• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

The 'fetal heartbeat' that defines Texas' new abortion laws doesn't exist, say doctors

Business Insider
The 'fetal heartbeat' that defines Texas' new abortion laws doesn't exist, say doctors
Bethany Dawson
Sun, September 5, 2021, 8:10 AM·3 min read
Protesters hold signs at an abortion rally at the Texas State Capitol in 2019.
Protesters against abortion restrictions gathered at the Texas State Capitol on May 21, 2019. Eric Gay/AP
Texas' new draconian abortion ban is based on when a fetal heartbeat forms - at six weeks.

However, a heartbeat isn't present at 6 weeks, doctors say.

A six-week-old fetus doesn't have a cardiovascular system, the sound of the thumping is from the machine.

See more stories on Insider's business page.

Newly passed laws in Texas mean that people cannot have an abortion after six weeks - the point where a "fetal heartbeat" appears, and the point before most people know they're pregnant.

However, doctors are coming forward to say that the "fetal heartbeat" isn't a real medical point in fetal development, casting doubt on the credibility of the Fetal Heartbeat Bill.

Heartbeats in humans produce thump-thump sounds caused by the opening and closing of the heart's valves.

However, in conversation with NPR, Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN who specializes in abortion care and works at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, says that that heartbeat doesn't exist in 6-week old fetuses.

"At six weeks of gestation, those valves don't exist," she told the news site.

In fact, it takes about 9-10 weeks for these valves to form.

"The flickering that we're seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you 'hear' is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine." Dr. Verma added.
Click to expand...

So if the machine is reprogrammed to not make that artificial sound women should be good until 9 to 10 weeks anyway.
 
Maritime sovereignty extends over  Internal waters and  Territorial waters and partially over  Exclusive economic zones. Outside those zones is  International waters

Territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles (22 km, 14 mi).

1 nautical mile = 1.852 kilometers ~ 1 minute of arc projected onto the Earth's surface

Exclusive economic zones extend 200 nm (370 km, 230 mi).


Now for getting to a boat/ship in international waters. I'll add a safety factor of 50% - 18 nm, 33 km, 21 mi

One must get to the boat in some way, and a simple way to do it is in a motorboat. Hull Speed Calculation and Chart - Ron Rantilla Rowing has "hull speed" 5.2 knots (nm/h), 6.0 mph, 9.6 km/h.

"Displacement hull speed is an important indicator of how fast a displacement-type boat will go. It is the speed at which a boat begins to climb it's own bow wave, essentially going uphill."

That means that this kind of boat will take about 3.5 hours to make the trip.

Hull speed ~ sqrt(length), so it's hard to improve on that. In practice, a boat can go faster, but at the expense of more fuel consumption.

How Fast Can A Boat Go? | Get Answered Now - ShipFever The maximum of the average speeds is 30 knots (56 km/h, 34 mph). That gives a travel time of 36 minutes (0.6 hours).

So this will not be very easy.
 
lpetrich said:
Maritime sovereignty extends over  Internal waters and  Territorial waters and partially over  Exclusive economic zones. Outside those zones is  International waters

Territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles (22 km, 14 mi).

1 nautical mile = 1.852 kilometers ~ 1 minute of arc projected onto the Earth's surface

Exclusive economic zones extend 200 nm (370 km, 230 mi).


Now for getting to a boat/ship in international waters. I'll add a safety factor of 50% - 18 nm, 33 km, 21 mi

One must get to the boat in some way, and a simple way to do it is in a motorboat. Hull Speed Calculation and Chart - Ron Rantilla Rowing has "hull speed" 5.2 knots (nm/h), 6.0 mph, 9.6 km/h.

"Displacement hull speed is an important indicator of how fast a displacement-type boat will go. It is the speed at which a boat begins to climb it's own bow wave, essentially going uphill."

That means that this kind of boat will take about 3.5 hours to make the trip.

Hull speed ~ sqrt(length), so it's hard to improve on that. In practice, a boat can go faster, but at the expense of more fuel consumption.

How Fast Can A Boat Go? | Get Answered Now - ShipFever The maximum of the average speeds is 30 knots (56 km/h, 34 mph). That gives a travel time of 36 minutes (0.6 hours).

So this will not be very easy.
Click to expand...

May I ask what the point to this post is?

If a pregnant woman doesn't have the wherewithal to get from wherever she lives to California, Illinois, or New York she has the wherewithal to get to a ship outside U.S. coastal waters?
Tom
 
TomC said:
May I ask what the point to this post is?
Click to expand...
To show that getting to a boat in international waters is *not* a trivial task. That's even if one lives near a coastline.

There are further challenges, like navigation and cellphone service.
If a pregnant woman doesn't have the wherewithal to get from wherever she lives to California, Illinois, or New York she has the wherewithal to get to a ship outside U.S. coastal waters?
Click to expand...
Pure hand-waving.


I'll now return to the issue of going across state lines.
  • Fargo ND (largest city) - Minneapolis MN: 239 mi, 3h 29m
  • Sioux Falls SD (largest city) - Minneapolis MN: 237 mi, 3h 41m
  • Little Rock AR (largest city) - East St. Louis IL: 351 mi, 5h 21m
  • Jonesboro AR (5th largest city) - East St. Louis IL: 232 mi, 3h 48m
  • Indianapolis IN (largest city) - Champaign IL: 126 mi, 1h 53m

Illinois seems like it will become the abortion capital of the Midwest.

Neighboring states: IN, KY, MO, IA, WI
Almost-neighboring states: MI 50 mi, TN 50 mi, AR 90 mi, OH 160 mi

Alongside IL will be Minnesota.

Neighboring states: WI, IA, SD, ND
Almost-neighboring states: NE 100 mi

A more careful analysis would include travel distance from an abortion-friendly state or a major city in such a state.
 
TomC said:
Pure hand-waving.
Click to expand...
Oh.
I thought we were agreeing.
Tom
Click to expand...
I concede that those may indeed by comparable levels of difficulty. But there are degrees of difficulty.

All the way from a half-hour drive across an urban area to going to another nation in another continent.

I was arguing that going to a ship in international waters is a nontrivial task, but it may not be much different from (say) a long bus ride.
 
The issue is, it seems any step between hone and abortion can be sued.
 
TomC said:
May I ask what the point to this post is?

If a pregnant woman doesn't have the wherewithal to get from wherever she lives to California, Illinois, or New York she has the wherewithal to get to a ship outside U.S. coastal waters?
Tom
Click to expand...

If there's something worth going to not far offshore there will be boats that go there--a lot cheaper and quicker than going to one of those distant states.
 
H.R.3755 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress sponsored by Rep. Judy Chu D-CA-27, introduced on 06/08/2021

From its full text, it is "To protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide abortion services."

It essentially makes Roe vs. Wade into law.

It has 205 cosponsors, 172 original. Nearly every Democrat in the House, but no Republicans.

Its Senate counterpart: S.1975 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal D-CT, introduced on 06/08/2021

It has 47 cosponsors, all original. Nearly every Democrat in the Senate, and the two Independents, both Democrat-adjacent, but no Republicans.

Kyrsten Sinema is a cosponsor, but not Joe Manchin.
 
Rep. Judy Chu has a history of submitting Roe vs. Wade codifications.
No Republicans, both Independents (Bernie Sanders I-VT, Angus King I-ME) except for the first one, with only BS.

But most of the Democrats in both chambers.
 
The impression I'm getting from the GOP is of a dog that actually caught a car, and doesn't exactly know what to do with it now that it has it. Abortion is supposed to be a cash cow for both sides of the phantom divide, not something that is supposed to have anything done about it. Now that the Republicans have actually caught that car, they are too started to figure out what to do next.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The impression I'm getting from the GOP is of a dog that actually caught a car, and doesn't exactly know what to do with it now that it has it. Abortion is supposed to be a cash cow for both sides of the phantom divide, not something that is supposed to have anything done about it. Now that the Republicans have actually caught that car, they are too started to figure out what to do next.
Click to expand...

Kinda this.

The TeaParty sold Trump on the basis of several talking points.

One was "Repeal and Replace" ObamaCare. We all know that didn't happen. Because it was an empty promise.

Now it's "ending abortion". That's not going to happen either. Because Americans don't want it to end, especially not the preachers and politicians who depend upon it as a cash cow.

Tom
 
Just a thought, there are three federally declared Indian reservations in Texas.

When we were in the casino my BiL worked at, I noticed people were smoking in the building. He said only federal laws apply, not state laws.
 
ZiprHead said:
Just a thought, there are three federally declared Indian reservations in Texas.

When we were in the casino my BiL worked at, I noticed people were smoking in the building. He said only federal laws apply, not state laws.
Click to expand...

This is fucking fantastic...
 
ZiprHead said:
Just a thought, there are three federally declared Indian reservations in Texas.

When we were in the casino my BiL worked at, I noticed people were smoking in the building. He said only federal laws apply, not state laws.
Click to expand...
Great! We can get Sen. Warren and Rep. McCarthy's in-laws on it right away!
 
Anderson Cooper 360° on Twitter: ""He speaks from such a place of deep ignorance, and it's not just ignorance. It's ignorance that's hurting people."

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slams Texas's GOP Gov. Abbott for defending the state's abortion law by saying he's working to "eliminate all rapists." (link)" / Twitter
then
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Sorry to breakdown Biology 101 on national TV, but since Gov. Abbott doesn’t seem to know, six-weeks pregnant means your period is 2 weeks late.

No rape survivor truly has 6 weeks to get an abortion. Nor do many report their assaults ever. The Governor’s remarks are disgusting." / Twitter

Also,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Sad that in 2021 I have to explain to a GOP Governor that:

1. “6 weeks pregnant” = 2 weeks late for your period
2. Periods are late all the time from stress, diet,etc
3. Most people know their rapists

but GOP want to have more control over your body than you do, so here we are." / Twitter
Furthermore, many rapists don't fit the evil-monster stereotype of criminals that the right wing is very fond of. That's why many people turn into card-carrying members of the ACLU when it comes to rapists.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Sexual assault is an abuse of power that attempts to seize sexual control over another person’s body.

Anti-choice laws are also an abuse of power that attempts to seize sexual control over people’s bodies en masse.

And that’s 1 way rape culture informs anti-choice legislation." / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "It’s not a coincidence that Texas is where GOP are testing new ways to retake sexual control via legislation. TX had “anti-sodomy” laws in place until 2003 (!) that made non-PIV sex illegal until the Supreme Court overturned it on the basis of Roe v Wade’s right to privacy." / Twitter

Such laws used to be common in the US, but many of them were repealed over the last half-century. Texas's laws were among the last to go.  Sodomy laws in the United States
 
Texas Withdraws Abortion Rights, Portland City Council Withdraws Business | Portland.gov
Portland City Council will consider an emergency resolution next week to ban future travel, goods and services from the state of Texas until the unconstitutional ban on abortion is withdrawn or overturned in court.
Click to expand...
A great thing about the Internet is that it makes primary sources more accessible.


Texas abortion restrictions trigger potential Portland boycott | KOIN.com - "The City Council will vote in the ban sparked by the new law after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block it"

Portland Delays Vote to Boycott Texas Products Over Abortion Law - "Portland postpones vote to boycott Texas products over the state's new restrictive abortion law, saying the city needs longer to study the potential impact"

Portland’s planned boycott over Texas abortion law could cost Lone Star State $7M a year - oregonlive.com

Texas lieutenant governor slams ‘dumpster fire’ Portland and its ‘depraved’ leaders for planned boycott over state’s abortion law - oregonlive.com

I look at that and I think "Civil War II".
 
Texas "heartbeat bill" becomes law, banning abortions as early as six weeks | The Texas Tribune
links to
Attorney Letter in Opposition to HB 1515 & SB 8 April 28 2021 (1).pdf(Review)- Adobe Document Cloud

Nice to see what some lawyers have to say about it, since they would likely know their way around the relevant law.
We are specifically concerned that HB 1515 and SB 8 grant “any person” the right to sue, including even those who do not reside in Texas and those with no connection to a patient, against a broad range of defendants. Among those who could face civil liability are physicians who provide abortion care, but also nurses, clinic staff, and any others who helped the patient access abortion care. This means that family members, clergy, domestic violence and rape crisis counselors, or referring physicians could be subject to tens of thousands of dollars in liability to total strangers. Even more egregiously, these bills add as potential defendants any person who merely formed an intent to help a patient, which could include donors and supporters of abortion funds and clinics, and could make individuals liable before they took any action at all.
Click to expand...
That's a violation of the principle of  Standing (law), where one has to have suffered something bad from some action by one's lawsuit target. Like suing one's neighbors for using one's property as a garbage dump.
The proposed legislation would allow a plaintiff to file the lawsuit in their own home county and then block transfer to a more appropriate venue. This contradicts the general venue provisions in the civil practice and remedies code. Furthermore, the bills prevent unjustly sued defendants from recovering attorney fees for frivolous and harassing lawsuits under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allowing plaintiffs to harass defendants without any repercussion.
Click to expand...
Venue shopping, choosing some suitable jurisdiction to sue from.
Perhaps most troubling is that these proposals would impose liability on people whose actions were legal at the time they took them. The bill specifically prohibits the defense that a party relied on a court decision that was valid at the time of their actions but that was later overruled—meaning even if a person was following the law, they could still be liable if the law changed later. This type of ex post facto liability violates the very bedrock of our legal system which requires notice and due process before imposing liability.
Click to expand...
 
lpetrich said:
Texas "heartbeat bill" becomes law, banning abortions as early as six weeks | The Texas Tribune
links to
Attorney Letter in Opposition to HB 1515 & SB 8 April 28 2021 (1).pdf(Review)- Adobe Document Cloud

Nice to see what some lawyers have to say about it, since they would likely know their way around the relevant law.

That's a violation of the principle of  Standing (law), where one has to have suffered something bad from some action by one's lawsuit target. Like suing one's neighbors for using one's property as a garbage dump.

Venue shopping, choosing some suitable jurisdiction to sue from.
Perhaps most troubling is that these proposals would impose liability on people whose actions were legal at the time they took them. The bill specifically prohibits the defense that a party relied on a court decision that was valid at the time of their actions but that was later overruled—meaning even if a person was following the law, they could still be liable if the law changed later. This type of ex post facto liability violates the very bedrock of our legal system which requires notice and due process before imposing liability.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Or, imagine a postal worker, who by federal law has a mandate to deliver the mail.

The mail they deliver is an abortifacient.

Federal law requires that they deliver the package and cannot know what it contains. Texas state law requires they not deliver it. In fact, this means the federal government can be sued collectively for an individual ordering an abortifacient in Texas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom