It passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee by a vote of 6-1.
Jolley said an unborn child can feel pain at 20 weeks.
The measure does not provide an exemption in situations where the unborn child will not survive once it is born because of a medical problem.
“They will have zero chance of survival if they abort,” Jolley said.
Jolley said parents will need to make a decision prior to 20 weeks.
“They may not be viable, but they can feel pain,” Jolley said of an unborn child.
Sen. Jim Wilson, D-Tahlequah, cast the lone no vote. He said most abortions in Oklahoma aren’t done after 16 weeks.
One reason that Oklahoma, which has been one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to abortions, may have waited so long to even introduce the ban? Maybe with so many other court cases still in play, they thought a little longer before introducing another unconstitutional anti-abortion bill.
In a world of corporate media outlets obsessed with eyeballs and clicks for profit, and operating in fear of right-wing claims of “media bias,” the use of false equivalencies to “represent both sides” of an issue has become a mainstay of reporting. Covering sex education? Forget the wealth of social science evidence on what works to protect teens and public health. Just ask people their opinion and cover “both sides”! Reporting on climate change? Forget decades of evidence of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Just ask climate change denier Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) what he thinks!
Using false equivalencies effectively means giving equal time to those who spread misinformation and, in many cases, outright lies, abrogating the ethical responsibilities of journalists to be accurate and fair. And this is exactly what the Associated Press did last week when it published an article on 20-week abortion bans that epitomized the worst of reporting on abortion.
The article, which focused primarily on a 20-week ban passed in South Carolina, did a fair job of covering the facts on the legislation in that state and in the context of bans in other states… until it came to what mattered: the medical accuracy of claims underlying such bans.
In the article, reporter Seanna Adcox wrote:
Supporters believe a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. Opponents argue such later-term abortions involve wanted pregnancies that go horribly wrong, and politicians should play no role in the difficult decision.
And here you have it: The crux of complicated issues always reduced to “supporters” and “opponents.” After all, they’re all equal, no?
No. They are not.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
“Supporters” of 20-week abortion bans (and many other such laws) include groups like Americans United for Life and the National Right to Life Committee (both of which have drafted model legislation for these bans), as well as others such as the Susan B. Anthony List. Each of these groups uses false science and unfounded claims of “fetal pain” to pass legislation that threatens access to critical reproductive health care; the anti-choice movement’s self-important “pro-life” designation elides the fact that women’s health and lives are in grave danger wherever such care is unavailable.
Who are the “opponents” of 20-week abortion bans? These include the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and a range of international bodies such as the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. In other words, every relevant, respected, and recognized medical body in the world opposes such bans.
This is not a case of the opinions of supporters versus opponents on which uniforms are best for the local softball team or what color curtains should hang in the dining hall. Instead, it is a group of people with absolutely no legitimacy making and passing legislation rejected by the weight of the international medical and public health communities.
In a press release titled “Facts Are Important”—which tellingly reads like a plea for rationality in reporting—ACOG stated:
A rigorous 2005 scientific review of evidence published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Although ultrasound monitoring can show intrauterine fetal movement, no studies since 2005 demonstrate fetal recognition of pain.
Sound health policy is best based on scientific fact and evidence-based medicine. The best health care is provided free of governmental interference in the patient-physician relationship. Personal decision-making by women and their doctors should not be replaced by political ideology.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), representing more than 58,000 ob-gyns and partners in women’s health, supports robust, factual debate on issues of importance to the American people.
Is it “fair and accurate” to posit the assertions of anti-choice groups, which base their claims on ideology and contrived “evidence,” as equal to medical and public health experts? Is it in the public interest to suggest that an issue that is fundamental to both human rights and public health be decided by reducing a vast body of evidence to equal that of organizations with an overriding political agenda? Is it good journalism by any standard?
There is only one answer to all of these questions, and it is “no.” AP’s piece was irresponsible, but it also reflects that current state of reporting on reproductive health care by many outlets, including NPR, the Washington Post, and others.
No matter how strong the backlash from the small but loud contingent of people within the anti-choice movement, it is the media’s job to report fairly and responsibly. Making the claims of anti-choice “supporters” of abortion bans equivalent to the consensus of the medical and public health community not only abrogates the public trust, it puts all of us in danger.
The media’s reliance on false equivalencies has to stop. People’s lives are at risk, and we can’t afford it.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) said that she would likely sign an unconstitutional ban on abortion care at 20 or more weeks of pregnancy. The bill’s path to the governor’s desk, however, has become uncertain.
H 3114, sponsored by Rep. Wendy Nanney (R-Greenville), would ban abortions at 20 weeks or more post-fertilization unless, in the physician’s judgment, abortion care is necessary to avert the pregnant person’s death or avoid the risk of physical impairment of a major bodily function, other than a psychological condition. The measure’s limited definition of “fetal anomaly” means it would be illegal to abort many fetuses with severe disabilities. Senate Democrats have previously blocked the legislation.
Physicians who violate the anti-choice measure could face up to a $10,000 fine and three years in prison.
South Carolina’s Republican lawmakers have pushed for similar legislation before, but Democrats have managed to block their efforts. Republicans were able to pass the bill this year after an epiclegislative journey, as lawmakers added and removed amendments and debated the language of the unconstitutional abortion ban.
At issue has been what exceptions would be included in the bill. The current bill allows exceptions if the pregnant person’s life is in jeopardy or a doctor determines the fetus can’t survive outside the womb. There is no exception for rape or incest.
House members amended the measure to include such exceptions after the bill was first introduced in January 2015. The state senate amended the bill and stripped out the exceptions after state Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) filibustered the bill, charging there should be no exceptions included in the bill.
The state senate passed the bill last week in a 36-9 vote, as eight Democrats joined the Republican majority in voting for the version of the bill negotiated by a conference committee of three house members and three state senators.
Two votes have failed to gain the 83 votes needed for approval. The house failed to pass the bill on March 9 by one vote, and again failed to pass the bill on March 10, falling three votes shy.
State Sen. Brad Hutto (D-Orangeburg) told the State that lawmakers have no business dictating to pregnant people what they should do about their health care. “I have faith in the women of South Carolina that they know best what to do when the time comes to make a decision about their bodies,” Hutto said.
Laws to ban abortion at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy with varying exceptions have been enacted in 16 states, and the courts have blocked those laws in three states: Arizona, Georgia, and Idaho.
Hospitals are the only facilities in which pregnant people seeking to terminate a pregnancy at 20 weeks or later could obtain abortion care. South Carolina’s three abortion clinics do not provide the procedure past 18 weeks.
Lawmakers must approve the conference committee compromise bill by the time the legislative session ends in June.