Arizona: Restrictive anti-abortion law ruled unconstitutional

[Sabrina]

The Supreme Court of the US has declined to hear an appeal of a May 2013 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that stated the Arizona law that restricted abortions to no later than the 20th week is unconstitutional.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Arizona's appeal of a lower-court ruling that declared unconstitutional a state law banning abortions beginning at 20 weeks of fetal gestation, meaning the restrictive measure is struck down.

The Arizona law, signed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer in 2012, had been considered one of the toughest in the United States in imposing limits on abortion.

A May 2013 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco invalidated the law, saying it violated "unalterably clear" legal precedents. The high court justices' decision not to review the state's appeal means the lower-court ruling remains intact.

The issue at hand was apparently that the Arizona law was unnecessarily restrictive and in fact forced a cessation of the right to an abortion much earlier than it should, due to the way they measured gestation (it would have put the cutoff at nearly two weeks earlier than similar laws in other states that put the cutoff at 20 weeks as well).

I'm glad the SCOTUS declined to hear the case; I hope it's a wake-up call to people suffering these sorts of restrictions in other states. File an appeal; get the ball rolling! The only way to defeat these restrictive laws is to fight them.

 

[Caper]

I don't know the specifics with the law. But I agree with them... So that would pit me against you. To abort a 20 week old healthy fetus during a normal pregnancy is disturbing to me..... and I don't think it should be allowed.

That is all.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I don't know the specifics with the law. But I agree with them... So that would pit me against you. To abort a 20 week old healthy fetus during a normal pregnancy is disturbing to me..... and I don't think it should be allowed.

Unlucky.

 

[Kopji]

The law was known as the Mother’s Health and Safety Act (HB 2036)
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2036s.pdf

In addition to the change to 20 weeks it included requirements that doctors have admitting privileges, dictated that doctors strictly follow an obsolete FDA guideline known to be unsafe, and essentially forced all rural abortions to end - requiring that women travel to a major city for an abortion. Including travel, overnight stay, and a required followup, a trip for rural women could easily require three days.

View this ruling as a wider shot across the bow of many states continued legal efforts to restrict women's reproductive rights disguised as being interested in their heath.

Oh, and booyah teaparty.

 

[Black Hole Box]

I don't know the specifics with the law. But I agree with them... So that would pit me against you. To abort a 20 week old healthy fetus during a normal pregnancy is disturbing to me..... and I don't think it should be allowed.

That is all.

Come on, you could have thrown down better bait than that. A good troll tip for this topic is to subtly imply that, as a man, you don't have enough control of a woman's body.

 

[Caper]

Come on, you could have thrown down better bait than that. A good troll tip for this topic is to subtly imply that, as a man, you don't have enough control of a woman's body.

No. Pretty simple really. At 20 weeks (arbitrary line I know) I view a fetus as human... and as a human, should have some basic rights.

24 posts? Is this your troll account?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

and as a human, should have some basic rights.

And it doesn't. Must sting, huh?

 

[Dissolution]

I'm not sure why people are jumping on Caper for his opinion.
Why is it so wrong to disagree with 20 weeks being the cut-off point?

 

[Aepervius]

No. Pretty simple really. At 20 weeks (arbitrary line I know) I view a fetus as human... and as a human, should have some basic rights.

24 posts? Is this your troll account?

Your own view. Medical view seems to be 24 weeks. So, medical view versus random poster view. mmmh. hard choice.

 

[catsmate]

The law was known as the Mother’s Health and Safety Act (HB 2036)

Gee that's unexpected.

In addition to the change to 20 weeks it included requirements that doctors have admitting privileges, dictated that doctors strictly follow an obsolete FDA guideline known to be unsafe, and essentially forced all rural abortions to end - requiring that women travel to a major city for an abortion. Including travel, overnight stay, and a required followup, a trip for rural women could easily require three days.

Ah yes, standard tactics; if you can't stop something you find icky in an overt way, nibble it to death with paperwork and red tape.

View this ruling as a wider shot across the bow of many states continued legal efforts to restrict women's reproductive rights disguised as being interested in their heath.

Good.

No. Pretty simple really. At 20 weeks (arbitrary line I know) I view a fetus as human... and as a human, should have some basic rights.

How do you consider the mother? Of equal or inferior rights? Do you generally approve of forcing people to do things that they do not wish to do and which endanger their life and health?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I'm not sure why people are jumping on Caper for his opinion.
Why is it so wrong to disagree with 20 weeks being the cut-off point?

I can't stand people that try to give unborn foetuses more consideration/rights/care/whatever than a natural person.

 

[catsmate]

I can't stand people that try to give unborn foetuses more consideration/rights/care/whatever than a natural person.

I've asked a couple of vocal anti-abortion posters to what extent they feel it's acceptable to endanger the life of the mother in carrying the fetus, and if this holds in other cases.
The only answers I've received were evasions and abuse.

 

[Dissolution]

I can't stand people that try to give unborn foetuses more consideration/rights/care/whatever than a natural person.

He hasn't done that, though.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've asked a couple of vocal anti-abortion posters to what extent they feel it's acceptable to endanger the life of the mother in carrying the fetus, and if this holds in other cases.
The only answers I've received were evasions and abuse.

Right up until it is their loved one dying.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

He hasn't done that, though.

Of course he has.

 

[lobosrul]

I can't stand people that try to give unborn foetuses more consideration/rights/care/whatever than a natural person.

Of course he has.

Really?

To abort a 20 week old healthy fetus during a normal pregnancy is disturbing to me..... and I don't think it should be allowed.

That is all.

He did not say: "no abortions should be allowed after 20 weeks in any circumstance no matter what, the mother be damned."

I take issues with several aspects of the Arizona law in question. The 20 week limit is not one of them.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Really?



He did not say: "no abortions should be allowed after 20 weeks in any circumstance no matter what, the mother be damned."

I take issues with several aspects of the Arizona law in question. The 20 week limit is not one of them.

What does "and I don't think it should be allowed" mean in your part of the world?

 

[SezMe]

No. Pretty simple really. At 20 weeks (arbitrary line I know) I view a fetus as human... and as a human, should have some basic rights.

But those baby factories mothers....well, to hell with their "basic rights".

 

[Kopji]

Most of these laws are due to the regular lobbying efforts of a group called Center for Arizona Policy. Sort of a quasi political-religious 501(3)c group aligned with some principles that can be easily reviewed here:

http://www.stopcap.org/read more.html

They are very powerful in Arizona and national politics. In particular, much of my state tax money is spent fawning over their political agendas when not spent defending lawsuits over the outcomes of their promoted laws.

I predict they will be back again next session with more.

And I think that if the law were really only about 20 weeks vs 24 weeks there would be much room for scientific and courteous discussion to take place. The laws they promote obviously do much more.

 

[Caper]

And it doesn't. Must sting, huh?

That a 20 wk old fetus can be killed for no good reason? Sure..... a bit. What was the point again?