From yahoo.com:
PHOENIX (Reuters) – Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Tuesday signed into law a controversial bill that makes the state the first in the nation to outlaw abortions performed on the basis of the race or gender of the fetus.
The move comes as anti-abortion groups across the nation try to seize on gains made by political conservatives during the November elections, seeking enactment of new state laws to further restrict abortions.
Under the new Arizona statute, doctors and other medical professionals would face felony charges if they could be shown to have performed abortions for the purposes of helping parents select their offspring on the basis of gender or race.
The women having such abortions would not be penalized.
State legislators have said no such law exists anywhere else in the nation.
Backers of the measure said the ban is needed to put an end to sex- and race-related discrimination that exists in Arizona and throughout the nation. They insist the issue is about bias rather than any broader stance on abortion.“Governor Brewer believes society has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable — the unborn — and this legislation is consistent with her strong pro-life track record,” a spokesman said.
Do they just invent things in this state? In addition to being the immigration capital of the nation, were they also the abortion capital of the nation? Is there real evidence that people were having abortions because of the race of the father? How about the gender of the fetus? Evidence please.
This is a slippery slope if I ever heard of one. I am dying to ask. Are these issues going to be directed at immigrants? Why have a law like this? Is this law aimed at genetic testing? I don’t believe that gender or race either one are used as main reasons for women to seek abortions.
Arizona is the new land of fruits and nuts. What a waste of time. Sort of like SB 1070 didn’t really address their serious immigration issues. This law doesn’t address the real reasons people get abortions.
“abortions performed on the basis of the race or gender of the fetus.”
Er, and how do they intend to assess motivation for abortion?
Weirdos.
UFB!! Why would one have an abortion based on race or gender. Afterall, the had sex with the person, didn’t they?
Does AZ have an existing problems with abortions based on race or gender now?
Speechless.
Arizona needs a new nick name. Instead of the Grand Canyon State it needs to become the grand inconsistency state.
@Pinko, I thought it might have something to do with genetic testing. I know there are a few life-threatening genetic disorders that are gender related. I would think that would get thrown out by the courts real fast though.
But it would be perfectly legal to perform the abortion if the woman didn’t want to bear a child (male, female, white, or other). Duh…. Someone show me why this is anything other than political grandstanding.
It is truly one of the dumbest bills I have ever seen. I have a sister article to follow…on bad taste on this subject.
@Censored bybvbl
But how can you show such a thing? What person walks into a clinic and says, “Please get rid of this child because he’s half black”? And if there weren’t absolute proof, the doc could be sued from the client.
Furthermore, if you live in an area where there is a high concentration of one particular ethnic group, it would be impossible to say whether or not ethnicity (I hate the word race) were motivation.
Where do these idiot “leaders” come from??????
It is meant to challenge RvW. The “conservative” states have had such jock itch since S. Dakota’s abortion ban was struck down, they are all itching their taint raw to try and get RvW heard back in the SCOTUS. With Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas they figure they have a very good chance of getting RvW struck down – OR – rendered moot.
Thing is to do so would then be to state that a woman becomes LESS of a person when she is pregnant. The rights of a fetus would override hers with its right to life more paramount than hers. They would also have to tinker with the 13th ammendment regarding slavery whereby indentured servitude or slavery are illegal. If a woman does not have the right to decide how her life and body systems are used – even be it for a fetus – she has no bodily autonomy at all. No one forces people to donate blood/tissue/organs because another’s life is at stake, and if they refuse a “separate, unique individual with their own separate DNA” can still die. But if people had no right to say NO, even if their donation – mandatory – were to save another’s life, reversing RvW would tell all people that regardless of how they felt about organ/blood/tissue donation – if their type were matched to another’s they would HAVE to give because ANOTHER’S life was at stake and to refuse for whatever reason would be tantamount to murder.
Those who drafted RvW were quite smart and framed it such that it could not be easily overturned. And if they did dismantle it, one of the first things to go, beside’s everyone’s right to bodily autonomy would be birth control….that right to privacy we all hold dear…