Ohio Gov. Kasich Signs 20-Week Abortion Limit

[Flagg]

Ghetto edit:

The funny part is, I'm very nice in person and I say the exact same shit, it's just tone of voice and facial expression don't translate.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If the only thing limiting a woman's control of her body is the threat of violence (aka terrorism) then there should be a war.

And why the hate on Gandalf? He asked for clarification and instead was told what he knows and doesn't (so prove he knew what Broomstick was talking about since he can't prove he didn't) and gets his shit jumped on for no reason.

For my part, I consider what broomstick said to be really obvious in context. His query seemed deliberately obtuse.

Ok, to follow on, pretend I am a doctor, I would like to get counselling on what ethical position I should take on the subject, what is your view?

Ok, the thing here is that biomedical ethics is all about empowering the patient to make their own decisions. That is what informed consent is. They can lay out the benefits and risks, but at no point is a physician's ethical judgement a substitute for that of the patient--unless the patient is incompetent or has signed various documents.

Counselors are the same way, they are there as a facilitator, to help someone make the decisions that are in agreement with their own values. Not to tell them what they should and should not do.

These are professional ethics, a little bit different from "every day life" ethics.

More than that though, the question "when does something become someone?" is such a fundamental question that it really really has to be answered by the individual making a decision.

I understand what you're saying from that perspective, but it still sounds like I am pushing the burden on making the choice back unto the person, which is perfectly valid, I understand that, and perhaps that is how it should be, we should all make our own choices and be accountable to ourselves, but aren't there points where we ourselves question if we are making the right decision?

At this point, where it is doctors trying to figure out where their professional boundaries are, medical science basically has to take the forefront. Given that restraint (because patients can rarely choose their doctors and there are a lot of areas where doctors have to sacrifice their own values for their patients), there is very very little chance that the fetus can even notionally perceive pain before week 29 of gestation (by week 29, the neural pathways for that are complete including subjective perception, but low O2 partial pressure prevents consciousness).

Subjective perception (consciousness) is what separates us from (most) animals, and that distinction only works with higher orders of consciousness (consciousness is subjective awareness, 0 order theory of mind. 1st order theory of mind is self-awareness, 2nd order is awareness of others "I know that you are self-aware", 3rd order gets into detecting if person A is deceiving person B. We are up at like, 4th or 5th order). It is literally the only thing that matters, and before consciousness ever happens or is even possible, there is not a person there. No one is home. Even if they can survive outside the womb, so long as they never experience higher O2 partial pressure... meh.

Even then, rats are conscious and we dont really care much about killing them so long as it is not via torture, and something that early in its term is not going to have much more cognitive capacity than a rat. Less functional even. You take a fetus out at 30 weeks and it is not going to be crying or wake up really. It is straight into the NICU on life support because without medical intervention it will not survive (it is just not particularly intensive medical intervention).

But notional consciousness IS a good safety margin, just in case we are wrong. So long as there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother or twin siblings, and in extraordinary circumstances like kidnapped rape victims who were impregnated by their captors etc.

I believe this was alluded to above by someone regarding how there are still things where we override a persons autonomy if they will being harm to others or even themselves, and while I do see the merit of invalidating that if we consider the fetus to be merely a parasite or part of the body insofar as being just a clump of cells, I personally find it very very difficult to make the same argument for a fetus that has crossed the line of being able to survive outside with medical intervention, and find the idea of saying "if *you're* fine with it, go ahead" similarly distasteful.

Ask yourself this: if it has no mind worth mentioning (even less functional than a rat), what makes you feel this way?

As technology gets better of course, abortions dont necessarily have to be lethal. Though at the same time, what do we do with the now-external fetus? Who takes responsibility for the 25% of all pregnancies that are now aborted but would then be born? We dont have enough good foster families for the abandoned and neglected children we have right now, let alone what happens if fetuses are removed and put into artificial wombs instead of killing them.

[AniThyng]

I get that, I mean in later-term abortions I can't myself say comfortably what's the line and I'm pro-choice and I have no problem alienating meatspace people and even famiry by saying it out in the open IRL.

I guess... a lot of what I'm saying is from the therapeutic carer's approach/perspective. I mean, that has different "stakes" and "amount of say" one can have regarding the issue than someone with an entirely different relationship with the person carrying the fetus.

So... IMO my responses to you in regards to your dilemma would be based on... the very same (or similar to) the responses I suggested to you too.

What is your relation to the person mulling the abortion?

Ah to be clear it's a hypothetical, no one I personally know is currently contemplating an abortion, but the assumption is what if do if it were friends or family, because for strangers my position of " it's your choice, leave me out of it " is much easier...

[Shroom Man 777]

I believe loved ones who are also undergoing strain from the situation (not as much strain and such as the actual pregger person) ought to also receive the same counseling. COUNSELING FOR EVERYONE! THERAPEUTIC OPEN-ENDED QUERIES AND LINES OF MODULATED CALIBRATED CONVERSATION! Whee!

[Flagg]

If the only thing limiting a woman's control of her body is the threat of violence (aka terrorism) then there should be a war.

And why the hate on Gandalf? He asked for clarification and instead was told what he knows and doesn't (so prove he knew what Broomstick was talking about since he can't prove he didn't) and gets his shit jumped on for no reason.

For my part, I consider what broomstick said to be really obvious in context. His query seemed deliberately obtuse.

If he were American I could see that, but he's not, so the "separated by a common language" thing came into play, I think. And Gands is like the last person I would expect to be an obtuse shitlord.

[Broomstick]

Holy shit! BOLD TEXT! Since you ignored my question about what you meant by the first half of your post, effectively denying me a chance to better understand the context of the question, I'll answer it as best as I can. Meaningful dialogue be damned I guess.

What "context" do you need to answer your position on an issue? Or just express your opinion.

I'm not particularly comfortable with any restrictions. If there needed to be any, I'd put them as late as possible, perhaps north of twenty eight weeks, and make them available in any medical facility with the infrastructure. On top of that, no gag rules or anything preventing doctors counselling patients on the subject.

Thank you.

I, too, have massive, massive objections to "gag rules" and prescriptions of what doctors should say to their patients.

[Flagg]

Holy shit! BOLD TEXT! Since you ignored my question about what you meant by the first half of your post, effectively denying me a chance to better understand the context of the question, I'll answer it as best as I can. Meaningful dialogue be damned I guess.

What "context" do you need to answer your position on an issue? Or just express your opinion.

What purpose does it serve to have a hissy fit and refuse to make clearer the part of your post he requested clarification about? Gands isn't some obfuscating dick who reads half a post and then responds to it making the exact same points as the post being replied to.

[Gandalf]

Holy shit! BOLD TEXT! Since you ignored my question about what you meant by the first half of your post, effectively denying me a chance to better understand the context of the question, I'll answer it as best as I can. Meaningful dialogue be damned I guess.

What "context" do you need to answer your position on an issue? Or just express your opinion.

You made a bizarre point about "going to war" which I did not understand. Before proceeding with any dialogue it seemed apt to find out the meaning of the comment, in order to prevent misunderstandings in what can often be a sensitive area.

Considering that I have routinely taught this to ten and eleven year old children, I'm surprised that you appeared to find it such an affront.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Broomstick, that particular idiomatic expression might not cross the pacific.

[SCRawl]

I'm roughly with Flagg on the whole "when should abortion be legal" issue. If I'm running things and a fetus is viable, does not significantly threaten the health or life of the mother, and can reasonably be expected to survive should its host organism become unavailable, then I'm sorry, mother-to-be, you may not abort said fetus. A fetus at that point has a right to life greater than anyone's right to end that life. There are many problems with this point of view. For example, where is that bright line? The answer is that there isn't one; no one can say for certain whether or not a given fetus could survive, other than giving an opinion based on statistics. If some zealot thinks he can keep a 22-week-old fetus alive to adulthood, but just hasn't been able to do it yet, does that mean that it's impossible?

There is also (as Alyrium started to discuss) the question about who should bear the financial responsibility for unwanted people who would otherwise have been aborted? It seems to me that the state bears this burden: if the state can decree that a woman must carry a fetus to term against her will, then the state must be willing to assume all costs associated with raising it. If the parents thus compelled are unwilling or unable to bear these costs (including the difference between the cost of the childbirth and an abortion procedure), then they should be given the option to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities to the state. Should the state be unable to find suitable replacement parents (who are also able and willing to shoulder these costs) then the state must be prepared to provide fully adequate child care through the age of, say, 21, including reasonable education. And I'm talking about doing it right, not handing it off to the lowest bidder or setting up a warehouse of young people, and it would be ruinously expensive to set up and keep going.

So, IMHO I'm not happy with the 20-week point, but I suppose it's better than an outright ban or an effective ban via other regulations. I'd say that this law and my position are about four to eight weeks apart. The anti-abortion crowd won't be happy with it at all, though; right now they and the law are exactly 20 weeks apart. If I were trying to push this through, my response to their ire would be something like "So don't have any abortions, and that's the extent of your standing", though of course that might be a tough sell.

There's a reason I'm not in charge of anything, and it's probably for the best.

[ArmorPierce]

Alferd, I would strongly recommend NOT picking "the rich oppose abortion in order to decrease social mobility" as the hill you want to die on.

The narrative that the rich specifically support policies with the intent of decreasing social mobility does not seem to be very well supported by evidence in the US, in my opinion. The rich routinely support policies with the intent of diminishing their tax burden, or of promoting an idealized notion of 'hard work and independence,' that have the net effect of decreasing social mobility. But the average American upper class citizen, even the average American millionaire or multimillionaire, is not Hoggish Greedly and doesn't really seem to have have any specific desire to stratify American society as such.

While I agree that the connection between abortions and social mobility is too abstract for rich folks to default to that as a reason to hold favorable position for or against it, I am inclined to contend that the rich DO assume political positions based on decreased social mobility. Racism is basically based on wishing to cement social stratification in society and ensure their own position in society. Many who are against increasing affordability of college assert that they are against it because it reduces the value of a college education, which is effectively the same as stating that they wish to sustain a system that favors those with financial means over those without. The argument against universal health care often is the assertion that you would have to wait longer for medical treatment... essentially stating that they'd rather allow people die so that they can receive more convenient treatment for non-critical medical issues.

[Starglider]

Racism is basically based on wishing to cement social stratification in society and ensure their own position in society.

No, you are spouting overwrought academic nonsense again. Racism exists between tribal or national groups that don't share a society; e.g. common justification for wars between groups with minimal direct contact. Racism was present before civilisation was even invented. In group / out group formation based on physical differences is instinctive, which is why it has recurred through history in so many guises and why it's so hard to suppress (and why it even happens in other species). People do police racially-based social roles where they exist, like any other social role, but that is not what racism is 'based on'. This is wishful thinking; if racism was really something so abstract then perhaps liberals would simply be able talk it to death, but as the latest US election indicated it is more pernicious and primal than that.

Many who are against increasing affordability of college assert that they are against it because it reduces the value of a college education, which is effectively the same as stating that they wish to sustain a system that favors those with financial means over those without. The argument against universal health care often is the assertion that you would have to wait longer for medical treatment... essentially stating that they'd rather allow people die so that they can receive more convenient treatment for non-critical medical issues.

The vast majority of voters do not construct these kind of inferential chains. The common objection to universal health coverage is that Canada has higher taxes and they've heard some scary (annecdotal) stories about waiting times. That's as far as it goes. Devaluation of college degrees is one of the few cases where direct self interest might actually be a real motivation for suppressing social mobility, as most voters can imagine competing with a bigger pool of graduates for jobs, but even there it probably isn't the actual reason; more likely to be rationalisation for the more direct motivations of 'it's unfair that I had to pay and these kids think they don't have to' and 'why should I pay more taxes for that'.

[Broomstick]

What purpose does it serve to have a hissy fit and refuse to make clearer the part of your post he requested clarification about?

It wasn't a "hissy fit", it was a computer that would only stay on line about 10 minutes before crashing which made any sort of nuanced reply more than problematic. With the computer expert (my spouse) spending more time in the hospital than not this month and the joys of working retail during the holiday season (Merry fucking Christmas, dammit!) getting my dad's old computer rebuilt sufficiently to enable me to write this here took a few days.

You made a bizarre point about "going to war" which I did not understand. Before proceeding with any dialogue it seemed apt to find out the meaning of the comment, in order to prevent misunderstandings in what can often be a sensitive area.

I was not aware of the "divided by a common language" issue here.

The problem with attempting to compromise with the anti-abortion extreme is that they view it as murdering babies in every sense of the word and comparisons with the WWII holocaust are frequently made. Over the years eleven adult people have been murdered over this issue. There really are people in the US who would happily impose their views on this issue by violence.

That aside, there are quite a few people who are more than a little uncomfortable with the notion of aborting an 8 month old fetus because there are people walking around who were born a month earlier than that. "Point of viability" is a point of compromise with people who are not on the far extreme. "20 weeks" is a nice round number and it errs on the side of "non-viable" with present technology.

As others in this thread have noted, that's not much different than many European nations.

[Dragon Angel]

"It's not much different from many European nations", though, is just appeal to popularity. For all we know the standard will be changed to an even lower number in a few years and we'll be having this same discussion again, except trying to justify 19, 18, 17, etc. weeks in our heads.

I'm infinitely more comfortable with a limit based on some rational discourse; third trimester, by most accounts, seems like the most proper limit. The people who are willing to blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors will just have to actually be dealt with. We can't possibly keep society regressed forever because terrorists like those refuse to grow with the times.

[Gandalf]

The problem with attempting to compromise with the anti-abortion extreme is that they view it as murdering babies in every sense of the word and comparisons with the WWII holocaust are frequently made. Over the years eleven adult people have been murdered over this issue. There really are people in the US who would happily impose their views on this issue by violence.

Are there not police for that kind of problem?

That aside, there are quite a few people who are more than a little uncomfortable with the notion of aborting an 8 month old fetus because there are people walking around who were born a month earlier than that. "Point of viability" is a point of compromise with people who are not on the far extreme. "20 weeks" is a nice round number and it errs on the side of "non-viable" with present technology.

What is the point of this compromise except for fear of those who would resort to terrorism over the issue?

"Sorry, but I'm afraid I can't perform this procedure. The governor needed to boost his ratings with evangelical voters, so you've been demoted from a citizen to a baby carrier."
"Can I-"
"Silence!"

[Broomstick]

The problem with attempting to compromise with the anti-abortion extreme is that they view it as murdering babies in every sense of the word and comparisons with the WWII holocaust are frequently made. Over the years eleven adult people have been murdered over this issue. There really are people in the US who would happily impose their views on this issue by violence.

Are there not police for that kind of problem?

Yes. And there have been both arrests and convictions.

The biggest problem is people who share similar views sheltering/protecting these terrorists.

That aside, there are quite a few people who are more than a little uncomfortable with the notion of aborting an 8 month old fetus because there are people walking around who were born a month earlier than that. "Point of viability" is a point of compromise with people who are not on the far extreme. "20 weeks" is a nice round number and it errs on the side of "non-viable" with present technology.

What is the point of this compromise except for fear of those who would resort to terrorism over the issue?

There are multiplicity of views on the subject.

There are those who believe the fetus is a full human from conception on and would outlaw some forms of birth control such as "Plan B", the "morning after pill", and emergency contraception for rape victims.

There are those who believe the fetus is a full human from implantation onwards.

There are those who draw the line at fetal heart beat, or fetal brain waves.

There are those who draw the line at the end of the first trimester, or the second, or at the point of viability.

There are some who thing abortion is OK up until the moment natural labor starts.

The purpose of the compromise is to find a set rules that MOST people can live with. In the US, that's usually between 20-28 weeks.

"Sorry, but I'm afraid I can't perform this procedure. The governor needed to boost his ratings with evangelical voters, so you've been demoted from a citizen to a baby carrier."
"Can I-"
"Silence!"

Yes, at a certain point the woman becomes a "baby carrier" in the sense that she can't arbitrarily kill the fetus. MOST women will figure out they're pregnant by the end of the first trimester, if not sooner, which allows sufficient time for an abortion assuming no other obstacles (lack of money, lack of providers) are thrown in her way.

This isn't that much different than men being told once the baby is born that they're on the hook for child support for 18 years.

At a certain point that fetus becomes a human being with rights and it's no longer just about what mom and/or dad want or find convenient.

Frankly, allowing abortion up to 20 weeks is NOT going to score points with the American evangelicals. If it scores points with anyone it's the liberal/left/secular humanists.

[Gandalf]

Yes. And there have been both arrests and convictions.

The biggest problem is people who share similar views sheltering/protecting these terrorists.

Important police work is hard. Who knew?

There are multiplicity of views on the subject.

There are those who believe the fetus is a full human from conception on and would outlaw some forms of birth control such as "Plan B", the "morning after pill", and emergency contraception for rape victims.

There are those who believe the fetus is a full human from implantation onwards.

There are those who draw the line at fetal heart beat, or fetal brain waves.

There are those who draw the line at the end of the first trimester, or the second, or at the point of viability.

There are some who thing abortion is OK up until the moment natural labor starts.

The purpose of the compromise is to find a set rules that MOST people can live with. In the US, that's usually between 20-28 weeks.

Good thing people didn't apply that standard to any other civil rights argument. Maybe black people would only vote in three out of five elections, but only if their owner allowed it.

Yes, at a certain point the woman becomes a "baby carrier" in the sense that she can't arbitrarily kill the fetus. MOST women will figure out they're pregnant by the end of the first trimester, if not sooner, which allows sufficient time for an abortion assuming no other obstacles (lack of money, lack of providers) are thrown in her way.

This isn't that much different than men being told once the baby is born that they're on the hook for child support for 18 years.

At a certain point that fetus becomes a human being with rights and it's no longer just about what mom and/or dad want or find convenient.

Once the foetus passes the humanity line, the argument is different, but unless you're going to argue that it's somewhere near this twenty week limit it's something of a complete red herring.

Frankly, allowing abortion up to 20 weeks is NOT going to score points with the American evangelicals. If it scores points with anyone it's the liberal/left/secular humanists.

As others have pointed out in this thread, it's great for evangelicals who are looking at this from a long term perspective. Twenty is less than the previous limit of twenty four. Once twenty is normalised, someone can push to sixteen or so.

[Dragon Angel]

There are a multiplicity of views on separation of Church and State, too, though. For the most part, we have managed to keep the two separate; however, we will still always see people attempt to get their favorite belief system / sect to be recognized as the Official Religion of the State, or have their core beliefs instilled as governmental law.

Do we try to force a compromise with them, too? Should evolution and creationism be treated as equally-valid theories as to the creation and design of life? That's of course absurd, but therein lies my point: Half the country could desire for creationism as Genesis taught us to be seen as reality greater than or equal to science, but any sane secular government would block such a ruling. The same should be thought of in abortion on any nonscientific grounds.

Regarding time limits, sure, there may be a point where the law should say the fetus is valid as a human being and will be forbidden to be aborted, but it would be absurd to set the limit to a level where the chances of the fetus surviving are abysmally low. 20 weeks is very close to that kind of absurdity, as demonstrated in this thread. A compromise agreeing with a position approaching absurd does not make it any less absurd.

Frankly, allowing abortion up to 20 weeks is NOT going to score points with the American evangelicals. If it scores points with anyone it's the liberal/left/secular humanists.

I can definitely tell you there is a great portion of liberals / leftists that are not happy with this compromise. It's either seen as a fake gesture of goodwill intended for a greater political agenda, or yet another subversion of what should be a given in women's rights.

[Gandalf]

Frankly, allowing abortion up to 20 weeks is NOT going to score points with the American evangelicals. If it scores points with anyone it's the liberal/left/secular humanists.

I can definitely tell you there is a great portion of liberals / leftists that are not happy with this compromise. It's either seen as a fake gesture of goodwill intended for a greater political agenda, or yet another subversion of what should be a given in women's rights.

The only people I've seen happy/less than mortified about this that aren't anti-abortionists are people who've gone "At least it wasn't the six week bill."

[Starglider]

Viability with medical aid is not a sensible criteria because technological advance will keep pushing it back, probably to zero when artificial wombs are eventually created (could take a few generations but there are no fundamental blockers). Support for abortion must be based on a distinction between 'person' and 'not person' independent of whether the body is inside another body or not.

[Broomstick]

Yes. And there have been both arrests and convictions.

The biggest problem is people who share similar views sheltering/protecting these terrorists.

Important police work is hard. Who knew?

It's made more difficult when people are sheltering those defined as criminals.

We regard people on the Underground Railroad and who sheltered Jews during WWII as heroes, but they were criminals in those times and places. The same tactics that allowed them what success they have also allow current criminals and terrorist to evade capture.

Good thing people didn't apply that standard to any other civil rights argument. Maybe black people would only vote in three out of five elections, but only if their owner allowed it.

That sort of thing did in fact occur back when whether or not Africans were as human as Europeans was under debate - it's just that that question was settle centuries ago. When the fetus becomes human and entitled to rights is not a settled question.

Yes, at a certain point the woman becomes a "baby carrier" in the sense that she can't arbitrarily kill the fetus. MOST women will figure out they're pregnant by the end of the first trimester, if not sooner, which allows sufficient time for an abortion assuming no other obstacles (lack of money, lack of providers) are thrown in her way.

This isn't that much different than men being told once the baby is born that they're on the hook for child support for 18 years.

At a certain point that fetus becomes a human being with rights and it's no longer just about what mom and/or dad want or find convenient.

Once the foetus passes the humanity line, the argument is different, but unless you're going to argue that it's somewhere near this twenty week limit it's something of a complete red herring.[/quote]
I'm not personally arguing that but some people certainly are. The record survival of a premature baby is 21 weeks and 5 days. There have been other instances of babies being born at 21 weeks and some change and surviving relatively intact. Of course, there have also been disasters. But those 21 week and some change survivors are sufficient to convince some people that 24 weeks is too late to allow abortions.

Basing abortion limits on what gestational age the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother isn't a totally irrational criteria. Yes, technological advances will eventually push that back. At which poit we'll pick up the argument again.

[Dragon Angel]

Viability with medical aid is not a sensible criteria because technological advance will keep pushing it back, probably to zero when artificial wombs are eventually created (could take a few generations but there are no fundamental blockers). Support for abortion must be based on a distinction between 'person' and 'not person' independent of whether the body is inside another body or not.

Arguably at that point, we might (emphasis on might) have a society that would be not only capable of raising children without parents, but also supporting them well into adulthood. Artificial wombs would take the matter of the fetus and/or child being an undue burden from the mother as well.

Failing those requirements, it could still be argued that forcing the mother to unwillingly birth the child from the moment of conception, in spite of the technology being present, would be immoral for both the mother and the child. It's something many pro-lifers forget so much of the time, that children have lives beyond the womb they must also take care of.

[SCRawl]

Viability with medical aid is not a sensible criteria because technological advance will keep pushing it back, probably to zero when artificial wombs are eventually created (could take a few generations but there are no fundamental blockers). Support for abortion must be based on a distinction between 'person' and 'not person' independent of whether the body is inside another body or not.

Arguably at that point, we might (emphasis on might) have a society that would be not only capable of raising children without parents, but also supporting them well into adulthood. Artificial wombs would take the matter of the fetus and/or child being an undue burden from the mother as well.

Failing those requirements, it could still be argued that forcing the mother to unwillingly birth the child from the moment of conception, in spite of the technology being present, would be immoral for both the mother and the child. It's something many pro-lifers forget so much of the time, that children have lives beyond the womb they must also take care of.

I would like to think that if we could construct artificial gestation chambers, we would have more reliable contraception, so that there would never be occasion to have an unwanted conception and therefore (aside from non-viable fetuses) never be the need or desire for an abortion. The ideal number of abortions in the world will always be zero. It's just that we don't live in an ideal world.

[Sea Skimmer]

An artificial womb would probably lead to a genetic split in the human species, and so generate x1 trillion new moral and ethical problems.

[Flagg]

There are a multiplicity of views on separation of Church and State, too, though. For the most part, we have managed to keep the two separate; however, we will still always see people attempt to get their favorite belief system / sect to be recognized as the Official Religion of the State, or have their core beliefs instilled as governmental law.

Do we try to force a compromise with them, too? Should evolution and creationism be treated as equally-valid theories as to the creation and design of life? That's of course absurd, but therein lies my point: Half the country could desire for creationism as Genesis taught us to be seen as reality greater than or equal to science, but any sane secular government would block such a ruling. The same should be thought of in abortion on any nonscientific grounds.

Regarding time limits, sure, there may be a point where the law should say the fetus is valid as a human being and will be forbidden to be aborted, but it would be absurd to set the limit to a level where the chances of the fetus surviving are abysmally low. 20 weeks is very close to that kind of absurdity, as demonstrated in this thread. A compromise agreeing with a position approaching absurd does not make it any less absurd.

Frankly, allowing abortion up to 20 weeks is NOT going to score points with the American evangelicals. If it scores points with anyone it's the liberal/left/secular humanists.

I can definitely tell you there is a great portion of liberals / leftists that are not happy with this compromise. It's either seen as a fake gesture of goodwill intended for a greater political agenda, or yet another subversion of what should be a given in women's rights.

Separation of church and state is so regional it's farce. There are still public schools where morning prayer to Jesus takes place. Don't be an open Atheist accused of a crime in a jury trial! And actually, yes, there are still movements to teach creationism "Intelligent Design" alongside not-stupid/crazy Bible Bullshit.