Pregnancy begins two weeks before conception

[Sky Warrior Bob]

The 18th week bill includes a new definition for when pregnancy begins. All of the bills passed the Senate and now head to Gov. Jan Brewer ® for her signature or veto. Passage of the late-term abortion bill would give Arizona the earliest definition of late-term abortion in the country; most states use 20 weeks as a definition.

A sentence in the bill defines gestational age as "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman," which would move the beginning of a pregnancy up two weeks prior to conception.

Elizabeth Nash, states issues manager for Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organization in Washington, said the definition corresponds with how doctors typically determine gestational age. She said since the exact date of conception cannot be pinpointed, doctors use the day of the woman's last menstrual period to gauge the duration of a pregnancy. The method does not provide an exact date.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/az-abortion-bills-arizona-gestational-age_n_1415715.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

So yeah... Arizona, proving its idiocy yet once again.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

So on the day of conception a women is now considered two weeks into the pregnancy even though she just got knocked up? I can understand that the excat date of conception isn't easy to pinpoint, but two weeks?

meh.

[Jagos]

Dear lord why are Republicans fighting the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s?

[Satan's Onion]

Dear lord why are Republicans fighting the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s?

Because if they throw enough money at it, and they're manipulative enough, and everyone else is burned out/alienated from the democratic process/apathetic enough, they can win.

[Ryanderman]

Merits or lack thereof of the law aside, isn't the beginning of the menstrual period, usually about 2 weeks before ovulation and thus conception, pretty standard as week 0?

[Fifthfiend]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/az-abortion-bills-arizona-gestational-age_n_1415715.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

So yeah... Arizona, proving its idiocy yet once again.

There's nothing idiotic about it; it is completely consistent with and salutory to its proponents' philosophic viewpoint that bitches ain't shit.

[Fifthfiend]

Merits or lack thereof of the law aside, isn't the beginning of the menstrual period, usually about 2 weeks before ovulation and thus conception, pretty standard as week 0?

Which is a perfectly acceptable amount of looseness for a standard to have in all those circumstances where you aren't threatening women and doctors with the possibility of criminal investigation for the suspicion of them killin someone who may or may not have existed

NOTE: uh post heavily edited sorry if someone already responded to the shitty post i had here in the 20 minutes it took me to rewrite this one

[rpgdemon]

There's nothing idiotic about it; it is completely consistent with and salutory to its proponents' philosophic viewpoint that bitches ain't shit.

But ho's and tricks.

[Ryanderman]

Which is a perfectly acceptable amount of looseness for a standard to have in all those circumstances where you aren't threatening women and doctors with the possibility of criminal investigation for the suspicion of them killin someone who may or may not have existed

NOTE: uh post heavily edited sorry if someone already responded to the shitty post i had here in the 20 minutes it took me to rewrite this one

My point, though I didn't really state my point at all my apologies, was that the article paints Arizona Republicans as part of a conspiracy to change that date. It's not that at all. It's how the standard 40 weeks of pregnancy have been defined all along. They're changing nothing related to that. Just using standard terms. All other laws in the US relating to weeks of pregnancy use the same definition.

If the standard 40 weeks of pregnancy definition is a problem, I have no comment on that.

[Aldurin]

That will make it awkward if I start dating someone in Arizona and they're declared pregnant before the first kiss.

[Thadius]

...I am highly tempted to write a small essay now. On why Arizona is the worst state in the union, and why we should consider selling it to Mexico.

Seriously, I'm finding Hollywood more tolerable than Arizona. And Hollywood as a majority was for SOPA/PIPA, something which immediately makes me scrutinize my relationship with anything.

Arizona is rapidly eroding my will to live. And I don't even live there.

[pochercoaster]

My point, though I didn't really state my point at all my apologies, was that the article paints Arizona Republicans as part of a conspiracy to change that date. It's not that at all. It's how the standard 40 weeks of pregnancy have been defined all along. They're changing nothing related to that. Just using standard terms. All other laws in the US relating to weeks of pregnancy use the same definition.

If the standard 40 weeks of pregnancy definition is a problem, I have no comment on that.

Merits or lack thereof of the law aside, isn't the beginning of the menstrual period, usually about 2 weeks before ovulation and thus conception, pretty standard as week 0?

Women can conceive and ovulate during any part of their cycle, though your highest chances are in the middle of the cycle when you're supposed to ovulate. If this wasn't true then you could have sex without contraception during menstruation without risk of pregnancy (common urban legend), which is patently FALSE. Menstruation does not always work like clockwork. Ovulation can be hastened or delayed due to any number of factors. Periods are not always on time. Ask any woman. I certainly don't know any who haven't missed a period or had a really early period at least a few times in their life.

Thus: the only thing this bill does is make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions. There shouldn't be restrictions on when a woman can obtain an abortion, frankly. It's pretty much bullshit.

[akaSM]

...I am highly tempted to write a small essay now. On why Arizona is the worst state in the union, and why we should consider selling it to Mexico.

Seriously, I'm finding Hollywood more tolerable than Arizona. And Hollywood as a majority was for SOPA/PIPA, something which immediately makes me scrutinize my relationship with anything.

Arizona is rapidly eroding my will to live. And I don't even live there.

Now now, throwing stuff you don't want into the backyard isn't a nice thing to do.

Ryanderman, the human body doesn't work on absolute terms, and it can do some pretty crazy stuff, just like what Poch said. What you said is something that is taken as some sort of guide, or something you can expect to happen but, it won't happen all the time.

And you really don't want those crazy people politicians crazy people to get a law on something that works that way, do you?

[Amake]

First it's two weeks before conception, then a month, and before you know it women will be preemptively imprisoned for endangering all the babies they could possibly have. And the logical step then is to arrest all girls the moment they're born since they're holding about three hundred hostages in their ovaries. And put them in special baby making prisons. It's pretty nice of them to attack women's rights this openly, instead of doing it behind a layer of dogmatic bullshit about the sanctity of life and children like we're used to. Makes it easier for everyone to see what they really want.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Merits or lack thereof of the law aside, isn't the beginning of the menstrual period, usually about 2 weeks before ovulation and thus conception, pretty standard as week 0?

The method used, is far from accurate. It's a guesstimate, that just hasn't had to be accurate, since it was used well into an actual pregnancy, to make an educated guess at the conception.

It was never meant to be used in this fashion, and it's inherent flaws become blatant.

[Ryanderman]

I think you're all really misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. But maybe you're not and I don't get it.

Everything you guys have said is valid. All I'm saying is that this law in particular is not attempting to change anything with regards to where they set week 0. Good or not, it's standard practice and to the best of my knowledge (if you have any evidence that this is not the case, please let me know) EVERY other law in the US that references specific weeks of pregnancy or trimesters (cannot have an abortion after such and such a week, things like that) uses the exact same definition for how to count those weeks. It's universal.

Everything you've said about what that means has merit, but this law changes nothing. It's already like that.

[Nikose Tyris]

This law sets a rule rather than a guide something that in many cases can be determined significantly more accurately, and farther forward.
This bill was passed along two bills that are clearly abortion-themed.

In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a woman, in consultation with her physician, has a constitutionally protected right to choose abortion in the early stages of pregnancy-that is, before viability. In 1992, the Court upheld the basic right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, it also expanded the ability of the states to enact all but the most extreme restrictions on women's access to abortion. The most common restrictions in effect are parental notification or consent requirements for minors, state-sponsored counseling and waiting periods, and limitations on public funding.

Keyword: Viability.

Viability Date: before there is a fetal heart beat (before 6 weeks 3 days)

This is the viability date of 'pregnancy' that is being referred to, not to this:

the age of viability is about 24 weeks 0 days [Refers to survival outside the parent.]

The first date, 6 weeks+3 days, refers to the average of when the fetal heartbeat can be heard. However, as it is legally defined date, the cutoff point (for when the actual pregnancy occured) is now as little as 4 weeks+3 days.

Conversely, 24 weeks is the cutoff point when doctors will just say that a baby is not worth saving. If the now-reduced deadline is 'missed', and abortion is no longer an option, purposeful miscarriage is- which is incredibly harmful in almost every case to the woman.

So the short answer is, yes, this does change something. It changes something important, and it's a bad change.

[Someone please correct my information if I am wrong. This is based on my perceptions and on my reading of US law, but IANAL.]

[Ryanderman]

Except that the 6 weeks +3 days is also defined from the date of the last menstrual period. So in effect, ever since 6 weeks +3 days has been a cutoff, it has in effect been 4 weeks +3 days for most women. (I understand that it can vary quite a lot, and that is why this is not a good way to count it) This law isn't changing anything in regards to that.

[Nikose Tyris]

...no, ryan, listen.

it wasn't is what I'm saying. That point could have been determined from, let's say, the night a daughter went to prom and lost her virginity- not a week and a half beforehand. Now it CAN'T.

This is a very straightforward thing I am saying, are you seeing it

edit: like you are voicing it as a rule and not as a backup for when the date can't be viably determined and that is just plain not true.

[Ryanderman]

No, what I am saying is that if you read any medical literature, at least in the US I don't know how it varies elsewhere, when it refers to anything related to the gestational period, and when things happen during pregnancy, unless specifically stated otherwise it is always setting day 0 as the start of the last menstrual period.

So if they say the heart beat generally starts at 6 weeks +3 days, then it does so 6 weeks +3 days after the start of the last menstrual period, usually. If they were to change when day 0 is, it would necessarily change the length of time from day 0 until the heart beat generally starts. Without a common reference date for day 0, 6 weeks +3 days is a meaningless number. If they were counting from the point of conception, the heart beat would be stated as starting a 4 weeks +3 days. It would be more accurate because it would take into account variations between women, but it's just not how they do it now. And any law that references that 6 weeks +3 days is doing so from the start of the last menstrual period. Not just this particular law.

EDIT:
edit: like you are voicing it as a rule and not as a backup for when the date can't be viably determined and that is just plain not true.

Except, it is true. Even when the date can be accurately determined, they still use the start of the last menstrual period as day 0. It's just how they do it. When my wife and I thought she was pregnant, we knew exactly which day she would have conceived. We told the doctor. She set day 0 three weeks before that, at the start of the LMP, because that's how they do it. And the laws follow the standard practice of the medical establishment. They just do.

[Ryanderman]

The funny (not so funny) thing is, it's actually the other way around. Only when the start of the LMP is not known does a doctor set day 0 by looking at the development of the baby. They will then estimate when conception occurred, and set day 0 two weeks before that. But if the date of the start of the LMP is known, they use that by default.

I get that setting the start of the LMP as day 0 by law instead of just as a guide is a bad thing. Those arguments make sense. But I'm arguing that it's nothing new. It's how abortion laws that reference specific weeks of pregnancy do it in the US. If that's not the case, or if I'm wrong and no other state references specific weeks of gestation as a cutoff for abortions, then I have no argument and you're right. But my understanding is that is the case.

[shiney]

Just for reference Ryan, Arizona has a ban on all abortions after week twenty. The reason for passage of tihs law was to set the clock back by two weeks and ban even more abortions by redefining when the pregnancy actually began. This has absolutely nothing to do with standard medical definition and everything to do with again intimidating and criminalizing women who dare to take control of their own bodies.

[Ryanderman]

Just for reference Ryan, Arizona has a ban on all abortions after week twenty. The reason for passage of tihs law was to set the clock back by two weeks and ban even more abortions by redefining when the pregnancy actually began. This has absolutely nothing to do with standard medical definition and everything to do with again intimidating and criminalizing women who dare to take control of their own bodies.
Except, it's not redefining anything. The ban after week twenty has always taken the two weeks before conception into account. That's how the gestational period has always been defined. Even if it wasn't specifically stated in the law, the standard, universal medical practice in the US is to set day 0 at the start of the LMP, which is usually two weeks before conception.

I think I finally get what pocheros and Nikose are saying, in that by setting the start of the LMP as day 0 by law it leaves no room for taking into account variations between women, but it is not redefining the start of the gestational period. That's how the start of the gestational period has always been defined. It is, at worst, forcing the standard definition to be applied in cases where it shouldn't be. I'll concede that.

It is not "redefining when the pregnancy actually began." According to this bill, pregnancy still begins at conception. But the calculated gestational period beings at the start of the LMP, as is standard. The start of the calculated gestational period is not when pregnancy begins, and no one is saying that except those that misunderstand this bill.

According to every medical source I've ever seen, conception generally occurs in week 3. http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/your-pregnancy-week-by-week-weeks-1-4

I get that it can vary, and that is where the problem with the law appears. Not in any imagined additional two weeks.

[Sithdarth]

Actually to be honest legally defining the gestational age is about the least offensive of the three antiabortion bills given in that article. Its much worse that all civil recourse has been taken away from parents if their doctors decide not to tell them about birth defects that might lead to an abortion. Something which I believe is actually malpractice, especially if it is potentially harmful to the mother. Coming in at or a close second, or maybe even a tie, is mandating that kids be taught that its much better to give birth and either live with an unwanted child or give it up for adoption. Which is basically as close as you can get to the state mandating that kids be taught that abortion is murder and a sin.

The whole conception thing is kind of a wash in that as Ryanderman is saying states already have laws on the books that say you can't have an abortion after such and such gestational age. When going in for an abortion a doctor already has to determine gestational age and said doctor would obviously determine gestational age in the exact same manner that any doctor would determine gestational age. That is to say abortion doctors have probably always used the LMP to determine if an abortion is legal, at least as one of many criteria, since the laws were first enacted because that is how doctors have always determined gestational age.

The only thing the Arizona law changes is that it spelled it out explicitly which could potentially be a bad precedent but isn't nearly has horrible as protecting doctors from malpractice lawsuits related to withholding information from their patients and mandating that kids be taught indirectly that abortion is bad.