Just as anti-choice, time-wasting nonsense gets cleared up in South Dakota, we find ourselves some more in Arizona. Indeed, as Miriam and Ann note, anti-choicers seem to be going pretty wild all over the nation.
Legislation to impose the first new restrictions on abortion since at least 2002 coasted to easy approval Wednesday in the House Committee on Health and Human Services.
Democrats, seeing they were going to be outvoted anyway, walked out, leaving their Republican colleagues to vote 5-0 for HB 2564.
Since 2002, abortion foes have managed to get various measures through the Republican-controlled Legislature only to have each vetoed by Democrat Janet Napolitano.
This bill mandates women be given certain information, in person, about their unborn child and their legal rights if they keep the child. It allows a wide range of medical professionals to refuse to provide abortions, allows medical professionals to refuse to provide the “morning-after” pill, and changes the regulations for minors getting an abortion without parental consent.
The article then goes on to say that there’s also a 24-hour waiting period included in the bill, along with requirements that the woman be told at the start of this period all about prenatal services available to her, as well as “the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics” of the fetus at her particular stage of pregnancy.
(As a side note, what is with calling the fetus an “unborn child” in this article? Talk about objective reporting!)
Here’s what the bill’s sponsors have to say for themselves:
Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, sponsor of the legislation, said nothing in it will prevent a woman who wants an abortion from getting one. But she said it may reduce the number of abortions if some women have extra time to think about it.
Well, no. There’s nothing in there at all that would prevent a woman from having an abortion.
Unless you’re a minor whose parents decide to not give you consent, thereby legally forcing you to give birth. Tough shit, ladies — hey, if you’re underage, I guess you’re not “women” anyway, so Rep. Barto wasn’t talking about you.
There’s also nothing in there to prevent a woman from having an abortion, unless you’re a woman who lives outside of the metropolitan areas where the state’s abortion clinics are located, and you can’t afford to either put yourself up in a hotel room for the night or drive back again the next day, to accommodate that 24-hour waiting period. Not to mention take time off work, potentially find child care services, and so on.
Seems that Rep. Barto’s definitions of both “woman” and “prevent” are rather limited, wouldn’t you say?
And while there’s, uh, “nothing” in there that would prevent a woman from having an abortion, there is interestingly enough a provision in there that attempts to cause more:
It also would allow these professionals to refuse to provide “morning-after” pills, even to rape victims, with no requirement that they tell a woman where she could get them.
Yeah, because stopping women from preventing an unplanned pregnancy certainly won’t just result in more women stuck in hotel rooms if they’re lucky, their cars if they’re not, waiting out that 24 hours, now will it? Of course not. Anti-choicers are all about protecting the babies. They’d never support policies that only end with more unwanted pregnancies and therefore also the senseless murder of more such precious innocents!
Stay tuned to see how this plays out.
Thanks to Leigh for the link.