Because it's not. And more importantly, of all the termination procedures that should be allowed, late-term ones are the most vital. They are usually emergencies, and thus should be the LAST ones to be outlawed.

I am adamantly pro-choice and support the Arizona law if it is applied as promised.

Abortions in true medical emergencies will not be outlawed. There is no other justification for late-term abortions.

I guess Toasty missed this little tidbit in the article:

Late-term abortions will still be allowed in Arizona in situations where continuing a pregnancy risks death or would "create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." This is to be determined by a physician's "good faith clinical judgment."

For the woman, yes. But there are many more instances that this law just outlawed.

Come on Gneisenau, you're not stupid. You're better than this. You know very well just how extreme this law is.

I remember reading another abortion discussion about the 20-week cutoff. I remarked that seemed a decent time limit to me and was informed that some very serious birth defects don't show until the 24-week point. Wish I could remember the details, but perhaps the term limit should have been pushed out a bit further.

well I thought late term abortions were only done in this country for medical emergencies anyways, so I am not real sure how it would be any different. In the case of serious birth defects ..... like what?

Off the top of my head, a fetus whose heart formed outside of its chest cavity and that had a face without a head. These aren't pretty, but they happen. This law would now force a woman to watch that fetus die a painful death, because some sick @!$%# in the Arizona legislature says so, not her doctor.

What gets me is the same liberals who have no problem killing unborn babies get up in arms when we try to execute a convicted murderer. The hypocrisy continues.

Is that not a form of racketeering making mothers carry those babies? because it cost them or the state (taxpayers?) more money?

Dunkin because people don't believe life begins a conception? By that standard God would be the biggest abortionist.

DunkinH,

What gets reasonable people is that conservatives want to kill everything but an unborn fetus. But as soon as it's born, it's on it's own.

While I am pro-choice, I do believe five months is long enough for a woman to decide whether or not to have the baby. I also believe it is long enough to determine whether a pregnancy or fetus is progressing normally. I also believe this bill allows for exceptions should a doctor feel it is medically necessary.

What partly brings me to this conclusion is the heart wrenching story today of the premature six month old supposedly still born baby that was found crying by it's parents in a drawer in the morgue in Argentina.

Supposedly the baby lay in that cold morgue drawer for 12 hours before being discovered. Whether or not the baby ends up with deformities is immaterial, it was developed enough to survive 12 hours in a very cold place without oxygen, but could still cry.....No, I am not religious, but I believe in a supreme intellect, a here-after, and miracles......Otherwise, life would have no purpose

Bill in Mill Creek

DunkinH,

What gets reasonable people is that conservatives want to kill everything but an unborn fetus. But as soon as it's born, it's on it's own.

Reasonable? Liberals want to kill the only humans who are incapable of doing any wrong. Nope, no rights for them but let's show compassion for the scumbags who commit violent crimes and end other people's lives. Why are liberals so out of touch with the real world?

"Late-term abortions will still be allowed in Arizona in situations where continuing a pregnancy risks death or would "create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." This is to be determined by a physician's "good faith clinical judgment."...

So in other words if there are any risks the woman is worried about, well too bad. So the doctor gets to decide how much risk you can take... if he is wrong, then oopsies. Women should be the ones to decide how much risk they are willing to take.

Also, isn't this the one that redefines pregnancy to begin 2 weeks before conception? I think this is a HUGE deal.

@hell, to make a pregnancy an even 40 weeks, doctors have always counted the two weeks before conception as part of the pregnancy.

LOL

And christians and their defenders try to claim that their sick, depraved religion isn't a threat to freedom loving human beings.

When their abomination of morality gives rise to laws like this it becomes perfectly clear just how great a threat religion is to freedom.

Let us all also recognize the fact that we are even talking about this subject so passionately. The republicans brought it to the forefront. Why? Simply just another of many unhonorable sideshow strategies that they seem only to be able to come up with. What simpletons. This country needs leaders bad. Especially the republicans. Disgraceful. Standing neck deep in freedom and we allow these politicians to act like children. Congress has got to be shaken up. Again. Only this time maybe we can pick some people with vision to the future and solving these damn problems we face.

Good for arizona. What sort of warped mind doesn't want to give a child the maximum chance at survival?This glorification of "woman's rights", at the cost of human life, makes me sick. If liberals want a woman to be so "informed", how come they fight an ultrasounds? Isn't abortion a fairly intrusive proceedure? 20 weeks is over half way through gestation.

@Stonedog

Which has killed more, religion or athiesm? If you said religion, you're wrong. Lay off the weed man.

IIW, it's not a child, it's a fetus, zygote, or blastocyst. And considering that nobody's been killed in the name of atheism, while MILLIONS have been killed in the name of religion, you were talking out your ass on your reply to Stonedog.

Why don't you sit this one out and let the grown-ups talk tonight.

The funny thing about all this is if Roe v. Wade had been followed there would be no need for laws like this. Read the opinion. The opinion set up a three trimester criteria. The problem has been that courts have subsequently treated every semester as a first trimester. Let's face it, there is absolutely no justification for what is known as "partial birth abortion." Holding the baby in the mother for the express purpose of sucking it's brains out can never benefit the mother health wise.

The flip side? To bad all the antiabortionists haven't banned together to make sure that every child born is taken care of. They should have set up, years ago, a system that allows all those who want to adopt a cost free system to do so. Let's face it, there are a lot of people who would make good parents but can't afford $20,000 to go through the process of maybe adopting a kid. Also, there are thousands of kids in foster care run by the states that aren't adopted. With all the people running around saying that abortion should be illegal I find it amazing how many of them don't care about the kids after they are born. The fact is that if they want to have credibility, they need to not only prevent abortions, but care for the kids after they are born.

WR, there's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." The closest thing is a late termination IDX, but it's far from a "partial-birth."

And this creates jobs how exactly?............................................................................................

well the going to be a need for more ultrasound technician, for the forced raped that will be occurring, though that not a guarantee since it would make more sense to make them less available so you have to wait longer to see one.

Which has killed more, religion or athiesm?

Atheism hasn't killed anyone, and people don't kill in the name of atheism.

Oh tea! What about Hitler and Stalin ,Mao,Ceaser,Attila and any other named atheist! no atheism hasn't killed people,it has slaughtered them!You are dillutional!

dunkin let me explain it to you. some poeple that are liberal are against the death penalty for other reasons, not just moral. the apeals process is very expensive. it can be economical. You know, the "important stuff" like money. your kind knows the value of that....ask your friend dick cheney

Maso dopo. Hitler, Stalin and the rest never killed anyone. They ordered killings that were performed by religious executioners. You cannot lead if you have no followers.

What gets me is the same liberals who have no problem killing unborn babies get up in arms when we try to execute a convicted murderer. The hypocrisy continues.

What gets me are the conservatives who get up in arms over abortion because they want that child to be born, whether it's wanted or not, and then have no problem trying to take away state-provided health care for both mother AND child after the baby is born because they don't want their tax dollars paying for it. The hypocrisy continues.

It goes both ways, cupcake.

Oh tea! What about Hitler and Stalin ,Mao,Ceaser,Attila and any other named atheist!

LOL

None of the people you mentioned killed either because they were atheists or in the name of atheism. Not one of them. Many people have killed because they were religious and felt compelled to, or killed in the name of their particular religion.

Because there are people in history who were atheists and massacred people does not mean that they killed because of or in the name of atheism. You are an adult and should be smart enough to make the distinction.

To bad all the antiabortionists haven't banned together to make sure that every child born is taken care of. They should have set up, years ago, a system that allows all those who want to adopt a cost free system to do so. Let's face it, there are a lot of people who would make good parents but can't afford $20,000 to go through the process of maybe adopting a kid. Also, there are thousands of kids in foster care run by the states that aren't adopted. With all the people running around saying that abortion should be illegal I find it amazing how many of them don't care about the kids after they are born. The fact is that if they want to have credibility, they need to not only prevent abortions, but care for the kids after they are born.

Witchrunner, the problem is that those self-same anti-abortionists who want that child to be born are also the same people who are against family planning and contraception! They want their cake and to eat it too. It doesn't work that way.

We need abortion, the death penalty, and assisted suicide. The world is far too populated.

Intelligent religion is just a contradiction in terms.

Stonedog, said it right on. The history books are full of atheists killing people who wouldn't convert to their beliefs (sarcasm). Hitler, Stalin etc did not kill because they were atheists, they were facists. Now the church however, has killed millions in the name of religion, as have other religions.

@mas098 learn to spell please, dilutional? What they mixed it with water to dilute? it is delusional.

As far as this law, it does not cover all instances where an abortion might be performed after 20 weeks. I had a pregnancy where something was amiss in some blood tests. By the time the amnio was done and the DNA tests were run (they had to be done twice) I was 22 weeks along. Thank goodness nothing was wrong in the end, but if there were serious abnormalities it would have been MY choice to make, no one elses.

Yes the anti-abortionists are also against contraception in many instances and in teaching abstinence only to kids without giving them the real facts. And guess what, a new study out has shown that in those states with abstinence only programs, they have the highest rates of teen pregnancies. Go figure.

Nice to see some liberals with some sort of scruples. The law allows the doctor to make the decisions about dangerous late term pregnacies. That should be the way it is. But some of you people border on moral terpitude in the name liberlism and plain old right and wrong just as long as it fits your twisted ideals.

I have yet to see anyone against abortion and bringing kids into this worlds...that is nutso.

As usual the bigotted athiest are out in force on the vine. You people amaze, I have seen very few pusing Christianity lots are quick to condemn anyone that is a Christian. Leave it be, it is a free society to choose, I guantee you will not make a difference , your distribe is falling on deaf ears.

@Stonedog,

Atheism hasn't killed anyone, and people don't kill in the name of atheism.

Wrong again. Communism is based on the teachings of Karl Marx. Vladmir lenin said:

A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could

Here's a qoute by a Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn

“The World has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice.”

I don't think athiest wants to acknowlege that athiesm has been responsbile for the deaths of billions, but I don't think people can complete remove themeselves without resorting to a "No true scotsman"

Hatred of God is not atheism, it is Misotheism. Atheism does not believe there is a god to hate.

Just because someone misused the term does not make you right.

Do a little historical research, people. Hitler was Christian, Caesar probably worshipped multiple gods, and Atilla would have practiced some form of animism. Only Stalin and Mao were true atheists. Stalin spent most of his time executing political dissidents or rivals and Mao's executions were about reorganizing China and securing power.

None of the above genocidal leaders executed either for or against religion, although their beliefs probably had some influence on their world view.

Oh tea! What about Hitler and Stalin ,Mao,Ceaser,Attila and any other named atheist! no atheism hasn't killed people,it has slaughtered them!You are dillutional!

Wow. The uneducated really know how to twist and abort history! And, once again, prove they don't know what they are talking about.... (sigh) This is an uneducated and WHOLLY DISHONEST comment, which is a flat out lie and mischaracterization of atheism.

Yes, religion has a lot of blood on its hands. Can the same be said for atheists and atheism? Haven't atheists killed more people in the name of atheism than religious theists have killed in the name of their religion? No, because atheism isn't a philosophy or ideology. Atheists do not gang together and kill people in the name of "No God". It is not a philosophy or ideology that people crusade for. These people also shared another characteristic -- they also did not believe in Leprechauns. Would you like to suggest that, perhaps, their violence was due to a lack in THAT belief? Because, it is just as silly as what you are suggesting with atheism.

How many people have been killed throughout history by Communists in the name of Atheism & Secularism? None, probably. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic. So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — even in the name of atheism and secularism? No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or "belief system" which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness, or being killed by someone who doesn't believe in Leprechauns is being killed for a lack in that belief.

People were killed in communist nations for a lot of different reasons. Some were communists who disagreed with those in power and were killed because of that. Some were anti-communists who opposed the government and were killed for that. Some were simply in the way or inconvenient and were killed for that. These are political disagreements that people were being killed over, not murder in the name of atheism. But weren't a lot of people killed because they were Christian? Certainly — but not simply because they were Christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hindrance towards the creation of a worker's paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. Once again, we are generally looking at political issues, not a question of atheism.

Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion. Atheism also isn't a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things — good or bad. It is simply a lack in a belief of something mythological and unprovable.

TO UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER, consider times in the past when religion has been involved with violence — the Inquisition would be good. How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism? NONE. Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of Christian doctrines. The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The general ideology of theism, however, did not. THERE...Does that comparison rattle around in your noggin and clear things up a little??

Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism — which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself — did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened — which is utter nonsense.

Here's an even more simple example to understand, something I referred to earlier. You want to know WHAT ELSE all those people had in common? They also shared a disbelief in Leprechauns. Would you like to suggest that their lack of a belief in Leprechauns, which these people ALL HAD IN COMMON, was the reason for their violence and killing?

Your anti-atheism comments are utter nonsense.

Let me repeat that. UTTER NONSENSE.

PS: Hitler was a catholic and was raised catholic. His writings even quote biblical dogma. Let's not forget that the Pedophile Catholic Cult helped scores of Nazi War Criminals escape Nazi Germany after Hitler killed himself. The mass-murder of Jews and others, in Nazi Camps, was very religiously and biblically inspired. Only a true coward who has no courage or integrity to embrace the truth about Nazi Germany and Hitler would suggest otherwise. Here are a few of Adolf's quote for you to peruse, lest you've forgotten them:

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 562.)

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Adolf Hitler,
Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65.)

“Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always
been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!"
(Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999,
pp. 632-633.)

This is so sad, I don't know how I'd live with myself if I ever agreed on aborting my kid, regardless of the circumstances.

Well, then -- isn't it nice that you live in a free country, where you have the freedom to make that choice yourself and live with all the choices you make? Rather than thinking you need to have some theocratic government make them for you?

For those that want a government run by religious doctrine, please research Iran, and tell us how much you like that... Or, for that matter, Vatican City. They are both POS countries by any measurement.

Cheers!

DunkinH,

A fetus in not considered a human capable of independent life. Until it's capable of living on it's own, it's a parasite, as derogatory as that term may be, that's what IT is. A parasite lives at the behest of the host. In this country, the law says that the host (a woman) has ultimate authority of her body.

Period.

justredd64,

You may need to switch more of your church time into school time learning how to write. It would make you more credible.

And who are YOU to say that? Are you a doctor? Are you pregnant?

There are already stories about women being forced to carry DEAD FETUSES because of these new 20 week laws. Nothing like finding out your baby is already dead, and having the GOVERNMENT stand between you and your doctor.

I bet you want "smaller government," too.

Kittycat: Get a grip. If the child is already dead, they are not gonna make them carry around a dead fetus. I think you are listening to too many stories.

Just another LIBERAL who likes to LIE.

And which medical program did you get your doctorate in, Gilberto?

Nice job ignoring reality. You can google the news stories about women being forced to carry dead, certain-to-die-upon-birth, and festering infectious fetuses, and because these laws are ABSOLUTE, they are left to suffer when doctors could end it safetly. Don't tell me to "Get a grip" if you can't even read or use google.

Just another conservative who wants to control everyone else and ignore realities they don't LIKE.

Unhappy is just another dumbass who likes to put people into non-existential political paradigms.

There's more to people than just calling them "liberal" and "conservative." You're just looking for ways to write off people, so you don't have to actually debate with them. We call those "logical fallacies."

Maybe someday you'll learn, but I doubt it.

My mom had to carry around a dead baby for a few days--abortion wasn't legal at the time. The doctor told her that her body would expel it naturally. I think she was about 5 or 6 months into the pregnancy at the time.

The wait didn't make anyone happy.

Elk, sorry to hear that about your mother. That should never happen to anyone, not when we have the medical care that could have saved her some pain and suffering. Not only can a failed pregnancy be psychologically traumatic, it can be physically dangerous to be forced to continue carrying it...

I must have read a different article. The one I read stated

"Late-term abortions will still be allowed in Arizona in situations where continuing a pregnancy risks death or would "create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." This is to be determined by a physician's "good faith clinical judgment."

That has been the point all along ~ the doctor's clinical judgement. I cannot imagine any ethical doctor performing or recommending a late-term abortion for any reason other than 'serious risk'.

Abortions are not a form of birth control. btw, I am staunchly pro-choice but the time to make that choice is not after 20 weeks.

And complications that would lead to the immediate death of the fetus upon birth? How about complications that aren't guaranteed to be life threatening? These aren't covered by the law. Do you really like the possibility of a doctor erring on the side of a horrific and painful birth defect to avoid being arrested by the state despite his medical opinion?

You should know that it was recently made legal in Arizona for a doctor to lie to a patient if he or she believes it will stop the patient from having an abortion.

So if you will have a child that will be born with a birth defect just get rid of it and start over is what you are saying? Very nice.

DS, if you're not going to take this subject seriously, why don't you just let the grown-ups talk?

Toasty:

Ultimately, you're coming down to "how about the complication that she changed her mind and wants an abortion?" Furthermore, you talk about a painful death. The abortion is a painful death for the "fetus."

Hey unhappy, go talk to that twit congressmen in GA who was comparing pregnant women and their having to carry a dead fetus to term to "chickens and cows on his farm" and get back to me that you conservatard brain dead bible thumping TROLL!!! Google THAT!!! Sick of you ripping on LIBERALS so there is a taste of your own medicine and CHOKE on it whatever you are.

Kitty, I googled the women forced to carry unborn fetus thing like you said and only found sites using that expression as a scare tactic. Was unable to find even one instance of this in reality. So please find an argument based in reality as to why 5 months isn't long enough?

Kittycat...the reason women are now being forced to carry dead babies, etc. has to do with the fact that most abortions are a form of birth control...who are you kidding?

And, many of the women bringing children into poverty are doing it for a pay raise...they have no desire to get an abortion.

So, people refer to have restrict on them now? Abortion should between between the pregnant women and theirs doctors.

Is this for less government? Seem there is much hypocrisy here.

Government small enough you could force a doctor to molest a teenager with it...

TexasGramou.. Tea Party much. And if the men who helped conceived a child would own up to it and support it, there probably would not be many abortions and no need to get help from the government

Thank you Toasty, again.

Great....Newsvine just got Occupied by a human loud speaker....

Funny how they exercises free speech by stifling others...

Nice that Unhappy has stopped by again, bucking to get banned from the site with all her usual right-wing hatred.

What else is new today?

What i truly LOVE about the abortion argument is all the LIES from the right-wing.

Yet, when you go to their main right-wing anti-abortion website, Abortion No!, you see, by their own statistics, who gets most abortions in the US. The Religious! If it wasn't for biblically religious women in the US, there would hardly be any abortions!! And this info comes from their own right-wing anti-abortion website!!! Check it out!!

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

WOW!! Add up THOSE numbers. Protestant and Catholic women ALONE make up 68.7% of all abortions in the US. That's over TWO THIRDS!

And it's all about the atheists and liberals and left-wingers?

You gotta love all the lies that come from the Right-wing, that contradict their own anti-abortion websites!! LMAO!!!

What a twat

You just can't seem to refrain from attacking people, can you? Reported again.

unc.: Yeah, and it's a damn shame--Arizona has some awesome natural beauty. Too bad it's ALEC's proving-grounds.

Explain what you mean when you say that AZ "outlawed brown people". Is it brown people in general or illegal brown people

They say one, but mean both.

ron, can you tell the difference by looking? neither can they it seems.

Yeah, I remember a friend related a story about talking with a group of people, one of whom described a nearby Puerto Rican as a "wetback". To which my friend replied: " I can only admire a man who swam here from Puerto Rico".

No vacation or business trips to AZ until they come to their senses; my son has been bugging me to take him to the Grand Canyon. He may have to wait for a long long time.

@Ron There are no illegal brown people in AZ, but there's a $#!%-TON of illegal white people there.

That Recall effort isn't quite working out for you is it? Scream and kick all you want, but the "voice of the people" failed to change the status-quo of the state legislature in Wisconsin in that recall effort, what makes you thing the gubernatorial recall will?

Do try to stay on topic, TROLL!

P.S. (for Walker to rig an election, he would need ACORN's help!)

Lonesomegeorge, the North Rim in Utah is nice... the main park is pretty close to the border though, and the Park Service doesn't employ conservative racists. I haven't been since the law, but only because my oldest son is hispanic and I'll be damned if I'm gonna take his birth certificate and social security card with me to prove he wasn't born in mexico. I expect you could buy lunch in Utah, fill your tank with gas, and visit the canyon without contributing a dime to arizona though.

Nobody is beheld to give BIRTH for your convenience of adoption. Women are not factories pumping out babies for the satisfaction of those who cannot give birth themselves. Stop being selfish. How about you adopt one of the millions of CHILDREN rotting in our foster system?

Movement and a "heartbeat" happen in the first trimester as well, and there is ZERO science that shows their development is able to transmit pain anywhere before the 26th week, and even that is a CAREFUL guess on the side of caution. Aborting at 20 weeks is sometimes necessary, and your life story does not impact OTHER womens rights to self determination.

Women are not factories pumping out babies for the satisfaction of those who cannot give birth themselves. Stop being selfish. How about you adopt one of the millions of CHILDREN rotting in our foster system?

Kittycat: You have some serious problems of your own. Now you are claiming that women are baby factories and that these women didn't have the choice to have sex? Stop belittling the intelligence of women. It's only the men who want you to think that women are to be treated like babies. Unless of course, you are a man?

I'm answering two posts here. Forgive me.

Ron, he was talking about AZ refusing to recognize MLK (not sure why the poster says outlawed) until a national boycott made them finally do so (kicking and screaming I'm sure). While that is outlawing black people, it sure wasn't a "welcome to our state" statement to people of color.

nysufferer, I'm not a woman so can't say what I would do if I accidentally became pregnant, but my observation in my state is there are FAR too many kids in foster care and orphanages. While some foster parents are great, others are nothing more than a holding house for these kids until they get old enough to move out. All the anti-abortion people ALWAYS say the babies will be adopted, but in reality, they aren't. As for shopping for kids, that is not because they can't get them here. For whatever reason (money, bleeding hearts for a country, etc) they choose to go overseas. Finally, I DO know what I would do if I were a woman and found out I was going to have a severly handicapped (mentally) child. Bringing that child into the world, while heroic, is not fair to the baby. It is no life, just an existance.

Unhappy, I love how you're entirely unable to address my comments directly, and have to resort to twisting my words and asking if I am a "man" or not. How about you just address my points?
Don't worry. I know you won't, because you can't.

Unhappy, she explicitly said "Women are not factories."

How about you adopt one of the millions of CHILDREN rotting in our foster system?

It is almost impossible to adopt a child in foster care. Read the stories on msnbc, of time and time again, foster parents suffer the state to give back the child to the obviously unfit parents, just because said "parents" completed court-ordered classes, or promised to the judge to be nicer, and the kid ends up on life-support.

Adopting a foster child usually means that you practically have to adopt the grandparent who still wants to visit, the aunt who wants to be invited to every birthday event, the former next-door neighbor who "bonded," and yet none of these were able to take custody of the child. Foster children are now placed with siblings. A would-be parent would adopt a 3 year old, but what of the child's other four siblings, including the teen-age sister who's about to give birth? Many courts won't break up the set for adoption, but will allow the them all to go to different situations.

Kittycat: You don't have any points. There is nothing to address. You keep running on the assumption that women are clueless and that they don't know about sex. Anybody in elementary school could tell you how babies are made.

If a fifth grader knows how to prevent pregnancy, then so should you.

Unhappy, she explicitly said "Women are not factories."

Toasty: Women are not dumb either. For every choice you make there is a consequence.

Stop changing the subject, Unhappy.

change the laws then about adoption. Also just a note we are at seven billion people and growing, and we are running into to resource/environmental problems already from industrial systems we have created. So a real conversation needs to be happening to solve those problems. Environmental problems are causing every increasing birth defects and children who will have health problems for the rest of their lives. Are schools are a joke. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/7-billion#.T4JqVhn4xiA.facebook. Honestly what is the problem with adopting oversees?

Late term abortions I thought only happened because of medical emergencies anyways. considering out of all abortions that occur it is the lowest out of the three trimesters. I do not hold to that life begins at conception based on the bible and I certainly am not going to make God the biggest abortionist by claiming such a thing.

Why are people with miserable names like "sufferer" and "unhappy" are so fanatic about abortion? Could it be misery love company? By the way, I'm far from being lonesome; it's a tribute to the last of it's kind giant land tortoise in the Galapagos, humans have eaten all of his relatives.

Why do only liberals comment on a person's name when they have nothing else to say of value?. Could it be that they don't want to admit that they are clueless?

Oh and by the way, nobody believes that crap about it being some kind of tribute.

If I was incapable of formulating a valid argument, I'd be Unhappy too.

They're just "trolls to spew extreme right wing talking points", that's why. Look ME up and I am the REAL DEAL who does not hide behind false names and BS. I am who I SAY I AM and stand behind everything I say on thee forums and call out the "fakes" as they so easy to spot. Might as well be shooting fish in a barrel and know the notorious ones ON HERE, Newsvine and Yahoo but Yahoo is so overrun with them, I gave up on THAT right wing cesspool. An honest user does not stand a chance there anymore and has not for so long it is waste of time to even be there so I bailed and let the talking heads "thumbs down" the decent posts into oblivion.
This place is getting almost as bad but SOME of us have to keep some level of sanity here so I make my statment but do not engage with the idiots for very long. That is what they WANT.

Kitty/Toasty - keep at it .. you rock!! I get so tired of barren childless couples ranting on and on about what women facing pregnancy should do, as if it concerns them. Nothing like having sterile couples and politicians telling people what they can and can't do with pregnancy. The lackeys taking it out on the productive - what sanctimonious trash.

unhappy why do people use liberal, democrat, republican right-wing when they no nothing about them.

Tao of wow:

I'm all for prevention of pregnancy. But once the child exists, even if called a "fetus," I cannot condone killing on a whim or for mere convenience. Consider under what terms you could accept a "post-natal abortion."

------------------------------

A lot of people say that late-term abortions already only occur in the event of medical emergency. If that's true, then this law will have no effect and will be largely symbolic. Based on the fact that there is so much opposition to this law, however, I am inclined to believe it is not the case.

If I was incapable of formulating a valid argument, I'd be Unhappy too

The best person on earth: What a dumb name! I noticed your name doesn't describe who you are either.

In the end we all bleed, crap and pee the same color no matter what we look like on the OUTSIDE. Don't forget it and my moral code does not need 'gods" to guide me" or tell me what is right or wrong so sweep off your OWN doorstep and stay off of MINE unless what I do personally is affecting YOU or your LIFE in some way. Don't like abortion. Don't HAVE one. Don't like birth control? Don't USE it. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a GAY person. Don't like ME? I don't CARE!!!

Pvblius but why should people be forced to your standard when through faith or other have a different standard. Honest I thought the law was already pretty clear about late term abortions so I am a little confused with what is going to change.

Tao of wow:

Well, here is what I think will change. Currently some women get late-term abortions just because they feel like it. This law says no, there has to be an actual medical reason, not the mother really really really wanting an abortion. The previous status is as bad as it sounds.

Teresa:

Don't like abortion. Don't HAVE one. Don't like birth control? Don't USE it. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a GAY person.

Would that also extend to "Don't like bank robberies? Don't ROB one. Don't like rape? Don't COMMIT it. Don't like bear traps? Don't USE them"? Or is your judgement against people passing laws only extended to those who pass laws against things that you like? The reslity is that all of our laws are based on things that we find (or someone finds) morally unacceptable. You would reject your own argument if applied to anything you wanted to have or keep outlawed.

Taken at face value, you propose the elimination of all laws and act as though any restriction on people's actions is inapproriate. But it's a facade. You support abortion; but you can't support it with an argument. So you play a "how dare you judge" card. But if that were really a general principle, we would have anarchy.

no the don't it is against the law. so something else must have changed in the standard.

Red herring argument PUBIS: Robbery, rape and the things YOU bring up are against the LAW and no one does those things you idiot while the things YOU cons insist upon legislating are NOT but you want to MAKE THEM LAW. Try again. Speaking of rape, plenty of abortion s and unwanted pregnancies HAVE been the result of that very thing but YOUR kind wants to force women of that violent to have a kid that was the result of a rape too or a young firl who was repeatredly raped by a family member or some pif step father or Mom's BOYFRIEND. Go SCREW YOURSELF. I am so SICK of you people sticking your LAWS in our vaginas and in our BEDROOMS and while you scream about how the Affordable Care Act invades the "patient/doctor relationship and would ration and mandate care, what do you think THIS does? Crimminalizing doctors who perform abortions and passing laws that actually are telling doctor to LIE to patients about the results of tests that would have influence on their patient's decision on whether to TERMINATE a pregnancy? For instance, a spina bifida test or Down's test in an amniocentesis comes up posative?
That is the whole PURPOSE of these tests so the woman can make that decision as to whether she is prepared to have baby with those deformaties and that is a HUGE decision. I being a woman whom arreid late and had MY children at 38 and 40 DID all those tests and had they come up posative, I WOULD have ended the pregnancies based on my financial situation and ability to cope emitionally with a child like that. I know I was not prepared for that n ANY capacity and my doctor should NOT be withholding information from me as that is a direct violation of the Hippocartic Oath they TAKE as medical providers.
Don't you DARE make your "red herring" arguments to ME. SHUT UP!!!!

Don't think goverment has any business what so ever dictating to women what they can do with their own bodies. I would sincerely hope women think about birth control and use it before being sexually active. Unfortunately, many don't think and end up pregnant. I personally think that we need to make some better choices, but if it's not my body it's not my choice. I think it's best not to abort after the 1st trimester, sometimes it might be the money issue that ends up being the reason to abort after 12 weeks. After 16 weeks I think it's a really bad idea to abort unless there is a really good reason to do so such as the risk of severe physical probems or death to the mom and severe problems with the fetus which would mean a very poor quality of life or a short life full of pain. Dr. can tell alot of times when problems are going to be really bad. It should be the womens, the fathers if around and the doctors decision only. After 20 weeks women should be smart enough and decent enough NOT to abort unless there is significant risk to mom or baby. aborting after 5 or 6 months solely because you finally got the money or just don't want it is wrong. at 5 months I felt there was problem with one of my pegnancies and saw the doctor who did an ultrasound showing the fetus was not viable. She said that my body would likely spontaneously abort, it didn't after a few days so she performed d&C. There is no valid reason to force a woman to carry a dead fetus and she could die if her body doesn' do it naturally. So anyone trying to force you to carry should be the one breaking the law. This issue is way too personal and way too complicated to have any tpe of government legislate it and any man who disagrees is flaming idiot. No man could ever know what it is to carry a life inside you and has no right to judgement unless it is his own child. Even then he shouldn't ever get the final say. The same for women unless it's thier own body.

Kitty...go to the black and hispanic communities and look at the single women baby factories in the name of welfare and failure to use contraception by choice.

@Teresa

Your mad as heck and you're not taking it anymore act is making you seem senile.

Red herring argument PUBIS: Robbery, rape and the things YOU bring up are against the LAW and no one does those things you idiot while the things YOU cons insist upon legislating are NOT but you want to
MAKE THEM LAW.

No, the dismissal of a behavior, in the name of mind your own business, doesn't justify any behavior.

Try again. Speaking of rape, plenty of abortion s and unwanted pregnancies HAVE been the result of that very thing but YOUR kind wants to force women of that violent to have a kid that was theresult of a rape too or a young firl who was repeatredly raped by a family member or some pif step father or Mom's BOYFRIEND.

Care to cite statistics on how many pregnancies take place from rape? Guttmacher Institute cited
about 1%, 93 percent were for social reasons.

Go SCREW YOURSELF. I am so SICK of you people sticking your LAW in our vaginas and in our BEDROOMS

How does a law fit in one's vagina or into a bedroom?

Crimminalizing doctors who perform abortions and passing laws that actually are telling doctor to LIE to patients about the results of tests that would have influence on their patient's decision on whether to TERMINATE a pregnancy?

You mean lie, so they will get an abortion or tell them the truth do that they will think?

For instance, a spina bifida test or Down's test in an amniocentesis comes up posative?
That is the whole PURPOSE of these tests so the woman can make that decision as to whether she is
prepared to have baby with those deformaties and that is a HUGE decision.

Spinal bifida happens in about 1 out of every 1000 or 2000 gestations depending on the country. A woman still has the option of taking folic acid. In addition Amniocentesis is about as intrusive, if not more so, than an ultrasound.

I being a woman whom arreid late and had MY children at 38 and 40 DID all those tests and had they come up posative, I WOULD have ended the pregnancies based on my financial situation and ability to cope
emitionally with a child like that.

So it's not about your child, but you? Doesn't make a convincing case for you as a parent. Consequently, not every woman would make that decision.

I know I was not prepared for that in ANY capacity and my doctor should NOT be withholding information from me as that is a direct violation of the Hippocartic Oath they TAKE as medical providers.

So, you're saying it's a good thing for a woman to be fully informed prior to having an abortion?

Don't you DARE make your "red herring" arguments to
ME. SHUT UP!!!!

How about you spell check yours?

Teresa:

Robbery, rape and the things YOU bring up are against the LAW and no one does those things you idiot while the things YOU cons insist upon legislating are NOT but you want to MAKE THEM LAW.

As of now, in Arizona, those late-term abortions are against the law, too. That's how laws -- even the ones you support -- come to be. They are written by legislators. But, when you are arguing whether something should or should not be a law, whether it currently is or not is secondary. By the way, there are people who do each of the things I brought up, sad, but true. And I believe bear traps are still legal -- though I am sure you want a law against them. Ultimately, laws are based on what people decide is right or wrong. And just as you will not "butt out" for my convenience, I will not "butt out" for yours.

as that is a direct violation of the Hippocartic Oath they TAKE as medical providers

Oh, would you like the law to state that doctors have to follow that oath to the letter? It has a word to say about abortion. The word is "no." It is one of few things that the Hippocratic Oath specificly forbids its adherants to take part in. Ironicly, that doctor's duty is to the best interests of the patient, not to telling the patient the truth. If the doctor thinks the patient likely to make a bad decision, he can lie to steer him into a good decision.

Sorry Pv, but that law is now a violation of federal law, which under the Constitution takes precedent.

Toasty:

Sorry Pv, but that law is now a violation of federal law, which under the Constitution takes precedent.

Strictly speaking, it's not. Nothing in the Constitution or in the statutes grants a right to an abortion. Some 40 years ago the Supreme Court justices at the time pulled that out of their collective behinds. And this law even falls within that ridiculous ruling.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

- Article VI, Clause 2

Unhappy: The best person on earth: What a dumb name! I noticed your name doesn't describe who you are either.

However, yours certainly describes you...

Wow, Pvblivs, there's that pesky Constitution again -- those inconvenient facts getting in the way of baseless arguments. Aye?

Cheers ---- Bernitch!

I'm most emphatically pro-choice. I'm a woman. I'm a mother. The arguments made about what a fetus feels at any gestation period is irrelevant. Yes it's a life, but there's this tiny event that occurs: birth. Until that moment, it is a special being with the potential to become a person. Birth is a fine line, but I don't celebrate the moment my kids were conceived, I celebrate the moment they were born.

Toasty:

I don't see a right to an abortion in that passage you quoted.

Bernitch:

I am familiar with the Constitution. It doesn't contain a provision for abortion rights anywhere.

IT does however state the law of the land is the LAW OF THE LAND, as dictated by the SUPREME COURT.

Which ruled it a right in Roe v Wade.

Allswell:

That decision still said that states could impose restrictions. This particular Arizona law does fall within even that previous ridiculous ruling.

By the way, the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court gets to dictate laws. Even you, through a slip of the lip, have asserted that they overstepped their bounds.

But there are other considerations. Supreme Court decisions can be overturned. After all, Plessy v. Ferguson, which stated that "separate but equal" was the "law of the land," was overturned. (All caps don't really help your case.) Roe v. Wade was decided as a "privacy issue." That means that it is a ruling on what information the government can collect. If you take the ruling as they actually made it. Laws against early abortions are only unenforceable because the state cannot gather relevant information. Abortion supporters are very afraid of laws that "chip away" at abortion because they know that the public does not actually support it being legal to put a bullet through the brain while a toe remains in the womb. Really, the public doesn't support either extreme. Abortion opponents are trying to move the line back and influence public opinion. Abortion supporters have gotten to the point where they are trying to silence the opposition. (I think it is because the don't think they can gather sufficient support for the "toe in the womb" standard.)

And it was overturned by who, again?

The Supreme Court.

You seem to forget that they ruled on Roe v Wade as a case of determining that banning abortion was unconstitutional in the way it had been presented, and left it to the states to define the law, with the restriction of viability.

The best BS of your statement is the idea that pro-choice constantly equates pro-abortion.

Why is it pro-lifers don't know what the word CHOICE means?

Allswell:

Many things are choices, some beneficial, some harmless, and some which need to be outlawed. But, despite the fact that abortion supporters like to be called "pro-choice," they only favor choices they like. So, sure, I know what the word "choice" means. But I can also see when you are using it as a type of double-speak

And it was overturned by who, again?

And, ultimately, challenges to these laws will also go back to the Supreme Court. My point is that abortion is not a topic that will not be revisited and the current status is not etched in stone. Also, even though I find the Roe v. Wade ruling to be ridiculous, the Arizona law is not in conflict. It is within the parameters set.

comments from a progressive:

don't like guns? don't buy one.

don't like abortions? don't have one.

no need to outlaw either of them just because you don't happen to like them.

I like! Libertarian slant, no?

Easy subject. Arizona's government just took away yet ANOTHER civil right from its people.

Yeah, the right to kill innocent children. How heartbreaking!

They aren't children, they're fetuses, zygotes, and blastocysts. Why don't you offer to give up some of your civil rights before you demand we take away other peoples'?

Well said uncommoncentz.

Other parts of the Arizona law that are equally troubling are: 1) a woman having to get an ultrasound 24 hours in advance rather than 1 hour in advance; 2) a website dedicated to enumerating the risks of an abortion. There are just as many risks for giving birth that nobody ever talks about. Forcing people to have an ultrasound the day before also disproportinetly targets women who live in rural areas and don't have a nearby facility. When a law negatively targets and affects a group of people, it's called discrimination. If Arizona lawmakers want to "educate" women on other options aside abortion, they also need to "educate" women on the risks of pregnancy and labor. As an Arizona desperately trying to leave the state, I can say that our laws are getting more and more ridiculous by the minute.

Toasty you must have failed basis biology. At 20 weeks fetuses are long past the blastocyst, zygote stages.

Forcing people to have an ultrasound the day before also disproportinetly targets women who live in rural areas and don't have a nearby facility.

The 5th of November: Then what you are saying is that we should cut off those areas that are more city-like and give more money to those women in the rural areas, so that they will have access to the same type of care.

Why don't you discuss that with your representative?

JK, they aren't stopping at just 20 weeks. They're trying to outlaw ALL abortion, regardless of the stage of development.

Look, you're not stupid. Stop using cheap shots and address the very serious issue at hand.

-

unhappy

just a note we are at seven billion people and growing, and we are running into to resource/environmental problems already from industrial systems we have created. So a real conversation needs to be happening to solve those problems. Environmental problems are causing every increasing birth defects and children who will have health problems for the rest of their lives. Are schools are a joke. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/7-billion#.T4JqVhn4xiA.facebook. Honestly what is the problem with adopting oversees?

Late term abortions I thought only happened because of medical emergencies anyways. considering out of all abortions that occur it is the lowest out of the three trimesters. I do not hold to that life begins at conception based on the bible and I certainly am not going to make God the biggest abortionist by claiming such a thing.

Tao of wow: There is nothing wrong with adopting oversees except the cost. Many couples choose that course of action when they cannot find a baby in the US.

well by the standard set by many who are against abortion of any kind you should not have a kid till you can afford one anyways and only 10% of children waiting for adoption get adopted each year in America alone.There are now more than 600,000 frozen embryos in storage in the United States. so it not like there is a lack of supply.

If I were a woman, and the choice was to carry an unwanted child to term for adoption or an abortion, and the adoption choices were a zealous conservative and/or religious bigot, I would chose abortion. There is no way I would let an 'Unhappy" couple raise the child surrounded my narrow-mindedness and bigotry.

Red DevPS : Does that stand for Red Devil? It's okay, because I wouldn't let you near my kids anyway. And since you are not a woman, why do I get the impression that if you got a woman pregnant you would just leave her?

I notice that no one ever tells PETA "Don't like fur coats? Don't wear one. Don't like animal testing? Don't do it." After all, trying to pass a law against cruel animal testing would be taking rights away from the people who want to do it. Right Uncommon? Toasty?

Was there supposed to be a point to that, Pv?

why do I get the impression that if

Clearly, it is because you are highly impressionable, lacking the ability to make adult decisions.

Unhappy is a retard troll.

Pvblivs, PETA is impotent to do anything so there's no need to say anything.

Hmm, if the argument of "Don't like gun? Don't buy one".

Then I must say "Don't like freedom? Don't live in America."

If you based your whole logic and argument on your religious belief, then move to Middle East where there are already a system there and women is basically slaves.

Again, Don't like freedom? Don't live in America.

Teresa Van remortel: I think it is time for you to take your meds. I am tired of your talking points as well. It's not enough that you have to act like a TROLL. Must you also pretend to be a woman as well?

jkatze -- Toasty you must have failed basis biology. At 20 weeks fetuses are long past the blastocyst, zygote stages.

And at 20 weeks, it is still a far cry from a baby with Rights. The argument goes both ways. Just have enough courage to stop the lies and histrionics. Call it what it is. A fetus has no civil rights either. It isn't a person.

unhappy: Tao of wow: There is nothing wrong with adopting oversees except the cost. Many couples choose that course of action when they cannot find a baby in the US.

Rubbish. Most people only want to adopt what they feel is a perfect baby. There are over 100,000 unwanted children in this country in orphanages, half-way houses, temporary foster homes, living on the streets... Pretending there is a shortage of children to adopt in the US is a flat out LIE. The Religious Right demands all these kids be born by parents who don't want them, they pressure and guilt the parents, and systematically turn their backs on thousands of them once they get born. Suggesting that they actually give a goddam is a JOKE!

When you are in the doctor's office and it is between you and the doctor you can make any decision you want. But when it involves you, the doctor, and the child that is inside you, then you can't anymore. This child is not a tumor. It only needs 9 months and then you will never have to see it again if you don't want it.

You have no right to demand ONE DAY of any woman, much less take her hostage in her own body for 9 months. The very idea is akin to sexual slavery, and men used such attitudes to control women for centuries. Can't control your wife? Does she want a job, to vote, to leave the house more often? Get her pregnant, problem solved. She'll be too busy feeding and changing to want to do silly things like vote.

But with your pattern, you'll just ignore that reality and this comment.

Just as you, Kcat, are ignoring the reality of the law. The only abortions under scrutiny will be those after 20 weeks. Medical imperatives will not be questioned and 20 weeks is ample time for any woman to make a considered choice.

Jk, you can't seriously be so ill-informed as to be completely unaware of the flood of "personhood" laws that seek to outlaw ALL abortion, regardless of how long the pregnancy has been.

You have no right to demand ONE DAY of any woman, much less take her hostage in her own body for 9 months. The very idea is akin to sexual slavery, and men used such attitudes to control women for centuries.

I'm beginning to think that Kittycat has a hormonal imbalance or hates men. Women do not hate men unless they are being treated unfairly. For you to say that women are sex slaves because they chose to have sex and not take precautions shows even more why people like yourselves should not engage in sex. In your mind, it will always be the guy's fault, no matter what he does.

Does she want a job, to vote, to leave the house more often? Get her pregnant, problem solved. She'll be too busy feeding and changing to want to do silly things like vote.

Haven't you ever heard of daycare? This isn't the 1950's.

The pro-fetus fanatics are also against universal healthcare, Obamacare, single payer system. For them, pro-life ends at birth. If you are born defective, no insurance for you! And no birth control pills for women with polycystic ovary disease, endometriosis, dysmenorrhea...etc.

unhappy. Personhood will create a lot of problems for families, etc. Women will be pregnant to the tune of 12 or so kids. Can the men of the United States make enough money to support his family without his wife's help, because she will not be working outside of the home.

With Personhood and no Affordable Health Care, what happens to the babies born with down, heart and lung problems. Since they are people from the first moment, they will have preexisting conditions, And, not covered under health care that we have now.

You state daycare.....Not for all the babies that will be born into a family unit.

lonesomegeorge, you are right with your statements. And, Toasty is usually right.

"Conservatives want live babies, so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."- George Carlin

Toasty I also believe in a choice but no where in this law is it trying to stop all abortions as you keep saying. I have to agree that 20 weeks is plenty of time to make a decision if you want to keep the child or not. I doubt abortions will ever again be fully banned in this country as you keep implying...the only question now is when is it to late to make the decision.

I can say when a friend of mine got pregnant and the father left her as soon as he found out she decided to get an abortion but was afraid to go to her family so I drove her there to help her...that was almost 12 years ago and I still regret that decision and it wasn't even my child...it is not a decision to make lightly and I have a feeling if you haven't decided within 20 weeks then deep down you have made the decision and are just trying to talk yourself out of it.

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born". - Ronald Reagan

Daycare costs a fortune!! I was working F-T and after baby number 2 on my income I had to cutack my hours to 30 a week and my husband stayed up after working his 3rd shift jobs all night until I got home at 2:45 rather 4:45 so he could go to bed and sleep until 10:00 so d/n have to pay daycare for TWO kids which would have taken 1/2 month of my pay after we figured it out once taxes came ot of my check, insurance, etc...We did this until my "babies" started school so there went OUR LIFE for how long!!! Get back into reality "unhappy and the rest of you totally out of touch cons" who never THINK of these things and what we have to do to survive in the REAL WORLD on an average income with TWO PEOPLE WORKING!!!!!!
But lets cut off contraception coverage like jerk WALKER did in Wisconsin to even EMPLOYER based health plans and end the Equal Pay Act here. Yup!! Helping us WOMEN rigt into the DARK AGES is the fascist gop and back into the kitchen barefoot and pregnant because an "income is more important to MEN" according to jerks like Glen Grothmann. Your party and polices are barbaric for women-simply barbaric!!!

Funny...I raised my son alone since he was 9 months old on one income...about 32k a year...no child support...no money from the Gov...payed day care ,mortgage and all other bills on my own and never complained and we managed. I just learned to do without...Now my son is 14 and we are doing pretty well on one income and still happy...Guess what people...it's not all about money...love can make a huge difference.

Ds, I didn't say this law. The anti-abortion movement that intimidated the legislature into passing this, however, has its goal of banning all abortions.

And let's face it, you KNEW that already, but chose to misread my comment to change the subject. For some reason, that happens more on threads about abortion than any other topic. Gee, I wonder why...

Unhappy-1583758

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born". - Ronald Reagan

You do realize that man was mentally broken right?

dslodge-at 32k you were making nearly double what most single teenage moms in todays world make. Most singles on a min. wage job can't even afford a place to live on their own much less daycare. Took in a friend of my daughters and it took 14 months to get her on housing assistance and help her and her son get out on their own. A lot of young women don't have any one helping them get started and I can't help them all so what do you suggest????? This child ws born healthy with no physical or mental problems. Having worked 24 years in the field of caring for folks with disabilites I know how hrd it is and how much it can cost to care for a child with significat problems and min. wage moms can't do it without government assistance or family that is backing them up.

You do realize that man was mentally broken right?

I realize that that man was able to gain the respect of his peers even while he was undergoing mental problems.And I know that Obama will never garner that type of respect no matter what he does.

P.S.Why do liberals quote from George Carlin? He's not famous, except in acting. Since when did you decide he was a political figure?

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born". - Ronald Reagan

Irrelevant. We're talking pro-choice, or the ability to make a decision for or against abortion. Not everyone who is pro-choice has an abortion.

Just like not every fetus survives to be born. Its funny how many people will quote religion to defend pro-life when their God is the highest aborter in (debatable) existence.

If you want to force people to have children just because they have sex, then you should try and ban contraception, cause you're claiming that sex should only be for procreation. It is also for pleasure. When you start giving every born child all the things they need to survive, for free, then you can argue that everyone of them should be born.

Don't even start on the adoption bull@!$%# either. Adoption numbers are tiny compared to the number in the system waiting, and the chance of adoption plummets after reaching a rather young age. It is a broken system that cannot handle an influx of conservative-forced babies.

unhappy: When you are in the doctor's office and it is between you and the doctor you can make any decision you want. But when it involves you, the doctor, and the child that is inside you, then you can't anymore. This child is not a tumor.

It also isn't a child. it's a fetus. have the courage to stop telling lies, and call things what they are. Do you have courage, or simply operate from dishonesty and histrionics? Can you be factual, or just a liar?

Until its viable outside the womb, a fetus is nothing more than a parasitic being, by its very definition. Roe v Wade holds legality until viability.

Birth control isn't banned. Stop lying.

We just want you to pay for it yourselves.

How hard is that?

When you pay for your own Viagra and other frivolous male sex drugs, let us know. They've been covered without question.

Whereas almost 90% of the insurance companies in the majority of states don't even cover BIRTH. Or are we just being lazy and should pick up the 20 GRAND tab ourselves while you pop another blue boy for the heck of it?

When you pay for your own Viagra and other frivolous male sex drugs, let us know. They've been covered without question.

When it is proven that you can't have sex without birth control, then they will pay for your drugs too. Until then grow up!

For the record, maybe next time you should keep it in your pants.

Unhappy, do you know about the laws now on the books here in Arizona? I mean, have you really taken a look at how radical the legislature has gotten here?

When it is proven that you can't have sex without birth control, then they will pay for your drugs too.

Sex is not a requirement to stay healthy. If a man needs a pill to obtain an erection, it is a choice that person made. It is no way a requirement for that mans well being.

That being said, insurance should in no way subsidise erections.

Birth control on the other hand, has several medicinal uses besides preventing unwanted babies. Yet it isn't covered by almost all the insurance carriers.

Birth control on the other hand, has several medicinal uses besides preventing unwanted babies. Yet it isn't covered by almost all the insurance carriers.

Birth control is responsible as well for its increased cancers in women.

Did you want to discuss that as well?

First thing doctors ask women, who are having chest pains, are if they are on birth control. Because birth control pills are known to cause strokes. Birth control pills are not completely safe.

Unhappy must have graduated from Fox News School of Medicine

unhappy must be a woman as she said previously to keep it in your pants.

Unhappy must have graduated from Fox News School of Medicine

LonesomeGeorge:

No, I just have lots of doctors in my family. Where did you get your information from, MSNBC?

Kitty, once again spouting off untrue statements. Almost every insurance company covers births. The only restriction is usually in the first year of coverage. This is a logical protection to prevent people from not getting coverage, deciding they want to have a child, and only then getting coverage.

As i have just had a child 3 months ago and paid out of pocket (for the reason listed above, we didn't want to wait for new insurance to kick in) i speak from experience that 20 grand is a joke. With our first child, we had insurance and it cost us about 2 grand out of pocket. With the pre-set self pay plans that most hospitals have now, it costs about the same for a birth with 2 day in hospital stay. With all doctors visits leading up to the birth, it still only cost about $3500 total. Only slightly less than the 20 grand you stated.

unhappy so is the water supply and the air, a lot of the food we eat and the amounts, no to mention the other "medications" that may cause serious side effects and death want to discuss that

mid road you are lucky. my friend has had 4 kids and the first three cost well over 15,000 with insurance each for the whole process, the last one about 9,000 because she did a mid-wife birth center and cut out the doctors and hospital.

Oh freddy boy, you must remove your lips from the Whitehouse sewer pipe. Quit eating that — — — _. The “not my fault” president has single handedly done everything in his power to destroy this country. Not true you say? Look at the facts, and no I don’t mean the “facts” that your homeboy barack spews out (yes I intentionally didn’t capitalize barack out of disrespect…yup, I know I’m nasty). Real facts, for instance - the unemployment rate is really 10.3% and been that way for two years () FACT. barack tells you that drilling is has increased under his administration, and actually that’s true to some extent, as drilling has increased on private land, but actually decreased on federal land () FACT. barack proclaims he is doing everything in his power to lower the cost of fuel. Obviously drilling on federal land has not increased, the keystone pipeline was denied, annnnnnd in a 2008 interview barack says he wants to increase gas prices () FACT. The facts about barack goes on, I could go on, but I would rather take some time to provide some answers to your questions.

So, with our further ado, the answers to your questions; at least I think they were questions.

You’re right birth control does help prevent pregnancy, but you’re wrong when you say Republicans want to ban it. Republicans don’t think you and I should pay for birth control. (is that unreasonable?) If someone wishes to engage in sex, then why should I pay for it? Should I also pay for their beer and smokes? Or how about their trip to Hawaii…oh wait we’ve already done that, and according to pelosi we need to put more money in food stamps (). Republicans support birth control, but buy it yourself. Most Republican’s don’t support abortion, except for when there are extenuating circumstances. Republican’s don’t support abortion for good reason – take a look (). Yes, Republican’s ARE pro life, just take RESPONSIBILITY for yourself. There are more people on the dole today than there are people working…hmmm.

What gave you the idea that Republicans don’t want health care? Because we don’t support obamacare? Take the time to read the bill, or at least some of the bill. I’ll help you out – this video points out key FACTS directly from the bill ().

As for war – I’m a Republican and don’t always agree with war. I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq for instance, however, if going to war preserves our lives and our freedom then yes, I agree with going to war.

And finally the gun issue – I would first like ask you a question; why do you feel guns should be outlawed? Think about that for a moment…. Yes, guns are dangerous in the hands of criminals. You arrogantly assume that if firearms are banned then the crime rate would drop. On the contrary fredster, in fact if you do a little research on other countries where guns have been banned you’ll discover that crime has increased. In Japan for instance, crime increased, only the weapon of choice is a machete. On the flipside take Switzerland, which has the lowest crime rate in the world, law abiding citizens are legally permitted to carry any gun throughout the country (). In the United States the majority of crimes committed with guns are bought by criminals on the black market. Charles Schumer report from 1999 found that only 13% of guns used in crimes were bought from legal gun dealers.

Anyways, that’s it for now and your head is probably spinning. I’ll check back tomorrow and provide more free education – The American way…or at least in you’re an illegal immigrant.

Viagra is covered by insurance because it helps a bodily disfunction. Being pregnant is NOT a disfunction of the body...it is a NATURAL function of the human body. No matter how many libs try to pretend pregnancy is a disease...it is not.

Okay, so apparently we’re not allowed to provide websites as sources. During my “speech” to freddy every time you see () is where I placed my source. For now you can google everything I’ve told you and see what pops up. All my comments are backed by facts.

You should google “the silent scream” to see why most Republicans don’t agree with abortions.

or at least in you're an illegal immigrant.

That a AMERICAN hired and profited from placing the burden of the ill gotten profit on to taxpayers.

Unhappy-1583758

Birth control on the other hand, has several medicinal uses besides preventing unwanted babies. Yet it isn't covered by almost all the insurance carriers.

Birth control is responsible as well for its increased cancers in women.

Did you want to discuss that as well?

First thing doctors ask women, who are having chest pains, are if they are on birth control. Because birth control pills are known to cause strokes. Birth control pills are not completely safe.

Good job avoiding the issue.

Person A "Birth control has medical benefits beyond contraception"

You " BUT IT CAN CAUSE STROKES"

Idiot.

Funny, I wound up in the E/R room with severe chest pains 01/2011 2 days after a surgery and they NEVER asked me if I was taking BC pills nor does my doctor ask me that as he KNOWS my HX. If you have a regualr doctor as we all S/B ABLE to have but so many who have NO HEALTH INSURANCE and can't afford regular medical care don't, that is not the case. Unhappy is so ful of s--t. BTW, I WORKED in the health insurance business for 6 years and maternity coverage is not a required benefit and if the group is small, it often is NOT covered because of the costs involved with childbirth and then the coverage only allows "complications of pregnancy" which is severely limited and the policy language of what constitutes "complications" the equiavlent of being on your deathbed before anything is covered.
Viagara covered because it is a "dysfunction"? Give me a break. The ads need to stop touting "his ability to BE READY THEN".

I'll "make him READY" and all these misogynistic lawmakers with a kick in their twig and berries so hard, they'll be singing like a CHOIR!!!! The "Silent Scream". More right wing propaganda fear mongering bulls--t just like that whole post from theway up there. Education via crappola!!

Teresa Van Remortel: You are obviously very stupid or failed to mention to your doctor any medications you were taking. And yes, birth control counts as medications. So stop acting like you are a TROLL.

http://www.healthcentral.com/heart-disease/h/can-birth-control-pills-cause-strokes.html

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5019942_can-birth-control-cause-stroke.html

http://www.healthcentral.com/heart-disease/c/19/1812/birth-stroke

The list could go on and on. Everyone knows this, except for you. How is it that you made it this far?

So much misinformation being put forth. Almost EVERY health insurance covers SOME portion of the cost of birth control pills, they just require you to pay a co-insurance or deductible. That is the very definition of insurance, sharing the risk.

As for making a woman carry a dead fetus. In almost every case the Doctor will suggest that the woman wait to see if the body will expell the dead fetus on it's own because the surgery to remove the fetus is not without risks (perforated uterus, possible sterilization etc..) This is not an abortion it is a DNC.

A fetus at 20 weeks of gestation is NOT a Zygote or Blastocyst, it is not a cluster of cells. It is a fully formed human being. From 20 weeks to 40 weeks the organs and tissue are maturing to allow for the greatest chance of survival outside the womb.

There is not one law that has been introduced to overturn Roe vs. Wade in it's entirety. Roe vs. Wade is a flawed piece of legislation and Dems and Repubs have been trying to fill in the gaps for the past 25+ years. No one at the state level has the power to overturn this law, if they did, it would have been done already. The President of The United States does not solely have the power to overturn it. We have different braches of the government for a reason. This is a stupid arguement and it would serve people well to inform themselves on this subject.

20 weeks is more then enough time to decide to terminate a pregnancy.

The issue of abortion is not a republican only issue. An MSNBC poll taken in November of 2010 stated that 71% of Americans polled were pro-life. Every poll for the past 10+ years has registered rebulicans at 36%, registered democrats at 28% and everyone else was either not registered or "other", so the math just does not add up.

Not all pro-lifers base their views on abortion because of their religious beliefs. Some have no relationship with God, but still know that it is not ok to take a human life.

Stop all of the partisan BS. Try to discuss a subject as serious as this one without resorting to calling people trolls.

Move aside fred man, teresa van remortel wants a turn on the ol’ sewer pipe. “Fear mongering”? Can you dispute anything I’ve posted? Come on t-baby, if I posted anything that even slightly represents propaganda you should have no problem burying me. Oh wait that’s not how you libs operate. Instead of a response that defends your position you put some “clever” comment like fear mongering.

The list could go on and on. Everyone knows this, except for you. How is it that you made it this far?

Unhappy, are you completely and utterly retarded?

"Birth control causes health problems". Who gives a @!$%#? So does living. The health problems are rare compared to the problems they fix.

20 weeks is more then enough time to decide to terminate a pregnancy.

When you can guarantee that everyone will know by 20 weeks that they're pregnant, I'll believe you.

Unhappy, for what it’s worth I don’t think you are retarded. I do however, think someone who uses this word in a derogatory fashion has a weak vocabulary, and perhaps still awaiting their third grade graduation.

“When you can guarantee that everyone will know by 20 weeks that they're pregnant, I'll believe you”. allwell I can guarantee you won’t be pregnant in twenty weeks if you don’t have sex. I’m curious though, up to what point should you be allowed to abort? You should be happy with more government regulation…isn’t that what you people like?

“When you can guarantee that everyone will know by 20 weeks that they're pregnant, I'll believe you”. allwell I can guarantee you won’t be pregnant in twenty weeks if you don’t have sex. I’m curious though, up to what point should you be allowed to abort? You should be happy with more government regulation…isn’t that what you people like?

My best friend became pregnant via her husband and didn't know (or show any outward signs) until she went into labor at the hospital (she'd gone in for stomach pains, an x-ray showed the fully formed baby positioned for birth). Both of them had used birth control (she had continued to use birth control during the entire pregnancy as well). The child is 2 years old and perfectly healthy, in case anyone was worried about the x-ray/birth control during pregnancy.

I dislike government regulation, you're misrepresenting who I am with. I am a moderate independent. The government should absolutely get its hands out of abortion either way and let people chose for themselves. If they chose wrong they will be the ones to live with the choice.

unhappy: Birth control isn't banned. Stop lying. We just want you to pay for it yourselves. How hard is that?

Sure. As soon YOU pay for Childbirth yourselves. It goes both ways. You choose to have a kid? Have the integrity to pay for it. How hard is that?

Many people who have to abort at 20 weeks already decided they want to come to term, but due to complications have to abort. This is the LAST right that should be taken away.

It is usually at 18 weeks that a pregnant woman can safely have an amniocentesis, a test for genetic abnormalities. The results can take several weeks. There are some disorders that are "incompatible with life." That means that the fetus can survive in the womb for the full length of pregnancy, but they will die at birth or shortly thereafter. Now, if you or your significant other were pregnant and found out, at, say, 21 weeks, that your baby will die at birth, would you want to continue the pregnancy for another 19 weeks, or would you want to have it end, and start the grieving process?

It's not always a matter of convenience.

The results of my amnios did not take "weeks" so that part of your post is faulty. The medical profession does what they can to mae these results as speedy as possible so important descisions can be made early as I and my husband were able to do and an amnio must be done in conjunction with an u/s obviously so the gestation has to be also "late enough" that the image can be seen to avoid the needle stabbing the developing fetus in the womb during the test. Luckily, both of my tests were negative for anything and I have 2 healthy children today being an older mother.

Where are the jobs, Democrats? I often wonder will this be the same course of action if Obama gets elected again. Or will you just continue to blame republicans who are not in office?

For the record, you should tell Obama to get over alternative sources of energy and stick to Jobs instead!

Democrats are in the minority in Arizona, Unhappy. Stop trying to change the subject.

Last I heard, we still had a democratic President who wants to control every part of our lives. Shouldn't he provide jobs too while he's at it?

Toasty: I wasn't changing subjects. Look above to mynameisarlene.

You tried to turn the argument around, when there is no rational basis for your own. That's changing the subject.

the jobs ? raping women by forcing a ultra sound is my guess.

Lost cause for the libretard crowd. The majority is against abortion. There are extinuating circumstance that are allowed by the law and left up to the doctor. Why are you people avoiding that statement in the article and the wording of the law? Because as usual anyone disagreeing is immediately attacked and as a right wing nut case.

Why is it that we cannot multitask? Are politicians not able to work on jobs and this issue at the same time?

Can't do anything until a Republican is elected to Presidency. Wouldn't want you Liberals to think that you did it, right?

How can the Senate and House of Representatives not do anything about the current state of the economy without a Republican president? Last I checked, they were the primary sources of laws in the country, the president primarily has veto power. The president is a leadership role, not a legislation role. So if we need regulation and law changes to fix the economy, we need our congress to get off it's butt and stop blaming the president.

The president is a leadership role, not a legislation role. So if we need regulation and law changes to fix the economy, we need our congress to get off it's butt and stop blaming the president.

And when the democrats controlled the House and Senate, there wasn't much done there too, right? Why is it now that you think its all the Republicans fault? Afterall, I know democrats like to blame republicans for not working with the President so why do you think it should be different now?

Honestly almost every representative needs to be voted out and every senator as well along with the president for signing H.R 347 in to law. only 3 reps voted no and 47 abstained.

Haaaah! and that would call on the estrogen revolution! women are stupid to keep voting men into office.

They could then have there on little taliban religous country, conterceptives would be illegal, Women would stop wearing short dresses and make up.

HarrytheMormon:You don't need to succeed from the country. Just move to Dearborn, Michigan. I'm pretty sure you will get all you want there.

Oh wait, that's why Michigan is a blue state, right?

@Unhappy... Have you ever gotten a point in your life?!... Are you on Meth or something? Really, I'm embarrassed for you.

I got the point, thanks. I just don't agree with it. Next time you comment , make sure you can tell the difference, okay?

if a teen came in and said give me an abortion, I would demand to speak with the parents.

What if her father is also the father of her baby?

You can demand all you want, but it's her right to refuse that. It isn't her parents' body, it's her own.

Why don't you offer to give up some of your civil rights before you cheer the state taking away other peoples'?

Since when is murder a civil right? I pity you and all who think like you.

Grow up Guitarded, it's not murder and you know it. Stop denigrating real victims of murder for your political slant.

No Toasty, that would be you .

Since when is murder a civil right?

Since when is abortion, murder?

This is heated, I may be pro-choice but these pro-lifers are vicious killers! Look at how they attack but yet pro-choicers are the "bad guys."

George Carlin.

Reading comprehension. Get some.

If the baby is dead, or the mother is in danger of her life, of what value is having an ultra-sound 24 hours before an abortion can be given?

Worse, what about the Arizona law that allows a doctor to lie to a pregnant woman?

I would agree that until the issue of unwanted babies, foster children etc.. are solved people should stop worrying about abortion. Many have made good points as to why foster kids don't get adopted, in fact often get moved multiple times , never get to form family relationships and often end up abused in foster care and somtimes sent to juvenile detention sites where they are again abused by other kids or staff.Then at 18 they are dumped to fend for themselves with little money, no support and no where to go. Fix these problems first, then if you really think you have to try and go after Roe vs. Wade, but good luck on that.

Guitarded

Manners, get some.

Liberals have yet to comprehend manners....read the posts, it will be self evident.

So they are only off by two weeks. That is still into the second trimester of the pregnancy. Usually by then, most women will know or not if they are going to have it.

SJ, I heard the same from NPR. How sad MSNBC is only capable of reporting 20% of the news just so they don't offend the christian taliban.

SJ, I heard the same from NPR. How sad MSNBC is only capable of reporting 20% of the news just so they don't offend the christian taliban

Maybe they are trying not to stir up the left wing zealots.

So, theoretically, in AZ, "late-term abortions" are really outlawed at 18 weeks rather than 20, because of that two week discrepancy.

SJ: Actually the 18 weeks is nothing specific to this bill. All obstetrics judge the gestational period in the same way. Two weeks before your missed period. It's not meant to make it seem like they are cutting the time even closer.

Unhappy, it seems like you've read the bill. I'll admit, I haven't. I thought the two week difference was an interesting thing for MSNBC to leave out of the story. If the goal of the law is to make it even tougher for women to get abortions in AZ, this certainly does the job. On its face the AZ Legislature has now defined when "conception" begins, not science, and certainly not a woman's doctor.

A lot of the terminations past 20 weeks are by women who wanted badly to have a child, but due to some dangerous condition or complication they had to abort. This is the LAST right that should be taken away.

It is usually at 18 weeks that a pregnant woman can safely have an amniocentesis, a test for genetic abnormalities. The results can take several weeks. There are some disorders that are "incompatible with life." That means that the fetus can survive in the womb for the full length of pregnancy, but they will die at birth or shortly thereafter. Now, if you or your significant other were pregnant and found out, at, say, 21 weeks, that your baby will die at birth, would you want to continue the pregnancy for another 19 weeks, or would you want to have it end, and start the grieving process?

It's not always a matter of convenience.

Toasted McGrath can't comprehend words. Too many dead brain cells me thinks. Come back when you've learned to comprehend written words. Then read the story again.

Complications that threaten the mother are not prevented.

And complications that would lead to the immediate death of the fetus upon birth? How about complications that aren't guaranteed to be life threatening? Do you really like the possibility of a doctor erring on the side of a horrific and painful birth defect to avoid being arrested by the state despite his medical opinion? You should know that it was recently made legal in Arizona for a doctor to lie to a patient if he or she believes it will stop the patient from having an abortion.

Thank you Toasty for being one of the few people that actually post level headed comments that also convey you message factually.

Toasty...read sir. Where did you finish med school? The fact is the doctor is the deciding factor if their are major problems and testing is quick and accurate at 18 weeks. The "baby" can be aborted then with the decision of the doctor. My first wife and I aborted a baby that would have a biffida baby at 18 weeks at the advice of the doctor. I am not pro abortion but in some cases it is truly needed but to just abort because some gal couldn't keep her legs together is another point.

Then just be thankful you didn't have to do it in post-2012 Arizona

I am not pro abortion but in some cases it is truly needed but to just abort because some gal couldn't keep her legs together is another point.

And who decides if it was because the woman "couldn't keep her legs together" or because birth control failed the one time she had sex? These laws are inserting themselves into the reproductive organs of every citizen and claiming the right to make all our choices for us.

Like what? Just get contraception, this is a first world not the 16th century. These politicians should stop wasting time passing laws that affect the woman, it's a womans cuchie and she can do whatever she pleases. Damn it!

at 6-8 weeks, many women don't even know they are pregnant. I've delivered a few termed babies born to women who never knew they were pregnant. They just thought they've gained some weight and maybe a little indigestion here and there. Most women have higher pain tolerance than men and are seldom bothered by "minor discomforts". It's also one of the reasons mortality rate for heart attacks is much higher for women than men. I have had female patients going to the hospital to get their chest pain checked out AFTER they get off from work. My son's old baby sitter was like that, she went to work at her regular job with chest pain for 3 days. On the 3rd night she came to baby sit for me and I took her straight to the hospital. She is lucky she is alive but her heart is badly damaged.

Agreed

We need a lot of contraception, these laws are just stupid give the women the protection and no abortions needed. Holier than thou Republican idiots.

Actually there are a lot of democrats who voted for this bill as well. Are you calling them idiots too?

I certainly am. They voted to take away even more civil rights from their own people. It's disgusting and quite frankly it's illegal.

It's almost been made illegal in several states, despite the Supreme Court ruling in 1973. This is an inexcusable spinelessness on account of the Justice Department.

Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920. Even in the 50's and 60's women barely had a right to not be beaten by their husbands and spousal abuse was rarely prosecuted. Didn't have the right to make choices about our bodies until the 70's. Being treated fairly is still an issue. Why does anyone want to send women back a century??