A Boycott Vote Against Common Sense


When the Arizona House Health Committee passed a comprehensive bill to provide women critical health information about an important medical procedure, two State Representatives were conveniently absent.

As noted in an earlier post here on Sonoran Alliance, HB 2564 requires that the abortion industry provide women with important information prior to undergoing an abortion. The bill is pro-woman, pro-information, pro-patients’ rights and pro-choice (in the truest sense of the word).

Instead of showing up for the vote the two pro-abortion Democrats decided to “take their ball” and go hold a press conference. (David Bradley the other Democrat was excused.) I’d call that a legislative temper tantrum. Ed Ableser and Phil Lopes effectively shirked their duties and gave up their opportunity to vote as they always have – AGAINST this important bill.

By the way, did I mention that the bill does NOT prohibit one single abortion?

All the other legislators on the committee voted FOR the bill and after all, who wouldn’t? The bill makes complete sense and gives women everything that so-called “reproductive rights” activists have always demanded – MORE CHOICE!

If this makes you as angry as me, then you need to do something about it. Call your legislators and make sure they will vote on HB 2564 when it comes up for a vote. The bill is expected to receive a vote by the full House sometime in the next two weeks.

Finally, during the hearing, the committee heard powerful testimony from several pro-life, pro-woman advocates. Take a moment and visit the Center for Arizona Policy webblog to see their excellent post.


Comments

  1. Don’t these men accept the responsibility of elected office? That responsibility includes the full scope of the duties of that office. Since when is it up to the legislator to pick-and-choose whether they participate in their committee assignments? They are there representing the people of their districts, not themselves.

  2. Veritas Vincit says

    As I have said in the Az Republic’s pages, this bill is completely Pro-Choice and the abortion supporters can’t stand it.

    The medical providers (abortions in Arizona may be performed by registered nurses not just doctors) have the CHOICE to not provide an abortion.

    The legal adults of minor children are now provided the CHOICE of assisting their minor aged daughters with a life altering decision.

    Anyone facing surgery has the CHOICE to proceed or seek another option; now women and girls (since so many abortions are done on girls under 19), have the CHOICE to take a couple of days and think about it; have full disclosure regarding “the procedure”; and the CHOICE to seek a second opinion or option.

    Lastly, these new CHOICES give the unborn child a chance – and the new law DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH A SINGLE “PROCEDURE”.

  3. Veritas Vincit says

    Has anyone noticed a similarity between Abseler and Lopes? Both born and raised in California, both came to Arizona from the Great Lakes region, one served in the Peace Corp of the 60’s and the other is working on a PhD in *Justice and Social Inquiry* (not an academic, but an activist curriculum).

    Maybe California needs them back?

  4. FreedomFirst says

    The only problem with this bill is the provision forcing private employers to allow their employees to not perform duties relating to abortions. Any health professional who does not want to do that should either work out an arrangement with their employer privately or find a different employer. Of course, giving those rights to government employees is perfectly fine for the government to do.

    While reducing the number of abortions is definitely a good thing, violating the rights of already born citizens is not a good way to do it.

    This is a backdoor way to make it more expensive for companies to provide these medical services because they may have to double staff or their service will be unreliable. This is exactly the sort of thing the Obama administration wants to do with gun rights. Guns won’t be prohibited, but there will be increased regulations and even the ammunition will be regulated and taxed prohibitively. These backdoor approaches, even for a good cause, generally are bad public policy. They create more problems down the road than can possibly be anticipated up front and can lead to outcomes even worse than what is being accomplished in the short run.

    If you think saving even one baby at the expense of individual rights for employers is definitely worthwhile, wait until Obama comes up with options to allow physicians and pharmacists to opt out of providing retired people with health care they think too expensive on the grounds it wastes resources that can better be used for “the children.” An employer would not be able to require an employee to treat anyone, and this might cause inconvenience, extra suffering, or even death for those whose life isn’t considered worth the cost of treatment.

    The other provisions in the bill provide an appropriate balance between concern for the life of the unborn child and other rights the Supreme Court has established. This provision, though, applies only to consenting adults and does not directly affect the rights of the unborn child.

    Ultimately, any health professional who believes abortion is wrong who has an ounce of integrity will either reach an accomodation with his employer to avoid these procedures or will seek another job. Establishing more classes of special protected categories of employees, even for a good cause, is a mistake because this principle will then be used for bad causes in the future. And people who support bad causes are, on average, more willing to get the government to butt in to help their causes because that’s the only tool they have.

  5. I wonder how Ed’s new fiance and in-laws feel about his stridently pro-abortion position?

  6. Freedom First, I found your post to be well-presented. Thank you for offering a perspective that is not the typical viewpoint seen on this sensitive topic. Food for thought indeed.
    Tim S.- not sure what Rep. Ableser’s new family has to do with his vote? As Carol pointed out, he was elected to represent the people of LD17, which (at least the last time I checked) doesn’t include the 2nd Congressional District of Nevada. I assume maybe you are curious because you’re friends with him? I only ask since you refer to him as “Ed.”

  7. FreedomFirst says

    Just for the record, I did inquire of Walgreen’s about their policy regarding pharmacists not filling prescriptions they have a moral objection to filling, and I specifically references Arizona’s proposed new law. Their response indicates that a large company within the free market has already resolved this issue in an acceptable and reasonable way WITHOUT the need for a law. Of course, it is easier for a big chain to do this than a small, independent pharmacy. That makes the proposed law a greater hardship on small businesses compared to bigger businesses.

    I’m curious, has anyone else actually asked any major pharmacies about this? Are we having a law passed because of a few overly dramatic pharmacists who see themselves as pathetic victims instead of looking for a job at a company like Walgreen’s where their moral concerns will be respected?

    Fewer laws generally means better government. Free people can sort out these questions themselves without a nanny government butting in.

    Here is the text of their reply:

    Thank you for sharing your opinion with us in regard to dispensing of
    contraceptive medication by our pharmacists. Walgreens believes it has an
    obligation to meet the medical needs of all of its patients. We also
    believe we have an obligation to respect the wide spectrum of views and
    beliefs of our 163,000 employees. At rare times these may differ.

    To fairly resolve these situations, and where allowed by state law, we
    believe it’s reasonable to respect the individual pharmacist’s beliefs by
    not requiring them to fill a prescription they object to on moral or
    religious grounds. We also believe it’s reasonable to meet our obligation
    to the patient by having another pharmacist at the store fill the
    prescription. If another pharmacist is not on duty, we will arrange to have
    the prescription filled at a nearby pharmacy before the patient leaves the
    store.

    Thank you for giving us an opportunity to respond to your concern.

  8. Michael G says

    Why do you assume it is perfectly OK to single women out like this? Are there other medical procedures on which the government imposes these kinds of restrictions? 24 hour waiting periods, government mandated lectures, privacy violations? This bill does nothing but throw up barriers so that women will have a more difficult time accessing abortion care.

    This bill is NOT pro-women, it undermines a woman’s right to make these difficult decisions without government interference.

    It is NOT pro-information, much of the information mandated by the bill is already provided to the woman as a part of standard medical protocol, the rest, nothing more than a paternalistic rant.

    Is is NOT pro-patients’ rights. When was the last time a medical provider told you that you had to go home and think about it and come back tomorrow if you want the medical procedure you already decided you wanted? And pro-choice? Well, there’s some chutzpah!

  9. The notion that this bill gives women MORE choice is completely absurd. Maybe people should actually READ it first. Setting up obstacles and making it more difficult to exercise your rights does NOT give you choices. Why can’t any of you anti-choicers, just for once, be honest? Why?

  10. Veritas Vincent,

    You are 100% WRONG. This is one of the most anti-choice bills in the nation. Everything you mentioned in post #2 already takes place. You act as if females are forced into abortions. Reality is that they are forced into pregnancies.

    And by the way, according to this bill, nurses will now no longer be able to provide abortions. I thought this bill won’t interfere with any procedures? Isn’t that interfering by drastically reducing the number of providers? Isn’t it interfering by having a government-produced propaganda piece read to females seeking abortions interfering in their health care?

    What we really need is to have any person wanting to attend a church service to get a notarized consent form attesting that they were read a government-produced piece (authored by atheists) warning them about the dangers of brainwashing and cults, you know, so they’re properly informed. You DO believe in informed consent, don’t you?

Leave a Reply