to have been shocked by US anti-abortion feature on Newsnight

[wimblehorse]

This was a few days ago but haven't had chance to post sooner.

The feature was about how far to the right the republican presidential candidates have been pushing on the abortion debate and showed a group in Ohio who are lobbying for abortion law there to be (further) restricted so that once a fetal heartbeat has been detected through compulsory vaginal probe ultra-sound - which can be after 5-6 weeks - then a termination cannot be carried out.

A huge number of women would not even know they were pregnant at 5-6 weeks, and even those who found out straight away it doesn't give much time to be able to arrange a termination, especially as so many clinics/hospitals have been forced to close.

Already in that state, women seeking terminations are forced to have vaginal ultrasound probes and hear/see the heartbeat before having a termination.

The group who were lobbying claimed that detection of the heartbeat was a fundamental sign of life and therefore terminating a pregnancy after this had been detected was "wrong". However it's just a sign of current medical technology. There are many people alive today who have had periods of no detectable heartbeat and have been resuscitated - brain death is what is considered the fundamental sign of life and they had no medical link between detection of ultra-sound heartbeat to development of brain function - awareness/pain etc - in a fetus.

It's an arbitrary measure that is trying to make it almost impossible to seek a safe, legal termination and I really hope that it doesn't make further headway.

Rant over.

WIBU to have been shocked?

No, it was to punish her for daring to want an abortion, and to try to get her to change her mind.

oopsi (again)
How am I supporting staff in an abortion clinic??

Don't be obtuse. No-one is suggesting you are supporting staff in an abortion clinic. They are saying that by as someone who is opposed to abortion, who would like to see it made more difficult and less accessible, you are supporting these kinds of unnecessary and invasive procedures and practices, because where abortion is legal and freely available no woman is subjected to the kind of punishment described in flying's post.

Hope this helps.

Texas is doing it too. A medical ethicist friend showed me this 'cartoon' strip: doonesbury.slate.com/strip/archive/2012/03/16. i also understand that a pregnant woman in Indiana who attempted suicide and failed is being charged with murder and infanticide.
I fear for November's election.

I don't understand the Republicans (I realise I'm generalising here). They don't want women to have abortions but they don't want to provide an affordable health care programme either. So, as many have stated here, they care about babies before they are born but not so much afterwards.

I had a missed miscarriage. Found out at my 12 week scan that the baby had died. I was given the choice to wait until I miscarried naturally or go in and have everything removed. The same procedure as an abortion I guess. I chose to have the procedure as I could not cope emotionally with carrying a dead foetus around inside of me. How can anyway say that this was wrong?

I had a MMC and wasn't given that choice!

I just had to wait!

Longtime-Why would that be wrong if the foetus is dead???

Oopsi: Well it isn;t wrong, unless you are a completely mental woman-hating right wing republican politician in a position of power who actually WANTS it to be forbidden for a dead foetus to be medically removed from a woman's womb. Because ut;s a 'abortion' even if the foetus has died of natural causes, and the woman should just put up with carrying a dead foetus in her womb until she goes into labour naturally, and it doesn't actually matter if she then gets an infection and dies, because she's only a woman and women are only containers for foetuses, and it's important to enforce this in law, that woman are foetus-containers and must not be allowed to be anything else.

It's just unspeakable and obscene. Agree solidgoldbrass.

OOpsi: Longtime-Why would that be wrong if the foetus is dead???

I can't believe you've actually written that. Talk about callous.

I think u need to re read longtimes post oopsi as I can't belive u meant that

Flying have re dead your post and I know it's worthless but I hope you feel my hugs and love.

Oopsi I know realise u probably did mean that post to longtimes, for once on mumsnet I am lost for words at your lack of empathy and love to your fellow women.

eh? I said how could anyone consider it wrong for a woman to abort a dead foetus? How is that callous???

Well Oopsi, the thing is with spouting anti-choice bullshit is, even though you yourself might be a wellmeaning type of antichoicer who just wants every ickle foetus to have a loving home and hasn't actually really thought through the details of it, allying yourself with antichoice activisim means that the most foaming, crazy, vicious woman-hating arseholes, the sort who want the death penalty for women who miscarry and women whose foetuses have died to carry the dead foetuses in their wombs for months... Those are YOUR MATES. YOUR TEAM. And people are going to think you are just like them.

It's like, spouting a lot of clueless crap about immigration that you got from the Daily Mail like my mum does - it doesn't mean you are best mates with the BNP, but you can't whine and stomp if people tend to associate you with them.

Oopsi, I don't think it's wrong obviously as I had it done (under general anaesthetic because of my emotional state) but, as SGB says, there are those in the world that would say it was. In case you're interested Oopsi, I didn't have the procedure immediately - I had to wait six days to see if I would miscarry naturally in that time (a horrible six days). I didn't so had the procedure.

(SGB, your mum and my mum alike.)

I'm a little confused by this as I was advised to abort my mmc as they said that there was a risk of the dead foetus causing septicaemia. Why would anyone knowingly expose a woman to this risk by refusing an evacuation?

Juule
I'm a little confused by this as I was advised to abort my mmc as they said that there was a risk of the dead foetus causing septicaemia. Why would anyone knowingly expose a woman to this risk by refusing an evacuation?

Why? Because they oppose ALL abortion.

Very sad.

I've been pondering this thread all week trying to think of any other example of a law where because a subset of government don't like it they try to pass further legislation essential 'punishing' (by humiliation, assault and generally making it unpleasant and difficult) anyone trying to exercise their legal rights...

...I can't think of any. This is what makes the current GOP plans so abhorrent and the hypocrisy of their total disregard for caring for life after birth is vile.

Continuing the theme of state Democrats trying to prevent the legislation and draw attention to the ridiculousness of it, did anyone see the Daily Show segment the other day about Constance Johnson the Ohio state Senator?

JuneBear: no-one is saying that women have to become parents, just that they have to remain pregnant. Even the pro-life lobby are happy for women to give newborn babies up for adoption, apparently responsibility for the baby ends there.

As for "convenience" abortions: I would suggest that a woman who thinks repeated abortions are easier than contraception has real problems which may not be solvable with counselling, and certainly won't be solved by banning her from having an abortion. I remain to be convinced that these really exist however. How do you know that you know a convenience aborter?

But the arguement for abortion over adoption is that no-one should be able to force women to risk their own future health for an embryo. Money is a different matter - it is more reasonable to subject someone to financial penalties than health ones.

Although there is a risk that people who are not prepared to be parents would be more reluctant to give a child up for adoption if they are to be made to pay and forced to use contraception anyway. How do you force someone to use contraception or abstain from sex anyway?