Texas House of Representatives passes abortion bill; Senate still needs to vote - Polidicks

[quote=CBS News]The proposed law would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Doctors performing abortions would need admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. And it would make Texas just the third state to require all abortions be performed at centers licensed for surgery. Opponents of the proposal say the package of restriction could force 37 of the state's 42 abortion centers to close. The Texas Senate is expected to vote late unless Democrats can filibuster to Tuesday's midnight deadline. If that happens, Gov. Rick Perry could call another special session and try again.[/quote] full article: [URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57590817/controversial-texas-abortion-bill-faces-final-test/[/URL] the best part is that they're calling this "raising the standard of healthcare for women".

after 20 weeks of pregnancy is almost into the third trimester, I'm fine with this bill.

[QUOTE=butre;41175626]after 20 weeks of pregnancy is almost into the third trimester, I'm fine with this bill.[/QUOTE] So actually being in the third trimester is sort of irrelevant, as long as it's *almost* there?

Either I'm missing something or you didn't even bother reading the first sentence of your article. This makes [B]late term[/B] abortion illegal. The legality and morality of an abortion after that much development is sketchy at best. This is a great bill in my opinion, it also includes some more strict safety procedures for abortions. Why do you hate it? Have you honestly even read the article?

[QUOTE=Megafan;41175643]So actually being in the third trimester is sort of irrelevant, as long as it's *almost* there?[/QUOTE] trimesters are kinda arbitrary anyway

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;41175650]Either I'm missing something or you didn't even bother reading the first sentence of your article. This makes [B]late term[/B] abortion illegal. The legality and morality of an abortion after that much development is sketchy at best. This is a great bill in my opinion, it also includes some more strict safety procedures for abortions. Why do you hate it? Have you honestly even read the article?[/QUOTE] it's a very transparent attempt to limit women's options to abort at any point in their term by closing most of the abortion clinics in the state

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;41175650]Either I'm missing something or you didn't even bother reading the first sentence of your article. This makes [B]late term[/B] abortion illegal. The legality and morality of an abortion after that much development is sketchy at best. This is a great bill in my opinion, it also includes some more strict safety procedures for abortions. Why do you hate it? Have you honestly even read the article?[/QUOTE] I'd be willing to wager you don't actually know at what point a fetus is viable. Besides that, what would you prefer, sending away women from abortion clinics to carry the child for four more months only to eventually put it up for adoption?

[QUOTE=Megafan;41175679]I'd be willing to wager you don't actually know at what point a fetus is viable. Besides that, what would you prefer, sending away women from abortion clinics to carry the child for four more months only to eventually put it up for adoption?[/QUOTE] do you not like adoption?

[QUOTE=butre;41175689]do you not like adoption?[/QUOTE] I have no issue with it particularly, but I don't think it's preferable when the fetus is typically not viable at 20 weeks, and the burden on the mother to carry it for four additional months and effectively be forced to give birth is immense. And, as is evidenced by this section: [quote]"This does not prohibit an abortion for any reason, including rape and incest, up to five months," she said. "At this point, we are looking at a baby that's very far along in its development."[/quote] You can't receive an abortion later than 20 weeks even if you've been raped. That's egregious.

so then get it before 20 weeks?

[QUOTE=Megafan;41175720]You can't receive an abortion later than 20 weeks even if you've been raped. That's egregious.[/QUOTE] Meaning you have plenty of time to abort a fetus caused by rape. It seems pretty irresponsible to wait that long if it's your intention from the start to abort it (which is the typical intention in the case of rape).

"the package of restriction could force 37 of the state's 42 abortion centers to close." This is dumb.

[QUOTE=butre;41175740]so then get it before 20 weeks?[/QUOTE] Yeah I don't understand why you just can't get it before 20 weeks. That's more than enough time to get one even after symptoms of pregnancy is visible.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;41175758]Meaning you have plenty of time to abort a fetus caused by rape. It seems pretty irresponsible to wait that long if it's your intention from the start to abort it (which is the typical intention in the case of rape).[/QUOTE] Is that so? So what are you going to do? Tell them "Oh, sorry, I'm afraid we can't give you an abortion due to an almost entirely arbitrary time limit that's been placed on when that's legal"? For god's sake, even the sponsor of the bill seems incapable of being any more specific than just "very far along in development". [editline]24th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Badballer;41175765]Yeah I don't understand why you just can't get it before 20 weeks. That's more than enough time to get one even after symptoms of pregnancy is visible.[/QUOTE] So why not 19? 18? 15? 3 weeks? Where do you get this 'good limit' of 20 from?

[QUOTE=Megafan;41175784]Is that so? So what are you going to do? Tell them "Oh, sorry, I'm afraid we can't give you an abortion due to an almost entirely arbitrary time limit that's been placed on when that's legal"? For god's sake, even the sponsor of the bill seems incapable of being any more specific than just "very far along in development". [editline]24th June 2013[/editline] So why not 19? 18? 15? 3 weeks? Where do you get this 'good limit' of 20 from?[/QUOTE] It's better to err on the side of caution when you are dealing with a living human being, as with every other law we have dealing this issue.

[QUOTE=sgman91;41175796]It's better to err on the side of caution when you are dealing with a living human being, as with every other law we have dealing this issue.[/QUOTE] Which is why you need exceptions for medical emergencies (at a minimum) regardless of how late it is in the pregnancy, something this bill does not seem to allow. If you were really 'erring on the side of caution' on the basis of "well the fetus might feel something" you'd be banning abortion based on some testable point where a fetus can feel pain, not a vague 'far along' point.

[QUOTE=Megafan;41175817]Which is why you need exceptions for medical emergencies (at a minimum) regardless of how late it is in the pregnancy, something this bill does not seem to allow. If you were really 'erring on the side of caution' on the basis of "well the fetus might feel something" you'd be banning abortion based on some testable point where a fetus can feel pain, not a vague 'far along' point.[/QUOTE] From some quick research it seems 20 weeks was a pretty good estimation to make. The hormonal stress response can be seen around 18 weeks, but the brain is not functional enough for a full pain experience until around 23 weeks. ([URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/[/URL]) [editline]24th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;41175762]"the package of restriction could force 37 of the state's 42 abortion centers to close." This is dumb.[/QUOTE] This is the reason: "And it would make Texas just the third state to require all abortions be performed at centers licensed for surgery." That seems pretty logical to me.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;41175781]With this logic you could ban abortions right after you learn you're pregnant.[/QUOTE] So 20 weeks isn't a long enough time to make a decision? How long should they be able to?

Playing devil's advocate here, but I'm not convinced that we should be limiting later term abortions. There's fundamentally no difference between a "fetus" and "more developed fetus". There's a reason why we tend to stop "abortion" at birth- it's no longer a part of the mother. I mean, fundamentally, why are we making distinctions based on viability? Just because it [I]can[/I] survive outside the mother doesn't mean it has to, or should. In theory if we made a machine capable of providing a zygote life functions that would allow it to live outside the mother, you've practically destroyed any acceptability of abortion using the viability argument. So why the opposition to late-term? Is it too human at that point- too developed? Well, [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1274436&p=40842201&highlight=#post40842201"]I've previously argued that human life doesn't matter so much in the abortion debate as personhood[/URL], and even an infant really isn't a person like you and I. Trimesters, by the way, are arbitrary and bullshit created by mostly uneducated SCOTUS justices for the purpose of defining the law and isn't really even good law anymore, since Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester thing because it was medically silly. Now we use viability, but viability changes with the medical capabilities. It's a system designed to kill abortion over the years. Eventually we will be capable of making even the most basic of embryos viable, and then what? I don't know when the clear cut off point should be, but viability is a shaky road to head down, and trimesters are just plain out. I mean, you could say "it's better to be cautious, better to be safe than sorry..." but the 8-month developed fetus is just as much a fetus and just as little a person as the 2-week developed one, and when the abortion happens, both are equally dead. I think at some point, we kind of just say "okay, you're killing a baby that hasn't technically been born yet." And yea, and that kind of revolts me and probably you, but to be brutally medically honest here, the only distinction is that it has more senses than its earlier self and that doesn't really qualify it as being automatically out of the control of its host, or separate from them. (I'm not saying I believe all of this- I'm actually somewhat opposed to abortion, honestly, but I find it kind of silly how both sides draw these arbitrary lines)

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41175909']Playing devil's advocate here, but I'm not convinced that we should be limiting later term abortions. There's fundamentally no difference between a "fetus" and "more developed fetus". There's a reason why we tend to stop "abortion" at birth- it's no longer a part of the mother. I mean, fundamentally, why are we making distinctions based on viability? Just because it [I]can[/I] survive outside the mother doesn't mean it has to, or should. In theory if we made a machine capable of providing a zygote life functions that would allow it to live outside the mother, you've practically destroyed any acceptability of abortion using the viability argument. So why the opposition to late-term? Is it too human at that point- too developed? Well, [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1274436&p=40842201&highlight=#post40842201"]I've previously argued that human life doesn't matter so much in the abortion debate as personhood[/URL], and even an infant really isn't a person like you and I. Trimesters, by the way, are arbitrary and bullshit created by mostly uneducated SCOTUS justices for the purpose of defining the law and isn't really even good law anymore, since Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester thing because it was medically silly. Now we use viability, but viability changes with the medical capabilities. It's a system designed to kill abortion over the years. Eventually we will be capable of making even the most basic of embryos viable, and then what? I don't know when the clear cut off point should be, but viability is a shaky road to head down, and trimesters are just plain out. I mean, you could say "it's better to be cautious, better to be safe than sorry..." but the 8-month developed fetus is just as much a fetus and just as little a person as the 2-week developed one, and when the abortion happens, both are equally dead. I think at some point, we kind of just say "okay, you're killing a baby that hasn't technically been born yet." And yea, and that kind of revolts me and probably you, but to be brutally medically honest here, the only distinction is that it has more senses than its earlier self and that doesn't really qualify it as being automatically out of the control of its host, or separate from them. (I'm not saying I believe all of this- I'm actually somewhat opposed to abortion, honestly, but I find it kind of silly how both sides draw these arbitrary lines)[/QUOTE] Well, I actually agree abortion should be legal until the child is born, but late-term abortions such as the ones being banned here happen so rarely (and when they do generally for a good reason) that it is, in my opinion, not worth banning.

Okay, this is unequivocally a bad thing. First, less than 1% of abortions take place after 20 weeks. How many of those do you think [I][B]aren't[/B][/I] emergencies? And this bill [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-abortion-texas-idUSBRE95N0U920130624]doesn't allow exceptions for rape and incest[/url]!? As in, some of the most complicated pregnancy situations there are? Second, this bill is effectively banning abortion almost altogether, since all but 5 abortion clinics will be closing. This is the biggest part of why this is wrong; they're making it so that many people will have to drive across hundreds of miles just to get an abortion.

[QUOTE=sgman91;41175854] This is the reason: "And it would make Texas just the third state to require all abortions be performed at centers licensed for surgery." That seems pretty logical to me.[/QUOTE] Are you an expert? Do you know enough about abortion to assume it should require a license for surgery? This bill is not to make abortions safer or better in any way, it is simply another way for a bunch of old men to try limiting what women can do with their own bodies.

[QUOTE=person11;41176001]Are you an expert? Do you know enough about abortion to assume it should require a license for surgery? This bill is not to make abortions safer or better in any way, it is simply another way for a bunch of old men to try limiting what women can do with their own bodies.[/QUOTE] B-but think of the hypothetical children!

[QUOTE=soulharvester;41175758]Meaning you have plenty of time to abort a fetus caused by rape. It seems pretty irresponsible to wait that long if it's your intention from the start to abort it (which is the typical intention in the case of rape).[/QUOTE] I also think we should start subjecting rape victims to strict time limits unless you've been raped and gotten pregnant from it I don't think you're in a position to talk about how long it should take to deliberate the situation

Can someone explain to me, does this only cover (for the lack of a better word) elective abortions or those required for medical reasons too? [editline]25th June 2013[/editline] Just to make it clear, I'm completely against putting a blanket ban on a subject so sensitive and so important. I think each case should be handled on its own without having to resort to a law passed by lawmakers who in all likelihood would never encounter a situation where they would have to get an abortion. I just want to learn more.

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;41175650]Why do you hate it?[/QUOTE] are you seriously asking why someone would hate an arbitrary bill that only seeks to open to more restrictive laws on women's rights? have you read the article? [quote]Opponents of the proposal say the package of restriction could force 37 of the state's 42 abortion centers to close[/quote] that should answer your fucking question

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;41175900]In my opinion, until it is born.[/QUOTE] That's kind of arbitrary too. Then what, just let it come out and smash its face with a hammer ? It's not like there's a magic button that's pushed and in a minute the baby goes from a blob to a finished newborn baby. Its development is not done exactly 5 minutes before it's coming out either. Deciding to limit abortion to right before birth is as arbitrary as limiting it 20 weeks in. The difference is, it's arguable that 20 weeks in the baby is not fully formed yet, while it's totally formed a few days before end of pregnancy.

[QUOTE=person11;41176001]Are you an expert? Do you know enough about abortion to assume it should require a license for surgery? This bill is not to make abortions safer or better in any way, it is simply another way for a bunch of old men to try limiting what women can do with their own bodies.[/QUOTE] You argue that I'm not an expert... and then take a position as if you were. Also, the statement that the fetus is part of the mother's body is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The flesh is made of completely different and independent DNA that has the potential to grow into a whole separate person. There are good arguments for abortion, but that isn't one of them. [QUOTE]unless you've been raped and gotten pregnant from it I don't think you're in a position to talk about how long it should take to deliberate the situation[/QUOTE] "Unless you've been 'X'/experienced 'X' your opinion is irrelevant" is terrible logic. Personal experience is NOT the only way to learn truth. [QUOTE]that should answer your fucking question[/QUOTE] They would only close if they don't follow the new regulations. The fact that many would close is irrelevant if those that are closing aren't adequate.

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;41175650]Either I'm missing something or you didn't even bother reading the first sentence of your article. This makes [B]late term[/B] abortion illegal. The legality and morality of an abortion after that much development is sketchy at best. This is a great bill in my opinion, it also includes some more strict safety procedures for abortions. Why do you hate it? Have you honestly even read the article?[/QUOTE] Well now we're going to have to deal with underground third trimester abortions rather than clinical ones; people who really want a late abortion will get it done regardless of our opinions and laws passed, and if those who are really dedicated are denied of safe abortions, most likely they will go to cut-throat ones. I'm not on anyone's side on this but you never mentioned any downsides to this bill.

It's not so much the time limits that make this bill awful as it is the restrictions on where an abortion can be performed. According to the article, 37 of the state's 42 centers for abortion would be forced to close for being unable to adhere to the new guidelines. The wording of the bill makes it sound well-meaning, by making "licensed surgery centers" at hospitals the only places women can get this work done, but that isn't making the procedure any safer than it already is, it's only making it prohibitively more expensive, and drastically more difficult to gain access to. The 20-week pregnancy thing is arbitrary and unimportant when compared to the fact that the vast majority of people who need/want abortions simply wouldn't have access to the locations that could give them under the new law, nor could they afford them given the rates that hospitals charge for admittance.