Nebraska Limits Abortions to First 20 Weeks

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:31:12 AM EST
Tags: abortion (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman will sign a bill into law today that bans abortions if the woman is 20 weeks pregnant. The reasoning: the fetus might feel pain. The text of the bill, LB1103, is here. Some snippets:

(4) There is substantial evidence that abortion methods used at and after twenty weeks would cause substantial pain to an unborn child;

(5) Expert testimony confirms that an unborn child is capable of experiencing substantial pain even if the pregnant woman herself has received local analgesic or general anesthesia; and

(6) There is a valid state interest in reducing or preventing events in which pain is inflicted on sentient and nonsentient creatures. Examples of laws that serve this interest are laws governing the use of laboratory animals, laws requiring pain-free methods of slaughtering livestock, and laws regarding hunting methods on federal lands.

[More...]

No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion upon a woman when the probable gestational age of the woman’s unborn child is twenty or more weeks unless, in reasonable medical judgment, she has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.

Of course the bill will be challenged in court. Jurist says:

The possibility of the Supreme Court hearing a case challenging these laws could have an impact on the confirmation hearings of President Obama's nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Misunderstanding "Pols are Pols. . ." >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Nebraska Limits Abortions to First 20 Weeks | 88 comments (88 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The state that will defend the (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:57:24 AM EST

20 week fetus but will allow the full term and delivered child to die in the name of the capitalism that destroyed the parents lives and abilities to survive and care for their young....yawn....different day and same old despicable thug crowd.

I believe this is also the state (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by cawaltz on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:19:26 PM EST

that had to clarify it's abandonment laws after it had kids well over the cute and cuddly easily adoptable period (something like 3 days)being dropped off at hospitals. So much hypocrisy, so little time. Their concern for "children and their pain"is underwhelming to me too.


You are Thinking of Iowa (none / 0) (#22)
by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:00:08 PM EST

: Not sure what Iowa's problems of late have (none / 0) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 10:20:57 PM EST

been, but Nebraska to my knowledge was in the news about two years ago...perhaps less...having to rewrite its child abandonment laws because they ended up with so many abandoned kids it wasn't funny.

Aren't most abortions (none / 0) (#37)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:27:16 PM EST

performed within the first 3 months (12-13 weeks) unless a severe problem is detected in mother/baby/both that would require a later term decision to abort?

Nebraska might deserve the benefit of the doubt in this case. Twenty weeks is 4.5 months.


5 months. (none / 0) (#38)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:30:01 PM EST

5 months what? (none / 0) (#39)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:36:12 PM EST

If that's how long you think women wait to decide whether or not they want to abort an unwanted pregnancy, you must have a link to support it.

You have a comment in this thread that makes me think you aren't here to discuss the Nebraska topic, but instead to throw your judgment against abortion into it.


20 weeks is 5 months, not 4.5. (none / 0) (#40)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:38:59 PM EST

Look at a calendar (none / 0) (#42)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:50:47 PM EST

count 20 weeks and see if it ever comes out to exactly 5 months.


: I see your point, fair enough. (none / 0) (#43)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:52:20 PM EST

: Heh, a full term pregnancy (none / 0) (#50)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 10:17:20 PM EST

is 40 weeks or 9 months. I've been pregnant and given birth enough to know your ciphering is correct.

And btw, if you read carefully, (none / 0) (#41)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:43:35 PM EST

you'll see my comments are in response to other's comments.

iow, my comments discuss the topic of the comments that I responded to, they are not topics I brought into the convo.


Read carefully (none / 0) (#44)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:54:16 PM EST

Surely you can understand that (none / 0) (#27)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:28:55 PM EST
if a fetus is life then abortion is murder?
[ Parent | Reply to This | 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Yes, on the broad topic of responding (none / 0) (#46)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 06:02:20 PM EST

to one platitude like this one:

I just don't understand why it can't come down to this: if a person doesn't believe in abortion, she shouldn't have one.

with another.

And see, they both were about "understanding," don't you find that so very clever?


: Actually, this comment was a little glib. (none / 0) (#47)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 06:09:30 PM EST

The topic of the sentence I responded to was not about Nebraska but, rather, about abortion itself. My response was in kind.
I think I'm done justifying myself to you.

their only reason is to confer more rights to (none / 0) (#82)
by nycvoter on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 04:52:12 PM EST

fetuses and less to women, that's it, no benefit of the doubt


: ya know, I once read a quote that said something (none / 0) (#83)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 05:09:00 PM EST

like "my rights start where your rights end." and now I think I understand what that means.

regarding this: (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by CST on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:09:40 PM EST

"could have an impact on the confirmation hearings of President Obama's nominee"

let's hope so. I would like to the know nominee's view on the issue myself. Maybe this will bring up some pertinent questions.

Hmm (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Dadler on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:10:20 PM EST

How many unwanted children has the governor adopted? And I ain't talking cute little babies. I'm talking older children, the ones who nobody wants and end up kicked to the street at 18.

Forgive me, this is an immediate topic in our home right now, as we're in the process of welcoming one of those forgotten children into our family. I urge others, if they have the means and the love, to do the same.

Peace.

: Actually, that would be the question I would (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:20:10 PM EST

ask of all the anti-choice protesters. I would say they aren't real big on taking in other people's children.

Nebraska... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by kdog on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:44:27 PM EST

ain't limiting sh*t, all they're doing is turning women who make their decision after 20 weeks into criminals, and forcing them to endure unnecessary hardship while seeing their decision through.

I mean they can't really think a woman is gonna go "oh well, its week 21, I guess I'll have the baby."

Actually it is the more (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by hairspray on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 12:56:20 AM EST

complex situations that go beyond 20 weeks. It is the teenager trying to "hide" the pregnancy, or the woman who develops a serious physical or mental problem,orthings of that sort who may need the ab around 20 weeks or later. A young woman using BC or not, finding herself pregnant will get the ab early enough to avoid the 16 week marker.


: Amen! (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 09:42:20 AM EST

And real life situations that only very old women can catalog or someone who works in the field of delivering reproductive healthcare to women. I have a new doctor here who is helping me deal with my asthma, and doing a good job by the way. During my first visit we started talking about Josh and what such things can do to mothers. He spoke of a woman who had had the most unfortunate circumstance of her almost full term pregnancy die inside her. The Ob/Gyn was choosing to wait to see if her body would begin labor on its own to sadly expel it and make his life easier. Going into week two though my new doctor lost it, told the Ob/Gyn that while he was making certain his life was as simple as possible he was mentally destroying the woman and she was packing around dead flesh inside her at this point too and that can easily mean a terrible infection soon. I also had a friend barely survive such a horror as well with the physicians doing the same thing to her. Such things don't matter though it would seem....our mental and physical health is of little or no concern.....the doctors are stressed and the government owns our wombs and we will do as we are told or else.

I wonder who gets to foot the bill (none / 0) (#8)
by cawaltz on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:51:33 PM EST

for the ultrasound? Will it be the lucky woman they'll be forcing into an eighteen year commitment?


If you ask the crew.... (none / 0) (#11)
by kdog on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:04:37 PM EST

behind this crap, why the government of course, with the tax dollars of hard-working church-going folk...they took over healthcare via a stealth commie coup led by the manchurian Kenyan.


: The government? (none / 0) (#14)
by cawaltz on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:44:38 PM EST

Isn't this the same crew who insists the government doesn't have the ability to do anything other than war right so shouldn't be left in charge of things like health care? Isn't this the same crew who are always whining about the government "wasting" their tax dollarsA?
I get it though. The government should only be in the fetal health care business. All the rest of us should just bugger off because providing care for someone out of utero is "communism".
Hypocrisy this awful ought to be painful.

Al Franken Got It Right (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:55:06 PM EST

What was it that Al Franken used to say about Republicans? They believe life begins at conception and ends at birth.

digby

This is really about making sure there (5.00 / 7) (#13)
by Anne on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:34:39 PM EST

are no physicians willing to perform abortions; the reporting requirements, the fines for failure to file those reports, and the other consequences are going to make sure of that.

This little nugget:

Any woman upon whom an abortion has been performed in violation of the Abortion Pain Prevention Act, the father of the unborn child who was the subject of such an abortion,-or the grandparent of such an unborn child may maintain an action against the person who performed the abortion in knowing or reckless violation of the act for actual damages. Any woman upon whom an abortion has been attempted in violation of the act may maintain an action against the person who attempted to perform the abortion in knowing or reckless violation of the act for actual damages.

gets fathers and grandparents - and even the mother herself - into the act, allowing them to bring a cause of action against the provider for performing a 20+ week abortion. Now, what provider is going to risk legal action from the fetus' "family" for performing an abortion at 20 weeks or later?

The bill makes clear that no woman who has a 20+ week abortion is subject to any fines, penalties or charges: it's all directed at the providers. It's a second-trimester abortion, not predicated on viability, but on pain and suffering. Does this have any effect on the constitutionality of the legislation?

Really, people should read the whole thing - if they can stomach it - and contemplate the effect of the legislation; it's draconian.

Worse (none / 0) (#16)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 02:13:17 PM EST

All women seeking abortion at any stage will have to undergo mental stability tests and be deemed mentally fit. This is also a huge liability trap for physicians, because there is not way that the doctors can keep up with the latest adjustments to mental health field.

Planned parenthood has said that they will be able to manage but private doctors will not have the resources to keep up with all the hoops..


Kind of a Catch-22, isn't it? (5.00 / 6) (#24)
by Anne on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:06:54 PM EST

A woman could claim to be mentally at risk if she is forced to carry the pregnancy to term, but the fact that she would claim to be mentally fragile could result in a determination that she isn't mentally qualified to decide to terminate.

It seems like it would be a much better use of time, energy and resources if efforts could be directed at providing more and better education, greater access to birth control and more and better resources to support the babies that are born and the mothers who care for them.

I'm a firm believer in people taking responsibility for their actions, and if at all possible, not putting themselves in a position to be pregnant if they don't want to be. But I also know that we aren't always in control, lives can take sudden and downward turns, birth control can fail, medical conditions can intervene. We have to have the freedom to have dominion over our bodies and our lives, and I am just weary of the mindset that suggests otherwise - that wants to treat us like chattel, or as little more than incubators whose own lives are irrelevant.

I just don't understand why it can't come down to this: if a person doesn't believe in abortion, she shouldn't have one.


Potential Votes (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:24:34 PM EST

and more important, potential tithers to add to the flock and its coffers. Religion at worst a money=power=control racket... at best, hmmmm hard to say.

Ironically the religious white, is acutely aware that they are soon going to be a minority, because from their point of view the brown people are reproducing like cockaroaches. Short circuit time? Nah...

Their solution would be sterilization as they are "unfit" that is if jail, deportation or death, did not work first.

Same fear in Israel, the arabs are reproducing faster than the jews, so if they do not build settlements in illegal land, commit the occasional genocide, and deport arabs, they will no longer be a jewish state. Big problem, and the basis for all the fighting, imo.


Americian Family Association (none / 0) (#28)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:30:56 PM EST

Case in point:

The American Family Association's Director of Issues Analysis, the detestable Bryan Fischer, has penned another one of his intolerable policy recommendations. Fischer suggests that the US deport all Muslims. If we fail in our efforts, he writes, "it may soon be too late to save what is left of American culture."

You'd think that conservative Muslims (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by observed on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:13:24 PM EST

might want to move to Nebraska now.
I could see a political deal: women forced to wear veils in return for support from a voting bloc in favor of abortion bans.


They (none / 0) (#31)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:27:30 PM EST

have the same values about Gays as well- where is the Sharia-Quiverfull alliance?


: Before 9/11, such an alliance already (none / 0) (#33)
by observed on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:30:56 PM EST

was in the works.

No (none / 0) (#36)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 05:22:29 PM EST

They can stay but must convert:

American Family Association: Muslims Can Stay In The U.S. If They Accept Christ


: The AFA (none / 0) (#52)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 10:52:46 PM EST

can stay as long as they accept Zeus and sacrifice a fatted calf in his honor.

From abortion to Palestinians (none / 0) (#56)
by klassicheart on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 12:22:59 AM EST

You must be confused. The United States is the country that committed genocide-- against the American Indians. And then put them on reservations. And of course, there is the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks. As for land grabs, the U.S. was good at that too...should we give some back? As for your being in favor of population explosion which leads to environmental degradation and global warming...I find that quite alarming. Clearly, your antisemitism shows.


: lol (none / 0) (#74)
by squeaky on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 03:58:28 PM EST

Clearly, your antisemitism shows.
yeah, I must be a self hating jew, just like these folks, or these folks or these folks.
Problem is you equate Judaism with Israel. Israel is a country, Judaism is a religion.

Surely you can understand that (none / 0) (#27)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 03:28:55 PM EST

if a fetus is life then abortion is murder?


I'm sorry if my statement about women (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Anne on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 10:55:53 AM EST

not having abortions if they don't believe it's their right to was too simplistic, but that's what reproductive choice is: allowing each woman to have dominion over her own body and the right to decide when or whether she should have children.

I have two children. I've experienced two pregnancies. I know what it feels like to know that you have, growing inside you, a being that, if all goes well, will come into the world and join a family. What I haven't experienced is pregnancy as a result of a rape. Or pregnancy where the fetus was grossly deformed or carrying genes that would make his or her life short and painful. I haven't been pregnant and been abandoned by my husband or significant other and left with no means to support myself. I haven't been pregnant and diagnosed with a disease where choosing to stay pregnant could end my own life. I haven't been pregnant because my birth control failed.

So, it's easy to make value and moral judgments about whether women should have the right to make these decisions when one imagines that pregnancy for all women is like a gauzy, slo-mo prance through a field of daisies in which a loving husband stands with open arms, a full wallet, in front of a beautiful home with a few apple-cheeked, blonde-haired and beaming toddlers, the family pet and the American flag.

I don't know that I could have terminated either of my pregnancies. I never had the amnio I was offered with my second child. I knew too well that having a perfect set of genes was no guarantee of a trouble-free life, and the only reason I could see for having the tests was if we were prepared to end the pregnancy. And I wasn't.

But I can't, in good conscience, take that right away from some other woman, whose beliefs and circumstances may be a world apart from mine. I can't in good conscience substitute my judgment for someone else's. But that's what the State of Nebraska, in this case, is doing. It is saying "we know better what is right and wrong for you, and we're going to make it as difficult as possible for you to have any other choice but to have the baby."

When life begins, when a fetus feels pain - none of this has been defined in any reliable way; there are as many opinions and studies and reports as there are people.

So, it all comes back to dominion, and to the point I originally made: if someone doesn't believe in the right to have an abortion, she shouldn't seek one.


I can understand your opinion. (none / 0) (#61)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 12:11:36 PM EST

Can you understand that others might have a differing opinion?


Yes - that's the whole point. (none / 0) (#64)
by Anne on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 01:08:11 PM EST

I understand and respect that others believe abortion is murder. What I don't understand and don't respect is the effort to impose that belief upon all women.

My belief in the right to choose does not force any woman to do anything that is counter to her beliefs; efforts to pass laws that restrict or prohibit that choice has "force" written all over it.

I'm not so sure, though, whether it's really so much about believing abortion is murder, as it is about controlling what women do. If you don't think giving biological fathers the right to sue a doctor for performing an abortion isn't about control, you might want to think again. If you don't think making women submit to mental health exams before having an abortion isn't about control - yeah, think again.


So Anne, (none / 0) (#66)
by me only on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 01:20:04 PM EST

what is the limit on abortion? 8 months? 39 weeks? During labor? Before the umbilical cord is cut?


Roe v. Wade talks about viability, (none / 0) (#69)
by Anne on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 02:34:41 PM EST

which it pegged at the period subsequent to the end of the second trimester - approximately 24 weeks.

Keep in mind that in the years since Roe v. Wade, advances in neonatology have meant that there are babies being born every day at a stage which would have been considered a miscarriage not so long ago; I think that has changed many people's comfort level with abortion.

But asking people to pinpoint the moment when it's no longer "okay" to abort is still to remove from the equation not just the woman who is pregnant, but the totality of the circumstances. Is there an answer to "when is it okay to sacrifice the life of the mother in order to deliver a baby?"

As I have stated many, many times when this issue comes up, there needs to be more time, energy and money spent on education, providing affordable access to birth control and support for the women and the children they bear. And many who are opposed to abortion do put their money where their mouths are, and do not stop their support once the baby is born. But states that want to restrict women's rights to choose also tend to be states that don't want young women to be better educated about their own bodies, who don't want them to be able to get birth control, and don't have funds to help support those who do see their pregnancies through.

Would I feel better about the restrictions if these other elements were part of the package? Well, no, I wouldn't, but I also believe those other elements would help reduce the number of women who seek abortions.

I've already stated that I did not believe I could have aborted either of my children, but what I would or would not do is wholly irrelevant to what any other woman would do.


: Anne, (none / 0) (#71)
by me only on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 03:36:03 PM EST

Is there an answer to "when is it okay to sacrifice the life of the mother in order to deliver a baby?"
I would answer it is never okay to sacrifice the life of the mother in order to deliver a baby. But that is very close to a strawman question. The number of times that killing the baby instead of delivering it alive (after 20 weeks or 24 weeks) to save the life of the mother is a statistically small amount. We cannot make laws for every exception. That is called discretion and we leave that to actual people.
Essentially this law is an attempt to move the date from 24 to 20 weeks. It also sounds like it is also trying to put real teeth into that date.
In the end we have to pick a date. If you think you are not, well obviously we don't let people kill their children after they are born, so no date, is post birth. However, the number of people who would support a 39 week abortion in this country is a really small number. Similarly there are a few people who want to rid the country of contraceptives because they consider that to be abortion. Again the numbers are so low, that idea is not worth your time discussing. (Meaning they ideas are not going to become law.) Since neither extreme is okay, we must pick a date.
If you accept R v W and the 24 week standard, but at the same time accept that technology has moved in the intervening 38 years, then shouldn't we at least consider moving the date?

Beliefs are the foundation (none / 0) (#67)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 01:49:10 PM EST

of every rule or law ever made, and they are, by definition, imposed/forced on all of those who don't share that belief.


Can you give me some examples? (none / 0) (#70)
by Anne on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 02:44:53 PM EST

I'd like to know what laws force you to do something not in accordance with your beliefs.

See if you can find one that comes anywhere close to what forced childbirth would impose upon women.


Ah, so now it's a matter of weight. (none / 0) (#72)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 03:39:33 PM EST

What's imposed on you against your beliefs is more worser than what's imposed on me or that guy over there against our beliefs.


I'd just like to know if there (none / 0) (#75)
by Anne on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 03:58:41 PM EST

is anything you think is comparable. I mean, shouldn't we compare apples to apples?

You're the one who made the statement that we are all forced to comply with things that are not part of our belief system - all I did was ask you for some examples.

And for the record, I don't "believe" in abortion; I believe in the right of women to have dominion over their bodies and the right to make choices about their reproductive life and health. Laws that interfere with that are in a much different category than laws that force you to drive the speed limit, or pay your taxes.


: I'm not going to repeat myself. (none / 0) (#77)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 04:13:04 PM EST

Drug laws, (none / 0) (#73)
by me only on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 03:44:06 PM EST

if you don't like that, the draft.

Busing.

In the end, forcing a woman to make a decision by a certain date is not a death sentence. You are not forced to raise the child. Many people are forced to adopt out the country because there are not enough infants up for adoption.


You're a man, aren't you? (none / 0) (#76)
by Anne on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 04:06:27 PM EST

I have a sister-in-law who got pregnant at 17, was sent to a home for unwed mothers, out of state and away from her family, had the baby and gave it up for adoption.

She was never the same - had two failed marriages, before she married for the third time, and had a child she could keep. But she spent years looking for the one she gave up - and finally found. She never resolved things with her father before he died, barely resolved things with her mother before she died, and every family event we've ever had where all the siblings are present ends up right back at that terrible place.

Would she have had the same problems if she had aborted? We'll never know, but she wasn't given that choice.

So, before you go glibly announcing that no one is forcing women to keep the children they bear, as if it is like giving away the extra cookies she baked, or the dress that no longer fits, you might want to get a better picture of what that can mean to a woman who doesn't have a choice.


So? (none / 0) (#78)
by me only on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 04:18:29 PM EST

Her family made a choice. Would she have chosen differently? (we'll never know) She was 17. At that age in many states the girl cannot choose. She needs a judge or parental consent.

Would 4 weeks have made a difference (and that is what we are talking about in regards to the Nebraska law)?

Besides, this was a response to laws about beliefs. My aunt lost three boyfriends/lovers to the draft. Two body bags and an MIA. You sister in law had the chance to figure those things out, those three guys just had to give their lives.


: read a little more (none / 0) (#79)
by CST on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 04:32:18 PM EST

about the law and through the thread and you wil realize it's about a lot more than "4 weeks". It's about redefining at what stage you can have control over your body. It's about intimidating doctors away from providing abortions at ANY month - read the bill, it's there. It's about moving the goalposts from the point of viability to the point of pain - which is something so undefined and unscientific there is no reason it couldn't move earlier and earlier.
It's about removing control of the situation from the woman and her doctor to include her entire extended family (seems to me like this bit is entirely about not trusting women - her PARENTS can sue the doctor even if she is over 18).
This bill is much more restrictive than you are making it out to be. And once you start being ok with moving the goal posts - at what point does it end?