AZ enacted a law in April 2012 banning abortions at 20 weeks and later (measured from last menstrual period) due to evidence that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks. This was ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Appellate Court in San Francisco because Roe protects a women’s right to abortion before a fetus is viable, and a fetus is not viable until ~24 weeks. The SCOTUS refused to hear the case, and thus the ruling stands.
Judge Kleinfeld, from the 9th Circuit court, had said, “Were the [AZ] statute limited to protecting fetuses from unnecessary infliction of excruciating pain before their death, Arizona might regulate abortions at or after 20 weeks by requiring anesthetization of the fetuses about to be killed, much as it requires anesthetization of prisoners prior to killing them when the death penalty is carried out.”
Thinking to Believe 
January 13, 2014 at 10:20 am
This ruling protects the fetus from abortion after the 24 week period as ruled in Roe and in so doing holds the abortion ban in place without adding an extra element that could be used in future litigation if pain was introduced as a criterion for allowing abortions.
While it protects the fetus from abortion from 24 weeks onward, it is a sad commentary for a society that would try to foil that protection on the pretense of advancing the ban to 20 weeks instead of 24 weeks. Judge Kleinfeld clearly saw through the guise of the pretense thus thwarting potential would-be-abortionists who could have then tried to secure such abortions after the 24 week “viability” limitation now in place, for the very reason that the Judge cited: anesthetization.
Thank you Judge Kleinfeld for your insight and the SCOTUS for the perception to “nip it in the bud”.
LikeLike
January 14, 2014 at 5:11 am
Maybe they ought to add the limited clause in – I mean, it would probably cause more emotional trauma on the woman who aborts between 20 and 24 weeks knowing that the parasite/child feels pain at that point and so reduce the number of abortions occurring at that time in development?
LikeLike
January 14, 2014 at 8:46 am
Scottspeig:
Judge Kleinfeld is correct for not ALLOWING THE LIMITED CLAUSE:
Judge Kleinfeld, from the 9th Circuit court, had said, “Were the [AZ] statute limited to protecting fetuses from unnecessary infliction of excruciating pain before their death, Arizona might regulate abortions at or after 20 weeks by requiring anesthetization of the fetuses about to be killed, much as it requires anesthetization of prisoners prior to killing them when the death penalty is carried out.”
In other words if the limited clause was allowed then abortionists could eventually argue that as long as the fetus is anesthetized you can abort the FETUS anytime before birth after the 24 week, 30 week, 34 week and so on which was the argument (anesthetization to avoid excruciating pain and therefore made it okay to kill) used to okay the killing death row inmates, to avoid excruciating pain.
It could be used as a loophole to abort after the 24 week viability limit, if it was allowed.
LikeLike
January 18, 2014 at 10:24 am
Jason et al:
There is a current case of a brain dead patient in Texas whose family wants the hospital to remove the life support system and allow her body to die too. The dilemma is the woman was 14 weeks pregnant with a second child when she was found unconscious and taken to hospital.
As the lawsuit details, the story began at 2 a.m. on November 26, when Erick found his wife unconscious on the kitchen floor. At the time, she was 14 weeks’ pregnant with the couple’s second child.
Soon after that, she was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital, where Erick Munoz says he was told that his wife “was for all purposes brain dead.” The family also says the fetus may have been deprived of oxygen.
(CNN) — The family of Marlise Munoz has long said the pregnant Texas woman was brain dead, but now it has the medical records to confirm it, lawyers said Friday.
“We have recently received Marlise Munoz’s medical records, and can now confirm that Mrs. Munoz is clinically brain dead, and therefore deceased under Texas law,” attorneys Jessica Janicek and Heather King said in an e-mail.
Meanwhile, the judge in the case has recused herself from “all remaining proceedings” and asked that another judge be assigned, according to the order for recusal.
Munoz’s husband, Erick, asked a court Tuesday to force a hospital to take her off a respirator, ventilator and other machines, saying her wishes shouldn’t be disregarded just because she is pregnant.
Erick Munoz filed an emergency motion as well as a complaint against John Peter Smith Hospital, both with the same goal: to have the hospital disconnect the machines so that her family can take her body and give her a proper burial.
“Marlise Munoz is legally dead, and to further conduct surgical procedures on a deceased body is nothing short of outrageous,” her husband says in the motion.
Erick Munoz — like his wife, a paramedic by training — said previously that doctors told him his wife “had lost all activity in her brain stem,” and an accompanying chart stated that she was “brain dead,” according to his lawsuit.
The hospital referred requests for comment to the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office, which said it will defend the medical facility against the lawsuit. It is legal counsel for John Peter Smith Hospital “in a number of civil areas.”
In a brief court document filed Friday, the civil defendant said simply, “Tarrant County Hospital District d/b/a JPS Health Network generally denies, each and every, all and singular, the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Original Petition and demands strict proof of the same.”
At this time, no hearing has been scheduled in the case.
Hospital spokesman J.R. Labbe said last month that doctors were simply trying to obey a Texas law that says “you cannot withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient.”
If the life support system is removed the fetus will also be aborted.
My position is that the woman should be kept on life support and continue as an “incubator” for the child for another 4 weeks so that the child may then be removed at the time deemed that a fetus is viable at that time.
I am curious. What is your position about this case?
Should the hospital be allowed to go against the wishes of her family and remove the life support and at the same time kill the unborn child which is about 20 weeks old at this time or continue the life support because the fetus by extension has become the patient?
FULL STORY HERE: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/justice/pregnant-life-support-texas/
LikeLike