Arizona and abortion : life doesn't start when you thought it did

[[FnG]magnolia]

So the article is here.

Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

All of the bills passed the Senate and now head to Gov. Jan Brewer (R) for her signature or veto.

The 18th week bill includes a new definition for when pregnancy begins. 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. The bill's passage would give Arizona the earliest cutoff for late-term abortions in the country; most states use 20 weeks as a definition.

But while the bill's definition of when pregnancy begins is new in legislation, it's not necessarily new for doctors. Elizabeth Nash, states issues manager for Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organization in Washington, said it 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.

"It will have some impact, from what we understand there are abortions provided at that point in Arizona," Nash said. "It will reduce access."

Nash said nationally, 1.5 percent of abortions in the U.S. occur after the 21st week and 3.8 percent occur between the 16th and 20th weeks. She said the bill would violate U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion by mandating a cutoff date that is before viability and not having enough provisions for late-term abortions needed to protect a woman's health.

State Rep. Kimberly Yee (R-Phoenix), the bill's sponsor, was not immediately available for comment. Her assistant said that Yee, a former aide to former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), was voting on the House floor.

State Rep. Matt Heinz (D-Tucson), a physician, said he did not want the state to set the gestational age since science could not provide a precise one. "I imagine it will be a legal dispute. How can a judge determine gestational age?" Heinz said. "If medical science can only determine gestational age to within 10-14 days, how can a superior court judge do it?"

The other two bills passed by the House include the state's "wrongful birth, wrongful life" bill that prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion. In addition, parents cannot sue on the child's behalf after birth.

The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

All three bills are now headed to Brewer's desk for her review. The governor has not announced a position on the bills, which is her practice, but her spokesman indicated that Brewer has a long commitment to pro-life issues.

I know, Arizona right? This is incredible even for Arizona though. Whilst you digest what the first bill considers, let's look at the other two.

The second states that parents cannot sue a doctor who does not disclose information that could lead the parent(s) to choose abortion as an option. They can also not sue on their child's behalf once born. That is, if the doctor chooses not to provide information - the full picture, if you will - to parents then he cannot be challenged on this and he certainly can't be sued for any outcomes which could have been avoided if parents had known the facts.

The third states that schools must teach adoption and birth as the preferred or most acceptable outcome of an unwanted pregnancy (this includes rape).

Let's go back to the first one. This is not a new concept (bad pun, sorry) in the medical field but it is a new concept in the judicial field. However, it seems to violate at least one Supreme Court ruling.

What do people think?

 

[Castiel]

That its stupid.

 

[SubScape]

The second states that parents cannot sue a doctor who does not disclose information that could lead the parent(s) to choose abortion as an option.

Why would doctors intentionally withhold information about the pregnancy from the mother? Is this information for example whether the child has an increased risk of disability?

 

[int]

Why would doctors intentionally withhold information about the pregnancy from the mother? Is this information for example whether the child has an increased risk of disability?

Exactly this.

I find it extremely odd, as it is a doctors job and purpose to let their patients know if something is wrong. If the doctors aren't there to carry out this role then why are they even carrying out the exams?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Why would doctors intentionally withhold information about the pregnancy from the mother? Is this information for example whether the child has an increased risk of disability?

You would hope that they wouldn't. However, the bill completely protects the doctor from later repercussions if they chose not to flag up likeliness of physical and physiological concerns.

 

[Dunks]

lolArizona.

 

[GAC]

well after watching newsnight this evening anything to do with abortion in the states doesnt surprise me.

some republican activists were comparing abortion with hitler and the holocaust.

 

[Lightnix]

" pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception."

You're the boss, Arizona.

 

[One]

well after watching newsnight this evening anything to do with abortion in the states doesnt surprise me.

some republican activists were comparing abortion with hitler and the holocaust.

They make the same comparisons with euthanasia too. I see no problem with this though. It's pretty easy to drive to a neighbouring state to get a hot poker inserted.

It wasn't that long ago since abortion was completely illegal in this country, it's understandable some countries are still playing catch up.

 

[The Halk]

Evil in the name of religion.

 

[GAC]

They make the same comparisons with euthanasia too. I see no problem with this though. It's pretty easy to drive to a neighbouring state to get a hot poker inserted.

It wasn't that long ago since abortion was completely illegal in this country, it's understandable some countries are still playing catch up.

catch up ???

the states seem to have found a reverse gear and are going further away.

 

[One]

catch up ???

the states seem to have found a reverse gear and are going further away.

No not the states, just some of them and while it might be a reversal when viewed as a state the actual people of the state and the people reversing it now have not had a change of heart and have always been anti-abortion.

 

[One]

Evil in the name of religion.

Not necessarily, who's to say one of these kids from Arizona that isn't aborted and gets put into adoption won't grow up to be the President? I think before a child is born though the emphasis should be put on the Mother and what she would be forced to go through and from that point of view tightening abortion rules is not right.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Oh, I get it, because they are republicans their beliefs don't count... of course.

This country FULLY supports religion as does america, I think religion is a complete joke, but many if not all religious groups consider abortion completely immoral. How can you complain about people having the choice to campaign for whatever they want..... AND the right for other people to campaign against it.

That is life, I love how certain people want freedom of speech, and the freedom to make change and campaign for whatever you want.... just as long as you agree with it.

The vast majority of republicans who campaign for this do so because, they believe a child is alive from conception and believe abortion is murder. If that is their belief I full support their right to stand up against abortion.

I'm completely opposed to their stance on abortion, I'm even more opposed to people suggesting they shouldn't be able to believe as they do, shouldn't be able to campaign, or that a state where a majority of people agree shouldn't be allowed to change such laws.

My views on abortion is pretty much that for as many people who should have abortions, there are as many others that abuse the right to have them. Have unprotected sex frequently and have multiple abortions because its easier, or those who find out they are having a girl and want a boy , etc, etc. But removing the right for others is just as bad. There won't be a good system till people take on some personal responsibilty, and likely till religion goes away.

 

[The Halk]

This country FULLY supports religion as does america, I think religion is a complete joke, but many if not all religious groups consider abortion completely immoral. How can you complain about people having the choice to campaign for whatever they want..... AND the right for other people to campaign against it.

Easily. The religious right campaign for control of other people's lives and choices and freedoms.

This isn't an argument where one side says "You must abort" and the other says "You must not abort". This is an argument where one side says "I want to tell you what you can do with your own body" while the other says "You have no right to tell someone what they can do with their own body."

 

[Scougar]

I personally think the bit about schools teaching adoption/birth is right, but the choice is still with the mother .. but in the case of rape? No. That's just daft.

It can either be legalised, or women will seek to get it done illegally, which can have horrendous consequences.

TBH, I'm not actually sure where I stand on the whole issue of abortion. I think it's totally tragic, and people nowadays treat it like a pregnancy is just an inconvenience...(take the blue pill), but on the other hand you have people that really didn't want to get pregnant and realised way too late. It's a difficult call.

Halk> You have to be careful though, a society can't function correctly if everyone just does what the **** they want, and screw everybody else. There is a limit. Also.. the bit you mention about "your body".. that's kinda the crux of it.. it isn't really 'your' body that is being killed off is it.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Easily. The religious right campaign for control of other people's lives and choices and freedoms.

This isn't an argument where one side says "You must abort" and the other says "You must not abort". This is an argument where one side says "I want to tell you what you can do with your own body" while the other says "You have no right to tell someone what they can do with their own body."

Except the limited liberal left also impose limits on what people can do with their own body. From medical treatments, to drug usage, alcohol, sex, abortion.

What you meant to accurately say is the left have their version of what you can and can't do with your own body, and the right have their version, but the right apparently shouldn't be free to campaign for what they believe, while the left should.

The right are not campaigning for draconian measures because they believe the state should have all power over everything. its this simple, they believe a unborn child from conception is a living being and that having an abortion is murder. If they are right or wrong that is what they believe, they are campaigning to prevent murders, not because they want more power or want to control women. I don't agree with them but to say their motives are evil(in this case ) or that they somehow shouldn't be allowed to have a say is just daft illogical "lefty" thinking.

 

[The Halk]

Except the limited liberal left also impose limits on what people can do with their own body. From medical treatments, to drug usage, alcohol, sex, abortion.

What you meant to accurately say is the left have their version of what you can and can't do with your own body, and the right have their version, but the right apparently shouldn't be free to campaign for what they believe, while the left should.

The right are not campaigning for draconian measures because they believe the state should have all power over everything. its this simple, they believe a unborn child from conception is a living being and that having an abortion is murder. If they are right or wrong that is what they believe, they are campaigning to prevent murders, not because they want more power or want to control women. I don't agree with them but to say their motives are evil(in this case ) or that they somehow shouldn't be allowed to have a say is just daft illogical "lefty" thinking.

I am in no way trying to censor them, nor do I think anyone should. I always support free speech.

I don't tend to take a side, in American politics, I find the American left are a bunch of cocktail swilling hypocrites and I have little in common with them.. and the right tend to be vile Christian moralists.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

they are campaigning to prevent murders, not because they want more power or want to control women.

There was a lot in your post - none of which I agree with - but the bit I've quoted above is wrong. They are not campaigning. This is a Bill of three parts which is being put forward for approval, for sign-off. This is not campaigning.

This will likely become State Law in Arizona and then challenged due to previous Supreme Court direction violation.

 

[Tummy]

There was a lot in your post - none of which I agree with - but the bit I've quoted above is wrong. They are not campaigning. This is a Bill of three parts which is being put forward for approval, for sign-off. This is not campaigning.

This will likely become State Law in Arizona and then challenged due to previous Supreme Court direction violation.

Sorry, that one line got a lol

I also, side with Magnolia on this argument.

However, Castiel's comment is very true.