In extending her support for the legislation, however, sponsor Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark. Also favoring the proposal, Senator Steve Smith (R-Maricopa) adds that lawmakers also need to consider “the 50 million-plus children who have been killed” since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v Wade.
"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''
-snip-
Senator Steve Smith. Sir. Steve, can I call you Steve?
You wouldn't have been able to hear the opinions of most of those 50 million children, because if your party had it's way? It would have let most of them die from treatable medical conditions and let them starve to death because you would deny them health insurance and assistance.
The Republican party talks loud and large about protecting life when they'll force a woman to give birth and then just walk away and let the baby die.
FyreWulff on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
In extending her support for the legislation, however, sponsor Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark. Also favoring the proposal, Senator Steve Smith (R-Maricopa) adds that lawmakers also need to consider “the 50 million-plus children who have been killed” since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v Wade.
"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''
-snip-
Senator Steve Smith. Sir. Steve, can I call you Steve?
You wouldn't have been able to hear the opinions of most of those 50 million children, because if your party had it's way? It would have let most of them die from treatable medical conditions and let them starve to death because you would deny them health insurance and assistance.
The Republican party talks loud and large about protecting life when they'll force a woman to give birth and then just walk away and let the baby die.
Pretty much. There was a whole tizzy a while back about some right-wing Pro-Life group that was endorsing the EPAs new mercury disposal guidelines because exposure to mercury in the womb can lead to deformities in infants. A whole bunch of prominent national Republicans began to quietly but publicly pressure them to back off of their endorsement because "Pro-life does not concern itself with quality of life, simply life itself". It was laughably crazy.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
In extending her support for the legislation, however, sponsor Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark. Also favoring the proposal, Senator Steve Smith (R-Maricopa) adds that lawmakers also need to consider “the 50 million-plus children who have been killed” since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v Wade.
"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''
-snip-
Senator Steve Smith. Sir. Steve, can I call you Steve?
You wouldn't have been able to hear the opinions of most of those 50 million children, because if your party had it's way? It would have let most of them die from treatable medical conditions and let them starve to death because you would deny them health insurance and assistance.
The Republican party talks loud and large about protecting life when they'll force a woman to give birth and then just walk away and let the baby die.
Pretty much. There was a whole tizzy a while back about some right-wing Pro-Life group that was endorsing the EPAs new mercury disposal guidelines because exposure to mercury in the womb can lead to deformities in infants. A whole bunch of prominent national Republicans began to quietly but publicly pressure them to back off of their endorsement because "Pro-life does not concern itself with quality of life, simply life itself". It was laughably crazy.
I think the idea is that as long as the baby is baptized the child is supposed to starve and take it like a champion because he or she is saved.
I just mentioned this to my wife, and she had an interesting point. Determining the date of conception isn't all that accurate (it can be plus/minus a week or two). So from a policy point of view, if you have to pick an arbitrary day, one that a woman is likely to know pretty well would seem to make sense, even if the implications of it are very o_O inducing. On the other hand, just because she knows that date doesn't mean she can't lie about it to push back that 18-week ban to at least 19-weeks or so...
I just mentioned this to my wife, and she had an interesting point. Determining the date of conception isn't all that accurate (it can be plus/minus a week or two). So from a policy point of view, if you have to pick an arbitrary day, one that a woman is likely to know pretty well would seem to make sense, even if the implications of it are very o_O inducing. On the other hand, just because she knows that date doesn't mean she can't lie about it to push back that 18-week ban to at least 19-weeks or so...
So it's still pretty stupid.
But the point of that date is that it's easier to determine medically. So even if she lies, the doctors can say, "well our medical evidence suggests that date is actually this, so you're over the deadline."
Because conservatives are just so trusting of scientific evidence.
Honestly, the more I look at this, the less awful this sounds. Doctors either use ultrasound (accuracy within a week in the first trimester) or LMP to determine date of conception anyway. This is basically just republicans doing a "clever" accounting trick to shave two weeks off the supposed 20-week ban.
edit: that part is still awful though, don't get me wrong. Just more in a "business as usual" way.
How do you deal with women who aren't regular with this bill?
For instance, a woman who can go months between periods? "Oh, you had your last period in October? But you didn't have any sex until December? Its very likely that by the time you find out you're pregnant, you'll be over their "20-weeks since last period" standard. Even if you're only 8 weeks in reality.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
I love hyperbole too, but honestly, either the she is pregnant or not. No one is going to get prosecuted for murdering a child that hasn't been conceived yet.
Even if republicans controlled literally everything.
Even if the craziest fundies you could find controlled literally everything.
The number of people that would find that reasonable are so ridiculously slim, it's not worth talking about.
How do you deal with women who aren't regular with this bill?
For instance, a woman who can go months between periods? "Oh, you had your last period in October? But you didn't have any sex until December? Its very likely that by the time you find out you're pregnant, you'll be over their "20-weeks since last period" standard. Even if you're only 8 weeks in reality.
Two months?
Some people go for more like half years or longer in between periods.
It's not exactly rare, and I doubt any legal entities would deal with it as a separate case.
Oh, there's also the case of women who continue menstruating throughout part (or all?) of their pregnancy albeit lightly. Women sure are weird sometimes.
How do you deal with women who aren't regular with this bill?
For instance, a woman who can go months between periods? "Oh, you had your last period in October? But you didn't have any sex until December? Its very likely that by the time you find out you're pregnant, you'll be over their "20-weeks since last period" standard. Even if you're only 8 weeks in reality.
Yeah, this was my immediate thought too. There are sooo many women who have irregular periods.
I'm guessing the Republicans partly don't care and partly are simply completely ignorant about "that icky woman health stuff."
The next step is that all women will be required to submit written requisition forms before having sex, and keep a written log after the act. The log must contain information about duration, location, and position, as well as pictures of the act.
Also, all sanitary napkins and tampons must be sent to the newly created Department of Menstruation in a time-stamped courier package.
How do you deal with women who aren't regular with this bill?
For instance, a woman who can go months between periods? "Oh, you had your last period in October? But you didn't have any sex until December? Its very likely that by the time you find out you're pregnant, you'll be over their "20-weeks since last period" standard. Even if you're only 8 weeks in reality.
Yeah, this was my immediate thought too. There are sooo many women who have irregular periods.
I'm guessing the Republicans partly don't care and partly are simply completely ignorant about "that icky woman health stuff."
Yeah, I went back and forth in my mind before realizing it's likely a combination of the two (or, some people don't care and others are ignorant and many others are ignorant and wouldn't care if they weren't.)
How do you deal with women who aren't regular with this bill?
For instance, a woman who can go months between periods? "Oh, you had your last period in October? But you didn't have any sex until December? Its very likely that by the time you find out you're pregnant, you'll be over their "20-weeks since last period" standard. Even if you're only 8 weeks in reality.
Well, those women usually have PCOS and have a lot of trouble getting pregnant- they usually need fertility treatment, because during that whole time that they're not menstruating, they're also not ovulating, so you have a pretty good idea when they got pregnant due to the fertility treatment or IVF used. (Also, if you know any women like this who AREN'T taking hormone therapy or the pill to make their cycles regular, they should see a doctor and start because they are at risk for endometrial cancer and a few other things). In cases where it is uncertain we just use early 1st trimester ultrasound which is accurate to within a day or two if there is no growth abnormality. The reason we use LMP instead of ultrasound for most women is 1) because there might be growth abnormalities and we want to know if gestational age doesn't line up with ultrasound-determined embryonic age, and 2) because early ultrasounds are still not standard of care (although very common these days).
How do you deal with women who aren't regular with this bill?
For instance, a woman who can go months between periods? "Oh, you had your last period in October? But you didn't have any sex until December? Its very likely that by the time you find out you're pregnant, you'll be over their "20-weeks since last period" standard. Even if you're only 8 weeks in reality.
Yeah, this was my immediate thought too. There are sooo many women who have irregular periods.
I'm guessing the Republicans partly don't care and partly are simply completely ignorant about "that icky woman health stuff."
I'm sure Repubs will blame birth control for the irregularities and then use it to ban birth control itself.
Well, those women usually have PCOS and have a lot of trouble getting pregnant
Uh, no. There are a lot of women who don't have PCOS who have irregular periods.
Irregular as in 28 days one cycle, 32 the next, or irregular as in frequently goes several months without menstruating? I was talking about the latter, since it was what was used as an example. Women with periods that vary in length by more than 10 days very likely are not actually ovulating and very likely have PCOS. Also, considering that somewhere from 6 to 12% of women have PCOS, and that many of them will have irregular periods, it is definitely the most common cause (in reproductive age women).
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Arizona is also the state from which Bella Swan hails.
I can't imagine this will last as worded. Especially since Pregnancy doesn't even work like that.
As has been repeatedly noted, it is not uncommon in medical contexts to use date of last menstruation to calculate length of pregnancy. Yes, this does mean that a deadline worded as twenty weeks effectively becomes eighteen. But this "hurf durf every girl is pregnant right now" bullshit is just dumb. I mean, yeah sometimes it's fun to be snarky but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
And yes, I say this even given my first post in this thread (which was one of the first posts total). But see, then other people brought up salient points in other posts, and I read those posts, and now it actually makes a bit of sense.
I can't imagine this will last as worded. Especially since Pregnancy doesn't even work like that.
As has been repeatedly noted, it is not uncommon in medical contexts to use date of last menstruation to calculate length of pregnancy. Yes, this does mean that a deadline worded as twenty weeks effectively becomes eighteen. But this "hurf durf every girl is pregnant right now" bullshit is just dumb. I mean, yeah sometimes it's fun to be snarky but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
And yes, I say this even given my first post in this thread (which was one of the first posts total). But see, then other people brought up salient points in other posts, and I read those posts, and now it actually makes a bit of sense.
See part of the problem is that you can't tell whether it's worded out of stupidity, or worded deliberately in order to be abused later despite what they claim to be the "intended meaning"(read: SOPA).
With what they've been doing with policies in Arizona lately(see: Arizona's H.B. 2549, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona -> Pro PROTECT IP, also potentially one of the candidates who was responsible for killing a bill to protect whistleblowers), I really think it's not so much borne of stupidity as it is that they have some sort of plan in mind to abuse the hell out of this thing.
Well, those women usually have PCOS and have a lot of trouble getting pregnant
Uh, no. There are a lot of women who don't have PCOS who have irregular periods.
Irregular as in 28 days one cycle, 32 the next, or irregular as in frequently goes several months without menstruating? I was talking about the latter, since it was what was used as an example. Women with periods that vary in length by more than 10 days very likely are not actually ovulating and very likely have PCOS. Also, considering that somewhere from 6 to 12% of women have PCOS, and that many of them will have irregular periods, it is definitely the most common cause (in reproductive age women).
Man you know there are like 4 versions of the pill that give you 4 periods a year right?
"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''
-.-
Well, Roe v Wade was in 1970~, if memory serves. So that's about 40 years ago.
Divide 50,000,000 by 40, we get about 1,250,000 alleged abortions per year. And I think I' being pretty generous to the senator by rounding-off numbers here & there.
Hey Senator Retard from Arizona: the next time you pull a number right out of your asshole, it probably shouldn't be one that looks insanely high at a cursory glance.
Well, those women usually have PCOS and have a lot of trouble getting pregnant
Uh, no. There are a lot of women who don't have PCOS who have irregular periods.
Irregular as in 28 days one cycle, 32 the next, or irregular as in frequently goes several months without menstruating? I was talking about the latter, since it was what was used as an example. Women with periods that vary in length by more than 10 days very likely are not actually ovulating and very likely have PCOS. Also, considering that somewhere from 6 to 12% of women have PCOS, and that many of them will have irregular periods, it is definitely the most common cause (in reproductive age women).
My wife would sometimes go 2 months, sometimes 1, sometimes 3, between periods. She's currently 19-weeks pregnant without any sort of therapy.
So, we'd have potentially been in trouble in Arizona. Not that it would have actually been an issue, but theoretically.
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
I love hyperbole too, but honestly, either the she is pregnant or not. No one is going to get prosecuted for murdering a child that hasn't been conceived yet.
Your naive optimism is genuinely adorable.
What you're missing here is that the "since her last period" is (as psyck0 already mentioned) the way doctors determine gestational age of a fetus. Doctors do not think a woman was actually pregnant from her last period onward. They are trying to judge how far along the pregnancy is, and so they count milestones/dates/development from a point that is easier to determine than "when did you conceive." It's certainly true that some women may know when they conceived, but, how do I put this, there are actually women who have sex more than once during their fertile interval.
The problem is that this MEDICAL definition is being ported to a LEGAL definition. When did a woman become pregnant? Why, right after her last period stopped. Says so right here in the law, so that's the definition we must use.
Now, it's certainly true that this law isn't going to be used to prosecute a woman who was NEVER pregnant, or for killing a woman who was NEVER pregnant. But let's say (as has happened in plenty of places) that a prosecutor wants to go after a slutty slut slut who just had a baby for using cocaine when she was pregnant. There's evidence that she used cocaine right after her period. Huzzah, legally she was pregnant then!
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Posts
You wouldn't have been able to hear the opinions of most of those 50 million children, because if your party had it's way? It would have let most of them die from treatable medical conditions and let them starve to death because you would deny them health insurance and assistance.
The Republican party talks loud and large about protecting life when they'll force a woman to give birth and then just walk away and let the baby die.
Pretty much. There was a whole tizzy a while back about some right-wing Pro-Life group that was endorsing the EPAs new mercury disposal guidelines because exposure to mercury in the womb can lead to deformities in infants. A whole bunch of prominent national Republicans began to quietly but publicly pressure them to back off of their endorsement because "Pro-life does not concern itself with quality of life, simply life itself". It was laughably crazy.
Burden of proof on the defendant to prove that she wasn't pregnant, the natural state of women that god intended.
And honestly if she wasn't pregnant then she was a whore so no big loss.
I think the idea is that as long as the baby is baptized the child is supposed to starve and take it like a champion because he or she is saved.
It isn't?
And Jesus, Arizona is the absolute worst state, isn't it?
So it's still pretty stupid.
But the point of that date is that it's easier to determine medically. So even if she lies, the doctors can say, "well our medical evidence suggests that date is actually this, so you're over the deadline."
Because conservatives are just so trusting of scientific evidence.
edit: that part is still awful though, don't get me wrong. Just more in a "business as usual" way.
We need to protect the idea of conceiving a child from thoughtabortionists!
For instance, a woman who can go months between periods? "Oh, you had your last period in October? But you didn't have any sex until December? Its very likely that by the time you find out you're pregnant, you'll be over their "20-weeks since last period" standard. Even if you're only 8 weeks in reality.
Even if republicans controlled literally everything.
Even if the craziest fundies you could find controlled literally everything.
The number of people that would find that reasonable are so ridiculously slim, it's not worth talking about.
Two months?
Some people go for more like half years or longer in between periods.
It's not exactly rare, and I doubt any legal entities would deal with it as a separate case.
Yeah, this was my immediate thought too. There are sooo many women who have irregular periods.
I'm guessing the Republicans partly don't care and partly are simply completely ignorant about "that icky woman health stuff."
Also, all sanitary napkins and tampons must be sent to the newly created Department of Menstruation in a time-stamped courier package.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Unfortunately, my parents are about to move there, purely to get away from Chicago winters.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Yeah, I went back and forth in my mind before realizing it's likely a combination of the two (or, some people don't care and others are ignorant and many others are ignorant and wouldn't care if they weren't.)
......!!!
Schrodinger's Thermodynamic Gomorran Fetus!!!
Well, those women usually have PCOS and have a lot of trouble getting pregnant- they usually need fertility treatment, because during that whole time that they're not menstruating, they're also not ovulating, so you have a pretty good idea when they got pregnant due to the fertility treatment or IVF used. (Also, if you know any women like this who AREN'T taking hormone therapy or the pill to make their cycles regular, they should see a doctor and start because they are at risk for endometrial cancer and a few other things). In cases where it is uncertain we just use early 1st trimester ultrasound which is accurate to within a day or two if there is no growth abnormality. The reason we use LMP instead of ultrasound for most women is 1) because there might be growth abnormalities and we want to know if gestational age doesn't line up with ultrasound-determined embryonic age, and 2) because early ultrasounds are still not standard of care (although very common these days).
I'm sure Repubs will blame birth control for the irregularities and then use it to ban birth control itself.
Uh, no. There are a lot of women who don't have PCOS who have irregular periods.
These people are fucking nuts.
Irregular as in 28 days one cycle, 32 the next, or irregular as in frequently goes several months without menstruating? I was talking about the latter, since it was what was used as an example. Women with periods that vary in length by more than 10 days very likely are not actually ovulating and very likely have PCOS. Also, considering that somewhere from 6 to 12% of women have PCOS, and that many of them will have irregular periods, it is definitely the most common cause (in reproductive age women).
Thanks Arizona.
I can't imagine this will last as worded. Especially since Pregnancy doesn't even work like that.
As has been repeatedly noted, it is not uncommon in medical contexts to use date of last menstruation to calculate length of pregnancy. Yes, this does mean that a deadline worded as twenty weeks effectively becomes eighteen. But this "hurf durf every girl is pregnant right now" bullshit is just dumb. I mean, yeah sometimes it's fun to be snarky but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
And yes, I say this even given my first post in this thread (which was one of the first posts total). But see, then other people brought up salient points in other posts, and I read those posts, and now it actually makes a bit of sense.
See part of the problem is that you can't tell whether it's worded out of stupidity, or worded deliberately in order to be abused later despite what they claim to be the "intended meaning"(read: SOPA).
With what they've been doing with policies in Arizona lately(see: Arizona's H.B. 2549, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona -> Pro PROTECT IP, also potentially one of the candidates who was responsible for killing a bill to protect whistleblowers), I really think it's not so much borne of stupidity as it is that they have some sort of plan in mind to abuse the hell out of this thing.
Man you know there are like 4 versions of the pill that give you 4 periods a year right?
It isn't irregular, but it isn't 12 times a year.
-.-
Well, Roe v Wade was in 1970~, if memory serves. So that's about 40 years ago.
Divide 50,000,000 by 40, we get about 1,250,000 alleged abortions per year. And I think I' being pretty generous to the senator by rounding-off numbers here & there.
Hey Senator Retard from Arizona: the next time you pull a number right out of your asshole, it probably shouldn't be one that looks insanely high at a cursory glance.
My wife would sometimes go 2 months, sometimes 1, sometimes 3, between periods. She's currently 19-weeks pregnant without any sort of therapy.
So, we'd have potentially been in trouble in Arizona. Not that it would have actually been an issue, but theoretically.
That seems ludicrously high to me, considering the birth rate in the U.S. I'm curious about how their reporting system operates.
Your naive optimism is genuinely adorable.
What you're missing here is that the "since her last period" is (as psyck0 already mentioned) the way doctors determine gestational age of a fetus. Doctors do not think a woman was actually pregnant from her last period onward. They are trying to judge how far along the pregnancy is, and so they count milestones/dates/development from a point that is easier to determine than "when did you conceive." It's certainly true that some women may know when they conceived, but, how do I put this, there are actually women who have sex more than once during their fertile interval.
The problem is that this MEDICAL definition is being ported to a LEGAL definition. When did a woman become pregnant? Why, right after her last period stopped. Says so right here in the law, so that's the definition we must use.
Now, it's certainly true that this law isn't going to be used to prosecute a woman who was NEVER pregnant, or for killing a woman who was NEVER pregnant. But let's say (as has happened in plenty of places) that a prosecutor wants to go after a slutty slut slut who just had a baby for using cocaine when she was pregnant. There's evidence that she used cocaine right after her period. Huzzah, legally she was pregnant then!
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
He says aborted AND killed and doesn't specify solely american children. At least that kind of loopholing is the only way I can see it working.
Seemsto come from this study.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1363/4304111/asset/4304111.pdf;jsessionid=E3AF3CCC564DE2BED2FC933050198CB3.d01t04?v=1&t=h0s97d79&s=b0f80ceb1b32f73904109e2e5fa3f6334e8a4714
I also still don't care. Hell I killed 50 million potential kids this morning