In Arkansas, Women Now Need Permission From Men To Get Abortions

Ironic since you are repeating yourself and you have produced nothing of substance!

 

Make a change in your life. Do something other than just repeating alarmist click bait. Read the bill.

 

Onus is entirely on you to substantiate your bogus allegations.

 

I produced substance on exactly the same point he made but that substance was simply dismissed or ignored. If you’re still asserting that this legal change would prevent a woman having an abortion, surely the onus is on you to produce something of substance. The emotive rants that drove me away the first time don’t prove anything other than that you have a strongly held opinion.

 

"""H.B. 1566 includes aborted fetuses into that Act, which means that both the mother and the father of the fetus will have to agree on what to do with fetal remains, thus requiring a woman to tell whoever impregnated her that she’s planning on having an abortion. Both parties will have to agree on what to do with the remains.""


AGAIN: this requires a woman to LOSE her right to privacy, the right to have private medical records, all that YOU enjoy.


This will put pressure on women as to whether they have an abortion or not AS IT IS INTENDED TO DO.

It is NO one's business if a woman has an abortion or a miscarrige, NO one's !





Could you address the questions in post #23 ? Or will pertinent questions that you can't answer be seen by you as "emotive rants"?

 

That isn’t the claim I’m challenging, I’m talking about the claim that this change would allow anyone to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

There are legitimate privacy issues at stake here and legitimate concerns regarding cases of rape and domestic abuse but those issues can only be properly addressed in an environment of accuracy, honesty and calm rationality. I think this kind of misrepresentation and excessive politicisation risks doing more harm than good to the real women it actually affects.

I honestly felt your responses were getting too emotional for reasonable discussion. I’d feel I already covered your questions in my posts but I’m happy to answer if you think there is still value to it;

It isn’t only about abortion; Changes to these laws could impact women (and men) in all sorts of different situations and all sorts of different ways, all of which needs to be considered when talking about them. Unintended (or even malicious) consequences can work both ways.

The lie has always been the statement that this change allows anyone to prevent a woman from having an abortion. Nobody has ever presented any facts to support that assertion and that remains my main objection. That doesn’t mean I automatically agree with the law change, only that I think discussion about it should be based on the facts rather than politicised rhetoric.

The correct ends is establishing a combined clinical, legal and social environment which supports the best (or sadly, least worst) outcome for all the people in can affect. There are a vast range of people these laws could impact, even only considering situations involving abortions. Not only the mothers but the medical staff, wider families, and indeed the fathers, who can’t have their rights and responsibilities unconditionally and unanswerably dismissed out of hand.

 

No, the Anti-Choice legislators don't do anything that overt...they want to restrict/control women in much more subtle ways (OR what they THINK are subtle ways but are obvious ploys to restrict women's right to abortion....and anyone who KNOWS the history of the Anti-Choice faction knows this. Those blind or unfamiliar don't know this)

The Bill: This will put pressure on women as to whether they have an abortion or not AS IT IS INTENDED TO DO.

They may not have an abortion if they are FORCED to REVEAL their PRIVATE medical information if they do.

DO YOU THINK MEDICAL INFORMATION, INCLUDING YOURS, SHOULD BE PRIVATE ?

It is NO one's business if a woman has an abortion or a miscarriage, NO one's !

.

.


Yup, and that isn't Anti-Choice legislators....they have no business butting in to women's medical records .

I have no idea why you separate out "rape and domestic abuse" ???? Abortion is legal no matter what the reason so again, it's no one's business but the woman's.

Then let your Anti-Choice legislators(Republicans) know they should mind their own business.....

No, I just stated facts that you can't refute.

It's also about miscarriages..nothing else .....neither of which are anyone's business but the woman's.

Then let your Anti-Choice legislators(Republicans) know they should mind their own business.....all their nit picking Anti-Woman, Anti-Choice legislation is aimed at restricting women's right to abortion. They know they can't overthrow RvW (despite lying and saying they can to get the Stupid to vote for them) so they are trying to crawl in the back door....

I don't think you understand that only ONE person is pregnant, only ONE person has the abortion or the miscarriage...NOT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.....

That one person doesn't owe anyone anything just because they're pregnant. That one person is NOT owned by anyone else.


The CORRECT end is what we have, legal abortion, a PRIVATE legal medical procedure that does not need to be shared with the world.

Too funny...you are making pregnant women responsible for their rapist's feelings, their boyfriend's feelings, the medical staff's feelings (! ) , wider families (which could include 100's of people) .....how about Walmart who won't be selling her diapers and a car seat !!!??? Is she responsible for them ,too?

No, pregnant women are only responsible for themselves...




Do you want your medical records open to the public?

 

Since they courts have been unwilling to ban the procedure, the opponents to abortions are now coming up with collateral ways to stop it. It isn't that they really care what happens to the dead baby. It is they want to keep the baby from being killed to begin with.

 

yes, in your eyes women seem to always be the victim.

 

Fine, and I agree with you on that problem. Now actually read the article in the OP again, even just the first line quoted; It explicitly asserts that this law change requires women to get their partners permission to have an abortion (probably based on legal claims by the ACLU of that). That is a lie.

Do you recognise that as the outright lie it is? Can you also see how it could serve to distract from the real issues of the more subtle restrictions and limitations we’re both concerned about? The abortion opponents can honestly say their law doesn’t require permission and they’ll probably be able to win in court on that basis. All of that will waste time and make it all the more difficult to actually reverse or revise the changes to avoid the real risks rather than the fictional ones.

The rhetoric really isn’t endearing me to you. This has nothing to do with medical records. It clearly requires revealing a couple of very personal facts to one individual but let’s keep this in context.

Rape was brought up in the OP. One of the legitimate concerns here is that a victim of rape or domestic abuse could be forced to contact their attacker and that seems to be being ignored in favour of the big political picture.

Please don’t make assumptions about me. They’re not my legislators. I’m not even American.

Again with the rhetoric. This isn’t about “the world”, it’s about two individuals, a mother and father. Now there is a whole separate set of questions about the legitimate level of involvement a father should/can/can’t have throughout a pregnancy (and beyond for that matter), complicated by all the different domestic, emotional and legal relationships those two people could be in. I don’t pretend to have answers to those questions but I’m fairly confident they won’t fall at the extreme of “absolutely none at all in any circumstance”.

I’m really not. I’m making the state responsible for everyone significantly impacted by the law, just as it is with every single other law on the statue books. After all, that’s why there is such a detailed technical law about the disposal of deceased remains in the first place.

 

Lie or not it is NOT the basis to win on a separate issue.

Why would I want to be endeared to you? Do you have weird needs that aren't being met?



.

.


DUH, HOW would anyone KNOW a woman had an abortion or a miscarriage IF they don't have access to her medical records??????????????

That NO one else is forced to do.....revealing medical records to ONE person is breaking the right to private medical records.


WHY do you think impregnating or knowing a pregnant woman gives anyone the right to tell her what to do with the pregnancy or anything relating to it?

Could you try giving one clear answer to that?

Mindless blather that says nothing, are you sure you aren't a politician?

Irrelevent and an excuse.

Then WHY did you bring in medical staff and family??

And, NO, it is about ONE individual that NO one owns....what can't you get about people can't own other people??? WHY is that so hard for you to understand???

You still can't get that NO one owns another person. A man doesn't own a woman because he impregnated her and your insistence that he does is rather antiquated, backwards, ignorant and barbaric.


IF a woman CHOOSES to involve the man who impregnated her that is her CHOICE it is not a LAW....did you think it's a law?

You think a lot of strange things then because unless it's a law she does not have to involve the father in anything...

Yes,you are you want to even include the medical staff!!!!!!

Yes, the deceased remains of PERSONS, legal PERSONS..,.. a fetus is NOT a legal person....and belongs only to the woman....and contrary to what you think NO one can own a woman....

 

I don't. I've never said I did. I'm pretty sure I've said the exact opposite earlier. This is exactly the kind of emotive response that makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion about this with you. Sorry.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHY do you think impregnating or knowing a pregnant woman gives anyone the right to tell her what to do with the pregnancy or anything relating to it?

Then WHY did you bring in medical staff, father, and family?? Why did you say others should have a say ?


Maybe if you tried to reasonable and less emotional you'd see the facts.

 

Again, that isn't what I said. I brought them in because they can be impacted by these decisions, regardless of what they are and who is making them. I've not declared what I think should happen because frankly, I don't pretend to know.

I've been trying to explain what the current and proposed legislation actually says because the discussion was being based on a lie (which is pointless at best). I also tried to engage in discussions about all the factors and consequences of whatever laws and regulations could apply in these situations, that legislations (and laymen discussing the topic) should be thinking about. If you don't want that discussion (which seems to be the case), you're wasting your time replying to me.

 

It does NOT matter who,besides the woman, is impacted.


From the OP:

A recently-passed bill, H.B. 1566, is a provision under the Arkansas Final Disposition Rights Act of 2009, which states that, in the matter of a person’s death, family members have to agree on what to do with the deceased person’s body.

H.B. 1566 includes aborted fetuses into that Act, which means that both the mother and the father of the fetus will have to agree on what to do with fetal remains, thus requiring a woman to tell whoever impregnated her that she’s planning on having an abortion. Both parties will have to agree on what to do with the remains.""""


See how sneakily the bill "includes aborted fetuses" ? Fetuses are NOT persons with rights and this slimey piece of legislation is aimed at making them persons.

It says "" in the matter of a person’s death"" ....well, a fetus is NOT a person so WHY should it be included in the bill?


It states : ""which means that both the mother and the father of the fetus will have to agree on what to do with fetal remains""

Which is wrong, the father has no say in fetal remains nor should he.

This would cause women to have to let the father know she has aborted or will abort. This may keep some women from having an abortion.

Why should anyone but the woman have a say in what she does with her body?


Answer these questions before you start denying you ever said anything or whine about how hard the discussion is:

a fetus is NOT a person so WHY should it be included in the bill?


Why should anyone but the woman have a say in what she does with her body and her fetus?


WHY do you think legislators are trying to deem the fetus a "person"?


Do you have any objection to the bill?


""""both the mother and the father of the fetus will have to agree on what to do with fetal remains"""


What if they do NOT agree??? Roll some dice???

 

Then go to the piece of legislation in question, and cite the section that does what is being claimed by yourself that it does. Surely it cannot be that difficult if you are making such a claim.

 

Fetal remains are not "tossed in the trash". They are incinerated with all other medical waste. If a facility is throwing then in the trash, they are breaking the law.

 

As a woman myself, I'm kind of disgusted by this. Yes, the man should have some say under a normal relationship, but if this applies to RAPISTS, too, than this is not okay! A rapist does not deserve to have a say when he forced the woman into a circumstance she did not want!

 

NO one has a say in whether a woman gets an abortion or not...it is totally and only up to the woman, SHE is the ONLY one who is pregnant..

Yes, her partner may have a say on a personal level , express his feelings about it.....but that's it.




I have asked those who think the father should have a "say", what would happen if he said , "abort".

There never was an answer.

 

A federal judge has blocked Arkansas from enforcing four new abortion restrictions, including a ban on a common second trimester procedure and a fetal remains law that opponents say would effectively require a partner's consent before a woman could get an abortion.

U.S. District Court Judge Kristine Baker issued a preliminary injunction late Friday night against the new restrictions, three of which were set to take effect Tuesday. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights had challenged the measures, suing on behalf of Dr. Frederick Hopkins, a Little Rock abortion provider.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...abortion-law-restrictions-take-effect-n787741

 

Good to know there are sane people protecting women and their rights from Anti-Choice misogynists...........

 

The part you highlighted about abusers forcing their victims to give birth hardly ever happens. As for the rest of the article, that unborn child isn't all hers, she wasn't the sole contributor to it's creation. So I say that this is a fair law.

 

That is NOT a justification for violating the individual rights of women!

It is her body and her fetus and unless you want me to have access to your organs you are playing with fire here.

For example under this unconstitutional law it should be possible on the slippery slope basis for another law to be passed making it legal for me to claim both of your kidneys in a lawsuit. Having won the lawsuit I could have both of your kidneys removed and sold off to the highest bidder in order to reclaim my losses against you.

Yes, that is exactly what you are advocating for here. You want someone else to have control over what goes on inside your body.

Now you will squirm and equivocate and try to claim that it isn't the same thing.

But the reality here is that it is EXACTLY the same thing.

Either you have control over your own body or you don't!

Be careful what you wish for!

 

So one human being is the property of another, that's how you see it.

Sounds to me like it's not about individual rights, since there are TWO individuals in question.

Under Constitutional law the fetus should have the right to equal protection of the law...

Nice try but the uterus has a natural function, and besides, women don't get pregnant out of nowhere. You put the seed there, you reap what was sown.

No, that's what you are advocating. You want the woman to have control over what happens to her developing child's body.

Well that goes two ways.

Did the woman have control over her body before she got pregnant?

 

Too many inconvenient things found in the back alley dumpsters of these clinics, that's why they passed those incineration laws.
Didn't like those pesky pro-life investigators taking pictures.