Filibuster on Measure to Ban Abortion After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy

Following a majority vote in support for a ban on abortions of unborn babies older than 20 weeks (except in cases where the mother's life is at risk), the notion was filibustered by Democratic Senator Wendy Davis. Provided below is a link that provides some of the details.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/us/politics/senate-abortion-ban-20-weeks.html

EDIT: Second link on Wendy Davis (warning; article is fairly left-aligned) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...The-woman-behind-the-abortion-filibuster.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion:

I find this somewhat difficult to understand. Most European countries employ such bans and overall, it makes moral and ethical sense. Babies past 20 weeks of development within the womb feel pain and are able to survive outside of it (as seen by cases of premature births). Why is a ban on killing babies, especially after 20 weeks of development, a bad thing? How is that life not as valuable as any other?

Science puts the ability to feel pain at 27 weeks (almost all doctors reject the baseless "20 weeks before you can feel pain" claim), and no 20 weeks birth has ever survived. The earliest birth to survive is 21 weeks, but the survival rate of anything below 25 is very low, to the point that doctors tend to have a mindset of comfort care rather than giving them active medical care (or often can't, because they're too small to do anything with).

Second trimester abortions are incredibly rare(1% of all abortions, according to Planned Parenthood), and while the exemptions given (to rape/incest victims and when the mother's life is at risk) do cover some of the reasons it's done, it completely ignores that severe fetal anomalies are another major reason abortions are performed at that point in the pregnancy, and it should be noted that major health risks and severe fetal anomalies can't be detected until the 20-week ultrasound. This effectively means that many women who otherwise would've had a second trimester abortion because of a severe issue in their fetus will be forced to carry it until it dies within them.

So you can see that it's almost meaningless to start with, by trying to ban something incredibly rare but giving exception to almost all the reasons it's done, but it's more a small step in the GOP's wider attacks on abortion and those who provide them than any real attempt to do anything. It's political pointscoring

Aliencommander1245 said:

Science puts the ability to feel pain at 27 weeks (almost all doctors reject the baseless "20 weeks before you can feel pain" claim), and no 20 weeks birth has ever survived. The earliest birth to survive is 21 weeks, but the survival rate of anything below 25 is very low, to the point that doctors tend to have a mindset of comfort care rather than giving them active medical care (or often can't, because they're too small to do anything with).

Second trimester abortions are incredibly rare(1% of all abortions, according to Planned Parenthood), and while the exemptions given (to rape/incest victims and when the mother's life is at risk) do cover some of the reasons it's done, it completely ignores that severe fetal anomalies are another major reason abortions are performed at that point in the pregnancy, and it should be noted that major health risks and severe fetal anomalies can't be detected until the 20-week ultrasound. This effectively means that many women who otherwise would've had a second trimester abortion because of a severe issue in their fetus will be forced to carry it until it dies within them.

So you can see that it's almost meaningless to start with, by trying to ban something incredibly rare but giving exception to almost all the reasons it's done, but it's more a small step in the GOP's wider attacks on abortion and those who provide them than any real attempt to do anything. It's political pointscoring

Click to expand...

Seeing as it exempts mothers whose lives are at risk, how is such a law unfair? Is 20 weeks not long enough to decide if you want an abortion or not? You cited that a 20+ week abortion is very rare and only done if there are serious complications. This law would allow for that too.

Similarly, given youre statement that 27 weeks is a better time, would you support an abortion ban at that point?

KetsuekiR said:

Seeing as it exempts mothers whose lives are at risk, how is such a law unfair?

Click to expand...

Because, as i outlined, the cutoff coincides at the exact point that it becomes possible to check for major health risks and severe fetal anomalies. Those don't necessarily put the woman's life at risk, nor does being forced to carry a fetus that has no chance of survival up until the point it dies. I mean, under that pretext it's very easy to say it's unfair to ban it for what amounts to no reason, with no provisions for something as important as "not forcing women to act as a prison for a dying fetus".

KetsuekiR said:

You cited that a 20+ week abortion is very rare and only done if there are serious complications. This law would allow for that too.

Click to expand...

It'd allow for exemptions for where the woman's life is at risk, or if she was a victim of rape or incest, but explicitly not allow it if there's major health risks or severe anomalies found in the fetus which is another major reason it's done.

If it's barely ever done, and only under circumstances that're being given exemptions (or should be given exemptions, in the case of health risks and anomalies) then there's no reason for the ban at all, it's useless

KetsuekiR said:

Similarly, given youre statement that 27 weeks is a better time, would you support an abortion ban at that point?

Click to expand...

I have no idea, I haven't read up enough on the topic to make an informed decision. I don't think i'd ever need to, though, given that as far as i'm aware 25-ish weeks is almost universally the cut off anyway for abortions that don't have any specific exemptions (like health risks) in the US

Aliencommander1245 said:

-snip-

Click to expand...

I actually looked into your previous comments a bit further later on and found multiple studies which supported the idea that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, such as this compilation created by the Charlotte Lozier Institute - https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/.

The bill itself was drafted on research that suggested fetuses at 20 weeks gestation do feel pain. On top of this, several studies show premature births past 20 weeks gestation (i.e. 22 weeks fertilisation) have a chance of full survival. Perhaps this isn't very high, but it's a chance. If I came down with a life-threatenign disease and my chance of survival was extremely low, lower than that of a fetus at that stage, I wouldn't want to be ended.

I did also find other sources that supported your claims (unlinked because I'm sure you've read them).

Nowhere did I see that "almost all doctors reject the baseless '20 weeks before you can feel pain' claim", leading me to think this seems to be quite a grey area. Given that, shouldn't we put the cutoff point at the lowest (being 20 weeks), until it can be universally agreed upon otherwise? I certainly think so.

Also, as for women being a "prison for a dying fetus"; if someone has a high chance of death, perhaps even certain, should we kill them now so it's over?

KetsuekiR said:

Also, as for women being a "prison for a dying fetus"; if someone has a high chance of death, perhaps even certain, should we kill them now so it's over?

Click to expand...

That's a deep philosophical question and ultimately a subjective opinion. There doesn't appear to be a right answer to that. Ultimately when it comes down to it, the only thing that matters is if everyone or enough people side with you.

I'm not saying discussions shouldn't be held nor should these matters be discussed, but from what I've so far seen, it's honestly hard to find an objective answer for this and it all comes down to your opinions on many things in regards to this topic.

At the same time, I believe filibustering is a low tactic to use. I'll stay out of the abortion aspects for the sake of me not caring to discuss it and keeping my comments focused on the area I'd rather address. Filibustering is a good reason why stuff fails and while I can understand trying to push an agenda, at the same time if you don't have anything else to add besides repeating the same old stuff then, why are you still talking? Perhaps, better structured speeches that draw out the topics can be considered fine, but repeating information for the sake of adding extra paragraphs is a tactic I personally don't like.

This is just my opinion on filibustering and I'm sure someone has and can use this tactic for good use. However, good and evil usually is in the terms of the beholder, doing things that are shady with good intentions is still shady (and while I can respect the willingness that doesn't excuse the consequences. Also, I'm not claiming it is inherently shady just using something as an analogy.) and overall a tactic I don't like used and in fairness of treatment I don't see it being used for good purposes as exceptions.

KetsuekiR said:

I actually looked into your previous comments a bit further later on and found multiple studies which supported the idea that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, such as this compilation created by the Charlotte Lozier Institute - https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/.

Click to expand...

I don't really know why you put emphasis on the name of the Charlotte Lozier Institute since it's an anti-abortion organisation and not at all a peer reviewed science journal.

Those aren't even all studies, and a lot of what's said on that page either isn't fully true, being misinterpreted, or something discredited. I'd rather just link this because it debunks most of that stuff better and quicker than i could, but a particularly noticeable example is if you read the source for the first dot point.

Despite claiming "babies delivered as young as 20 weeks post-fertilization (22 weeks gestation) can survive, and active intervention for treatment greatly improves their survival." the study doesn't actually state that- merely that the amount of active intervention care performed at different hospitals may account for (some) of the differences in survival rates between them. There is a fairly important distinction because the study itself mentions that it can't account for all the variation, and there's a lot of factors that they didn't have data on that could be important in figuring it out, as well as whether the variation in rates of active treatment resulted from differences in understanding of possible outcomes or from varying perspectives regarding the value of survival as compared with the high risk of impairment when treatment was done.

These things are a lot more complicated than just aggregating and cherrypicking sections of studies and putting them on your anti-abortion page

For stuff that was actually peer reviewed, here's a review of the evidence that was published in 2005 by the Journal of the American Medical Association
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429#

A 2010 report from the UK's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that had similar findings
https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf

And a 2015 speech transcript published on the website of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists speaks about the topic
https://www.acog.org/-/media/Depart...renceRemarks.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20180204T0243101019

KetsuekiR said:

I did also find other sources that supported your claims (unlinked because I'm sure you've read them).
Nowhere did I see that "almost all doctors reject the baseless '20 weeks before you can feel pain' claim", leading me to think this seems to be quite a grey area.

Click to expand...

I find this kind of weird since you can just google the pain claim and you'll be bombared with articles talking about why it's a myth or founded on shaky science, but i guess it's nice you read things outside of your position on the issue?

KetsuekiR said:

Also, as for women being a "prison for a dying fetus"; if someone has a high chance of death, perhaps even certain, should we kill them now so it's over?

Click to expand...

I mean if your response to such a psychologically and physically horrifying situation as "My pregnancy is unviable but i legally can't end it so i have to keep this fetus inside of me until it dies" is to go into whataboutisms for situations superficially similar, maybe you should take a step back and think about why your first instinct was to jump to that rather than try to understand the situation presented

Aliencommander1245 said:

I don't really know why you put emphasis on the name of the Charlotte Lozier Institute since it's an anti-abortion organisation and not at all a peer reviewed science journal.

Click to expand...

The name was in italics because it's a name of an institute, and that's how I denote them. It wasn't for emphasis. Then, your vire of it doesn't inherently discredit it's work. This is true for all cases. If you have evidencr that counters a finding, that's fine, and you do seem to so that's great.

Those aren't even all studies, and a lot of what's said on that page either isn't fully true, being misinterpreted, or something discredited. I'd rather just link this because it debunks most of that stuff better and quicker than i could, but a particularly noticeable example is if you read the source for the first dot point.

Despite claiming "babies delivered as young as 20 weeks post-fertilization (22 weeks gestation) can survive, and active intervention for treatment greatly improves their survival." the study doesn't actually state that- merely that the amount of active intervention care performed at different hospitals may account for (some) of the differences in survival rates between them. There is a fairly important distinction because the study itself mentions that it can't account for all the variation, and there's a lot of factors that they didn't have data on that could be important in figuring it out, as well as whether the variation in rates of active treatment resulted from differences in understanding of possible outcomes or from varying perspectives regarding the value of survival as compared with the high risk of impairment when treatment was done.

These things are a lot more complicated than just aggregating and cherrypicking sections of studies and putting them on your anti-abortion page

Click to expand...

The study itself and your own comments seem to suggest that it's not definitive. Seeing as this is the case, shouldn't there be a ban at the soonest possible point?

For stuff that was actually peer reviewed, here's a review of the evidence that was published in 2005 by the Journal of the American Medical Association
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429#

A 2010 report from the UK's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that had similar findings
https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf

And a 2015 speech transcript published on the website of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists speaks about the topic
https://www.acog.org/-/media/Depart...renceRemarks.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20180204T0243101019

Click to expand...

I digress; these are good finds, thank you! Given this, should there not be a ban on abortions at 27 weeks instead?

I find this kind of weird since you can just google the pain claim and you'll be bombared with articles talking about why it's a myth or founded on shaky science, but i guess it's nice you read things outside of your position on the issue?

Click to expand...

I believe you've misunderstood my stand. On this thread, I'm not debating but rather inquiring as to how people feel on the topic. Apologies if I seemed aggressive.

On the other hand, I found several articles that supported the pain claim, one of which I linked.

I mean if your response to such a psychologically and physically horrifying situation as "My pregnancy is unviable but i legally can't end it so i have to keep this fetus inside of me until it dies" is to go into whataboutisms for situations superficially similar...

Click to expand...

I don't see how it's a superficially similar situation. Maybe I will reprhase because I considered a fetus a person earlier. Just because a fetus has a high chance of death, should it be killed?

KetsuekiR said:

The study itself and your own comments seem to suggest that it's not definitive. Seeing as this is the case, shouldn't there be a ban at the soonest possible point?

Click to expand...

What's not definitive? That being born in the 22nd week is a death sentence? Because you're right, there's a very small chance of survival that comes with a high risk of significant disability. The context in which a baby born at 22 weeks is able to survive is because fertilisation/gestation dates are estimates, so if they're actually a little older then they're more able to survive. This obviously can't be definitively known, so the decision on whether to advise intensive care is based on a number of factors on a case-by-case basis. Doctors will almost never deny a parent's request for treatment, but their advice on whether treatment is worth pursuing is entierly based on the case at hand.

Regardless, none of this really matters in the discussion about 20 week abortion. Partially because it's further on and not even relevant to this bill (and the reason the gestation/fertilisation dates were both shown in that "facts" page is to muddy the waters on which one people are talking about and to try and trick readers into thinking that the article was talking about 20 weeks rather than 22 weeks) but also partially because talking about the viability of a birth at that point in time (even if it was the right amount of weeks) isn't even related to the actual thing we're talking about. 20 week abortions are very rarely performed, and universally for very pressing health reasons- either to the fetus or to the woman- talking about premature births in this discussion is kind of meaningless on those merits

KetsuekiR said:

I digress; these are good finds, thank you! Given this, should there not be a ban on abortions at 27 weeks instead?

Click to expand...

That's not really my place to discuss because i'm not really educated in that department. But as i said the last time you suggested it, as far as i'm aware there universally already is

KetsuekiR said:

On the other hand, I found several articles that supported the pain claim, one of which I linked.

Click to expand...

I don't really doubt you did, but i doubt any of them were actually peer reviewed modern science. I think it's a very important skill to be able to not only find information, but to gauge whether that information is trustworthy or not- the pain claims aren't trustworthy because modern scientific consensus disagrees with the claims, the claims have no solid evidence, and the only real sources still touting them are anti-abortion activism groups like the one you linked who don't have to care about scientific integrity when the pain myth is a very emotionally powerful argument, and they're fighting from a position that's more emotion than real substance

KetsuekiR said:

I don't see how it's a superficially similar situation. Maybe I will reprhase because I considered a fetus a person earlier. Just because a fetus has a high chance of death, should it be killed?

Click to expand...

This is still a superficially similar situation because it's not the one presented and only vaguely seems like that one, and it's a much more emotive one full of "what ifs" which is much closer to a moral quandary than the originally stated situation.

Most insurance in the US only covers 3 ultrasounds during a pregnancy, one to confirm the pregnancy, a second more extensive one at 20 weeks to look for abnormalities and a third towards the end to check the baby's position. You'll only get more if you're considered high risk, go into premature labor, have a history of still births, etc. My point being there's a LOT you can miss at this point unless you're going to a 4D ultrasound studio on the reg but those cost a lot of money.

I have a lot of issue with the "well if it's incest or if you were raped, abortion is ok but otherwise it's immoral" dealio because that straight up is says that pregnancy is a punishment for sex and being irresponsible rather then a biological result of what happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg. I just find it a form of shaming. You shouldn't pressure women into continuing pregnancies they don't want, can't afford to support or aren't mentally stable enough for if they genuinely don't want to be a parent. Hell, there are OBGYNs that will refuse to prescribe birth control if it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

Go inside an abortion clinic. No one getting an abortion is happy to be there. Most of them are crying their eyes out because it's an emotional thing and an incredibly tough decision. Deciding to end a pregnancy isn't some flippant decision women make just cuz "lol was too dumb to use a condom, off to the clinic I go". It's just gross slut shaming. Gtfo. Nobody is happy about getting an abortion. Stop framing it as a get out of jail free card.

The longer your pregnant, the more likely you are to get attached and the harder it is to give the pregnancy up. Women with irregular cycles have a tendency to detect pregnancy later because, well, they didn't miss a period. Fertility can be really tricky. There are so many factors to take into consideration on this topic.

And guys, I went into premature labor with my second kid at 28 weeks and I was scared as fuck. He would of had to stay in the NICU for months until his due date, was at high risk for a host of long termed problems... I think people overestimate how develped a fetus is at 20 weeks. There's a difference between a baby and a fetus btw. An OBGYN will refer to an embryo, fetus and baby differently throughout pregnancy. As long as you're not at a point where the child is viable to live outside the wound I'm pro-choice. I know it might not sound nice, but I put the mother's life and well being above any and every potential child she'll ever have, just based off of the fact that she is a person, who is living who has responsibilities, goals, relationships, and just overall should be entitled to what is going on within her body at the end of the day.

Lucid said:

Go inside an abortion clinic. No one getting an abortion is happy to be there. Most of them are crying their eyes out because it's an emotional thing and an incredibly tough decision. Deciding to end a pregnancy isn't some flippant decision women make just cuz "lol was too dumb to use a condom, off to the clinic I go". It's just gross slut shaming. Gtfo. Nobody is happy about getting an abortion. Stop framing it as a get out of jail free card.

Click to expand...

That is not entirely true as there has been women who bragged about having a abortion, even if it isn't the majority.

Paige said:

That is not entirely true as there has been women who bragged about having a abortion, even if it isn't the majority.

Click to expand...

I fail to see your point....? Ok?? This sort of thing is individualized but people cope differently

Paige said:

That is not entirely true as there has been women who bragged about having a abortion, even if it isn't the majority.

Click to expand...

I feel like this is kind of a strawman anyway, maybe somewhere out there a woman has "bragged" about having an abortion (Which implies a sense of accomplishment and proudness about it, which just doesn't really make sense) but unless you can point to any actual substantial movement of women who're proud and bragging openly about it, it just seems like a moot point to make.

(Not that it's even relevant anyway, since "well ACTUALLY some women didn't feel that way" is just a weird attempt to... detract? From the very real experiences of women)