AZ passes law saying life beings pre-conception

[jillian]

That's a whole 'nother thread, J. Look at how people define a woman's behavior vs a man's.

well, i'm guessing he hasn't been around many women...

 

[BDBoop]

That's a whole 'nother thread, J. Look at how people define a woman's behavior vs a man's.

well, i'm guessing he hasn't been around many women...

Doesn't appear so, no. Given the level of rage, some woman is in full control of his life, with none of the benefits usually attendant. I'm not going to speculate further, lest I be in breach of board etiquette.

 

[jillian]

That's a whole 'nother thread, J. Look at how people define a woman's behavior vs a man's.

well, i'm guessing he hasn't been around many women...

Doesn't appear so, no. Given the level of rage, some woman is in full control of his life, with none of the benefits usually attendant. I'm not going to speculate further, lest I be in breach of board etiquette.

there's board etiquette?

someone needs to tell the lowlifes... antisemites and racists.

 

[Londoner]

the allegedly 'small government GOP'er Jan Brewer has signed into law saying, essentially, life begins two weeks before conception.

so now, every time you ovulate...congrats you're a mom.

The GOP uses religion morality terrorism patriotism drugs abortion illegal-aliens socialism marxism fascism liberals gays as a way to grow government. They want Big Government to be the moral epicenter of the world. They want government out of the board room and into the bedroom. They want total moral control over reproduction and sexuality.

I think they like having social issues to motivate voters.

Reagan passed the largest amnesty bill in history in order to flood California with cheap labor (to break unions and lower labor costs for big business). Then Talk Radio screamed "Borders,Language, Culture" for 30 years. Now, the GOP is waiting for one more homeland attack so they can issue biometric ID cards so the state has total awareness of the location of all citizens. Thy use fear over terrorists and illegals and gays to create more agencies, bigger law enforcement, more surveillance, and more laws. The use abortion to insert Big Brother between doctor and womb. They create moral panics. They have created a world where there is always a secret contagion of evil doers that justify increasing the power of government and creating massive new surveillance agencies with KGB/3rd Reich sounding names - "Homeland Security". They have found a demographic of stupid voters whom they constantly terrorize with fear over gays and illegals and islamofascists and baby killers. It's a crude form of McCarthyism where Russians are hiding under the bed and gay gym teachers are secretly making little Jimmy gay and liberals secretly control the press despite the fact that large mega-corporations who want lower taxes own all media. Watch the Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street". It shows how people will devour each other over paranoia of the unknown. This is where the GOP lives. They use fear and moral contagions to make government bigger. If Romney gets elected, FOX will go back to daily terror alerts. We will hear daily stories about how gays, terrorists, illegals, and baby killers are destroying the Real America. This will lead to the rise of Real Americans . . . as the outsiders and scapegoats are put on trains....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually I've had the chance to read every sentence of the House version and the Senate Version and they both refelct the wishes of the Center for Arizona Policy a Christian faith based group supported by one of the bills principle sponsors Rep. Kimberly Yee.

Life – Center for Arizona Policy is dedicated to the protection of human life from the time of conception to the end of natural life. We promote public policy to protect the unborn child and their mothers. In further support of life, we oppose euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
About Us | Center for Arizona Policy

I find it unsurprising that religious affiliated groups would support the law.

Abortion promoters are generally leftist groups and abortion opponents tend to be religious.

Even so, the Arizona law does nothing to establish ecumenical law.

Now in the text of the bill you have this.

"Unborn child" means the offspring of human beings from
conception until birth.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2036s.pdf

Precise definitions of terms are helpful in legislation.

Now as only a few religions in the United States recognize this as being a true statement mainly Islam and Christianity, and that does not square with the beliefs of some others such as the Jewish faith...

It's civil law, not a statement of faith. What religions do or do not recognize is utterly irrelevant.

Again, it appears your objections are based on your religious intolerance rather than on law.

In Jewish law, life begins at birth, that is, at the time when all of the child's head has emerged from the mother's body, or when the child is more than halfway out if the head does not come out first. The consequences of this are discussed in more detail in the section on Abortion.

Birth and the First Month of Life / Torah 101 / Mechon Mamre


and if you look at the Buddhist faith it...

Buddhism does consider abortion to be the taking of a human life. At the same time, Buddhists generally are reluctant to intervene in a woman's personal decision to terminate a pregnancy. Buddhism may discourage abortion, but it also discourages imposing rigid moral absolutes.

and Islam...

Muslim views on abortion are shaped by the Quran and Hadith as well as by the opinions of legal and religious scholars and commentators. In Islam, the fetus is believed to become a living soul after four months of gestation...

Again, the law is not here to promote NOR prohibit religion.

That is just a few of the main stream religions in the United States views on the subject, now as we have this statement in the Consititution.

1st Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Establisment Clause :

"[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

And?

Frankly I find it somewhat interesting that some would shout to anyone who would listen that the Healthcare Act is taking away peoples Freedom of Religion as given in the 1st Amendment but as so willing to step on those same rights for others when it comes to another subject they happen to believe in.

Obama declared war on the Catholic Church by forcing them to provide contraceptives in direct defiance of ecumenical law.

A restriction on abortion does not. There is no religious precept, except among democrats who hold abortion as a religious faith.

Abortion, under the law dictated by the unelected SCOTUS with RvW, already limited abortion in the second trimester. The Arizona law merely moves the limit by using gestational age, potentially creating more requirements for review at 18 weeks rather than 20.

When you build a Law like HB2036 from the outset that does not take into consideration all the views of your citizens

ROFL

Yeah, where dictating law without bothering with legislation, ratification or signing with potential veto, respects all views..

Seriously dude, you are speaking of a law that followed legal procedures that places minimal restrictions on a law that was dictated by the judiciary.

Save the faux outrage.

and more so a narrow view that is not held by others then you seek to take away rights from those same people. Further as I have said many times in " Planned Parenthood v. Casey" Justice O'Conner reaffirmed Roe and further held that states can prevent abortions on viable pregnancies.

Unlike law dictated by unelected judges, should the majority of Arizona residents oppose to the action of their legislature, they can vote them out of office and replace them with legislators more to their liking.

Had the state of Arizona simply followed the path laid down in the Casey decision rather than seek to deny the rights of all women who do not hold to a particular religious view, then that law would have met with litte issue with me.

Arizona is acting within the structure on the dictated RvW law. Roe established the guidelines. Yes, those have been a farce from the start, completely ignored allowing infanticide ala Tiller. But it was the law written by the Judiciary that established the constraints on abortion. You simply never thought anyone would enforce them.

No matter, as I have said many times, this nation is a nation of people that hold many different views on subjects of which ALL of them need to be respected and when we as a nation seek to legislate based on a singular view as in this case then we deny hard won rights to others and it really is that simple. I might add this too, those same people who wrote this bill and are so pro-life and concerned with womens issues had no problem passing bills that allow preditory collection companies to thrive here as well as, passing bills that enforce Arizona's death penalty.

You of the pro-abortion beliefs seek to dictate the law to all. Arizona is operating inside the law that a pro-abortion court dictated.

The quandary you have is how to crush the liberty of the citizens of the state of Arizona without causing RvW to be overturned. After all, HB2036 works withing the framework of the dictated RvW law.

So perhaps it's best to let these legislators concentrate on whats really wrong here in Arizona, and that is the economy, and leave the moral issues to the hearts and minds of it's citizen who are best able to deal with them.

You mean, leave the questions to unelected justices in Washington DC, rather than the the representatives they elect in their own state?

 

[Liability]

it's always funny watching one of the stupidest and least respected members of the forum try to insult one of the smartest and most respected members of the forum.

Then stop trying to insult me, skank.

I applaud you for the self-awareness that you are indeed about the stupidest member of the forum.

You know Jillian, there are people like you, with IQ's in the low 80's, who do fine in life. You have choices, you could choose not to be a skank.

Standard Disclaimer: I'm just saying

I have had a few battles (mostly the big ones were in the more or less distant past) with Jillian. And I am not above being disrespectful right back when I have been on the receiving end. In short, I aint no saint.

However, as a matter of technical precision, I will say this. There is not a valid reason on Earth to refer to Jillian as a "skank."

She's actually pretty smart, willing to engage in genuine argument and also willing to pepper the conversation with some seasoning. If she's wrong on a point, establish it. But to suggest that she's a "skank" is kind off -- well -- baseless.

 

[Uncensored2008]

refer to my post above...

What post?

LOL;

Seriously, you're a little Jr. High girl spewing insults.

You have your little clique and get to PM about all those you hate, just like you did in Jr. High.

it's particularly entertaining watching you sink to calling women 'skanks'...

I don't call women "skanks," I call YOU a skank.

but par for the course for miserable failures like you.

just sayin'

and you might want to see a doctor about your lack of connection with reality.

Hey stupidfuck, the subject of discussion is Arizona HB2036. Oh, you know you hate it and will neg anyone who doesn't cry and moan about how awful it is that people in Arizona should be allowed to pass laws that might conflict with edicts given by our rulers.

You'll giggle and talk with the other little girls about how much you hate.

But what you won't do is offer a reasoned or rational argument. You won't, because you can't, because you're as stupid as a fucking brick. You can't post your thoughts on this, or any subject, because you have no thoughts. You truly are stupid, and we both know it.

What is really amazing is that you're so fucking stupid that you actually think you can intimidate people with your negs and calling your socks/clique members to neg.

I don't intimidate, skank. I can mop the floor with your dumb ass, and will do so. You know that in actual debate, your 5th grade education will be exposed to all. It already is, skank.

I ask you before, stupidfuck, what you precisely objected to in the law. You couldn't answer, you have no idea. The hate sites told you it "outlaws abortion" so you shriek and panic that an abortion somewhere, might not be performed. But you have no idea what's in the law or what any of it means.

Because you really are stupid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have had a few battles (mostly the big ones were in the more or less distant past) with Jillian. And I am not above being disrespectful right back when I have been on the receiving end. In short, I aint no saint.

However, as a matter of technical precision, I will say this. There is not a valid reason on Earth to refer to Jillian as a "skank."

Oh sure there is!

I don't call women the "C" word, not even Jillian.

So "skank" it is.

She's actually pretty smart,

Nonsense, she's an utter dolt. I see almost no difference between her and TruthMatters, save that TM has better manners.

willing to engage in genuine argument and also willing to pepper the conversation with some seasoning. If she's wrong on a point, establish it. But to suggest that she's a "skank" is kind off -- well -- baseless.

I've never seen her approach "reasonable" nor offer anything useful or meaningful to any thread.

Ever.

 

[jillian]

I have had a few battles (mostly the big ones were in the more or less distant past) with Jillian. And I am not above being disrespectful right back when I have been on the receiving end. In short, I aint no saint.

However, as a matter of technical precision, I will say this. There is not a valid reason on Earth to refer to Jillian as a "skank."

Oh sure there is!

I don't call women the "C" word, not even Jillian.

So "skank" it is.

She's actually pretty smart,

Nonsense, she's an utter dolt. I see almost no difference between her and TruthMatters, save that TM has better manners.

willing to engage in genuine argument and also willing to pepper the conversation with some seasoning. If she's wrong on a point, establish it. But to suggest that she's a "skank" is kind off -- well -- baseless.

I've never seen her approach "reasonable" nor offer anything useful or meaningful to any thread.

Ever.

you know you don't know how to have a discussion. you've never been reasonable about anything. and you're dumb as toast.

why would anyone engage you?

 

[BDBoop]

refer to my post above...

What post?

LOL;

Seriously, you're a little Jr. High girl spewing insults.

You have your little clique and get to PM about all those you hate, just like you did in Jr. High.

it's particularly entertaining watching you sink to calling women 'skanks'...

I don't call women "skanks," I call YOU a skank.

but par for the course for miserable failures like you.

just sayin'

and you might want to see a doctor about your lack of connection with reality.

Hey stupidfuck, the subject of discussion is Arizona HB2036. Oh, you know you hate it and will neg anyone who doesn't cry and moan about how awful it is that people in Arizona should be allowed to pass laws that might conflict with edicts given by our rulers.

You'll giggle and talk with the other little girls about how much you hate.

But what you won't do is offer a reasoned or rational argument. You won't, because you can't, because you're as stupid as a fucking brick. You can't post your thoughts on this, or any subject, because you have no thoughts. You truly are stupid, and we both know it.

What is really amazing is that you're so fucking stupid that you actually think you can intimidate people with your negs and calling your socks/clique members to neg.

I don't intimidate, skank. I can mop the floor with your dumb ass, and will do so. You know that in actual debate, your 5th grade education will be exposed to all. It already is, skank.

I ask you before, stupidfuck, what you precisely objected to in the law. You couldn't answer, you have no idea. The hate sites told you it "outlaws abortion" so you shriek and panic that an abortion somewhere, might not be performed. But you have no idea what's in the law or what any of it means.

Because you really are stupid.

And what makes your stupidity so blatantly obvious is you thinking Jillian needs to round people up to neg rap you. Now I will give you that we do point and laugh by PM. It's hard not to, what with you being a joke and all. But the only person acting like a junior high student is you and PS: I still don't believe you're a teacher.

 

[jillian]

refer to my post above...

What post?

LOL;

Seriously, you're a little Jr. High girl spewing insults.

You have your little clique and get to PM about all those you hate, just like you did in Jr. High.




I don't call women "skanks," I call YOU a skank.

but par for the course for miserable failures like you.

just sayin'

and you might want to see a doctor about your lack of connection with reality.

Hey stupidfuck, the subject of discussion is Arizona HB2036. Oh, you know you hate it and will neg anyone who doesn't cry and moan about how awful it is that people in Arizona should be allowed to pass laws that might conflict with edicts given by our rulers.

You'll giggle and talk with the other little girls about how much you hate.

But what you won't do is offer a reasoned or rational argument. You won't, because you can't, because you're as stupid as a fucking brick. You can't post your thoughts on this, or any subject, because you have no thoughts. You truly are stupid, and we both know it.

What is really amazing is that you're so fucking stupid that you actually think you can intimidate people with your negs and calling your socks/clique members to neg.

I don't intimidate, skank. I can mop the floor with your dumb ass, and will do so. You know that in actual debate, your 5th grade education will be exposed to all. It already is, skank.

I ask you before, stupidfuck, what you precisely objected to in the law. You couldn't answer, you have no idea. The hate sites told you it "outlaws abortion" so you shriek and panic that an abortion somewhere, might not be performed. But you have no idea what's in the law or what any of it means.

Because you really are stupid.

And what makes your stupidity so blatantly obvious is you thinking Jillian needs to round people up to neg rap you. Now I will give you that we do point and laugh by PM. It's hard not to, what with you being a joke and all. But the only person acting like a junior high student is you and PS: I still don't believe you're a teacher.

he says he's a teacher?

 

[BDBoop]

he says he's a teacher?

Yup. That's the allegation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

you know you don't know how to have a discussion.

Are you even aware that a "discussion" is not the recitation of the daily hating points from ThinkProgress with each person bleating out how wise they are?

No, of course you're not. You remain as stupid as a pile of bricks.

you've never been reasonable about anything. and you're dumb as toast.

ROFL

Yet I can outwit you, every time.

Hey Jilly, you have rep points that you can neg with; I have IQ points I can debate with.

We both have differing strengths...

why would anyone engage you?

You can't engage anyone. You bleat what you are told to bleat from the hates sites.

It's not like you have the brains requisite to form an opinion of your own.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

And what makes your stupidity so blatantly obvious is you thinking Jillian needs to round people up to neg rap you.

Yawn, another of the Jr.High clique heard from.

Now I will give you that we do point and laugh by PM. It's hard not to, what with you being a joke and all. But the only person acting like a junior high student is you and PS: I still don't believe you're a teacher.

You can believe I'm a trash truck driver.

What reason would I have to care what you believe?

It's not like I have so much as a scintilla of respect for you...

 

[Inthemiddle]

If they were causing abortions in wild animals the way they are doing in humans the left would be having a fit. What is it about unborn human beings that confuses lefties? Are they saying they aren't alive or are they saying they aren't human?

Causing abortions? That's like saying that alcohol consumption being legal causes alcoholism.

 

[Navy1960]

Actually I've had the chance to read every sentence of the House version and the Senate Version and they both refelct the wishes of the Center for Arizona Policy a Christian faith based group supported by one of the bills principle sponsors Rep. Kimberly Yee.

Life – Center for Arizona Policy is dedicated to the protection of human life from the time of conception to the end of natural life. We promote public policy to protect the unborn child and their mothers. In further support of life, we oppose euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
About Us | Center for Arizona Policy

I find it unsurprising that religious affiliated groups would support the law.

Abortion promoters are generally leftist groups and abortion opponents tend to be religious.

Even so, the Arizona law does nothing to establish ecumenical law.

Now in the text of the bill you have this.

"Unborn child" means the offspring of human beings from
conception until birth.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2036s.pdf

Precise definitions of terms are helpful in legislation.



It's civil law, not a statement of faith. What religions do or do not recognize is utterly irrelevant.

Again, it appears your objections are based on your religious intolerance rather than on law.



Again, the law is not here to promote NOR prohibit religion.



And?



Obama declared war on the Catholic Church by forcing them to provide contraceptives in direct defiance of ecumenical law.

A restriction on abortion does not. There is no religious precept, except among democrats who hold abortion as a religious faith.

Abortion, under the law dictated by the unelected SCOTUS with RvW, already limited abortion in the second trimester. The Arizona law merely moves the limit by using gestational age, potentially creating more requirements for review at 18 weeks rather than 20.



ROFL

Yeah, where dictating law without bothering with legislation, ratification or signing with potential veto, respects all views..

Seriously dude, you are speaking of a law that followed legal procedures that places minimal restrictions on a law that was dictated by the judiciary.

Save the faux outrage.




Unlike law dictated by unelected judges, should the majority of Arizona residents oppose to the action of their legislature, they can vote them out of office and replace them with legislators more to their liking.



Arizona is acting within the structure on the dictated RvW law. Roe established the guidelines. Yes, those have been a farce from the start, completely ignored allowing infanticide ala Tiller. But it was the law written by the Judiciary that established the constraints on abortion. You simply never thought anyone would enforce them.

No matter, as I have said many times, this nation is a nation of people that hold many different views on subjects of which ALL of them need to be respected and when we as a nation seek to legislate based on a singular view as in this case then we deny hard won rights to others and it really is that simple. I might add this too, those same people who wrote this bill and are so pro-life and concerned with womens issues had no problem passing bills that allow preditory collection companies to thrive here as well as, passing bills that enforce Arizona's death penalty.

You of the pro-abortion beliefs seek to dictate the law to all. Arizona is operating inside the law that a pro-abortion court dictated.

The quandary you have is how to crush the liberty of the citizens of the state of Arizona without causing RvW to be overturned. After all, HB2036 works withing the framework of the dictated RvW law.

So perhaps it's best to let these legislators concentrate on whats really wrong here in Arizona, and that is the economy, and leave the moral issues to the hearts and minds of it's citizen who are best able to deal with them.

You mean, leave the questions to unelected justices in Washington DC, rather than the the representatives they elect in their own state?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.said the Constitution does not allow for “government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.”

So basically what your saying is as long as the ethical decision or law is made that suits the needs of the religion you or someone else happens to believe in thats fine,and perfectly legal and when it runs contrary to that then it becomes those unelected judges making decisions again. Funny, how those same "unelected judges" are the one's people count on to overturn laws they don't happen to believe in when it suits their purpose. You can choose to read it as you choose, and yes, while states do defiine terms when writing bills, the term I highlighted for you is one that runs contrary to what Juctice Roberts and the other 8 Judges said just recently to the Obama Administration about the very same issue when it came to contraceptives.


After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity, [505 U.S. 833, 846] and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed.

It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.
Justice O'Conner Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

As stated this is what the State of Arizona must follow, and in establishing a principle in the law that conflicts with the 1st Amendment it then violates not only the 1st Amendment but the courts ruling as well. Further the ruling states very clearly the word "viablilty" which I have said many times here I have no issue with, what I do have issue with is one group imposing its moral views through legislation upon another.

As for religious intolerence I find it interesting that someone who would argue for "liberty" for all religions would be accused of that and someone who would argue for a law based on the principles of one would make the accusation. No matter, my stance is quite simple and easy to grasp, and rooted in the principle that " liberty" is not just the property of the self righteous but is the property of all Americans and Laws written be they state or federal should reflect that. We all live under the same constitution and last I checked even the state of Arizona is not it's own nation, free to make any laws it so chooses that run contrary to it.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), we announced three "tests" that a statute must pass in order to avoid the prohibition of the Establishment Clause. [456 U.S. 228, 252]


"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster `an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.' Walz [v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 674 (1970)]." Id., at 612-613.

Again, had the state of Arizona wished to make a Law that was inline with Casey it would have done so, without the need to run afoul of what some religions believe, and would have made a Law that simply outlawed "viable" abortions as stated in the Casey decision.

Last thing, do not assume every person that disagree's on this issue is a so called leftist , as I stand proudly with many of my fellow conservatives on this issue, among them Sen. Barry Goldwater, and even former first Lady Laura Bush.

 

[Dr Grump]

I have had a few battles (mostly the big ones were in the more or less distant past) with Jillian. And I am not above being disrespectful right back when I have been on the receiving end. In short, I aint no saint.

However, as a matter of technical precision, I will say this. There is not a valid reason on Earth to refer to Jillian as a "skank."

Oh sure there is!

I don't call women the "C" word, not even Jillian.

So "skank" it is.



Nonsense, she's an utter dolt. I see almost no difference between her and TruthMatters, save that TM has better manners.

willing to engage in genuine argument and also willing to pepper the conversation with some seasoning. If she's wrong on a point, establish it. But to suggest that she's a "skank" is kind off -- well -- baseless.

I've never seen her approach "reasonable" nor offer anything useful or meaningful to any thread.

Ever.

you know you don't know how to have a discussion. you've never been reasonable about anything. and you're dumb as toast.

why would anyone engage you?

STOP IT JILLIAN!
There are pieces of toast all over America crying as they are being dipped into their sunnyside egg yolk at being compared to the lone braincell that is Uncensored...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.said the Constitution does not allow for “government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.”

That's nice.

Utterly irrelevant to the newly minted Arizona law, but nice anyway.

So basically what your saying is as long as the ethical decision or law is made that suits the needs of the religion you or someone else happens to believe in thats fine,and perfectly legal and when it runs contrary to that then it becomes those unelected judges making decisions again.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

I'm stating the fact that the basis of HB2564 is Roe V. Wade, not a religious precept. The restrictions of abortion are written into the unconstitutional law dictated by the judiciary, HB2564 merely enforces provisions that RvW facetiously contained.

Arizona legislators didn't pull the language of this law from the Bible or from a religious source, they took it from the federal law created by the Judiciary.

Funny, how those same "unelected judges" are the one's people count on to overturn laws they don't happen to believe in when it suits their purpose.

Overturning law has precedence under Marbury v. Madison. The creation of new law, as was done with RvW, violates the constitution and places dictatorial power in the hands of the Judiciary.

You can choose to read it as you choose, and yes, while states do defiine terms when writing bills, the term I highlighted for you is one that runs contrary to what Juctice Roberts and the other 8 Judges said just recently to the Obama Administration about the very same issue when it came to contraceptives.

Then good luck with your constitutional challenge.

Where you will run into problems, is that the law was crafted from RvW. To attack it, the pro-abortion side will have to attack Roe.

I think the authors did that on purpose.

After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity, [505 U.S. 833, 846] and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed.

That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.
Justice O'Conner Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

HB2564 doesn't prohibit abortion, nor does it restrict it beyond those restrictions that were already present in RvW.

HB2564 does two things: First, it enforces RvW. This is where you of the pro-abortion side are having fits. Roe was a farce, the restrictions of late term abortion were written into the unconstitutional law created by the Judiciary, but not enforced. The abortionist could make a "medical" decision that abortion was medically necessary. An obvious absurdity. HB2564 confirms RvW by solidifying the requirement of medical necessity for late term abortions through in independent medical provider who is not the recipient of financial gain for the abortion.

Secondly, it uses gestational age, which moves "late term" back 2 weeks.

As stated this is what the State of Arizona must follow, and in establishing a principle in the law that conflicts with the 1st Amendment it then violates not only the 1st Amendment but the courts ruling as well.

Can you show me where the 1st speaks of abortion?

Further the ruling states very clearly the word "viablilty" which I have said many times here I have no issue with, what I do have issue with is one group imposing its moral views through legislation upon another.

Unless of course, it is the pro-abortion side imposing said views, that is.

As for religious intolerence I find it interesting that someone who would argue for "liberty" for all religions would be accused of that and someone who would argue for a law based on the principles of one would make the accusation. No matter, my stance is quite simple and easy to grasp, and rooted in the principle that " liberty" is not just the property of the self righteous but is the property of all Americans and Laws written be they state or federal should reflect that. We all live under the same constitution and last I checked even the state of Arizona is not it's own nation, free to make any laws it so chooses that run contrary to it.

Yawn.

HB2564 is clever, it is wrapped in RvW.

Good luck attacking it.

Look, abortion is about money, hundreds of billions. I realize that the abortion industry will fight to continue revenue streams.

Even so, you'll have a hard time with this.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), we announced three "tests" that a statute must pass in order to avoid the prohibition of the Establishment Clause. [456 U.S. 228, 252]


"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster `an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.' Walz [v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 674 (1970)]." Id., at 612-613.

Again, had the state of Arizona wished to make a Law that was inline with Casey it would have done so, without the need to run afoul of what some religions believe, and would have made a Law that simply outlawed "viable" abortions as stated in the Casey decision.

They made law in line with Roe.

Last thing, do not assume every person that disagree's on this issue is a so called leftist , as I stand proudly with many of my fellow conservatives on this issue, among them Sen. Barry Goldwater, and even former first Lady Laura Bush.

Yeah...

 

[Navy1960]

Frankly, I have no data on what or how much money is the "abortion" business as you like to call it, however I have noticed that none of the data I have provided to you has been disputed with data other than an opinion, I do like how you dismiss Supreme Court rulings on the subject though as being " irrelevant and yet then rely on those so called " unelected judges" to make your case. No matter, Casey reaffirmed Roe, and in so doing made it clear the "viability" standard and am sorry to tell you this takes precedence. As to the 1st Amendment I've made it quite clear where the 1st Amendment applies in this case, and guess what, the word "contraceptive" is not there as well nor is the word , Christian,Islam, Jewish, you name and yet, isn't it ironic that every so often a case comes before the court with just those people and issues involved.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually I've had the chance to read every sentence of the House version and the Senate Version and they both refelct the wishes of the Center for Arizona Policy a Christian faith based group supported by one of the bills principle sponsors Rep. Kimberly Yee.

Life – Center for Arizona Policy is dedicated to the protection of human life from the time of conception to the end of natural life. We promote public policy to protect the unborn child and their mothers. In further support of life, we oppose euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
About Us | Center for Arizona Policy

I find it unsurprising that religious affiliated groups would support the law.

Abortion promoters are generally leftist groups and abortion opponents tend to be religious.

Even so, the Arizona law does nothing to establish ecumenical law.




Precise definitions of terms are helpful in legislation.



It's civil law, not a statement of faith. What religions do or do not recognize is utterly irrelevant.

Again, it appears your objections are based on your religious intolerance rather than on law.



Again, the law is not here to promote NOR prohibit religion.



And?



Obama declared war on the Catholic Church by forcing them to provide contraceptives in direct defiance of ecumenical law.

A restriction on abortion does not. There is no religious precept, except among democrats who hold abortion as a religious faith.

Abortion, under the law dictated by the unelected SCOTUS with RvW, already limited abortion in the second trimester. The Arizona law merely moves the limit by using gestational age, potentially creating more requirements for review at 18 weeks rather than 20.



ROFL

Yeah, where dictating law without bothering with legislation, ratification or signing with potential veto, respects all views..

Seriously dude, you are speaking of a law that followed legal procedures that places minimal restrictions on a law that was dictated by the judiciary.

Save the faux outrage.




Unlike law dictated by unelected judges, should the majority of Arizona residents oppose to the action of their legislature, they can vote them out of office and replace them with legislators more to their liking.



Arizona is acting within the structure on the dictated RvW law. Roe established the guidelines. Yes, those have been a farce from the start, completely ignored allowing infanticide ala Tiller. But it was the law written by the Judiciary that established the constraints on abortion. You simply never thought anyone would enforce them.



You of the pro-abortion beliefs seek to dictate the law to all. Arizona is operating inside the law that a pro-abortion court dictated.

The quandary you have is how to crush the liberty of the citizens of the state of Arizona without causing RvW to be overturned. After all, HB2036 works withing the framework of the dictated RvW law.

So perhaps it's best to let these legislators concentrate on whats really wrong here in Arizona, and that is the economy, and leave the moral issues to the hearts and minds of it's citizen who are best able to deal with them.

You mean, leave the questions to unelected justices in Washington DC, rather than the the representatives they elect in their own state?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.said the Constitution does not allow for “government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.”

So basically what your saying is as long as the ethical decision or law is made that suits the needs of the religion you or someone else happens to believe in thats fine,and perfectly legal and when it runs contrary to that then it becomes those unelected judges making decisions again. Funny, how those same "unelected judges" are the one's people count on to overturn laws they don't happen to believe in when it suits their purpose. You can choose to read it as you choose, and yes, while states do defiine terms when writing bills, the term I highlighted for you is one that runs contrary to what Juctice Roberts and the other 8 Judges said just recently to the Obama Administration about the very same issue when it came to contraceptives.


After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity, [505 U.S. 833, 846] and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed.

It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.
Justice O'Conner Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

As stated this is what the State of Arizona must follow, and in establishing a principle in the law that conflicts with the 1st Amendment it then violates not only the 1st Amendment but the courts ruling as well. Further the ruling states very clearly the word "viablilty" which I have said many times here I have no issue with, what I do have issue with is one group imposing its moral views through legislation upon another.

As for religious intolerence I find it interesting that someone who would argue for "liberty" for all religions would be accused of that and someone who would argue for a law based on the principles of one would make the accusation. No matter, my stance is quite simple and easy to grasp, and rooted in the principle that " liberty" is not just the property of the self righteous but is the property of all Americans and Laws written be they state or federal should reflect that. We all live under the same constitution and last I checked even the state of Arizona is not it's own nation, free to make any laws it so chooses that run contrary to it.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), we announced three "tests" that a statute must pass in order to avoid the prohibition of the Establishment Clause. [456 U.S. 228, 252]


"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster `an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.' Walz [v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 674 (1970)]." Id., at 612-613.

Again, had the state of Arizona wished to make a Law that was inline with Casey it would have done so, without the need to run afoul of what some religions believe, and would have made a Law that simply outlawed "viable" abortions as stated in the Casey decision.

Last thing, do not assume every person that disagree's on this issue is a so called leftist , as I stand proudly with many of my fellow conservatives on this issue, among them Sen. Barry Goldwater, and even former first Lady Laura Bush.

Very true, the above settled law should indeed be considered ‘conservative.’