Today's Hot Topic (2/26): Ban abortions after 20 weeks gestation?
Proposed Bill Would Outlaw Most Abortions After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy
Nebraska legislators are proposing a bill on abortion that, if passed, would be the strictest in the nation and would ban most abortions after 20 weeks into a pregnancy.
The first public hearing on the so-called Abortion Pain Prevention Act today drew a crowd of 100, and medical and legal experts from as far away as New York City, Alaska and Boston.
The Nebraska legislature's judiciary committee adjourned without taking action and will now discuss the bill in executive session, where the bill could be amended, tabled or passed on to Nebraska's full one-house legislature.
During the nearly four-hour hearing, the eight-member committee heard testimony from 19 people -- including a handful of doctors, several lawyers and two Nebraska parents who opposed the bill and spoke about how abortion had been the right decision for their family.
The proposed bill would ban abortions after fetuses reach 20 weeks, rather than the current limit that falls around 24 weeks. The only exception on the 20-week limit is if the procedure would "avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" or save the pregnant woman's life.
This would be a marked change because current abortion bans in the U.S. are determined by fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus can live outside the womb -- which usually occurs around 24 weeks.
The Nebraska bill's sponsor, state Sen. Mike Flood, speaker of the legislature, acknowledged that this would be a major shift.
"My bill does not center around viability," Flood said. "It creates a new standard."
* * *
Agree?
Disagree?
Why?
Join us on these CafeMom Groups:
The CafeMom Newcomers Club 
The Cafe
Current Events & Hot Topics 
Advice for Moms
Agree? Yes, it should be banned.
Why? which Usually occurs around 24 weeks.
A good friend of mine went into labor at 23 weeks WITH TWINS which means they were smaller than average to begin with. Although she did lose 1 child, the other is now 2yo.
If some people insist on keeping their abortion laws, the least they can do is scale it back to 12 weeks as I remember years ago. IMO, life starts at conception, but to be fair and meet some women too stupid to protect theirselves or even learn path the basic myths of how they can become pregnant, ) it won't happen if he pulls out, etc) then we could at least give some children a fighting chance.
ETA: And yes, I do believe they can feel pain as young as 24 weeks if not earlier.
Quoting Cafe GroupAdmin:
The only exception on the 20-week limit is if the procedure would "avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" or save the pregnant woman's life.
* * *
Agree?
Disagree?
Why?
I fully disagree with this proposal and the part i left is why. If they allowed for fatal fetal diagnosis and for in the case the fetus is already dying or dead then i wouldnt have a problem with this.
The problem is that after 24wks all abortions are done for documented medical reasons, thats the law already, to throw another law on top of that basically making that first law illegal without putting in the wording to protect the original law is underhanded and decietfull and can potentialy ruin the lives of thousands of women and in many of these cases whole families.
My main question is about this line here "avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" how serious does the risk have to be for the woman to warrant an allowed abortion? Is it only serious if it could be potentialy life threatening? What if it will just destroy one or both kidneys, will that be drastic enough or will they consider that to be no big deal in order to keep the fetus alive at the detriment of the mother. This line in the bill allows for massive violation of bodily rights and possible major abuses of medical power over the future health of the mothers in question. A pro-life doctor could tell the courts that the woman can live without a kidney or that she can just get dialisys for the rest of her life and its not serious enough to allow an abortion, anything to save the fetus.
And before anyone tries to claim im reaching with this one look it up, there have been cases of pro-life stance docs actually doing this to women even though they cant legally, now it will be legal for them to do it.
Sick.
Vincent 4-25-07, Dante 5-20-08
Yep. I have asked countless times on here and have yet to be given a condition that forces the mother to deliver a dead baby to cure her.
Quoting jlizgar:I totally agree...once the age of viability is hit, there should be no abortion...if a mothers life is in danger from a baby she is carrying they can induce labor to get baby out, they can do an emergency c section in seconds to get baby out, NO reason to do an abortion, sorry.
On the surface I have little problem with this. I really don't think it affects many women's decisions regarding having an abortion. Most make the decision in the first trimester anyway. What bothers me is how these laws tend to be written and interpreted. Any regulations on abortion open the door to completely abolishing it. I don't trust these laws.
Absolutely agree!
Quoting jlizgar:
I totally agree...once the age of viability is hit, there should be no abortion...if a mothers life is in danger from a baby she is carrying they can induce labor to get baby out, they can do an emergency c section in seconds to get baby out, NO reason to do an abortion, sorry.
Quoting mamadixon:
Yep. I have asked countless times on here and have yet to be given a condition that forces the mother to deliver a dead baby to cure her.
Quoting jlizgar:
I totally agree...once the age of viability is hit, there should be no abortion...if a mothers life is in danger from a baby she is carrying they can induce labor to get baby out, they can do an emergency c section in seconds to get baby out, NO reason to do an abortion, sorry.
Not to cure here but I do know a girl (my husbands cousin to be percise) who went into labor and the baby died- and because of the position the baby was in a C-Section would of caused way to much bleeding- they forced her to deliver a dead baby. When he was born he had transparent skin and only about 5 lbs. Unfortunatly she was 8 1/2 mths along...... so she had carried to full term it still didnt look good for him.
But now she has two healthy kids- a three year old and a two year old.
Quoting mamadixon:
Yep. I have asked countless times on here and have yet to be given a condition that forces the mother to deliver a dead baby to cure her.
Quoting jlizgar:
I totally agree...once the age of viability is hit, there should be no abortion...if a mothers life is in danger from a baby she is carrying they can induce labor to get baby out, they can do an emergency c section in seconds to get baby out, NO reason to do an abortion, sorry.
I worked with a woman years ago that carried a dead fetus for 2 weeks until it was safe enough for her to deliver. Don't remember the specifics of why she had to wait, just know she did.
Grammie6
Quoting Arroree:
Quoting Cafe GroupAdmin:
The only exception on the 20-week limit is if the procedure would "avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" or save the pregnant woman's life.
* * *
Agree?
Disagree?
Why?
I fully disagree with this proposal and the part i left is why. If they allowed for fatal fetal diagnosis and for in the case the fetus is already dying or dead then i wouldnt have a problem with this.
The problem is that after 24wks all abortions are done for documented medical reasons, thats the law already, to throw another law on top of that basically making that first law illegal without putting in the wording to protect the original law is underhanded and decietfull and can potentialy ruin the lives of thousands of women and in many of these cases whole families.
My main question is about this line here "avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" how serious does the risk have to be for the woman to warrant an allowed abortion? Is it only serious if it could be potentialy life threatening? What if it will just destroy one or both kidneys, will that be drastic enough or will they consider that to be no big deal in order to keep the fetus alive at the detriment of the mother. This line in the bill allows for massive violation of bodily rights and possible major abuses of medical power over the future health of the mothers in question. A pro-life doctor could tell the courts that the woman can live without a kidney or that she can just get dialisys for the rest of her life and its not serious enough to allow an abortion, anything to save the fetus.
And before anyone tries to claim im reaching with this one look it up, there have been cases of pro-life stance docs actually doing this to women even though they cant legally, now it will be legal for them to do it.
Sick.
This.
Thank God......it's Friday!!!
I have a hard time defining my views on abortion.
Although I would not ever personally have an abortion, I don't think it should be illegal... HOWEVER, I do think that it should be banned after the 1st trimester. Which would mean 13-ish weeks.
Up until that point, I can understand and empathize, and after that, I have a very hard time with it :(
Eight Year Old Girl Given "Catastrophe Award" By Teacher
Are you on any medication? Do you feel drugs are pushed on Americans?
- Cafe GroupAdmin
on Feb. 26, 2010 at 12:52 AM