A state senator wants to erect even more hurdles in the path of women who want an abortion.
Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, said Tuesday that Arizona already has fairly substantial laws requiring that women give "informed consent" before terminating a pregnancy. That includes everything from a discussion of the risks and a 24-hour waiting period to offering to let the woman see an ultrasound of the fetus.
Smith acknowledged his goal in imposing new requirements is to convince women to decide against an abortion.
But the most significant part of SB 1494 is that it would alter Arizona law to define human life as beginning at conception. And that could pave the way for abortion foes to use the Arizona statute to mount a head-on challenge to the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring that women have a constitutional right to an abortion.
A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, which traditionally opposes such restrictions, said her organization was still studying the measure and had no comment.
Smith said there's a legitimate purpose behind the definition of human life.
"It clearly tells the woman that what they're aborting is a human being," he said.
His legislation hammers that point home with a requirement that a woman be told, at least 24 hours in advance, that the abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." And a pregnant woman also would have to be informed she "has an existing relationship with that unborn human being" which is protected by the U.S. Constitution and state laws.
And then there's the legal challenge.
Smith said the legality of a similar law is being considered by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If that is upheld and his measure becomes law, he expects a challenge to the 9th Circuit which has purview over Arizona statutes.
Ultimately, he expects the question to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"If the Supreme Court now decides that language is correct and what you're killing is a human being, well, we have a little law that you can't kill human beings," Smith said. At that point, he said it forces the high court to reexamine the rationale behind Roe v. Wade.
But Smith said he sees a benefit in the legislation regardless of whether it ultimately leads to abortions once again being illegal in Arizona. He said the current informed consent requirements go only so far.
"But when they see what you're killing is a human being in front of them, I think that's hopefully just one more stopgate in their mental processing to say, ‘Oh, it's not just an amalgamation of cells and globs of this and plasma this and blood this,'" he said.
Smith's legislation would apply in both cases of surgical and medical abortions, the latter involving the use of RU-486 which induces a woman to miscarry.
Less clear is how a law defining life as beginning at conception might affect the legal use of the "morning-after pill."
One theory is that the pill, essentially a large dose of hormones, prevents a woman from ovulating. Smith said he subscribes to an alternate theory that the hormones prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
"This bill was not written for that," he said. "It's written for your typical walking-into-an-abortion-clinic case."
Smith said it will be up to courts to determine if the law - assuming it is approved and upheld - affects that particular practice.
The first-term lawmaker said if it were up to him, all abortions would be illegal. That separates him from several "pro-life" politicians, including Gov. Jan Brewer who said she would allow exceptions, including in cases of rape or incest.
"I guess I'm a purist," he said. "It's easy for me as a man to say that because I'll never be in that situation."
Smith said his reasons go back more to his religious beliefs.
"God doesn't make mistakes," he said. "I believe that God is still on the throne and that's happening for a reason, whether we get it or not."
The definition of life aside, Smith's measure would add to the list of what a prospective abortion patient would have to be told ahead of time.
Right now that list includes "immediate and long-term medical risks" a patient would want to know about, the probable gestational age of the unborn child as well as its "probable anatomical and physiological characteristics."
SB 1494 would require a specific mention of depression and related psychological distress as well as the risk of infection, hemorrhage, danger to subsequent pregnancies and infertility.
Smith acknowledged nothing in the law requires a woman to be told about the impacts of carrying a child to term, including how that will affect her life or finances. He said that is justified.
"They're not going to a childbirth clinic, they're going to an abortion clinic," he said. "At an abortion clinic, they should be told the risks of having an abortion, not having the risk of having a child."
He said any woman interested in the latter information should see a family doctor.
DannieD69 posted at 6:52 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
While I would not personally have an abortion, I do not have the right to tell another woman what she can and can not do to her body. I do not think any government establishment should be allowed to tell a woman she has no control over her own body. If we, as Americans, tell a woman she can't have an abortion for an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy, what is next, she can't take birth control. We are preventing life from happening with birth control, so is it that far fetched that politicians will try to control that? I understand and fully believe that a child is a blessing from the moment you find out your pregnant. I also feel that there are already so many unwanted children in this country. Do we really want to force a woman to have a child she is not ready for or wants? Adoption is an option but do we understand the emotional impact adoption has on the child? The Documentary Channel just aired a documentary about this very issue. The other issue: do we want to outlaw abortion again leaving women with only choice to do them illegally in dirty, alley way clinics that left women butchered and unable to bear children ever again or dead from the complications?? Really??? If we truly live in a country that follows the constitution, why are we trying to take away a woman's right to choose? Men do don't have the ability to have children, nor do they have to experience the effects of having a child, what right do they have to make laws telling a woman what she can and can not do with her body? It won't stop there...
samkat posted at 7:48 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
Dannie: you are dead on on. My wife and I are old enough remember the days before Roe vs Wade. Women have been aborting from day one. If they are desperate enough, they will resort to any means from coat hangers to back room butchers.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:50 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
DannieD69,
Perhaps the best treatise on this subject is Justice White's majority opinion in Row vs. Wade. I doubt any of those sponsors of this legislation have read it. Why? Because they are not interested in considering both sides. You have done a good job in considering both sides. Hope you have read Row vs. Wade. Hope others will read it soon.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 9:02 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
If the Arizona Laws regarding Abortion mention "human life" what is wrong with including the definition that human life begins with conception. That is when it begins. The female egg is fertilized by the male sperm and starts developing into a human being. That's the way it is done guys and gals. Two females eggs can't evolve into a zygote. Two male sperms can't evolve into a zygote. God or Nature or E.T. or even Barack Hussein Obama can't create a human being any other way.
If the Supreme Court's Roe vs Wade decision must be re-examinded because "conception" wasn't considered....well then it's about time we considered it.
Instead of watching CNN, MSNBC, ABC, PBS and CNBC.......these Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, Socialists and Communist Wanna-bies should start looking at the ......DISCOVERY CHANNEL.....the would learn somethng for a change.....................LOL.
It's not a huge problem here Folks. It never has been since Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve or Eve and Anna) or even Lucy and Luke in the Rift Valley of Africa.
The man needs to buy a $1 condom or the woman needs to keep her knees together = ergo = no need for an abortion (the murder of a growing human life).
mvccd1000 posted at 1:00 am on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
How come it's always men proposing these laws?
And further, how come it's always the same people who want to cut any kind of funding for these kids after they're born who decide they have to be born in the first place?
These fanatics need to keep their religion in their churches and out of our legislature.
gil the baker posted at 6:44 am on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
and yet more bs phd y another repub wingnut how about getting off the social issues and get the state moving toward a better fiscal position
AZMomma posted at 6:58 am on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
My body - my decision.
The debate continues and the conception theory is not a FACT - it is a personal theory/belief held by a certain group. Now this person - conservative, probably a member of a religious group who wants to control women's bodies - is also a man. Do NOT try to impose your beliefs on the rest of us. Your Pro-life is also a CHOICE. Realize it. And -- STFU, please. [smile]
wdgnas posted at 8:20 am on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
will Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, propose a bill to take care of the CHILD after it is born? love the fetus, hate the child...
wdgnas posted at 8:21 am on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
and the party of smaller government lives on.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:25 am on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
So, when I begin reading the article I see they mention that there is a law against killing human beings.
Apparently, their end goal, is to prosecute anyone involved in an abortion for murder.
OK.
So how are they going to prosecute God?
He terminates tens of thousands of fetuses every day around the globe.
It's called " miscarriages ".
And thousand of other babies are born dead.
Are they going to prosecute God for murder for those too?
Since God routinely aborts fetuses every day, He must not consider them a human being.
I only wish those Republicans who are so concerned about an unborn fetus would be as concerned once they are born and would vote to fund Social Services to see the child was properly nourished and educated.
But, unfortunately, the only thing Republicans hate more than abortion is < shudder > Social Services.
If they had their way, anyone helping the less well off would be prosecuted.
Rational Human posted at 10:19 am on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
LOL, that's just too funny Willie. God is doing all that spontaneous abortions? Does God make stupid people walk out in front of speeding cars too? lol Personally I don't care if you all strangle your kids at any age, but it's pretty plain and simple when life begins except for those who wish to rationalize that an abortion is not killing a human life intentionally. Maybe God is making people rationalize that abortions aren't the intentional killing of another human's life. There ya go Willie, Got did that too. lol
mst431 posted at 10:22 am on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
Willie. Obviously they won't prosecute God... they'll prosecute women.
There have already been cases where women have been criminally investigated for having a miscarriage. A woman was charged with criminal homicide in 2004 because one of her twins was stillborn.
jknnej posted at 12:55 pm on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
I thought we had freedom of religion in our country. His beliefs are based on his religion; he admitted that. How can we allow legislation based on religion? We are not a Theocracy. This bill would violate a woman's right to freedom of religion.
DrJCA1 posted at 2:55 pm on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
First of all, the Supreme Court almost never reverses a decision made by an earlier court. Secondly, if all the anti-abortionists were speaking from a standpoint of being pure and holy all the time, I would agree with them on the issue. But, they are not. Most of the phonies on the far right, only are interested in telling others what to do in areas of personal beliefs and ethical values. Most of them have zero first-hand knowledge of the abortion issue and simply spit out what their holy-roller pastors scream about. An abortion si always an emotionally traumatic situation, but sometimes is is better than to go through 9 months of pregnancy and then give away a live baby like a holiday present. Overshadowing all of this however, is the fact that most Americans need to mind their own business and get off their high-horse about what is right for everyone else. This issue is a personal one and none of your business.
jknnej posted at 3:46 pm on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
I always wonder:
1. Why do people scream "less government," then try to make laws which equal MORE government ?
2. Why do religious people pick and choose which portions of the Bible to follow? I mean, Jesus never mentions homosexuality, and most Christian religions follow the teachings of Jesus over the Old Testament.
Cerulean posted at 9:07 pm on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
Mvccd1000 wrote “How come it's always men proposing these laws?”
I was wondering the same thing and I’m thinking that it’s odd. However I know there are a cadre of women who stand by these men on this issue.
Hey Rational Human
No one is saying that an abortion is not the intentional ending of potential ‘life’. It is. If people really believe in God then let God do the judging. Or are you as self-righteous as Mr. Smith.
"God doesn't make mistakes," Sen. Smith said. "I believe that God is still on the throne and that's happening for a reason, whether we get it or not."
Dinosr posted at 9:55 pm on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
....None of you folks seem to care about 50 million plus babies that have already
been killed since abortion was made legal. Mostly because the girls of today
want what they want, but don't want the pain or mommy chains that go with it.
....Most women defend their personal rights to choice and they are right as far
as they go. Every living person is given the right to choose right or wrong.
....What lawyer, doctor, or other vip would it take, to explain the fact that life
does not start. It continues. The question itself was enough to confuse most
youthful wan-ta-bees.
....To have the blessing of a baby, use to be an honor. Now woman kind has
advanced by the aid of doctors and medicine to the point where they no longer
have the problen of monthly flows. Wrinkle cream takes care of the desired
effect stopping the natural beauty of a real Grand Mother and all it takes now
to stop PMS is a pill. Are you listening Ladies?
....When God's chosen was forcast, in the days of Moses and again when
Jesus was born, Many newborn babies were killed, trying to kill the bad ones.
They failed. In the modern day of doing things, there is no failing. They will
destroy the threat. They abort any and all they want to, they made it legal.
But remember, they are only killing the bad ones.(doctors, righteous believers
and who knows how many angels.)
....When I was born, it was at a time, when every american knew in his heart,
the american hope wore a shiney new white hat. A symbol of good.
....In these days of broken dreams and con men and women supposed to be
our world leaders, we no longer wear a hat. We wear a wreath of death like
the Romans used to wear. Our symbol should be a wreath made from a ball
of serpents all biting themselves.
....A big deal is made from the fact that Christians are against killing babies.
They know the truth. At the final judgment, the line getting into Heaven will be very short. Yes, killers can enter, but only after repenting and feeling true sorrow.
..Remember- if your Mother had these laws and your sense of mine, mine, mine, You would not be here.
My name is Karl Krahn and I don't agree in any sort or way of killing babies.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 12:00 am on Thu, Feb 2, 2012.
SPERM ENTERS EGG > ZYGOTE (DNA FROM SPERM + DNA FROM EGG) = BINGO.......HUMAN LIFE.
IF A PERSON IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS/HER ACTIONS WHEN THEY DRIVE, FISH, HUNT, FLY ON AN AIR PLANE, PAY TAXES, ETC........WHY AREN'T THESE SAME MEN AND WOMEN (STILL TAKES "2 TO TANGO"...THE LAST TIME I LOOKED....LOL) HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE HUMAN LIFE THAT THEY HAVE CREATED. AFTER WORLD WAR II....WEREN'T NAZI LEADERS TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR ..."CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY". SOME WERE EVEN HUNG AND SOME FACED A FIRING SQUAD. IF HUMAN LIFE WAS PROTECTED DOES IT MATTER IF IT IS JUST ONE HUMAN LIFE OR MUST IT BE QUANTIFIED = 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000 ???
YOU ARE JUST AS GUILTY OF MURDER IF YOU TAKE ONE HUMAN LIFE OR A MILLION...................AT CONCEPTION........A FERTILIZED EGG BECOMES A LIVING ORGANISM....... A HUMAN LIFE.
Cerulean posted at 9:55 am on Thu, Feb 2, 2012.
OH, SO MURDER IS OK WHEN A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DECLARES WAR AND THOUSANDS OF WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND ELDERLY HAPPEN TO BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.
AND IS IT "MURDER" WHEN A LIFE IS PUT TO DEATH BY LAW?
Rational Human posted at 10:42 am on Thu, Feb 2, 2012.
Murder is a legal term for taking human life illegally. Abortion is taking human life, but the Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal. If a fetus is just a parasite on a woman's body and she has the right to destroy said life, why doesn't the state have the right to terminate welfare recipients? Aren't they just parasites on the body of society? If society benefits by allowing mothers to terminate unwanted human life in their bodies, and that makes it good, then why can't the same thing be said for adults that are just parasitical in our society? I know many people who could easily be placed in this category. People in prisons serving 20 to life aren't really worth the cost of housing a feeding. Many people languishing in hospitals without a chance of ever being anything but a burden on our healthcare system need to be aborted for the good of society. Believe it or not, this is in the future. Obamanationcare is only the beginning.
jknnej posted at 6:21 pm on Thu, Feb 2, 2012.
Just because someone is "pro-choice" does not make them "pro-abortion." I have never had an abortion, nor would I. I don't like abortion. But I'm also not able to reconcile telling everyone else what to believe, and telling women what they should and should not do with their bodies.
I'm not OK with laws based on religious principles, and I'm not OK with women who were raped or whose life is threatened by a pregnancy to be unable to have an abortion.
I'm also not ok with forcing the opinion "life begins at conception" on someone who doesn't believe it.
Women have been aborting their babies since the beginning of time. They will always do so. You might argue that the state should not help them. But I thought we lived in a civilized society, where we didn't leave people to die in the street from a back-alley abortion.
Don't like abortion? Don't get one. Don't donate money to organizations who perform them. But quit telling other people how to live. It's hypocritical. I can guarantee you have sins of your own to count.