Pro-Choice Maryland

I should say....U.S Obstretricians changed the definition. Article ahoy!

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - For years, babies born after a pregnancy lasting 37 to 42 weeks have been considered to be on time, or "term." But a group of U.S. doctors is now separating deliveries that happen during that span in an effort to improve newborn health.

"We have increasingly recognized that newborn outcomes are not uniform between 37 and 42 weeks," Dr. Jeffrey Ecker said.

Babies delivered between 37 weeks and 39 weeks of pregnancy will now be considered "early term," according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

"Full term" infants will be those born between 39 and 41 weeks.

( More from the article )

Thoughts? Comments (I'll be leaving one)?

Texas Governor Rick Perry called the state legislature back into session July 1 to give lawmakers another chance to pass a measure that may close most of the state’s abortion clinics.

The legislation died in a special session that ended late June 25 after a Democratic senator filibustered. Republican backers forced a vote approving the measure that was later ruled invalid because it came after the midnight conclusion of the session.

“Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn,” Perry, a Republican, said in a statement yesterday.

The measure that failed would ban abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy and require that they be performed in ambulatory surgical centers by doctors with admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (50 kilometers). Most clinics would have to alter facilities to meet the requirements, which abortion-rights advocates say they can’t afford. Doctors at other clinics may struggle to win privileges.

( more )

“Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn,” Perry, a Republican, said in a statement yesterday.
Want to protect women, my cream colored ass. Some lifers seem like they want to punish women for having sex. If they really want to protect women, they would support abortion when a woman's life is threatened

House Republicans on Tuesday make their most concerted effort of the year to change federal abortion law with legislation that would ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks.

The "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," expected to pass by a comfortable margin late Tuesday, would be a direct challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortions up to the time a fetus becomes viable. Fetal viability is generally considered to be at least 24 weeks into the pregnancy.

The measure will be ignored by the Democratic-led Senate and the White House, saying the bill is "an assault on a woman's right to choose," has issued a veto threat.

( More )

If you guys didn't see it, there's a petition to tell your representives to vote against this bill in the last entry I made. Sign it even if the senate won't pass it, Obama will veto it, and your representive is pro-choice.

A jury has found abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell guilty of three counts of first-degree murder after deliberating for 10 days on the case.

Prosecutors are expected to now seek the death penalty for Gosnell.

The 72-year-old was charged with killing four premature babies by severing their spinal cords after they were born alive in his Philadelphia clinic. He was acquitted of one of those charges and convicted in three. Gosnell was also found guilty in the accidental death of a patient who died after receiving an abortion and a lethal mix of sedatives and painkillers at his clinic.

People like this guy make me sick. I may not have an issue with late term abortion, but I have an issue with one committing infantside on a born baby...let alone, three born babies. I also have an issue with him killing a woman and threatening the lives of other women by not having equiptment that's sterilized. Good riddance to bad rubbish

I got this snippet from the middle of the article. It's very long, but I think it's an interesting article even though some parts make me roll my eyes.

Last summer, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals upheld this expanded interpretation of the chemical-endangerment law, ruling that the dictionary definition of “child” includes “unborn child,” an interpretation that will be challenged when the state’s Supreme Court considers Kimbrough’s case in the coming months. But the implications of that ruling go far beyond Alabama. Critics like Ketteringham argue that Alabama’s chemical-endangerment law offers a back door into what has become known as the “fetal personhood” argument.

Personhood USA, an organization based in Colorado, was founded in 2008 by Keith Mason after he became frustrated by the mainstream anti-abortion movement’s incremental approach of restricting the availability of legal abortion. “From my perspective, I saw a movement that was largely dying or dead and had a lack of enthusiasm from younger people and from people who had been in the fight for so many years,” he told me. “Something had to change. Personhood is that rallying point, because it’s the crux of the issue.” His movement seeks to establish the fetus’s right to live as equal to that of the mother’s.

Personhood advocates regard fetal rights as a civil rights issue, and they often compare themselves to abolitionists. “I think it would be unequal protection to give the woman a pass when anyone else who injects drugs into a child would be prosecuted,” Ben DuPré, director of Personhood Alabama, said. “What it boils down to is, aren’t these little children persons?”

The goal of Personhood USA is to establish that a fully rights-endowed person is created when sperm meets egg. To that end, it has introduced initiatives and measures in legislatures in 22 states. Though none of these measures have become law, some, like Proposition 26 in Mississippi, have made it to a ballot referendum, and other measures have passed legislative chambers in North Dakota, Montana and Oklahoma. The problem with those measures, from a legal perspective, says Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, is that “there is no way to treat fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as separate constitutional persons without subtracting pregnant women from the community of constitutional persons.”

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Remember few months ago I posted about the Ohio Senate committee scheduled a fetus as a witness during upcoming abortion bill hearing in March?

Yeah, apparently they did detect a heartbeat during that hearing and now The Ohio House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks.

The Ohio House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks.

The House voted 54 to 43 for the ban, along party lines, with most Republicans voting in favor.

If enacted, the law would be a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling which upheld a woman's right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually at 22-24 weeks.

And trust me, I did a double take on this snippet:
Ohio Right to Life also has expressed concerns about the heartbeat bill. The organization said the bill is unconstitutional and believes it is not wise to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer's dollars defending it.
I would never have imagine seeing a pro-life group voicing a bill that would ban abortions after six weeks because they thought it was unconsitutional. I thought they would be celebrating this rather than be concern about it.