Arizona's Batty Abortion Bills to be Heard in House

Categories: I'm Only a Bill
againstabortion.jpg
www.strickergiant.com
Two bizarre/completely unnecessary bills regarding abortion go before the full House in the Arizona Legislature today.

Last week, the House gave initial approval to a bill that would require women getting an abortion to sign a document promising they aren't aborting the pregnancy based on sex, and another promising they aren't aborting their pregnancy based on race. Under the proposed law, anyone caught doing so could be slapped with a class-three felony.


The bill is the product of Representative Steve Montenegro, who, as we've pointed out in prior posts, seems to think he represents a district in China -- where aborting babies based on sex or race might actually be a problem.

However, as we learned a few weeks ago, there's no evidence suggesting women getting abortions for either of those reasons is even a problem in Arizona.

"There is no indication that this is even an issue," Planned Parenthood Arizona spokeswoman Cynde Cerf told New Times at the time.

The other bill, HB 2416, forces abortion doctors to offer patients the opportunity to look at ultrasound images of the fetus -- a move to basically try to scare women out of having an abortion. It also adds stiffer regulations to the early abortion-by-pill that would subject the procedure to the same regulations as surgical abortion.


Doing so, officials from Planned Parenthood say, would block access of early-term abortions to women living in rural communities. The group says that by preventing early-term abortions by over-regulating the pillwill lead to more late-term, potentially riskier abortions.

Check back to Valley Fever throughout the day for updates.

My Voice Nation Help
6 comments
ExpertShot
ExpertShot

The anti-abortionists have instituted a new policy to drain funds and resources away from the privacy rights advocates (including Planned Parenthood) by passing meaningless leglislation related to abortion in an attempt to bait them into legal fights that will go on forever. Now that they have the purse strings of the State taxpayers, they have unlimited funds with which to prolong the litigation.

I suggest that the coalition start a legal fund - you're gonna need it if you plan on fighting these laws in court.

OR you could busy yourself in filing petitions for ballot measures that remove the ability of the legislature to write legislation aimed at reducing the Constitutionally protected right to privacy

Adrian Cruz
Adrian Cruz

What if the baby has some of Russell Pearce's genes in it? Is that still valid grounds for abortion?

How about a form swearing under oath that the baby wasn't fathered by one of Pearce's kids?

botanybay
botanybay

"The other bill, HB 2416, forces abortion doctors to offer patients the opportunity to look at ultrasound images of the fetus -- a move to basically try to scare women out of having an abortion."

"Scare them out of", or "introduce them to" the random collection of lifeless cells they're killing? If they're going to have the right to kill, then there is no harm in having them face the situation.

Look at it this way. Even a mass-murderer can't just spare everyone the grief and plead guilty without actually coming into court and telling that judge exactly what they did and how they did it. They actually have to face the consequences of their actions.

So if you're going to abort something, you should see what you're aborting. Only then can you really see if it is a lifeless blob or a baby. Of course, when you see your kid sucking his thumb you might start to feel something for your progeny.

Docbob498th
Docbob498th

Is there any way to make birth control, as it pertains to the mental midgets in the legislature, RETROACTIVE.

ExpertShot
ExpertShot

The goal of the anti-abortionists is to get the moment at which full Constitutional Rights confer upon an individual is at the moment of conception.

This will require the State to moniter the full sexual life of each individual citizen. Imagine registering the State because you THINK you might get a home run on the first date!

This will also complicate those who honeymoon overseas. Especially with Pearce's attempt to repeal the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution. Imagine the young couple who happens to "procreate" in British Columbia while on their homeymoon. Their child would not be a citizen if it were up to Pearce.

botanybay
botanybay

Well, it's OK if it's your cousin (and you marry her).

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...