Abortion

[Famine]

HenrySwanson's post seems to point to 42 days

Of the pregnancy. This is the point.

By "gestational age" - the time of your pregnancy derived from the start of your last menstruation; industry standard across healthcare industry, and healthcare insurance, pretty much globally - six weeks is the point at which the first "heartbeat" (though again, it's not a heart and it isn't beating) is generally detected.

By embyronic age - which is the actual physiological time from the moment of fertilisation; the age of the embryo itself - the first heart cells start a rhythmic contraction at... 22 days in normal development (not every pregnancy is the same).


A "person with a uterus" can only get pregnant if they have ovulated. That happens at a very specific time in their menstrual cycle, and it's not necessarily the same for every "person with a uterus", but it's typically 19 days after their last menstruation started and it usually requires fertilisation within the first day or it is destroyed within the Fallopian Tube. It takes a couple of days to transit and for the hormone levels to reach disappointment levels, and then there's an average of five days of menstruation.

As we can see from adding those numbers up, there is an offset - for any normal pregnancy - of 20 days between the gestational age and the embryonic age: from the start of the last menstruation until fertilisation is, usually 20 days (plus or minus one). That is to say that no "person with a uterus" is carrying a fertilised egg for the first three weeks of their pregnancy. The sex that makes them pregnant doesn't happen until the end of the third week!

When the embryo reaches 22 days (plus or minus one) of embryonic age, the heart cells' contraction of the heart tube can be detected by ultrasound. However that is at 42 days (plus or minus one) of gestational age...


The law in Texas requires that no doctor performs an abortion if this "fetal heartbeat" (not a foetus, not a heart, it's not beating) can be detected with an appropriate test. This occurs when the "person with a uterus" is around six weeks pregnant... with an embryo that was only fertilised three weeks ago.


That of course takes us back to @Danoff's point about Governor Abbott completely failing to understand how pregnancy works. Remember the question and answer?



It doesn't. It provides a maximum of less than two weeks for someone to be able to get an abortion.

They might terminate the pregnancy at "six weeks", but that's gestational age and he's confusing it with embryonic age. An embryo in a six-week pregnant woman is three weeks into embryogenesis, not six.

After fertilisation it takes about 3-5 days for a fertilised egg to reach the uterus and implant in the uterine wall - during which time it is developing. At that point the placenta attaches and HCG is produced. That's what home pregnancy tests detect when you piss on a stick.

If you've been raped, and you've kept your wits about you somehow, you'll be able to detect the pregnancy at about the same time as the first day of your next menstruation - which you will, obviously, not have. They are sometimes a day early or late but if you miss a day having been raped nine days before and decide to piss on a stick, you'll detect it then.

The embryo is eight days into its embryogenesis, and it will be illegal to terminate it in another 13 days.

That is best-case scenario for a rape survivor. Not six weeks as Abbott says; 13 days. At best.

Which means that, far from being "a lie", @Danoff's timeline is in fact entirely correct... you just need to understand some pretty basic stuff about human reproduction:

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.

Of course rape survivors will be going through the stages of grief, and will be hoping, pleading, and denying that the missed day is significant. "Sometimes it's two or three days late", and now we're down to 10 days. "Maybe it's because my hormones are all over the place due to the shock"... seven days and counting.


Which is plenty, until you have to face the dilemma of whether you should terminate a pregnancy. It's not something people do lightly, and they need time to process the decision - while they're also processing having been raped.

Ultimately it all goes to show that dudes who are clueless about human reproduction shouldn't be making laws about wombs.

 

[Scaff]

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

Gestational age (again).

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

Texas law does care, enough to say exactly that on lines 20 and 21 of the bill. You're now making claims on something you clearly haven't read, which is amazing given that I put a screenprint of those very lines in a post you quoted!

Really?

Yes, really.

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.

Because that's how gestational age is calculated, once again. And again you are mixing up gestation age and fetal age, quite how you are doing so at this stage, after it's been explained to you repeatedly now seems to be a willful disregard for the facts in play.

Follow this link and click on the buttons marked 1 to 6 weeks, read the damn text and when you've finished week 6 get back here and explain what you now know (and eat a fair bit of humble pie).

Pregnancy Timeline: Fetal Development Week-by-Week with Pictures

Take a peek inside the womb to see how your belly and your baby develop from week to week with this interactive visual pregnancy timeline from WebMD.

www.webmd.com

Just in case you're still not reading the sources provided, let me quote them (that is doctors). I've added in the age of the embryo at each stage in a hope that you will actually get it, and it is an embryo at this stage (becoming a fetus at eight weeks of pregnancy, which is six weeks of embryonic development):

Week 1 (pregnancy) - Embryo age (because that's what it ****ing is at this stage) -14 to -7 days
This is week one of your pregnancy, but you're not officially pregnant yet. It might seem confusing, but your doctor will track your pregnancy and due date from the first day of your last period. Right now, your body is busy getting ready for when you do get pregnant. Your uterus is thickening so it can house and feed your fertilized egg once it implants. Now is the time to be patient and take good care of yourself. You still have another 40 weeks to go!

Week 2 (pregnancy) - Embroye Age -7 to 0 days
You still don't feel any different, but right now you're at the most fertile time of the month — you're ovulating! If a sperm makes its way to a waiting egg in your fallopian tube, you're going to conceive. A few days later, you could notice some light spotting. It might look like your period, but it's actually a sign that the fertilized egg has attached itself to the wall of your uterus.

Week 3 (pregnancy) - Embryo Age 1 to 7 days
Finally, you're pregnant! Sperm and egg have officially merged into one single cell, called a zygote. Inside that cell, a lot is going on. Chromosomes from you and your partner are combining to decide your baby's gender, hair, and eye color — even their budding personality! As the zygote speeds down the fallopian tubes toward the uterus, it will keep dividing. Two cells will become four, four will become eight, and so on. These cells will eventually create every organ in your baby's body.

Week 4 (pregnancy) - Embryo Age 8 to 14 days
Now that the embryo has attached to the wall of your uterus, the real work begins. Cells are dividing that will create all of your baby's organs. A fluid-filled cushion called the amniotic sac is forming. It will surround and protect your baby while they grow. Attached to it will be the yolk sac, which will feed baby in these early weeks. Your baby may be big enough to see on ultrasound now, but just barely. They are smaller than a grain of rice.

Week 5 (pregnancy) - Embryo Age 15 to 21 days
You still might not recognize your baby yet. At this stage, they look like a tiny collection of tubes. But those tubes have important purposes! One tube is forming a brain and spinal cord. Another is developing into baby's heart. Tiny buds on either side of the body will grow into arms and legs. As your baby keeps growing, you might feel the first twinges of pregnancy symptoms, such as sore breasts, morning sickness, and the constant urge to urinate.

Week 6 (pregnancy) - Embryo Age 22 to 28 days
Ba-bum, ba-bum. It's way too quiet for you to hear, but your baby's tiny heart has started to beat. That heart sits inside a body that's now almost 1/2-inch long from the top of the head to the rump — about as wide as a pencil eraser. Baby still looks like a tadpole but that won't last for long. Human features are starting to emerge, including two eyes that come complete with lids. The lungs and digestive system are also starting to branch out, forming the organs that will help your baby breathe and eat in just a few months.

This sounds more like a problem with your NHS.

Not at all, mainly because we don't have absurd legislation written by religious fundamentalists rather it's led by science and has respect for bodily autonomy. BTW - ask me what my co-pay is?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Ok, I have done more research on this topic than I ever thought I would, as I have absolutely no dogs in this fight. (the fight about the law, not this discussion)

This is from Planned Parenthood. I apologize for the transphobic language. I thought they were more woke than that.

how long does it take for a girl to get pregnant after having sex?

Pregnancy doesn’t start the day you have sex — it can take up to six days after sex for the sperm and egg to join and form a fertilized egg. Then, it can take three to four days for the fertilized egg to completely implant itself in the lining of the uterus. Pregnancy begins during implantation, when the hormones needed to support pregnancy are released.

So it takes up to six days for conception, and up to 10 days after sex for a person to become pregnant.

Let's look at the calendar again.

A person gets raped on the 1st. By the 6th the egg has been fertilized (conception?).

When does a baby have a heartbeat?​

A baby's heartbeat can be detected by transvaginal ultrasound as early as 3 to 4 weeks after conception, or 5 to 6 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period.

So assuming, and I am, that conception happens about six days after sex and counting three to four weeks out from that would make the Texas law forbid an abortion sometime between the 27th and the third of the next month.

So @Danoff's claim that the 22nd would be "Too late!" is still off, but not as far off as I thought.
My apologies to @Danoff .

 

[Famine]

up to six days

It could also be within a couple of hours, depending on where everything is... which takes five days off your estimates and brings the 27th down to...

... yup, 22nd.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

It could also be within a couple of hours, depending on where everything is... which takes five days off your estimates and brings the 27th down to...

... yup, 22nd.

Well I wasn't going to comment on the law, because like I said, I have no dog in the fight.

But it does seem to be too restrictive.

I was fine with the law with the two added weeks I had incorrectly assumed were there.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Interesting op-ed

 

[Danoff]

So @Danoff's claim that the 22nd would be "Too late!" is still off, but not as far off as I thought.
My apologies to @Danoff .

Even though it wasn't "still off", I'll take the apology. Chrunch you just absolutely perfectly demonstrated how this misguided law got voted into place. Because your governor misunderstood it exactly the way you did.

Maybe legislators that don't understand pregnancy shouldn't be legislating pregnancy.

 

[TexRex]

Yep, not wrapping my head around it.

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

But it does seem to be too restrictive.

As funny as it is, I do wish this queer progression was more surprising.

Of course there's nothing wrong with not understanding something, but to attack another by accusing them of lying about a thing because it doesn't align with what you believe about a thing, without actually understanding the thing, is asinine.

I know, I know, this "unsolicited" commentary is "drivel"...because it's much easier to shut it down than to address it.

Well I wasn't going to comment on the law, because like I said, I have no dog in the fight.

I was fine with the law with the two added weeks I had incorrectly assumed were there.

If you have no dog in the race, how can you be fine with a law that infringes to any degree on one of the most basic human rights...agency over one's own body?

That's what laws prohibiting abortion do, and they're steeped in religiosity and play on the emotions of the public even without absurd notions of heartbeats that aren't actually heartbeats of a fetus that isn't even a fetus at such an early stage. The reality is that the thing so dependent on another is not guaranteed to grow to a stage at which it is viable outside of the womb, and in the event that it does, it's not guaranteed to survive childbirth (but then the mother isn't either). It's not guaranteed to take its first breath, take its first steps or utter its first words. It's not guaranteed to itself be capable of procreation, and yet it's given rights that supersede those of the individual who has reached most, if not all, of these milestones. Laws that prohibit abortion force an individual to endure the burden of childbearing and the trauma of childbirth, be it natural or surgical, without any guarantees beyond that point.

...

Anyway, a Texas doctor who wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post has now been sued for performing an abortion after the point at which it is permissible by Texas law. Interestingly, the plaintiff is, as I understand it, not only out-of-state (as is permissible by the law), but is also a former lawyer who was convicted of tax fraud. The doctor likely wrote the piece specifically to attract a suit that could work its way through the courts to challenge the legality of the law, which, though inevitable, likely isn't the desire of lawmakers who surely would have preferred potential defendants simply not seek, assist or perform abortions out of fear, and that the individual who filed suit is so seemingly unsympathetic is just...[chef's kiss].

 

[UKMikey]

Anyway, a Texas doctor who wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post has now been sued for performing an abortion after the point at which it is permissible by Texas law. Interestingly, the plaintiff is, as I understand it, not only out-of-state (as is permissible by the law), but is also a former lawyer who was convicted of tax fraud. The doctor likely wrote the piece specifically to attract a suit that could work its way through the courts to challenge the legality of the law, which, though inevitable, likely isn't the desire of lawmakers who surely would have preferred potential defendants simply not seek, assist or perform abortions out of fear, and that the individual who filed suit is so seemingly unsympathetic is just...[chef's kiss].

If it's Alan Braid you're talking about, then as I understand it both of the plaintiffs suing him are on his side and want the case to go through the courts so that the law is tested and perhaps ruled unconstitutional.

CNN talked to a representative of Texas Right To Life who supports the law and he (of course it's a he) fumed that this is just a "self-serving" legal stunt (unlike the law itself, presumably) which according to legal analysts won't stop future private citizens suing people who perform abortions in the (L)one Star State.

Texas doctor who says he performed abortion sued in first known challenges under new law

A San Antonio doctor who wrote a Washington Post op-ed claiming that he had violated Texas' six-week abortion ban now faces at least two lawsuits brought against him under the ban, both brought by plaintiffs who say they oppose the new law.

edition.cnn.com

 

[TexRex]

If it's Alan Braid you're talking about, then as I understand it both of the plaintiffs suing him are on his side and want the case to go through the courts so that the law is tested and perhaps ruled unconstitutional.

CNN talked to a representative of Texas Right To Life who supports the law and he (of course it's a he) fumed that this is just a "self-serving" legal stunt (unlike the law itself, presumably) which according to legal analysts won't stop future private citizens suing people who perform abortions in the (L)one Star State.

Texas doctor who says he performed abortion sued in first known challenges under new law

A San Antonio doctor who wrote a Washington Post op-ed claiming that he had violated Texas' six-week abortion ban now faces at least two lawsuits brought against him under the ban, both brought by plaintiffs who say they oppose the new law.

edition.cnn.com

I didn't realize there was more than one plaintiff or that this was such a concerted effort. I love it.

 

[Imari]

If it's Alan Braid you're talking about, then as I understand it both of the plaintiffs suing him are on his side and want the case to go through the courts so that the law is tested and perhaps ruled unconstitutional.

This seems like an abortionist use this as a way around the law as well.

1. Adam performs an abortion on Betty.
2. Adam's friend Colin, being informed of the procedure files suit 30 seconds afterwards to make sure that he gets in first.
3. Court orders Adam to pay Colin $10K.
4. Adam pays Colin $10K.
5. Colin buys a peppercorn from Adam for $10K in a totally unrelated transaction. He just really likes peppercorns.

I'd like to see the case taken to a high level court and ruled absurdly unconstitutional, but until then some way to keep providing women with a critical service would be nice too. I can't see the law being struck down quickly, if only because there's so many people out there that still consider women's bodies to be chattel.

 

[UKMikey]

This seems like an abortionist use this as a way around the law as well.

1. Adam performs an abortion on Betty.
2. Adam's friend Colin, being informed of the procedure files suit 30 seconds afterwards to make sure that he gets in first.
3. Court orders Adam to pay Colin $10K.
4. Adam pays Colin $10K.
5. Colin buys a peppercorn from Adam for $10K in a totally unrelated transaction. He just really likes peppercorns.

I'd like to see the case taken to a high level court and ruled absurdly unconstitutional, but until then some way to keep providing women with a critical service would be nice too. I can't see the law being struck down quickly, if only because there's so many people out there that still consider women's bodies to be chattel.

I think this has been suggested on the thread before. I sure hope double jeopardy applies in civil cases and that spiteful Republican shills can't sue these same abortionists again for ****s and giggles. At any rate until (or unless) this gets sorted out, Texan legal staff must be rubbing their hands in anticipation of the extra business coming their way.

 

[HenrySwanson]

A federal appeals court is considering the fate of a law in Missouri. The state has only one abortion provider and its 8 week ban was rejected in 2019.

 

[TexRex]

 

[UKMikey]

Setting up a legalised whispering campaign of anti-abortion "legislation" is the real human rights abuse.

 

[TexRex]

 

[HenrySwanson]

There's been a bit of Twitter backlash to these words during a hearing:



Taken at first glance it's easy to see why people would be up in arms about the second point but an "act of love" can be interpreted in many ways. Some say that the taking of that unborn life is so grave that it means it can never be an act of love but is it loving to condemn a woman wanting an abortion to go through a backstreet procedure, leaving her at a higher risk of serious injury or death? I can't seem to figure out what the more vocal of the anti abortion contingent in the US want as an alternative to safe reproductive healthcare for women as I can't believe they're that ignorant.

 

[TexRex]

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's funny that they focus on 6 words from that hearing and not....well, this.

 

[Scaff]

Texas officially isn't even trying to hide that Roe vs. Wade is its target anymore

"If the Court decides to construe the federal government’s application as a cert petition, it may also construe this response as a conditional cross-petition on the question whether the Constitution recognizes and protects a right to abortion and whether the Court should reconsider its decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey."

And Now the Cat Is Out of the Bag on the Texas Abortion Case

They just said it out loud!

www.esquire.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A85/197064/20211021113524436_21A85_United%20States%20v.%20Texas_Opposition.pdf

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seem pretty suspicious of the Texas law...

Kavanaugh theorized that a left-leaning state could offer a $1 million bounty against those who sell an assault rifle, like an AR-15, then claim it wasn’t using state power because only private parties could bring the suits.

“There’s a loophole that’s been exploited here or used here,” Kavanaugh said. “It could be free speech rights. It could be free-exercise-of-religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights.”

Barrett, meanwhile, focused on a provision in the Texas law that limits which legal arguments alleged abortion facilitators can make to defend themselves when sued under the statute. She noted that the law seeks to block defendants from arguing to state judges that allowing members of the public to collect thousands of dollars in damages over someone’s abortion could chill others seeking to obtain or provide abortions.

“I’m wondering if, in the defensive posture in state court, the constitutional defense can be fully aired,” Barrett said.

My idea of suing the court itself (under the premise that it is the court acting as the ultimate agent / enforcement mechanism of the law) doesn't seem to have much traction

Several justices from across the ideological spectrum took issue, however, with the clinics’ attempt to sue Texas state court judges and clerks to stop them from hearing cases brought against abortion providers.

“You might appreciate that the idea of suing judges caught our attention,” Chief Justice John Roberts remarked dryly. “That seems to me to raise a real problem ... It’s hardly traditional to get injunctions against judges, injunctions against clerks, injunctions against everybody, right?”

Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito — who rarely agree with one another in polarizing cases — also raised potential objections to the clinics’ strategy. Breyer asked whether it could open the door to people suing judges in common tort suits, while Alito was skeptical that a judge merely hearing a case against an abortion provider makes them an agent of enforcing the state’s ban.

This is the sticky part:

Even if the justices turn aside both the challenges that are before them now, separate litigation stemming from a suit filed directly by someone seeking to enforce the Texas law and collect a money judgment from a person who facilitated what the law deems an illegal abortion could eventually reach the Supreme Court.

That kind of a case would likely face fewer of the procedural objections lawyers for Texas and anti-abortion activists are using to try to shoot down the current challenges. But it could also take months or more than a year to wend its way back to the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the threat of financial liability would likely continue to dramatically curtail the availability of abortion in Texas — a scenario which the law’s authors have acknowledged is its very purpose.

 

[Joey D]

I haven't really kept up on these, but depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court case this could get sketchy in some states.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Danoff]

One can only hope.

BTW I kinda revived this thread because Roe v. Wade is about (in a few years) to get overturned and abortion is presumably going to be illegal in at least some states:

Roe v. Wade is not federal law, it's supreme court precedent, which is in the process of being overturned, and almost certainly will be.

Apparently the axe falls in June. At least that's my prediction. Roe ends in June, and we go to a state-by-state system for abortion.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Nothing like unpopular state law to get people out to the polls. I'd be surprised if abortion and Republican leadership stick around in places like Texas, Arizona, Utah, Michigan, Ohio, & Minnesota for the long haul should Roe be struck down. I could be wrong, but this seems like a risky move and, as the Republican party derives a lot of its power from control over state legislatures, a kind of dumb one too.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Liquid]

What does that actually mean practically?

 

[TexRex]

What does that actually mean practically?

Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied and the case was remanded back to the state with limitations. Plaintiffs may seek relief by filing suit against the state licensing board with disciplinary authority over practitioners but they can't sue court clerks to block enforcement of the bounty scheme. Rough road ahead...but it's not a dead end.

 

[Scaff]

And California looks like it's going to call SCOTUS' bluff.

"Newsom said he was directing his staff to work with the state Legislature and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on a new law that would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers or distributors of assault weapons as well as ghost gun kits or parts.

“If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that,” Newsom said in the statement."

In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons

The proposed law would let California citizens sue gun manufacturers, similar to how Texas has made it easier for its residents to sue abortion providers.

www.latimes.com

 

[Imari]

And California looks like it's going to call SCOTUS' bluff.

"Newsom said he was directing his staff to work with the state Legislature and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on a new law that would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers or distributors of assault weapons as well as ghost gun kits or parts.

“If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that,” Newsom said in the statement."

In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons

The proposed law would let California citizens sue gun manufacturers, similar to how Texas has made it easier for its residents to sue abortion providers.

www.latimes.com

I'm sure this can only go well for America.

 

[UKMikey]