PDA

View Full Version : New AZ abortion rules...state moonbats in tizzy.



BadCat
09-30-2009, 10:34 AM
Today, new laws regarding abortion have the liberal left in the state acting like their every constitutional right has been obliterated.

The new laws specify:

24 hour waiting period after consultation with physician.
Notarized proof of parental approval for minors
Procedure MUST be performed by a physician

The state Planned Parenthood has already filed court motions to stop this...you would think it's the end of the world.

Gingersnap
09-30-2009, 10:36 AM
These seem like pretty tame rules to me. :confused:

BadCat
09-30-2009, 10:40 AM
These seem like pretty tame rules to me. :confused:

They are, and they are sensible.

But you can hear the left wailing in the streets.

FlaGator
09-30-2009, 11:17 AM
The rules seem to state that if you want to have your kid whacked you have to give yourself 24 hours to think it over before having the the hit made and then only after discussing it with the bagman. If you're a kid yourself you have to get the Godfather's permission to make the hit. In any event, a hit must be made by a family approved assassin.

Gingersnap
09-30-2009, 11:22 AM
The rules seem to state that if you want to have your kid whacked you have to give yourself 24 hours to think it over before having the the hit made and then only after discussing it with the bagman. If you're a kid yourself you have to get the Godfather's permission to make the hit. In any event, a hit must be made by a family approved assassin.

I like your summary better. :D

BadCat
09-30-2009, 11:27 AM
The rules seem to state that if you want to have your kid whacked you have to give yourself 24 hours to think it over before having the the hit made and then only after discussing it with the bagman. If you're a kid yourself you have to get the Godfather's permission to make the hit. In any event, a hit must be made by a family approved assassin.

Exactly.
The end result is still going to be an abortion.

The way the libs in the state are acting, you would think that their right to breathe is being taken away.

wilbur
09-30-2009, 11:47 AM
I imagine the big sticking point there is the 'parental signature'.

As described in the points by BadCat, the law doesnt seem THAT bad.... but there really is no good reason to restrict non-late term abortions - and its these 'small' incremental victories that give the abortion prohibitionists hope, support and the incentive to engage the battle even more vigorously.

So personally, I'm happy to see this type of thing militantly and viciously opposed.... so as to suck the life out of the abortion prohibition crowd, so-to-speak... at any and every turn. Kudos to those who are fighting against it.

We all know this is anti-abortion incrementalism at work. Today its a 24 hour waiting period... tomorrow its a "counselling" session, where a woman is berated with gruesome pictures and questions like "Why do you want to kill your child?"

BadCat
09-30-2009, 11:58 AM
I imagine the big sticking point there is the 'parental signature'.

As described in the points by BadCat, the law doesnt seem THAT bad.... but there really is no good reason to restrict non-late term abortions - and its these 'small' incremental victories that give the abortion prohibitionists hope, support and the incentive to engage the battle even more vigorously.

So personally, I'm happy to see this type of thing militantly and viciously opposed.... so as to suck the life out of the abortion prohibition crowd, so-to-speak... at any and every turn. Kudos to those who are fighting against it.

We all know this is anti-abortion incrementalism at work. Today its a 24 hour waiting period... tomorrow its a "counselling" session, where a woman is berated with gruesome pictures and questions like "Why do you want to kill your child?"

They can cry all they want, they're most likely going to lose this one.
At least until they appeal it to the Ninth Circus Court.

djones520
09-30-2009, 12:00 PM
I imagine the big sticking point there is the 'parental signature'.

As described in the points by BadCat, the law doesnt seem THAT bad.... but there really is no good reason to restrict non-late term abortions - and its these 'small' incremental victories that give the abortion prohibitionists hope, support and the incentive to engage the battle even more vigorously.

So personally, I'm happy to see this type of thing militantly and viciously opposed.... so as to suck the life out of the abortion prohibition crowd, so-to-speak... at any and every turn. Kudos to those who are fighting against it.

We all know this is anti-abortion incrementalism at work. Today its a 24 hour waiting period... tomorrow its a "counselling" session, where a woman is berated with gruesome pictures and questions like "Why do you want to kill your child?"

I do gotta give you credit Wilbur. You certainly don't flinch when it comes to posting views that you know are completely opposite from everyone elses.

FlaGator
09-30-2009, 12:08 PM
I imagine the big sticking point there is the 'parental signature'.

As described in the points by BadCat, the law doesnt seem THAT bad.... but there really is no good reason to restrict non-late term abortions - and its these 'small' incremental victories that give the abortion prohibitionists hope, support and the incentive to engage the battle even more vigorously.

So personally, I'm happy to see this type of thing militantly and viciously opposed.... so as to suck the life out of the abortion prohibition crowd, so-to-speak... at any and every turn. Kudos to those who are fighting against it.

We all know this is anti-abortion incrementalism at work. Today its a 24 hour waiting period... tomorrow its a "counselling" session, where a woman is berated with gruesome pictures and questions like "Why do you want to kill your child?"

I don't have a problem with this because I don't think that the image generated by wilbur of a counciling session is anything like the reality. Also, I don't see where the slippery slop argument comes in to play here.Incremental increases don't happen. You have told us that time and time again on gay marriage. Besides all counciling offers a opportunity to see that a woman makes an informed thoughtful choice. You do want her to be aware of all the options available to her don't you? You would like her to be aware of the potential for grief and regrets she may experience and be prepared from them don't you?

BadCat
09-30-2009, 12:15 PM
Just heard the judges ruling...the part that wilbur doesn't like is the only part he left in.

http://www.star-telegram.com/190/story/1645125.html


PHOENIX A state judge on Tuesday blocked implementation of several key parts of a new Arizona law restricting abortions, while allowing a few provisions to take effect.

The preliminary injunction issued by Judge Donald Daughton of Maricopa County Superior Court allows a 24-hour waiting period to take affect, but he blocked requirements that a woman see a doctor in person for advance disclosures before getting an abortion.

The so-called "informed consent" consultation can be by telephone and by a qualified staff member, Daughton said in his ruling granting most of a request by Planned Parenthood, the state's major abortion provider.

The state judge also blocked provisions prohibiting nurse practitioners from performing surgical abortions, requiring the notarizing of parental consent forms and expanding an existing law that now permits health-care workers to refuse to participate in abortions.

I really don't understand their problems with the highlighted.

djones520
09-30-2009, 12:17 PM
Just heard the judges ruling...the part that wilbur doesn't like is the only part he left in.

http://www.star-telegram.com/190/story/1645125.html



I really don't understand their problems with the highlighted.

Even though I'm tentatively pro-choice, I completely agree that this should be requirement. It is a major medical procedure. No minor should undergo it without parental consent.

noonwitch
09-30-2009, 01:40 PM
You mean that previously in Arizona, abortions were legally performed by non-physicians? That's scary, even to the pro choice like myself.


I don't like the 24 hour waiting periods. They are not about causing women to change their minds, they are about making the abortion procedure as difficult to obtain as possible. It's an insult to women's intelligence to try to force them to view anti-abortion propaganda prior to receiving a legal, medical procedure. The laws create a situation where it is very difficult for a woman who has to travel to obtain an abortion. I know that because in Michigan, all the abortion clinics are in the southern lower penninsula. If a woman from up north is going to have an abortion, she has to travel and stay at least one night in Lansing, metro Detroit, Ann Arbor or Kalamazoo. If she has to wait 24 hours after viewing antiabortion literature, she then has to spend 2 nights in a hotel. Anyone on the anti-abortion side who doesn't admit that the intent of 24 hour waiting periods is to make abortion more difficult for the woman is simply not being honest about the intent of the law.


I support parental consent laws. I don't think anyone under 18 should undergo any kind of surgery without a parent or court authorizing it. DUers are silly if they think getting a signature notarized is a big deal-banks, government offices, all kinds of places have notaries available. We even have a barber shop in Detroit that has a notary available to assist the people in his neighborhood.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-30-2009, 05:56 PM
I imagine the big sticking point there is the 'parental signature'.

As described in the points by BadCat, the law doesnt seem THAT bad.... but there really is no good reason to restrict non-late term abortions


'cept for that little inconvenient fact that the fetus is actually a live human being that would be denied his/her right to live.

Phillygirl
09-30-2009, 07:46 PM
I really don't want to hear that a 24 hour waiting period is too inconvenient for someone who is considering an abortion.

This is a life changing event, literally. Even more important than a tattoo. For the state to ensure that before a "potential" child is terminated, that a woman has been fully informed about the procedure, its potential physical consequences on her, and the consequences of that "lump of cells" that a woman has digested all that information for a full day is not unduly burdensome.

The same people opposed to a 24 hour waiting period are the ones clamoring for a 3 day or longer waiting period before a gun is purchased.

As for the minor consent issue, I have never understood the the opposition to that. Again, many of the same helicopter parents who think the college should send Johnny's grades to his parents, and perform various interventions before Johnny is finally given that big fat F that he earned, suddenly believe that Sarah gets to get an abortion on demand, without her parents being any the wiser.

I suspect, however, that the real opponents of the parental consent laws are not the parents, but the providers. How will they get their $500 if Sarah and Johnny can't pay up before mommy finds out?

FeebMaster
09-30-2009, 08:46 PM
The same people opposed to a 24 hour waiting period are the ones clamoring for a 3 day or longer waiting period before a gun is purchased.

Not all of them.

RobJohnson
10-01-2009, 02:00 AM
I really don't want to hear that a 24 hour waiting period is too inconvenient for someone who is considering an abortion.

This is a life changing event, literally. Even more important than a tattoo. For the state to ensure that before a "potential" child is terminated, that a woman has been fully informed about the procedure, its potential physical consequences on her, and the consequences of that "lump of cells" that a woman has digested all that information for a full day is not unduly burdensome.

The same people opposed to a 24 hour waiting period are the ones clamoring for a 3 day or longer waiting period before a gun is purchased.

As for the minor consent issue, I have never understood the the opposition to that. Again, many of the same helicopter parents who think the college should send Johnny's grades to his parents, and perform various interventions before Johnny is finally given that big fat F that he earned, suddenly believe that Sarah gets to get an abortion on demand, without her parents being any the wiser.

I suspect, however, that the real opponents of the parental consent laws are not the parents, but the providers. How will they get their $500 if Sarah and Johnny can't pay up before mommy finds out?

Great points.

expat-pattaya
10-01-2009, 02:26 AM
I don't have much emotional interest in the whole abortion debate. But i do admit I am flabbergasted that prior to this a minor could get ANY medical treatment without parental consent.

linda22003
10-01-2009, 07:49 AM
As for the minor consent issue, I have never understood the the opposition to that. Again, many of the same helicopter parents who think the college should send Johnny's grades to his parents, and perform various interventions before Johnny is finally given that big fat F that he earned, suddenly believe that Sarah gets to get an abortion on demand, without her parents being any the wiser.

I suspect, however, that the real opponents of the parental consent laws are not the parents, but the providers. How will they get their $500 if Sarah and Johnny can't pay up before mommy finds out?

Take into account that there are many parents who, if they found out their daughters were pregnant, would take them to the clinic themselves, turning the corners on two wheels they'd be in such a hurry.

noonwitch
10-01-2009, 08:53 AM
Take into account that there are many parents who, if they found out their daughters were pregnant, would take them to the clinic themselves, turning the corners on two wheels they'd be in such a hurry.



That's what my mom would have done-regardless of my wishes or plans. If I had gotten pregnant as a teen, my parents would have ended up divorced years earlier, because they would have fought over this.

linda22003
10-01-2009, 08:57 AM
My point is, that if parents should be the decisionmakers, some of them are going to make a decision you don't necessarily like, and that has to be respected/acknowledged as well.

Rockntractor
10-01-2009, 09:41 AM
To early to be mean. Never mind!

linda22003
10-01-2009, 09:46 AM
You're not being clear, Rock, are you speaking to me? Is there a reason I should not comment on this issue? I have no idea what the picture is, either.

linda22003
10-01-2009, 09:53 AM
I didn't know you were being mean, since I didn't know what your point was.

Rockntractor
10-01-2009, 09:57 AM
I didn't know you were being mean, since I didn't know what your point was.
I have noticed that you never pass an abortion thread by. I seldom get into the debate because it is an endless argument that general goes nowhere. It would seem to me from what you write that there should be no restriction of any kind placed on abortion. Am I correct?

linda22003
10-01-2009, 10:35 AM
Perhaps you notice that I almost never start an abortion thread, either. And I virtually never contribute to any sports threads. It is an endless argument, and I think even those who are most against it will, if they are honest, admit that it's never going to be illegal again. However, I'm okay with some restrictions. I have no issue with this Arizona story, for example.