Thread: Pregnancy before conception - What are they smoking?

Originally Posted by choiceone

My understanding of the controversy surrounding this law is as follows.

Medical doctors in the US commonly calculate estimated gestational age from the first day of the last menstrual period, but they and others commonly calculate pregnancy itself from estimated time of fertilization, two weeks later, or implantation, three weeks later. Meanwhile, medical doctors can also determine a developmental gestational age by comparing the embryo or fetus to the average age of others at the same development level.

For purposes of abortion law, Roe v Wade introduced trimesters in relation to viability, but Webster was only concerned with viability. Some pro-lifers have fixated on 20 weeks as a time at which a fetus can feel pain, though medical researchers say a fetus cannot feel pain that early. More recent state laws have wished to push back the time of viability, often using the claim of possible fetal pain, and the "no abortion after 20 weeks" laws seem to be of this type. As I understand it, other state laws have banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy using estimated conceptional or fertilization age to determine weeks of pregnancy - that would be 22 weeks' gestational age, but the Arizona law bans abortion from 20 weeks' gestational age, two weeks earlier than the other laws.

Medical doctors have objected to this Arizona law because science only estimates calendrical gestational age and later considers developmental gestational age by sonogram and developmental comparison. They take into account the fact that women can have irregular periods, etc. The law, however, is making calendrical gestational age definitive when science can't.

Second, both medical doctors and women have objected to this law because many serious fetal deformities cannot be determined until about 20 weeks' gestational age. Arizona also has passed an anti-wrongful-birth-lawsuit law that makes it okay for a doctor to fail to provide accurate information on the health status of a fetus to a pregnant patient. Hence, people who believe it is right to abort a fetus with serious fetal deformities will not be able to know about them within the time limit for abortion within the state, and Arizona doctors need not even tell the pregnant patient, making it more difficult to seek a timely abortion in another state.

At the same time, referring to gestational age rather than fertilization, implantation, or weeks of pregnancy in deciding time limits for abortion is different in law than in science, which only uses it for purposes of correctable estimation. There is no zygote at that time, let alone an embryo, and doctors know this. The legal reference does imply that women are pregnant at the gestational age, even though women are having their periods at the time and have not released in ovulation the ovum, have not engaged in the sex act that will provide the sperm that fertilizes it. Technically, it implies that every menstruating woman is already pregnant - and women rightly suspect that this could be just the first step in intrusive government monitoring of not only pregnant women, but all fertile women. It is really Nazi-esque.

does this cite by jerry not undermine the premise of the thread?

"Pregnant" or "pregnancy" means a female reproductive condition of having a developing unborn child in the body and that begins with conception.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Why do people post threads about laws without linking to the law itself? Why are you always trying to hide the facts?

Sourcing the huffingandpuffington post doesn't help you, either.

My pet peeve is that article - after article - won't link to it directly at all, I always have to hunt for it.

It's annoying - and they don't ever quote from it accurately, either. . . media is bull****.

Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker

My pet peeve is that article - after article - won't link to it directly at all, I always have to hunt for it.

It's annoying - and they don't ever quote from it accurately, either. . . media is bull****.

I, too, was annoyed by this. I have read the text of the law and took note of Jerry's critique. It remains true, however, that the law presents a variety of medical annoyances. For example, the law specifies a protocol for medical (chemical) abortion no more than 49 days after LMP. The problem is that this FDA protocol from 2000 is now considered out of date.
See: Mifepristone/Misoprostol Abortion Protocol

Moreover, the exact wording defining "gestational age" and "probable gestational age" is problematic for doctors. For example, suppose the woman knows she had sex only on one day. Fertilization could not have occurred earlier, and gestational age calculated backward from that day might be two weeks later than calendrical gestational age. But the law specifically defines "gestational age" in terms of the menstrual calendar and probable gestational age as "the gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned to be performed and as determined with reasonable probability by the attending physician."

I have underscored "and" because, in this hypothetical case, the doctor, knowing the date before which fertilization could not have occurred, would determine with reasonable probability a probable gestational age two weeks later than the calendrical gestational age. If the text had used "or," the doctor could go with his reasonable determination, but because it says "and," that might be against the law. The difference could easily preclude a medical abortion even if it were considered medically the best choice in the particular case. It would seem that issues like this made doctors seriously object to the law's stipulations on how gestational age is determined.

Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker

My pet peeve is that article - after article - won't link to it directly at all, I always have to hunt for it.

It's annoying - and they don't ever quote from it accurately, either. . . media is bull****.

I totally agree. Putting aside the topic at hand for a moment, rarely will a news article link directly to the law it's about. And this happens with articles from all political sides. I usually have to sift through a handful of news articles before finding 1 that even says the name of the law (HB12345 or a title), then I have to search that name adding "text" in the search heading, and sift though a dozen more links before finding the actual law.

I ****ing hate that. It looks bad on the news media when they won't give you the information.

Originally Posted by Jerry

I totally agree. Putting aside the topic at hand for a moment, rarely will a news article link directly to the law it's about. And this happens with articles from all political sides. I usually have to sift through a handful of news articles before finding 1 that even says the name of the law (HB12345 or a title), then I have to search that name adding "text" in the search heading, and sift though a dozen more links before finding the actual law.

I ****ing hate that. It looks bad on the news media when they won't give you the information.

Exactly - you know there's like 20 versions of a bill plus 100 related topics with similar titles in circulation at all times - when they're talking about 'the healthcare bill proposed will' my eyes want to melt ou of my head. . . can they not learn what a 'source' is - damn - they are journalists!! IF I failed to give a source I get an F

Originally Posted by choiceone

I, too, was annoyed by this. I have read the text of the law and took note of Jerry's critique. It remains true, however, that the law presents a variety of medical annoyances. For example, the law specifies a protocol for medical (chemical) abortion no more than 49 days after LMP. The problem is that this FDA protocol from 2000 is now considered out of date.
See: Mifepristone/Misoprostol Abortion Protocol

Moreover, the exact wording defining "gestational age" and "probable gestational age" is problematic for doctors. For example, suppose the woman knows she had sex only on one day. Fertilization could not have occurred earlier, and gestational age calculated backward from that day might be two weeks later than calendrical gestational age. But the law specifically defines "gestational age" in terms of the menstrual calendar and probable gestational age as "the gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned to be performed and as determined with reasonable probability by the attending physician."

I have underscored "and" because, in this hypothetical case, the doctor, knowing the date before which fertilization could not have occurred, would determine with reasonable probability a probable gestational age two weeks later than the calendrical gestational age. If the text had used "or," the doctor could go with his reasonable determination, but because it says "and," that might be against the law. The difference could easily preclude a medical abortion even if it were considered medically the best choice in the particular case. It would seem that issues like this made doctors seriously object to the law's stipulations on how gestational age is determined.

Doctors use measurements and observations of the ZEF through an ultrasound to determine gestational age. They don't use the woman's last period exclusively. Having walked with my X through 2 abortions and 4 live births, it's my experience that doctors give measurements and observations through ultrasound (such as observing organ development) far more weight that the woman's last period. (it may interest you to know that since my X admitted to know who the father of her children was, that I was legally required to watch the pre-abortion brief and sign consent. This was in CO, 1997/8ish; the same state which required me to get her consent to have a vasectomy) With one pregnancy we were inducing, my X was worried that the doctor was going to use their ultrasound observations over the date of her last period and thus induce to early.

This law does not stop an attending physician from continuing to give ultrasound observations more weight in their professional opinion in determining gestational age.

What's more, is that this recent bill your article is ranting about, does not change any of these definitions or procedures at all. These sections of the law you're so concerned about are not touched. Everything is now as it was before.

Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker

Exactly - you know there's like 20 versions of a bill plus 100 related topics with similar titles in circulation at all times - when they're talking about 'the healthcare bill proposed will' my eyes want to melt ou of my head. . . can they not learn what a 'source' is - damn - they are journalists!! IF I failed to give a source I get an F

That's *the* reason you don't see me in the economy forums to debate. Folks will make an OP without linking to the law, and good luck finding it on your own. Even if you find it, is it the most current version? How do you know? It's to much of a headache for me. Yes, I would rather debate abortion than sift through economic bills.