UK 24-Week Abortion Law Challenged By Un-Science

Amie Newman

Anti-choice legislators in Britain are challenging the current 24-week abortion limit with blatantly unscientific claims.

Anti-choice activists and legislators (MPs) in the UK are arguing that the legal limit for abortions should be lowered from the 24 weeks it is now to 20 weeks. Their argument?

Babies born pre-term, at 22 and 23 weeks gestational age, have a greater chance of survival these days. 

There’s only one problem with that argument – it’s not true. 

Researchers have found no change in survival rates for infants born at 22 or 23 weeks gestation over the last twelve years. 

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

The MPs who are spearheading the movement to defend the current law had this to say:

"This peer-reviewed, published research from an entire population over
many years completely blows out of the water the spurious claim of
anti-abortionists that the threshold of foetal viability has reduced
from 24 weeks since the early 1990s," they said in a statement.

I’m all for ensuring that babies born pre-term are given the greatest chance for life we are able to give them. There is no one who wouldn’t support ensuring that abortion remain an option only as long as the fetus is not viable outside the mother’s body (except with sufficient allowances for the health and life of the mother). But inventing transparent "scientific" claims that are blatantly false to support your own political posturing?

 

 

Idaho Passes 20 Week Abortion Ban To Save Beethoven’s Life

Robin Marty

The state is banning abortions after 20 weeks, and state they are doing it for Beethoven.

Did you know that Ludwig Von Beethoven was diagnosed with a fetal condition that made him incompatible with life, but his mother had faith and refused to abort him even though doctors told her too, and then he became a great composer?

No?  Well, it must be true, after all, lawmakers in Idaho used him as an example of why abortion should never be allowed after 20 weeks.

Via The Spokesman Recorder:

SB 1165, to ban abortion after 20 weeks on grounds of fetal pain, has passed the House on a 54-14 vote and now goes to the governor’s desk. The bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, shared several stories of people who bore their children rather than having abortions, despite difficult circumstances including illness. If they hadn’t, he said at the conclusion of one of the stories, “America would not have been blessed with Beethoven.” Crane told the House that the “hand of the Almighty” was at work. “His ways are higher than our ways,” Crane said. “He has the ability to take difficult, tragic, horrific circumstances and then turn them into wonderful examples.”

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Needless to say, I had to google this tidbit.  Turns out YOU KILLED BEETHOVEN!! is on of the few anti-choice memes I hadn’t run across yet.  It goes a little something like this:

I will close this chapter by quoting a well known lecturer in medical schools. He “asked one of his classes what they would recommend in the following case:

“The father had syphillus.

“The mother had TB.

“They had four children already.

“One was blind.

“One was born dead.

“One was a deaf mute.

“One had TB.

“The mother was pregnant with her fifth child.

“Almost without exception, the medical students indicated that they would recommend abortion.

“The lecturer then stated, ‘Congratulations! You have just killed BEETHOVEN!'”

This is what our public policy debates have now become.

Oklahoma Law Requires Details of Every Abortion Performed Be Published Online

Jodi Jacobson

Yesterday, our colleagues at Jezebel wrote about a new Oklahoma law that will require the details of every abortion to be posted on a public website. Proponents say this will prevent abortion — apparently by shaming and burdening women and doctors.

Yesterday, our colleagues at Jezebel wrote about a new Oklahoma law
that will require the details of every abortion to be posted on a public
website. Proponents say this will prevent abortion — apparently by
shaming and burdening women and doctors.

Anna N. wrote:

The law (which you can look at here
— it’s HR 1595) mandates that a 34-item questionnaire be filled out by
abortion providers for each procedure. The questionnaire doesn’t
include the woman’s name or "any information specifically identifying
the patient," but it does ask for age, race, level of education,
marital status, number of previous pregnancies, and the county in which
the abortion was performed, information which opponents of the bill
argue would be enough to identify a woman in a small town. The
questionnaire also asks about the mother’s reason for the abortion, her
method of payment, and even what type of insurance she has, as well as
whether the fetus received anaesthetic and whether there was "an infant
born alive as a result of the abortion."

Lynn Harris, quoted in the Jezebel piece, writes,

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

According to proponents of the law, this extensive abortion data —
which will include the reason the procedure was sought — will help
health officials prevent future abortions. Yeah, I can see that.
Because the requirement itself would scare the shit out of me.

Harris also points out that the way the data is collected will make
it very difficult to use in any scientific or sociological research.

But, Harris goes on:

It’s unlikely that those who devised the questionnaire intended it
to be used for objective science. Its questions (especially those
related to ultrasound and providing the patient with written materials
prior to abortion) seem geared toward figuring out the best way to keep
women from aborting. And the questionnaire itself looks like one more
way of shaming women out of the abortion process. It may also deter
doctors, who now have a new and very long piece of paperwork to
complete. As if that weren’t enough, the law also bans sex-selective
abortions.

The Center for Reproductive Rights is working with others in Oklahoma to challenge the law.  Last week, former Oklahoma state representative Wanda Stapleton joined Shawnee, Oklahoma resident Lora Joyce Davis in filing a legal challenge against the law, charging it will:

[I]mpose a host
of restrictions on women’s access to abortion and cost the state over a
quarter of a million dollars a year to enforce. The plaintiffs are
represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights and
argue that the state legislature overstepped its authority by enacting
a statute that will both violate the Oklahoma’s Constitution and waste
taxpayers’ money.

CRR stated that:

The Oklahoma Constitution requires that laws address only one subject
at a time, but the new measure covers four distinct subjects, including
redefining a number of abortion-related terms used in the Oklahoma
code; banning sex-selective abortion; requiring doctors who perform
abortions or treat patients who have had abortions to report extensive
patient information to the state health department; and creating new
responsibilities for the State Health Department, the State Board of
Medical Licensure and Supervision, and the State Board of Osteopathic
Examiners relating to gathering and analyzing abortion data and
enforcing abortion restrictions. According to the legislature’s own
estimates, implementing the new reporting requirements will cost the
state $281,285 during the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year. 

In filing the suit, Stapleton stated:

As taxpayers in this state, we expect our representatives to
follow the state constitution, not pick and choose what measures suit
them, then pass unconstitutional legislation that shortchanges their
constituents by a quarter-of-a-million dollars.

The 2009 statute is the Oklahoma legislature’s second attempt in the
last two years to restrict abortion by bundling numerous provisions
into one bill. Last month, a state district court struck down a 2008 abortion ultrasound law that included, among other abortion restrictions, the most extreme
ultrasound requirement in the country and a requirement that would have
limited the availability of abortions performed with the medical
abortion pill. The court in that case ruled that the statute included
too many disparate topics and therefore violated the state
constitution.

 

credo_rewire_vote_3

Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!

VOTE!

Thank you for supporting our work!