Support NeoGAF

[maxcriden]

(CNN) — Utah will now require doctors to provide anesthesia to women having abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy or later.

The law, which experts say is the first of its kind in the nation, is based on the scientifically disputed notion that a fetus can feel pain during the procedure.

"The governor is adamantly pro-life," said a statement from Gov. Gary Herbert's office. "He believes in not only erring on the side of life, but also minimizing any pain that may be caused to an unborn child."

Utah's law marks the first time legislation mandating anesthesia has passed, said Elizabeth Nash, a policy expert with the research organization the Guttmacher Institute. It would be a third-degree felony not to administer anesthesia to women seeking abortions who are 20 weeks along, according to the new law.

But Utah's measure is not the first time states have used the theory of fetal pain as justification to ban abortion at 20 weeks.

Fifteen states have moved to do that but only 12 actively ban the procedure after that time because three states are facing court challenges to laws.

The 12 states that ban abortions after 20 weeks are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The three states facing court challenges are Arizona, Georgia and Idaho.

Nash, of the Guttmacher Institute, said Utah's law could mean a "de facto" ban on abortions at 20 weeks or later because no doctor is going to give a patient anesthesia who doesn't need it.

The group cited a rigorous 2005 scientific review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that said fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester and no studies since 2005 demonstrate fetal recognition of pain.

"Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques," according to the research in JAMA. "Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures."

Bramble said "science isn't settled" on the issue, and he believes that if there's even a chance that a fetus may feel pain then his bill is beneficial.[/ QUOTE]

More here:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/health/utah-abortion-law-fetal-pain/index.html

 

[Yaboosh]

Man, there must be a lot of medical doctors in the Utah government, to know when anesthesia should and should not be used.

 

[triplestation]

That's a brutal and terrifying thought

 

[Wag]

Further proof fetus will turn into zombie when aborted.

 

[univariate]

Buch of sleazy fucks running this country's government

 

[CoolOff]

And this is why it is important for a Democrat to win the election. Rig the Supreme Court for 15 years into the future Hill-dawg.

 

[E92 M3]

What fuck is this shit? A bunch of ignorant assholes making laws.

 

[Link]

That's a brutal and terrifying thought

It's also bullshit.

 

[partyphone]

reminder that shit like this is never about the baby. it's about controlling women and their bodies.

 

[Acidote]

Maybe I'm being evil-minded (I don't if that's the right way to say it in English) but wouldn't this procedure make abortions more expensive and that way unavailable to more people? Is that the goal?

 

[mcarlie]

If it's at least possible that the unborn can feel pain then why not treat it as such? Even if it's scientifically disputed the possibility warrants treating it as such.

 

[partyphone]

Maybe I'm being evil-minded (I don't if that's the right way to say it in English) but wouldn't this procedure make abortions more expensive and that way unavailable to more people? Is that the goal?

no that's exactly the goal. but I think it's more about needing an anaesthetician which I don't think most abortion clinics will have since the vast majority of abortions are non-surgical.

 

[effzee]

Maybe I'm being evil-minded (I don't if that's the right way to say it in English) but wouldn't this procedure make abortions more expensive and that way unavailable to more people? Is that the goal?

I can't speak to the science being used as proof here, but usually when pro-life lawmakers pass laws like these, its usually an attempt to make abortion extremely difficult.

So yes.

 

[Yaboosh]

reminder that shit like this is never about the baby. it's about controlling women and their bodies.

This doesn't seem accurate to me.

While it is true that these laws wouldn't exist if the people in power were the ones getting pregnant, i think it is more accurate to say that pro lifers care more about making something illegal that they find icky than protecting a woman.

I am not trying to minimize the misogyny at play with these laws, i just think you are minimizing the role of religion and perceived morality of abortion.

 

[Arkeband]

Maybe I'm being evil-minded (I don't if that's the right way to say it in English) but wouldn't this procedure make abortions more expensive and that way unavailable to more people? Is that the goal?

The goal is to attach so much shit to the process of abortion that it makes it a nightmare for patients and doctors to accommodate them in the first place.

 

[partyphone]

If it's at least possible that the unborn can feel pain then why not treat it as such? Even if it's scientifically disputed the possibility warrants treating it as such.

it's scientifically bullshit, unnecessary and is not without risk. the point of this law is deny access to abortions and nothing else.

 

[FyreWulff]

Maybe I'm being evil-minded (I don't if that's the right way to say it in English) but wouldn't this procedure make abortions more expensive and that way unavailable to more people? Is that the goal?

it's exactly the goal. it's an attempt to defacto ban abortion by making abortions extremely expensive to complete.

so now to get an abortion you need an anesthetist and a bunch of other precautions because anethesia is dangerous at any level.

same idea behind other states requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting priviledges or requiring the doors in a clinic be exactly 53" wide

 

[Slayven]

reminder that shit like this is never about the baby. it's about controlling women and their bodies.

true////

 

[partyphone]

This doesn't seem accurate to me.

While it is true that these laws wouldn't exist if the people in power were the ones getting pregnant, i think it is more accurate to say that pro lifers care more about making something illegal that they find icky than protecting a woman.

I am not trying to minimize the misogyny at play with these laws, i just think you are minimizing the role of religion and perceived morality of abortion.

no that's exsctly what I'm talking about. Christianity is severely misogynistic.

edit: specifically the American brands of Catholicism and Protestantism that are most fervently anti-choice.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

The Gutmasher institute?

Sounds legit....

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

So now let's run the risk of anasthetic reactions. Also let's add the expense of the anasthesia and pre procedure labwork to get the OK for the anasthesia. Those costs involved won't make an abortion cost prohibitive at all. This law is a joke.

 

[Yaboosh]

no that's exsctly what I'm talking about. Christianity is severely misogynistic.

edit: specifically the American brands of Catholicism and Protestantism that are most fervently anti-choice.

Yes, but I don't think misogyny is the primary motivator for seeking to ban abortions. I think it is morality.

 

[Darryl M R]

Maybe I'm being evil-minded (I don't if that's the right way to say it in English) but wouldn't this procedure make abortions more expensive and that way unavailable to more people? Is that the goal?

More expensive and more barriers for clinics to perform abortions.

 

[thehypocrite]

If they only care that way about the protection of the environment.

 

[partyphone]

Yes, but I don't think misogyny is the primary motivator for seeking to ban abortions. I think it is morality.

right! but what does that say about their morality?

 

[aeolist]

Yes, but I don't think misogyny is the primary motivator for seeking to ban abortions. I think it is morality.

 

[Alucrid]

right! but what does that say about their morality?

it's misogynistic

oh

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

i hope woman come out and vote for their rights this november because republicans seem to be aggressively chipping away at them from all angles.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

20 weeks is a long way along surely. Someone please correct me but I can't imagine someone aborting at that stage without it being a medical necessity.

 

[King Tubby]

right! but what does that say about their morality?

A lot of these people think abortion is murder, it's kind of disingenuous to just boil it down to simply hating women.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Yes, but I don't think misogyny is the primary motivator for seeking to ban abortions. I think it is morality.

If it was a question of morality, then they would let the women make this damn decision, since it directly effects the woman's life, her future and well being, and has fuck all to do with these law makers or any other living person. It's about their damn religion that has no place outside your home or church, and about woman rights, in which abortion was granted legal decades ago.

They gonna raise that unwanted child when it's born though? Will they provide the mother and child with the best care, benefits, education without being a burden on anyone? Of course not. They don't even wanna provide contraceptives, or keep something incredible helpful like Planned Parenthood funded. Utah refused to expand Medicaid as well. Moral my ass.

it's asshole obstructionism, trying to make a legal procedure as difficult as they possible can.

 

[fabricated backlash]

What kind of 19th century shit is this. At this rate amateur abortions are going to become widespread again, increasing health risks significantly.

Why do these people hate women so much? Small government my ass, as soon as a womens uterus is involved they're all for government intervention.

 

[partyphone]

20 weeks is a long way along surely. Someone please correct me but I can't imagine someone aborting at that stage without it being a medical necessity.

something like 90% of abortions are performed before 13 weeks. only 1.2% are performed after 21 weeks.

this bill isnt about banning all abortions. it's about slowly eroding access to abortions. these people still have to skirt around Roe v. Wade.

 

[aeolist]

20 weeks is a long way along surely. Someone please correct me but I can't imagine someone aborting at that stage without it being a medical necessity.

the vast majority of pregnancies are terminated before that (i believe well over 90%) but bans like this hurt anyone who's an edge case.

 

[jmdajr]

What? Not covered by insurance?

 

[Particle Physicist]

If it's at least possible that the unborn can feel pain then why not treat it as such? Even if it's scientifically disputed the possibility warrants treating it as such.

This should be up to doctors discretion not politicians. Especially when safety for such procedures are relatively unknown at this point. Politicians and non-medical people should not be forcing doctors to give medications or do procedures on patients. What happens if it turns out that this is incredibly deleterious to the woman. Who will be liable?

 

[aeolist]

What? Not covered by insurance?

anesthesia is not a simple or risk-free procedure. no doctor is going to do this in a case where it's not medically necessary.

 

[mcarlie]

it's scientifically bullshit, unnecessary and is not without risk. the point of this law is deny access to abortions and nothing else.

Have you seen the episode of TNG where they are trying to determine whether or not Data is a life form and therefore has his own rights? The argument that Picard puts forward is not that Data definitely is a life form but rather that there is no way to know with certainty that he isn't and therefore he should be treated like he is. For this reason I consider myself to be generally pro-life. I don't claim that the unborn is alive and should have its own rights, but I haven't seen a convincing argument showing with certainty that it isn't.

 

[partyphone]

A lot of these people think abortion is murder, it's kind of disingenuous to just boil it down to simply hating women.

these people aren't exactly opposed to murder.

the ultimate goal of labeling abortion murder is to take control away from women.

 

[partyphone]

Have you seen the episode of TNG where they are trying to determine whether or not Data is a life form and therefore has his own rights? The argument that Picard puts forward is not that Data definitely is a life form but rather that there is no way to know with certainty that he isn't and therefore he should be treated like he is. For this reason I consider myself to be generally pro-life. I don't claim that the unborn is alive and should have its own rights, but I haven't seen a convincing argument showing with certainty that it isn't.

have you seen the episode of TNG where everyone devolves into a lower life form and Worf gets a rapey? what a dumb episode.

 

[DedValve]

Maybe I'm being evil-minded (I don't if that's the right way to say it in English) but wouldn't this procedure make abortions more expensive and that way unavailable to more people? Is that the goal?

The correct word in most cases would be cynical not evil minded. However this is Utah so the proper english word to use in this case would be optimistic.

It could have been much worse so...congrats Utah?

 

[Kazerei]

A lot of these people think abortion is murder, it's kind of disingenuous to just boil it down to simply hating women.

Misogyny doesn't literally require hating women. Anesthesia comes with risks, and these assholes are deliberately being harmful to women's health. That's misogyny.

 

[thehypocrite]

A lot of these people think abortion is murder, it's kind of disingenuous to just boil it down to simply hating women.

The don't like it and rationalize it later.

 

[mcarlie]

these people aren't exactly opposed to murder.

the ultimate goal of labeling abortion murder is to take control away from women.

Ahh the old "some people are not against the death penalty therefore all pro-life people can't claim to be pro-life" and "they don't care about the child they just want to arbitrarily control this particular aspect of women lives for whatever reason"

 

[Raistlin]

it's scientifically bullshit, unnecessary and is not without risk. the point of this law is deny access to abortions and nothing else.

Yup, either it won't be available in someone's area at all because of shut downs (many clinics would not have the proper facility and staff) ... or it will be cost-prohibitive for many due to the extra associated costs.

 

[aeolist]

Ahh the old "some people are not against the death penalty therefore all pro-life people can't claim to be pro-life" and "they don't care about the child they just want to arbitrarily control this particular aspect of women lives for whatever reason"

i think it's more like "the governor and legislature, who produced and signed this bill, are demonstrably pro-death penalty while simultaneously calling themselves pro-life"

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

Ahh the old "some people are not against the death penalty therefore all pro-life people can't claim to be pro-life" and "they don't care about the child they just want to arbitrarily control this particular aspect of women lives for whatever reason"

well, there's that part where conservatives tend to be pro-war, too.

there's a dissonance there among many pro-lifers though i'm sure some of them are pro-lifers, anti-war, and anti-death penalty

i imagine that number of conservatives to be in the minority though

 

[30yearsofhurt]

the vast majority of pregnancies are terminated before that (i believe well over 90%) but bans like this hurt anyone who's an edge case.

But my point is at that stage you aren't removing the foetus just using the vacuum tube. It's a fairly hefty size by that stage. I'd imaging the mother would already need to be anaesthetised for such a procedure.
I don't personally know of course.
Wiki says they need it in the second trimester but maybe someone here knows more.

 

[aeolist]

But my point is at that stage you aren't removing the foetus just using the vacuum tube. It's a fairly hefty size by that stage. I'd imaging the mother would already need to be anaesthetised for such a procedure.
I don't personally know of course.
Wiki says they need it in the second trimester but maybe someone here knows more.

doctors commenting on this have said it's not medically necessary. i believe the only thing that's done to the woman in most cases is cervical dilation which would not require anesthesia.

 

[jmdajr]

anesthesia is not a simple or risk-free procedure. no doctor is going to do this in a case where it's not medically necessary.

I was just being facetious.

But in all seriousness sometimes anesthesia is NOT covered by your insurance. It's crazy.

So not only is it dangerous, you're not even covered!