Essentially, conservatives think that the ability to become pregnant means the exact same thing as being actually pregnant. Obviously, this is truth. Don't forget dropping the clause that allows women to get late abortions if carrying the pregnancy to term would be dangerous to their health.
A new law was signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Thursday that has abortion advocates up in arms. The new law, titled Women’s Health and Safety Act deems a woman pregnant 2 weeks before conception.
According to Planned Parenthood of Arizona lobbyist Michelle Steinberg, the law will reduce the amount of time a legal abortion can be obtained by women. Steinberg stated that, the law is our nation’s “most extreme piece of anti-abortion legislation.”
The bill was sponsored by Arizona State Rep. Kimberly Yee. Yee is also an ardent supporter of drug testing anyone who receives welfare assistance. She is considered by some to be an “extremist”.
Steinberg explained the law by saying, “The law defines pregnancy in a way that bans abortion two weeks before the other seven states who have similar laws. It calculates gestational age starting with the first day of the last menstrual period rather than the date of conception.”
The law which should go into effect later this month also now requires any women who want to have an abortion to have an ultrasound 24 hours before the procedure. The current law will allow abortions to be performed up until the time that the fetus could “reasonably survive outside the womb”. This is around 22 to 24 weeks.
With the current law, a woman could still legally have an abortion after that time if it was to “protect the life or health of the woman”. That would no longer be the case with the new law.
Jordan Goldberg is the Center of Reproductive Rights state advocacy counsel. He stated that the law “disregards women’s health in a way I’ve never seen before. The women of Arizona can’t access medical treatments that other women can.”
What do you think? Should gestational age be figured from the first day of the last menstrual cycle or from the date of conception?
Oh, Arizona. You never cease to amaze.
Coyote: Warm it in the microwave first to avoid that 'necrophelia' effect.
not some crazy ass bill pushed to make herself look good?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
madd0ct0r wrote:signed - you mean this is actually LAW now?
not some crazy ass bill pushed to make herself look good?
Yep. Signed into law by the governor, after being passed by the legislative branch. AZ is that fucked up. I do like how the law is called "Women’s Health and Safety Act". When the law removed exemptions designed specifically to protect the women in question and therefore actually works counter to their health and safety, it's a little disingenuous to then title it such.
Coyote: Warm it in the microwave first to avoid that 'necrophelia' effect.
Lord Relvenous wrote:I do like how the law is called "Women’s Health and Safety Act". When the law removed exemptions designed specifically to protect the women in question and therefore actually works counter to their health and safety, it's a little disingenuous to then title it such.
I'll repeat what I said last time this came up: measuring from a known, relevant reference point is not itself a bad idea. Unless a woman's only having sex a few times a month, using the date of conception as a reference point is going to be difficult simply because you don't know which time the baby was conceived. Using the first missed period would also technically work, but it's easier to measure from when something happened than from when something didn't happen.
If there is a problem with this part of the law (and I'm not saying there is), it's how many weeks after that reference point the ban comes into play. The last period +24 weeks, conception +22 weeks or the first missed period +20 weeks are all effectively the same thing, but the first uses a more concrete reference point.
Grumman wrote:I'll repeat what I said last time this came up: measuring from a known, relevant reference point is not itself a bad idea. Unless a woman's only having sex a few times a month, using the date of conception as a reference point is going to be difficult simply because you don't know which time the baby was conceived. Using the first missed period would also technically work, but it's easier to measure from when something happened than from when something didn't happen.
If there is a problem with this part of the law (and I'm not saying there is), it's how many weeks after that reference point the ban comes into play. The last period +24 weeks, conception +22 weeks or the first missed period +20 weeks are all effectively the same thing, but the first uses a more concrete reference point.
We have a known, relevant reference point already. This is simply Jan Brewer thinking she can redefine how the human body works through legislation.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Grumman wrote:If there is a problem with this part of the law (and I'm not saying there is), it's how many weeks after that reference point the ban comes into play. The last period +24 weeks, conception +22 weeks or the first missed period +20 weeks are all effectively the same thing, but the first uses a more concrete reference point.
You're forgetting about irregular periods, which are common—especially in girls going through puberty. If a girl happens to take 5 weeks between her last period and the next ovulation and gets pregnant then, she just lost an extra 3 weeks of time under this law. And what happens if a girl gets pregnant on her first ovulation, never having a period before the pregnancy at all?
Trying to make this more concrete when reality is fluid is not an improvement.
The nonsensically impractical definition of the start of pregnancy seems like a distant, distant second to the much more important issue that these assholes would rather give women potential death sentences rather than let them abort. Jesus fuck...
Don't forget dropping the clause that allows women to get late abortions if carrying the pregnancy to term would be dangerous to their health.
