New Arizona law: Life starts before conception?
Life starts earliest in Arizona, which now defines gestational age as beginning on the first day of a woman’s last period, rather than at fertilization. In practice, that means the state has banned abortions after about 18 weeks (20 weeks from the last menstruation) except in the case of medical emergencies. While that provision has been much discussed, abortions after that point account for only about 1 percent of the procedures currently performed.
The stipulation likely to be most widely felt is what experts are calling an effective shutdown of medication abortions. These nonsurgical abortions are usually performed within the first nine weeks of pregnancy, and account for between 17 and 20 percent of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights advocacy group. While women often take the pills at clinics and in their homes, the bill now mandates that a medical provider must have hospital privileges within 30 miles of where the procedure takes place. Many times clinics or homes are not within 30 miles of hospitals, and the distance prevents providers from other cities or even states from caring for women, says Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute. Another factor that could contribute to what Nash called a “shutdown” of medication abortions is that the law requires abortion pills to be administered using outdated protocols, confusing providers and obscuring proper use of the drugs.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Wow, that article didn’t even pretend to be unbiased.
Red Cloud on April 13, 2012 at 8:31 AM
Getting laws like this enacted is the reason I joined the Tea Party and worked so hard to get Republicans elected. /sarc
DRayRaven on April 13, 2012 at 8:44 AM
Too bad you weren’t aborted./sarc
NotCoach on April 13, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Reading the article, I guess this means that pro-choicers think that what’s growing inside a woman at first is just a mass of cells that could turn into a dog, a horse or jellyfish… maybe even an oak tree but magically, somewhere along the way turns into a possible, potential, pre-human un-person.
From what I can see online, there are possibly only two abortion clinics in Arizona, both in Phoenix. There is one in Las Vegas which conceivably “services” Arizona.
Logus on April 13, 2012 at 8:49 AM
The law doesn’t say “life starts before conception”. It picks a point to start the countdown for the abortion deadline.
eforhan on April 13, 2012 at 8:51 AM
It’s the Daily Beast; what do you expect?
Logus on April 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Yikes, that was the most painfully biased article I have ever read.
“many Arizonans”?…
“The point is to make it so difficult to provide abortions that no one will do it,” said Nash. “Arizona likes to thumb their at women. They take that as a badge of honor.”
Yes Nash, whatever happened to that mantra touted by the pro abortion supporters that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare”. Does he not know that the aborted babies are women too and have rights?
FLconservative on April 13, 2012 at 8:56 AM
Which any sane person not pushing an agenda of baby genocide would understand.
NotCoach on April 13, 2012 at 8:56 AM
Yeah, like killing your own baby isn’t shameful, right?
Either they’re stupid or disingenuous. Those of us who are prolife understand the pro-choice perspective. It’s about not having to deal with the consequences of one’s actions. The other side either can’t or won’t understand the prolife position: it’s not about restricting the rights of women. It’s about protecting the right to life of an unborn child.
Othniel on April 13, 2012 at 8:59 AM
The right of a woman not to be inconvenienced is always paramount. Didn’t those womyn’s study classes teach you anything?
swinia sutki on April 13, 2012 at 9:03 AM
Tea Party, apart from its very early days, has always been a theocratic movement to establish Christian Sharia. Some members still have other economic interests/demands but they are far outnumbered.
lester on April 13, 2012 at 9:13 AM
What is Christian Sharia?
NotCoach on April 13, 2012 at 9:18 AM
It is so funny when pro-choicers say that abortion laws “shame women.” I thought abortion was perfectly okay, pro- choicers. So why feel ashamed?
Answer: deep down they know what they’re doing is wrong.
Sachiko on April 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM
This article has the Mark of the (Daily) Beast.
Knott Buyinit on April 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM
Lester: if you think tea party Christians like myself are promoting sharia then you don’t know what sharia is. Sharia isn’t a joke, not something to use as a punchline.
This article comes from daily beast- maybe that is the best place for you, you fit in there more than here.
Sachiko on April 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM
Go to Santorum’s website and read his positions on social issues or alternatively visit one of the many “family values” groups associated with the Tea Party.
lester on April 13, 2012 at 9:36 AM
This article raises a very serious question: which subject does the Daily Beast know the least about: law or obstetrics?
Tell you what, let’s just declare it a tie — between those two subjects, and everything else.
logis on April 13, 2012 at 9:37 AM
that other women can.”
Let’s get this straight. Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with “women’s health” or “medical treatment”. Pregnancy is not a disease and does not to be “treated”.
Trafalgar on April 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM
Again, what is Christian Sharia?
NotCoach on April 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM
That worked well! Let’s try again!
Let’s get this straight. Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with “women’s health” or “medical treatment”. Pregnancy is not a disease and does not to be “treated”.
Trafalgar on April 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM
Trafalgar on April 13, 2012 at 9:40 AM
With hate speech like that, you’d make a good liberal. Let me know when you’re done with your copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People. I bet it’s in mint condition.
DRayRaven on April 13, 2012 at 9:56 AM
I figured a childish and illogical sarcastic rant deserved an in kind response. Did you see the /sarc tag? I put a /sarc tag there. That makes it cute and witty instead of evil or idiotic.
NotCoach on April 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM
You’re Funny.
Del Dolemonte on April 13, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Santorum? He’s no longer a candidate.
Del Dolemonte on April 13, 2012 at 10:04 AM
In that case, your post was a Fail all the way around. Besides, you’re lying. That’s mighty Christian of you.
Why not try posting something intelligent instead – you know, since you don’t do witty very well. Explain to me how the Tea Party got its start because of anger over social issues. Also, please tell me what clause of the US Constitution grants the federal gov’t authority to police morals and/or ban a medical procedure.
And please don’t spout any legally meaningless quotes about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If that phrase didn’t include women or blacks when it was written, it certainly didn’t include unborn children.
DRayRaven on April 13, 2012 at 10:08 AM
One other thing (before I start ignoring you altogether): my first post hardly qualified as a “childish and illogical sarcastic rant.” It was one sentence long. Hardly a rant. It’s mighty telling that one sentence sent you so deep over the edge, though. Must suck for you living in a democratic republic and not a theocracy, huh?
DRayRaven on April 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM
And that’s mighty reasoned of you.
andycanuck on April 13, 2012 at 10:16 AM
I wonder if the Guttmacher Institute can tell us how many women and girls die every year from using abortifacients properly; and how many die a year misusing abortifacients?
andycanuck on April 13, 2012 at 10:18 AM
You do realise you are exercising your imagination here, don’t you? And that no facts or other forms of reality are involved in your expression?
YiZhangZhe on April 13, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Conversely, what clause of the US Constitution says women have the inalienable right to have an abortion?
Del Dolemonte on April 13, 2012 at 10:23 AM
About what?
The Tea Party is an amalgamation of many conservative groups unified around the idea that the federal government has grown out of control. So it should be obvious on an honest assessment that a large portion, if not majority, of the Tea Party finds social issues to be important. However, it doesn’t matter. Your next sentence points out the fact you have suffered a severe blow to your head, or that you are mentally retarded.
The mentally deficient sentence in question. The topic is about a state law. So what exactly does the Tea Party have to do with this? Have we become the United Arizona of America when I wasn’t looking?
Ahh, the root of your thinking I see. It’s really about the fact that you don’t want to see anyone interfering with murder on demand.
Yes, it sucks that I have a brain.
NotCoach on April 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM
That’s pretty funny lester, and you are wrong.
The TEA party Taxed Enough Already. Fiscal Responsibility, and Small Limited Government.
Stop watching MSDNC it will rot your brain.
Dr Evil on April 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Dumb law. So dumb. Politically and substantively dumb. To base an abortion law on the state of a woman’s reproductive cycle (rather than the existence of a fetus) is a gross violation of her privacy and makes it about controlling her body – rather than protecting life. I understand the counter-argument to be that it’s only a method of counting for when there IS a fetus in there. But if we are going to make an arbitrary cutoff point, don’t do in a way that feeds the liberal narrative.
Crispian on April 13, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Rick Santorum’s “Real Concerns” About The Tea Party
Yeah that’s a fail, but thanks for playing.
Dr Evil on April 13, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Indeed. If a majority of Americans deem abortion to be immoral and murder, we are perfectly within our rights to ban abortion period.
There are no enumerated rights to kill a baby; hence for the pro-abortionists, they’d have a choice of bearing the baby to term or go somewhere else to kill their baby.
Christian or Sharia has nothing to do with “imposing” upon a women’s rights, other than as a vehicle for the will of the people to be enacted. That pro-abortionists disagree is only relevant if they can convince the majority of Americans to agree with their depraved state of mind.
AH_C on April 13, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Well said.
Turning to and trusting government to come up with solutions rarely turns out well and always becomes over-regulated. The conservative position ought to shy away from more laws. This is not the answer for Arizona, or anywhere.
beatcanvas on April 13, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Try having your wife FINALLY get pregnant and then miscarry around 7 weeks and then tell me it’s “just a lump of cells”.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM
How very true. The resulting child that is born is an inconvenience, a burden. And, if the mother and father decide for the mother to remain a housewife and really raise the child, that too is some type of horrible decision. The role of women from the beginning of time has been to have children and be the primary care giver, while the father provides. In the past forty or so years we have drifted off course on this issue.
SC.Charlie on April 13, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Why can’t woman figure out that God made them to be baby factories.
Pablo Honey on April 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Why can’t soulless individuals figure out life comes before all other liber……………..nevermind.
NotCoach on April 13, 2012 at 11:32 AM
This is stupid.
Because being born always ensures great harm to the child, including death of everyone the child will love and death of the child themselves, not to mention a whole host of terrible experiences, actual and potential, between birth and death, we should be encouraging women to have abortions, not discouraging them.
Mitchell Heisman on April 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM
What it is is a great moral dilemma. While a given child may wish to be born, there is no guarantee it will a all (indeed, studies from as far back as 1930 show many children and people wish they hadn’t been; that is a not inconsiderable harm: this one from 1932 shows 30% of children wish they had never been born: when you have children, this is what you risk doing to them).
The only thing you know with certainty is the child and everyone it knows will die.
* As an aside, by your logic, Ron Paul’s medical specialty can be disbanded as it is unneeded.
Mitchell Heisman on April 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Sad for you and your wife. Impossible to know if it was good or bad from the child’s persective.
Mitchell Heisman on April 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM
To be clear, I don’t know if the “life is always a net harm” position is right. But it’s definitely risky. It, after all, creates literally all the suffering in the world.
Mitchell Heisman on April 13, 2012 at 1:30 PM
This law just matches the week count to what obstetricians use already. Why shouldn’t laws about medical procedures match what doctors use?
http://3dpregnancy.parentsconnect.com/calendar/1-week-pregnant.html
cptacek on April 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM
This law you are gritching about is a STATE law. So, fail.
cptacek on April 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM
It isn’t arbitrary. It matches current medical terminology.
cptacek on April 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM
My sincerest sympathy.
cptacek on April 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM
Dear Random/Mitchell Heisman (MH is the sock for Random)…please stop. Shame on you for promoting suicide.
cptacek on April 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM