The abortion debate is going to heat up drastically in Arizona with the Legislature passing HB 2564 in the lower house and likely to pass the State Senate. HB 2564 revises statutes related to abortions in Arizona. In effect the bill would do the following:
- Require 24 hour period of consideration.
- Require a description of anatomical and physical characteristics of the fetus to the woman.
- The risks associated with an abortion procedure.
- Informed of alternatives to abortion.
- The gestational age of the fetus.
- Require a pregnant minor to secure written and notarized consent from of the parents/guardians before getting an abortion. The exception to this consent can be given by a judge who determines the minor is mature enough to have informed consent.
- Allows medical professionals opposed to abortion on moral, religious, or ethical grounds to opt out of partaking in such procedures provided they’ve stated their objection in writing.
These points sounds reasonable until you take a closer look at several sections of the bill I find questionable:
- The notarized consent from a parent. (The notarized part I oppose, not the parental consent.) The reason I am against this part is it brings in a third party into a private medical decision between the minor, parents, and physician over the procedure. That to me is far too egregious a standard to impose and an invasion of privacy of the minor, parents, and medical personnel involved.
- A provision that allows for the father of the fetus, if married to said woman, to sue if an abortion is performed with the exception of criminal activity resulting in the fetus. One, if the father and mother are in disagreement over the child and the abortion procedure then it is likely the marriage will not last anyway. The woman may very well simply leave to another state less restrictive and get the abortion. Two, the woman may lie about whether she is married or not and get the abortion anyway. It implies it is the responsibility of the medical professionals involved to investigate women in order to avoid lawsuits. That smacks of invasion of privacy. Three, the phrasing implies that a pregnant married woman’s rights are superseded by those of the husband. In effect, the phrasing implies pregnant women are automatically second class citizens.
- A provision that allows for the maternal grandparents to sue if the mother is a minor. There is no exception listed for even parental consent. This bothers me as it allows grandparents to interfere and attempt to override the decision of the minor’s parents. I’m for grandparents having some rights but not when they could be used to override parents.
- While I support the physicians right to refuse to do an abortion on religious and moral grounds, I do not like that it would allow the same doctors to refuse “morning after” pills to victims of rape or incest or to even inform said victims of those pills availability.
- Allows for civil suits mentioned in points 2 and 3 for a period of 6 years after the abortion is performed.
I suspect that should the bill pass, as it appears it will, that it will be struck down on notarization leading to invasion of privacy, violating doctor-patient confidentiality, and on the provisions for fathers and grandparents mentioned previously.
Had the legislature taken the time to better craft the phrasing of the bill, these concerns I have would be nonexistent.
Perhaps more bothersome is the fact that the Legislature chose this as being more important than the state’s budget crisis, illegal aliens, rampant kidnapping and ransom, and failing education system. It doesn’t make sense really considering the Legislature’s opposition to illegal aliens being allowed to have “anchor babies” in order to remain in Arizona and the United States but then allow legal phrasing to imply pregnant women are second class citizens to men. Worse still when considering proposed budget cuts would hit the very support services the bill requires physicians to inform women about as an alternative to abortion.
That is where I get highly suspicious of the motives of those involved in writing this bill. It makes me think they’re more concerned with controlling women or banning abortion rather than dealing with real issues: stopping unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and the growing number of deadbeat fathers. Worse in my mind is the fact that those imposing government interference in people’s private lives is the very political party claiming they want small, less invasive government: the Republican Party.
They can keep their hypocrisy.
While I despise Arpaio’s grandstanding and attention seeking behavior, I do support his actions to stop illegal aliens in Maricopa County. I tend to agree with Arpaio and his supporters that this investigation politically motivated on the behalf of the corrupt Phoenix Mayor, Phil Gordon, and his fellow amnesty lackeys (Mary Rose Wilcox) who would turn Phoenix into another sanctuary city for illegals so they can continue to bleed the state of Arizona dry of social services and education for American citizens. Fortunately I have far more faith in the FBI to perform an objective investigation than the morons (and sanctuary lackies/apologistas*) of Congress like Conyers. If the FBI finds Arpaio and MCSO have done wrong then they should be censured accordingly.
*apologistas – Not to be confused with Christian Apologists. This is a phrase some are using to refer to supporters of illegal aliens who make excuses (especially inane excuses) for illegals when they eat up much needed social services (medical, housing and food assistance), education, the judicial and legal systems, et. al. at the expense and detriment of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.