Roe vs. Wade, American abortion rights

[Dr. Ken]

ARS 13-3603 says no abortion other than to save the life of the mother. Period. And it includes a prohibition against medication induced abortions as well.

13-3603. Definition; punishment

A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.

He really had to dig hard to find that. That's a territorial law from 1901; 11 years before Arizona became a state.

[raison de arizona]

ARS 13-3603 says no abortion other than to save the life of the mother. Period. And it includes a prohibition against medication induced abortions as well.

13-3603. Definition; punishment

A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.

He really had to dig hard to find that. That's a territorial law from 1901; 11 years before Arizona became a state.

There's an earlier one from the 1800s they are prepared to argue as well if this one doesn't work. The only good thing is they amended this year to remove penalties for the woman.

[raison de arizona]

Here we go.

Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines
Some advocacy groups and their allies are crafting legislative language that could be adopted in Republican-led state capitals.

The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident of a state that has banned abortion from terminating a pregnancy outside of that state. The draft language will borrow from the novel legal strategy behind a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens were empowered to enforce the law through civil litigation.

The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban to explore model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions, said Texas state representative Tom Oliverson (R), the charter chair of the group’s national legislative council.

“Just because you jump across a state line doesn’t mean your home state doesn’t have jurisdiction,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society. “It’s not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line.”

In relying on private citizens to enforce civil litigation, rather than attempting to impose a state-enforced ban on receiving abortions across state lines, such a law is more difficult to challenge in court because abortion rights groups don’t have a clear person to sue.

Like the Texas abortion ban, the proposal itself could have a chilling effect, where doctors in surrounding states stop performing abortions before courts have an opportunity to intervene, worried that they may face lawsuits if they violate the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ate-lines/

If anyone is interested in reading this article, I will be happy to gift-link it.

[Maybenaut]

We don’t know the wife’s medical condition. You could be right. Or, she could also have a condition that would simply increase the chances of a non viable pregnancy, which wouldn’t necessarily put her in danger were she able to get a safe termination to the pregnancy.

OK, fair enough. But what does the 900% increase in vasectomies say about people using abortion as a primary means of birth control?

I get that vasectomies are permanent. It just sounds to me like there are a lot of men willing to allow women to endure abortion as a means of birth control until their backs are against the wall.

I realize that many women would prefer this also because they might not want this pregnancy, but might want the next one.

Still… 900%… There’s something seriously fucked up about that.

[AndyinPA]

Vasectomies are pretty much reversible.

https://www.healthline.com/health/vasec ... candidates

[pipistrelle]

We don’t know the wife’s medical condition. You could be right. Or, she could also have a condition that would simply increase the chances of a non viable pregnancy, which wouldn’t necessarily put her in danger were she able to get a safe termination to the pregnancy.

OK, fair enough. But what does the 900% increase in vasectomies say about people using abortion as a primary means of birth control?

I don't know that it says anything. It could mean no method of contraception is 100 percent reliable. While on the off chance they got pregnant while on birth control previously they could get an abortion as a fallback; now that's not an option. They could be looking forward to when contraception is "illegal" too. Without knowing every circumstance it's hard to judge.

(I am not an expert on these things.)

[pipistrelle]

ARS 13-3603 says no abortion other than to save the life of the mother. Period. And it includes a prohibition against medication induced abortions as well.

► Show Spoiler

13-3603. Definition; punishment

A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.

He really had to dig hard to find that. That's a territorial law from 1901; 11 years before Arizona became a state.

The "has made" makes it sound recent.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Question: Dr. Vicklund and I are currently weighing our options (vasectomy and medical issues in a state that is one judicial decision from a nearly complete ban on abortion). Do people want my perspective? Note that it might get rather frank.

[sugar magnolia]

Question: Dr. Vicklund and I are currently weighing our options (vasectomy and medical issues in a state that is one judicial decision from a nearly complete ban on abortion). Do people want my perspective? Note that it might get rather frank.

Yes.

[Fiona]

Question: Dr. Vicklund and I are currently weighing our options (vasectomy and medical issues in a state that is one judicial decision from a nearly complete ban on abortion). Do people want my perspective? Note that it might get rather frank.

I do. Being frank is always welcome.

[raison de arizona]

ARS 13-3603 says no abortion other than to save the life of the mother. Period. And it includes a prohibition against medication induced abortions as well.

► Show Spoiler

He really had to dig hard to find that. That's a territorial law from 1901; 11 years before Arizona became a state.

The "has made" makes it sound recent.

The "has made its intention clear" recency is that in the 15-week backup bill they passed this year, they specifically included language that the new 15-week ban did NOT supercede the existing territorial era laws. The 15-week ban was passed more of a "in case Roe isn't overturned" backup, because at the time, Roe wasn't overturned. They figured an outright ban was best, but if all they could get legally was a 15-week ban, then they would roll with that.

[AndyinPA]

[raison de arizona]

Question: Dr. Vicklund and I are currently weighing our options (vasectomy and medical issues in a state that is one judicial decision from a nearly complete ban on abortion). Do people want my perspective? Note that it might get rather frank.

Absolutely. And to be frank.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Maybenaut]

Question: Dr. Vicklund and I are currently weighing our options (vasectomy and medical issues in a state that is one judicial decision from a nearly complete ban on abortion). Do people want my perspective? Note that it might get rather frank.

I would.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Bedtime is almost upon me, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow (plus I have to work so probably not until tomorrow evening)

[Lani]

Very interesting discussion. I appreciate it.

[June bug]

Very interesting discussion. I appreciate it.

So do I.

[neeneko]

Still… 900%… There’s something seriously fucked up about that.

Not necessarily. It really depends on what kind of timescale we are talking about. I would expect a bump in vasectomies after a decision like this since not only are people trying to take some control of a situation where they feel control has been lost (so anxiety management), but there is also going to be a major effect from, well, people are talking about it... so I suspect is a lot of the short term bump is people simply getting around to it.

[pipistrelle]

Question: Dr. Vicklund and I are currently weighing our options (vasectomy and medical issues in a state that is one judicial decision from a nearly complete ban on abortion). Do people want my perspective? Note that it might get rather frank.

Absolutely. And to be frank.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Fiona]

For full disclosure, I had a tubal ligation at the age of 30. I would have preferred to have it about 7 years sooner than I was able. Suffice it to say, a very negligent, poverty ridden childhood made me decide I did not want to be a parent. I had an IUD placed at 19 (OUCH) but was one of those rare few that experienced failure. I’m eternally grateful for being able to terminate that pregnancy in a safe environment. If I did not have that access my desperation would have led me to doing it myself. The end.

[neeneko]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Volkonski]

[Jim]

We don’t know the wife’s medical condition. You could be right. Or, she could also have a condition that would simply increase the chances of a non viable pregnancy, which wouldn’t necessarily put her in danger were she able to get a safe termination to the pregnancy.

OK, fair enough. But what does the 900% increase in vasectomies say about people using abortion as a primary means of birth control?

I get that vasectomies are permanent. It just sounds to me like there are a lot of men willing to allow women to endure abortion as a means of birth control until their backs are against the wall.

I realize that many women would prefer this also because they might not want this pregnancy, but might want the next one.

Still… 900%… There’s something seriously fucked up about that.

This story I read yesterday explains the problem women who have difficult pregnancies and still want more kids face with the Republican War on Women attitude...sorry if already posted

She Never Considered Abortion. Then the Supreme Court Forced Her Hand.

Andrea Barnes has always dreamed of being a mother of three.

This long-held goal has helped the 30-year-old Michigan native through two complicated pregnancies, multiple miscarriages, and parenting her two young daughters. Barnes told The Daily Beast on Monday that it was that same maternal desire that has pushed her to make a painful choice after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday: get an abortion before she might lose her right to choose in Michigan.

“I want to keep the baby, I want to believe that everything will be OK,” Barnes said through tears. “But I have to be smarter than that and more logical, because the chances of something going wrong in my case are high.”

Barnes’ decision to get an abortion—she said she had scheduled one for this coming Wednesday—comes relatively early in her pregnancy. She estimated she was five or six weeks along, roughly the cut-off for abortion bans in extreme states like Texas even before Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization gutted abortion rights nationally.

But given her past complications and a Great Depression-era state law imposing an almost total ban on abortion in Michigan—a law everyone from Democrats in the state government to local prosecutors fear could could now go back into effect—she felt hamstrung. Her story shows how a conservative court has not only blown up health-care policy and denied women abortion services, but also plunged millions into uncertainty and panic.

[Foggy]

Screenshot_20220701-081933_Facebook_copy_367x178.jpg

[pipistrelle]

Screenshot_20220701-081933_Facebook_copy_367x178.jpg

As the next few decisions showed, this isn't about just health care or abortion rights. It's about the court trying to legislate the U.S. into a kleptocracy. Like it needed a push.