New Arizona law: all women are basically already pregnant.

by Michelle Lovegrove Thomson on April 15, 20124 comments

MLovegrove

Yet another anti-woman bill passes in the US:

The new law “calculates gestational age starting with the first day of the last menstrual period rather than the date of conception.”

HOLD ON. Conception will now start before the date of conception?

Arizona has just signed into law a bill decreeing all women living in their state have been blessed with immaculate conception. None of this complicated ovum + sperm = zygote business; all eggs are destined to be babies anyway, so why not speed along the process?

According to the Tucson Citizen, the Bill enacts the following:
“All abortions after 20 weeks are banned except in a “medical emergency” where an abortion would prevent the mother’s death or “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” The issue here is that most women have their first ultrasound at 20 weeks, at which point medical issues may first be assessed. By banning abortions after this date, the state ensures that women will be forced to carry pregnancies to term regardless of complications.

The bill also makes other changes to abortion regulations. Clinics are now required to perform an ultrasound 24 hours before an abortion instead of the current requirement of an hour before; and to post signs saying it is against the law to coerce a woman into having an abortion. It requires physicians to provide additional information about health risks (no word yet on whether this includes the malicious misinformation that the procedure causes breast cancer); and requires the state to create a website detailing information on adoption agencies and photos or drawings of developing fetuses.

But returning to our earlier point: since the law has effectively done away with the moment of conception, of the uniting of sperm and egg towards the creation of a new life, are they perhaps ushering in a new era? The era without sperm? Who could have thought such openly misogynist actions could effectively negate the role of men in reproduction?

Well done, lawmakers of Arizona. Mind=blown.

 

4 comments

Jay Smith on April 16, 2012 at 9:32 am. Reply #

I think you’re exactly right in pointing out that the upshot of this modification is that women will be forced to bring to term severely disabled children that they would have likely chosen not to bring to term. This is the part that really enrages me—I read recently (somewhere!) that the mothers of severely disabled children are condemned to live below the poverty line, oftentimes as a single parent (because the demands of a severely disabled child are great for marriage!). Others who write for this blog can speak firsthand about the experience that this has on women and families, though, so I’ll not speculate too much about this — except to point out that removing a woman’s choice in the matter has significant material repercussion on her.

What has consistently bothered me about the hoopla surrounding this issue, however, is notice that what the lawmakers are doing is implementing something that is standard medical practice. When a woman gets pregnant for the first time, she is often surprised to find that she’s two weeks more pregnant that the actual gestational age of the fetus. It makes the calculations easier (and, contrary to the faith that we place in ultrasounds, LMP, I was told my by years-of-experience midwives, is actually a *much* more accurate means of determining due date—doctors just defer to ultrasounds instead because they’re all technophiles). Nowhere do gestational “weeks” follow any other but this procedure.
Now I’m actually curious about whether the other states have already implemented this, or if there was just not any precision on the fact beforehand—like, I wonder whether everyone just says “20 weeks” but no one has ever sat down and specified, “we mean 20 weeks per medical discourse, not colloquial discourse.”
All of this makes my blood boil, of course. Thanks for posting on this.

Michelle on April 16, 2012 at 12:37 pm. Reply #

Thanks for clarifications on counting weeks! Hyperbole aside, the steady steamroller of anti-abortion legislation is starting to really frighten me.

Tania on April 24, 2012 at 12:54 am. Reply #

So technically, under Arizona law, I can be charged with manslaughter (?) every time my ova decides to leave or my period forces them out??

Nick Glossop on April 24, 2012 at 11:43 am. Reply #

Perhaps, but on the plus side, if you aren’t currently menstrual, congratulations, you are expecting!

Leave a comment

Required.

Required. Not published.

{Optional}


We enjoy healthy debate and respectful conversation at the Paltry Sapien and do not censor based on political or ideological views. Please refrain from commentary that is derogatory to other users, abusive, off-topic, includes too many links, or uses excessive foul-language. Comments are moderated, and will not appear until approved.