National Organization for Women ISSUE ADVISORY: 20-week Abortion Ban is Deceptive, Irresponsible and Dangerous

As a show of the growing strength of anti-abortion forces in Congress and indicating a total disregard of women’s reproductive health and rights, Republican House leaders have scheduled a vote on a 20-week abortion ban bill for Thursday, the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. The bill, misleadingly entitled “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” (H.R. 36), is sponsored by Reps. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) with 158 co-sponsors, and would prohibit abortions after the 20th week of gestation, arguing that fetuses feel pain at that point – an assertion that is not supported by scientific research findings, according to American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
A ban on abortion care at 20 weeks and after, according to NOW Action Vice President Bonnie Grabenhofer, is “mean-spirited, deceptive and – most importantly — unconstitutional. It reveals the arrogance of legislators who oppose abortion rights and believe that they can practice medicine.“

Ban Increases Risks to Women and their Doctors
H.R. 36 is also irresponsible and dangerous – destined to risk women’s health and lives, while criminalizing a safe medical procedure. Provisions in H.R. 36 require doctors to make a life or death determination in some instances and, possibly, to face imprisonment for up to five years if anyone successfully challenges their decision in court.
An identical bill was passed by the GOP-controlled House in 2013 on a near party-line vote, 222 to 196. Given the increased Republican majority in the House (now 246 to 188, one vacancy), H.R. 36 will be approved, but it will have to overcome a 60-vote filibuster barrier in the Senate. Nonetheless, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he will bring a 20-week ban bill to a floor vote.
On Tuesday, the administration issued a statement in opposition to H.R. 36, stating “Not only is the basis for H.R. 36 scientifically disputed, the bill disregards women’s health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients’ health care decisions, and the Constitution.” Calling the bill “a direct challenge to the Supreme Court’s holdings on abortion,” the statement indicated that senior advisors would recommend that he veto the measure.
Abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy are rare, accounting for only about 1.5 percent of the total number of abortions performed annually.
The 20-week ban is clearly unconstitutional as it prohibits abortion before fetal viability – the point in gestational time when both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey say that women have a right to end a pregnancy and beyond that point may terminate a pregnancy for preserving the women’s health and life. The 20-week ban is a cruel example of the extent to which opponents of women’s reproductive rights are willing to use their political power to undermine safe and legal medical practice, risk women’s health and lives, impose significant burdens on families as well as on health care providers and cause immeasurable suffering.
H.R. 36 requires physicians to determine the “probable” post-fertilization age of the fetus by performing a medical examination of the woman or relying on the determination made by another physician. Provisions in the legislation state that if an abortion is performed post 20 weeks, a physician is required to conduct the procedure in a manner intended to preserve the life of the fetus “unless that manner would pose a greater risk than other methods would pose for the death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”

Exceptions to Ban are Inadequate
Especially impacted by the ban are pregnant women who are diagnosed with a serious health problem or a life-threatening condition which, under Roe, would override any prohibition on abortion. The bill’s definition of a serious health condition is inadequate from a sound medical practice perspective. (There isn’t one. The definition of what constitutes a threat to life is prescribed in such extreme terms that the woman would need to be very close to death. At the same time, physicians would be placed in a very difficult position in determining whether to deliver a live fetus (this is given priority in the bill) or to preserve the woman’s health or life.
This means that in dire situations that would likely qualify for an exception to the ban, health care providers could only provide life-saving care after establishing that the woman would die or suffer life-threatening injuries if the pregnancy termination was not immediately undertaken. A very real possibility would be that the decision to take action would come too late and the woman would die or suffer a major impairment to her health.
No health conditions (including mental illness) are allowed for exclusion to the ban in direct violation of Roe. Every woman’s situation in needing an abortion is different and the absence under H.R. 36 of consideration for a serious health condition or for a mental illness is callous and irresponsible.
Equally harmed will be women who learn that they are carrying a fetus with a severe defect which would doom its’ chances of surviving after birth or would result in living with severe physical or mental limitations. Many fetal abnormalities are not diagnosed until after the 20th week. Thus women who have a fetus with a condition of anencephaly (absence of a brain), for instance, would be required to carry the pregnancy to term and to care for a severely disabled infant until it dies.
In addition, H.R. 36 will force women who have become pregnant due to rape or incest to carry their pregnancies to full term — if they have not reported the incident to authorities. The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, found in a review of data from 1994 to 2010 that only 35 percent of victims report the rape to the police. Frequently, survivors of sexual assault feel shame and do not wish to come forward, while others do not report because they believe that the justice system will not help them. Incest victims who are mostly very young women often fear retribution from the perpetrators for reporting the crime; although H.R 36 does exempt minors. But again, the exception is inadequate.

No Credible Evidence of Fetal Pain at that Stage
The supposed rationale for a 20-week ban rests on abortion rights opponents’ assertion that fetuses feel pain. Yet, fetuses do not have the neurological development that is necessary to register a response and to potentially recognize an experience as pain until at least 24 weeks and most likely much later. Abortions after 20 weeks are rare; 98.5 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute, who also reports that the number of induced abortions continues to decline, with 1.6 million performed in 2011 and down 13 percent from 2008. At least half of all U.S. women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45 and three in ten women by age 45 will have had an abortion, Guttmacher reports.
Dr. Mark Rosen, a pioneer in fetal anesthesia, who conducted a review of numerous studies, concluded that fetal pain perception was not likely before the third trimester, beginning at 27 weeks. Dr. Rosen wrote that pain sensation required neural connections into the cortex – which begins to emerge in about the 23rd week and is not functionally developed until the 26th week or later and then continues developing after birth. Dr. Rosen’s analysis appears in a 2005 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
A review panel of Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2010 concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to 24 weeks, noting that most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2012 agreed and commented that studies cited by fetal-pain law supporters were not persuasive “when weighed together with other available information,” according to a Sept. 16, 2013 article in the New York Times.
The stage of development when a fetus can survive outside the uterus without artificial aid can be determined sometime between 23 and 27 weeks. Most physicians define age of viability at 24 weeks; fetuses delivered at 21 weeks or less have a 0 percent chance of surviving while most do not survive until 25 – 26 weeks. But they then require skilled care, months of hospitalization and result in significant financial costs to families, hospitals and insurers. In addition, premature infants often have life-long developmental deficits and other health challenges.
Roe set a dividing line for viability at 28 weeks or seven months which was – and still is — recognized as a gestational development stage which offers a 90 percent chance of survival for fetuses. As technology advanced and fetal survival chances improved at earlier gestational points, the decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) modified the Roe dividing line by permitting states to draw that line earlier depending upon technological developments. Since then abortion rights opponents have been pushing for abortion bans in the states far earlier than the 28 week line, one even at six weeks – prior to the time when many women do not realize they are pregnant!

Misleading through Biased Polling
Engaging in the same sort of dissembling that they have proven so adept at, Republican leaders say that they have a “winner” in the 20-week abortion ban issue, and point to a poll (Quinnipiac University, 2013) which found 60 percent of respondents in support of the ban. Of course, most people – and certainly the Quinnipiac poll subjects – are not aware of when fetal viability usually occurs, nor do they understand the consequences of banning abortions before viability.
Respondents in another national poll of more than 1,000 registered voters and conducted by Planned Parenthood in 2014 found that 60 percent support access to abortion at 20 weeks, with 33 percent opposed. Unlike the abortion rights opponents’ advocacy poll by Quinnipiac, respondents in this poll were asked about the specific circumstances in which women should and should not be permitted to terminate a pregnancy after the 20th week. Once respondents learned of the possible complications in pregnancy that could arise after the 20th week, an overwhelmingly majority opposed the ban.

Abortion Rights Opponents Want to Ban Abortion Before Viability
Abortion rights opponents are becoming ever more extreme in their rhetoric, promoting fallacious theories and relying on inflammatory lies to build support for restrictive legislation. The 20-week ban is one more calculated step to both limit access and to ultimately present the conservative, anti-abortion rights majority on the U.S. Supreme Court with a case they could possibly win. Their chosen path is to challenge the rule that states do not have the power to ban abortion prior to fetal viability.
As always, women and their families will suffer.

Larry Wilmore: Bill Cosby Did It

Jay Hathaway
Today 11:30am

Larry Wilmore: Bill Cosby Did It
On the second episode of The Nightly Show, Larry Wilmore used his new platform to address the numerous sexual assault accusations against Bill Cosby. Did he do it? Yes, says Wilmore, that motherfucker did it, and the proof is common sense.

In his opening monologue, Wilmore pointed out that Cosby now faces allegations from 35 women, “which is like if Bill Cosby drugged and raped every U.S. President from George Washington to John. F Kennedy.” Miss Stephen Colbert if you want, but Wilmore probably does a better impression of Bill Cosby preparing to sexually assault Grover Cleveland during his second nonconsecutive term.

Seriously, though, Wilmore is asking the right question about the Cosby situation: Why don’t people believe these women?

Here’s how the Nightly Show’s panel answered it:

[h/t Comedy Central]

Walmart stores see an increase in shootings for at least the third year in a row

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Shootings at Walmart stores have increased for at least the third year in a row.

Here at the Walmart Shootings blog, I have dutifully chronicled every media report of gun crimes committed at Walmart properties. In 2014, there were at least 92 shooting incidents, leaving 16 people dead and 42 injured. This is up from 2013, where there were 83 shootings, leaving 24 killed and 42 injured — an increase of over 10%. In 2012, there were “only” 53 shootings.

There are entire countries that have fewer shootings than just Walmart stores in America!

Of course, these represent only those shooting incidents which were reported to the police, then reported by the media in a way that it was caught by Google Alerts or to friends who alerted me. Likely there were some that slipped through.

See the graph, to the right, which shows the shooting reports in a cumulative fashion over the course of all three years.
walmart shooting totals by 12-14

But there were also plenty of gun crimes where shots weren’t fired. There were 78 armed robberies and shopliftings by gunmen at Walmart properties. Gunmen threatened shoppers and employees with guns, carjacked shoppers, and had accidents with their guns.

Walmart remains the largest retail seller of civilian guns in the world. But in at least 19 incidents this year, guns were stolen from their display cases at Walmart stores, including assault rifles, like this case in Memphis were nine assault rifles were stolen, or this case in Tennessee where six assault rifles and another gun were stolen.

Walmart continues to allow customers to carry concealed or openly-displayed guns in their stores. Does this make customers and employees safer? Not at all. In 2014, people with conceal carry permits caused 11 incidents, including many shootings of themselves and others, including the most recent case of a very pro-gun mother who allowed her two year old to get into her special gun-purse and fire the unsecured weapon, killing the mother in front of the toddler and three of her other children.

There were four cases ruled as self-defense at Walmart stores. But before the gun guys jump on these as evidence of making us “safer,” consider that one of these cases was during an illegal drug sale. Another was by a man who got into an argument and shot the unarmed victim as he walked to the car, fearing that the other man was going for a gun. He got off by using Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which only requires a person to claim they were afraid. In a third case, the victim was also unarmed, and the two men had gotten into a fight, and the shooter had continued the confrontation prior to shooting the other man. Only one case involved a man who was simply minding his own business and shot at an armed robber, after the robber was fleeing.

And it’s not just Walmart shoppers who are endangered, threatened, and killed by gunmen at their stores. Walmart employees have been the victims of incidents in at least 14 incidents in 2014, plus many other robberies. In at least three incidents, Walmart employees were the suspects in shootings!

Where are Walmart’s priorities? Is it gun sales? Or is it the protection of their shoppers and employees? Clearly, they aren’t interested in the safety of those who are in their stores!

Walmart bans all sorts of things in their stores that they deem “dangerous,” including pregnant Barbie dolls, CDs with unwanted lyrics, and various books. They stopped allowing paring knives in their bakeries after a single incident. This Christmas, they even kicked out some high schoolers who were caroling in the store! But Walmart has no problem continuing to sell guns, including five different models of assault rifles, and allowing people to carry guns through their stores.

Perhaps thinking about all of this, one sensitive Walmart employee refused to process a wedding photo for a couple posing with their shotgun. Oh, never mind…. A Walmart spokesman quickly told media that the employee had been “misinformed.”

With so many shootings and other gun crimes at their stores, it’s not surprising they are trying to hide it from stockholders, refusing to bring up the issue in any official manner or at stockholder meetings. We wouldn’t want to allow blood on the store floors to distract from gun profits, would we? Little wonder, then, that a major stockholder had to sue Walmart for the right to bring up the gun issue at stockholder meetings. If the deaths of shoppers and employees aren’t enough to convince the Waltons to change their pro-gun policies, perhaps money will?

This is why Walmart’s motto “Save money. Live better” isn’t appropriate. Instead, it should be…..

Walmart. Save money. Die faster.

Posted by Baldr Odinson at 12:28 AM