Abortion

[Danoff]

What a tool. Here's what that pregnancy looks like:
Week 1: Rape hasn't occurred yet.
Week 2: Rape still hasn't occurred.
Week 3: Rape occurs.
Week 4: Pregnancy occurs.
Week 5: Pregnancy is detectable.
Week 6: Too late!

That's if ovulation is fairly straightforward. 6 weeks to get an abortion is just wrong.


Edit:

For the record, Texas also requires a 1-day waiting period before performing an abortion. So if you detect that pregnancy in week 5 (which would be absolutely paying attention), subtract another day.

Edit:

In case you were doubting me: https://flo.health/pregnancy/week-by-week/2-weeks-pregnant

 

[Scaff]

Just came across this and quite frankly it's one of the best explanations of why body autonomy is so important and utterly the women's choice I've personally read.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB01515I.PDF

"(b)If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this section, the court shall award: (1)injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter; (2)statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 H.B.ANo.A1515 6 in violation of this chapter, and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter that the defendant aided or abetted; and (3)costs and attorney ’s fees."

"(c)Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief under this section if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid statutory damages in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter."

This makes it look to me like the damages are entirely punitive, so in my previous post where I was wonder whether someone had to show harm, it seems like maybe not. Also it looks like you cannot be sued twice for the same abortion. That being said, I highlighted text that indicates that statutory damages are $10,000 minimum not maximum. If the court determines that $10,000 may not "prevent the defendant from violating this chapter", they may go much higher.

So it seems like it's explicitly written as 1 abortion, 1 bounty. So theoretically, the woman could sue and then simply payback the money to the provider and the provider would not be liable for further punishment.

I still think the court itself may be subject to lawsuits for "awarding relief" because that's where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, in the enforcement of the "law", which still runs afoul of RvW IMO.

 

[SGETI]

If there is a one suit per subject per case limit, wouldn't there be a seemingly obvious loophole that the woman seeking the abortion pre-emptively or at least immediately after sues the providers and then just doesn't claim the money? I don't remember any text of the "law" specifically prohibiting the woman seeking the abortion from suing. Of course there's nothing there to say that the woman couldn't get the abortion and then actually sue for the $10,000 so I can see a situation developing where abortion providers require an up-front $10,000 deposit that is credited back after the procedure. That's a steep hurdle for most Americans, so of course, a middle man will appear in the form of abortion bonds from probably the same establishments that offer

So it seems like it's explicitly written as 1 abortion, 1 bounty. So theoretically, the woman could sue and then simply payback the money to the provider and the provider would not be liable for further punishment.

As with the majority of civil legal cases, a settlement amount is agreed upon for damages. The woman sue's, or a even a friend of the woman sues, for the $10,000 reward for late abortion, receives judgement. What would stop both parties from agreeing on a nominal settlement, say $1.00. to satisfy said judgement?

 

[Danoff]

As with the majority of civil legal cases, a settlement amount is agreed upon for damages. The woman sue's, or a even a friend of the woman sues, for the $10,000 reward for late abortion, receives judgement. What would stop both parties from agreeing on a nominal settlement, say $1.00. to satisfy said judgement?

The $10,000 minimum is not based on damages which could be settled, it's a punishment to prevent future violations. The court can set whatever amount they think will stop repeat offenses.

 

[SGETI]

The $10,000 minimum is not based on damages which could be settled, it's a punishment to prevent future violations. The court can set whatever amount they think will stop repeat offenses.

Why do think the punishment, bounty or reward can not be settled? The State of Texas issues judgment via the court system. Say for example I have won judgment against you for $5M. The chances of you collecting that sum from me is 0%. However a $100,000. paid in full settlement is proposed, If we both agree then we file with the court the matter has been resolved.


Do you think every one of the over 1,400 judgments against the former orange haired guy that he paid face value of damages judgment?

There are kinda two versions (and everything in between of course) that can play out with this if the law were allowed to stand. One is that everyone is considered automatically harmed by any abortion - and so they can bring a suit against anyone assisting an abortion. That would be weird as I mentioned above.

One step further, anyone who aids in the abortion can be sued.

The woman who receives abortion is on public housing.
The state provided shelter, or the monetary means to maintain residence.
The state provided assistance. Guilty?
A citizen who rents to a woman and that citizen receives their rent from public assistance. Guilty?

How far of a leap would it be for an attorney or any citizen to connect the dots?
Long shot? Maybe. Even if I lost the suit the new law does not require me to pay for the defendants legal fees.

Upside min. $10,000 for each case I win. Downside my time. No monitory penalty.

 

[Danoff]

Why do think the punishment, bounty or reward can not be settled? The State of Texas issues judgment via the court system. Say for example I have won judgment against you for $5M. The chances of you collecting that sum from me is 0%. However a $100,000. paid in full settlement is proposed, If we both agree then we file with the court the matter has been resolved.


Do you think every one of the over 1,400 judgments against the former orange haired guy that he paid face value of damages judgment?

It's such a weird law that it's really hard for me to figure out how it'll play out. What concerns me is that it's a punitive statutory amount rather than damages owed. The person (e.g.: provider), being sued is not being asked to pay because the concerned citizen that brought the suit is owed the amount, the provider is being asked to pay because the state is imposing this fine to penalize them for their actions. The concerned citizen is just a lucky bystander. I don't know to what extent any external contractual agreement to not accept payment, or return payment, etc. will be circumvented by the court. For example:

"(c)Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief under this section if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid statutory damages in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter."

If there is some kind of settlement, the defendant may not be able to demonstrate that they "previously paid statutory damages" and therefore is not exempt from further suits.

 

[Danoff]

Justice department suing Texas.



I haven't had a chance to figure out whether this would end up being more of the same (and tossed from the supremes under the same guise as the previous decision) or if this has more teeth. I guess I'm hoping they're not dumb in the justice department and have brought something with a chance for success.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

What a tool. Here's what that pregnancy looks like:
Week 1: Rape hasn't occurred yet.
Week 2: Rape still hasn't occurred.
Week 3: Rape occurs.
Week 4: Pregnancy occurs.
Week 5: Pregnancy is detectable.
Week 6: Too late!

That's if ovulation is fairly straightforward. 6 weeks to get an abortion is just wrong.


Edit:

For the record, Texas also requires a 1-day waiting period before performing an abortion. So if you detect that pregnancy in week 5 (which would be absolutely paying attention), subtract another day.

Edit:

In case you were doubting me: https://flo.health/pregnancy/week-by-week/2-weeks-pregnant

I'm just a simple guy. I must be missing something. Can you explain to me how a two week old fetus has a heart beat?

 

[Danoff]

I'm just a simple guy. I must be missing something. Can you explain to me how a two week old fetus has a heart beat?

What is called a "fetal heartbeat" which is not fetal, nor a heart, nor a beat, but is called that anyway, is detectable at 6 weeks of pregnancy. Prengancy starts at the previous period (because conception date is hard to pin down, doctors back date it to the previous period). So weeks 1 and 2 of pregnancy are not actual pregnancy. The first missed period is week 4 or 5 of a pregnancy. Conception occurs in week 3 (roughly). It's in the link you quoted:

Your doctor starts counting your pregnancy from the first day of your last period. That means that during the first two official weeks of your pregnancy, you won’t really be pregnant at all.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Week 1: Rape hasn't occurred yet.
Week 2: Rape still hasn't occurred.
Week 3: Rape occurs.
Week 4: Pregnancy occurs.
Week 5: Pregnancy is detectable.
Week 6: Too late!

Yep, not wrapping my head around it. Lets use last month and walk this through.

Let's say the rape occurs on the 1st.

You say the pregnancy starts on the 8th, but we all know it occurs earlier than that. Shortly after the rape.

Then the pregnancy is detectable on the 15th.

Now, you say on the 22nd, it is too late according to Texas law, to abort the 22 day old fetus.

A doctor can backdate the pregnancy to the persons last period all they want, but a 22 day old fetus is still 22 days old.

 

[Strittan]

It’s always ok to abort a baby. Accidents happen. A real tragedy would be to give birth to an unwanted child.

 

[Famine]

Yep, not wrapping my head around it. Lets use last month and walk this through.
[...]
A doctor can backdate the pregnancy to the persons last period all they want, but a 22 day old fetus is still 22 days old.

This is the bit that's causing you the problem.

Medical convention is to date a pregnancy at the date of the end of your last menstruation. That is also the legal definition of a pregnancy - and is used throughout the healthcare industry (including insurance). It's actually not for determining when conception happened, but when delivery is due, at 40 weeks +/- a week.

Thus you can classed as two weeks pregnant by law if you conceive on the day of your next ovulation - literally two weeks pregnant at the moment of conception. For... various reasons, we tend to define a pregnancy not as fertilisation but as implantation (it's super handy when it comes to "morning after" contraception, and also for not killing women who have an ectopic pregnancy by deciding they must, fatally, carry something that will never survive to term), which generally occurs in the third week of a cycle.

It doesn't actually matter what the precise stage of embryo development is, because that's not used to define the pregnancy.

That essentially means you have, under the law in Texas, a maximum of three weeks and six days (due to the one-day waiting period) between being raped and aborting a pregnancy. In practical terms you have a maximum of eight days between a detectable pregnancy (you've missed your period, and piss on a stick) and aborting it.


As @Danoff points out, a "fetal heartbeat" at six weeks - which is where Texas has drawn its line - isn't a beat, isn't a heart, and isn't foetus either. What's detectable is the rhythmic contraction of heart muscle cells (which do this on their own in a lab), but the heart itself doesn't form until week 10 or so, and the blood it'll eventually pump doesn't arrive until week 11-ish because the liver doesn't exist yet to make it... and it's not a foetus until the second trimester boundary.

 

[TexRex]

Just came across this and quite frankly it's one of the best explanations of why body autonomy is so important and utterly the women's choice I've personally read.

That was ****ing awesome.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

This is the bit that's causing you the problem.

Medical convention is to date a pregnancy at the date of the end of your last menstruation. That is also the legal definition of a pregnancy - and is used throughout the healthcare industry (including insurance). It's actually not for determining when conception happened, but when delivery is due, at 40 weeks +/- a week.

Thus you can classed as two weeks pregnant by law if you conceive on the day of your next ovulation - literally two weeks pregnant at the moment of conception. For... various reasons, we tend to define a pregnancy not as fertilisation but as implantation (it's super handy when it comes to "morning after" contraception, and also for not killing women who have an ectopic pregnancy by deciding they must, fatally, carry something that will never survive to term), which generally occurs in the third week of a cycle.

It doesn't actually matter what the precise stage of embryo development is, because that's not used to define the pregnancy.

That essentially means you have, under the law in Texas, a maximum of three weeks and six days (due to the one-day waiting period) between being raped and aborting a pregnancy. In practical terms you have a maximum of eight days between a detectable pregnancy (you've missed your period, and piss on a stick) and aborting it.


As @Danoff points out, a "fetal heartbeat" at six weeks - which is where Texas has drawn its line - isn't a beat, isn't a heart, and isn't foetus either. What's detectable is the rhythmic contraction of heart muscle cells (which do this on their own in a lab), but the heart itself doesn't form until week 10 or so, and the blood it'll eventually pump doesn't arrive until week 11-ish because the liver doesn't exist yet to make it... and it's not a foetus until the second trimester boundary.

You're missing the point. The Texas law has nothing to do with what some doctor, or medical convention or standard says about the age of the embryo. It only looks for a cluster of embryonic cells twitching in unison, that can be detected by an ultrasound.

And @Danoff , that certainly doesn't happen after only 22 days. You don't have to lie about how restrictive the law is.

 

[Scaff]

You don't have to lie about how restrictive the law is.

No one has lied, the law doesn't change how this is calculated, and even if it did (which it doesn't) it would still be absurdly restrictive.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You're missing the point. The Texas law has nothing to do with what some doctor, or medical convention or standard says about the age of the embryo. It only looks for a cluster of embryonic cells twitching in unison, that can be detected by an ultrasound.

And @Danoff , that certainly doesn't happen after only 22 days. You don't have to lie about how restrictive the law is.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.

It's looking for a stage of embryonic development which would (usually) be around day 22 using your example (3 weeks after the rape)

EDITED to change the dates

 

[TexRex]

Chrunch here purports to be an atheist but is swept up into conservative moral panic no less readily than any evangelical Christian. It's not rational, it's emotional, and cutting through emotion with logic isn't a simple task in even the best of circumstances, but Trumpism and the associated constant mental gymnastics have hewn their capacity for critical thinking to nothing and anyone trying to cut through that emotion is perceived to be the enemy; see "normal people" (those who are aligned with Trump) contrasted with "leftists" (anyone who isn't, regardless of their actual political bent).

 

[Chrunch Houston]

No one has lied

The law is very restrictive on it's own. You don't need to try and exaggerate its restrictiveness by counting weeks before the pregnancy as being part of the pregnancy. That is what Danoff has done.

Week 1: Rape hasn't occurred yet.
Week 2: Rape still hasn't occurred.

And now he says after only three weeks of being pregnant...

Week 6: Too late!

That is just not true. I don't know what you guys in the UK call it, but here in Texas we call that a lie.

Chrunch here purports to be an atheist but is swept up into conservative moral panic no less readily than any evangelical Christian. It's not rational, it's emotional, and cutting through emotion with logic isn't a simple task in even the best of circumstances, but Trumpism and the associated constant mental gymnastics have hewn their capacity for critical thinking to nothing and anyone trying to cut through that emotion is perceived to be the enemy; see "normal people" (those who are aligned with Trump) contrasted with "leftists" (anyone who isn't, regardless of their actual political bent).

Thanks for the unsolicited analysis Dr. TexRex. What a bunch of drivel.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The law is very restrictive on it's own. You don't need to try and exaggerate its restrictiveness by counting weeks before the pregnancy as being part of the pregnancy. That is what Danoff has done.

And now he says after only three weeks of being pregnant...

That is just not true. I don't know what you guys in the UK call it, but here in Texas we call that a lie.

Thanks for the unsolicited analysis Dr. TexRex. What a bunch of drivel.

I think you're confusing embryonic age with gestational age - the latter of which is commonly used when talking about pregnancy. Re-read Famine's post, and read this and see if you are less confused.

 

[Scaff]

The law is very restrictive on it's own. You don't need to try and exaggerate its restrictiveness by counting weeks before the pregnancy as being part of the pregnancy. That is what Danoff has done.

And now he says after only three weeks of being pregnant...

That is just not true. I don't know what you guys in the UK call it, but here in Texas we call that a lie.

Thanks for the unsolicited analysis Dr. TexRex. What a bunch of drivel.

That's medically how pregnancy is calculated and nothing about the law changes that, so no one has exaggerated anything.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I think you're confusing embryonic age with gestational age - the latter of which is commonly used when talking about pregnancy. Re-read Famine's post, and read this and see if you are less confused.

That's medically how pregnancy is calculated and nothing about the law changes that, so no one has exaggerated anything.

If a person with a vagina, is raped on the 1st day of the month, would the Texas law prevent that person from obtaining an abortion on the 22nd of that same month?

That is what @Danoff is asserting. That is what I am disputing.

 

[Scaff]

If a person with a vagina, is raped on the 1st day of the month, would the Texas law prevent that person from obtaining an abortion on the 22nd of that same month?

That is what @Danoff is asserting. That is what I am disputing.

Yes it would (given that ovulation is around 12 to 14 days before your next period), as the method Danoff has described is how pregnancy duration is calculated (from the date of the last period, not from the date of fertilization).

You can dispute it all you like, that's how it's calculated, nothing in the law changes that (please feel free to cite the part of the bill that changes this).

This has been explained numerous times, by numerous people, with cited links and resources. Danoff isn't lying, nor is anyone else, you are however very much mistaken about how the duration of a pregnancy is calculated, and yes it does make an already insanely restrictive law even more restrictive.

It's not an exaggeration or a lie, it's a very, very depressing fact of how bad this law is!

Screw it, I've done it for you, the bill specifically states that it's gestational age of the fetus, calculated from the date of a woman's last period, see lines 20 and 21. As such you very much owe @Danoff an apology for the accusation of lying.

https://webservices.sos.state.tx.us/legbills/files/RS87/SB8.pdf

 

[TexRex]

Thanks for the unsolicited analysis Dr. TexRex. What a bunch of drivel.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[HenrySwanson]

If a person with a vagina, is raped on the 1st day of the month, would the Texas law prevent that person from obtaining an abortion on the 22nd of that same month?

That is what @Danoff is asserting. That is what I am disputing.

If there was a "heartbeat" it could be, as that is just before the usual period it would be detected but may be possible (see below).

If you look at the quoted text below from this fact check, it will hopefully make sense:

Textbooks and scientific papers don’t always give the same exact dates for each milestone, and the timing is often extrapolated from animal studies. So scientists may eventually learn more and revise their timelines. But a general consensus is that around 21-23 days after conception, two groups of cells that form a horseshoe shape fuse together to form a tiny, hollow tube. This tube is known as a heart tube, and initially is very simple. It’s straight, a bit like a straw, and doesn’t have any chambers that are typical of a developed heart.

Very soon after the tube forms, some cells of the tube begin to spontaneously contract, creating the first heartbeat, although the heart tube may not pump blood for another day or two. Textbooks and papers also peg this to approximately 21-23 days after fertilization, or what would be five completed weeks of pregnancy, or a few days into the sixth week.

Further on:

Heartbeats are first detectable with a transvaginal ultrasound, usually after six completed weeks of pregnancy, but also sometimes during the sixth week.

So in essence you're arguing about a matter of days, which I'm not sure what the point of is.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Yes it would, as the method Danoff has described is how pregnancy duration is calculated (from the date of the last period, not from the date of fertilization).

So a 22 day old embryo has a "detectable heartbeat"*?

That's odd because everything I read says about 5½ to 6 weeks. Last time I checked 5 weeks was 35 days.

And isn't the Texas law about that "detectable heartbeat"*, and not the age of the embryo as determined by a doctor.

* and yes, I know it is not a heart, nor is it a heartbeat

 

[UKMikey]

Facts don't care about your feelings.

It's gotta take cojones de acero muy grande (or whatever you guys call them in Texas) to insist on disregarding everyone else's documented sources and fact checks in order to defend this morally reprehensible piece of... legislation.

Just another normal day on O&CE.

 

[Scaff]

So a 22 day old embryo has a "detectable heartbeat"*?

That's odd because everything I read says about 5½ to 6 weeks. Last time I checked 5 weeks was 35 days.

And isn't the Texas law about that "detectable heartbeat"*, and not the age of the embryo as determined by a doctor.

* and yes, I know it is not a heart, nor is it a heartbeat

See @HenrySwanson post above, as yes it could be detectable at this point, would it be very early to detect it? Yes, but it's not out of the question.

That also utterly misses the reality of the situation, which is that a women would have had to suspect she was pregnant, take a test, book a doctor's appointment, get it confirmed. And by that point its going to be both well past six weeks and past the point of a detectable 'heartbeat'.

So once again, no @Danoff wasn't lying nor was it an unnecessary exaggeration. However the mental gymnastics you're having to leap through to try and defend this bill does tell its own tale, as quite frankly anyone who gives a toss about bodily autonomy should be protesting it from the highest, not attempting to shift around goalposts to defend it.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

See @HenrySwanson post above, as yes it could be detectable at this point, would it be very early to detect it? Yes, but it's not out of the question.

So you are sticking with the 22 days by saying it "would be very early to detect ... but it is not out of the question."

HenrySwanson's post seems to point to 42 days

Heartbeats are first detectable with a transvaginal ultrasound, usually after six completed weeks of pregnancy, but also sometimes during the sixth week.

Yes it would (given that ovulation is around 12 to 14 days before your next period), as the method Danoff has described is how pregnancy duration is calculated (from the date of the last period, not from the date of fertilization).

The developing embryo doesn't care. Neither does the Texas law.

So once again, no @Danoff wasn't lying nor was it an unnecessary exaggeration.

Really?

Week 1: Rape hasn't occurred yet.
Week 2: Rape still hasn't occurred.
Week 3: Rape occurs.
Week 4: Pregnancy occurs.
Week 5: Pregnancy is detectable.
Week 6: Too late!

He is counting the pregnancy as starting weeks before the rape even occurs. Counting out six weeks and then saying it's "Too late!" when the embryo is still weeks away from having a detectable heartbeat.

That also utterly misses the reality of the situation, which is that a women would have had to suspect she was pregnant, take a test, book a doctor's appointment, get it confirmed. And by that point its going to be both well past six weeks and past the point of a detectable 'heartbeat'.

This sounds more like a problem with your NHS.

 

[Hayden]

So a 22 day old embryo has a "detectable heartbeat"*?

That's odd because everything I read says about 5½ to 6 weeks. Last time I checked 5 weeks was 35 days.

And isn't the Texas law about that "detectable heartbeat"*, and not the age of the embryo as determined by a doctor.

* and yes, I know it is not a heart, nor is it a heartbeat

I feel like we wouldn’t have to explain this to a woman, but anyway.

I got to know my wife’s menstrual cycle better than I care to admit in the 3 years it took us to conceive our little girl. I too was initially confused by them counting two weeks prior to us banging as part of the foetus’ age.

They do it because it gives them a good idea of when the egg descended and was fertilised by the sperm. Sex could’ve been 5 days prior and the little guys can be patiently waiting for it to drop.

Or the egg could’ve dropped and in its 12 or so hours of being there, the lucky swimmers could’ve caught the current right to treasure island.

Sex date makes no difference to the doctor, the courts, or the baby for that matter. It’s the egg dropping date, leading to fertilisation, which is easily worked out from the last completed period. That is what tells you when the baby starts to develop.

That is why they measure it from last completed period instead of when you actually do the whole Barry White thing.