Law Arizona governor signs abortion ban for genetic issues - Eugenics is finished


PHOENIX — Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey on Tuesday signed a sweeping anti-abortion bill that bans the procedure if the woman is seeking it solely because a fetus has a genetic abnormality such as Down syndrome.

Doctors who perform an abortion solely because the child has a survivable genetic issue can face felony charges. The proposal also contains a raft of other provisions sought by abortion opponents.

The measure passed the Republican-controlled Legislature on party-line votes over unanimous opposition from minority Democrats. The Republican governor is an abortion opponent who has never vetoed a piece of anti-abortion legislation.

Senate Bill 1457 moved through the Legislature in fits and starts, stalling twice before moving again amid intense pressure by abortion opponents on GOP lawmakers who opposed some of its provisions. It finally passed both chambers last week.

The abortion bill as originally written made it a felony for a doctor to perform the procedure because the fetus has a genetic abnormality such as Down syndrome, and contained a slew of other provisions, including one that confers all civil rights to unborn children. Democrats call that “personhood” provision a backdoor way to allow criminal charges against a woman who has an abortion.

In addition to the ban on abortions for genetic abnormalities and the “personhood” provision, the bill bans mail delivery of abortion-inducing medication, allows the father or maternal grandparents of a fetus aborted because of a genetic issue to sue, and bans the spending of any state money toward organizations that provide abortion care.

The measure also requires fetal remains to be buried or cremated, and it forbids state universities from providing abortion care.

“There’s immeasurable value in every single life — regardless of genetic makeup,” Ducey said in a statement. “We will continue to prioritize protecting life in our preborn children, and this legislation goes a long way in protecting real human lives."

The bill was amended twice to allay the concerns of a pair of Republicans — one worried that a woman would be forced to carry a fetus that could not survive and a second concerned that a doctors' medical decisions could be overruled by a jury. That GOP-backed amendment also clarified that the “personhood" provision does not ban in-vitro fertilization.

The Democrats issued a lengthy written rebuttal to the bill after the final amendment.

The measure was a top priority for the social conservative group Center for Arizona Policy. Its president, Cathi Herrod, routinely backs anti-abortion bills in the Legislature. National anti-abortion groups hailed its passage.

Minutes after the governor acted, Herrod sent out a news release with the subject line “Life Wins!”

“Today, Arizonans win. Arizona children diagnosed with disabilities prior to birth will no longer be discriminated against,” Herrod wrote in the release. “Arizona women will be ensured commonsense safeguards if they choose the abortion pill. Arizona taxpayers will not be forced to support abortions at public colleges and universities, and the laws of Arizona will be interpreted to value all human life.”

Abortion rights groups had rallied at the Capitol on Monday, urging Ducey to veto the measure and presenting him with petitions signed by opponents of the bill.

Democrats lamented the governor's action, including Rep. Diego Espinoza of Tolleson.

“Gov. Ducey’s decision to sign SB1457 is not pro-life. It is anti-families, anti-woman, and anti-doctor,” Espinoza tweeted. “I’m disappointed to see Arizona moving in this direction, ignoring the needs and desires of doctors, women, and families for an extreme political agenda.”

Republican-controlled legislatures in Arizona and several other states — emboldened by the possibility that a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court could overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that found women have a constitutional right to seek an abortion — have embraced proposals this year that could completely ban abortion. An Arizona proposal doing that, however, has not advanced.

Earlier this month, a divided federal appeals court lifted the hold on a similar Ohio law that prohibits doctors from performing abortions based on a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome.

Judges of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowly reversed two earlier decisions blocking enforcement of Ohio's 2017 law. A majority of the appeals court said the law doesn’t impede a woman’s right to an abortion.

Monday's amendment to the Arizona bill also added a legislative intent clause that included much of the reasoning the appeals court used in the Ohio decision.
 
Downs ends in early alzheimers 75% of the time. That's if it doesn't end in severe heart or lung issues first (less common than it used to be but can still happen).

Plus I've been participating in Tard Baby General long enough to know that crazy fundies will insist even the most FUBAR conditions are "survivable", usually citing some rare outliers who lived an unusually long time. Hell, just the term "incompatible with life" makes a lot of them butthurt and they're trying to force doctors to abandon it and use "life-limiting condition" instead.
And Down syndrome advocates (as in, people living with the condition) have argued that their greater propensity for developing Alzheimer's is the best chance to develop medical treatment, research and eventual cures for Alzheimer's in the general population. Frank Stephens gave testimony in Congress to this effect, framing the possibility of having the disease as an opportunity to help future generations treat the condition. And even that increased risk is offset by a lower risk of most (not all) forms of cancer, another avenue for medical research. That is merely the most utilitarian argument; the better one is that defunding research on the condition and eliminating the population is an excuse to dehumanize people who live longer and healthier lives than most human beings have in history, and those averages have increased by a lot in the last few decades. Insisting they are unhappy or unhealthy is willfully ignorant of where we are in general health care.
 
And Down syndrome advocates (as in, people living with the condition) have argued that their greater propensity for developing Alzheimer's is the best chance to develop medical treatment, research and eventual cures for Alzheimer's in the general population. Frank Stephens gave testimony in Congress to this effect, framing the possibility of having the disease as an opportunity to help future generations treat the condition. And even that increased risk is offset by a lower risk of most (not all) forms of cancer, another avenue for medical research. That is merely the most utilitarian argument; the better one is that defunding research on the condition and eliminating the population is an excuse to dehumanize people who live longer and healthier lives than most human beings have in history, and those averages have increased by a lot in the last few decades. Insisting they are unhappy or unhealthy is willfully ignorant of where we are in general health care.
Downs people as research subjects for alzheimers treatments just came up in tard baby, unfortunately from the sounds of it it wouldn't really be feasible due to being an ethical minefield.

Also downs kids born to people who wanted to abort them as fetuses are unlikely to have happy lives and are more likely to end up amongst the horrifically large number of disabled people abused and neglected by their caregivers. It's common sense, you really think someone who wanted to abort a fetus for downs is gonna take good care of a whole-ass downs kid? That they won't just resent and mistreat the kid for something it can't even help?

But prolifers don't give a shit about that, because they don't actually give a fuck about people with downs beyond being able to use them as a vehicle to chip away at abortion access.
 
But prolifers don't give a shit about that, because they don't actually give a fuck about people with downs beyond being able to use them as a vehicle to chip away at abortion access.
Don't believe you've done much work with pro-lifers, in that case, or been around anyone who has Downs.
 
Don't believe you've done much work with pro-lifers, in that case, or been around anyone who has Downs.
I live in the bible belt and spent most of my school years in sped. I have a decent bit of experience with both groups.

Shit, given how much time I spent in alternative schools I got to see the downs kids born to people who didn't want them and how they got treated as a result. For every downs kid fundies parade around who has a loving, supportive family you have 10 more whose parents do shit like put cigarettes out on them or rape them or straight up haven't had custody of them in years (if they ever did). And lots of times CPS will just shit itself and do nothing when these kids get abused, because raising a disabled kid is hard so it's understandable parents would snap and abuse them (that's literally an excuse I've heard them use). And that's not even getting into kids who were also abused by their teachers/foster parents/institution workers/etc.

We need to make sure all the downs people who already exist are in healthy, supportive environments and aren't being abused or neglected before we worry about fetuses or embryos.
 
We need to make sure all the downs people who already exist are in healthy, supportive environments and aren't being abused or neglected before we worry about fetuses or embryos.
We can both agree on that. I think the way we treat fetuses has a direct impact on helping current people with Down syndrome, but getting more research funding for them should be a common goal.
 
We can both agree on that. I think the way we treat fetuses has a direct impact on helping current people with Down syndrome, but getting more research funding for them should be a common goal.
Nah, if anything forcing people to gestate and birth unwanted downs fetuses will just result in even more abused downs kids. But the prolife crowd doesn't ever seem too concerned with shit like kids being raped, beaten, or even murdered (beyond covering for the abusers anyway, see the Duggars).
 
>On the other hand some countries like Iceland have almost completely eradicated horrific conditions like Down syndrome from their population
Yes and no on that one. If they halted their policy entirely, conditions like down syndrome would come back within a generation (they're just terminating the genetic outcomes, not the genetic causes, people with the predisposing gene are still producing viable offspring). In reality, if one were to actually eliminate various congenital defects from the population, they would first have to identify what genes predispose someone to having a tard baby, and then would have to selectively sterilize those members from the breeding population. A policy like this would take centuries, but to me at least would be worth it.
Down's is usually a denovo mutation which means it's not hereditary but happens randomly during conception due to bad luck and older moms increase the risk. Abortion is the only ethical way to deal with DS. It's just correcting a biological mistake that will cause a lot of suffering and drain on society. I respect the right wingers here calling Republicans retarded for this. I personally support abortion at any stage but believing genetic reasons are the only acceptable reason is still a respectable position. I agree with you that breeding out genetic conditions and preventing them from happening is ideal. oH NOES NOT EUGENICS!!!!!!
 
Defective children are inefficient and a drain on society's resources, and allowing a child with a dehabilitating and painful disease to be born and only live a few hours or weeks after is pointless.

Money and resources should be invested in those who demonstrate potential to benefit and improve society.
So only Israeli's and African American's shall be allowed to continue breeding?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo