On Demand and Without Apology

joeymueller:

Title: New Arizona law states that pregnancy begins 2 weeks before conception.

Nope.  It doesn’t say that.

I’m a Feminist Cunt

0wliza:

I am a huge feminist. I just noticed this today during my club meeting after school. reasons why:

  • I hate when guys pay for my food (yes even friends).
  • I hate when my guy friends don’t let me pay because I’m a girl.
  • I hate it when boys say “I can’t hit you back, you’re a girl!” That’s some bullshit. If I hit you, you have the right to defend yourself.
  • It’s my body and I do what I want with it. So NO one person has the right too call me a slut, prude, whore, bitch, easy, etc. for anything I have and have not done.
  • It’s never anyone’s fault to get raped. (No matter what they say. No means NO.)
  • I believe that as my right, as a women, I should be allowed to have an abortion. (That is if I choose to in the situation)
  •  hate it when guys take off their sweaters for you. Like I understand ONCE or twice. (I wouldn’t have appreciated it if I had to take my coat off because my boyfriend was freezing.)

Anyway, the reason why I bring this up is because Arizona I’m currently pregnant right now as we speak. If you read this you will see why this angered me. This basically states that my menstrual cycle is my body “self-aborting” the fetus. Clearly they are one of the most closed minded right winged republicans ever. This, making the time for a woman’s illegibility to get an abortion shorter. They deny my rights as a woman! Also, another thing they came up with is that a rape baby isn’t considered a “Rape” baby. They stated that my body would CHOSE or not to keep the fetus. Things like this really do offend me and this will be one of the few posts of me being very “feminist”.

Hello!

It’s a bad law.  It isn’t well-written, and it restricts abortion rights down to 18 weeks.

What it doesn’t do is say that you’re pregnant.  In fact, it specifically says that women are pregnant only if they are currently gestating an “unborn child” (ugh, but it’s their language, not mine).

They also don’t add those two weeks to remove eligibility.  It’s actually standard to start counting a pregnancy two weeks before fertilization.  (Look!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestational_age#Uses )

What theydois remove two weeks (from the already-too-low 20 weeks down to 18 weeks, and both of those numbers are from fertilization) based on “fetal pain” pseudoscience.

So if you want to get mad at them, I recommend you get mad at them for that reason.

iaccidentallythepatriarchy:

New Arizona legislation puts women in a state of perpetual pregnancy

So I really love fuckyeahabortions, and I’ve been following this LMP drama, but I don’t quite get it. Now I’ll admit I had no idea that LMP dating was thing before, but now that I’ve read what fuckyeahabortions has to say about it (they’re supposed to be a medical professional), I think I understand why LMP itself is not a big deal. But on the other hand, LMP in medicine and LMP in this law, are two different creatures, or so it seems to me.

fuckyeahabortions:

byebye-symphony:

I just. Can’t. Even. Begin.

Shit like this makes me so angry. If an NC law passed like this, I’d take out whoever was responsible for it. 

(redacted -FYA)

No!

It isn’t new, and it didn’t do that!  It was a law that restricted the gestational age at which people could abort a fetus (and that bit was bad), and then it had ONE LINE that clarified that it was using LMP dating.

From what I understand, and please correct me if I’m wrong, the reason people were upset at the use of LMP is not simply because it’s adding “2 weeks onto pregnancy”, but because it’s adding 2 weeks onto gestational age of the fetus and therefore limiting the amount of time a person can get a legal abortion. 

It does add two weeks, but we’ve already been doing it all along!  Roe v. Wade used LMP dating. Everythinguses LMP dating.

Look at this Wikipedia article!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

See how, on the line showing “weeks,” conception happens at two weeks?  Wikipedia isn’t saying people are pregnant before conception.

As you pointed out in another post, LMP dating was even the basis for understanding abortion access as outlined in Roe v. Wade. The fact that LMP itself is being used isn’t objectionable, it’s how it’s being used this time. The way that the Arizona law functions is that you can’t get an abortion passed 18 weeks, when it was 20 weeks before. If they were simply enshrining in law the use of LMP  and not limiting the amount of time a person could get an abortion it wouldn’t be a big deal. But because of how the law in total would be enforced it treats all pregnant people looking to get an abortion as being pregnant before they were. 

When the previous law referred to gestational age, it was also referring to LMP.  Here, have some Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestational_age

In human obstetrics, gestational age is often defined as the time elapsed since 14 days prior to fertilization.

LMP (last menstrual period) dating is a holdover from when the best guess of when a person got pregnant was when they stopped menstruating.  Now we use ultrasounds to get the gestational age, but then we add two weeks to it so it lines up with ideal LMP dating, because otherwise we’d have to rewrite all of our textbooks.

This seems like a really odd defense of LMP. I’ve seen your previous posts about it, and from what I understand LMP is an old way of calculating gestational age. It seems like it’s dated and that it’s use by the medicine isn’t really necessary thanks to ultrasounds. So why is it wrong for people to be annoyed or upset about it? It’s dated, it’s use has can be replaced with new technology, and now it’s being used by anti-choicers to restrict access to legal abortion. So…what is it still doing here?

Itisn’tbeing used by anti-choicers to restrict access to legal abortion, because all discussion of gestational age already started two weeks before fertilization.

It could be argued that, on a broad scale, it does restrict access, because people here, “eighteen weeks?  That’splentyof time,” and don’t know the truth.  So, sure, go ahead and change it, but that hasnothingto do with Arizona.

Also about textbooks: you were a med student, I’m sure you’ve spent 10 times your weight in textbooks alone. Textbooks get re-written all the time; new editions come out regularly. Textbooks only need about 10-15% new information for a new edition to be released, a change that barely makes a difference in most classes, which is why many professors will allow students to use previous editions. I don’t understand why it would be so terrible to update those textbooks, and phase out LMP dating?

"rewrite the textbooks" was a bit glib.  It’d be more like… getting Fahrenheit to shift by two degrees, so water froze at 30.

So please, complain about the actually-bad stuff in this law!

The way that LMP is being used in this law actually is bad though? From what I understand from your other posts, LMP by itself is commonly used, and not a big deal—it’s just a way of describing gestational age. But with this law it’s being used as a political weapon to limit access to abortion. I don’t understand how, considering the way that LMP is being used in this law, it’s not part of the “actually-bad stuff”. 

It isn’t being used to limit access to abortion.  If they were dating from fertilization, they would be saying sixteen weeks.

Though the asks you received were really offensive, one of them did make a good point in saying “from a pro-life POV it would be a GREAT legislation!”. They’re right.  Anti-choicers love this law, and love this use of LMP, and it’s not because it’s already used in medicine—it’s because this law convolutes the meaning and purpose of that medical terminology to use against people. So why defend it in this context?

All previous laws relating to the duration of pregnancy also dated from fourteen days before conception!  Roe v. Wade does so!  This law doesn’t use LMP to remove two weeks, it uses fetal-pain pseudoscience!

I am defending the law in this context because I want to advance the discussion, and when the people on my side are making flawed points like, “now, in Arizona, you’re pregnant before fertilization!” then I want to correct them.

byebye-symphony:

I just. Can’t. Even. Begin.

Shit like this makes me so angry. If an NC law passed like this, I’d take out whoever was responsible for it. 

(redacted -FYA)

No!

It isn’t new, and it didn’t do that!  It was a law that restricted the gestational age at which people could abort a fetus (and that bit was bad), and then it had ONE LINE that clarified that it was using LMP dating.

LMP (last menstrual period) dating is a holdover from when the best guess of when a person got pregnant was when they stopped menstruating.  Now we use ultrasounds to get the gestational age, but then we add two weeks to it so it lines up with ideal LMP dating, because otherwise we’d have to rewrite all of our textbooks.

So please, complain about the actually-bad stuff in this law!

learning-how-to-fall:

fuckyeahabortions:

learning-how-to-fall:

So the law in Arizona is now that you’re pregnant 2 weeks before conception…

Jesus Christ, how the hell am I supposed to believe in you if you render humanity take such… for the lack of a better word, shitty actions!

Technically, every woman in Arizona can be pregnant now since you never know…

NO!  Everybody is misreading the law!

It is a terrible law, but all that line does is say that pregnancy is measured using LMP dating.

LMP dating is standard!  It’s a holdover from when there were no ultrasounds to measure the embryo to determine gestational age, so one had to go with the last menstrual period.  Now we measure the embryo to determine true gestational age, then add two weeks to approximate LMP dating.  It’s completely normal!

Get mad at all the other stuff about that law, please.

Yes, however, studies showed LMP really inaccurate when compared to ultrasound so it should not be dragged as an excuse to reduce a woman’s time to decide on abortion. As you said, it’s a holdover from the time before ultrasounds. While many doctors still use it, I do believe that more accurate forms should be accounted for when considering such laws. But that’s just my opinion and not everyone should agree with it.

We’ve had a miscommunication.

The law doesn’t say “from the first day of the LMP,” it says “two weeks before conception.”

Dating from two weeks before conception is often called “LMP dating,” but mostly it isn’t called anything, because it’s the default.  If there’s sufficient prenatal care, it is as accurate as ultrasound dating, because it is obtained by ultrasound.

i.e., “seven weeks pregnant by six-week u/s” means that a person had an ultrasound a week ago that showed they had been pregnant for four weeks.  Why add two weeks?  Because it’s LMP dating.

If it were actually by LMP (say we don’t have access to an ultrasound, we just have amenorrhea and a positive beta-hcg), it would say, “seven weeks pregnant by LMP.”

Both methods use LMP dating, but only one used the LMP.  Does that make sense?  Using LMP to date a pregnancy is imprecise, but using “LMP dating” is just inaccurate (by two weeks).  But it’s an inaccuracy we’re used to, so we keep it.

What makes it worse is that there’s no word to precisely describe dating pregnancy from conception, since “gestational age” gets used both for LMP dating and for “true” dating.  Doctors use GA to mean LMP dating, and embryologists use GA to mean “true” dating.  Heck, even “true” GA starts before you’re pregnant, because GA starts at conception and pregnancy starts at implantation.

Isn’t it a mess?  The law was just being specific about which one it was using.  It wasn’t using it as an excuse to remove two weeks of choice, either.  It used “fetal pain at twenty weeks*” as an excuse to remove four weeks.  That’s the bit that’s stupid.  That’s the bit to get angry about.

*and that’s twenty weeks by LMP dating, according to the pseudoscientists behind fetal pain.

…does that clear things up?

EDIT: I apologize; either my memory didn’t serve or the law has been edited since I saw it, long ago, and what it does now say is ambiguous about LMP dating by u/s or actually dating by LMP.  But it also has a line about letting the physician make a reasonable determination of gestational age.  The point is, that’s really not the problem.

learning-how-to-fall:

So the law in Arizona is now that you’re pregnant 2 weeks before conception…

Jesus Christ, how the hell am I supposed to believe in you if you render humanity take such… for the lack of a better word, shitty actions!

Technically, every woman in Arizona can be pregnant now since you never know…

NO!  Everybody is misreading the law!

It is a terrible law, but all that line does is say that pregnancy is measured using LMP dating.

LMP dating is standard!  It’s a holdover from when there were no ultrasounds to measure the embryo to determine gestational age, so one had to go with the last menstrual period.  Now we measure the embryo to determine true gestational age, then add two weeks to approximate LMP dating.  It’s completely normal!

Get mad at all the other stuff about that law, please.

Hey! About the Arizona thing, isn't the dating usually done from the last day of the pregnant person's LMP and the bill is proposing that it be done from the first day of the LMP?
Anonymous

Nope!  First day of LMP is typical.  It’s also a lot more meaningful biologically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestational_age

btw, the only people who use fertilization as a date are embryologists (who are working across species and who don’t really care about what happens before fertilization) and anti-choicers (who want to call a 10-week fetus an 8-week embryo in order to exaggerate development).

titsburgh:

… aaand you have got to be fucking kidding me

Okay, so I have generally dropped out of contributing because I have too much work, but this is popping up all over the place and I have to be clear about this, so I picked one of the dozen posts about this at random to reblog.

The Arizona bill DOES NOT declare that an embryo’s life begins two weeks before conception.

The Arizona bill is like, “20-week limit because of fetal pain hurr durr” (see RCOG paper on why this isn’t valid, which I seem to link to all the time).

Then, they’re like, “and btw we’re using LMP (last menstrual period) dating, just like everybody else.”

EVERYBODY uses LMP dating.  Abortionists use it!  It’s a holdover from when it was the best way to date a pregnancy.  There’s ultrasound dating now, but even then we add two weeks to make it line up with LMP dating (for the Platonic Woman who has an exact twenty-eight-day cycles and ovulates right in the middle of it).

The Arizona law does not touch the issue of “when life begins.”  It’s just part of the national move to push back abortion rights, little by little.

So they’re idiots, and there’s a lot of reason to criticize the law, but this pre-sex pregnancy mumbo-jumbo is NOT one of them.

So here’s an interesting bill.  It is described as a bill that would let doctors let pregnant women die.  While those bills do exist, and are terrible, this isn’t one of them.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1.  Title 12, chapter 6, article 12, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 12-718, to read:

12-718.  Civil liability; wrongful birth, life or conception claims; application

A.  A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR WRONGFUL BIRTH BASED ON A CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, A CHILD OR CHILDREN WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.

B.  A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR WRONGFUL LIFE BASED ON A CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, THE PERSON BRINGING THE ACTION WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.

C.  THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY CLAIM REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CHILD IS BORN HEALTHY OR WITH A BIRTH DEFECT OR OTHER ADVERSE MEDICAL CONDITION.

D.  THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR AN INTENTIONAL OR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, INCLUDING AN ACT OR OMISSION THAT VIOLATES A CRIMINAL LAW.

Of course, I know that this bill is part of the “War on Women,” or more accurately the “War on Reproductive Rights.”  Or, still more accurately, “War on Reproductive Lefts.”  I know that its only possible outcome is for bad doctors to withhold information from their patients with impunity.  It’s foolish of me to hope for what I hope for.

But what I hope for is that this moves the conversation forward.

"No, your honor," the prosecution will say, "I’m not suing because Billy was born.  I’m suing because, before Billy existed, I was not given a choice on whether or not to continue my pregnancy.  I was given a choice on whether or not to continue a fictional pregnancy, for another fetus.  I was given information to prepare for the birth of another child.  With ignorance there is no autonomy, and I’m suing because I was denied my own bodily autonomy."