Arkansas Fetal Heartbeat Bill - Be afraid!

[Georgiana]

Growing up as a Fundie-lite Catholic young-un, I always thought that health was the only thing a woman would have an abortion for. It was like the only valid argument. But let me tell you, in all the time I spent thinking about the many aspects of the decision whether or not to end my pregnancy, health was only one of MANY things I considered. And all are equally valid parts of my life.

Finances: this should be obvious. For an unwed mother whose occupation provides terrible maternity leave, WHO IS GOING TO COVER THE COSTS? And don't get me started on CHILDCARE, MEDICAL EXPENSES, FINDING A NEW PLACE TO LIVE. Oh yeah, I could sue for paternity, but really? We all know that gets you no where. So who financially supports these children the mother is forced to keep? Is she just doomed to poverty?

Time: Everyone knows kids are a lot of work. But there's NOTHING to help single moms with the time drain of kids. What law is there that you can force the babydaddy to take some custody so that you can WORK or RUN ERRANDS or DO ANYTHING? Let's face it, a man can pretty much keep on living his life and thrust the ENTIRE burden of parenting onto the woman, except for a small financial piece. And there's no law that protects against that.

Societal: You get looked down on by a lot of people if you have a baby out of wedlock. Shouldn't you be some sort of pro-Life hero? Nope. You're a slut if you do and a slut if you don't.

Women should have a choice for MORE REASONS than just because of their health. Because if something bad happens and a woman gets pregnant, aint nobody forcing the MAN to live in poverty, give up their lives, and face social ostracism. The men have a CHOICE. They can walk away. And until the day when legally they have to risk all the things women risk with a pregnancy, women should get a choice too.

[Violet]

Growing up as a Fundie-lite Catholic young-un, I always thought that health was the only thing a woman would have an abortion for. It was like the only valid argument. But let me tell you, in all the time I spent thinking about the many aspects of the decision whether or not to end my pregnancy, health was only one of MANY things I considered. And all are equally valid parts of my life.

Finances: this should be obvious. For an unwed mother whose occupation provides terrible maternity leave, WHO IS GOING TO COVER THE COSTS? And don't get me started on CHILDCARE, MEDICAL EXPENSES, FINDING A NEW PLACE TO LIVE. Oh yeah, I could sue for paternity, but really? We all know that gets you no where. So who financially supports these children the mother is forced to keep? Is she just doomed to poverty?

Time: Everyone knows kids are a lot of work. But there's NOTHING to help single moms with the time drain of kids. What law is there that you can force the babydaddy to take some custody so that you can WORK or RUN ERRANDS or DO ANYTHING? Let's face it, a man can pretty much keep on living his life and thrust the ENTIRE burden of parenting onto the woman, except for a small financial piece. And there's no law that protects against that.

Societal: You get looked down on by a lot of people if you have a baby out of wedlock. Shouldn't you be some sort of pro-Life hero? Nope. You're a slut if you do and a slut if you don't.

Women should have a choice for MORE REASONS than just because of their health. Because if something bad happens and a woman gets pregnant, aint nobody forcing the MAN to live in poverty, give up their lives, and face social ostracism. The men have a CHOICE. They can walk away. And until the day when legally they have to risk all the things women risk with a pregnancy, women should get a choice too.

:clap: Well said Georgiana, sending you massive hugs too!

[BravaAmica]

Ugh, ectopic pregnancies can have heartbeats.

I would guess without a real health exception this bill will be declared unconstitutional like the bills from all the other states that have tried this. I'm sure we'll be hearing the usual bullshit about judicial activism for a long time to come.

I hope it does get overturned. But I'm sure AK is fine with not having a maternal health exception.

[2xx1xy1JD]

So it appears that the bill passed today in Arkansas is a different bill. The "Fetal Pain Bill" prohibits abortion after 20 weeks. The text of the bill is here:

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/ ... HB1037.pdf

While still a low mark (20 weeks is pretty early), I dont find it nearly as offensive as the Heartbeat bill, which was likely originally written in crayon.

Of course, since it is arkansas, they have to be sure to rub salt in every wound and reduce women to balls of emotions.

So... I can have an abortion if I'm more than 20 weeks pregnant if carrying the pregnancy will PHYSICALLY harm me severely. Psychological conditions are to be disregared. I'm assuming this mean schizophrenia, depression, personality issues... just about everything! Also, I'm to be forced to give birth to a live child if I choose to abort regardless of the psychological effect that will have on me.

Also, if my condition is one that I caused and may continue, I cant have an abortion. Good job protecting women, Arkansas! I hope you have the funds to take care of a whole bunch of 20 week "unborn humans" because that bill is going to be high for a long time!

Do they seriously not think this shit through?

I've had clients with serious psychiatric conditions.

Let's say that a woman is hospitalized, and while hospitalized gets pregnant. Maybe she got together with another patient while having a manic episode, or maybe she was sexually assaulted (a risk when people are institutionalized and extremely vulnerable). Between the mental illness and the stress of being hospitalized, she's not exactly tracking her cycles. By the time the pregnancy is obvious, she is around 20 weeks along. Or, let's say that she's not hospitalized, but either street-involved, or struggling in the community.

Now, once the pregnancy is diagnosed, doctors are reluctant to prescribe her meds. What happens now? What if those meds are the only thing standing between her and full-blown episodes of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? What if going off of those meds means that she is suidical, or a danger to her other children?

[Buzzard]

Now, once the pregnancy is diagnosed, doctors are reluctant to prescribe her meds. What happens now? What if those meds are the only thing standing between her and full-blown episodes of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? What if going off of those meds means that she is suidical, or a danger to her other children?

If this passes the house and becomes law, and she lives in Arkansas, she's fucked. She's excluded because of being suicidal, and she's excluded because her psychological condition is irrelevant. All that psychological stuff is just debil mumbo jumbo to these lawmakers. She just needs to pray away her demons, accept Jesus, have the baby, and all will be well.

The bottom line is they care somewhere between jack and shit about the actual health of the mother. Dead women make news, women who have schizophrenic episodes because they're off their meds while pregnant do not. Since only one makes the news their bill (and teh baybeez) are safe if they exempt psych conditions.

[merrily]

Is it also going to grant rapists visiting rights and custody? Since it's all about the MENZ and all.

[Buzzard]

Is it also going to grant rapists visiting rights and custody? Since it's all about the MENZ and all.

Had to go back and read it. No, it does not grant a rapist custody rights, but it does give him...

GROUNDS TO FUCKING SUE THE DR IF SHE ABORTS

You cant make this shit up!

[dawbs]

Is it also going to grant rapists visiting rights and custody? Since it's all about the MENZ and all.

They've already got it there:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 ... 52183.html

[Buzzard]

Arkansas is clearly going to win the "speshyl snowflayke" state award. Here's another gem presently proposed.

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/ ... HB1098.pdf

AN ACT TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF "CHILD" UNDER THE

9 CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

SECTION 1. Arkansas Code § 12-18-103(5), concerning the definition of

20 child, is amended to read as follows:

21 (5) "Child" or "juvenile" means an individual who is from birth

22 the time a fetal heartbeat can be detected to eighteen (18) years of age;

23

24 SECTION 2. Arkansas Code Title 12, Chapter 18, Subchapter 3, is

25 amended to add an additional section to read as follows:

26 12-18-311. Reports of abuse of an unborn child.

27 (a) Under this section "abuse" is limited to abuse defined in § 12-18-

28 103(2)(A)(vii)(f) and (g).

29 (b) A medical professional involved in the care of a pregnant woman

30 shall contact the Child Abuse Hotline regarding suspected abuse of an unborn

31 child.

32 © The Child Abuse Hotline shall accept a report of abuse to an

33 unborn child if the reporter is a medical professional.

34 (d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for abuse under this

35 section if the pregnant mother:

36 (1) Is not aware that she is pregnant;

1 (2) Has been advised by a medical professional that a substance

2 is safe to consume during pregnancy

Ok, full stop. My doctor, assuming this is passed, must report me for child abuse, if I give my 'unborn human' that which I couldnt legally give my infant so... If I:

- Drink

- Smoke

- Take illegal drugs

- Take legal drugs (*cough* psych meds *cough*) or any other prescription that might not be sooper awesome for my fetus

- Likely eat hard cheese and sushi if narrowly tailored...

- Consume CAFFEINE...

The list keeps growing...

Affirmative defense, are they fucking kidding me? An affirmative defense is different than a standard criminal case. In a normal case, the burden is on the state to prove that your dumb ass robbed the Chik fil a etc. The state has to prove that YOU did it, the date that you did it etc. An affirmative defense means that the state can sit back and only prove that a dr determined (or you told your dr) that you had a diet coke in direct abuse of your fetus. YOU then have to PROVE that someone told you that drinking diet coke while pregnant is totally cool (google wont work, youre gonna need a live person or testify yourself), or that you DIDNT know you were pregnant. A jury, of course, can choose to call you a pregnant, child abusing, diet coke drinking, liar - and a felon.

I just... no words...

eta - this is the list of shit you cant do to your fetus under this statute:

"Abuse" means any of the following acts or omissions by a parent, guardian, custodian, foster parent,

person eighteen (18) years of age or older living in the home with a child whether related or unrelated to the child, or any person who is entrusted with the child's care by a parent, guardian, custodian, or foster parent, including, but not limited to, an agent or employee of a public or private residential home, child care facility, public or private school, or any person legally responsible for the child's welfare, but excluding the spouse of a minor:

(i) Extreme or repeated cruelty to a child;

(ii) Engaging in conduct creating a realistic and serious threat of death, permanent or temporary

disfigurement, or impairment of any bodily organ;

(iii) Injury to a child's intellectual, emotional, or psychological development as evidenced by observable and

substantial impairment of the child's ability to function within the child's normal range of performance and

behavior;

(iv) Any injury that is at variance with the history given;

(v) Any nonaccidental physical injury;

(vi) Any of the following intentional or knowing acts, with physical injury and without justifiable cause:

(a) Throwing, kicking, burning, biting, or cutting a child;

(b) Striking a child with a closed fist;

© Shaking a child; or

(d) Striking a child on the face or head; or

(vii) Any of the following intentional or knowing acts, with or without physical injury:

(a) Striking a child six (6) years of age or younger on the face or head;

(b) Shaking a child three (3) years of age or younger;

© Interfering with a child's breathing;

(d) Pinching, biting, or striking a child in the genital area;

(e) Tying a child to a fixed or heavy object or binding or tying a child's limbs together;

(f) Giving a child or permitting a child to consume or inhale a poisonous or noxious substance not

prescribed by a physician that has the capacity to interfere with normal physiological functions;

(g) Giving a child or permitting a child to consume or inhale a substance not prescribed by a physician that has the capacity to alter the mood of the child, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) Marijuana;

(2) Alcohol, excluding alcohol given to a child during a recognized and established religious ceremony or service;

(3) A narcotic; or

(4) An over-the-counter drug if a person purposely administers an overdose to a child or purposely

gives an inappropriate over-the-counter drug to a child and the child is detrimentally impacted by the overdose or the over-the-counter drug;

(h) Exposing a child to a chemical that has the capacity to interfere with normal physiological functions,

including, but not limited to, a chemical used or generated during the manufacture of methamphetamine; or

(i) Subjecting a child to Munchausen syndrome by proxy or a factitious illness by proxy if the incident is

confirmed by medical personnel.

(B) (i) The list in subdivision (2)(A) of this section is illustrative of unreasonable action and is not intended to

be exclusive.

[Anxious Girl]

... Do these states that propose anti-women bills realize how much tourism they're losing? I'm politically stupid, so can somebody explain how states rights when it comes to abortion laws doesn't have to listen to federal laws? If conservative states want to be a part of America, shouldn't they abide by the federal laws? If somebody wants to get an abortion in a state that doesn't allow it but the federal government does, could they take the case to the Supreme Court?

[merrily]

Maybe a mass exodus of women will convince these nitwits that they're idiots.

[Anne Tudor]

You know this could go very wrong for them imagine a generation of children raised by women who were forced into motherhood.

Unfortunately, I don't have to imagine this. This is now. I'm not sure how many of you realize that already there is a total of one place in Mississippi (for example) to have an abortion.

[Jana814]

This is so horrible!! I am so greatful I live in a state where this kind of bill would never be introduced!!

[snarkykitty]

I would like to know what law is going to be passed along with this that requires doctors to treat high risk pregnant women at no cost. I live in Utah where it is hard to get an abortion, almost impossible if you are high risk since the 2 clinics that are providers are outpatient & not connected to hospitals. I had a very high risk pregnancy and at first no doctors would take me. I was lucky I had seen an east coast academic dr years before who basically forced an dr to take my case but that dr did not take my insurance. While I waited to find a dr, I was in the hospital and my case was actually presented to some board that was created to make exceptions to the strict laws. I was actually granted an exception, but by the time they granted it I was almost 20 weeks. It took this board 12 weeks to decide IF I had a choice. I could not travel to another state. By 20 weeks I had worked with my insurance & ended up agreeing to pay the first 15k(if I had found a dr on my plan it would have been $2500). I love my child but I now 10 years later I will have lifelong medical issues and have pretty severe (IMO) lifelong restrictions due to vascular & renal complications.

I know that the Duggars & friends think this is some grand victory, & in their minds they are helping all these single moms make the right choice...but what will they do for the underinsured, high risk, children that are born serverly disabled, all the senarios that would likely come up??

I know traveling to another state is an option but it is not always possible or has its own risks. I talked with a someone that had to travel 5 hours to Vegas to get an abortion and she had serious complications on the ride home. I know others that can't afford to take 2-3 days off work.

I had a friend in college who took BC to regulate her hormones because she had very heavy periods. Insurance did not cover her BC, so she paid for it herself. One month, she got her prescription late (she couldn't pay for it on the day she usually filled it and missed a few days) and ended up getting pregnant. She went to a clinic not associated with a hospital. She had the abortion at around 3 months pregnant (it took her that long to come up with the money). After the procedure, she was bleeding quite a bit , but they told her it was normal and sent her home with huge maternity pads. She had taken the bus and was on her way back to campus and ended up passing out right there on the bus. She ended up in the hospital for a week getting transfusions and they finally diagnosed her with Von Willebrand's disease - it affects the blood's ability to clot. So now, her insurance was paying tens of thousands of dollars to treat her for six days in the hospital, when it could have covered her BC for $30 or a few hundred for her abortion.

The Reproductive Endocrinologist she saw later in her 20s told her that it turned out to be a blessing in disguise because birthing a full-term baby (which is naturally a bloody event) without knowledge of Von Willebrand's can be deadly, and some women don't find out until they've had surgery or gone into childbirth. She ended up not having children because it was very hard to manage her condition, and she had a lot of problems that would have made pregnancy really difficult.

[EmiGirl]

From a friend on facebook:

Had a good political discussion out here in Arkansas. They are in the process of passing a law that would make it illegal to have an abortion if a heart beat is detectable. Awesome!

Makes me want to bang my head into the wall.

[JenniferJuniper]

I'm politically stupid, so can somebody explain how states rights when it comes to abortion laws doesn't have to listen to federal laws? If conservative states want to be a part of America, shouldn't they abide by the federal laws? If somebody wants to get an abortion in a state that doesn't allow it but the federal government does, could they take the case to the Supreme Court?

The Arkansas law is unconstitutional. States cannot prohibit abortions pre-viability. They also cannot impose "substantial obstacles" to a woman's right to choice termination prior to viability.

So after much litigation and expense, this will be deemed unconstitutional.

But I am curious as to how the state plans on handling the investigation aspect here. Surely every miscarriage from the 6 week mark on would require a criminal investigation into whether the induction was intentional and if so, whether a heartbeat could have been detected prior to induction. The state would have to significantly expand its ranks of government employees to serve as Uterine Police Investigators. And then there will be all of the people they'll need to hire to manage the paperwork; the subpoenaing of medical records, the storage of evidence, etc. The courts will overflow with arraignments and hearings and new jails will need to be built to house all accused and convicted embryo murderers.

Small government be damned, I guess.

[Buzzard]

From a friend on facebook:

Makes me want to bang my head into the wall.

Go ahead and ask her how she likes that vaginal probe.

[dairyfreelife]

eta - this is the list of shit you cant do to your fetus under this statute:

OT slightly, but the bolded is interesting. If it's abuse to strike a young child under age 6 on the face or head...a little push and striking a child with any object could be called abuse by law. Only positive I see there. Nothing to do with fetuses though.

[Buzzard]

OT slightly, but the bolded is interesting. If it's abuse to strike a young child under age 6 on the face or head...a little push and striking a child with any object could be called abuse by law. Only positive I see there. Nothing to do with fetuses though.

Of course, its not that straighforward, that would be logical! the law has exceptions. I didnt post them all because the post would have been huge, but here they are:

(i) "Abuse" does not include physical discipline of a child when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.

(ii) "Abuse" does not include when a child suffers transient pain or minor temporary marks as the result of

an appropriate restraint if:

(a) The person exercising the restraint is:

(1) An employee of a child welfare agency licensed or exempted from licensure under the Child Welfare

Agency Licensing Act, § 9-28-401 et seq.; and

(2) Acting in his or her official capacity while on duty at a child welfare agency licensed or exempted

from licensure under the Child Welfare Agency Licensing Act, § 9-28-401 et seq.;

(b) The agency has policy and procedures regarding restraints;

© No other alternative exists to control the child except for a restraint;

(d) The child is in danger or hurting himself or herself or others;

(e) The person exercising the restraint has been trained in properly restraining children, de-escalation,

and conflict resolution techniques;

(f) The restraint is for a reasonable period of time; and

(g) The restraint is in conformity with training and agency policy and procedures.

(iii) Reasonable and moderate physical discipline inflicted by a parent or guardian does not include any act that is likely to cause and which does cause injury more serious than transient pain or minor temporary marks

They wrote themselves an out, you can leave a mark but it has to be a "minor temporary mark". So you can smash your kid across the face or pinch your baby no prob.

[EmiGirl]

Go ahead and ask her how she likes that vaginal probe.

How surprised would you be to find out that it was a man who posted it? ALthough his wife and several other women "liked" the status.

[sunshine]

Adoption is an option for women who don't want to be mothers but are pregnant. They should allow that child to have the opportunity that the woman has exeprienced.

[Ralar]

I know this is seriously horrible to say this; I wouldn't wish this on anyone, no matter how much I despised their politics....

but maybe if CLown Car got pregnant again and did pass away, they'd learn their lesson. Of course, knowing the Duggars, they'd probaly would just spin this into some kind of martyrdom which would amp the cause even worse.

And Smuggar would snap an Instagram pic of J'Chelle's casket in the grave, and caption it, "We just buried my mother." The next shot would be Smuggs celebrating with a big juicy burger.

[Spider Burps]

Adoption is an option for women who don't want to be mothers but are pregnant. They should allow that child to have the opportunity that the woman has exeprienced.

....srsly? SRSLY? Joshie or Anna, is that you?!

[Buzzard]

Adoption is an option for women who don't want to be mothers but are pregnant. They should allow that child to have the opportunity that the woman has exeprienced.

You do understand that some women DONT WANT TO BE PREGNANT??? Or perhaps WANT to be pregnant, but cant because of other circumstances?

[dawbs]

Adoption is an option for women who don't want to be mothers but are pregnant. They should allow that child to have the opportunity that the woman has exeprienced.

And if the father wants custody, he gets it.

SO a forced pregnancy is an awesome way for abusive assholes/rapists to control their victims.

. One large study in Northern California showed that among women 16-29 years old who attended health clinics:

More than one in seven had experienced birth control sabotage at some point in their lives.

One in five said their partners had pressured them to get pregnant.

About one in three women who reported partner violence also reported reproductive coercion.

Reproductive coercion was reported by one in eight women who had never experienced other forms of partner violence—which means it can also happen in relationships that are not otherwise abusive.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/abuse- ... z2K3mOrcNN