Arizona "Women’s Health and Safety Act"

[Pontifex Maximus]

Arizona once again proves to the entire nation that it is laughably out of touch with not only the realities of modern America, but perhaps the entire western world. The passage and signing into law of HB2036 has placed heavy restrictions on abortion practices in the state, outlining that parental consent is necessary for minors seeking an abortion unless a judge says that the minor is competent enough to make the decision on her own (by which time it is highly unlikely the girl will still be within the legal gestational period to even have an abortion, despite expediation). This is, of course, waived if the minor attests that she is pregnant by means of incest. What a moral quandary the Republican dominated house is in now! The bill also reaffirms that the father has absolutely no say or any right in the decision making process of whether or not an abortion is to be performed. In fact, it is illegal for him to even recommend an abortion, but he is liable to pay for medical expenses and child support regardless.

The law gives women only 20 weeks from the last menstrual cycle to legally seek an abortion unless a doctor can attest that the mother will die unless an abortion is performed. This essentially means that the state of Arizona considers women pregnant not from the moment of conception, but up to two weeks before fertilization occurs! It is also worth noting that this more limited time period is shorter than the minimum 24 weeks laid down by the supreme court in Roe v. Wade.

The law does a few good things, whichare to attempt to inform women on the medical risks of abortion, educating them about the procedure, and informing them of the gestational age of the fetus. There's nothing wrong with full disclosure of information as long as it is an unbiased attempt to show medical and scientific realities. But can we really trust Arizona to be unbiased in the presentation of this information? I really doubt it.

Here's the transcript of the law

Here's a NYT article on the law

[motiv-8]

inform women on the medical risks of abortion, educating them about the procedure, and informing them of the gestational age of the fetus.

Sounds good on paper, but in practice oftentimes turns into a giant scaremongering session of half-truths and and hyperbole to try to intimidate the woman out of her own conscious decision. In reality doctors almost always lay out the risks and side effects of any substantial medical procedure and so that sort of legislation proviso belies ulterior motives.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

It is also worth noting that this more limited time period is shorter than the minimum 24 weeks laid down by the supreme court in Roe v. Wade.

So a state law is going against a federal law?

*hears Dixie in the background*

[Pontifex Maximus]

So a state law is going against a federal law?

*hears Dixie in the background*

Its certainly challenging the interpretation of the Supreme Court in a rather big way

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Its certainly challenging the interpretation of the Supreme Court in a rather big way

Has the Supreme Court yet turned an eye towards Arizona in this respect?

[mrmouth]

So a state law is going against a federal law?

States' rights, man! Although only when politically convenient...

[Pontifex Maximus]

There was a lawsuit filed in an Arizona district court as of May, I'm not sure if there's been a ruling yet. The Supreme Court most likely won't deal with it unless there's a special appeal made at this stage, and that would be rare.

[Celsius]

Arizona seems to be following right on track with the official Republican Party platform, which was unveiled this past Monday.If this is taken to court, the RNC will claim some bogus BS on why it's an infringement on their rights or whatever.

But this is what pisses me off about Republicans. They want super small government, unless it's involved a pregnant woman. Then they want to dictate what you do under penalty of jail.

[Celsius]

double post *derp*

[The Unknown General]

Get with the times guys

[Princess Cadance]

Every day I feel more and more embarrassed by the fact that I live in Arizona. Why don't the Republicans simply try to overthrow Roe vs. Wade? Everyone knows they don't like it and them using backhanded efforts like this to make abortion all but illegal make them a laughingstock in America. What ever happened to conservative "small government" except when it comes to drug policy,healthcare,gay marriage,etc.? Hyprocrites.

[Admiral Piett]

I support the restriction on minors to give parent consent. Parents have a right to know if their daughter had gotten pregnant. I also think third-trimester and partial birth abortions should be outlawed. But there is literally nothing else in that law I'd ever support. 20 weeks from the last menstrual cycle? I love how these 50 - 60 year old chauvinists talk about these things with any sense of authority.

[SLN445]

Im a bit iffy on parents knowing about pregnancy's but the girl pregnant should have the choice of whether she aborts or not.

[Admiral Piett]

It's to prevent irresponsibility.

[SLN445]

It's to prevent irresponsibility.

How so? just wondering.

[Admiral Piett]

Let's just say I've known girls who've had 4 abortions by the time they were 16. That kind of stuff is extremely irresponsible. Parents have a right to know.

[selder]

Let's just say I've known girls who've had 4 abortions by the time they were 16. That kind of stuff is extremely irresponsible. Parents have a right to know.

well I would imagine the parents would already know their sweet 16 year old was not so sweet at this point, if not they are living under a rock. But would having 4 children at 16 be any less irresponsible? I think in cases like this we have to tun to the state, maybe underage sex should be better regulated instead of condoned and tolerated.

[Col. Tartleton]

well I would imagine the parents would already know their sweet 16 year old was not so sweet at this point, if not they are living under a rock. But would having 4 children at 16 be any less irresponsible? I think in cases like this we have to tun to the state, maybe underage sex should be better regulated instead of condoned and tolerated.

He wasn't stipulating that the abortions were incorrect, he was saying the parents have a right to know.

This bill is stupid because it implicates pregnancy preexisting sex.


Now, I don't consider stupidity to be evidence of malice. Todd Akin isn't evil, he's just wrong and possibly stupid. Yet it reflects negatively on anyone who believes the federal abortion rulings go too far.

Based on what has been said I'm going to read this as if it wasn't retarded for a moment.

They're saying that you have an 18 week window instead of a 24 week window.

I'm not sure why they think that would be better. Yes, narrowing the window might reduce the number of legal abortions, but it's not like they're making some kind of serious ethical stand.

This is political semantics. It's as radical as Paul Ryan's budget. It's "radical" because it's slightly less than the Democrats are pushing for.

Oh my God! The more conservative of the major parties is being more conservative! Stop the press!

[selder]

He wasn't stipulating that the abortions were incorrect, he was saying the parents have a right to know.

I know what he is saying I was just stating that by abortion number 4 they should already know, or their are bigger problems in the household that should be addressed.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Let's just say I've known girls who've had 4 abortions by the time they were 16. That kind of stuff is extremely irresponsible. Parents have a right to know.

With the focus on abstinence rather then birth-control I wouldn't be surprised.
Teach teenagers proper sex-ed with focus on condoms and other birth-control methods instead of telling them to wait and add in free condoms and birth-control pills and you will see things improve.