This is a sodding non issue meant to inflame the stupid and ignorant. This woman is accusing the entire medical profession for the last 2 hundred years as declaring women perpetually pregnant! No, it doesn't mean that the abortion bill is pushing the cutoff date back to 18 weeks. Her "experts" saying otherwise are Snap, Crackle and Pop.

I can't believe you all fell for that rubbish.

Gestational Limits

Legislators in 14 states have introduced legislation that seeks to restrict abortion later in pregnancy—but prior to fetal viability. In 10 of these states (FL, GA, IA, LA, MI, MN, MS, NH, VA and WV), the provisions would ban abortion at 20 weeks postfertilization, which is the equivalent of 22 weeks' gestation (as pregnancy is conventionally measured, which is from the woman's last menstrual period). These restrictions are based on a 2010 Nebraska law that has already served as the model for laws in five other states (see State Policies on Later Term Abortion).

The proposed provision in Georgia has passed the legislature and is awaiting signature by Gov. Nathan Deal (R). It would permit an abortion after 22 weeks' gestation only in cases of life endangerment, possible "substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" or fatal fetal impairment.

Legislators in six states (AZ, FL, NH, NJ, OK and SC) have introduced provisions that would ban abortions at other points in pregnancy: 18 weeks postfertilization in Arizona and Oklahoma, 22 weeks postfertilization in New Jersey and South Carolina, 25 weeks postfertilization in Florida and during the third trimester in New Hampshire.

You are also incorrect on how 'gestation age' has been calculated and what it means.

it is novel and controversial to define gestational age as beginning two weeks before conception using the LMP as a starting point.

the provisions would ban abortion at 20 weeks postfertilization, which is the equivalent of 22 weeks' gestation (as pregnancy is conventionally measured, which is from the woman's last menstrual period).

experts say that the bill is ... declaring that a woman could be pregnant 2 weeks before she even had sex.

(as pregnancy is conventionally measured, which is from the woman's last menstrual period).

And let's not forget there are women who continue to menstruate during pregnancy. I guess this might be why they want ultrasounds?

You have all made a really good argument against the rhythm method as a means of controlling fertility.

What do you call couples who use the rhythm method?
Parents.

(Ancient joke. Couldn't resist.)

Regards,

Homer Simpson

Frankly you are just looking for reasons to be outraged, and in doing so you sound disturbingly birtheresq. But hey, far be it from me to shatter your illusions and doomsday scenarios.

High Testosterone
Mitt Romney has white men in the bag. He needs to worry less about them and more about women.

The GOP has an excess of testosterone that may be hurting the party with some segments of women voters, specifically with those under 50, single women, and independent women.
The messaging and signals emanating from Republican presidential candidates, as well as from elected officials in Washington and in state capitals, seem to be aimed at only conservative, white men. This is a group that once dominated the electorate but is now considerably smaller than a majority.
<snipped>
Given that women generally make up 51 to 52 percent of the electorate, whenever Republican candidates lose women by more than they win among men, they can skip ordering the champagne for election night. In all but the most unusual cases, a Republican needs to win among men by a wider margin than a Democrat does among women.
<snipped>
Democrats hope to make the case that Republicans have tailored their priorities for white men, particularly white men over 50, to such a degree that they seem to deliberately exclude women voters, especially younger women. Other polling shows real deterioration for Romney among independent women—most specifically, those under 50.
http://nationaljournal.com/columns/cook ... e-20120419

This bipartisan act, first passed in 1994, provides funding for emergency shelters, counseling, rape crisis centers and legal services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Two subsequent reauthorizations -- in 2000 and 2005 -- passed with unanimous votes in the Senate. The act expired last fall, but Congress has continued to fund the programs.
<snipped>
If it the bill passes the House and is signed into law, VAWA would now offer additional protections for more victims: Native American women, immigrant women and sexual minorities. Yet it actually decreases the total amount of federal funding by 20%.³
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p ... 59207.html

A bill signed by Gov. Sam Brownback this week that allows Kansans to refuse to prescribe or dispense any drug they "reasonably believe" may cause an abortion could spark court debates over what is an abortion.
<snipped>
Sen. Garrett Love, R-Montezuma, brought the bill to the Senate floor. When Sen. Vicki Schmidt, R-Topeka, a pharmacist, asked him whether it would apply to Plan B specifically, he didn't have a direct answer.
"It’s all up to what they reasonably believe (may cause an abortion)," Love said on the floor. "As far as what falls under that category, I’m definitely not an expert in that area. But that freedom is given to professionals."
Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, sponsored the bill, dubbed the Health Care Rights of Conscience Act, in the House. He told the Kansas City Star that the bill was intended to apply to a different drug, RU-486, which terminates pregnancies post-implantation. But he said that someone who was fired for refusing to provide Plan B could sue and, under the new law, present to the court evidence for the drug's potential to cause abortion.
http://cjonline.com/news/2012-05-17/def ... ience-bill

How any woman can consider voting for someone that hates them so much is beyond me:

Mississippi State Rep. Lester "Bubba" Carpenter (R) admits that he'd rather women die than abortion remain legal (aclu.org)

Missouri legislators passed a bill Friday that allows employers or health insurance providers to stop offering coverage for contraception, abortion, or sterilization if doing so violates their religious or moral convictions. The bill now goes to Gov. Jay Nixon (D), who has not said whether he supports the legislation.

--snip--

“This bill is about religious freedom and moral convictions,” said Rep. Sandy Crawford, R-Buffalo. “This is about sending a message to the federal government that we don’t like things rammed down our throat.”

But state Rep. Stacey Newman (D) said the bill endangering women’s access to health care was more of an attack on “women’s reproductive choices” than a message to the federal government. “This is wrong and I dare you to go home and talk to your daughters … and say, ‘Look, what we’re going to say is that your employers’ religious beliefs matter more than your own,’” Newman told colleagues.

In 2006, 53 percent of pregnancies in Missouri were unintended, 61 percent of which resulted in live births and 25 percent resulted in induced abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 65 percent of births that were unintended were publicly funded, compared to 50 percent of all births and 37 percent of intended pregnancies.