Abortion Restrictions Rely On ‘Junk Science’
[su_center_b]
Advocates for a woman’s right to choose say abortion restrictions are based on “junk science.”
In Montana, the Legislature has approved and sent to the governor a bill that would require a fetus to be anesthetized before an abortion is performed so it would not feel pain.
In Arizona and Arkansas, doctors are now required to tell women that drug-induced abortions can be “reversed” mid-procedure, even though the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says the reversal claims are “not supported by the body of scientific evidence.”
And in Idaho, the Legislature passed a bill endorsing telemedicine as a safe way to expand rural healthcare. Days later, however, it barred doctors from remotely administering abortion-inducing drugs, saying telemedicine for this procedure is unproven and risky. Republican Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter signed both bills into law…
A broad analysis of fetal pain studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. in 2005 concluded that “evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester,” or about 27 weeks of pregnancy.
The JAMA analysis added that there is “little or no evidence” to address whether fetal anesthesia is effective or how safe it is “for pregnant women in the context of abortion.”
In 2012, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement that no new studies published since the JAMA analysis “have changed this dominant view of the medical profession.”
[su_facebook]
[su_center_ad]
cecilia April 20th, 2015 at 11:36 am
The Legislature are clearly anesthetized themselves.
Budda April 20th, 2015 at 11:37 am
Politicians practicing medicine….isn’t there laws against that?
Mike April 20th, 2015 at 11:46 am
Well, we allow them to debate scientific issues like global warming with just a high school diploma (Scott Walker) Medicine is just as easy.
Robert M. Snyder April 20th, 2015 at 2:18 pm
“evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester”
This raises some pretty deep questions. Pain is a state of consciousness, but what is consciousness? This is actually a hot topic of research right now. Here is a TED talk by David Chalmers, one of the leading thinkers exploring the nature of consciousness:
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness?language=en
What is your earliest childhood memory? Why can’t you remember anything earlier? Were you conscious at birth, or did your consciousness develop gradually?
Is a cat or a dog conscious to the same degree as a person? Is a salamander conscious to the same degree as a cat? Is an earthworm conscious to the same degree as a salamander?
A good friend of my wife developed early-onset Alzheimer’s in her forties. Over the next couple of years, before she died, she gradually lost the ability to read and write, to speak, to feed herself, to walk, to stand, to make eye contact, and to respond in any meaningful way to other people.
The question of “What makes a person a person?” obviously has something to do with consciousness and hence the ability to feel pain. But when and how consciousness arises, and when and how it disappears, remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of our time.
We have a lot to learn about consciousness, but it seems apparent that consciousness doesn’t arrive all at once, and for people with neurodegenerative diseases, it doesn’t depart all at once.
It seems to me that anyone who cares about cruelty to animals ought to care about the possibility that a fetus might feel pain. If someone’s going to have an abortion, it would be preferable to have it as early as possible, before the central nervous system becomes too developed. I doubt whether science will ever be able to tell us the precise time at which consciousness begins, because consciousness is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Bunya April 20th, 2015 at 2:45 pm
Very few, if any, abortions are done after the third trimester, and a woman pretty much in two months if she’s pregnant or not. Late terms abortions are done usually if the fetus doesn’t stand a chance outside the womb.
Robert M. Snyder April 20th, 2015 at 3:12 pm
Yes. According to a 2013 article in Reason magazine:
“The latest report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that in 2009, 64 percent of abortions were performed before 8 weeks’ gestation, and 91.7 percent before 13 weeks. Seven percent were performed between 14 and 20 weeks, and just 1.3 percent after 21 weeks. Out of 784,000 abortions, just over 10,000 were performed after 21 weeks’ gestation. There are not good data on why some women wait until after 21 weeks before choosing abortion, but two likely reasons come to mind: a prenatal discovery of significant fetal abnormalities, and embarrassed adolescent denial.”
http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/12/do-fetuses-feel-pain
Obewon April 20th, 2015 at 8:30 pm
You know Reason is frequently cited as not credible? Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation. The magazine had a circulation of around 50,000 in 2004, likely next to zero today.
Reason contributors included debunked Milton Friedman touting failed “trickle down” leaving GWB’s 12/07 Great Recession record low everything since (R) Hoover’s “trickle down” that also caused GOP’s Great Depression.
Robert M. Snyder April 20th, 2015 at 8:33 pm
The article to which I linked directly cited the CDC as the source of the statistics. Go ahead and check them if you think they lied. meanwhile, I’m going to assume that they did not.
Obewon April 20th, 2015 at 8:33 pm
Cite and link CDC then. Thanks in advance!
Robert M. Snyder April 20th, 2015 at 8:40 pm
I provided the link to bolster Bunya’s point, not to counter it. I agree that late-term abortions are rare. Jeeezzzz. Can’t you take “yes, I agree” for an answer?
Obewon April 20th, 2015 at 8:45 pm
I see contrary JAMA claims/BS in skimming your linked article. Cut & paste your claimed “CDC” text & Link. I must’ve missed “CDC”?
JAMA> “A broad analysis of fetal pain studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. in 2005 concluded that “evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester,” or about 27 weeks of pregnancy.
The JAMA analysis added that there is “little or no evidence” to address whether fetal anesthesia is effective or how safe it is “for pregnant women in the context of abortion.” “-above LL posted article..
Robert M. Snyder April 20th, 2015 at 8:57 pm
CDC stands for Centers for Disease Control. It was right there in my original post where I first mentioned the Reason article.
Obewon April 20th, 2015 at 9:00 pm
Your above excerpt?
2nd request: What does that have to do with your articles claim of ’20 week fetal pain’ sensation?
Obewon April 20th, 2015 at 8:50 pm
What does that have to do with your articles claim of ’20 week fetal pain’ sensation?
That reads like a Bridge to nowhere for sale, or free to any remaining Palin’16~ donors!
Chinese Democracy April 21st, 2015 at 1:25 am
I had no idea the Center for Disease Control was embroiled in this steaming pile lol
jasperjava April 21st, 2015 at 11:37 am
The stats from the CDC are likely genuine, but the opinion of the author on why women have late-term abortions sounds like typical right-wing sneering.
Late-term abortions are so invasive and medically tricky that it would be surprising if the vast majority of them were not performed out of strict medical necessity.
Robert M. Snyder April 21st, 2015 at 11:53 am
Embarrassed adolescent denial is a thing. When my neighbor’s daughter was in her freshman year of college, she gained a little weight and everyone assumed it was the “freshman fifteen” pounds. Then one day, she suddenly went into labor and delivered a healthy, full-term baby. Whether any girl in similar circumstances would opt for a late-term abortion is debatable. If a girl were terrified of a controlling or abusive father, I could see it happening.
Dwendt44 April 20th, 2015 at 6:00 pm
You don’t have to be conscious to react to pain stimuli. It is, at lest in part, a autonomic nerve response. You pull your hand away from a hot burner without thinking about it.
People under anesthetic can pull a hand or arm away when poked with a needle.
A fetus isn’t really conscious to speak of until after it’s born.
Robert M. Snyder April 20th, 2015 at 8:25 pm
“A fetus isn’t really conscious to speak of until after it’s born.”
And you know this how?
Dwendt44 April 21st, 2015 at 12:16 am
A newborn is barely able to sense pain as it is. Circumcision does cause pain and crying but it passes in a few minutes. An adult would be incapacitated for a couple of days. And that’s with pain killers.
Robert M. Snyder April 21st, 2015 at 12:42 am
“A newborn is barely able to sense pain as it is.”
How do you know this?
If a doctor wants to know your blood pressure or your cholesterol level, they perform a test which provides an accurate number. There is no test to determine the level of pain that a person is experiencing. That is why doctors and nurses ask patients to rate their pain level on a ten-point scale.
Babies can’t communicate. They can’t tell us about their subjective experience. Is there any reason to think that a baby would experience less pain than a cat or a dog? If a veterinarian operated on a cat or a dog without first anesthetizing the animal, it would be considered malpractice as well as animal cruelty. The vet would lose his license and possibly serve time in jail.
But you are asking us to believe that a baby can barely sense pain. Would you allow a doctor to operate on your newborn baby without anesthesia?
whatthe46 April 21st, 2015 at 1:37 am
“Would you allow a doctor to operate on your newborn baby without anesthesia?” “newborn” “born” alive. would you allow a doctor to stitch you up with out local? of course not. and of course there are ways it’s known that babies can become distressed while in utero. surely at a certain stage a lot is known.
Robert M. Snyder April 21st, 2015 at 1:00 am
Prior to 1980, when doctors operated on a baby, they would typically inject them with a paralyzing drug (e.g. curare) in order to prevent the baby from moving. This rendered the baby incapable of screaming or making facial expressions. So it is understandable that people may have assumed the baby was comfortable.
For more information, you may wish to refer to the following paper, “‘Neonates do not feel pain’: a critical review of the evidence”, published Sept 25, 2014 in the journal Bioscience Horizons.
“Convergence of the observations covered in this review show that most, if not all, studies are in favour of pain-related behaviour and physiology in the neonate, both of which having a similar phenotype to that seen in the older infant and adult. The evidence investigated in this review also supports the hypothesis that cortical development appears to accommodate the subjectivity of pain, but it is not vital for pain experience.”
“The 20th century appeared to be a time in which clinicians were more concerned about foetal distress. This is reflected by the significant lack of studies from 1920 until 1980 investigating pain in the neonate; curare often being used as a surgical muscular paralysis agent up until 1985, making pain-related protest or movement impossible regardless of its existence”
Source: http://biohorizons.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/hzu006.full
whatthe46 April 21st, 2015 at 1:33 am
“…when doctors operated on a baby, they would typically inject them with a paralyzing drug (e.g. curare) in order to prevent the baby from moving.” that proves nothing considering, they do that with anyone they are about to perform surgery or operate on.
Robert M. Snyder April 21st, 2015 at 12:04 pm
I was attempting to explain how people might have incorrectly assumed that babies felt no pain because babies that have been paralyzed with curare are unable to exhibit the symptoms of pain.
If I injected you with curare, and you were paralyzed, I could take out your spleen and you would never grimace or utter a sound. I could turn to my colleagues and say “Look. He is not feeling this, because he is not showing any signs of pain.”.
The point is that it is very difficult for a doctor to tell how much pain a person is experiencing. If the person is paralyzed, that makes it virtually impossible.
whatthe46 April 21st, 2015 at 3:25 am
there’s a reason why an adult would be incapacitated. the “e” thing. with young to adult men, they stay that way too long too often. for innocent reasons to boot. so i’ve heard.
Obewon April 20th, 2015 at 8:15 pm
At 21 weeks Mr & Mrs. Rick Santorum authorized a late term Pitocin induced abortion they feigned was an “Early birth.” Except that Pitocin is only prescribed for abortion, or FDA approved for very late delivery beyond 9 months.
Nobody survives 21 weeks ex-post utero, which is why SCOTUS sets 28 week fetal viability.
Your ‘outlaw abortion’ fanatics crashed to just 10% to 20% and are even derided by the Pope as a ‘sickness resulting from’ “Lack of true prayer”-Pope Francis!
Robert M. Snyder April 20th, 2015 at 8:20 pm
I don’t endorse Santorum and I don’t endorse the pope. They have their opinions, and I have mine.
Obewon April 20th, 2015 at 8:22 pm
Anybody so out to lunch they “endorse Santorum” is akin to thinking Pope Francis will win in 2016 as POTUS.
Chinese Democracy April 21st, 2015 at 1:25 am
I would prefer Pope Francis over Santorum actually
Carla Akins April 20th, 2015 at 8:44 pm
It’s not a matter of perception or consciousness, it’s that prior to 27 weeks the neuro pathways simply have not sufficiently developed to send pain to the brain, even at 27 weeks it’s only beginning to develop.
Robert M. Snyder April 20th, 2015 at 9:23 pm
Here’s an excerpt from an article on the NIH website:
“Few living creatures are unresponsive to a noxious stimulus (for example, a pinch or burning flame). Light a flame next to a fruit fly larva, for example, and it will bend and roll away.w10 These responses depend on specialised sensory neurones, similar to free nerve endings in humans, which preferentially respond to stimuli that can damage tissue. Although the larva clearly has a biological apparatus to detect and respond to dangerous stimuli, can it be said to feel pain? If the larva feels pain, then it presumably has some conscious or mental representation of the pain. The pain must consist of such experienced concepts as the location, feel, and cognition associated with the pain. Without this content, there is the response to noxious events, otherwise known as nociception, but no pain. The larva thus cannot be said to have the capacity for pain: there is no evidence for the conceptual content that the experience of pain implies. A proper understanding of pain must account for the conceptual content that constitutes the pain experience. The International Association for the Study of Pain defines pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.” By this definition pain is not merely the response to noxious stimuli or disease but is a conscious experience.”
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
The last sentence makes a distinction between a “response to noxious stimuli” and “conscious experience”. There are a lot of people who would say that this is simply a matter of degree.
If we gradually evolved from primitive life forms that were as neurologically simple as fruit fly larvae, then at what point did “response to stimuli” morph into “conscious experience”? And since the stages of embryonic development are said to reflect the stages of human evolution, at what point does the developing organism go from “responding to stimuli” to having a “conscious experience”?
It seems to me that we are talking about degrees of consciousness.
The article seems to assume that without thalamic connections to the neocortex, the experience of pain is not possible. Here’s a story about a baby born with only a brainstem, which means that he has a thalamus, but does not have a neocortex. Do you suppose that this baby can experience pain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXZGFbxkuKs
Carla Akins April 21st, 2015 at 4:08 am
Physically, mentally, consciously no, that baby cannot experience pain. Never has, never will, has no context – that baby is a living breathing child.
We are discussing a fetus unable to survive outside the womb that we know scientifically cannot experience pain. Although I can appreciate the mental gymnastics, it clouds the subject when we reach for the subject of “degrees”.
The moment we assign degrees to the fetus, the actual woman has lost her rights.
Robert M. Snyder April 21st, 2015 at 12:23 pm
“The moment we assign degrees to the fetus, the actual woman has lost her rights.”
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You acknowledged in your previous post that the ability to experience pain may begin as early as 27 weeks gestation. In your last post, you said that the moment we assign degrees to the fetus, the woman loses her rights.
It sounds as if you are saying that a woman’s right to an abortion takes precedence over any concern about whether the experience might be painful for the fetus. Do I understand you correctly?
Mike Butkus Jr. April 21st, 2015 at 7:20 pm
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Robert (the male) telling Carla (the female) what’s right for her fetus, got it no surprise at all. Answer me this, does a living child (out side the womb) feel pain when a bomb is dropped on its head? I know not a fair question because I’m not referring to an American baby.
Robert M. Snyder April 21st, 2015 at 7:49 pm
I think that Carla can speak for herself. She doesn’t need Mike (a male) to defend her in this arena. And no, I was not telling her what to do. I am attempting to explore the issue of whether and when a fetus can feel pain, which was raised by Alan when he created the original article. What is the point of having this forum (Liberaland) if not to explore and discuss these issues?
Mike Butkus Jr. April 22nd, 2015 at 9:42 am
It was a rhetorical question. Really don’t care what you think. Everyone speaks for themselves on here. When you can show equal compassion for the born then maybe ill listen. So enjoy and explore away.
Robert M. Snyder April 22nd, 2015 at 10:28 am
You implied in your first post that I only care about American babies. Now you have further implied that I only care about the unborn. Yet I have made no statements to suggest either of those two things. You, sir, are not speaking to me. You are speaking to a stereotype that you have projected onto me.
Mike Butkus Jr. April 22nd, 2015 at 11:17 am
Ok Robert you are absolutely correct, I overstepped my bounds. I sound like the people I cant stand. This political atmosphere sucks big time. I was away for awhile and actually enjoyed it. Its frustrating when facts are no longer relevant, what’s left? Banging each other over the head? That goes against what I’m trying to stand for. So disregard and enjoy your day.
Robert M. Snyder April 22nd, 2015 at 11:28 am
Don’t sweat it Mike. I think we all talk to stereotypes from time to time in these online forums. If we were talking face-to-face over a meal or a beer, it would be so much easier. Maybe that’s part of the reason why the political atmosphere is getting so polarized. We’re all interacting through digital interfaces instead of face-to-face.
Hope you also enjoy your day.
Kim Serrahn April 20th, 2015 at 3:29 pm
Easiest way to get out of this controversy is to give every woman who wants it BC in one form or another. The best way to not have an abortion is not to get pregnant in the first place. If instead of all these idiot bills, make Birth Control free to all. I know it’s a simplistic solution, but really it would work.
Bunya April 20th, 2015 at 4:19 pm
That’s a good idea, but unfortunately if BC was made available to all, we’ll still need abortion clinics for all the girls who didn’t think they could get pregnant “doing it” for the first time.
Dwendt44 April 20th, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Or those that practice the ‘rhythm method’.
whatthe46 April 20th, 2015 at 6:16 pm
that’s a stupid method.
Bunya April 20th, 2015 at 9:20 pm
True, but that’s the only method a bunch of supposedly celibate men condone. I wonder why.
whatthe46 April 20th, 2015 at 9:26 pm
why would it matter to celibate men? i think its stupid because its bad enough i have to be interrupted a certain time of the month, i don’t to chance a calendar, cause when i’m ready you better be… lol b.c. baby.
Dwendt44 April 21st, 2015 at 12:10 am
The whole idea of the ‘no birth control’ dogma of the Catholic Church is that they want to increase the numbers of Catholics and because it has to do with S-E-X.
whatthe46 April 21st, 2015 at 12:12 am
gotcha.
Robert M. Snyder April 20th, 2015 at 4:30 pm
Are there any places where BC is free to all, and if so, are abortion rates lower in those places?
Obewon April 20th, 2015 at 8:08 pm
Yes plenty! The Supreme Court in the Philippines has approved a birth control law, in a defeat for the Catholic Church. The law requires government health centres to distribute free condoms and contraceptive pills.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26938667
Huffpo and Slate Global maps of free contraception. The more educated, the lower the birth rate (e.g. USA’s negative ‘birth replacement rate’ is augmented by immagration for our growth.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/countries-free-birth-control_n_5553037.html
Dwendt44 April 21st, 2015 at 12:08 am
Like many ‘Catholic’ countries, the Philippines is over crowded, especially with poor single women and children.
Dwendt44 April 20th, 2015 at 5:54 pm
It would reduce the numbers a bunch but it would eliminate abortion totally which is their goal. There still, and will continue to be, idiots that don’t use the BC, fools that forget, and those that change their minds due to changing circumstances. Add in the medically suggested ones.
Warman1138 April 21st, 2015 at 5:47 am
I think the health care benefits that most politicians enjoy should be eliminated. Since according to their rhetoric they are much more competent and knowledgeable than most doctors and scientists. They deserve the best health care available, which would be of course, themselves. Self made physician heal thyself.