• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Arizona signs bill blocking work with organizations offering abortion services

Status
Not open for further replies.

Weenerz

Banned
http://www.azcentral.com/news/polit...a-abortion-services-bill-signed-into-law.html


Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law late Friday a bill that bans the state or any local government from using public money to contract with an organization that includes abortions in its services.

The governor's signature on House Bill 2800 follows on the heels of her approval last month of a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks.

Brewer signed the measure while speaking at a reception for the Susan B. Anthony List, a group devoted to helping elect anti-abortion officials to public office.

"This is a common-sense law that tightens existing state regulations and closes loopholes in order to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund abortions, whether directly or indirectly," Brewer said in a statement. "By signing this measure into law, I stand with the majority of Americans who oppose the use of taxpayer funds for abortion."

HB 2800, sponsored by Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, passed through the Legislature with Republican support.

The law aims to prevent contracts with or grants to any group that perform abortions that do not meet the federal requirements under Title 19 of the Social Security Act, which reimburses in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment. It also prioritizes how public money for family planning will be distributed -- such as to state-owned health care centers and rural hospitals.

The law would not impact money that passes through the state Department of Health Services because the state does not provide money for family planning, an agency spokeswoman has said.

Planned Parenthood of Arizona officials have said the bill targets them and is intended to impact non-abortion services they provide, such as cancer screenings, birth control and well-woman exams. Fewer than one in 10 women seek abortion services from Planned Parenthood of Arizona, according to the organization.

"I think it's also instructive that the place that the governor would sign this is at a political rally -- it might be an elegant political rally, but it is a 100 percent political event, and that speaks volumes about what this legislation was about from day one," said Bryan Howard, president of Planned Parenthood of Arizona. "But, while the impetus for the governor is political, and for the sponsors it's political, the impact is on health care for poor Arizonans, and that is a terrible, terrible tradeoff."

Planned Parenthood officials said the bill essentially would no longer allow them or other groups that also provide abortions, to seek reimbursement from the state for non-abortion services provided to Arizonans on Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid program.

However, a spokeswoman for AHCCCS told The Republic late last month it is doubtful the bill would affect its services because the program sends public dollars to private providers who can choose which partners to work with. The spokeswoman said the agency is still analyzing the bill's potential effects.

Democrats have decried the proposal as an attack not only on Planned Parenthood, but also on low-income women. Anti-abortion advocates, meanwhile, have cheered the bill.

The Governor's Office said Kansas, North Carolina and Texas already have enacted legislation similar to HB 2800. Indiana, New Jersey and Wisconsin have used their budget processes to bar public funding for abortion providers.

Not sure how I feel about this. The title of the thread might be weirdly worded, I ran out of space ;P
 
I don't see how one shitty example of the gender nullifies the statement.

Never said it did. Its just funny. Like saying people who voted for Obama are racist. People voting against their own self interest is funny to me I guess.
but then I don't really see how this particular example is a "war on women" just because they don't want public money spent on abortions (which they oppose, obviously)
 
Because it wil cut funding to programs that are used by women for health issues and where providing abortion information or abortions is minimal to the other services.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Ughhggh, makes me want to write a bill that prevents the state from contracting with anyone who provides religious services. Sorry no more federal student loans for religiously affiliated private schools.
 
I wonder if the average pro-life american, someone who's not an extreme political activist - someone who genuinely wants unborn lives saved, understands that abortion legislation is ALWAYS political and the people behind the scenes care more about scoring political points than they do about saving lives. They give no fucks. I wonder if these people realize that and don't care, or if they genuinely believe that it's a coincidence that abortion legislation magically appears every major election year.
 

whytemyke

Honorary Canadian.
Gonna be awesome when these companies sue the state of Arizona under Citizens United and get the law overturned as discriminatory.

Remember, now the Supreme Court has said that "Corporations are people, too!" I don't see how the state would have the authority to mandate what a private citizen spends their money on provided it passes federal statutes for legality, so I can't imagine it'll hold up in court when they try to force companies to act a certain way.

Ha ha, conservatives. Take that for blowback.
 

Dead Man

Member
Gonna be awesome when these companies sue the state of Arizona under Citizens United and get the law overturned as discriminatory.

Remember, now the Supreme Court has said that "Corporations are people, too!" I don't see how the state would have the authority to mandate what a private citizen spends their money on provided it passes federal statutes for legality, so I can't imagine it'll hold up in court when they try to force companies to act a certain way.

Ha ha, conservatives. Take that for blowback.

If only.
 

Clevinger

Member
But there is no war on women.

Just to further agree with this, I figured I'd put this here.

Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is typically a bipartisan affair lacking in contention. This year, however, Republicans are pressing for significant changes that would weaken protections for victims of domestic violence, arguing that the current law is being taken advantage of by undocumented immigrants looking for legal citizenship.

The author of the rollback, Adams, was herself a victim of domestic violence, which House Republicans hope will inoculate it from attacks by groups who work with abused immigrant women.

In 1994, VAWA addressed a problem faced by abused immigrant women who are married to citizens or legal residents. In some cases, husbands would use their control over their victims' immigration status as a tool of abuse, refusing to sign the proper paperwork or threatening to revoke it. The act created a "self-petitioning" process that allows such women to confidentially apply for protected immigration status on their own. Protections for immigrant women have been strengthened in subsequent reauthorizations of the bill.

That process is managed by a specific branch of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services based in Vermont, where officials are highly trained in secrecy and in dealing with domestic violence situations. Extreme precautions are taken to assure that the victim's identity or action is not revealed to the abuser, for obvious reasons.

The Republican bill would eliminate that confidentiality and require women to go to the closest immigration office. It would allow the officer, not specifically trained in domestic violence response, to reach out to and inform the abusive partner that the alleged victim is applying for immigration status.

House Republicans say that some women have taken advantage of the confidentiality by fraudulently claiming abuse to acquire residency status. Victims who are not committing fraud, however, will now be exposed to retaliatory violence.

Persuading victims of domestic violence to seek protection can often be a daunting challenge, advocates say, and the new House rules would only make it that much more difficult.

Jennifer Podkul, who works with immigrant women who have been victims of violence as a program officer at the Women's Refugee Commission, said a provision in the law that would limit reporting time could be particularly damaging. That part of the House bill would limit the period of time for domestic violence to be reported in order to receive protection to 60 days -- a short period considering the lack of information many victims have about immigration law. Some undocumented women don't realize victim protections actually exist until they are fighting deportation proceedings and consult an immigration lawyer, Podkul said.

The only word that comes to mind is: evil. Republicans have become a god damned cartoon villain. All they're really missing are mustaches to twirl and big furry cats to sit on their lap to pet while they're writing this terrible legislation.
 

Al-ibn Kermit

Junior Member
I wonder if the average pro-life american, someone who's not an extreme political activist - someone who genuinely wants unborn lives saved, understands that abortion legislation is ALWAYS political and the people behind the scenes care more about scoring political points than they do about saving lives. They give no fucks. I wonder if these people realize that and don't care, or if they genuinely believe that it's a coincidence that abortion legislation magically appears every major election year.

Yes, they would/should be aware of this. So are people on any side of any issue that they advocate. The problem is not that people are unaware of the political motivations.

The problem is that people actually think this should be an issue worth fighting for. If a woman decides that she is or is not going to be able to raise a life, that is a set in stone decision. There is no way she will go back on that, whatever she decides.

People keep pointing to back-alley abortions becoming popular again if abortion became illegal. Of course that won't happen. There are pharmaceutical drugs now that can safely terminate your pregnancy if it's still early. If abortion is outlawed, you'll see parents of pregnant teens running across the border to get these pills. I know I wouldn't hesitate to do that if I had a daughter in that situation.

You cannot control reproductive rights. The direction pro-lifers are moving in just makes it less safe and less legal.
 
Just to further agree with this, I figured I'd put this here.



The only word that comes to mind is: evil. Republicans have become a god damned cartoon villain. All they're really missing are mustaches to twirl and big furry cats to sit on their lap to pet while they're writing this terrible legislation.

HZxXq.gif
 

karobit

Member
House Republicans say that some women have taken advantage of the confidentiality by fraudulently claiming abuse to acquire residency status. Victims who are not committing fraud, however, will now be exposed to retaliatory violence.

I cannot fathom the thought process that considers an immigrant becoming a legal US resident a greater evil than someone being abused by their spouse.
 

Dead Man

Member
Just to further agree with this, I figured I'd put this here.



The only word that comes to mind is: evil. Republicans have become a god damned cartoon villain. All they're really missing are mustaches to twirl and big furry cats to sit on their lap to pet while they're writing this terrible legislation.

What the fuck? Who thought this was a good idea?

The Republican bill would eliminate that confidentiality and require women to go to the closest immigration office. It would allow the officer, not specifically trained in domestic violence response, to reach out to and inform the abusive partner that the alleged victim is applying for immigration status.
 

Slavik81

Member
Gonna be awesome when these companies sue the state of Arizona under Citizens United and get the law overturned as discriminatory.

Remember, now the Supreme Court has said that "Corporations are people, too!" I don't see how the state would have the authority to mandate what a private citizen spends their money on provided it passes federal statutes for legality, so I can't imagine it'll hold up in court when they try to force companies to act a certain way.

Ha ha, conservatives. Take that for blowback.
That doesn't make the sense.

First of all, the government can choose not to hire people based on perfectly legal conduct. That would be akin to choosing not to contract work to a firm involved in certain sorts of perfectly legal conduct.

Secondly, just because corporations are treated as people in some instances does not mean they're always so. For instance, they have no right to privacy, unlike an individual. You'd have to show why it makes sense to treat them like individuals in this case to make that point.

This is a dumb law, but I don't find your case very convincing.
 

Tacitus_

Member
My favorite mysoginists? Women for sure.

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

Guess the source...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom