(Anesthetizing a fetus prior to performing an abortion) measure defeated

[truthpusher]

http://www.newsadvance.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=LNA/MGArticle/LNA_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031780897850&path=

Abortion measure defeated


Kevin Crossett
February 18, 2005

RICHMOND - Anesthetizing a fetus prior to performing an abortion is the first step toward banning the procedure nationwide, a state lawmaker said Thursday after a Senate committee defeated his proposal 9-6.

(snip)

Black’s bill would have required doctors to anesthetize a fetus before performing an abortion after the 20th week of gestation.

“Today, no steps are taken to relieve a child’s terror and relief of pain,” Black said. “If we’re going to keep aborting children at this stage of development, we can at least relieve their pain.”

(snip)

“Couldn’t you just give them a little squirt of pain relief? You’re going to get up there anyway,” Newman said.

Anesthesiologists who testified before the committee said they know of no way to provide anesthesia to a fetus without endangering the life of the woman. No one has ever done so. And even if they did, it likely would do nothing because the nerve pathways leading to the cortex of the brain have yet to form.

complete story:
http://www.newsadvance.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=LNA/MGArticle/LNA_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031780897850&path=

[kiraboo]

1. That sucks.

No matter how you define a fetus, it still has nerves. I didn't even know this was up for consideration. Are we really afraid providing anaesthetic is going to lead to an outlawing of the procedure altogether? Stupid question: apparently so.

[Solon]

2. Apparently your wrong....

Anesthesiologists who testified before the committee said they know of no way to provide anesthesia to a fetus without endangering the life of the woman. No one has ever done so. And even if they did, it likely would do nothing because the nerve pathways leading to the cortex of the brain have yet to form.

As a matter of law, anything the state forces a doctor to do to endanger the life of the mother is a stupid ass law, plain and simple.

[kiraboo]

12. If the procedure would harm the woman then I would be opposed to it.

But the fact is that they perform surgery on the fetus in utero. Wouldn't they anaesthetize it first? It may depend on whether we're talking about a four-week-old fetus or one which is much more developed. I admit my ignorance in this area. However I know that you'd make sure your dog or cat was put to sleep humanely; it seems one ought to be at least as humane when a fetus is involved. And yes, I am FULLY prochoice.

[Betty]

3. It would seem that they wouldn't feel anything

if the nerve pathways leading to the brain hadn't developed yet..or am I missing someting here?

[mikelgb]

4. seems to be so...

that's a pretty powerful argument against anti-abortionists if correct

[TO Kid]

14. They used to say the same about newborns

There was a time not too long ago that major surgery was routinely performed on infants without anaesthesia because it was widely believed that they could not experience pain.

[liveoaktx]

5. Vid Clip-Not sure if this is same bill-Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act

Jim Talent-Mo

[Dookus]

6. Good

stupid law. It deserved defeat.

[blonndee]

7. I agree. Once you capitulate the "need" for anasthetic, the anti-choicers

have all the ammo they need. I'm glad it was defeated.

[Erika]

8. Ah, when does the right wing wing declare the woman

only a vessel of the fetus? Notice, how the right wing sees the men as hold harmless and totally innocent in the fertilization?

[Megahurtz]

9. This is just a sneaky Repuke backdoor way towards overturning

Roe vs. Wade.

Do any of us remember any sensation of any kind when we were in our mother's wombs?

NOT!!!

[TheWraith]

11. Your argument is fatally flawed.

Most people don't retain memories from their early childhood, often their first several years. The fact that you don't remember being in your mother's womb isn't proof of anything.

I swear, people around here go totally insane whenever anything even grazing the issue of abortion comes up.

[fortyfeetunder]

10. Preposterous

WTF what about the woman?

Hey Virginian DUers, what's in the water that makes these legislators act brainlessly?

[RuleofLaw]

13. I think this bill is more dangerous

that it appears.

I see it as another step in the direction of recognizing the fetus as a person. Notice how many laws there are on the books in the various states now that labels a fetus a person.

And here is the reason why that is important. In order for the Supreme Court to overturn a previous decision, they must show that either the previous decision was obvious erroneous (very difficult) or that society has changed and what was once accepted is now frowned upon.

Thus, if it can be shown that society has moved in a direction where most states recognize a fetus as a person, obviously it must follows that you cannot allow abortions, since that would be murder. And voila (like the French says) you have a fully legitimate and approved reason for overturning Roe v. Wade.

[jbnow]

15. A bad law

but not a bad concept. The nervous system is well developed by then.

My sister had testing and learned her fetus had many disabilities. With other kids and parents having to work, she made the decision to have an abortion. This was one of her concerns. After researching it she talked to the doctor. She got anesthetized and it would reach the fetus so he would be too. She wanted to do it all as respectfully as possible for the child who wouldn't be born.

Though I agree with the right/need for choice, the idea of later abortions is much tougher.