Washington -- Arizona is one of 13 states to turn “hostile” toward abortion rights during the last decade, according to a report Thursday from a national reproductive health organization.
The Guttmacher Institute said Arizona and 12 other states enacted tougher abortion restrictions since 2000, doubling to 26 the number of states it deems “hostile.”
But none have shifted as dramatically as Arizona, “almost entirely because of the departure of Gov. Janet Napolitano, who repeatedly vetoed provisions to limit abortion access,” the report said.
Arizona was the only one of 18 “supportive” states in 2000 to move to the other end of the spectrum by 2011.
“There are very few states that are so heavily entrenched in working to restrict abortion access than Arizona,” said Elizabeth Nash, a state policy analyst at Guttmacher who co-authored the report. “In the past three years, the Legislature has seemingly spent all their time on abortion restrictions.”
State Rep. Cecil Ash, R-Mesa, said pro-life lawmakers have “accomplished many of our objectives” since 2009, a trend he said reflects public sentiment in Arizona and the nation.
“I think there’s a general conception among the general population that this is a child within the womb with rights separate and apart from the mother,” said Ash.
Of 10 major abortion restrictions studied by Guttmacher, Arizona had just one in 2005 – requiring parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion. By 2011, it had five, Nash said, including mandatory ultrasounds before an abortion and limited coverage under some health plans.
She said the state’s shift has been rapid, beginning in 2009 when Napolitano resigned as governor to run the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“Governorships play a key role and that is echoed in Arizona where, for many years, Gov. Napolitano was able to veto abortion restrictions that came to her desk or, just by her presence, stop bills from coming to a vote,” Nash said.
Napolitano, a Democrat, was replaced by then-Secretary of State Jan Brewer, a Republican, giving the GOP control of the state legislative and executive branches.
“In three short years, the state has not only flipped from being supportive of abortion rights to being very hostile to abortion rights,” Nash said. “It’s now a testing ground for abortion restrictions, and the Legislature and the governor seem to relish that.”
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, a nonprofit focused on protecting family values, agreed Arizona’s abortion laws have changed substantially under Brewer, but she rejected the “hostile” label.
“Arizona has become one of the most improved states to protect unborn babies and the health of women,” she said, calling the state “more reflective of Arizonans’ values.”
But state Sen. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-Tucson, disagreed. She called the changes “invasive legislation with religious overtones that are out of touch with reality and the needs that women have.”
She and other pro-choice advocates said they do not expect pro-life lawmakers to ease up as long as they maintain control of state government.
“As long as Gov. Brewer is at the top, the Center for Arizona Policy will not stop pushing this legislation,” Cajero Bedford said.
Michelle Steinberg, public policy director for Planned Parenthood Arizona, agreed.
“There’s no question that the departure of Napolitano set up a perfect storm to come after Planned Parenthood and come after women,” said Steinberg, adding that pro-life lawmakers are “so not done” pushing their agenda.
She called bills passed since Napolitano’s departure “some of the worst anti-women’s health bills in the country…. There are bills that are being introduced that are incredibly intrusive and discriminatory.”
For Ash, however, the shift has not been about making Arizona a leader in abortion restrictions. The changes have come after mindful deliberation and with the best interests of women and unborn children in mind, he said.
“We’re requiring people to think about it and make sure they are adequately advised of the pros and cons of their decision,” he said. “For my part it’s not an effort to be a national leader, it’s an effort to do what is right.”
DrJCA1 posted at 8:52 pm on Fri, Mar 16, 2012.
Dang, don't you folks realize that so many groups need to know their place? Why, if we don't force our beliefs and "values" (heh heh) on others we will wind up with the following being equal to us: women, blacks, jews, homosexuals, furriners (you know, those people from other countries), catholics, old people, poor people, rich people, and lordy, lordy, who knows who else will get on our list.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:05 am on Sat, Mar 17, 2012.
DrJCA1, someone out there, explain things to me.
I am told that a as a part of "American Exceptionalism," the concept which makes the US unique, we believe in separation of Church and State. Yet I keep seeing examples of people with strong religious beliefs forcing those beliefs on others. And by "forcing" I don't mean evalgelism. I mean passing laws which force ones set of religious values on others. Why do we do that?
I can come to only one conclusion. We are lying to ourselves, preaching American Exceptionalism when there is nothing exceptional about our approach. Gold rules. And he who has the gold rules! There is nothing exceptional about that! Just ask King George III. I suppose it makes those with the gold happy, happy enough to spread some [but not much] of their gold around.
Long live the King, whomever he is! He's got the gold!
When she says "“Arizona has become one of the most improved states to protect unborn babies and the health of women,” calling the state “more reflective of Arizonans’ values,” it is more than obvious that Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, a nonprofit focused on protecting family values, has never read Roe vs. Wade. Now there's an opinion that recognized the conflict between Church and State and reaching a reasonable compromise, one respecting mutually the conflicting values of all sides.
retired03 posted at 7:46 am on Sat, Mar 17, 2012.
Agreed Mr. Whiting.
I am not necessarly Pro Choice but there has to be a middle ground. I have not read all of the legislation against abortion but there are many circumstance in my book when an abortion would be acceptable, forced rape, the pregnancy is a life threatening situation to the mother etc. Just to get an abortion becasue you could not or would not use a contraceptive is unacceptable.
I also love this from cecil ash: "The changes have come after mindful deliberation and with the best interests of women and unborn children in mind." Who deliberated all these changes? A bunch of non medical male senators who again I assert like WHiting stated above, religiously motivated. You will never convince me otherwise.
Juggernaut8000 posted at 1:14 pm on Sat, Mar 17, 2012.
Why can't the government leave people alone to make their own choices? This decision is up to the woman, not some politician.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:23 pm on Sat, Mar 17, 2012.
Had the "cub" reporter from the ASO-Cronkite School of Journalism bothered to simply type "Guttmacher Institute" into Yahoo "search", he would have discovered that....."The Guttmacher Institute is a non-profity organization which works to advance reproductive health including abortion rights."...........AS I DID.
Wikipedia goes on to say that the Guttmacher Institute was "founded in 1968 by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America".
IF SOME ONE WANT TO PUSH THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA THERE IS A "COLUMNISTS" SECTION.....PLEASE USE THE "NEWS" SECTION TO REPORT THE NEWS .....THE "UNBIASED" NEWS...IF YOU DON'T MIND.
baldeagle13 posted at 2:02 pm on Sat, Mar 17, 2012.
The actions of the Arizona Legislature do not reflect those of Arizona citizens. We have many "Cloud 1" (1% ers) in Arizona who are inclined to support this sort of legislation. Of course they are all Republicans who believe strongly in "getting the government off our backs" - so that organized religon can replace it. Please don't blame the legislators for these uncivilized bills, -what more could you expect from marginal people who are determined to keep their high paying jobs.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:12 am on Sun, Mar 18, 2012.
“In the past three years, the Legislature has seemingly spent all their time on abortion restrictions.” -- I read that kind of complaint all the time regarding: ILLEGAL ALIENS; leash laws; et al. Obviously, anyone stating such a thing doesn't have a clue....
samkat posted at 3:16 pm on Sun, Mar 18, 2012.
Get the pro lifers to adopt all of the unwanted babies in CPS custody and keep the number at zero. Then I might believe they are really serious. Of course in their endeavor to force their various unwanted legislation agendas through, they are doing to us what they claim is being done to them. They claim their religious freedoms and personal liberties are being infringed on and yet they have no reservations about doing the same to everyone else. I think these tactics are about the same as the Taliban. Come to think of it, if you put beards and turbans on them, there would be an closer resemblance. Perhaps our republican female legislators ought to start wearing burkas. :-)
chuckles3 posted at 8:26 am on Mon, Mar 19, 2012.
"Why can't the government leave people alone to make their own choices? This decision is up to the woman, not some politician"
This is a great thought when it applies to what I eat, how I raise my children, if I want to smoke, ride without a helmet..etc., getting pregnant and creating an innocent life(or mass of cells to some of you) seems a little different....if you can't see that you are either stupid or hopelessly partisan.
If government didn't force me to pay for other peoples' poor choices and mistakes I would be happier too.