Ohio State Budget Abortion Restrictions

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

There may not be middle ground, or the middle ground might be somewhere no one expects it to be.

PP v. Casey staked out whatever middle ground there was fairly nicely. 20-week bans, however, don't seem to stake out that ground. If legislatures were to require a physician to make a specific finding after tests were run that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb prior to an abortion, that might shore up the problems with a 20-week ban, but stating that at 20 weeks, women are forced to give birth rather than abort is attempting a one-size fits all application to a process which is very much not amenable to that approach.

The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Kevin

PP v. Casey staked out whatever middle ground there was fairly nicely. 20-week bans, however, don't seem to stake out that ground. If legislatures were to require a physician to make a specific finding after tests were run that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb prior to an abortion, that might shore up the problems with a 20-week ban, but stating that at 20 weeks, women are forced to give birth rather than abort is attempting a one-size fits all application to a process which is very much not amenable to that approach.

The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb.

The 20 week ban is for show. The number of abortions occurring after 20 weeks is trivial and is cover for the more aggregious actions like requiring all abortion clinics to be outpatient surgical centers thus shutting down all centers in a state. The 20 week number is inflammatory and diverts attention from everything else that is going on. The vast majority of 20 week+ abortions occurring in the US are for fetal anomalies. This is like the partial birth abortion ban. It effected few but whipped up a fury because of the grisly nature of the procedure. There is no real desire to make a reasonable attempt to find the line at which a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (which is 22-23 weeks btw.)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The 20 week ban is for show. The number of abortions occurring after 20 weeks is trivial and is cover for the more aggregious actions like requiring all abortion clinics to be outpatient surgical centers thus shutting down all centers in a state. The 20 week number is inflammatory and diverts attention from everything else that is going on. The vast majority of 20 week+ abortions occurring in the US are for fetal anomalies. This is like the partial birth abortion ban. It effected few but whipped up a fury because of the grisly nature of the procedure. There is no real desire to make a reasonable attempt to find the line at which a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (which is 22-23 weeks btw.)

I think none of that, including the 20 week ban passes Casey. Casey says what's constitutional. At 20 weeks, maybe, theoretically, you could get a fetus to survive, but it hasn't been done yet.

The other issues are going to be shot down on a case by case basis. I can tell you that this being done to prevent women from being killed or injured by complications is ridiculous. If we want to compare the mortality rates for delivering a child vs. having an abortion, there'll be a lot of midwifes out of a job.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think none of that, including the 20 week ban passes Casey. Casey says what's constitutional. At 20 weeks, maybe, theoretically, you could get a fetus to survive, but it hasn't been done yet.

The other issues are going to be shot down on a case by case basis. I can tell you that this being done to prevent women from being killed or injured by complications is ridiculous. If we want to compare the mortality rates for delivering a child vs. having an abortion, there'll be a lot of midwifes out of a job.

Totally agree.

[barbino]

Originally Posted by Kevin

PP v. Casey staked out whatever middle ground there was fairly nicely. 20-week bans, however, don't seem to stake out that ground. If legislatures were to require a physician to make a specific finding after tests were run that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb prior to an abortion, that might shore up the problems with a 20-week ban, but stating that at 20 weeks, women are forced to give birth rather than abort is attempting a one-size fits all application to a process which is very much not amenable to that approach.

The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb.

My husband was a 19 3/4 weeks in the womb baby, born in the 1960's. Did he have some medical issues? Yes. His entire extended family made sure that 2 members of the family were there to feed him & take care of him at all times for 2 entire months. He's been told by several doctors that it was almost a miracle that he lived. Kudos to my mother-in-law, who actually punched a doctor when he suggested that since she was only 19 and could have many more babies, she donate this one's body to science (she almost got kicked out of the hospital). So it's really hard to say just when a embryo/baby might be able to be viable outside the womb.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by barbino

My husband was a 19 3/4 weeks in the womb baby, born in the 1960's. Did he have some medical issues? Yes. His entire extended family made sure that 2 members of the family were there to feed him & take care of him at all times for 2 entire months. He's been told by several doctors that it was almost a miracle that he lived. Kudos to my mother-in-law, who actually punched a doctor when he suggested that since she was only 19 and could have many more babies, she donate this one's body to science (she almost got kicked out of the hospital). So it's really hard to say just when a embryo/baby might be able to be viable outside the womb.

There are readily available statistics out there on premature baby mortality. 19 3/4 in the 1960s is a miracle and if true, that's the earliest I've ever heard of. That's not a solid number to base infant viability around when crafting public policy. I would guess it much more likely that the doctor underestimated your husband's in-utero age.

Aside from that, awesome story, he clearly had an amazing family.