Montana Invents Fun Science Experiments To Do On Ladies Who Want Legal Abortions

[niyad]

(anger alert warning)

Still legal right?


Montana Invents Fun Science Experiments To Do On Ladies Who Want Legal Abortions

image:
try not to be pregnant in Montana

Pretend you’re a state legislature, and you really REALLY want to make it so ladies don’t do abortions, even though that is a thing that is still legal in U.S. Jesus America. You have lots of options! You could try to ban all abortions after 20 weeks, which 10 states and Congress are trying to do. You could ban all abortions at some other gestational point, which 32 states are working on. You could try to scare ladies away from having an abortion by offering information that is not necessarily even accurate about fetal pain, as 12 states do. Or you could get really creative, like in Montana!

Rather than just proposing all those old-fashioned kinds of 20-week bans, a Montana House Committee is taking up H.B. 479, the Montana Unborn Child Pain and Suffering Prevention Act, which would require mandatory fetal anesthesia prior to an abortion at 20 weeks or later. (West Virginia Republicans introduced a similar bill in January, requiring anesthesia at 7 weeks.)


What’s so wrong with requiring a pregnant woman to have anesthesia administered to the fetus she’s aborting, whether she wants it or not? Well, for one thing, it is based on the scientifically incorrect assertion that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks. For another thing, the health effects of fetal anesthesia on pregnant ladies are unknown. But pregnant ladies would probably be fine with their bodies being used as a science experiment, right?

The Montana bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Albert Olszewski, is another one of those magical Republican lawmakers who just knows things about ladies’ bodies. He is an orthopedic surgeon, and he has probably treated lady patients, ergo, he has a nuanced understanding of the female reproductive system and doesn’t need to pay any attention to the findings of actual ladyhealth doctors who have studied this subject. In response to a question about whether and at what point fetal pain would even be possible, Olszewski said:

Based on the scientific research accomplished and published over the last three decades, the answer to this question is when the unborn child is 20 weeks gestation or older.

. . . .



Read more at http://wonkette.com/580027/montana-invents-fun-science-experiments-to-do-on-ladies-who-want-legal-abortions#R3TOV7qvlus8w0HE.99

[cali]

1. just one more repuke controlled state that is investing in demeaning and controlling women

trying to avail themselves of their RIGHT to an abortion.

[niyad]

2. but, we keep being told there is NO war on women.

[cali]

3. and what a load of crap that is!

[strawberries]

4. how is this demeaning and controlling to women?

First in these days most women know they are pregnant before their period even comes. "most" being the key word.

Maybe the fetus does feel pain. I don't find that controlling just part of the procedure

[Brickbat]

8. It's like you didn't even read it.

Well, for one thing, it is based on the scientifically incorrect assertion that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks. For another thing, the health effects of fetal anesthesia on pregnant ladies are unknown. But pregnant ladies would probably be fine with their bodies being used as a science experiment, right?

[strawberries]

11. can you prove fetuses don't feel pain at 20 weeks?

I have read differently. Anesthesia has been around a long time, so how could that be used as an experiment? Don't assume ladies would be fine with being used as a science experiment, you are too smart for that, right?

[cali]

23. the best evidence is that they do not

n March 2010, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists submitted a report,[6] concluding that "Current research shows that the sensory structures are not developed or specialized enough to respond to pain in a fetus of less than 24 weeks", pg. 22.

The neural regions and pathways that are responsible for pain experience remain under debate but it is generally accepted that pain from physical trauma requires an intact pathway from the periphery, through the spinal cord, into the thalamus and on to regions of the cerebral cortex including the primary sensory cortex (S1), the insular cortex and the anterior cingulated cortex.3,4 Fetal pain is not possible before these necessary neural pathways and structures (figure 1) have developed. -pg. 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_perception

[strawberries]

26. I read that too

but most articles I have read do say 20 weeks. I don't think anyone knows the real answer to be honest.

Fortunately we are talking about 1.5% of all abortions which makes it easier for me to swallow

[jeff47]

12. Because that is the only goal of the legislation.

First in these days most women know they are pregnant before their period even comes.

When they're trying to get pregnant.

Someone who is trying to get pregnant is unlikely to seek an abortion.

Maybe the fetus does feel pain.

Nope. That doesn't develop until at least 27 weeks. But we have lots of people claiming otherwise in an attempt to control women and restrict abortion.

[strawberries]

14. I don't buy the 27 week thing for pain

as I have read otherwise. If someone was out to control women then I think chastity belts would be in order and how does this procedure restrict an abortion?

[jeff47]

16. Reality doesn't give a shit if you buy it or not.

Your lack of purchase does not change reality.

I don't buy the 27 week thing for pain as I have read otherwise.

Ok, a fetus can't feel pain until 1668 weeks. You've read it, so it must be true, right?

and how does this procedure restrict an abortion?

Because it requires the woman to
1) Go into a fully-equipped OR for it
2) Hire a fetal anesthesiologist. There are not many in the country, much less Montana
3) Pay LOTS more for the abortion - 1 and 2 are not cheap.
4) Gamble that the anesthesia is not going to harm her.

[strawberries]

18. anger does not do you justice

or change anything. You choose to believe a fetus does not feel pain great for you and your conscience. I guess the woman should make her mind up sooner than 20 weeks and it's a non issue

[jeff47]

21. I'm not angry. I'm used to the ignorance of anti-choice people.

You choose to believe a fetus does not feel pain great for you and your conscience.

It is not a choice. The part of the brain that responds to pain does not develop until 27 weeks. That's a scientifically-proven fact. As a result, a 20-week fetus can't feel pain.

Again, you wanting something different does not change reality.

I guess the woman should make her mind up sooner than 20 weeks and it's a non issue

Because money grows on trees, right?

The most common reason for a woman to delay abortion is because she can't afford it. Because people like you block attempts to make abortion more accessible and affordable. If the only abortion provider is 150mi away, it's not easy for a poor person to get there. Multiple times, because you demand unnecessary ultrasounds and other procedures to "educate" her.

You should really just drop the act and call them dumb sluts. You clearly believe that's the case.

[cali]

20. ok. post links.

[NickB79]

32. You quote two conservative pro-life websites for support? Seriously?

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

You might as well quote a creationist website about whether evolution is true or not, or fucking Sen. Inhofe about whether or not global warming is real.

so basically we are talking about 1.5% of all abortions. Oh ya war on women!

1.5% of all abortions in the US is approximately 10,000 women.

You're OK taking a constitutionally protected right away from 10,000 women, eh?

[DirkGently]

28. Maybe let's let doctors do the doctoring.

It doesn't matter what anyone claims they "buy." Doctors don't think this is necessary for the health of the mother, which is the only medical concern in an abortion.

We don't force medical procedures on women or anyone else based on the gut feelings or ideological beliefs or religious convictions of anyone, period.

The fact that for reason, conservative extremists increasingly believe they have the right to control doctors and women and everyone's sexual and reproductive activities does not make it okay.

[strawberries]

31. So we would leave it up to the

individual DR. They make the decision, whether to perform an abortion and how they perform the abortion. I suppose that is the best one could ask for, should a woman chose an abortion after 20 weeks

[DirkGently]

34. I don't think actual doctors have even heard of this.

It appears to be yet another invented concern of people trying to stop legal abortions because of their irrational fear of women controlling their own reproductive systems.

[LiberalLoner]

41. Strawberries, your journal post says you are a conservative. If you are a rightwinger as you

Admit, then why are you posting here?

[strawberries]

43. well if you took the time to continue reading

you would have read that I have left voting republican, that I have become disgusted in what they have done and are doing to this country.

I have learned a great deal from this site and no longer consider myself a "rightwinger" as you kindly wrote.

I have not changed my feelings on abortion as it is personal to me. I don't force my position on anyone nor do I judge and so maybe you shouldn't judge me.

[LiberalLoner]

44. Just curious, what Republican stances do you disagree with, specifically?

[strawberries]

29. cali said 24 weeks

since you are wrong about the 27 weeks, maybe you are wrong about other things too

[jeff47]

30. I didn't reply to cali. I replied to you.

while discussing an article that falsely claims a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.

[cali]

37. You might consider that that holds true for you.

[strawberries]

39. ok, I could be wrong too, maybe the fetus feels nothing

but I still find this subject upsetting and sad. I should have known better and just not posted anything

[GreatGazoo]

36. Maybe it was this "Women's Rights Expert"

http://issuehawk.com/igor/2014/08/04/hilarious-photos-couple-trolls-anti-abortion-protesters-with-way-funnier-signs.html

[REP]

5. Are they going to require "fetal anesthesia" for birth?

The trauma of birth causes quite a bit of pain to the fetus as it is born, and by that time, it is fully capable of feeling pain. What do they propose for these fetuses, who will be born in excruciating pain? Or don't tell me this is just about punishing women! Couldn't be!

[strawberries]

7. it would probably be harmful

to the fetus that is really a baby by time of normal delivery. Since there is an abortion taking place in the original post, well then it is just keeping pain from the fetus before the abortion.

Not sure how that punishes the woman

[jeff47]

13. It punishes the woman because they have to get to the fetus to anesthetize it.

Which means they're going through the woman to apply anesthetic that does not work on a fetus that can not feel pain (that starts at 27 weeks).

[strawberries]

15. don't they have to go through the woman to perform the abortion? nt

[jeff47]

17. Nope.

Abortion can be done either via drugs or through the vagina/cervix.

Fetal anesthesia requires cutting a hole into the woman.

[strawberries]

19. going through vagina/cervix is that not part of the woman?

cutting a hole into the woman? You would think they would go through the cervix/vagina.

[jeff47]

22. They need direct access to the fetus in order to anesthetize it.

You can't do that through the vagina. So you have to do a c-section-like surgery.

[LynneSin]

6. Just think if we put this much effort into ensuring child hunger was ended world wide...

as we did in saving all the fetus.

We would wipe out child hunger as we know it.

Instead 1 in 6 children around the globe will go to be tonight with hunger.

But hell we saved a few clumps of cells so woohoo I guess.

[strawberries]

9. There are programs all around

the world to feed children. I wish there were more so no one would go to bed at night hungry and maybe we will get there.

The idea that you think 20 weeks is "clumps of cells" is probably the reason some states want to do an ultrasound prior to an abortion so the women is educated on what is really happening.

[LynneSin]

35. I know what 20 weeks look like and no woman should still be required an ultrasound

we do not need to legislate that. What a woman does is her choice to be done between her and her doctor.

And I have a degree in biology thank you very much.

[tammywammy]

42. Republicans push the ultrasound

Because they think women are too stupid to make medical decisions with their doctor on their own. And they want to shame them. Every woman I've known that's had an abortion knew exactly what they were doing.

[hobbit709]

10. there should be mandatory public colonoscopies for the clowns

to prove their heads aren't up their asses.

[DirkGently]

24. More Jim Crow-level sneering evil.

We have established abortion is a right. We have established it is illegal to impede women's exercise of that right.

So the conservative response, rather than make any kind of reasoned argument (perhaps because there aren't any good enough) is to pass bad-faith law after bad-faith law designed to shame or frighten or discourage or harm women so that the right is in fact impeded and women are in put in danger.

And they think they're super cute about it. This is the same way the same sick, evil-hearted peopled went about (and come to think of it, are still going about) disenfranchising the poor or people of color. Har har it's just a poll tax, har har.

These are vicious and stupid people and they are wrong about this as they have always been wrong, and history will lump their half-witted smirking faces in with the Alabama woman spitting on the black school girls and the rest of history's vile trash.

[strawberries]

27. How did you manage to connect

Jim Crow with a 20 week abortion ?

[DirkGently]

33. It's the same dishonest, malicious strategy.

Women have the right to abortion. There is no "20 week" exception. There is no, "Well, the idiots have now decided they 'don't buy' the science on fetal development, so they've decided to force women to undergo increased complication, expense and danger" exception.

It's just another attempt to imply that abortion is "baby killing," which it still is not, and to stop women from having abortions, which is still illegal to do.

The racist South did not want to accept that black people are human beings who can vote and go to school and eat in restaurants, and so raised all kinds of other "concerns" about whether people could pass poll tests, or pay a "fee," or, more recently, obtain enough proof of identification. The concerns are always lies, cutely tailored to imply that something is wrong with the target of the bigotry.

A poll test, to "make sure people are educated enough to vote." Which happens to impact the poor or the recently enslaved, who may not read as well, but whose rights are equal nevertheless.

A tax, which just happens to once again raise a barrier to the poor. The pretense is again that there is some other need or concern.

But the "concerns" are always lies and pretense. Racists and conservatives really just don't want non-whites or the poor to vote, so they devise barriers based on geography or the ability to drive somewhere or to be off of work in the middle of the week, or to put enough documents together to get the right form of ID. In each case, the "concern" being addressed is a facade.

And so now, with the misogynist anti-abortionists, we have so many new "concerns." It is illegal to impede the right to abortion, so we will add some thoughtful "licensing" requirements for clinics, to make them "safer." But that is a sneering pretense, like the poll tax or voter ID. The clinics get closed, the anti-abortionists get what they want, which is to find another way to deny another group of people their human rights.

And it's not as though this is some opinion of mine. Republicans cackle openly about their recent onslaught of "concerned" legislation effectively ending the right to abortion in state after state.

They're achieving illegal ends by (questionably) legal means, and they think it's just adorable, the way they can hurt people by subverting the law.

Before that, we had the "partial-birth abortion" canard, an invented procedure falsely implying babies about to be born were being "aborted." That was never really a thing, but the fake concern worked, restrictions were passed, and the camel's nose was under the tent.

Apparently this year's Jim Crow anti-abortion "concern" is the "20-week abortion?" As you note, there is no science or reasoning behind this new magic date that is supposed to again mean that nearly-born "babies" are being aborted, but as always, the ignorant, malicious bigot's "concern" is enough to accomplish the real goal of interfering with rights they wish to take from others.

This cutesy legislative concern trolling over abortion, which is not so cute really, because it will kill women who need a medical procedure to which they an absolute right, is the same trick, by many of the same people, and it's fooling no one, and it will end in shame on the trash heap of history with the rest of the bigotry and ignorance and hatred the world is slowly by surely tossing aside.

[cwydro]

38. THE STUPID.

It burns.

[ismnotwasm]

40. Assholes

I hate this shit. I really really hate it.

[niyad]

45. . . .