Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Utah plays doctor, legislates anesthesia for abortions

where do you stand re this new law in Utah

  • 1. Terrible idea, stay out of our personal lives please!

    Votes: 14 82.4%
  • 2. Neutral feeling about it. Not sure what to think.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3. Great idea, women should not be in control of their own bodies when it comes to unborn fetuses.

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • Total voters
    17

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
33,925
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-governor-signs-bill-requiring-abortion-anesthesia-n547021


MAR 29 2016, 1:37 AM ET
Utah Governor Signs Bill Requiring Abortion Anesthesia After 20 Weeks
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SALT LAKE CITY — The governor signed a bill Monday that makes Utah the first state to require doctors to give anesthesia to women having an abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy or later.

The bill signed by Republican Gov. Gary Herbert is based on the disputed premise that a fetus can feel pain at that point.

"The governor is adamantly pro-life. He believes in not only erring on the side of life, but also minimizing any pain that may be caused to an unborn child," Herbert spokesman Jon Cox said.

Many doctors in Utah and across the country are concerned that the requirement could increase the health risks to women by giving them unnecessary heavy sedation in order to protect a fetus from pain that it may or may not feel.

Dr. Sean Esplin of Intermountain Healthcare in Utah said anesthesia or an analgesic would need to go through the woman in order to reach the fetus. Doctors could give a woman general anesthesia, which would make her unconscious and likely require a breathing tube, or a heavy dose of narcotics.

No other U.S. state has passed this same law, said Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst at the abortion-rights nonprofit Guttmacher Institute. Montana lawmakers passed a similar law in 2015 requiring fetal anesthesia before surgeries, including abortions, performed after 20 or more weeks of gestation, but its Democratic governor vetoed the measure.

Twelve states ban abortions after around 20 weeks of gestation, while a handful of other states give women the option of having anesthesia.

Previous Utah law gave women the choice to have anesthesia during an abortion.

The new law by Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, targets a small subset of women who have elective abortions beginning at 20 weeks. State law normally allows abortions until viability, which is at about 22 weeks.

But it could affect women in many other medical situations.

Utah law defines abortions in part as "the intentional termination or attempted termination of human pregnancy after implantation of a fertilized ovum through a medical procedure carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a physician."

David Turok of the University of Utah's obstetrics and gynecology department said that could apply to instances in which a woman is past her due date so the doctor induces labor or there's a problem with the pregnancy, such as pre-eclampsia, so it's safer to deliver the baby early. These common procedures could now require general anesthesia, he said.

"You never give those medicines if you don't have to," Turok said.


Laura Bunker of the conservative group United Families International said if there is any chance a fetus feels pan at 20 weeks, doctors should do everything possible to make sure they are comfortable.

The new law would not apply to women who must have an abortion because their life is at risk or the fetus will not survive outside the womb.

Utah Medical Association CEO Michelle McOmber said her organization feels neutral toward the legislation. The association convinced Bramble to change its language from saying a fetus "is capable of experiencing pain," to it "may be capable of experiencing pain." She said the association would have preferred that the proposal stated it is inconclusive whether or not the fetus feels pain.

Bramble initially sought to ban abortions after 20 weeks entirely, but he changed course after the Legislature's attorneys warned him that any such measure would likely be unconstitutional.

Will women ever be safe from being told what they can and cannot do regarding their bodies. Lawmakers legislating what women and their doctors can do...Government just cannot get out of our lives.
 

liaerfbv

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,247
Missy, we only want the government to stay out of our lives when it involves our guns. :roll:

This is a despicable law and I hope it gets overturned, but I know it won't. I feel very discouraged at the autonomy we seem to be losing day by day.
 

ame

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
10,718
:wall: :wall: :wall: When will religion get the F out of government.
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
17,757
I am sick to death of others' beliefs and restrictions being forced on me, and everyone else. Case in point: I live in Indiana, where this atrocity recently happened--http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/us/indiana-governor-mike-pence-signs-abortion-bill.html?_r=0

That effectively prohibits me from conceiving again. I am over 35. If I chose to have testing done and found out my fetus had Down Syndrome or whose life would otherwise be compromised by disability, even if I gave another reason to terminate, it would be pretty obvious what the actual reason was. I'm sure I'd have huge hoops to jump through to terminate--no health care provider would be willing to do so in order to keep themselves from penalization. And where would that leave me, my family, and a child whose needs we probably couldn't meet? The potential negatives for me outweigh the potential positives, so I guess I won't be having any more children. Basically it's like telling me, sorry, you should've had all your children before you were 35--oh, and don't bother having any tests done because all that will do is prepare you for the inevitable heartbreak of losing a child anyway.

There is a rally in protest of the Indiana bill at the statehouse this weekend, and I'm leaning towards going although that means time away from my family. I can no longer sit back and expect that just by voting I have a say in what I do with my own body. The government has NO BUSINESS telling me what my reproductive rights are and it certainly cannot speak for my potential unborn children.

Back to Utah--it's yet another grenade lobbed at women in general, telling us that our lives do not matter. We are merely incubators whose only purpose in life is raising children, and we don't get a say. :nono:
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,799
While I think it's better than totally outlawing abortions after 20wks, it really isn't a step in the right direction IMO. That WILL be the next step, they are just posturing up.
 

House Cat

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,004
Is there a scenario where a woman would want to be awake during an abortion after 20 wks? I am thinking no.
 

Snowdrop13

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,860
I really don't understand this at all. Abortions after 20 weeks are usually carried out by inducing labour, I can't see how you would give a general anaesthetic for that. The mother might need some strong analgesia anyway, some of which will cross the placenta- that is fair enough. They don't seem to have their medical facts correct.

In my experience most of the women having late terminations are doing so because of some terrible fetal anomaly, or because their own life is under threat. They are not undertaking it lightly and this law will make it all much worse, imho.
 

liaerfbv

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,247
House Cat|1459269570|4012617 said:
Is there a scenario where a woman would want to be awake during an abortion after 20 wks? I am thinking no.
I mean emotionally you're probably right - but I would want that decision to be made by a doctor who is familiar with my personal health situation to make the best decision for me and my body, rather than mandated by (intrusive and unnecessary) law.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,629
Religion has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. It seems to be that if a baby is going to be taken from the womb and sometimes in a violent manner, then good grief, how about erring on the side of being sure the baby can feel no pain????? We are taking a about a human being here. Doctors should consider what is best for the mother and the baby!
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
33,925
diamondseeker2006|1459282928|4012657 said:
Religion has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. It seems to be that if a baby is going to be taken from the womb and sometimes in a violent manner, then good grief, how about erring on the side of being sure the baby can feel no pain????? We are taking a about a human being here. Doctors should consider what is best for the mother and the baby!
Certainly not the government. Leave it up to the individuals affected please with the help of their doctor but it comes down to the woman and her body and her decision.

House Cat said:
Is there a scenario where a woman would want to be awake during an abortion after 20 wks? I am thinking no.
Again it should not be up to the government and should be up to no one but the woman and her partner and ultimately the woman IMO. It is her body and she should not be forced to do anything with her body she does not want to do.
monarch64 said:
I am sick to death of others' beliefs and restrictions being forced on me, and everyone else. Case in point: I live in Indiana, where this atrocity recently happened--http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/us/indiana-governor-mike-pence-signs-abortion-bill.html?_r=0

That effectively prohibits me from conceiving again. I am over 35. If I chose to have testing done and found out my fetus had Down Syndrome or whose life would otherwise be compromised by disability, even if I gave another reason to terminate, it would be pretty obvious what the actual reason was. I'm sure I'd have huge hoops to jump through to terminate--no health care provider would be willing to do so in order to keep themselves from penalization. And where would that leave me, my family, and a child whose needs we probably couldn't meet? The potential negatives for me outweigh the potential positives, so I guess I won't be having any more children. Basically it's like telling me, sorry, you should've had all your children before you were 35--oh, and don't bother having any tests done because all that will do is prepare you for the inevitable heartbreak of losing a child anyway.

There is a rally in protest of the Indiana bill at the statehouse this weekend, and I'm leaning towards going although that means time away from my family. I can no longer sit back and expect that just by voting I have a say in what I do with my own body. The government has NO BUSINESS telling me what my reproductive rights are and it certainly cannot speak for my potential unborn children.

Back to Utah--it's yet another grenade lobbed at women in general, telling us that our lives do not matter. We are merely incubators whose only purpose in life is raising children, and we don't get a say. :nono:
I'm right with you here MOnnie. It makes me absolutely angry and sick too. Unbelievable. Exactly. Our lives don't matter more than the fertilized sperm and egg. :nono: :nono: :nono: The government has NO right whatsoever to tell us what to do with our bodies. :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:



liaerfbv said:
Missy, we only want the government to stay out of our lives when it involves our guns. :roll:

This is a despicable law and I hope it gets overturned, but I know it won't. I feel very discouraged at the autonomy we seem to be losing day by day.
Yes I am feeling discouraged as well for that very reason.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,108
House Cat|1459269570|4012617 said:
Is there a scenario where a woman would want to be awake during an abortion after 20 wks? I am thinking no.
I know next to nothing about abortions. Would "anesthesia" cover epidurals? One is awake during an epidural, yet it is a form of anesthesia. I know that it is bizarre that we are having this discussion at all. It is like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Things have come to a pretty pass if women have no say over their bodies and have to quibble over what anesthesia the state-not their doctors-will allow them to use or not use under legal Roe v. Wade abortions!
 

amc80

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
5,765
monarch64|1459261127|4012537 said:
I am sick to death of others' beliefs and restrictions being forced on me, and everyone else. Case in point: I live in Indiana, where this atrocity recently happened--http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/us/indiana-governor-mike-pence-signs-abortion-bill.html?_r=0

That effectively prohibits me from conceiving again. I am over 35. If I chose to have testing done and found out my fetus had Down Syndrome or whose life would otherwise be compromised by disability, even if I gave another reason to terminate, it would be pretty obvious what the actual reason was. I'm sure I'd have huge hoops to jump through to terminate--no health care provider would be willing to do so in order to keep themselves from penalization. And where would that leave me, my family, and a child whose needs we probably couldn't meet? The potential negatives for me outweigh the potential positives, so I guess I won't be having any more children. Basically it's like telling me, sorry, you should've had all your children before you were 35--oh, and don't bother having any tests done because all that will do is prepare you for the inevitable heartbreak of losing a child anyway.

There is a rally in protest of the Indiana bill at the statehouse this weekend, and I'm leaning towards going although that means time away from my family. I can no longer sit back and expect that just by voting I have a say in what I do with my own body. The government has NO BUSINESS telling me what my reproductive rights are and it certainly cannot speak for my potential unborn children.

Back to Utah--it's yet another grenade lobbed at women in general, telling us that our lives do not matter. We are merely incubators whose only purpose in life is raising children, and we don't get a say. :nono:
I'm pretty conservative and likely wayyyy on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you...but even I think this is ridiculous.

"Prohibits a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability."

What if the "disability" is incompatible with life? They are saying you have to carry to term even if your child will die shortly thereafter? No.
 

Snowdrop13

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,860
AGBF|1459285577|4012691 said:
House Cat|1459269570|4012617 said:
Is there a scenario where a woman would want to be awake during an abortion after 20 wks? I am thinking no.
I know next to nothing about abortions. Would "anesthesia" cover epidurals? One is awake during an epidural, yet it is a form of anesthesia. I know that it is bizarre that we are having this discussion at all. It is like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Things have come to a pretty pass if women have no say over their bodies and have to quibble over what anesthesia the state-not their doctors-will allow them to use or not use under legal Roe v. Wade abortions!
Epidurals have an effect on the mother but none on the baby.
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
17,757
amc80|1459285851|4012699 said:
monarch64|1459261127|4012537 said:
I am sick to death of others' beliefs and restrictions being forced on me, and everyone else. Case in point: I live in Indiana, where this atrocity recently happened--http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/us/indiana-governor-mike-pence-signs-abortion-bill.html?_r=0

That effectively prohibits me from conceiving again. I am over 35. If I chose to have testing done and found out my fetus had Down Syndrome or whose life would otherwise be compromised by disability, even if I gave another reason to terminate, it would be pretty obvious what the actual reason was. I'm sure I'd have huge hoops to jump through to terminate--no health care provider would be willing to do so in order to keep themselves from penalization. And where would that leave me, my family, and a child whose needs we probably couldn't meet? The potential negatives for me outweigh the potential positives, so I guess I won't be having any more children. Basically it's like telling me, sorry, you should've had all your children before you were 35--oh, and don't bother having any tests done because all that will do is prepare you for the inevitable heartbreak of losing a child anyway.

There is a rally in protest of the Indiana bill at the statehouse this weekend, and I'm leaning towards going although that means time away from my family. I can no longer sit back and expect that just by voting I have a say in what I do with my own body. The government has NO BUSINESS telling me what my reproductive rights are and it certainly cannot speak for my potential unborn children.

Back to Utah--it's yet another grenade lobbed at women in general, telling us that our lives do not matter. We are merely incubators whose only purpose in life is raising children, and we don't get a say. :nono:
I'm pretty conservative and likely wayyyy on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you...but even I think this is ridiculous.

"Prohibits a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability."

What if the "disability" is incompatible with life? They are saying you have to carry to term even if your child will die shortly thereafter? No.
AMC80, I don't think we're on opposite sides of the political spectrum at all. But yeah, this bill is essentially telling women they have no choice in the matter. It's totally ridiculous. I feel like I'm left with NO choice. I am at a point in life where I would not make the choice to terminate but a special needs baby would be a huge financial burden. That means for me my only other option is not to get pregnant again if this law goes into effect. Or move to a different state, I guess. :???: :???: :roll: Sounds fair, doesn't it?
 

Tacori E-ring

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
20,038
I actually watched a good documentary last night on late term abortions. It was interesting to hear the doctor's perspectives. They said there are only 4 doctors (at the time of shooting) that specialize in late term abortions in the US. They showed both women who chose abortions after learning that their babies had horrible and terminal conditions as well as women who for whatever reason did not get one sooner. Those women did not take care of themselves during pregnancy. On the documentary they induced labor and it was over a 3-4 day period. They do not use general anesthesia. Women flew in from all over the world. Let's not be naive...abortion will never end. If they outlaw them then women will take the matter into their own hands. What bothers me is the violence by protesters. It seems very hypocritical to me.
 

chrono

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Messages
37,365
It's a step back into the dark ages when women had to perform backstreet abortions themselves because it was illegal. It's a horrifying thought in today's modern times when we have made huge medical advances and improved sanitation.
 

Lady_Disdain

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
3,988
The new law would not apply to women who must have an abortion because their life is at risk or the fetus will not survive outside the womb.
To me, this shows that the bill is not about the fetus but about controlling access to abortion. If it were truly about protecting the fetus from pain, wouldn't these also feel pain and deserve protection? This exception points the true reason for the bill.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
33,925
Lady_Disdain|1459365433|4013266 said:
The new law would not apply to women who must have an abortion because their life is at risk or the fetus will not survive outside the womb.
To me, this shows that the bill is not about the fetus but about controlling access to abortion. If it were truly about protecting the fetus from pain, wouldn't these also feel pain and deserve protection? This exception points the true reason for the bill.

Absolutely. And this is why I don't get the people (women and the men who respect and love them) who are making excuses for this bill. It is just another attempt to control women and what they can and cannot do. Makes me furious. :nono: :nono: :nono:
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top