Abortion Fetus Pain Bill Passed in Wis.

[Eugene]

Abortion Fetus Pain Bill Passed in Wis.


Wednesday November 9, 2005 9:46 AM

By JR ROSS

Associated Press Writer

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Doctors would have to tell women seeking
abortions in their 20th week of pregnancy or later that their fetuses
might feel pain - an assertion debated in the medical community -
under a bill passed by Wisconsin lawmakers.

Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, promised to veto the legislation, which
the Assembly passed 61-34 Tuesday and the Senate passed earlier.

"Medical decisions should be made by you and your doctor, not you,
your doctor and the Legislature," said Doyle spokesman Dan Leistikow.

Women seeking abortions in Wisconsin must receive information on
alternatives to ending their pregnancies and must wait 24 hours after
a counseling session to have the procedure.

<snip>

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5402629,00.html

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Aside from the fact this is hardly accepted in the scientific community

we have a huge variety of painkillers to add to the procedure.

Is this just another giveaway to big pharma?

[shenmue]

2. How do they know?

Did they, um, ask the fetus?

[ClintonTyree]

3. The intelligent designer told them so.

That's all I can figure.

[superconnected]

37. the movie silent scream.

I'm pro choice btw.

I wrote pro-abortion, but had second thoughts about what could end up in my inbox.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Chemicals released in pain responses can be measured

Edited for grammar and readability.

Doctors used to be certain the newborns couldn't feel pain, so they would do major surgery on them with nothing more than a muscle paralyzing agent like tubocurarine. Then around 1980, Anand and Hickey, two neonatologists, pretty much proved that newborns had even stronger pain responses than adults. The field of pediatric medicine changed overnight.

I'm pro-choice, but this is an issue that the anti-choicers use to win in tight voted; the procedure is hardly benign for the fetus. I'd be quite happy if an anesthetic was used that would make the procedure more comfortable for the mother, and render the fetus insensate.

But also keep in mind that "first trimester" abortion is done to an embryo, which has no developed nerve cells. The term "fetus" can apply to any pre-born from the second or third trimester. That period emcompasses a LOT of developmental change. And most abortions are (IIRC) first-trimester procedures.

There's always room for improvement in medicine. Democratic and pro-choice candidates can support fetal anesthesia as a political issue and take much of the wind out of the anti-choicers' sails. It is well worth looking at as a pro-choice argument.

--p!

[papau]

9. Excellent Info - I hope the leaders of our party are listening

:-)

[jbnow]

10. I agree that is worth considering

It would be a concern for me if I had to have an abortion later in pregnancy.

It was only 1980 they knew newborns felt pain? Why would they even assume they didn't feel pain? What age did they think pain did start to be felt?
I knew they use to do circumcisions without regional anesthesia (have they stopped that?) I had no idea they would do major surgery that way. What a horrible introduction to life even if not consciously remembered.

My sister learned through amniocentesis that her child had severe deformities and she decided to terminate. She was concerned about pain for the fetus. The doctor agreed it was possible by midterm and offered the option of anesthesia which she took. It helped her at the very least.

I don't know what they have proved about when pain starts but if there is any validity to the 20 week claim who would want to ignore that? I know there are few abortions that happen that late. It must be so very hard to have to choose abortion after that time, when you've felt the kicks and hiccups, when you have felt that connection. I suspect the pregnant women would want some anesthesia if they thought the fetus would feel pain.

[lumpy]

43. It is that common that fetus'

are aborted at 5 months in their development?

[Beaverhausen]

44. very rare...and it is generally done to save the life of the mother or...

...if the fetus is found to be severely deformed or have birth defects.

[ErisFiveFingers]

11. Does a non-sentient entity feel pain?

An amputated leg feels pain, but it has no mind to process such.

[alphadog]

30. Your argument

I don't think your argument has much merit past the 20th week of pregnancy, which is when this law kicks in.

[Solon]

47. Actually that is technically incorrect...

Once the leg is amputated, it is separated from the central nervous system and spinal cord, the remaining person feels, I imagine, excrusiating pain, but only at the point where the amputation has occured. The leg may spasm a little, due to its remaining nerves misfiring, but without any direction from the brain or spinal cord. Think of it like this, I knew a guy with damaged nerves, actually I have a pinched nerve, but mine increases sensitivity to tactile touch, his killed it. The nerves worked at the point of orgin, like if the skin was pricked, the proper chemicals are released to tell the brain that the skin was pricked, the problems was that the nerves in between the brain and skin nerves was damaged, it affected the sense of pain, he doesn't feel any at that part of the body. Think of stroke or people with cut or damaged spinal cords.

[ErisFiveFingers]

51. My point:

It is a question of whether or not a fetus *feels pain*, or *potentially has a chemical reaction which would equate to pain in a sentient being*.

The pro-life-until-birth side will likely argue that as soon as the chemical reactions *can* occur, pain is occuring, but how are they measuring this? If the brain of the foetus isn't sufficiently developed to understand pain, how can it "feel" it?

Looking at the physical evidence, it takes until month seven to have the "senses" wired up enough to be reasonably functional, as it hits it's peak of neural development, so it's questionable if at months 4-5 a fetus can actually "feel" anything.

FTA:
"Doctors would have to say the fetuses have the physical structures necessary to experience pain and that abortions can cause substantial pain to a fetus."

I think the weasel wording is in there to imply that pain can be felt ("physical structures necessary"), while completely ignoring that "feeling pain" requires something which is capable of actually *feeing* things. Sure, at 20 weeks a fetus has a brain, spinal cord, nerve activity, but can it actually feel? Or does it merely have the "physical structures necessary" to generate "chemical reactions"?

[Solon]

54. Heh, in agreement then...

I know that the fetus at 20 weeks has the necessary structures, but that doesn't mean much when all have to be wired together to be able for the experience of pain to be felt. The human body is a complex system, and in order for it to work at all requires its various systems to work together, that should be the crux of the argument. I hate when medical or scientific findings are misconstrued by laymen myself, I have low tolerance for stupidity.

[hippiechick]

14. Could be risky ...

.... by admitting that any kind of fetal anasthesia could be necessary, that's pretty much admitting that it's a 'human' and plays right into the WingNuts hands that abortion = murder.

JMHO ~

[Dogmudgeon]

18. You're right. It's a "line drawing" exercise. But who gets to draw?

Very few of us would underplay the gravity of abortion, but that's not really a point of dispute. The anti-choicers have long portrayed us as callous murderers who advocate the casual use of abortion services in lieu of "self-control"; and, of course, they prefer to think that they're sinless, but that pro-choice women are all slutty atheists. Which is their Big Lie (one of them, anyway). So I think it's a good thing if WE drew the lines.

One of those lines is how and when "human" starts. The anti-choicers like their rules in black and white and their lines drawn without exception, but scientific research proves that we really can't do that if we would be honest. Life has its own rules, and all the politicking and religionizing in the world won't change it. Their position is superstition; we rely on scientific evidence AND we adovcate anesthesia to make certain that no possible mistake is made.

Another point I've never heard being made politically, but which physicians and scientists are aware of, is that human life doesn't begin at conception, it begins before conception. Using conception as the beginning also requires a superstitious belief that conception is a magical event. You really have to track back to spermatogenesis and oogenesis -- but then it ascribes magic to haploid (half-chromosome) cells. The Catholic Church's notorious ban on masturbation is similarly wrongheaded. Cells are cells; as amazing as cells are, they are not "human" in the same way an impoverished 15-year-old pregnant rape victim with abusive, religiomanic parents is.

The only scientific point of view is that human life is continuous, and that such things as the surgical removal of tissue or the termination of embryos may be a sad situation, but if it is necessary, it certainly isn't "sinful".

There are several avenues for us to regain control of the moral high ground in the reproduction debate. We need not reject the idea that human life can exist in the womb. But by rejecting magical thinking and superstition, we may not only win the debate, but we may help women think about these issues with less guilt and more spiritual insight. Fundamentalism has savaged spiritual, ethical, and moral discourse in huge swaths of the human experience; it's time to reclaim them.

Of course, I'm sure I've missed some points here, but I think that it's important for us to at least start to reframe the issue in ways that do not require submission to superstition, or the victimization of women. The religious/political ownership of women's reproductive rights is illegitimate; they were stolen by both fraud and force, and it's right and proper for women to take those rights back.

--p!

[sybylla]

20. Who gets to draw that line is the medical community.

We're lucky if the people elected to the legislature have a clue about managing government. No way in hell should they be getting between a doctor and the latest science.

[rodeodance]

4. our Legislature has been overun by RW's last few years. WI is going

downhill fast.

[saigon68]

17. YOU ARE RIGHT THERE

UP WHERE I LIVE, THE BISHOP AND RIGHT WING FUNDY NUTCASES DETERMINE WHICH REPUKE RUNS AND WINS

OUR CONGRESSCRIMINAL GREEN IS 3RD ON DELAY'S PAYOFF LIST FOR $$$$


sorry for the caps

[rodeodance]

5. and the Brits are watching us.

[rodeodance]

6. this measue is harassment of women in a time when they need support.

[rodeodance]

7. thank goodness Doyle has a veto pen.

[hogwyld]

39. But the legislature

Is pretty much able to override the veto. Looks like they're right at that magical 2/3 majority. Let's hope reason wins the day.

[htuttle]

41. They haven't been able to do that yet

Doyle's had to veto well over a dozen 'wacko' (to quote Michael Scanlon) bills like this, and they haven't overridden one yet, as far as I can recall.

[leesa]

12. I am so sorry for Wisconsin...they used to have a brain.

Do the doctors also have to tell them that Santa Claus MIGHT exist and the Easter Bunny MIGHT lay Easter eggs?

[Zynx]

15. Problem is that the Repukes got a firm hold on the legislature.

I'm still not sure how it happened.

[sybylla]

25. I've come to believe the media is the culprit, Zynx

We used to have one in every major city - a news outlet that actually reported news, reported on the crap that goes on in Madison and Washington DC.

Not any more. It's all car accidents and weather and burning homes and weather and puff pieces and weather and football scores - crap that will rot your brain just looking at it.

And the newspapers are the same. My county has five weeklies, no dailies. Only one of them is brave enough to address political issues and then only when they've done something so stupid in Madison it can't be avoided. The closest dailies are either Gannett owned or even more conservative.

As for radio, people are starting to turn away from NPR and the rest of them are being consumed, if they haven't already, by the likes of Clear Channel or have gone to buying their programming from some national syndicate.

The only people who know what's going on upstate from Madison are those few of us who are willing to give up a fair amount of free time to seek the information on our own. The rest get their info from campaign ads, their favorite groups like the NRA and the rumor mill.

It shouldn't be a surprise that pukes have won so many seats outstate. There's nothing to counter their BS.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. If this isn't vetoed

(where's the Governor on this one?), it's for sure Supreme Court material.

There is SO much wrong with this.

[badgervan]

21. Veto Power

So far, Gov. Doyle, a dem, has been using his veto power to keep the whacky right in check. If congressman/delay pal Mark Green wins the governor's race next year, then we are in deep trouble.
Although Wisconsin is now somewhat to the right legislatively, there is a lot of work being done behind the scenes to keep things from getting too far out of hand. I believe that the bush/cheney/rove/delay effect will help us retire more than a few repubs next year. We have a proud history of progressive government here, toxic tommy thompson notwithstanding, and I foresee a return to more open, fair government in Wisconsin post November, 2006.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

23. Wisconsin's an interesting state

They go so far left on so many things, and then bounce back to the equally far right.

It was the home of both Les Aspin and Joe McCarthy. Really interesting.

And, welcome to DU, badgervan!!!

[goddess40]

27. and don't forget the lovely Rep. Sensenbrenner

another great Wisconsin embarrassment. But then we also have Dave Obey and Russ Feingold.

[wordpix]

16. How much pain compared to what an unwanted child goes through in

a lifetime?

[Yupster]

19. What kind of logic is that Wordpix

Of course if any of us were shot in the brain as a child we'd feel less pain than we would by living out our full lives with heartaches, illnesses, accidents and eventually death.

[wordpix]

33. it could be the fetus feels pain when aborted in trimester 2 or 3 BUT

I still support abortion for any women who wants it.

[Yupster]

35. Well I do too, but not because

he'll feel less pain if we kill him now than if we let him live his normal life.

What the heck kind of logic is that?

[alphadog]

31. You need a better argument...

With that argument, we could kill people once they're born.

[wordpix]

34. the argument really is, let women have their own choice and stop

legislating a woman's personal decision about her own body and life.

[Gregorian]

22. So drinking while pregnant should land women in jail, then?

As for pain, an abortion lasts all of several minutes. But drinking, or even other miscellaneous activities, could cause the fetus great pain fo r long periods of time. And more than just the one time that an abortion would.

So what is this all about? Because the way I see the reality of this bill, we could see a lot of mothers in jail.

[Roland99]

24. Do tumors feel pain? And why don't the doctors say "pressure"?

"You're about to feel a little pressure."



Doctors never say pain.

[barb162]

45. Tumors don't have brains. We feel pain because of our

brains and nerve connections. This is a very intriguing argument and BTW I am long time pro-choice. I think I have to agree with another poster here who mentions even if the fetus does suffer pain the woman still has the right to end the pregnancy

[Roland99]

49. I guess by 20 weeks a brain has formed and a nervous system exists?

I must admit I don't know (or remember) much about fetal developmental milestones.

[barb162]

50. Neither do I. But I am flummoxed by this argument; it's hard

to know how to fight it. On the one hand there is no real consciousness in the womb so can it feel pain or does it matter if the fetus feels pain or is there some consciousness that none of us can remember or, or, or.

[ErisFiveFingers]

53. I think it's a "quickening" argument...

.. most likely.

http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm

Around that time, the fetus starts to react to stimulis with movement. They're equating limited reaction and reflex with sentience... Brought to you by the mindset that also thought Schiavo was "alive" and "feeling" things.

[kestrel91316]

26. I am opposed to this unless it's one of those rare abortions done

after the point of theoretical viability.

How would one anesthetise the fetus without doing same to the mother?? Or vise versa?? Doesn't she normally HAVE anesthesia for a late abortion??

[Megahurtz]

28. Are they also going to tell them that

their baby boys will feel pain when they're circumsised?

Oh that's right, they don't even tell or ask,
they just go ahead and cut away!:hurts:Ouch!

Can't have that foreskin you know! God will just think that they're unclean or something:sarcasm:
(Whacko psycho Fundie belief, not God's belief)

[saigon68]

36. Rabbi Israel Heller Certified Mohel

Rabbi Israel Heller

Certified Mohel




For infants and Adults, and can travel to remote areas.
Performs traditional ritual circumcision, as has been performed over four thousand years, without the use of painful devices (i.e. clamps or hemostat) eliminating unnecessary pain to the infant.

[phone] or

Toll Free (866)
ITS-A-BOY

To find a Mohel to perform circumcision anywhere in the world
visit

http://www.act-now.org

[uppityperson]

29. bah to a complicated issue.

Medical community debates the truth of the pain issue, why is it legistlated. Anesthesia would be good, except it sets a dangerous precedent that fetus rights > women's rights. 24 hour waiting period is stupid, don't you think that these women have thought it through already? Why should they have to wait another 24 hours to mull over debated information?

bah to restrictions on abortions.

Edited to add: circumcisions hurt babies. Anyone who tells you otherwise, or lets a baby get circumcised without anesthesia (which carries it's own risks) is wrong and sick. I have helped with them and they hurt, even though the baby doesn't remember it later.

Also, plants release chemicals when they get hurt, so we need to start anesthesizing out carrot field before "harvesting" them, and our forests before "harvesting" the trees. Plant rights!

[barb162]

32. I think this is the first time I have ever seen this angle approached

Am I correct on that?

[superconnected]

38. It struck me as new too.

Really, I, at least would think, women would want to terminate it as soon as possible if they choose too and not wait 20 weeks. Of course medical things can happen that get discovered later. Or they could change their mind.

But for most women, I doubt they'll be told about pain to the fetus.

I know when I got here there were women saying they had no problem with aborting a fetus the day before it's to be born so I'm backing out of discussion on this.

[Initech]

40. Where do they get this information from?

[Ilsa]

42. "Yes miss, the fetus you're carrying may feel pain according to some

shit-for-brains legislators who don't know diddly about human biology."

[Roland99]

55. Can we put stickers on anti-abortion brochures similar to...

the stickers the IDers put on science textbooks to note that their claims are disputed?

[area51]

46. possible pain to fetus

Gee, if the republinazis are so worried about pain to a fetus, you'd think they'd push for universal healthcare for children from birth-18 yrs. After all, if the parents are poor, that child growing up could potentially be in a lot of pain from untreated diseases.

Also, if they really gave a rat's ass about children (which they don't), they'd push for harsher punishment for child abusers.

[kwolf68]

48. 20 friggin weeks?

5 months? Yea, we're really going to look good with this non-sense.

[yellowcanine]

57. It is not a question of "looking good". It is a question of who is

following science and who isn't. It is always correct to defend science against religious zealotry, which IS what this is. Besides it is also always correct to defend the right of a doctor to give valid medical advice as opposed to religiously inspired medical advice.

[upi402]

52. Life = conception to birth

after that - you're soilent green for the well heeled crowd.

[yellowcanine]

56. I believe this would be a violation of the 1st amendment

Just as you can't inhibit speech, you also can't compel it if the speaker does not believe it to be true. A medical professional is required to inform a patient of the risks of a procedure, he/she is not, however required to inform the patient of what some legislator says are the risks. If fact it would be against medical ethics to do so. Doctors are to inform patients about real risks, not made up ones.