Active Now

ENG / LLVF - formerly of AB
Discussion » Questions » Legal » OH passes law banning abortion after 20 weeks. (Pain capable act) Should this law expand nationally?

OH passes law banning abortion after 20 weeks. (Pain capable act) Should this law expand nationally?

Posted - December 14, 2016

Responses


  • Au contraire.  It should be amended (slightly) instead.  Abortions after 20 weeks are quite rare, but there are many health conditions that, while not impacting the safety of the mother, will mean a child will not be born alive, or will live for only a short time after birth.  So far as I can tell, this bill takes no account of that issue, insisting that a mother's life must be in danger before being allowed to seek an abortion.

    That strikes me as not only silly in the extreme, but indicative of a design which is not interested in the mother's health.  Looked at logically, there is no point in allowing a pregnancy to progress with some conditions, especially where doing so will increase danger to the mother.  

    I am aware this has been amended already.  It's effect on the health of mothers with pregnancy difficulties would have been greater in it's original draft.  Since it can be amended and can therefore be amended again, I see no reason to apply law which actively inhibits the pursuit of 'health'.
      December 14, 2016 6:24 AM MST
    0

  • I take the Regressive Party approach of extending abortions to 323 trimesters.
    Kids will finally be able to abort their parents.  Full family abortions.
      December 14, 2016 9:37 AM MST
    1

  • 32664
    I know you are posting this as a joke but I have seen interviews on College campuses, were they asked the students to sign a petition to extend abortion rights to 36 months for the "health" of the Mother. And they signed.
      December 14, 2016 10:16 AM MST
    0

  • 46117
    Oh my.  A political and religious question all bundled into one.  I hope no one leaves because of this.

    NO.  It should NOT.  OF COURSE. 
      December 14, 2016 9:40 AM MST
    1

  • 44
    *Grabs popcorn*
      December 14, 2016 9:51 AM MST
    1

  • I expect this gets good too.
      December 14, 2016 9:51 AM MST
    1

  • 44
    Let's just sit back, relax and enjoy the hopefully soon to be ****show! This post was edited by my2cents at December 14, 2016 10:01 AM MST
      December 14, 2016 9:53 AM MST
    1

  • 3934
    Yet another nibbling at the edges of Roe v. Wade so the political right can continiue to tell its supporters, "We're doing something about those damn abortionists!" without outright banning abortion (which potentially could tip the political balance in the country towards the Democratic party).

    I've been seeing this since the late 1970s. Nothing new to see here.
      December 14, 2016 10:09 AM MST
    0

  • 3907
    Hello OS:

    So, you DON'T see a 6 to 3 Supreme Court reversing Roe??  You're more optimistic than I am..  The right wing hasn't had a shot like this in over 30 years, and won't likely have it again..  I don't think they're gonna waste it..

    excon
      December 14, 2016 10:16 AM MST
    0

  • No, I really don't.   I don't think many in  the GOP see Rvs.W as little more than a piece of fodder to rile up a bunch of Evangelicals.   It's a political tool that they gain way too much sway and are able to manipulate with way too much effectiveness to give it up.
    If I believed most of them really cared about it as a policy then maybe.  Though in my and many others opinion it's just powerful ammunition and I doubt they would really be willing to give up one of their most effective weapons.  They have too much too lose with it.   I truly believe the GOP power base has any intention of repealing it on a national level since it gives them so much power on the state level. 
      December 14, 2016 10:54 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @excon -- I would have to do some serious research to come up with evidence to support my assetion, but I have read/heard what I believe to be credible reports that the GOP really doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    By doing so, they would be taking the risk of alienating many moderate GOP-leaning women who like other GOP policies, but would reconsider if abortion were genuinely made illegal.

    The GOP knows their hold on political power overall is quite tenuous (even GOP stalwart Lindsey Graham admits there aren't enough Angry White Guys to sustain the GOP in the long term), and I don't think they'd risk losing a large voting bloc.

    Laws like the on in Ohio suit the GOP fine. They get to use them to show their social conservative base, "See, we're doing something about abortion". Because abortion is still broadly legal, they can still beat up TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL ABORTIONISTS, and because abortion restrictions don't really seriously affect the GOP's relatively wealthy donor base (who can afford to travel to wherever abortions are available), they don't risk losing donation money. It's a win-win-win. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at December 14, 2016 11:07 AM MST
      December 14, 2016 11:05 AM MST
    0

  • 32664
    I just learned that OH is the 15th state to pass this law.  So maybe you are right nothing new to see.
      December 14, 2016 10:20 AM MST
    0

  • 17398
    I was actually surprised Kasich vetoed the Heartbeat Bill.     
      December 14, 2016 12:39 PM MST
    1

  • 32664
    I was a little surprised as well.  I don't care for Kasich something about him just bothers me.  Vetoing the Heartbeat Bill does not help him in my book.
      December 14, 2016 2:08 PM MST
    1

  • 17398
    I guess he realized that would effectively outlaw abortion which would not survive a challenge at the Federal level.  Sometimes heartbeats are detectable at five or six weeks and often times a woman doesn't yet know she is pregnant by then.  I think he is exercising patience. 
      December 14, 2016 7:48 PM MST
    1

  • 32664
    Yes heartbeat is detectable at 21 days after conception. 
      December 14, 2016 8:10 PM MST
    1

  • 7919
    That's the law here in Az. I had to look it up to see how it differs across the country. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1& I didn't realize some states have no cutoffs on dates or viability.


    I think we should stop and think about why abortion is legal... I think most would agree that it's a legal choice because some people aren't prepared to have children or cannot care for them. (These laws aren't generally about abortions for medical needs. Most states allow exceptions for medical issues, though Ohio does not seem to.) Considering that pregnancy tests are super accurate and can detect pregnancy almost immediately after conception occurs- we're talking a matter of days at this point- most women know that they're pregnant right away- at the 3-4 week mark. Why would a woman wait 17 weeks (4 months) to decide she wants to have an abortion? It's illogical. If she wants to have an abortion, she'll probably do it in the first trimester (before week 12 is up).
    The majority of abortions in 2013 took place early in gestation: 91.6% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.1%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2013, 22.2% of all abortions were early medical abortions. The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 5% from 2012 to 2013. Source: MMWR. 2015;64(10) https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/ 

    So, we're talking about limiting less than 1.3% of abortions... and that's only a maybe, because, again, these laws don't usually discuss abortion for medical reasons when the pregnancy is not viable. Those are still allowed in most states. What I think that 1.3% mostly represents are abortions performed after the 20-week ultrasound is performed. This is the one that gives an indication of whether the baby may have down syndrome or something like Trisomy 13 or 18.

    Now, stop and think for a moment... you get this ultrasound at 20 weeks and find out something may be very wrong with your baby, but you still have to have additional tests which can take 1-2 weeks more to confirm it. Read up on Trisomy 13 and what it presents as and what the outcome is for the baby. Your baby may be born and even live for a while, but he or she will likely be on palliative care from the moment he or she is born. His or her entire short life could be spent in excruciating pain. So, you tell me what's more merciful, because a Trisomy 13 diagnosis doesn't mean that the baby is not viable, even at 39 weeks. If Ohio is using only viability testing that doesn't look at things like this and the actual life a child may have, it's arguably the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's my understanding that this is exactly what Ohio has done. Shame on them. Sometimes, a late-term abortion is the most loving thing a parent can do for their child, and I say that being pro-life. I also support euthanasia or medically assisted-suicide for the same reason.
      December 14, 2016 1:24 PM MST
    3

  • 32664
    I do think in a situation like that there should be an exception.
    I don't believe that the majority of the late term abortions are due to such medical diagnosis. If it was it would be recorded as the reason and the pro-choice groups would use it to fight pro-life laws. 
      December 14, 2016 8:32 PM MST
    1