AZ bill would disclose personal patient info to the state
Because patient rights don’t exist if you got yourself knocked up—duh.
…in addition to a woman's age, race and marital status — which the state health department already collects — it would mandate that doctors collect and report information such as the reason for the abortion, who referred the woman to the clinic, the weight of the aborted fetus and other intimate personal information about the woman.
The bill could also mandate that a report be filed when a woman uses emergency contraception.
Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Arizona, says the bill “singles out a single medical procedure and imposes some incredibly onerous and burdensome requirements.� Of course it does—that’s the point.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: AZ bill would disclose personal patient info to the state.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/4709
I swear these pro-life people are simply just horny for feti. Fetuses? I like feti.
I wonder how enforceable that EC law would be, since theoretically a man can buy EC for someone else as long as he's over 18. Would they ask for his personal information, or the personal information of the woman he's buying it for? What if he's buying it just to keep around "just incase"? Whose personal information do they ask for then?
GAAAKK!! These people make me crazy. Anyone who thinks that the anti-choice movement wants to 'help' women, that they 'care about the pain and anguish' of unwanted pregnancies just needs to take a look at this bill. In my 40 years on this planet, the only impulse I've seen among the anti-choice movement is the desire to punish women for having sex in a way they deem immoral or irresponsible. You fuck someone you're not supposed to, when you're not supposed to, well, pay up, darlin. And that punishment, funnily enough, for all these anti-choice assholes who so treasure babies, MEANS HAVING A BABY.
Have you ever noticed how they go on and on about the destruction of 'innocent' life in abortions? That's what it's all about: that baby is innocent and the woman who had sex to conceive it is not and should pay.
There is no end to the plagues I wish upon these people. Pant. Pant. Pant. I cant believe how much this stuff pisses me off. And it's only 10:30 am.
What would the male equivalent of this be? Men having to give all of their personal (practically biographical) information when they buy condoms? Oh, wait, there is no male equivalent. Wonder why...
I don't see how anyone coudl possibly rationalize that this is a bargain. What gains are going to be made from this information and how do they weigh against the terrible invasiveness of it? There's no comparison. It also scares me that they want the reason for abortion. First off, I'm just not sure how many different reasons you can have - it all comes down to personal need. It just sounds like the only reason for wanting to classify reasons for abortion is to differentiate, meaning to ban abortions for certain reasons. Of course, I know there are important studies conducted and it's possible they just want to make statistics. Regardless, it's still a terrible violation of rights.
The "reason for abortion" requirement bothers me the most. Sometimes it will be a simple "condom broke; don't want a baby," but other times it will be far, far more complex, like maybe "we were breaking up so I went off the pill but then maybe we were going to get back together so we got drunk and he threatened me if I didn't have sex with him but now we're probably breaking up again and I don't think a fourth child would be prudent at this juncture." But either way the "reason" will have to be distilled into a succinct two or three word phrase on an insurance form checklist, and my money's on the phraseology being just tweakable enough to bolster the religious right's conviction that women regularly have abortions on a lark. At 36 weeks.
Argh.
Jeez. I think of a family I saw at a clinic years ago. A husband, a wife, and three small children. The husband and wife looked like they wanted to cry. I wonder, do the anti-choicers jump in w/ aid when the reason is "if we have another pregnancy/child, the 3 we have go hungry"? Nah, didn't think so.
This is complete and utter bullshit! How can people NOT see this as an invasion of women's rights? I would say "people's" however we know that the anti-choice movement refuses to see women as anything else besides a baby vessel. And it's not even the baby, it's a clump of cells and then a fetus. Once the baby's out they delight in the joy of creating a problem for a woman who might not have been able to afford to take care of it in the first place. They delight in child poverty and they delight in the suffering of the poor. There is no other way I can explain these people other than as class sadists. They delight in punishment and shadenfraud.
You know the rich, white wives of these rich, white men wouldn't stand for such airing of their laundry. Assholes.
Well, at least Arizona has a governor (Janet Napolitano) who will veto this crap.
Cheers,
TH
ooOOOOooooh that makes me mad.
If we know why women are aborting (far in excess of BC failure rate), we can make policies which address those issues and help women prevent pregnancy in the first place. If the issue is lack of affordabilty of BC, it would be good for Arizona to know that and be able to legislate to increase access. If BC is there but not used, AZ should figure out why women (and men!) aren't using it. For example, if men don't want to use condoms because it doesn't feel as good, AZ could work on a public health campaign to encourage men to use condoms.