Arizona criminalizes sex- and race-related abortions

[Pacifist Patriot]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/03/30/arizona-criminalizes-certain-abortions/

Arizona has become the first state in the nation to criminalize abortions based on the sex or race of a fetus, signed into law yesterday by Ariz. Governor Jan Brewer. The law makes it a Class 3 felony, punishable up to 7 years in jail, for doctors to perform sex- or race-selection abortions.

Republican supporters of the law said that some populations increasingly seek abortions based on the fetus’ sex. Legislator Steve Montenegro said he advocated for the legislation because of fears women would choose to abort because they didn’t like the gender or the race of the baby, according to the Arizona Republic. <snip>

I call bullshit!

Because of fears women would choose to abort... These people are just sick. Truly and thoroughly mentally ill.

Apologies if this is a duplicate. I did do a search, but even when I do that I still seem to post something already on here a million times.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I'm unclear about how this could play out.

Unless the patient proclaims her motivation for the abortion, how will gender/race justification be known?

Unless the doctor, medical staff, and/or administration alerts the authorities, how will they know?

What if false charges against a patient are made, i.e., you've had an abortion and weeks later, the prosecutor charges you with murdering a child in utero based on race or gender? (More likely with gender than race as you'd have some suspicion of a biracial fetus) How do you prove a negative, that your abortion WASN'T for that reason? And even if you do have to testify, the humiliation of stating on the record that you wanted an abortion just for the sake of having an abortion?

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Because it's bogus.

There is absolutely no way to verify or enforce. It's simply a wedge law to get anti-abortion legislation on the books. They can't even say for certain that any abortions have been sought for these reasons.

[luvspeas]

20. According to the legislation the doctor has to sign a form

the link to the legislation is in the article.

This thing is pure evil.

[luvspeas]

3. This act may be cited as the "Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act

That's some sick shit right there.

[luvspeas]

4. More garbage...

Sec. 3.Purpose 5 Evidence shows that minorities are targeted for abortion and that sex-selection abortion is also occurring in our country. There is no place for such discrimination and inequality in human society. Sex-selection and race-selection abortions are elective procedures that do not in any way implicate a woman's health. The purpose of this legislation is to protect1 unborn children from prenatal discrimination in the form of being subjected11to abortion based on the child's sex or race by prohibiting sex-selection or1 race-selection abortions.

What evidence? Isn't this giving human rights to a fetus?

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. That is part of their strategy, yes.

Any piece of legislation acknowledging a fetus as a human with equal protection under the law is an advancement for them. Of course, they could not care less what happens to the little gay/brown/female/impoverished....child after it's born.

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. I think what unnerves me most about it is the way...

they are using supposed gender and race equality as their basis. So if you oppose the law, it must be because you are a sexist and a racist. They've twisted it so they can shift the discussion away from privacy rights. Yep, some sick shit right there.

[mopinko]

5. gee, you would think this clowns would give awards to

women who would abort a mixed race child.
:wtf: do they really think that women are doing that? ferchrissakes.

[Lance_Boyle]

6. DU goes wobbly.

If we were talking about India or China instead of Arizona, who would argue against this?

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. You have got to be kidding me.

[Lance_Boyle]

11. Not at all.

How long ago was it that DU decried India's lack of enforcement of their own law against gender-selective abortions? Not that long ago.

[ehrnst]

13. Can you post a link to that discussion? I missed that one. (nt)

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Must have missed that one.

[ehrnst]

A quick search of DU brings up this old thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x90792

Take note: most of the comments are talking about this not being an "abortion" issue, but a cultural one - and that banning abortions would simply lead to more infantacide and infant abandonment.

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. This actually has some interesting discussion even though it's not originally about India or China.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3873199

Still think it's a bit of an over-statement to say DU's gone wobbly over the issue.

[ehrnst]

19. Self delete - Dupe.

[Recursion]

17. Check out some of the old threads on gender selection in China (nt)

[ehrnst]

12. Uh, no. You need a cultural shift, not punitive legislation, to address such a behavior.

Because laws restricting a woman's right to choose - either birth or abortion always backfire.

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. I agree.

Legislatively violating a woman's privacy and interfering with her relationship with her health care provider is wrong. Definitely requires a cultural shift.

[luvspeas]

15. Because there is strong evidence that it happens there...

And there is little to no evidence that it happens here. Also- I believe in abortion as a viable medical procedure that should not be meted out over some moralization over a woman's motivation. If India or China put more programs and services in place for mothers with girl children, and/or programs to provide girls with easier access to international adoption or something like that, I'd be in favor of that. Outlawing a woman's motivation for an abortion is "A Handmaid's Tale" stuff.

[shraby]

24. This isn't India OR China! Last I looked it was the United States.

[ehrnst]

9. It's a "solution" seeking a problem - by trying to intimate that there is one. (nt)

[LeftinOH]

18. Are women ever obliged to provide a "reason" at all? I think not.

[Zorra]

21. Arizona republican legislators are failures. They couldn't manage a cookie jar.

The state is broke because of their foolish, shortsighted, gross mismanagement of taxpayer funds.

This abortion law is a perfect example of how utterly clueless and stupid these people are.

[luvspeas]

22. Are they moving toward outlawing all abortions for "minority" women?

Or where the "race" of the baby is suspected to be a "minority"?



Republican supporters had said that statistics show a high percentage of abortions are being sought by minority women and that abortion clinics intentionally locate in minority areas.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/03/30/20110330arizona-abortions-race-sex-crime.html

Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, cited figures from the Frederick Douglass Foundation which said that 30 percent of all abortions in Arizona are to black women. The latest census figures show people who identify themselves as black at 4.1 percent of the population.

But the Arizona Department of Health Services reports that in 1999, the most recent year available, 7.3 percent of all abortions were to black women.

But Sen. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, said the issue is money.

She read a release from Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union which said Planned Parenthood is willing to accept "racist donations, even to the point of being excited at possibility of taking money specifically to kill a black baby.'' That release also said Planned Parenthood puts its facilities "strategically in minority and urban neighborhood.''

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42204200/ns/local_news-phoenix_az/

[BlueIris]

25. That's what I thought when I first read the headline.

I wouldn't be surprised if some crazy wackjobs do try that.