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.Read More
Reprinted with permission from The Cave FM located in Southeastern Arizona. Thanks to Gaineville resident for sending me up with the editorial and to Paul for giving me permission to use it. We aren’t hearing as much about old SB 1070 as we were. Perhaps because like its cousin, the PWC Anti Immigration Resolution, it because a neutered house cat. And after all, its all about winning an election.
The Logo of Cave 97.7 FM
Editorial for Oct 23-25, 2010
I’m CAVE MANager Paul Lotsof. Many years ago I was living in California and had some dirty clothes to wash. I put them in a basket and walked into a laundromat in Rialto. I found a washing machine and put my clothes in it, poured in some detergent and inserted some quarters. Not wanting to read the religious literature that is found in all laundromats, I just sat and stared at the washing machine while it did its thing.
A few minutes later, two police officers walked into the laundromat and headed to the rear of the building where they had a brief conversation with someone. Then the officers walked up to me and started asking questions: “What are you doing here?”
“I’m washing my clothes. What does it look like I’m doing?”
“How long have you been here? Where do you live? How long have you lived there? Where do you work?” The questions went on and on. Finally when I was able to get a word in edgewise, I asked the officers why they had singled me out for questioning. Their answer was that someone had complained that I appeared to be suspicious and they had to respond to the complaint. Eventually the officers decided that it was perfectly legal to wash clothes and they left.
Whether you like or hate Rachel Maddow is irrelevant. Jan Brewer seems to be having a real hard time answering questions that the people of Arizona want answers to. Rachel is right. Your instinct it to turn away, not to watch Brewer choke. It is painful.
What would be so difficult for Brewer to just say she misspoke? There have been no beheadings in Arizona. There are problems right across the border that are serious and should not be taken lightly. Why doesn’t Brewer deal with the truth? The truth is very real and very scary. But..it doesn’t get votes. Brewer wants very much to be reelected.
It seems strange that someone who makes up things for political gain could continue to get the numbers she is getting. What are the people of Arizona thinking? I would like to see a break down of some of the various polls by towns/cities. I think it would be very telling.
Brewer meanwhile counts on poking a stick in the eye of the federal government to keep her in the governor’s mansion. It might work for her this time. The question then becomes, can she and others sustain?
Most people feel it will eventually go to the Supreme Court. Will the law be in effect until the case gets to the Supreme Court? Private lawyers are representing Arizona in this case.
PHOENIX — Minutemen groups, a surge in Border Patrol agents, and a tough new immigration law aren’t enough for a reputed neo-Nazi who’s now leading a militia in the Arizona desert.
Jason “J.T.” Ready is taking matters into his own hands, declaring war on “narco-terrorists” and keeping an eye out for illegal immigrants. So far, he says his patrols have only found a few border crossers who were given water and handed over to the Border Patrol. Once, they also found a decaying body in a wash, and alerted authorities.
But local law enforcement are nervous given that Ready’s group is heavily armed and identifies with the National Socialist Movement, an organization that believes only non-Jewish, white heterosexuals should be American citizens and that everyone who isn’t white should leave the country “peacefully or by force.”
“We’re not going to sit around and wait for the government anymore,” Ready said. “This is what our founding fathers did.”
An escalation of civilian border watches have taken root in Arizona in recent years, including the Minutemen movement. Various groups patrol the desert on foot, horseback and in airplanes and report suspicious activity to the Border Patrol, and generally, they have not caused problems for law enforcement.
But Ready, a 37-year-old ex-Marine, is different. He and his friends are outfitted with military fatigues, body armor and gas masks, and carry assault rifles. Ready takes offense at the term “neo-Nazi,” but admits he identifies with the National Socialist Movement.
At least some folks will be well-known out in AZ. Bill Goodykoontz of the Arizona Central tells a story he describes as chilling and provocative. Funny the names that pop out at us from the Grand Canyon State. Meanwhile, theaters in Tempe continue to be sold out.
In 2007, Prince William County in Virginia enacted a policy requiring police officers to question anyone they had probable cause to believe was in the country illegally
Not everyone in Arizona likes the new Illegal Immigration law in Arizona. One sheriff refuses to enforce the law. He further states that it is some of the worst legislation he has seen in all his years in law enforcement.
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik feels the law will make racial profiling almost mandetory. According to ABC15.com:
PHOENIX — An Arizona sheriff is the latest person to speak out about the state’s new immigration legislation, saying he does not plan to enforce the divisive law.
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls Senate Bill 1070 a “stupid law” that will force officers to start profiling. He is one of the first local law enforcement officials to rebel against the law.
“We don’t need to enforce it. It would be irresponsible in my opinion to put people in the Pima County Jail at the taxpayers expense when i can give them to the Border Patrol,” Dupnik said.
The Sheriff admits he could get sued for failing to obey the law, but says that’s a risk he’s willing to take.
The sheriff who is from around the Tucson area sure isn’t the only official who doesn’t like this legislation. The mayor of Phoenix is also suing the state of Arizona over its constitutionality. The mayor does not have the full support of the city council with his lawsuit.
Prince William County set the trend for Arizona? That would be us, real trend setters. On the news tonight on channel 5 news at 6 pm and again at 11 pm , it was announced that all eyes would be on Prince William County because three years ago they enacted a Resolution similar to that which Arizona recently signed into law. Well, sort of.
Channel 5 next interviewed chairman of the board of supervisors, Corey Stewart. Corey told the viewers that it saved lives when illegal immigrants were identified and deported. He further explained that enforcing immigration laws in PWC has had a very large impact on reducing crime in the county. He elaborated that our overall crime rate is at a 19 year low.
The reporter added that of the 2000 arrests for serious crime, 121 of those arrested were illegal aliens. Those figures certainly don’t seem to support what Corey just said on the news. In fact, I am curious about where this all time low in 19 years comes from. What was happening 19 years ago that we had such a huge crime rate? Corey seems to be cherry picking his crime statistic once again. Just thinking back on the horrific crimes committed in the past year or so in Prince William County, I don’t see how anyone can say that our crime rate is lower for serious crime. Prince William has seen an increase in urban type crimes. I expect Corey will continue his anecdotal account of how things are here in Prince William rather than relying on empirical data gathered from crime statistics.
His fellow supervisors need to call him out on his shoddy reporting. I wish one of them could call channel 5 and repudiate Corey Stewart’s loose and slippery statistics. On the other hand, perhaps Corey wants to be the next Sheriff Joe. meanwhile, I wish he would just stick to accurate facts.
The Washington Post has more details. While Corey is technically correct about the new low in crime, he fails to tell the entire story and he fails to mention the rise in violent crime. This report can hardly be correlated to illegal immigration. To do so is a stretch.
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva closed his offices in Yuma and Tucson at noon on Friday because of the threatening phone calls. The Congressman says he opposed the legislation that has just been signed into law by Governor Brewer. He specifically says he opposes making it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.
The Arizona Daily Star reports that Grijalva spokesman Adam Sarvana released a statement Friday saying that the congressman’s office received “some pretty scary calls,” including one from a man “who threatened to go down there and blow everyone’s brains out then go to the border to shoot Mexicans.”
According to the Daily Star:
Grijalva staffer Ruben Reyes said the office has been flooded with calls all week about Senate Bill 1070. About 25 percent are “very racist” in nature, Reyes said, characterizing some as “telling that tortilla-eating wetback to go back to Mexico.”
Has it really come to this? PWC sure dodged the bullet if this is the case. Again, there are just other ways to handle problems. I saw people out throwing stuff, not sure what at cops on TV. People doing that might want to do a little reseach about Kent State….it really isn’t a smart thing to do. I love Arizona. I would not go there now. The Grand Canyon State will have to be grand without me.
John McCain has been all over the talk shows on cable this week. He is a shadow of his former self. John McCain used to seem fair-minded. He co-sponsored the Immigration Reform Bill of 2007 along with Edward Kennedy, for Pete’s sake.
I heard him on TV today calling illegal immigrants ‘illegals’ and calling for our military along our borders. I was disappointed to hear him use the term ‘illegals.’ He is an educated man. He knows that illegal is an adjective. But I heard him on Fox News so maybe he was just trying to fit in. Most of those anchors say ‘illegals.’
McCain is fighting a tough primary to be held in August. His opponent is J. D. Hayworth whose political stomping grounds are the suburbs of Phoenix. Hayworth is sort of a Tancredo on steroids. He continues to try to paint McCain as the Uber RINO. According to the Washington Post:
Hayworth’s 12 years representing parts of the Phoenix suburbs have been described by his former colleague Dick Armey as a “fairly short, undistinguished congressional career.” But Hayworth attracted national attention after an epiphany of sorts in 2005. Though he had previously sponsored legislation to create a guest-worker program, Hayworth became a militant foe of Mexican immigration. Not just illegal immigration. Hayworth proposed a moratorium on legal immigration from Mexico. He declared an intention not merely to secure the border but also to “stand up for our culture” — which implies that Mexicans adulterate American culture. Hayworth warned of activists who would create an Aztec state on the ruins of American sovereignty in the Southwest. He voted against an anti-immigrant measure — which, among other provisions, prohibited religious charities from aiding illegal immigrants — because he thought the legislation was too soft.
From 2004 to 2006, Hayworth’s share of the vote in some Hispanic-influenced precincts dropped by more than 20 points, and he was carried away in the national anti-Republican deluge. Hayworth now presses his anti-immigration message in a primary challenge to McCain — contesting for the right to run for the Senate in a state that is about 18 percent Hispanic. To this appeal, Hayworth has added a “birther” message accusing President Obama of “identity theft.” Here he is on legalizing gay marriage: “I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.”
The Tea Party also plays an important role in this primary. Some pundits are speculating that the future of the Tea Party might very well be defined by this primary election. Some Tea Party People supposedly like Hayworth but want to distance themselves from his less ‘mainstream’ persona. Michael Gerson of the Washington Post also added:
Tea Party leaders have been understandably reluctant to endorse a candidate likely to embarrass any movement elastic enough to include Hayworth. Both Rep. Michele Bachmann and Sen. Jim DeMint have declared themselves officially neutral in the Arizona Republican primary. Sarah Palin has campaigned for McCain.
So we are all kept in suspense by these politicians from Arizona. Many people expect this race to dominate the election cycle. McCain and Palin still seem very much like the odd couple to me. Does he pay her to appear or does she appear free of charge as a thank you gesture to him for bringing her down to the lower 48?
J. D. Hayworth gives his opinion of the gay marriage court case in Massachusetts:
From yahoo.com:
