Arizona governor says he has signed abortion bill into law
Source: Reuters
(Reuters) - Arizona's Republican governor, Doug Ducey, said on Monday he has signed into law a controversial measure blocking women from buying insurance that includes abortion coverage through the federal healthcare exchange.
The fiercely debated bill also requires doctors to tell women they could possibly reverse the effects of a drug-induced abortion, a claim that critics have called "junk science."
The measure cleared the Republican-controlled state legislature last week, largely along party lines.
"The American people overwhelmingly oppose taxpayer funding of abortions, and it's no different in Arizona, where we have long-standing policy against subsidizing them with public dollars," Ducey said in a statement after signing the measure on Monday. "This legislation provides clarity to state law."
(Reporting by David Schwartz in Phoenix, Arizona; Writing by Eric M. Johnson; Editing by Eric Beech)
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/31/us-usa-congress-abortion-idUSKBN0MR01F20150331
US | Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:32pm EDT
PHOENIX | BY ERIC M. JOHNSON
Short article. No more at link.
homegirl
(1,428 posts)there is no War on Women!
niyad
(113,277 posts)PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)I'm pretty new here, and I keep seeing K and R. Can you tell me what that means and how to do it when I like a post? Thanks!
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)Volaris
(10,270 posts)And welcome to DU.
Suich
(10,642 posts)You just type it in where you would a reply to a thread!
Suich
(10,642 posts)"The American people overwhelmingly oppose taxpayer funding of abortions."
Are there any polls anywhere that support this?
former9thward
(31,987 posts)The Hyde amendment which prohibits tax money for abortions has existed for decades and has been supported by a majority of Democrats and Republicans.
CNN Poll: Wide divide over abortion
A CNN/ORC International survey also indicates that a majority opposes taxpayer money being used to pay for abortions for women who can't afford the procedure, with Americans split on whether women who receive government subsidies for health insurance should be able to get a plan that covers abortions.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/06/cnn-poll-wide-divide-over-abortion/
Marthe48
(16,945 posts)Please please please ACA do an end-run around this kind of ass-backward law.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)that they can't select a policy that includes abortion?!?
Can a man buy that policy?
How can this shit be legal?
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)And where was THAT poll?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)former9thward
(31,987 posts)This has existed for decades.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/06/cnn-poll-wide-divide-over-abortion/
niyad
(113,277 posts)former9thward
(31,987 posts)Not contradictory at all. Also a majority do not support abortion on demand. That has never been the case. Only 28% support abortion under any circumstances. 50% support abortion under certain circumstances.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx
niyad
(113,277 posts)polls are framed.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)Why people are so insecure in their beliefs that they must have the majority agreeing with them I don't know. I believe in a number of things the majority does not. I don't care. And I certainly don't say the polls are wrong if they show a majority does not agree with me.
I sure you will supply some polls that show these polls are wrong....
niyad
(113,277 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)from dangerous pregnancies.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Of back alley abortions, because they will never legislate away a woman's right to self govern her own body.
Here again we find Republicans wanting to get between you and your doctor.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)unless she has control over when and under what circumstances she will become a mother.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)She believed in a master race and believed in using abortion to create it.
As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit. In The Morality of Birth Control, a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the educated and informed class that regulated the size of their families, the intelligent and responsible who desired to control their families however did not have the means or the knowledge and the irresponsible and reckless people whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Sanger concludes there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating. Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
A disgusting individual.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)The fact Sanger was for eugenics, which many people were at the time, at least before Hitler showed the world what eugenics taken to its logical conclusion looked like, doesn't take away from the fact she was a powerful feminist. But, if you don't like Sanger, then try Gloria Steinem:
If you say, I'm for equal pay, that's a reform. But if you say. I'm a feminist, that's a transformation of society.
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)can't even consider it now the inmates have taken over the asylum.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)You're supposed to give it, not get it.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)LuckyLib
(6,819 posts)and women-hating legislation. It's all from the same Republican cloth.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)Grins
(7,217 posts)How can a STATE block its citizens from buying insurance from a FEDERAL exchange? It's not their exchange and it's not their money, so how?
This reminds of the red states voting for nullification laws that are clearly unconstitutional.
Angleae
(4,482 posts)for abortions from all policies.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)They can also opt out of the Women's Health Services under the FEDERAL ACA because it is against their religion? Look for legal challenges to this one in Federal Courts.
Angleae
(4,482 posts)Only the following
Ambulatory patient services
Emergency services
Hospitalization
Maternity and newborn care
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
Laboratory services
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care
http://www.healthedeals.com/articles/what-are-aca%E2%80%93required-essential-health-benefits
The state can mandate all insurance policies to cover or not cover anything that is not otherwise required or prohibited by federal law.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Contraceptive coverage IS, and many of these extreme religious fundies, consider the ordinary Pill, Morning After Pill, to be early abortions also. Next?
Angleae
(4,482 posts)Contraceptive coverage would not be affected, regardless of what fundies think. The morning after pill, however, could go either way depending on what the courts decide it is.
But then again, there's the Hobby Lobby case providing "religious exemptions"
RKP5637
(67,107 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)The politicians have lost their freaking minds in Arizona.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)This legalizes drug companies to order doctors to lie to their patients about the drugs they may need to use. This law opens the "free-market" fascist corporate/government partnership floodgates.
And takes basic rights away from women. More bigotry from the gop.