps, put "maybe" before "and with you" as you don't seem to have stated anywhere that you feel that legislation should be created or is reasonable to restrict abortion.

My bad.

[Camballo]

78. The ballot box is where it counts

And I've voted exclusively for Democratic candidates for 25 years. Maybe that says more about where I rank my "personal" feelings about the issue than anything I've said.
I said my original post was off, I went further and found stats that exposed how unnecessary the Ark. is, and my voting record should speak to my support for a woman's right to privacy.

[kdmorris]

80. I am aware of all these things

I took a bit of exception to what SEEMED like coming into the middle of the discussion and saying we were coming after you with pitchforks and torches unfairly when your ORIGINAL post and a few subsequent attempts to defend that original post were what caused those feelings. Saying that you believe a 20 week old fetus is a human baby was not the issue. I happen to believe that myself. I'm carrying two of them, after all.

I appreciate that you've backed off of your original position. Truly, it takes a big person to do that.

I just don't want others to think that we were unfair in being upset with a position IN THE BEGINNING that you yourself now admit was extreme.

If we've found agreement on this, then I'm glad. If you believe that abortion needs to be legislated, I still disagree with you. But, as long as you don't accuse me of wanting to kill babies when they are born and calling that abortion, disagreement is not a problem. I actually do believe that well meaning and thoughtful people CAN disagree on this. I just think it can be done without accusing us all (the "pro-choice" side) of infanticide or looking at all sides of the situation.

The side of this that calls themselves "pro-life" are usually anti-abortion. Most of them do not believe that abortion should happen ever, unless it's going to kill you to have the baby. Most of them would label me "pro-abortion", which I am not. I am, however, in favor of every woman having a choice... starting with contraception - the choice to avoid a pregnancy. I hope I am never faced with the choices that most women who have second and third trimester abortions is faced with. It's horrible and cruel to have to make that choice.

My post to this poster was not an attempt to continue to indict you despite your apologies. It was to say that I didn't think s/he could say that we were being unfair to you when s/he wasn't aware of the beginning of this conversation... Nothing else. I am sorry if you took it to be the former.

[Camballo]

84. All's well that ends well, I hope

Thank you very much for the note; I think I wanted you to understand most of all.
The whole thing helped me clarify, articulate and own my position.
Also, and I wrote more about this in another post, I am coming out of the most severe and difficult episodes of a mood disorder I've ever experienced. I was so out of whack over this thread I was crying about it off and on all day a couple of days ago. And I'm supposedly a lot better now!
I impulsively wrote something argumentative -- very unusual for me -- then went batshit crazy trying to undo it for a couple of days.
I need to be more careful not to alienate my own people.
Seriously though, I am very happy for you about your twin boys.
I hope we'll talk again here. You're an intelligent person and a good writer.

[Ilsa]

15. 20 weeks isn't enough. At my 18 week

Sonogram and amniocentesis, hydrocephaly was put on the table. It wasn't until 24 weeks that we determined that the condition resolved itself. time was needed for further development.

Pregnancies are not all textbook, even when congenital conditions present. The law needs to allow the pregnant woman and her doctor leeway to make informed decisions without bureaucrats making medical decisions.

[kdmorris]

16. I'm not concerned that it will overturn Roe v Wade

(since you brought me into it).

My PERSONAL feelings on abortion have nothing to do with what I feel should be legislated. Personally - I would never have an abortion at 20 weeks unless there was something terribly, horribly wrong. Enforcing my PERSONAL feelings on other women is where I draw the line. When making laws, legislating reproductive choice of any kind is wrong. I cannot presume to know every reason why an abortion occurs at or after 20 weeks, but IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Telling women that they can have one in this case but not that case because of your PERSONAL feelings on the matter reduces these women to nothing more than chattel.

I don't have any problem with disagreement on when life begins or feeling like it's a baby at 20 weeks or anything else you'd like to drag up to show that I'm "like the gun lobby" (which I find pretty damned insulting, btw). I have severe disagreement with you that it's your business to sit in judgement of these women or to make laws that come up with "exceptions"... when those "exceptions" can NEVER take into account all of the possible scenarios.

These are adult women and they have the right to make their own decisions about their own medical care. YOU have no right to be involved in a stranger's medical care, pro-life or not.

Do you feel that you should be involved in my pregnancy? I have an ultrasound scheduled for tomorrow. Maybe you'd like to tell me just how I'm doing and whether I'm doing it right, since you appear to know so much about pregnancy - I sure can't seem to trust my perinatalogist or my OB-GYN to counsel me on how I'm doing. Do you think that, if they haven't grown enough (for example), someone should step in and take over? My husband and I are obviously too stupid to make our own decisions, with the advice of my TEAM of doctors, about our sons.

If you DON'T think that you should be involved in my pregnancy - why are your feelings about involvement any different for other women?

(by the way, I guess since you "come by these beliefs honestly from a Catholic family", you are also against contraception. If you are not against contraception, YOU also draw the line on how much you should be involved in a woman's medical care. If you are against contraception, it appears that you also must admit that "well-meaning and thoughtful" people disagree with you on where we draw the line.)

[Camballo]

21. Not me

I think your hostility toward me (and it feels pretty personal) has inspired your response. I have no ability to deal with that kind of meanness, but I do honestly wish you the best on your baby.
I think if you read my other post on my own boys and my shared wish that it all be in the hands of doctors and their patients, you'll see we're not so far apart on this.
I guess I can see how the middle ground on this is so rarely seen or heard from based in my treatment here. I'm going back to lurking; I'm too sensitive for this.

[kdmorris]

24. You made it personal when you compared me to the gun lobby

You can't now turn around and say I made it personal and I'm being mean (I'm not, by the way, and you still haven't answered my question). But it's a great try at making ME look like the bad guy.

I will admit that after you got a bit of flak for your very personal opinions, you did back off and make it seem like you were more in agreement that you at first claimed to be. Short of self-deleting all your posts, though, I'm pretty sure that anyone who reads this thread can see your complete about face on this subject.

If you believe that these decisions should be left in the hands of parents and their doctors, they why the attempt to get me to agree with you that "they should have made up their minds by 20 weeks"?

You didn't come into this discussion looking for middle ground. You came into it pushing an agenda, which you've now backed off off because it was absolutely not well received. I have not changed my stance - legislating reproductive choice is NEVER "reasonable".

[Camballo]

32. OK

Sorry.

[Marrah_G]

61. Tay-Sachs was my big eye opener in regards to later term abortions

I was fairly young and uninformed. Abortion was just something you did if you didn't want a child. Then a family member and one of closest friends had a baby, my godson and as the months passed something wasn't right. It took some months of testing and I remember the knock on my door at 7 am with my friend standing in the doorway with tears streaming down her face. Although neither she or her husband were Jewish or of any known Jewish decent, their baby boy had Tay-Sachs. He would live for 4 years, with no quality of life, just pain and seizures. I remember driving to her house after work, it was snowing and he was already gone. I can't even describe pain mixed with relief that filled the house that night. It's hard to explain to people how devastating this disease is. There aren't any "good days". No painfree days. No smiles, laughs, recognition, sight, hearing, eating.

A couple years later she became pregnant again and after a couple months the tests came back. The baby/the fetus, did have the same disease. She made the only decision there was to make and she let him go rather then let him be born to a life of suffering. It wasn't easy, it was devastating to her and her husband.

My point in telling this is this: I can't imagine how much more painful this would have been if she had been forced to stand in front a judge and plead to do what she and her husband and her doctor knew to be the right thing. What if the judge made the wrong choice out of ignorance or some religious beliefs? There should NEVER be a judge in the middle of a decision like this. It is between a woman and her doctor and no one else.

[REP]

63. Tay-Sachs is a horribly cruel thing

Sometimes infants don't make through the first year. Being able to test for it did a lot to relieve a lot of suffering.

Edit to add: French Canadians and Cajuns are also at risk of carrying the defect that causes Tay-Sachs, but it is highest in Ashkenazi Jews.

[Marrah_G]

67. We found out the French Canadian angle years later

And she was part of a French Canadian family. We lived in a very FC area in RI, one of the largest concentrations in the country I think. Oddly enough though, she was an adopted child of Puerto Rican (sp?) decent. The father was FC/German decent. It was the first case of TS in RI in 20 years at the time. I have to say that Hasbro Children's Hospital and the staff there were AMAZING. They were so kind and compassionate.

TS is one of those things that is so hard to describe to people because there just is no quality of life past the first few months and there is not even a glimmer of hope of improvement.

[kdmorris]

5. Sounds pretty unreasonable to me

Most abortions after 20 weeks are for fetal abnormalities - not because "a woman couldn't figure out what to do". They do the "anatomy scan" for fetal abnormalities at.. wait for it... 20 WEEKS.

I'm currently 20 weeks pregnant with twin boys and I am eternally grateful that they are both healthy and thriving. BUT one of the women I know who was due around the same time as I am just went through an awful, heart wrenching experience with her twins. The boy twin was malformed and dying due to abnormalities with his heart and kidneys... he might have been in pain... but who knows. She was faced with terminating his life to try to save his twin sister or let him die on his own, which - if it didn't happen for a couple more weeks would likely throw her into pre-term labor when he passed... thereby killing his twin sister, too.

She had to make the most agonizing decision of her life and, using potassium chloride, they stopped his already struggling heart at 21 weeks. Her little girl is doing fine and she didn't go into pre-term labor.

Who are you to judge what the fuck is "reasonable" in this situation? Had my friend lived in Arkansas and this bill had been signed into law, she would have been forced to take her chances with her baby girl because she would not be allowed to make the choice to try to save her daughter by giving up her son - who would not have lived much longer anyway.

I suggest that you actually educate yourself on abortion before you try to say this is reasonable or that women just "couldn't figure out what to do". Don't even get me started on anacephaly.

[Camballo]

6. So sympathetic

I'm so sorry about your friend, and I'm so glad your baby boys are healthy.
I believe your friend's situation and other similar plights can be easily part of the exceptions that can be written into laws like this.
Since that was your objection to my post and the law, do you then agree that with no medical exceptions involved, women can and should decide by 20 weeks or so?

[REP]

8. No, I don't agree

I'm not that woman or her doctor. I think it's better if people make their own medical decisions.

[Camballo]

11. Me too

I wish it were up to the doctors and women themselves. But these legislatures can't help themselves.

[uppityperson]

39. Legislators CAN help themselves. Legislators who can not think and act should not be in office.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

64. Bullshit

You've been arguing an anti abortion point of view in all the posts above, then saying you don't like mean people saying mean things and using bad words, and now you pivot and say you sure wish it were only between women and their doctors, but gosh golly, you just cant stop those darned kegislators.

Well, welcome to motherfucking General Discussion, part of Democratic Underground, a proudly liberal site that stands for women's choice, no-freaking matter if legislators can help themselves or not.

Welcome to Democratic Underground.

[Camballo]

65. Thanks it's great to be here

I'm a mother-fucking lifetime liberal who is pro-life, so fucking deal with that!
At least liberals don't require the same kind of lockstep adherence to the platform that the Republicans do. If so, I might feel unwelcome or shamed for my beliefs. What a huge relief. Thanks, pal. See you around because instead of leaving because some people here are assholes, I'm going to stay.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

71. That's more like it!

If you're going to come to the notorious no-holds-barred General Discussion section of DU, and your intent is to push an anti-abortion agenda, then you may as well stop with the innocent act and just get it on. Don't try to soft-peddle your way into defending governments and churches who would end abortion. Instead, realize you're taking a position diametrically opposed to almost everyone else here, and that your opinion isn't going to be popular. Hiding behind the 'I'm a religious mother of wonderful children' is meaningless. There are lots of religious people here, with lots of children, but they don't go around posting about the "common-sense" restrictions they'd like to impose on women. You came here to float an un-democratic point of view, and you're trying to protect yourself with some implied sense of chivalry that everyone else should hold on your behalf. So I say get your "mother-fucking lifetime liberal" on and get down in the dirt and argue your point. General Discussion wouldn't have it any other way.

[Camballo]

72. Let me be very clear

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:44 PM - Edit history (2)

I came for the same reason everyone of us did: to find camaraderie in our shared progressive beliefs.
I have no agenda. I'm not trying to push anything.
My life experience is not meaningless.
I already deleted my original post because, upon reflection, its tone was wrong and not really representative of my beliefs.
Here is what I believe:
I agree with the Supreme Court's opinion that women do have the right to privacy of their own bodies. It should be up to a woman and her doctor. This does not mean I don't think it's a baby we're talking about. This is exactly the position articulated by Biden in the VP debate. I must have missed the castigation he surely deserved, by your standards, for personally respecting what he considers to be a life. Despite that, he does not believe in the kinds of legislation being proposed by many state legislatures.
Given the stats I included in another post, I found that the vast majority of women who have abortions, do so before 13 weeks. I therefore concluded that the Ark. Law was unnecessary. It's called changing your mind based on new information. It's actually a good quality.
Unfortunately Republicans want to legislate this issue. That is the reality.
Since they are not going to drop it, it seems Democrats will either have to defeat every bill or fight to change the wording of the law to bring it closer to their position.
You may be engaging in what is called "all-or-nothing thinking." It's a tendency to see the world in black and white with no middle ground, rather than considering that each side of an issue may have both positive and negative aspects and many shades of grey.
If you want me to agree with you on bad Republican legislation, great, I'm with you.
But if you want me to give up my personal convictions, I cannot comply.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

73. Your personal convictions are your own.

For my part, I think we've adjusted this thing appropriately. You can go play "nice lady wants to kill women's rights" with others, but if you're going to interact with me, it's going to be confrontational, at least on the subject of abortion. Your view on abortion is indistinguishable from that of most Republicans. So please do leave the nice act at home if you're coming to GD to convince people that removing women's rights is ok. By the way, no one, and I mean no one, has so far succeeded in what you're trying to do.

[Camballo]

74. Misunderestinated in OK

I don't have to "play nice lady"; I am one.
And you still don't get that what's indistinguishable is my view on policy and your own.
Let me try say it really simply so it has an iota of a chance of you understanding my position.
While I am pro-choice in my view of public policy, my heart is another matter.
So, you can continue to falsely and repeatedly claim I want to see women's rights taken away, but it never has been and never will be true. I've never voted for a republican in 25 years of voting.
It must really burn you up to realize you and me have both exclusively supported pro-choice candidates. It doesn't jive with your deeply unfair caricature of me.
I guess you want to dictate my thoughts on life itself.

[Camballo]

66. Ps

I can be pro-life AND wish the whole thing wasn't legislated. I'm not for repealing Roe v Wade.
Way to try to squash dissension though!

[kdmorris]

14. I think that rather than writing stupid laws

and then making a bunch of exceptions that it's up to the woman and her doctor to determine. It is absolutely not up to me or the legislative bodies to determine when it should be decided. Frankly it's none of my or your business.

[Camballo]

17. I agree with that

But I doubt these legislatures are going to give this back to doctors and women to figure out. The best we can hope for is something that makes both sides give something. Having it up to 20 weeks doesn't seem radically different than the 25 now allowed.

[kdmorris]

18. Originally, you said that you find this bill reasonable

And claimed that you are pro-life, therefore, you feel that women have "enough time to make up their minds" by 20 weeks.

Now you are saying that you just feel like - since the legislatures aren't going to stop - we should just give in and hope for the best solution, which you find this to be.

You are an odd, if completely inconsistent, duck.

[Camballo]

25. Not inconsistent

As much as open to compromise, but like I already mentioned, I won't be attempting any more comments unless its about puppy pictures or something.
And yes, since it is highly unlikely this will be put back with doctors and women, working to compromise on a law is the best you can do sometimes.

[kdmorris]

26. Your first comment - your "attempt to compromise" includes

If a woman can't decided what to do before 20 weeks, I think the clock should be out.
Or should we just let it go on right up to a live birth, then "terminate" it.

Where is the compromise in that, along with the equation between an abortion at 20 weeks and infanticide?

[Camballo]

29. That was unfair

I shouldn't have made that comparison, and I wasn't thinking in terms of the difficulty of many women to get access.
I stand corrected on all counts.

[gollygee]

27. It isn't an issue of a woman not being able to decide

There are so many conditions placed on getting an abortion, and there are so few places to get an abortion, that getting one involves a great deal of time, money, and DELAYS. The anti-abortion crowd has been very successful at forcing women who want abortions to be delayed, and now they want to make it illegal to have an abortion if the women have been delayed. This is not about women who can't decide whether they want an abortion.

[Camballo]

30. See above post

Or just know that you and others here are right and I am wrong. Sorry.

[gollygee]

31. I commend you

for learning and being open to changing your mind about something. It is an unusual trait online and a sign of maturity.

[Camballo]

34. Thank you so much. n/t

[uppityperson]

40. Since you replied to a post explaining the radical difference between 20 and 25 weeks, are you playi

playing here or what?


Here is the link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022395741#post5
Here is your reply. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2396147

And you say you don't see any radical difference between 20 and 25?

"The best we can hope for is something that makes both sides give something?" Wrong. The best we can hope for is the anti-choice crowd quits continuing to take away things. What have they given up? What? They gave up wanting to take away all rights, so we should be happy about the ones they did take away?

[Camballo]

44. I don't know anymore

I'm sorry for anything I said that offended you. I've been waiving a white flag and trying to explain myself for every angry reply, but I'm not doing it right.
I think it would probably more healthy for me to stop reading them, but I'm not very healthy yet.
I self-deleted my first post that was, in retrospect, really inciting, and I've been saying I'm sorry up and down this thing. It's been a lesson to me for sure.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

[uppityperson]

45. Part of a discussion is being challenged esp on inconsistencies

posting like you have, of course you will get challenges and answers that are not in agreement. Part of discussing things is starting from different places. This is a discussion board. Do you want us to just read what younwrite and not comment?

The anger comes for attempts to legislate away our medical care rights that should not be legislated away. Yes, of coursenyou can haveyour own opinion of what you would do,, just do not take away my rights to do as I would. Also, please read and learn things like what the radical difference is between 20 and 25 weeks, for instance.

[Camballo]

47. Stats!

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm?s_cid=ss6108a1_w&mobile=nocontent

After reviewing this CDC report, I found that 64 % of all abortions in the US occur at or before 8 weeks, and 91 % occur at or before 13 weeks.
I am encouraged and enlightened by this information. It also tells me that there really was no need for the Ark. lawmakers to make a further restriction. Most of the abortions that occur after that probably do have a medical necessity involved, although I haven't found that information yet.
Women are clearly trying to take care of it as soon as possible. As I've already said, my original post was off the mark.
Thanks for your reply.

[uppityperson]

48. There is way too much focus on a tiny minority of abortions and an attempt to confuse people into

believing that tiny minority is the majority. There is no need to make further restrictions.

And that asshole Gosnell? What he did was murder and broke many existing laws and should have been shut down many years ago. He in no way followed existing laws and an attempt to pass more because he broke the existing ones is stupid. They should have shut him down long ago and easily could have if they'd enforced existing laws.

The subject is not easy for many people, but finding out what is real vs trusting those manipulating you by emotional blackmail is a good thing to do. I am glad you are looking up the numbers and learning.

[Mariana]

51. The RW, crazy, anti-choice loons like to convince people

the women are all the time walking into clinics late in their pregnancies and getting abortions, just because they feel like it that day. A whole lot of people get suckered into believing that lie, and this poster may be one of them.

[gollygee]

19. Why do we need a law about this?

Who gets to 20 weeks and never wanted to be pregnant in the first place? Ask yourself who is the focus of this law.

There are only two groups of people.

1. Those who find their babies have some kind of abnormality. And the fact that there COULD be an exception made doesn't mean there will be, or that the anti-abortion people deciding what will be an exception will be what the mother will think should be an exception.

2. Those women who have difficulty getting abortions due to anti-abortion efforts that have already been out there for some time, and therefore are delayed. I think these are the people they're going after. In order for it to be reasonable to say, "If you want an abortion, get one before 20 weeks," they have to make it easy to get an abortion before 20 weeks. But they make people take trips that require time off work and money to spend the night places. They make women get additional unnecessary medical services and have waiting periods, that all take time and money. They are the reason for the delays, and now they're saying, "If we have succesfully delayed you long enough, you're out of luck."

[Puzzledtraveller]

20. Hopefully the 1st scenario

[kdmorris]

23. Well, that's obvious

We need a law because she disagrees with women getting an abortion at or after 20 weeks. Before long, there will be laws that regulate what pregnant women are allowed to do... I know all kinds of people that disagree with women drinking a cup of coffee or eating a piece of chocolate cake when they are pregnant. We must save these babies from their mothers who do these things!!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. The fetus in my friend's body died at 26 weeks.

She was put in a helicopter and flown to Wichita where she had an emergency abortion to save her life.

At 20 weeks, she was decorating a nursery and planning her baby shower.

So no, this isn't a reasonable law. If it had been in place when my friend was pregnant, she could have DIED.

[Camballo]

33. Glad your friend is ok

And so sorry for her loss. I don't know if you've see the other responses in this thread, but I wish this were not being legislated, too.
And the tone of my first post was way off. I defer to your and others wisdom on this. I only hope women who don't have medical issues don't wait his long, but many women don't have easy access at all, so I've sort of been put in my place here. And rightly so. I guess I should delete that post that was so incendiary. Thanks.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. Most reasonable legislation allows for these kinds of emergencies

But we aren't seeing reasonable legislation proposed these days.

I understand not wanting abortion on demand at 20 weeks. (I don't agree but I understand.) But allowing that distaste to lead to misguided legislation that puts women at risk is criminal, IMO.

[Camballo]

43. Thank you

For your reply. I appreciate your reply very much for both its content and tone.

[uppityperson]

41. "I only hope women who don't have medical issues don't wait his long"? Did you read that post?

"The fetus in my friend's body died at 26 weeks"

HOW did she wait "his long"? Darn that fetus for not dying sooner? wth?

[Camballo]

42. No

I didn't mean that in any way shape or form. I have great compassion for situations like your friend had. I know she didn't wait, but rather her baby died at 26 weeks.
Sorry for the poor choice of words there.

[uppityperson]

46. I think you are operating under the misconception that late term abortions are because women just

Did not decide to get an abortion for that long. While I am sure a few are, the VAST majority have much more compelling and heartbreaking reasons than "changed my mind". And this is what at least I find offensive. Having worked witgb1st trimester abortions and referred out for 2nd, there are many reasons for having one. And it finally comes down to it is a private medical decision made by the woman. Period.

[yardwork]

50. Medical emergencies happen unexpectedly and often threaten the mother's life.

People don't just decide to have a late-term abortion. It is usually the result of a medical emergency. They are heart-broken by it.

The cruelty of people who casually assume that the heart-breaking loss of a fetus is the result of a carelessly postponed decision just adds to the anguish of the parents. I recommend that you read the stories of people who have experienced fetal deaths.

[DURHAM D]

52. The problem is that some people just can not think beyond themselves. nt

[Camballo]

54. My own experience informs me as well

My baby died in the womb and I had to wait several days before the D&C. It broke my heart.

[yardwork]

55. I'm very surprised by your posts in this thread, then.

[Camballo]

56. I don't know why

because I never suggested even once in any way that situations like that don't happen. I never said women whose babies die in the womb should be denied access to proper medical care (to remove the fetus) I never would question these medical reasons for later abortions and I said so over and over again.
For every single response about medical conditions, and there were many, many angry responses, I said my concern was never about those situations; then I either said I was wrong in both my tone and word choices or apologized or both.
Now that you know my own baby died and I have taken back virtually everything I said and deleted my original post, I would really like the negativity toward me to stop. But I guess I should stop reading it; I'm too unhealthy and haven't figured out proper boundaries with people.
I'm sure this is TMI, as was my own miscarriage, but since you said I should read about it, I thought it was ok to tell you of my own experience.
I would say thanks for the note, but I don't really think you were being friendly. You said was you were surprised my own baby died. It's pretty customary to mention such a loss with a gentle word, but i guess you just think I'm some RW nut job whose trolling and not, as is the actual case, a public school teacher whose been fighting for liberal causes for more than 25 years. My whole Catholic extended family thinks I just love abortion because I do not ever want to see Roe v Wade overturned.
Anyway, I have only been a member since November, but I've been coming here since the run up to the Iraq war began. It's been a lifeline for me and I was so happy to finally be taking part in some threads, but today really made me think it would be best if I just shut up and go back to just reading posts. I can be REALLY hard on myself; I hardly need others to join me in that endeavor.

[OwnedByCats]

82. Yikes

I think Camballo is truly sorry for her earlier comments and has even done some research so we should all relax. Not many people are able to say sorry and admit they are wrong so I give her credit for that.

It's true, the legislation is stupid really. I'm sure there have been women who have had a late term abortion just because they didn't want the baby. BUT, do I think it happens a lot? Nope, I'd be willing to bet abortions that late are 99.9% of the time due to health issues regarding the mother, child or both. The only restriction I would put on a piece of legislation (if I felt there was a need although I don't think there is one) is that a woman just can't walk into the doctor's office demanding a late term abortion because she doesn't want the baby.... as someone else mentioned "abortion on demand". However I don't believe that happens enough to warrant legislation. Whenever people who aren't personally involved get into the mechanics of an issue such as this (legislators), I think it causes more harm than it saves.

Abortion is a sensitive issue, if you are pro choice, you're anti baby - or in other words, pro abortion. If you're pro life, you're anti woman. I don't believe in that black and white world, it's all very grey - just as with almost everything else in life.

At the end of the day, if you're against abortion for yourself, then that's fine - you don't have to have one unless you decide to. Other women have to make their own choices depending on what's right for them. None of us have any business telling someone else what they should do regarding something so very personal and complex. I think Camballo just may have been thinking about a statistic that is far lower than she realized when she made the comment about how women should make up their minds before 20 weeks. Which, btw, I could go along with if we're talking about someone who found out in plenty of time they were pregnant, with no obstacles in their way such as lack of availability or not having the money, that person should have made that decision long before 20 weeks. Thankfully however, that would be an extremely rare occurrence, certainly not so big of an issue that it needs legislating, IMHO anyway.

[Camballo]

83. It's been such a good lesson

First, I learned that I need to be much more thoughtful in what I write.
I also realize I need to check the calendar and refrain from posting during PMS, and also during an intense outpatient program for a serious, though manageable, mood disorder.
This is so stupid, but I was actually crying over this thread off and on for a day! It's just laughable now, but at the time I was incredibly distraught.
People like you who notice distress and respond to it are such a godsend.
Take care, and thanks very much for the post.
I think I've kind of been forgiven by most people who I needlessly outraged here, so I'm going to stay.

[OwnedByCats]

85. I'm glad

you're feeling better now. I know it seems silly to get upset, but it isn't really when you think about it. It's not like you're talking to a bunch of automatons who have no cognitive thinking. They are real people. When we have disagreements with those people that get pretty heated, it can be upsetting. Not everyone has the same thickness of skin.

It's a good idea to maybe reread your replies several times before you post in order to weed out anything that can be taken the wrong way. It's not a guarantee that someone won't be offended, misunderstand your point or disagree with your opinion, but it can help a lot. I was a lurker here for a long time. I made my username probably at least a year ago or more but my post count didn't really increase until lately. There are some really lovely people here and sometimes when they are really passionate about something, they show it in spades and there is nothing wrong with that.

You seemed sincere in your apologies about your initial comments and you were open to learn more about the subject. Even when it seemed like you were giving up, you still came back with multiple apologies and linking to your research. That is not a quality that I see too often anymore, and I'm not just talking about here but in our daily lives too. I could see you were taking it hard. I just wanted to commend you for your open mind on the subject.

Take care!

[Camballo]

86. Thanks again.

And I love your username! Mine should be Ownedbydogs. : )

[backtoblue]

35. I had a baby die inutero at 22 weeks and had to have an emergency abortion.

I was actually farther along than that because I had to wait to be accepted by medicaid before ANY local OBGYN would see me for my initial exam. I had gotten pregnant while taking a birth control pill where you don't have a period for three months... didn't know I was pregnant until my second trimester, all the while still taking the pill. When I didn't start my period when I was supposed to, I took an at home test. By the time I got into the doctor's office, it was two or three weeks later.



I think that medicaid requirements and waiting periods for pregnant women are going to be a problem with this law.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. I heard a woman tell a horrific story

She was pregnant in the 1950s, in her 3rd term, and the baby died. The resulting infection almost killed her. No doctor would perform an abortion because even with a dead fetus it was illegal. She ended up having to carry the baby to term and was never able to conceive again.

[backtoblue]

38. that's terrible!

When I went to the doctor, he did a vaginal ultrasound which showed the baby head down without a heartbeat. He turned off the screen and just walked out for a minute. I was terrified and in shock from seeing my dead baby like that. He called the hospital to schedule an emergency DNC to take out the fetus, but I had to wait for 3 days before having the procedure. I couldn't imagine being forced to carry a dead baby for as long as that lady had to. 3 days was hard enough.


Ironically, the hospital filed my paperwork to medicaid wrong because the doctor would not give a due date or gestation period before termination. I called the doctor to find out what was wrong and his nurse told me that he didn't know how long I had been pregnant so he could not give a due date. The doctor waived his fees, but I paid on the hospital fees for years. I wonder now if he was afraid to have been associated with an abortion, even though it was an emergency and the fetus was dead.

[LiberalFighter]

12. There should be a ban on stupidity after 2 days.

If they don't stop being stupid then abort them.

[LeftishBrit]

49. 99% of abortions are before 20 weeks anyway...

unless Arkansas is very different from other places.

And most abortions after 20 weeks are carried out to save the mother's life; because the baby would have a serious or even fatal disorder that couldn't be diagnosed before that stage (probably the commonest reason); or because a very underage girl was not aware of, or didn't report, her pregnancy early on. People are not rushing out to have late abortions just for fun.

The people who worry about 'late abortion' could save a lot more infant lives if they devoted their attention to ensuring the availability of prenatal care for all women.

[Politicalboi]

53. You know I wish someone would make a movie

About what happens when the GOP make laws that should NEVER be laws. Maybe it will wake more people up. We as Americans don't usually care about things unless it's happening to us. The movie should have celebrity actors and have about 4 or 5 different stories of Americans living in a Republican world. Make it come out in the summer of 2014 and on DVD in the fall. Best campaign money spent.

[Ilsa]

58. Well, then, I hope they increase funding

For care and education of disabled children, because those numbers are going to grow.

There are some conditions, like hydrocephaly, that have to be watched at the end of the second trimester, around week 24.

[B2G]

70. Regarding Tay-Sachs...

My understanding is that all of the tests can be done well before 20 weeks.

What am I missing?

[treestar]

79. If it conflicts with Roe v. Wade

Then it should not pass muster at the Supreme Court. These legislatures pass these laws to try for a review of Roe at Supreme Court level. A chance to get it overturned is what they are aiming for.