Post: #1

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...ce=twitter

Quote:

An Arkansas law makes performing the procedure used in 95 percent of second trimesters a felony, with no exception for rape or incest—and allows family members to stop it.

A new Arkansas law bans one of the safest and most common abortion procedures and allows family members to block an abortion by suing the abortion provider.

Arkansas Act 45, signed by Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson last Thursday, bans dilation and evacuation abortions, the most common abortion procedure during the second trimester of pregnancy. Rushed from filing to law in less than two months, the legislation effectively blocks abortions after 14 weeks by making the safest procedure a felony. The earliest current abortion bans block the procedure after 20 weeks.

With no exception for rape or incest, and a clause that allows a woman’s spouse or parent to sue an abortion provider, the law potentially allows the fetus’s father to sue even in cases of spousal rape or incest, abortion rights activists say. The law could go into effect as early as spring.

During dilation and evacuation procedures, surgical instruments are used to remove material from the womb. It’s a common procedure, accounting for 95 percent of all second-trimester abortions (according to a CDC study), and 683 of Arkansas’s 3,771 abortions in 2015, the state’s health department told The Daily Beast. The procedure is also common after miscarriages, when fetal tissue is removed from the womb to prevent infection, and during medical tests, when uterine tissue is removed for testing. Arkansas’s new ban would make the procedure a felony only when used in an abortion.

“The D&E method is the most common method of second-trimester abortion in the United States and in the world,” Laura McQuade, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, told The Daily Beast. “It is the method endorsed by the World Health Organization, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the American Medical Association.”

The consensus from the medical community does not appear to matter to state Sen. David Sanders, a co-sponsor of the bill who testified that the procedure is gross to watch.

“You see a baby, an unborn life, a fetus, engaging in fight or flight reaction to the forceps going into the womb, trying to remove an arm, remove a leg,” he said.

The bill’s co-sponsor, Arkansas Rep. Andy Mayberry, called dilation and evacuation a “gruesome, barbaric procedure” during the bill’s introduction, adding that the routine procedure “is one that no civilized society should embrace.”

When not working in the legislature, Mayberry doubles as the president of Arkansas Right to Life, a subsidiary of the National Right to Life Committee. Introducing the bill before the Arkansas House in January, Mayberry announced that the text was “based on model legislation from National Right to Life that has been passed, or similar legislation has been passed in six states.”

Those six states are Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and West Virginia. In all but the latter two, which passed their bills in spring 2016, legal challenges have temporarily blocked the laws from taking effect. As in the other states, the Arkansas legislation takes a hard line against dilation and evacuation procedures, making their use a Class D felony, punishable by a $10,000 fine or six years in prison.

“They’ve been declared unconstitutional in Oklahoma and Kansas already,” McQuade said of the set of bans. The Supreme Court has ruled states’ abortion laws are unconstitutional if they impose an “undue burden” on a woman attempting to terminate a viable fetus.

But one particularly punishing element of Arkansas’s law has not been tested in court, even in Mississippi and West Virginia, where versions of the bans still stand, reproductive rights activists say.

A clause in the Arkansas law allows a woman’s spouse, parent or guardian, or health care provider to sue an abortion provider for civil damages or injunctive relief that could stop the abortion. And because Act 45 does not provide any exceptions for cases of rape or incest, the clause could allow the fetus’s father to sue an abortion provider even in cases of spousal rape or incest.

Asked whether the clause would allow a father to sue in cases of spousal rape or incest, Mayberry told The Daily Beast that the “bill wouldn’t affect a woman seeking an abortion by any other method” than dilation and evacuation, and that the bill prohibited the father from winning monetary damages in the event of rape or incest. The bill would not, however, prevent the father from seeking injunctive relief to stop an abortion under these circumstances.

“We’ve tried to account for all the worst case scenarios,” Mayberry said, adding that the injunctive relief clause “doesn’t have a whole lot of teeth,” as it would block an abortion provider from performing a procedure already barred under the legislation.

Abortion rights activists say the clause gives a woman’s family control over her health decisions.

“There is zero part of me that understands why a rapist or someone who got someone pregnant against their will, maybe incest, would have any right in that decision,” Karen Musick, co-founder of Arkansas Abortion Support Network, told The Daily Beast. “I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that there would be anyone who thinks otherwise.”

“What that’s getting at, really, is the autonomy and decision-making ability of a woman,” McQuade said. “The law itself is a major overstep into the doctor-patient relationship… This is taking it one step further to say that women are incapable of making these decisions on their own and on their own behalf.”
As a result of Republicans’ supermajority in the Arkansas Assembly, the legislation moved from draft to law in less than two months. Filed Dec. 5, read in the Arkansas House for the first time on Jan. 9, and signed into law on Jan. 26, the bill sped through the state’s legislature with few revisions. One of the few dissenting voices came from Will Bond, a Democratic state senator from Little Rock.

“There is an injunctive relief section in the bill that, in my reading of it, would seem to allow litigation among family members,” Bond told The Daily Beast. “If one spouse sought injunctive relief to prevent a certain procedure, or possibly other family members have the possibility for injunctive relief, that was a concern of mine.”

The clause was one of a number of issues Bond had with the bill, including what he described as the legislation’s lack of exceptions for all but the most serious health issues.

“There is an exception for women’s health in the bill, but it required irreparable harm [to the point of] permanent disability of a woman,” Bond said. “The way it was drafted, I had concerns that the women’s health exception is way too narrow, and there’s no exception for rape and incest.”

Reproductive rights experts say the ban on dilation and evacuations is virtually as effective as banning abortions after the first trimester.

Realistically, under the new legislation, “the only option that anyone in Arkansas would have would be to leave the state,” Musick said.

A small percentage of second-trimester abortions occur via medically induced labor, but this less common method is more time-consuming, requires a hospital stay, and often involves more complications.

“How it used to happen decades in the past was that a woman was induced to deliver,” McQuade said. “We do not want to get to that point. That it is not as safe for the patient.” She added that Planned Parenthood would review its options but might refer patients out of state.

And for women seeking an abortion in Arkansas, time is already against them. A 2015 Arkansas law requires a 48-hour waiting period between an in-person abortion consultation and the procedure. In Arkansas, which only has one dilation and evacuation abortion-providing clinic, the law often forces people to take days off work to travel to the clinic, attend the initial meeting, wait 48 hours, and finally obtain a procedure.

“Normally it’s going to be a week later,” after a woman schedules around her work, travel, and family commitments, Musick said. “Every week that goes past in an abortion makes the procedure more expensive and it makes it riskier. The earlier an abortion is performed, the safer it is.”

But the new Arkansas law, the first of its kind passed under the Trump administration, will not go unchallenged, its opponents say. Holly Dickson, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said the group was aiming to make a case similar to those filed against the bills in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.

“It’s been challenged in those first four and been enjoined in every state where there’s been a challenge,” she told The Daily Beast.

The law takes effect 90 days after the end of Arkansas’s legislative session, which is expected in spring, McQuade said. The bill’s opponents would have to file their suit before the law took effect.

“The ACLU has been open in our intent to challenge this if necessary,” Dickson said. “I’m sure that’s what we’ll do this time around. Again.”

Post: #2

Not a good law, will get overturned in the courts. If you want to reduce abortions give women free vagina care cradle to the grave and free birth control. This law is a waste of time and money.

Post: #3

It's a common procedure. Common. And routine. A routine and common procedure. Common, you might say. Even routine. So common that it's hard to believe it's an issue. Why so much grief over a common, routine procedure?

But that state law passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor is "the first of its kind passed under the Trump administration" despite the Trump administration having nothing no part in it. So that's an achievement. I guess. If not Trump's, then the writer's for her Olympian-level stretching to drag Trump into it.

Post: #4

Not allowing exceptions for rape or incest means this law will not have much popular support.

Post: #5

(02-07-2017 08:27 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Not allowing exceptions for rape or incest means this law will not have much popular support.

Agreed, but, allowing exception for "rape" these days wouldn't mean the same thing it would have 30 years ago. If you allow an exception for "rape", then probably every woman who wanted an abortion would be said to have been "raped". You'd have the unintended consequence of a bunch more guys being accused of rape in order to justify the abortions, including 19 year old guys for statutory "rape" of 17 year old girls.

Post: #6

This is amazing!

I was always saying that abortion shouldn't be possible without the consent of baby's father.

Both male and female parents are equally responsible for the child since the conception. This is basically the same as a law requiring a father to pay child support. Equality is a bitch!

Post: #7

its hard to say what will happen with this law, but the original Roe v Wade weighted the rights of the unborn child versus the rights of the woman. the father's rights were not considered, so this is an interesting angle. the other thing that is interesting is Roe was decided in 1973, almost 45 years ago. Roe involved a case that criminalized the procedure, presumably to protect the unborn child's rights. The supreme court then based their decision in part on the fact that a second trimester fetus was not viable outside the womb; that is not the case any longer. So while social attitudes have changed to favor abortion, some of the underlying assumptions in that case have gone the other way.

Post: #8

(02-07-2017 09:47 AM)Gambler Wrote:  This is amazing!

I was always saying that abortion shouldn't be possible without the consent of baby's father.

Both male and female parents are equally responsible for the child since the conception. This is basically the same as a law requiring a father to pay child support. Equality is a bitch!

How would that work? Would the mother be required to submit to testing to see which man is the father? In some cases, the father might not even be aware of the unborn child's existence. This kind of law sounds good on paper as a way of giving power back to men, but probably isn't all that practical.

I agree with other commenters that allowing an exception for rape and incest won't work, because women will just make false rape accusations. It's the same problem we run into with laws that say that a father will have no parental rights concerning a child who was conceived by rape. In most cases, there won't be enough evidence to get a criminal conviction, so the father will retain his parental rights, although a CPS case could still probably be successfully brought against him, since those are civil cases and therefore their standard of evidence of parental unfitness is lower (usually clear and convincing evidence, in a termination of parental rights case; rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as would be required in a criminal case).

An unborn child of a mother who would prefer to abort him is not in a good situation, regardless of whether the law will allow the abortion. Life is challenging enough as a wanted child; to be an unwanted child is probably in many cases not even worthwhile. My first wife was adopted when she was three months old, and spent years trying to contact her biological mother and have a relationship with her. It never came to anything. She told me that in her opinion, if a mother doesn't want to take responsibility for raising her kid, she should just get an abortion. She made numerous suicide attempts and finally died by hanging in a Budget Inn.

Maybe all that stuff would've happened even if her mother had wanted her, since plenty of kids in that situation also end up wishing they were dead, if they're too weak to handle life's ups and downs. Her parents were first cousins and, from what I heard, drug users as well. They apparently didn't feel like having a kid around, because they gave her up. Should parents be allowed to just give up their kids for adoption like that? If we force parents to raise their own kids, will it still take a toll on their kids if they find out they weren't wanted, and were only born because the state insisted on it?

I can see many situations where I'd favor an abortion. For example, if my wife got pregnant by a rapist, I'd prefer that the child be aborted, since when we got married, the promise was that her body would be for bearing my children, not anyone else's. I don't want to be cucked, whether with or without my wife's consent.

If she conceived a child with Down's syndrome, I'd also want her to get an abortion, because I just don't see that such a child would have much chance of being productive or happy, plus their care consumes an incredible amount of resources, often leading the parents to decline to have any more kids (thus depriving other potential children of a chance at life). I would even say that if a child is born with birth defects, the parents should have a right to commit infanticide if they want. I agree with pro-lifers that there's really not much moral difference between abortion and infanticide. Most of the same arguments apply to both situations.

I look at it from a Darwinian perspective. Not just those who kill themselves through recklessness, but also those who kill their children, win a Darwin Award. Casey Anthony may not only have committed an act of mercy, by rescuing her daughter from having to be raised by a mother who didn't want her, but she also helped purify society of traits of bad motherhood, rather than passing those on.

Post: #9

Yes, as other commenters here have noted, this law has a lot of practical problems.

If we really cared about reducing abortions in this country there's only way to do it, in my view: 1) every unmarried low-income or unmarried low-IQ woman is given access to a free IUD upon turning 14, and 2) is paid 10K every year she does not give birth. But, obviously, this can never happen as conservatives don't like the free IUDs and cash incentives, and progressives will hate that the program will be targeted at morons and the poor.

And nothing will ever change.

Post: #10

it doesn't have to be that hard. after all, how can a woman say its unreasonable to ask her to accurately identify the father? yes there is rape but curiously very few births occur from rape . . . seems that almost all of the women who claim to have been raped are on birth control.

the law already says that a doctor can't perform the abortion unless the woman consents. this law would just require both parents to consent. you could have a form where the mother certifies who the father is, and then he consents. if she is wrong, she is committing a crime, maybe the doctor as well. if the real dad doesn't sign the form, then he can sue her for wrongful death, and maybe the doctor too. Just like most bars are expected to exhibit some responsibility and not serve drunks, abortionists might be expected to exercise some restraint if they have doubts about paternity.

Post: #11

(02-07-2017 01:28 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  Not a good law, will get overturned in the courts. If you want to reduce abortions give women free vagina care cradle to the grave and free birth control. This law is a waste of time and money.

They have more than free birth control and cradle to grave help in the UK yet the number of cretins having kids is higher than those who aren't living life off of the state.

Post: #12

I disagree with you people who automatically kneejerk to giving women free stuff. Conservatives are perfectly happy to gut abortion as it stands, who cares about figuring out how to get rabid liberals on board.

Post: #13

I have mixed feelings on abortion.

One thing I know for certain is this: if you knock up some slut, and she wants an abortion, make sure she gets it. Pay for it yourself. Don't argue with her.

A woman who wanted to get an abortion and is talked or legaled out of it is going to be a terrible mother. She is also not going to give away custody. She's going to be a general pain in your ass forever.

Just my advice.

Aloha!

Post: #14

(02-07-2017 02:03 PM)Grit Wrote:  I disagree with you people who automatically kneejerk to giving women free stuff. Conservatives are perfectly happy to gut abortion as it stands, who cares about figuring out how to get rabid liberals on board.

Meanwhile, back here in reality, liberals make up half the country and conservatives cannot and will not always be in power.

Post: #15

(02-07-2017 01:47 PM)Hypno Wrote:  it doesn't have to be that hard. after all, how can a woman say its unreasonable to ask her to accurately identify the father? yes there is rape but curiously very few births occur from rape . . . seems that almost all of the women who claim to have been raped are on birth control.

the law already says that a doctor can't perform the abortion unless the woman consents. this law would just require both parents to consent. you could have a form where the mother certifies who the father is, and then he consents. if she is wrong, she is committing a crime, maybe the doctor as well. if the real dad doesn't sign the form, then he can sue her for wrongful death, and maybe the doctor too. Just like most bars are expected to exhibit some responsibility and not serve drunks, abortionists might be expected to exercise some restraint if they have doubts about paternity.

Maybe something like ... the Doctor is responsible for getting permission from the father ... mother must produce a list of anyone who is potentially the father, then there must be a paternity test. After all of that the confirmed father has a say. (What if he declines the test? You can't assume that he is the father if he declines the test, because the mother could just have some other dude play that part for her.) If the mother declines to supply a comprehensive list (because she doesn't want to admit how big a slut she is, or because she really doesn't even know) then she is refused the service. I'd be good with that ... return of some potential consequences of being an unbelievable slut. Which makes me doubt that it would happen that way anytime soon ...

Post: #16

If the man has responsibility for a pregnancy then its only fair he have some rights.

Post: #17

(02-07-2017 02:38 PM)Kona Wrote:  I have mixed feelings on abortion.

One thing I know for certain is this: if you knock up some slut, and she wants an abortion, make sure she gets it. Pay for it yourself. Don't argue with her.

A woman who wanted to get an abortion and is talked or legaled out of it is going to be a terrible mother. She is also not going to give away custody. She's going to be a general pain in your ass forever.

Just my advice.

Aloha!

Why shouldn't the father have the option to raise the kid himself if he wants? The way it should work is, if both want to have the kid, they share custody (and financial responsibility), if only one wants to have the kid, that one gets sole custody (and full responsibility), if neither wants to have it ... then either an abortion or put it up for adoption, depending on your view.

I always thought there should be some kind of decision like that involved in child custody and child support for divorce also ... if you want to fight for custody, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that you will have sole financial responsibility. If only one person is willing to put themselves in that situation, they should get custody.

Post: #18

(02-07-2017 04:40 PM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 02:38 PM)Kona Wrote:  I have mixed feelings on abortion.

One thing I know for certain is this: if you knock up some slut, and she wants an abortion, make sure she gets it. Pay for it yourself. Don't argue with her.

A woman who wanted to get an abortion and is talked or legaled out of it is going to be a terrible mother. She is also not going to give away custody. She's going to be a general pain in your ass forever.

Just my advice.

Aloha!

Why shouldn't the father have the option to raise the kid himself if he wants? The way it should work is, if both want to have the kid, they share custody (and financial responsibility), if only one wants to have the kid, that one gets sole custody (and full responsibility), if neither wants to have it ... then either an abortion or put it up for adoption, depending on your view.

I always thought there should be some kind of decision like that involved in child custody and child support for divorce also ... if you want to fight for custody, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that you will have sole financial responsibility. If only one person is willing to put themselves in that situation, they should get custody.

He's talking about some slut getting knocked up, not a possible LTR or wifey shit.

There's no way in hell I would want a kid brought up by a slut I didn't give a shit about and was a ONS or just a fuck buddy.

We all complain here about how terrible single mothers are, why in god's name would anyone want another child from one ?

This is a bit personal to me since I got my ex pregnant and got an abortion, I still have thoughts about it, but it wasn't the right time to have a child, and neither of us were ready for it.

Like others have said, not allowing abortions for rape or incest is plain retarded and won't garner much backing - this law will be avoided like the plague by most law makers.

Post: #19

(02-07-2017 04:40 PM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  The way it should work is, if both want to have the kid, they share custody (and financial responsibility), only one person is willing to put themselves in that situation, they should get custody.

The way it should work and the way it actually works are two different things.

What if the woman changes her mind in three years? Or worse, ten or fifteen years. Then you get in front of a female family court judge that says you owe the bitch 10 years of back support.

What if the woman decides she wants some limited contact with no financials , but bad mouths you to the kid the whole time.

Women that want abortions are not the most reliable of folks, and attaching them to your life comes with too many variables.

Aloha!

Post: #20

I don't really support laws that allow a third party to compel a person to do or not do something with their body. I think if a woman wants to have an abortion, and it is legal, she should be able to have one. On the flip side, I think a man should be able to waive parental rights and obligations if a woman has a baby against his will. You can believe that such a law will have a dramatic effect on the behavior of women if their potential meal ticket is no longer guaranteed.

For reducing abortions, free contraceptives should be provided and mandated for anyone who takes government benefits (food stamps, rent assistance, etc.). These contraceptives should be ones that do not require the woman's daily action (i.e. no pills), so they would be injectable/implantable or an IUD.

Post: #21

I'm pretty sure this will get struck down in court, even though it is an interesting concept. Abortion across the board should be illegal. Combined with no welfare payments and zero child support requirements from men, women couldn't use pregnancies to trap men, instead, they'd reduce their cock hopping by a huge amount, and focus more on providers instead of men that provide only tingles, but have zero fathering desire or skills. Incentives matter.

Post: #22

(02-07-2017 05:16 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 04:40 PM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  The way it should work is, if both want to have the kid, they share custody (and financial responsibility), only one person is willing to put themselves in that situation, they should get custody.

The way it should work and the way it actually works are two different things.

What if the woman changes her mind in three years? Or worse, ten or fifteen years. Then you get in front of a female family court judge that says you owe the bitch 10 years of back support.

I was talking about a legally binding agreement, no mind changing allowed. "The way it should work" as in, the way courts ought to handle it ... definitely not the way it works now.

(02-07-2017 05:16 PM)Kona Wrote:  What if the woman decides she wants some limited contact with no financials , but bad mouths you to the kid the whole time.

Women that want abortions are not the most reliable of folks, and attaching them to your life comes with too many variables.

Aloha!

If you were taking on full custody and financial responsibility for the child, certainly your estimation of the mother's mental stability would have to be a consideration when deciding how much, if any, visitation to allow. In any case, I wasn't suggesting that the father necessarily should want to go that route, just that it would make sense to me to give him the option, as part of trying to make things more fair than they are now. I could be horribly wrong, just throwing it out there for discussion, but I'm far from an expert on family law or raising a family.

Post: #23

(02-07-2017 04:31 PM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 01:47 PM)Hypno Wrote:  it doesn't have to be that hard. after all, how can a woman say its unreasonable to ask her to accurately identify the father? yes there is rape but curiously very few births occur from rape . . . seems that almost all of the women who claim to have been raped are on birth control.

the law already says that a doctor can't perform the abortion unless the woman consents. this law would just require both parents to consent. you could have a form where the mother certifies who the father is, and then he consents. if she is wrong, she is committing a crime, maybe the doctor as well. if the real dad doesn't sign the form, then he can sue her for wrongful death, and maybe the doctor too. Just like most bars are expected to exhibit some responsibility and not serve drunks, abortionists might be expected to exercise some restraint if they have doubts about paternity.

Maybe something like ... the Doctor is responsible for getting permission from the father ... mother must produce a list of anyone who is potentially the father, then there must be a paternity test. After all of that the confirmed father has a say. (What if he declines the test? You can't assume that he is the father if he declines the test, because the mother could just have some other dude play that part for her.) If the mother declines to supply a comprehensive list (because she doesn't want to admit how big a slut she is, or because she really doesn't even know) then she is refused the service. I'd be good with that ... return of some potential consequences of being an unbelievable slut. Which makes me doubt that it would happen that way anytime soon ...

don't get hung up on the paternity test.

the law could just say the father has to sign.

the private market - threat of getting sued - would ultimately force docs to get some assurance that the dad signing the form was the real dad.

its sort of like the false rape situation now. most guys will stay a mile away from super drunk girls, or at least try to record that she consented, because otherwise they face a false rape accusation. with this abortion law, you don't have to mandate every step, but rather just go half way. the threat of getting sued by the real dad will take care of the rest.

Post: #24

This was set up to fail from the jump. Gives lawmakers brownie points for the ultra conservatives they likely need some votes from. It will die in the courts and they will say after "look look we tried!".

As others mentioned it's a dead end legislation that will in a courthouse. A waste of time and money to even craft and draft up. You can't have rigid abortion laws but outlaw incest and rape. It's third rail stuff that won't get any movement.