Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[A'isha]

At the same time, I realize that my distinctions are not the same ones that others would draw. IOW, my moral stance is not universal. But most rational people agree we must draw a line somewhere: Extremeists would say no abortions/abortions anytime before birth. Most of us fall in the middle, say the second trimester. But the baby's (yes, I'm calling it a baby) development is rapid in the second trimester. By 20 weeks the baby is recognizable as human. By 24 weeks the baby has about a 50% chance of viability.

Given that, I fully support 20 weeks as the legal line of abortion. After that, it is increasingly likely that the baby is viable and makes it more an act of murder than "exercise of choice." After all, a baby who is born at 40 weeks would die if not taken care of and we prosecute people for "choosing" to dump their babies in a trash can.

What’s Wrong With a 20-Week Abortion Ban?

As for the other provisions in this bill, I see no issue with requiring clinics that give abortions to adhere to the same standards of cleanliness and safety as that of surgical centers. Why would you want lower standards?

It's not about "the same standards of cleanliness and safety as that of surgical centers". See below.

However, with the advent of medical abortions (RU486 et. al.), which are safe and effective throughout the first trimester (it's even used in the 2nd trimester in Canada), there should be less of a need for surgical abortions and these surgical abortions would be used in higher risk cases.

Except the bill also adds restrictions on those drugs, by banning its sale over the counter or even just with a doctor's over-the-phone permission. A woman has to go into an abortion clinic and be examined by a physician before that physician is allowed to give her, for example, an RU486 pill (and she can't get a prescription to take to a pharmacy). And all abortion clinics, under the terms of the new law, will have to conform to the standards set for outpatient surgical centers, whether or not they actually perform surgical abortions.

In other words, a pregnant woman who simply wants to take RU486 to terminate a pregnancy now has to physically walk into a facility that meets all the standards for an ambulatory surgery center, and at that facility she can only be given that pill by a physician who has admitting privileges at a full-scale hospital that's not more than 30 miles away from said facility. And then the law says she has to go back to that facility and that physician 14 days later.

Now consider the size of Texas, and how much of it is not within 30 miles of a hospital. Under the terms of the bill, no abortion clinic can exist anywhere in those parts of Texas. So a woman that lives in one of these areas and who is pregnant and wants an abortion in her first trimester using this "safe and effective" method has to take a trip to one of these full-on ambulatory surgical facilities to get an exam from a physician who isn't just a clinician in private practice, but who also has full hospital admitting privileges, just to get her pill. And then she has to make that same trip again two weeks after that. She can't get her local doctor to examine her and give her the pill. She can't get her local doctor to examine her and then get the abortion facility to call and authorize the pill to be given to her. She has to go visit the abortion facility in person. Twice.

For a pill. Not a surgical abortion. Just for a pill.

That kind of thing has nothing whatsoever to do with making sure abortion facilities are up to "the same standards of cleanliness and safety as that of surgical centers". It has everything to do with purposefully and deliberately making even the earliest and safest methods of abortion as difficult as possible.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

So, based on birther ideals and what passes for ideas among such - he is obviously indoctrinated with madras teachings. I kind of figured he was a pile of excrement and it is clear it is. It is a shame his mother neglected a supply of those hangers. Though I understand the simple bent wire ones are the normal choice due to their flexibility.

OT sort of

I've always wondered what Ron was thinking of when he invented this

http://www.popeilfamilystore.com/egg.html

 

[xjx388]

What’s Wrong With a 20-Week Abortion Ban?

1)Since there is no clearly defined scientific line of when an abortion should be acceptable (its a moral argument, not a scientific one), it is acceptable for States to set whatever line reflects community standards. If Texans don't like this line, they can elect new legislators that will change the line. I don't see that happening. Even in my democrat-controlled home of South Texas, there is wide support for outright banning of abortion; the majority of residents here are Catholic.

2)The article makes an unsupported Slippery Slope argument. I don't see legislators reducing the legal line.

3)The law allows exceptions for dangers to the mother's health or the viability of the baby.

It's not about "the same standards of cleanliness and safety as that of surgical centers". See below.

Except the bill also adds restrictions on those drugs, by banning its sale over the counter or even just with a doctor's over-the-phone permission. A woman has to go into an abortion clinic and be examined by a physician before that physician is allowed to give her, for example, an RU486 pill (and she can't get a prescription to take to a pharmacy). And all abortion clinics, under the terms of the new law, will have to conform to the standards set for outpatient surgical centers, whether or not they actually perform surgical abortions. <snipped for brevity>

This is the part of the bill I have the most trouble with. RU486 is safe and effective for use at home. There is no need for doctor-supervised administration. I think pro-abortion parties would have been more successful lobbying for making chemical abortions legal up to the 20 week line and removing that onerous requirement to have it administered in an abortion clinic.

That kind of thing has nothing whatsoever to do with making sure abortion facilities are up to "the same standards of cleanliness and safety as that of surgical centers". It has everything to do with purposefully and deliberately making even the earliest and safest methods of abortion as difficult as possible.

I agree. But that's Texas for you; it's a conservative state. I believe that conservative states should have the right to remain as conservative as they want to be. If the residents don't like how conservative their elected representatives are, elect new ones.

 

[Alt+F4]

A woman should be free, of her own volition/will to make the decision on abortion at any point in/of the pregnancy.

Bolding mine.

Any point? Really? Are you to justify an abortion say 1 day before the babies due date?

 

[ponderingturtle]

1)Since there is no clearly defined scientific line of when an abortion should be acceptable (its a moral argument, not a scientific one), it is acceptable for States to set whatever line reflects community standards. If Texans don't like this line, they can elect new legislators that will change the line. I don't see that happening. Even in my democrat-controlled home of South Texas, there is wide support for outright banning of abortion; the majority of residents here are Catholic.

2)The article makes an unsupported Slippery Slope argument. I don't see legislators reducing the legal line.

3)The law allows exceptions for dangers to the mother's health or the viability of the baby.

So does Irish law. Doesn't mean doctors aren't legitimately afraid of being charged and then having a non medical jury of their peers judge them on it. At the least being charged is a pretty steep punishment all by itself. Best to hold off when it only causes a few weeks of agony and you don't need to worry about criminal charges.

 

[A'isha]

3)The law allows exceptions for dangers to the mother's health or the viability of the baby.

But not exceptions in the case of rape or incest.

This is the part of the bill I have the most trouble with. RU486 is safe and effective for use at home. There is no need for doctor-supervised administration. I think pro-abortion parties would have been more successful lobbying for making chemical abortions legal up to the 20 week line and removing that onerous requirement to have it administered in an abortion clinic.

They tried, actually. The Republicans rejected every single amendment that was proposed for this bill.

You can see the full list here.

 

[Lowpro]

2)The article makes an unsupported Slippery Slope argument. I don't see legislators reducing the legal line.

and yet...

One provision would move the point at which abortions are no longer legal to 20 weeks from 24 weeks.

How dare they make a slippery slope argument! Just because it slipped doesn't mean it's slipping

 

[TimCallahan]

And exactly what is the percentage of performed abortions which occur at the 6th month mark of pregnancy?

According to this site, it's rather low (from the site, bolding added):

Fifty-eight percent of all abortions for which gestational age was reported were performed at <8 weeks of gestation, and 88% were performed before 13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2000, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks of gestation. Few abortions were performed after 15 weeks of gestation; 4.3% were obtained at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% were obtained at >21 weeks.

So, it would seem that less than 2% of abortions were preformed after five months, 58% were performed at less than two months and 88% were performed in the first trimester.

 

[xjx388]

But not exceptions in the case of rape or incest.

Why would such exceptions be necessary? Women have the option of taking the "morning after" pill in such cases. In any case, 20 weeks is still plenty of time to find out that one is pregnant and make a decision concerning abortion.

They tried, actually. The Republicans rejected every single amendment that was proposed for this bill.

You can see the full list here.

On further review of the bill, I don't see where it says that the RU486 regimen can only be done at an abortion clinic. Currently, any doctor can prescribe this regimen. What was proposed was allowing a doctor to modify the FDA recommended regimen based on their clinical judgement; and I would have supported such an amendment.

Again, Texas is really conservative. If Texans don't like this, they have the power to make changes.

 

[xjx388]

and yet...



How dare they make a slippery slope argument! Just because it slipped doesn't mean it's slipping

My point is that its a pretty unconvincing argument. There is no evidence that further restrictions are pending. It's like arguing that gay marriage is a slippery slope to other objectionable types of marriage (incestual, with animals, etc.).

 

[SezMe]

Again, Texas is really conservative. If Texans don't like this, they have the power to make changes.

Not really. You've heard of gerrymandering, right?

 

[Alt+F4]

Question: Can I be denied an abortion while waiting to view an execution in Texas?

 

[Dissolution]

Question: Can I be denied an abortion while waiting to view an execution in Texas?

Perhaps more bizarrely, can you be denied an abortion whilst awaiting your own execution?

 

[A'isha]

Why would such exceptions be necessary? Women have the option of taking the "morning after" pill in such cases.

Not any more they don't. Not in Texas, at least.

In any case, 20 weeks is still plenty of time to find out that one is pregnant and make a decision concerning abortion.

So if a rape or incest victim doesn't find out (which is absolutely possible) or doesn't manage to get away from the influence of the rapist in time, she's just SOL?

On further review of the bill, I don't see where it says that the RU486 regimen can only be done at an abortion clinic. Currently, any doctor can prescribe this regimen.

Here:

SECTION 2. Subchapter A, Chapter 171, Health and Safety
Code, is amended by adding Section 171.0031 to read as follows:
Sec. 171.0031. REQUIREMENTS OF PHYSICIAN; OFFENSE. (a) A
physician performing or inducing an abortion:
(1) must, on the date the abortion is performed or
induced, have active admitting privileges at a hospital that:
(A) is located not further than 30 miles from the
location at which the abortion is performed or induced;

[...]


SUBCHAPTER D. ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS
Sec. 171.061. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) "Abortion" means the act of using, administering,
prescribing, or otherwise providing an instrument, a drug, a
medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent
to terminate a clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman and with
knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable
likelihood, cause the death of the woman's unborn child.

[...]

"Abortion-inducing drug" means a drug, a medicine,
or any other substance, including a regimen of two or more drugs,
medicines, or substances, prescribed, dispensed, or administered
with the intent of terminating a clinically diagnosable pregnancy
of a woman and with knowledge that the termination will, with
reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the woman's unborn child.
The term includes off-label use of drugs, medicines, or other
substances known to have abortion-inducing properties that are
prescribed, dispensed, or administered with the intent of causing
an abortion, including the Mifeprex regimen.

[...]

"Medical abortion" means the administration or use
of an abortion-inducing drug to induce an abortion.
(6) "Mifeprex regimen," "RU-486 regimen," or "RU-486"
means the abortion-inducing drug regimen approved by the United
States Food and Drug Administration that consists of administering
mifepristone and misoprostol.

[...]

SECTION 4. Section 245.010(a), Health and Safety Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) The rules must contain minimum standards to protect the
health and safety of a patient of an abortion facility and must
contain provisions requiring compliance with the requirements of
Subchapter B, Chapter 171. On and after September 1, 2014, the
minimum standards for an abortion facility must be equivalent to
the minimum standards adopted under Section 243.010 for ambulatory
surgical centers.

[...]

§ 245.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Abortion" means an act or procedure performed
after pregnancy has been medically verified and with the intent to
cause the termination of a pregnancy other than for the purpose of
either the birth of a live fetus or removing a dead fetus. The term
does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives.
(2) "Abortion facility" means a place where abortions
are performed.

In other words, all abortion facilities have to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers, and any physician performing an abortion has to to have admitting privileges at a hospital no further than 30 miles from where the abortion is performed. The use of drugs such as RU-486 intended to terminate a pregnancy is considered, under this bill, to be an "abortion". Therefore, the use of drugs such as RU-486 can only be done at a facility that meets the standard of an ambulatory surgical center, and can only be given by a physician with admitting privileges at a hospital that's no more than 30 miles away from the location facility where the drug is administered.

Again, Texas is really conservative. If Texans don't like this, they have the power to make changes.

Tyranny of the majority

 

[lionking]

Why would such exceptions be necessary? Women have the option of taking the "morning after" pill in such cases. In any case, 20 weeks is still plenty of time to find out that one is pregnant and make a decision concerning abortion.

Argument from incredulity noted. A minor who is a victim of incest may indeed not realise she is pregnant until well into the pregnancy. She may also be so stricken with (misplaced) shame that she tries to hide the pregnancy until it becomes obvious. Yet this young woman will now be denied a safe abortion.

Not having exceptions for victims of rape and incest is the most odious part of a very bad bill.

 

[A'isha]

Argument from incredulity noted. A minor who is a victim of incest may indeed not realise she is pregnant until well into the pregnancy. She may also be so stricken with (misplaced) shame that she tries to hide the pregnancy until it becomes obvious. Yet this young woman will now be denied a safe abortion.

Not having exceptions for victims of rape and incest is the most odious part of a very bad bill.

Yes, but remember, according to the bill's sponsor, a rape kit will get her all cleaned out, so the law doesn't need to worry about them.

 

[Lowpro]

My point is that its a pretty unconvincing argument. There is no evidence that further restrictions are pending. It's like arguing that gay marriage is a slippery slope to other objectionable types of marriage (incestual, with animals, etc.).

I guess it's not a flood till the water's over your head then. The slippery slope is a fallacy if the causal relationship cannot be established. With the issue of gay marriage claiming a slippery slope is fallacious to incest because gay marriage is pled as a special case (successfully and justly). Incest "could" be argued as a special case as well but this is independent of gay marriage; there is no causality. Gay marriage could have come AFTER incestuous marriage(human history tells this tale actually...).

So at this point you're only lying to yourself. The reduction of weeks for a legal abortion has been on the decline as research and public opinion have shifted and really the entire topic of abortion and women's reproductive rights has been in tumult in the United States for centuries. Abortion is not an issue in a vacuum so you cannot treat it like one to placate to your desire to call "fallacy!"

And even THEN this article STILL refutes you because it says in it that the measures came to reduce abortion weeks. To say it doesn't seem to see further reduction is like saying that it's not raining because I can't check to see the weather right now. It ABSOLUTELY can be reduced further (hell it could even be increased) and to say there's no sign that it won't is something I take personally due to my academic background (statistician) and it's infuriating. You could NOT have said this same statement HALF A YEAR AGO!!!

*Note I'm not actually angry at you but I do take recursion very seriously when I want to determine future state of affairs. I suggest you appreciate that more.

 

[xjx388]

Argument from incredulity noted. A minor who is a victim of incest may indeed not realise she is pregnant until well into the pregnancy. She may also be so stricken with (misplaced) shame that she tries to hide the pregnancy until it becomes obvious. Yet this young woman will now be denied a safe abortion.

Not having exceptions for victims of rape and incest is the most odious part of a very bad bill.

I disagree. I consider the life of the baby after viability to be as valuable as the life of the victim. It's not the baby's fault they were conceived under tragic circumstances.

I don't believe people should be able to choose to murder an innocent no matter the situation.

I take it you do not view an unborn baby to be a valuable human life? What is the distinction between a valuable human life and something that can be scraped out of a womb?

 

[Brainster]

That is probably the most offensive thing I've seen all day. I hope something terrible happens to that guy.

Pro-choice folks often use coat hangers in their signage and at protests against anti-abortion legislation. See all the images here.

 

[Lowpro]

Why would such exceptions be necessary? Women have the option of taking the "morning after" pill in such cases. In any case, 20 weeks is still plenty of time to find out that one is pregnant and make a decision concerning abortion..

So was 24 weeks but allow me to lay some heavy stuff on you. The decision for abortion is NOT easy and it doesn't often come quickly. If the woman is fortunate enough to even HAVE a Planned Parenthood clinic abortion isn't doled out the same day or even the same week barring some extreme circumstances and this isn't even an issue of law it's because Planned Parenthood actually values the life of the unborn child and the situation that the mother is in. They provide MANY options and assist the mother in assessing their capacities in each. This takes time, a lot of it. Hell if you want shoot a message on down to UAB's Health Behavior department if you want to learn more about how they participate in this research because most mothers-to-be have little knowledge of their options AT ALL however abortion remains one of the few tertiary intervention measures for unwanted pregnancy. Abortion is a symptom of a failed reproductive education program for states. You don't cure it by restricting abortion because it will further racial and socioeconomic disparities. If you want to prevent abortion then you should be providing more interventions towards contraceptive use and childcare assistance, something this bill was not intended to actually do. It's a spiteful bill written by a bunch of ideological pricks with little concern for these public health issues and would rather jerk off to their ignorant moral attitudes.