Senators OK abortion restrictions

PHOENIX a ' State senators gave final approval Tuesday to new restrictions on the ability of a woman to terminate her pregnancy.

[Conservative Democrat]

Lovely piece of legislation; force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy, if she's unable to travel to either New Mexico or California to have it performed there.

And here the pro-life Rushfuglicans are always advocating for less government intervention. Who wants less government intervention now? The ones who they claim always want "MORE" government intervention.

Talk about a pack of hypocritical idiots! If I had a uterus, I would tell them to shove the bill up their arse. What's next, they're going to outlaw cosmetic surgery?

[Skeptic]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

Lovely piece of legislation; force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy, if she's unable to travel to either New Mexico or California to have it performed there.

The legislation does not do what you claim. It does not outlaw abortion.

[Conservative Democrat]

Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
The legislation does not do what you claim. It does not outlaw abortion.

I did not claim it outlaws abortion. Going only on what the article says (I don't practice law in AZ), however, it's undeniable that it places restrictions that can easily be deemed unconstitutional at the Federal level, and that would have to be repealed.

States are free to govern themselves without Federal intervention, until their laws conflict with Federal protections, and for the State to make it discretionary for even a pharmacist, someone who can't dispense a drug without a doctor's prescription, to not dispense a morning after pill to a victim of rape, for whatever reason, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL no matter which way you slice it.

Maybe women need to know that taking 3 or 4 BCP's will have the same effect as a "morning after" pill. And this I got from a Physician I dated.

[Conservative Democrat]

Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
The legislation does not do what you claim. It does not outlaw abortion.

Out of sheer curiosity I read the bill. It's clearly a piece of anti-abortion legislature. I won't even call it pro-life, becaue it's far worse than that.

For a piece of legislature to allow a health care professional, or even a pharmacy employee to not administer abortion medication if he/she objects in writting, based on a religious or moral conflict, is to say that the religion or morality of the woman is less important than the health care professional's (most likely a man).

And that's a form of sex discrimination, notwithstanding a form of religious discrimination. We'll see how much ruckus this will cause.

Oh yes, funny how the house deletes the definition of abortion and of fetus!

[Skeptic]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
I did not claim it outlaws abortion.

You DID hyperventilate that it would "force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy," and ask, "what's next, they're going to outlaw cosmetic surgery?"

So, it could be reasonable for a person to read that you were claiming that first, they outlawed abortion, and next, they're going to outlaw cosmetic surgery.

[Skeptic]

I get a kick the way some folks demand a waiting period to purchase a gun, but claim that it is unconstitutional for a waiting period before getting an abortion.

[Conservative Democrat]

Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
You DID hyperventilate that it would "force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy," and ask, "what's next, they're going to outlaw cosmetic surgery?"
So, it could be reasonable for a person to read that you were claiming that first, they outlawed abortion, and next, they're going to outlaw cosmetic surgery.

Do you have an argument to make or is selective reading and extremely terrible comprehension your forte?

[Skeptic]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have an argument to make or is selective reading and extremely terrible comprehension your forte?

I thought I was clear. This legislation does NOT outlaw abortion; thus, it will NOT "force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy."

[Conservative Democrat]

Skeptic wrote:

I get a kick the way some folks demand a waiting period to purchase a gun, but claim that it is unconstitutional for a waiting period before getting an abortion.

Ok, so you want a husband or boyfriend, or wife or girlfriend, who just found out their husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfri end was cheating on them to not have time to cool off before commiting a crime of passion, but you think it's ok for a woman who's quite likely having to make the toughest decision of her life to be subjected to the same "cool off" period, to see if she changes her mind? I'm sorry, but that's just cruel and unusual. But what the heck; I don't live in Arizona, nor do I want to live in Arizona.

I care about that sick mentality making it over to my state.

[Conservative Democrat]

Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought I was clear. This legislation does NOT outlaw abortion; thus, it will NOT "force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy."

Ok, since you're talking semantincs here, let's just say that it makes it more restrictive than absolutely necessary, for reasons that are purely political and religious based and not in the best interest of the general public. As if a person's right to do with their body as they see fit, in a way that is non-threatening to the safety of the general public, is somehow more important to any legislature than the safety of the general public.

Remember the premise of communism? Only that this time they're not shoving atheism down anyone's throat, but christianism. As if they had a right to do that.

[Skeptic]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

...I care about that sick mentality making it over to my state.

Obviously you don't want to have a discussion of the issues, you just want to pontificate about your superior mentality.

[Skeptic]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

...but you think it's ok for a woman who's quite likely having to make the toughest decision of her life to be subjected to the same "cool off" period, to see if she changes her mind? I'm sorry, but that's just cruel and unusual...

I think you are dishonestly misstating the positions. I hope that it is unintentional. Maybe you should have a 24-hour cooling-off period before posting.

The "cool off" period is not intended to be a situation where everyone just sits quietly, waiting to see if she changes her mind. It is intended to make sure that she has enough time to get any additional information necessary to make an informed decision.

And, that period may come in handy in those cases where other parties, such as the father, is pressuring the woman to get an abortion, for reasons that are in their best interests, not hers.

[Conservative Democrat]

Never Too Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
You leftists need to start taking responsibility for yourselves stop using abortion as a form of birth control.

If I was an advocate of abortion as a form of birth control, I would take issue with your statement. But since I'm not, I won't.

On the other hand, you righties need to start doing more than just saying "abortion is murder" to justify why you don't do a GD thing to help the women who are seeking abortions. Offering to adopt, or pay for their pregnancies would be a nice start; but since most of you, not all, but most, are all talk and no action, I guess that's where it will end.

[Skeptic]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

...Offering to adopt, or pay for their pregnancies would be a nice start; but since most of you, not all, but most, are all talk and no action, I guess that's where it will end.

Both of my sons are adopted.

[Conservative Democrat]

Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
Both of my sons are adopted.

Yours or the "Skeptic" from San Jose, CA., or the one from Phoenix, AZ?

[Conservative Democrat]

Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you are dishonestly misstating the positions. I hope that it is unintentional. Maybe you should have a 24-hour cooling-off period before posting.
The "cool off" period is not intended to be a situation where everyone just sits quietly, waiting to see if she changes her mind. It is intended to make sure that she has enough time to get any additional information necessary to make an informed decision.
And, that period may come in handy in those cases where other parties, such as the father, is pressuring the woman to get an abortion, for reasons that are in their best interests, not hers.

It may not be "intended" to be such, but it ends up being such nevertheless. Right; additional information. Additional information that can be covered in a 1 hour visit to her ObGyn's office.

This is no different than a student cramming for a test the day before. How much of the information she'll get, will she review in that 24 hour period?

You can't deny that this 24 hour period is a last ditch effort to try and reach those who might be on the proverbial "fence" or undecided about having the abortion, in the hopes she might decide to keep her pregnancy, and offer it to those many "would-be" parents, who willingly and without any biases, would be ready to adopt it.

[Conservative Democrat]

Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously you don't want to have a discussion of the issues, you just want to pontificate about your superior mentality.

Not at all. I'm not admitted in AZ, but I am in FL. and if a similar piece of legislation was ever presented in FL., believe me, I would fly to Tallahassee and lobby against i. Constitutional freedoms are not limited to politics or religion. In fact, one thing I do remember from Sunday School is that one premise of religion is tolerance.

[Conservative Democrat]

Never Too Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
First, you didn't read the the article detailing the aspects of the bill, you just started talking smack about abortion being outlawed. Therefore, your very posts say that you do support abortion as a form of birth control. Second, you need to do A LOT of research because there are a number of Christian organizations who support women who are pregnant with options other than abortion. The only people setting on their butts on this issue are you leftists..... how typical. Third, neither you nor any other pro-abortion leftist has offered any alternatives to abortion.. You're all about killing babies......and that is it.

Of course that's what I'm all about (I'm being sarcastic here). How could I be about anything else?

Hey Einstein; you obviously didn't read my post #4. So here it is for you.

Out of sheer curiosity I read the bill. It's clearly a piece of anti-abortion legislature. I won't even call it pro-life, becaue it's far worse than that.

For a piece of legislature to allow a health care professional, or even a pharmacy employee to not administer abortion medication if he/she objects in writting, based on a religious or moral conflict, is to say that the religion or morality of the woman is less important than the health care professional's (most likely a man).

And that's a form of sex discrimination, notwithstanding a form of religious discrimination. We'll see how much ruckus this will cause.

Here's the link http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp...

Click on "Show versions" so you too can read it. Media articles are peanuts when I have the treat of caviar by reading the bill itself.

Go grow a brain!

[Conservative Democrat]

Never Too Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL>.. Hey now... don't be pointing fingers at fallen politicians. You leftists have more than your own share of fallen politicians. As for loving socialism.....never. It's all about taking responsibility for your actions WITHOUT impacting the life of another. Very few people object to abortion in cases of rape, extreme deformities of the baby or danger to the mom's health but you leftists get your rocks off when it comes to abortion and if it happens to be a partial birth abortion it sends you people into orgasmic convulsions.

I don't think he was talking about fallen politicians; I thing he was referring to the Republican NC governor who disapeared for a week and flew to Argentina to have an affair, and who has not resigned to his position as governor.

[Conservative Democrat]

Never Too Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
First, you didn't read the the article detailing the aspects of the bill, you just started talking smack about abortion being outlawed. Therefore, your very posts say that you do support abortion as a form of birth control. Second, you need to do A LOT of research because there are a number of Christian organizations who support women who are pregnant with options other than abortion. The only people setting on their butts on this issue are you leftists..... how typical. Third, neither you nor any other pro-abortion leftist has offered any alternatives to abortion.. You're all about killing babies......and that is it.

You really love to stereotype. It's the Rushfuglican Modus Operandi, so I'll forgive you.

Maybe you could stop A$$uming and start considering that being pro-choice, does not mean pro-abortion. For that matter, being pro-life, yet yielding to the premise that abortion in the case of rape or incest is justified, isn't pro-abortion either.

You advocate for the right to life; I advocate for who's right to life it is, and I choose to believe that it's the mother's right to life that's paramount. If you choose to advocate that it's the unborn's right to life, then it's your choice, however thwarted or farfetched it is.