Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warning)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Shivahn » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:03 am UTC

setzer777 wrote:I also remember a proposed law requiring the doctors to tell their patients "this fetus is a life and a fully independent being" or something like that.


Wait, for real? Can you cite that? If that last part is true, then that's the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby sourmìlk » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:09 am UTC

Shivahn wrote:then that's the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time.

I take this as a compliment.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Triangle_Man » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:36 am UTC

Shivahn wrote:
setzer777 wrote:I also remember a proposed law requiring the doctors to tell their patients "this fetus is a life and a fully independent being" or something like that.


Wait, for real? Can you cite that? If that last part is true, then that's the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time.

Agreed on that point.

Whatever other terms we can use to describe a Fetus, I am fairly sure that 'fully independent being' is not one of them.

Why would you even make that claim?
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Shivahn » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:21 am UTC

Because you are an elaborate troll and/or don't think what you're saying through to see if it's doublethink.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby setzer777 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:59 am UTC

Shivahn wrote:
setzer777 wrote:I also remember a proposed law requiring the doctors to tell their patients "this fetus is a life and a fully independent being" or something like that.


Wait, for real? Can you cite that? If that last part is true, then that's the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time.


I found it. It was South Dakota House Bill 1166. Specifically it required:

Bill 1166 Section 7 wrote: A consent to
an abortion is not voluntary and informed, unless, in addition to any
other information that must be disclosed under the common law doctrine,
the physician provides that pregnant woman with the following-3-
information:
(1) A statement in writing providing the following information:
(a) The name of the physician who will perform the abortion;
(b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate,
unique, living human being;
(c) That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with
that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys
protection under the United States Constitution and under the
laws of South Dakota;
(d) That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her
existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will
be terminated;
(e) A description of all known medical risks of the procedure and
statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman
would be subjected, including:
(i) Depression and related psychological distress;
(ii) Increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide;
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Webzter
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Webzter » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:09 am UTC

Garm wrote:What I don't get is the need for an ultrasound. What the fuck is the purpose? Wouldn't the same end be achieved by showing the woman a generic ultra sound? I'm sure we could get some lady to consent to have one of her routine pregnancy ultrasounds be used for this purpose. Then all the women who want an abortion could be shown a picture that they're probably already quite familiar with and then go get their abortion.


I know. I've been mulling that aspect over today... moreso than the other discussions. I feel that it's like they assume the woman is just doing this on a whim. That she's not aware that a fetus has the potential to be born. That she didn't, possibly, already go through an agonizing choice on whether to proceed with the abortion or not. If she's felt it was a difficult choice and steeled herself to make it, then the ultrasound is just emotional torment. If it wasn't a difficult choice, then having the doc show her an ultrasound isn't going to have any affect.

tl;dr, I think it's largely emotional blackmail to use against those that might be swayed by it.

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Arrian » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:40 am UTC

Soralin wrote:They could say a table was a person (or a corporation), but that doesn't make it true. And what does the legality of the issue have to do with responsibility?


The legal standing of a fetus has a lot to do with how the law will treat it and things that affect it, like abortions. Responsibility will also affect the legal calculus when you're weighing the rights of one person against the rights of another.

What the law says has no impact on the morality of an action, but it has a huge impact on the practicality of that action. The day after a law defines a fetus as a person, a judge will issue an restraining order stopping abortions pending review. The best case scenario will be that the law gets appealed up to the supreme court and will be found unconstitutional, but abortions will have been halted by the restraining order for the years that case takes to work its way through the legal system. The worst case scenario is that abortions end permanently, except for maybe some exceptions.

That's why the legal definition is important.

User avatar
ShortChelsea
One thousand four hundred and thirty seven
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:26 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby ShortChelsea » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:49 am UTC

I don't know a lot about abortions, but a friend told me that an ultrasound is just part of the procedure. I don't think anyone can force a woman to look at a screen.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby LaserGuy » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:59 am UTC

Arrian wrote:[I very possibly agree with DSenette's example, but haven't thought it through fully. My argument hinges on informed consent, voluntarily taking a course of action despite knowing the possible outcomes. One potential problem is that it's not particularly foreseeable that negligent driving will lead to needing to give up a kidney. (Which I assumed was the case in Malice's example of the skin window.) Much less foreseeable than getting pregnant despite using birth control. After all, birth control has it written out right on the packaging that it's fallible.


I'm not sure why you would think that driving a car does not lead to the possible outcome of getting into a car accident. If you are driving a car, you are certainly assuming all of the risks associated with that behaviour--that's a component of the process of licensing drivers. If anything, a driver of a car is much more aware of the potential risks and responsibilities of their actions than a couple of sexually active teenagers are likely to be, for example,particularly because the pro-life lobby actively promotes the kind of sexual education that leaves people ignorant of the consequences of sexual activity and how to protect themselves.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Hawknc » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:13 am UTC

ShortChelsea wrote:I don't know a lot about abortions, but a friend told me that an ultrasound is just part of the procedure. I don't think anyone can force a woman to look at a screen.

I think this was asked above too, but I'm interested in the answer: if this is true (it may or may not be, I honestly don't know), why are legislators making that decision, instead of medical professionals?

Webzter
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Webzter » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:26 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:
ShortChelsea wrote:I don't know a lot about abortions, but a friend told me that an ultrasound is just part of the procedure. I don't think anyone can force a woman to look at a screen.

I think this was asked above too, but I'm interested in the answer: if this is true (it may or may not be, I honestly don't know), why are legislators making that decision, instead of medical professionals?


http://www.redstate.com/griffinelection ... -children/

And, while an ultrasound may be part of SoP, a transvaginal ultrasound in order to get a clearer picture of the fetus may not be. As far as "can't force someone to look at a screen"... well, one could do something like require a signature on a a photo from said procedure as part of verifying "informed consent" was correctly applied.

edit... original bill: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604 ... &val=HB462

Some interesting highlights:

B. Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 24 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age.


Mandatory 24h waiting period between getting an ultrasound and then having an abortion... unless she lives more than 100 miles away, then only a 2 hour wait is required.

The qualified medical professional performing fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B shall offer the woman an opportunity to view and receive a printed copy of the ultrasound image and hear auscultation of fetal heart tone and shall obtain from the woman written certification that this opportunity was offered and whether or not it was accepted and, if applicable, verification that the pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from the facility where the abortion is to be performed. A printed copy of the ultrasound image shall be maintained in the woman's medical record at the facility where the abortion is to be performed for the longer of (i) seven years or (ii) the extent required by applicable federal or state law.


Now, the bill itself does not mention the ultrasound method. However, I've come across many articles stating that, due to the size of the fetus in 90% of abortions, a transvaginal ultrasound would be required to get the picture and measurements required by the law.

Interestingly...[trigger]
Spoiler:
The following is the information that the woman is to be offered prior to the procedure. Note, the only accommodation in the case of rape is that the health care professional may elect to not tell the woman the father is required to provide financial assistance.

To me, this seems to clearly indicate that the entire informed consent process is required in the case of rape as well. So, a recent rape victim would then also be forced to undergo having an ultrasound wand penetrate their body. that makes me ill.

5. An offer to review the printed materials described in subsection D F. If the woman chooses to review such materials, they shall be provided to her in a respectful and understandable manner, without prejudice and intended to give the woman the opportunity to make an informed choice and shall be provided to her at least 24 hours before the abortion or mailed to her at least 72 hours before the abortion by first-class mail or, if the woman requests, by certified mail, restricted delivery. This offer for the woman to review the material shall advise her of the following: (i) the Department of Health publishes printed materials that describe the unborn child and list agencies that offer alternatives to abortion; (ii) medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care, and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the Department; (iii) the father of the unborn child is liable to assist in the support of her child, even in instances where he has offered to pay for the abortion, that assistance in the collection of such support is available, and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the Department; and (iv) she has the right to review the materials printed by the Department and that copies will be provided to her free of charge if she chooses to review them; and (v) a statewide list of public and private agencies and services that provide ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services free of charge. Where the woman has advised that the pregnancy is the result of a rape, the information in clause (iii) above may be omitted.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Hawknc » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:56 am UTC

Are there any other cases of informed consent that require a patient to undergo a separate medical procedure to fulfill that requirement?

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:04 am UTC

Soralin wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Soralin wrote:If you just mean that you have a responsibility to fix the window, then I doubt anyone here would disagree with that. If you get pregnant by your own actions, and don't want to be, then you have a responsibility to fix that, by getting an abortion. Problem fixed, responsibility fulfilled.

Suppose, for a moment, that it's possible to have a responsibility not just to yourself, but to a fetus. Do you see how your resolution of this analogy doesn't apply?

Yes, but why would I suppose such a thing?

"Suppose" doesn't mean "believe to be true." The reason you would suppose such a thing is because the whole violinist thought experiment, which we were talking about in the first place, works under the supposition that fetuses are people with ordinary human rights (and presumably thus the potential for people to have a responsibility for it).
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
semicharmed
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby semicharmed » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:50 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:I think this was asked above too, but I'm interested in the answer: if this is true (it may or may not be, I honestly don't know), why are legislators making that decision, instead of medical professionals?


I had a traditional ultrasound the day of mine, which was done at a Planned Parenthood; so I assume it's standard operating procedure. I know one of the things they were checking was my estimate of fetal age (turns out, I was off by almost 4 weeks) - I think fetal age determines exactly how the procedure is done. I couldn't see the screen or hear anything, and I wasn't asked if I wanted to. The worst part of the whole ultrasound was not peeing beforehand, and then having the wand pressed fairly firmly against my bladder.

This was all done in NYS, though, where women are trusted to make their own decisions about taking responsibility for an unintended/unwanted pregnancy. None of that informed consent bullshit conservative legislatures are so hellbent on ramming down our throats up our vaginas.

As for this,
Hawknc wrote:Are there any other cases of informed consent that require a patient to undergo a separate medical procedure to fulfill that requirement?

I think it's pretty common, actually. But the separate medical procedure is usually more on the order of 'specific blood test' than 'vaginal ultrasound'. I needed to get a polio vaccine booster before leaving for the Peace Corps, and my Dr wanted to see the results of metabolic and liver function panels since the boosters are rarely given to adults. And before one of my parents could have their varicose vein surgery, they had to go to their primary care Dr for a blood test - of what, I don't know - only to have the same test performed at the hospital the day of surgery.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Angua » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:59 am UTC

semicharmed wrote:I think it's pretty common, actually. But the separate medical procedure is usually more on the order of 'specific blood test' than 'vaginal ultrasound'. I needed to get a polio vaccine booster before leaving for the Peace Corps, and my Dr wanted to see the results of metabolic and liver function panels since the boosters are rarely given to adults. And before one of my parents could have their varicose vein surgery, they had to go to their primary care Dr for a blood test - of what, I don't know - only to have the same test performed at the hospital the day of surgery.
That's not really for informed consent - it's making sure the medical treatment won't have complications.

The trans-vaginal one is supposed to be so the woman is fully informed that the heart of the foetus is beating, so she can be fully informed that she is terminating this heartbeat. She wouldn't need it except for that I don't think.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Ghostbear » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:14 pm UTC

Arrian wrote:The day after a law defines a fetus as a person, a judge will issue an restraining order stopping abortions pending review. The best case scenario will be that the law gets appealed up to the supreme court and will be found unconstitutional, but abortions will have been halted by the restraining order for the years that case takes to work its way through the legal system. The worst case scenario is that abortions end permanently, except for maybe some exceptions.

That's not necessarily true. There are other options- the next day, a judge could place a hold on the law instead of abortions based on it violating legal precedent as established by a higher court than their own. I don't want to venture to guess which of those scenarios is more likely, but it's not guaranteed that if this law passes a judge would use it to ban abortions before a potential supreme court smack down. My understanding of legal issues is that there would likely be a whole separate fight over that very issue- whether to implement the law while it's constitutionality is in question or not.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby cephalopod9 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:00 pm UTC

Guess who's ready for everyone to shut up about how much they personally love and care about zygotes? Me. I am ready for some reasonable discussions about the actual implications of this legislation, and the physical realities of human reproduction.
Angua wrote:The trans-vaginal one is supposed to be so the woman is fully informed that the heart of the foetus is beating, so she can be fully informed that she is terminating this heartbeat. She wouldn't need it except for that I don't think.
What definition of "need" does that fit? (I don't know if you're speaking to your views, or just the ideology at work) A lot of things have beating hearts, and that's not even worth getting into because it's absurd to suggest the law can decide whether or not something has a soul. No part of the government should be in the business of trying to dictate the metaphysical properties of an organism, much less how anybody has to feel about it.

What does a sonogram image of a fetus in the first weeks of development even look like? What does such a picture inform the woman of?
The image here:
Falling wrote:Yea the tubes are clogged with the legal crap. I did find this, which basically says they aren't necessary.
is really obviously of a fetus late in development, because fetuses in the first 3 months, as discussed in the article, are horrible worm creatures. That image is also an ectopic pregnancy, which is another reason why these kinds of "fetuses = people", and "all abortions, no exceptions" bills are horrifying.
How would this affect women with inviable fetuses?
Image

User avatar
semicharmed
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby semicharmed » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:40 pm UTC

Angua wrote: That's not really for informed consent - it's making sure the medical treatment won't have complications.

The trans-vaginal one is supposed to be so the woman is fully informed that the heart of the foetus is beating, so she can be fully informed that she is terminating this heartbeat. She wouldn't need it except for that I don't think.


Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make (and obviously poorly...): that there's no medical reason for the vaginal ultrasound, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than a blood test. It's designed as a roadblock/obstacle/hurdle to clear and being presented in the guise of informed consent.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby johnny_7713 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:31 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:
Angua wrote:The trans-vaginal one is supposed to be so the woman is fully informed that the heart of the foetus is beating, so she can be fully informed that she is terminating this heartbeat. She wouldn't need it except for that I don't think.
What definition of "need" does that fit? (I don't know if you're speaking to your views, or just the ideology at work) A lot of things have beating hearts, and that's not even worth getting into because it's absurd to suggest the law can decide whether or not something has a soul. No part of the government should be in the business of trying to dictate the metaphysical properties of an organism, much less how anybody has to feel about it.

What does a sonogram image of a fetus in the first weeks of development even look like? What does such a picture inform the woman of?


I don't think anyone here is trying to argue that forcing a woman to view an ultra-sound or hear a fetal heartbeat is anything other than emotional blackmail on the part of anti-choice legislatures. Whether or not a medical need exists for these ultrasounds (which is not something i'm qualified to determine, and I imagine might vary on a case by case basis), there is certainly no need for the woman to actually have to see the ultrasound to make an informed choice, any more than there is a need for me to see the results of a blood test, rather than hear my doctor's summary thereof.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Angua » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:29 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:
Angua wrote:The trans-vaginal one is supposed to be so the woman is fully informed that the heart of the foetus is beating, so she can be fully informed that she is terminating this heartbeat. She wouldn't need it except for that I don't think.
What definition of "need" does that fit? (I don't know if you're speaking to your views, or just the ideology at work) A lot of things have beating hearts, and that's not even worth getting into because it's absurd to suggest the law can decide whether or not something has a soul. No part of the government should be in the business of trying to dictate the metaphysical properties of an organism, much less how anybody has to feel about it.


I'm talking about the ideology of why you'd need the transvaginal ultrasound. People (or at least the people behind this legislation) equate a beating heart with life, so they think being able for the woman to hear it will change her mind - therefore if she hasn't heard it, then she hasn't been 'fully informed'. This is probably partly due to the fact that when you are pregnant, it's quite nice that we now have the technology to let mothers hear the heartbeat via the doppler probe machine things, which they generally quite like doing.

I don't agree with people wanting life to start at a heartbeat - that happens extremely early on, but that's why this transvaginal thing.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Shivahn » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:12 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:I found it. It was South Dakota House Bill 1166.


I am going to be entirely honest and say that when you first mentioned that, I thought you must be remembering wrong because no one could be that dumb.

Because holy shit that is dumb.

If it's so separate, then surely it's not a big deal to pull it out and let it live on its own.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Diadem » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:24 pm UTC

Shivahn wrote:
setzer777 wrote:I found it. It was South Dakota House Bill 1166.


I am going to be entirely honest and say that when you first mentioned that, I thought you must be remembering wrong because no one could be that dumb.

Because holy shit that is dumb.

If it's so separate, then surely it's not a big deal to pull it out and let it live on its own.

Is that a proposed or actual law?

Also, is there historic precedence for trying to outlaw reality?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

The law was passed, but different parts of it have been challenged repeatedly by Planned Parenthood (the only provider in South Dakota) in state and federal appellate courts. The last thing I knew was that the appellate court had upheld the provision that a doctor can be required to tell the woman that an abortion will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being", because it conveys "conveys legal information that is truthful, not misleading, and relevant to the abortion decision." However, the court struck down the provision that would require doctors to inform the woman of supposed risks of depression or suicide relating to an abortion, as they believed those claims had not been factually verified. I believe the 8th Circuit has decided to hear the case en banc, and that arguments were made last month in St. Louis, but that is the last I know.

Edit: To clarify, the bill was passed, is law and has been upheld by appellate courts, except for the last two provisions of Section 7 that setzer linked above. Those are still under consideration in the courts.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Angua » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:15 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:The law was passed, but different parts of it have been challenged repeatedly by Planned Parenthood (the only provider in South Dakota) in state and federal appellate courts. The last thing I knew was that the appellate court had upheld the provision that a doctor can be required to tell the woman that an abortion will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being", because it conveys "conveys legal information that is truthful, not misleading, and relevant to the abortion decision." However, the court struck down the provision that would require doctors to inform the woman of supposed risks of depression or suicide relating to an abortion, as they believed those claims had not been factually verified. I believe the 8th Circuit has decided to hear the case en banc, and that arguments were made last month in St. Louis, but that is the last I know.

Edit: To clarify, the bill was passed, is law and has been upheld by appellate courts, except for the last two provisions of Section 7 that setzer linked above. Those are still under consideration in the courts.
The bolded claim is actually false - it's the same or less than a woman made to go through an unwanted pregnancy.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:30 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:The law was passed, but different parts of it have been challenged repeatedly by Planned Parenthood (the only provider in South Dakota) in state and federal appellate courts. The last thing I knew was that the appellate court had upheld the provision that a doctor can be required to tell the woman that an abortion will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being", because it conveys "conveys legal information that is truthful, not misleading, and relevant to the abortion decision." However, the court struck down the provision that would require doctors to inform the woman of supposed risks of depression or suicide relating to an abortion, as they believed those claims had not been factually verified. I believe the 8th Circuit has decided to hear the case en banc, and that arguments were made last month in St. Louis, but that is the last I know.

Edit: To clarify, the bill was passed, is law and has been upheld by appellate courts, except for the last two provisions of Section 7 that setzer linked above. Those are still under consideration in the courts.
The bolded claim is actually false - it's the same or less than a woman made to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

Not sure I understand - are you saying I was wrong that the provision in question was struck down, that the law originally required such a disclaimer on depression and suicide, or that depression and suicide are statistically more prevalent in women who undergo abortions than those who don't? If it's the last of those, I agree, and so did the court: they found no factual basis on which to make claims that depression and suicide are more prevalent, and thus struck down that part of the law. The rest remains, AFAIK.

Edit: perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. It's not necessarily that they believed the claim of increased risk hadn't been proven but could be proven, and more that they felt the data already showed no such link. My apologies, if that was the case.
I looked out across the river today …

Dark Avorian
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Dark Avorian » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:17 pm UTC

You know what I can't wait for? The moment we can just slide an embryo out of a mother and into a fake womb, or into freezer storage to be deployed later at our extraterrestrial colonies, since that seems about the only way to legitimately satisfy both sides of this debate. (oh wait, and when I say we can slide them out, hopefully it would be something a mother/host could do fairly easily to herself in private)

Anyway, ignoring such crazy pipe dreams...

Fundamentally, I find myself at such a loss in these debates. I'd love to say I feel the same way as most of the members of this forum and just come down hard on the side of pro-choice, but I can't. I may not agree, but I do not think it is crazy for someone to think that right to life trumps bodily autonomy, and please don't hurl analogies at me, because I've read a lot of them, and they've got their good points and their bad points, but pregnancy has such a unique place in society that I don't think they can really work.

But you know, I guess the reasonable thing to say here is then that we should let everyone make their own choice, but then again, that doesn't make sense to say necessarily. I think, even if it might not help at all, we all need to just take a second, and realize that neither side is totally made of insane crazy bigots/demon-baby-killers. I think enough people have made thoughtful arguments for the pro-choice side that I don't have to reiterate them, but let me just say the others: pro-lifers think abortion is equivalent to murder, they think that this (whether generally or merely because pregnancy is unique) trumps bodily autonomy. Sure, talk about kidneys, parasites, whatever floats your boat, it doesn't change that they think that, and I may not agree, but I don't think it's crazy.
The 62-foot tall statue of Jesus constructed out of styrofoam, wood and fiberglass resin caught on fire after the right hand of the statue was struck by lightning.


meatyochre wrote:And yea, verily the forums crowd spake: "Teehee!"

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby yurell » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:30 pm UTC

Dark Avorian wrote: I may not agree, but I do not think it is crazy for someone to think that right to life trumps bodily autonomy


If these people really care, why don't they offer their uteri as surrogate baby-houses for all the left-over embryos at fertility clinics? You know, the ones that would be used for stem-cell research, but the previous moron of a president preferred just chucking them down the toilet instead. Because forcing other people to give up reproductive rights for their religious bigotry is more important to them than actually saving these embryos.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby setzer777 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:33 pm UTC

Yeah, I don't know that calling them crazy is helpful, I just want to know how to most effectively subvert their efforts and help women get abortions when they want them.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Diadem » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:39 pm UTC

Dark Avorian wrote:Fundamentally, I find myself at such a loss in these debates. I'd love to say I feel the same way as most of the members of this forum and just come down hard on the side of pro-choice, but I can't. I may not agree, but I do not think it is crazy for someone to think that right to life trumps bodily autonomy

Obligatory read at this point: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2011/06/27 ... is-murder/

Most people who oppose abortion use the "it's murder" line as an excuse, not a reason, for their stance.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Dark Avorian
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Dark Avorian » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:45 pm UTC

yurell wrote:
Dark Avorian wrote: I may not agree, but I do not think it is crazy for someone to think that right to life trumps bodily autonomy


If these people really care, why don't they offer their uteri as surrogate baby-houses for all the left-over embryos at fertility clinics? You know, the ones that would be used for stem-cell research, but the previous moron of a president preferred just chucking them down the toilet instead. Because forcing other people to give up reproductive rights for their religious bigotry is more important to them than actually saving these embryos.


And why aren't you personally using every ounce of money and effort you can to save starving children? Sorry, that's a pointless road to go down.

Anyway...

I'd say that they think, as has been somewhat established earlier, that there is (this argument only speaks for those who object to abortion of children resulting from consensual sex) an unwritten "contract" or informed consent.

Honestly again, do you think it's insane to maybe pick a different fundamental inalienable right other than bodily autonomy? Why did y'all choose it? Well honestly, because given our upbringing and any number of other factors it probably just seemed right to you...unless you happen to have been hiding the one unquestionable logical proof starting from the most fundamental of axioms, whose every logical step will sing in such perfect harmony with the wiring of every human brain that every pro-lifer ever will fall to their knees and beg your forgiveness.

And again, don't hurl analogies at me, yes I'm aware that taken to an extreme that argument above could justify anything ever, but hopefully y'all can recognize that the choice between bodily autonomy and right-to-life is not exactly the choice between a moral society and a rape-and-murder-fest that would make every Norse god projectile vomit simultaneously.

Diadem wrote:
Dark Avorian wrote:Fundamentally, I find myself at such a loss in these debates. I'd love to say I feel the same way as most of the members of this forum and just come down hard on the side of pro-choice, but I can't. I may not agree, but I do not think it is crazy for someone to think that right to life trumps bodily autonomy

Obligatory read at this point: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2011/06/27 ... is-murder/

Most people who oppose abortion use the "it's murder" line as an excuse, not a reason, for their stance.


Sure, and there are some who don't. I'd already read that, and while it's enlightening and thought provoking, I don't honestly think it lays devastating waste to my point.

setzer777 wrote:Yeah, I don't know that calling them crazy is helpful, I just want to know how to most effectively subvert their efforts and help women get abortions when they want them.


Well we should start by getting snazzy costumes. Nothing says "I want to help the pro-choice movement" like sequined spandex unitards.
The 62-foot tall statue of Jesus constructed out of styrofoam, wood and fiberglass resin caught on fire after the right hand of the statue was struck by lightning.


meatyochre wrote:And yea, verily the forums crowd spake: "Teehee!"

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby setzer777 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:52 pm UTC

When it does come down to different fundamental assertions in this context, sometimes I do think you just have to say "You're my enemy, I'm going to do what I can to oppose you. I can understand why you believe what you do, but I hope you fail in your goals."

Of course when it comes to people who also try to restrict all forms of birth control, - I feel pretty comfortable telling them to go fuck themselves.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby yurell » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm UTC

Dark Avorian wrote:And why aren't you personally using every ounce of money and effort you can to save starving children? Sorry, that's a pointless road to go down.


Because the cost of 'saving' one of these embryos is significantly less? And because I'm not trying to go out of my way to deny people their reproductive rights while hypocritically ignoring the starving children? That would be like shouting that everyone else should be made to give money to those starving children while not giving any yourself.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Dark Avorian
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Dark Avorian » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:58 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:When it does come down to different fundamental assertions in this context, sometimes I do think you just have to say "You're my enemy, I'm going to do what I can to oppose you. I can understand why you believe what you do, but I hope you fail in your goals."

Of course when it comes to people who also try to restrict all forms of birth control, - I feel pretty comfortable telling them to go fuck themselves.


Yeah, in all honesty, If you want to get anything out of my post, it should be this: stop trying to catch them in clever logical traps, stop trying to argue over their fundamental differences, it's useless, but also don't assume they're all batshit crazy bigots. Do what you can to enact the change, the legislation, if you think that's what the world needs. If you have to argue with someone, make sure it's someone impressionable, like tiny kids (yes I did just tell you to go indoctrinate children in the ways of abortion)
The 62-foot tall statue of Jesus constructed out of styrofoam, wood and fiberglass resin caught on fire after the right hand of the statue was struck by lightning.


meatyochre wrote:And yea, verily the forums crowd spake: "Teehee!"

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Angua » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:47 am UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
Angua wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:The law was passed, but different parts of it have been challenged repeatedly by Planned Parenthood (the only provider in South Dakota) in state and federal appellate courts. The last thing I knew was that the appellate court had upheld the provision that a doctor can be required to tell the woman that an abortion will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being", because it conveys "conveys legal information that is truthful, not misleading, and relevant to the abortion decision." However, the court struck down the provision that would require doctors to inform the woman of supposed risks of depression or suicide relating to an abortion, as they believed those claims had not been factually verified. I believe the 8th Circuit has decided to hear the case en banc, and that arguments were made last month in St. Louis, but that is the last I know.

Edit: To clarify, the bill was passed, is law and has been upheld by appellate courts, except for the last two provisions of Section 7 that setzer linked above. Those are still under consideration in the courts.
The bolded claim is actually false - it's the same or less than a woman made to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

Not sure I understand - are you saying I was wrong that the provision in question was struck down, that the law originally required such a disclaimer on depression and suicide, or that depression and suicide are statistically more prevalent in women who undergo abortions than those who don't? If it's the last of those, I agree, and so did the court: they found no factual basis on which to make claims that depression and suicide are more prevalent, and thus struck down that part of the law. The rest remains, AFAIK.

Edit: perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. It's not necessarily that they believed the claim of increased risk hadn't been proven but could be proven, and more that they felt the data already showed no such link. My apologies, if that was the case.
No, I'm saying that just saying 'no factual basis' isn't true - there have been studies which shows that it is definitively false. Just for future reference for anyone who hears that claim.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Diadem » Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:00 am UTC

I'm more concerned about the court finding that the statement "A fetus is a whole, separate, unique, living human being" is ok because it ""conveys legal information that is truthful, not misleading, and relevant to the abortion decision."

The word 'whole' is blatantly false. A fetus is undeveloped. That's the entire fucking point of a fetus.\
The word 'separate' is another blatantly false statement. I mean seriously, how can anyone say that? Even if you are pro-life. Doesn't their entire argument hinge on a fetus not being separate? What the heck. I can usually wrap my mind around arguments even if I disagree with them. But this one I haven't got the faintest idea where it's common from. Are these goons really denying that a fetus is in fact inside a woman?

And finally the 'living human being' is at least highly misleading. It's human tissue, and it's alive, true. But the word 'being' implies something that isn't there - a mind.

But even if you are a pro-life judge who doesn't give a fuck about facts, even if you simply hate women and think they all deserve to burn in hell for even thinking about sex, even then, how can you possible claim that a fetus is whole and separate. I don't get it.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Dark Avorian
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Dark Avorian » Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:20 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:I'm more concerned about the court finding that the statement "A fetus is a whole, separate, unique, living human being" is ok because it ""conveys legal information that is truthful, not misleading, and relevant to the abortion decision."

The word 'whole' is blatantly false. A fetus is undeveloped. That's the entire fucking point of a fetus.\
The word 'separate' is another blatantly false statement. I mean seriously, how can anyone say that? Even if you are pro-life. Doesn't their entire argument hinge on a fetus not being separate? What the heck. I can usually wrap my mind around arguments even if I disagree with them. But this one I haven't got the faintest idea where it's common from. Are these goons really denying that a fetus is in fact inside a woman?

And finally the 'living human being' is at least highly misleading. It's human tissue, and it's alive, true. But the word 'being' implies something that isn't there - a mind.

But even if you are a pro-life judge who doesn't give a fuck about facts, even if you simply hate women and think they all deserve to burn in hell for even thinking about sex, even then, how can you possible claim that a fetus is whole and separate. I don't get it.


Is it really that hard to get? They think it's a separate person. Would you consider someone on life support a separate person, or just an extension of the hospital? As to whole, they think it's a person, alive and with rights, and that to them is plenty whole to deserve the term. Not all legalese is scientific, much as we all might like it to be. Legalese is based both on the exactitude of the words, but also on a moral sense, otherwise we'd never get anywhere.
The 62-foot tall statue of Jesus constructed out of styrofoam, wood and fiberglass resin caught on fire after the right hand of the statue was struck by lightning.


meatyochre wrote:And yea, verily the forums crowd spake: "Teehee!"

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:47 pm UTC

Angua wrote:No, I'm saying that just saying 'no factual basis' isn't true - there have been studies which shows that it is definitively false. Just for future reference for anyone who hears that claim.


Ah, sorry. That was me trying to be a little cautious with the wording. I'm not sure that any scientific study can declare a claim "definitively false" more than it can say "the data does not support the claim."
I looked out across the river today …

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Greyarcher » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:20 pm UTC

Dark Avorian wrote:
Diadem wrote:I'm more concerned about the court finding that the statement "A fetus is a whole, separate, unique, living human being" is ok because it ""conveys legal information that is truthful, not misleading, and relevant to the abortion decision."

The word 'whole' is blatantly false. A fetus is undeveloped. That's the entire fucking point of a fetus.\
The word 'separate' is another blatantly false statement. I mean seriously, how can anyone say that? Even if you are pro-life. Doesn't their entire argument hinge on a fetus not being separate? What the heck. I can usually wrap my mind around arguments even if I disagree with them. But this one I haven't got the faintest idea where it's common from. Are these goons really denying that a fetus is in fact inside a woman?

And finally the 'living human being' is at least highly misleading. It's human tissue, and it's alive, true. But the word 'being' implies something that isn't there - a mind.

But even if you are a pro-life judge who doesn't give a fuck about facts, even if you simply hate women and think they all deserve to burn in hell for even thinking about sex, even then, how can you possible claim that a fetus is whole and separate. I don't get it.
Is it really that hard to get? They think it's a separate person. Would you consider someone on life support a separate person, or just an extension of the hospital? As to whole, they think it's a person, alive and with rights, and that to them is plenty whole to deserve the term. Not all legalese is scientific, much as we all might like it to be. Legalese is based both on the exactitude of the words, but also on a moral sense, otherwise we'd never get anywhere.
If the hospital were itself alive and sentient? And the person had always been plugged into the hospital, and was only able to survive because it was still plugged into the hospital's organs and fed off it? I'd have to concede that I couldn't properly call the person a separate being, though I'd make a caveat and say he's separate in mind.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Diadem » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:36 pm UTC

A fetus though, is not separate in mind because it has no mind.

Anyway, separate does not mean distinct.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Webzter
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warni

Postby Webzter » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:15 pm UTC

Dark Avorian wrote:I'd love to say I feel the same way as most of the members of this forum and just come down hard on the side of pro-choice, but I can't. I may not agree, but I do not think it is crazy for someone to think that right to life trumps bodily autonomy[...]

I think, even if it might not help at all, we all need to just take a second, and realize that neither side is totally made of insane crazy bigots/demon-baby-killers. I think enough people have made thoughtful arguments for the pro-choice side that I don't have to reiterate them, but let me just say the others: pro-lifers think abortion is equivalent to murder, they think that this (whether generally or merely because pregnancy is unique) trumps bodily autonomy. Sure, talk about kidneys, parasites, whatever floats your boat, it doesn't change that they think that, and I may not agree, but I don't think it's crazy.


I used to be staunchly pro-life. I've participated in protests outside of Planned Parenthood offices. The pastor at the church I attended would show graphs comparing the number of people killed in various wars compared to the number of abortions. I'm now pro-choice. That is to say, I have been pretty exposed to the pro-life side.

22% of pregnancies (excluding miscarriage) in the US end in abortion. Of those, nearly 62% are aborted before 9 weeks, nearly 79% by week 10, and 88% by week 12 [1]. So, generally, most abortions occur in the first trimester. To me, that makes discussions about late trimester abortions and partial birth abortions not worth talking about... although they are quite the lightening rod for inducing outrage. (as an aside, I think this video showing pregnancy through 9 weeks might help frame what, exactly, is being aborted)

I see the pressure as multi-fold though. Many of the same groups that are against abortion also advocate abstinence-only sex education and are very much opposed to things like Plan B (since life begins at conception for this group). I much prefer treating teens as maturing adults who need to be educated on safe sex and what to do when things go south (e.g., condom breaking). To avoid this education is a disservice to the same kids we're tasking with taking on more control of their lives as they rapidly approach the age of majority.

But, anyway, back to abortions. If we assume we just outlawed abortions outright, that's hardly going to cause people to stop seeking them. Sure, the percentage may drop, maybe even significantly. However, the likelihood of complications arising from unsafe abortions is going to become a statistical problem. I'm going to refer to the Guttmarcher Institute on this also. They report 70,000 deaths a year due to unsafe abortions[2].

So, bottom line, for me, I'm choosing to fight to ensure women have safe access to abortion as denying that access is going to invariably lead to botched procedures and harm to at least some of them.

[1] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/ ... 2839.shtml


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests