The state of Arizona recently passed legislation (to take effect September 30, 2009) that would further restrict abortion within the state. The legislation mandates a 24 hour waiting period, allows only physicians to perform the procedure (currently nurse practitioners can perform abortions in AZ), and allow medical professionals to refuse to participate based on moral opposition. Please read AZ HB 2564 and the articles below. Are the new changes ethical? Why or why not? As you formulate your opinion, keep in mind that in some cases there is a direct conflict between the health and/or reproductive rights of women and the religious freedom of the healthcare provider. In such instances, what criteria should be used to evaluate the rights and responsibilities of both parties, when should each prevail and why?
Arizona Legislature (June 2009) - HB2564
AZ Central (02/27/2009) - Obama moves to overturn abortion conscience rule
Arizona Republic (09/15/2009) - Two groups sue to block Arizona abortion laws
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
As of this Wednesday (September 30th 2009) the state of Arizona passed legislation that has further restricted abortion within the state. Many big changes have occurred such as; a 24 hour waiting period for women, nurse practitioners are no longer allowed to perform abortions, and medical professionals are allowed to refuse based on moral opposition. Two of these changes are ethical, and the first one being the 24 hour waiting period. I agree that most women don’t go in and ask for an abortion on a whim, but I also know that in giving them 24 hours they have a better chance of completely thinking through their decision. But the only unethical part about this new law is for the women who live in areas where receiving such a service is a hardship. Women who have to drive miles and miles to get to the nearest medical facility should not be submitted to driving the distance and then having to repeat the journey a second time. I believe that this part of the law needs to be reworded or changed in some way to accommodate the needs of the rural women. Secondly, giving the medical professional the right to refuse an abortion I believe is ethical. No one doctor should be forced to perform an abortion, even though it is again his or her morals. Lastly, I do not agree with the banning of nurse practitioners performing abortions. What about people in rural areas, these individuals may receive all their care from a local nurse practitioner, thus in saying that NPs can no longer perform abortions how is it fair for women in these areas? It just isn’t, for women in Phoenix, or Tucson this new law is not an issue but women who live hours away from the nearest doctor it is very hard now to get this procedure done due to the new law. In essences, women all over the state should be given an equal opportunity to seek out medical assistance such as an abortion. No woman should be prevented from receiving a procedure because she does not live right down the street from a medical facility. It is clear that it is a woman’s responsibility to be accountable in the decisions she makes, but on the flip side medical care providers should be assessable and women should not be denied due to their residency. In the end, the only time I believe that health care professions have the right to refuse to do a procedure is when it conflicts with their moral beliefs, but if this is an issue the medical professional needs to make referrals and give all information necessary to aid the woman in the medical care she seeks.
In general, I do agree with some of the new changes and believe that they are ethical; however, I am really on the fence with the new changes. I believe the twenty-four hour wait period is very ethical. I have not had to deal with the abortion process but I do believe it is a very difficult and that cannot be rushed unless under life threatening circumstances. I personally believe that a day gives the woman some time to make a decision. I could only assume that a lot is going through the woman’s head at this time and this twenty-four hours could help. This time also gives her a chance to talk with family and friends so she does not have to go through it alone. Another topic I believed ethical was that only licensed physicians are only allowed to do abortions. This I do agree with because of the possible severity of the procedure and they are professionals qualified to do it. However, this may not be so great for the women who are not conveniently located close to a physician. This adds more obstacles to her abortion process. I believe anyone legally licensed to do abortions should be able to as well. I also agree with a minor having to receive parent consent if there was no criminal conduct from the parent/guardian. However, if the minor has proven she is mature, what is the need of the consent? Many other issues go with this. The parents views may see abortion as a crime and not give their daughter consent, however, they are not able to support another child. This is something the court would take into consideration.
The issue I had trouble with the most was healthcare workers able to deny abortion counseling or family planning services if it violated their personal moral beliefs. Denying someone aid during this difficult time for them and their family is very unethical. There is no perfect book guiding you through the abortion process and if there was, it’s still not a substitute for an actual human being sitting down and talking with you. My other issue with this is the health care workers moral beliefs. If you did not agree with abortion, then why are you in the profession? There are many woman struggling with this issue and the last thing they need probably is you denying them help because you do agree with it. When you take a job, I believe you are supposed to fulfill it to the best of your abilities besides your beliefs. If you didn’t agree with it morally, don’t take the job. This also goes for the pharmacists being able to deny providing contraception. You are a pharmacist and a pharmacist is supposed to help someone in need of medicine no matter their individual beliefs.
The criteria that should be used to evaluate the rights and responsibilities of each party would be the circumstance of the abortion and any situations the pregnant woman and the family might be going through. Each should prevail when there is clear information that there is and/or may be some difficulty with a child down the road or that the child would do well and prosper in its new environment.
The new abortion laws for Arizona include many needed changes, such as protecting the moral and ethical rights of all healthcare professionals that do not wish to participate in the abortion processes. I believe that this change is very important. No one should be forced to do something they feel is unethical or immoral. I liked that the law states that the healthcare professional needs to “state in writing an objection to abortion.” However I feel that this could have been defined more. Perhaps it should state more specifically what is required in the written objection, is the written objection filed with the health board, posted in the Doctor’s office (so that all patients are aware of this prior to having to make this decision), posted at the pharmacy, etc. Also, when does the healthcare professional put his/her objections in writing, can he do it after examining the patient. Too much wiggle room here, this should be more defined.
I do not agree that “The father of an unborn child is liable to assist in the support of the child, even if he has offered to pay for the abortion.” There is such a huge double standard when it comes to this part of the law. Once a man and woman conceive a child together the man has absolutely no say in whether or not that child will be brought into this world. The woman decides if she wants to have a baby. The man has no choice. If she decides to have the baby, he now becomes financially responsible for the child, even if he doesn’t want to be a father. However, if a woman decides that she doesn’t want to be a mother, and chooses to terminate the pregnancy the father has no right to protect the pregnancy and raise the child on his own. Although, if a woman decides that she is not ready to be a mother, and chooses to give birth with the intention to give the child up for adoption, the man can give up his parental rights so that she can. Therefore, why can’t the man have the option to give up his parental rights even if the mother doesn’t want to? It appears that although it takes two to conceive a child, it takes only one to determine the outcome of the pregnancy.
I believe that the abortion laws need many things defined and these changes are a step in the right direction, but there is still room for improvement.
As of September 30th, Arizona state legislation passes the bill HB 2563 which placed further restrictions on abortion within the state. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, each state has the right to govern regulations regarding this manner. I agree with the new definition of abortion and the added definitions of terms such as conception, gestational age, medical emergency, pregnant, surgical abortion, and unborn child. I think refining and incorporating these definitions helps to clarify how viability cannot be determined exactly. It is an approximation and varies with each woman. I also agree with the addition of the courts ability to determine if a minor is able to give informed consent without consulting her parent or legal guardian based on her experience level. The addition of this section supports the rights of minors and endorses their right of informed consent without the hindrance of parents or legal guardians which might previously restricted a minor’s decision and ability to obtain an abortion. I also agree with the legislation to mandate a 24 hour waiting period. Even though, this waiting period may be a great inconvenience, abortion is a major decision that should not be made lightly and without deliberation. Once women have chosen to obtain an abortion and have met the other requirements necessary such as a face to face meeting with medical personnel. This final 24 hours gives them additional time to contemplate their decision. For the most part, woman probably don’t come to this decision lightly, I feel this mandate of 24 hours was incorporated to stress the importance of their decision. Also most surgical procedures are planned and scheduled. When emergency situations arise, the health of the patient would super cede the process of scheduling surgeries such is the case with emergency abortions. These abortions occur because the health and life of the woman is in jeopardy.
This bill restricts the woman’s ability to obtain an abortion by taking away the right of a nurse practitioner to perform abortions in Arizona. I feel this is unethical because the State is limiting a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion, particularly those women who live in rural parts of Arizona and already have limited access to health care. This legislation might not affect women living in metropolitan areas. But for those who live in rural areas, you have now inconvenience them greatly and have literally taken away their right and ability to obtain an abortion. It may still be their choice, but the reality of seeing their choice materialize may not happen because they might not have a licensed physician near the area they live in. Finances may also greatly affect their ability to travel to larger cities to find a doctor to perform this procedure. This legislation is limiting the ability for all women to obtain an abortion in Arizona. It is still supporting a women’s right to an abortion but their ability to obtain one is based on their access to a medical physician. Literally, they are taking away this right by inconveniencing women to obtain one. I feel this is unethical because it doesn’t help all women who live in Arizona.
This bill is also unethical by allowing pharmacy, hospital or health professional or any employee of a pharmacy, hospital or health professional to not be required to help or participate in an abortion, abortion medication or emergency contraception. By allowing the beliefs and opinions of health care professionals to affect their participation in abortions, abortion medication or emergency contraception, the state is tremendously inconveniencing women and their ability to obtain an abortion, particularly women who live in rural areas of Arizona. A woman who lives in a rural area may have a physician capable of performing an abortion but because of his beliefs he does not have to perform the procedure according to this new legislation. Again this legislation is literally taking away the ability of woman to obtain an abortion. I feel it is unethical to allow personal opinions or religious beliefs of healthcare professionals to hinder their ability to perform their job. As a healthcare professional, it is your duty to provide medical procedures and care regardless of your personal beliefs and opinions. Abortion is a legal and lawful procedure in the state of Arizona. Therefore it is the duty of the healthcare professional to administer and aid in the procedure. You must follow and abide the law regardless of your personal beliefs and opinions.
I feel the state’s legislation to further restrict a women’s right to obtain an abortion to be unethical. It greatly hinders her ability to obtain an abortion especially for those women who live in rural areas and already have limited access to health care. I find this to be unethical because the legislation is not for the betterment of all women residing in Arizona.
Arizona passed a new law on September 30, 2009 that would further restrict abortion within the state. There are three significant changes in the new law such as mandates a 24 hour waiting period, allows only physician to perform the procedure, and allow medical professionals to refuse to participate based on moral opposition. In term of 24 hour waiting period, the new law requires the mother to see the physician in person, so that the physician can give the mother information before the procedure. The information includes nature of the procedure or treatment, long-term medical risks, alternatives to the procedure, the probable gestational age, the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn, medical assistance benefits, the father is liable to assist, public and private agencies and services are available to assist. I acknowledge that people who oppose to the law would say that the information that the physician give the mother before abortion is unethical. The reason is because the information is not objective, and after listening to this information, would the mother still want to have an abortion? It seems like the physician want to convince the mother not to have an abortion. From my perspective, I think the requirement time and the information that the physician explain to the mother is ethical. It will help the mother make an informed decision. In addition, I think that it is necessary for the mother to know the options that are available, so that she can consider carefully before the abortion. The 24 hours required waiting period is really important because it would give the mother more time to think because abortion is an important decision. However, it may impede women who live in rural area. It would take 4 to 6 hours for these women to drive to urban area to have an abortion. Therefore, I think the mandate 24 hours waiting period is ethical, but it is unfair for women who live in rural area. Second, the law also says that only physician can perform the procedure. It is an unethical requirement because it is an unnecessary restriction that would impede abortion. Before the new law, nurse practitioners can perform abortions without any problem. They are properly trained to do the procedure. However, people may think that they are not trained well enough, and it may be dangerous to the mother. If nurse practitioners can do it before, why not now? In addition, women who live in rural area would have a hard time to find the physician. Third, medical professionals can refuse to participate based on moral opposition. I think it is ethical because everyone has the right to decide what he or she wants to do. If the medical professionals do not want to do it, the mother can find someone else available who is not opposed. However, in the case that the health of the mother is at risk, I think the medical professionals who oppose should do the procedure to save the life of the mother. In the case of just only one physician or no one else available and the mother health is not at risk. I think the mother is obligated to find another physician since she wants to have an abortion.
The new amendments to abortion laws in Arizona are strongly influenced on minors getting abortions. New laws protecting minors from making bad decisions are just what the state needs. I can already see several loopholes in the new amendments. The most important is in many cases, the minor is able to lie about many things in order to get what they want. All they have to say is that they are pregnant by rape or incest and the court will grant them an abortion without any question. These new amendments sound and look great on paper, but in real time, there are too many ways to get around these new laws. I feel that these amendments are a waste of time. People will find ways to get what they want. I have found that persistence and determination will get a person where they want to be in life. Amending laws is not the answer to abortion problems. The human race should be smart enough to figure out what happens when two people have sex. It is the morals of people that should be changed, not the laws.
Throughout my reading of the new recently passed legislated abortion laws I agree fully with the new regulations set in place because they aren’t irrational and very compromising.
The new regulations clearly state what I believe is the proper definition of abortion considering certain instances in which a woman has to give up her baby. Or that the use of contraceptives, the “morning after” pill or contraceptives isn’t considered abortion. Especially, when the mother is using contraceptives to increase fertility and conceive a child. The determination of the courts to estimate the proper “gestational” age of a child I believed to be reasonable in the instance that they believed that “the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman” determined the age of the unborn child. However, in the debate in the Roe v. Wade case the determination over gestation age was left undecided or unknown.
In the circumstances pertaining to a minor, I believe allowing the minor to prove that they are capable of making a mature decision is a very educated decision on their part and a good observation of the courts. The fact that the minor has to prove their maturity makes it a reasonable because I believe that the minors choice to choose whether or not to have an abortion should be left up to them just as long as they are mentally capable of making such a decision. Where I don’t agree with this is the fact that the parent wouldn’t know that their child had gotten an abortion with no notice, that part does pester me a little bit there should be some anonymity but the parent however I believe should be informed.
As far as the violation of a minor by their own parent I strongly believe in the precautions set forth by the court including the procedures in occurrence with receiving anything for relief. The minor will be allowed to receive an abortion and the parents will face civil action in court I thought to be one of the most self explanatory and adequate responses to this type of situation. There is money given for psychological, emotional, and physical injuries. The cost is three times that amount of the abortion and most importantly a civil action is brought up six years after the violation. This last clause I don’t agree with because the action should be set in place as soon as the crime (I believe it is) occurs, this being a very personal matter in my eyes because I had a close friend take her life because she was in this particular type of predicament.
With the complications of birth I believe that the act of aborting the birth should be the mother’s decision and that a doctor whether she is unconscious or not should wait til the mother is informed of the occurrences or complications with the birth.
Overall, I agree with most of the regulations stated in the act besides the 6 yr. wait for civil action and the fact that the parents should be informed in the case of their minor getting an abortion. I believe that over the years there will be some changes to this legislation.
I highly agree with the change in the 24 our wait period. Im sure that many women in this situation are going throug many different emotions and giving them an extra day to think carefully about their dicision after talking to a physician and seeing that its the real deal and there would be no turning back would possibly avoid more abortions. Granted that a day is probably not enough time to sort out your thoughts about such a huge decision, but its better than not completely being sure and running with the scared/upset emotions then regretting it later when its too late.
The fact that women in rural areas cant get to a doctor that easily without driving possibly for hours is not convenient for them brings me to the point of not allowing nurse practicioners to perform abortions. Im not okay with abortions, but its not something I can get rid of so if it has to be there then they should let nurse practicioners perform all the needed procedures for any medical situation a women in this condition undergoes. Not only abortions but if something goes wrong with the pregnancy so that they dont have to worry about whether or not theyre going to get to a doctor in time.
I agree that physicians may opt out of performing abortions and letting their patients know if it is against their morals. Anyone doing anyjob shouldnt be forced to perform a task that goes against their morals. But I do think that the denial of abortions in writing by the physician should be made known to the patient before they even pick their doctor. Maybe on the doctors profile when they search for a provider it could state that the doctor does not perform abortions that way anyone who does want to get an abortion for no life threatening reason wont get rejected by a doctor's moral beliefs.
I agree with a few of the provisions of the new law, however it defines an unborn child from as a human offspring from conception until birth, which I cannot agree with. A few of the provisions that a judge has blocked that I find especially important are not only that the consent for a minor need not be notarized, providers are also allowed to refuse to perform abortions, as well as allowing information about the procedure to be given over the phone or internet from a physician or qualified member of the staff.
What I think is most important in these provisions is 24 hour waiting period no longer being required to be initiated with an in person visit. I feel this will alleviate much of the hardship on the women of rural areas and requiring them to only make one trip to the office. Although it may be difficult to prove that a patient took the time to read through and understand all the risks involved with the procedure and was given ample opportunity to ask questions about the procedure, I’m sure a lawyer will argue that sometime in the near future.
The right of a physician or other provider to refuse to perform a procedure they feel unethical I feel is an important point. If a religious issue is to arise I feel that most religions will allow certain concessions for life saving procedure that carry a risk to a fetus, which will allow the physician to function in emergency situations without any ethical issues arising. An area that this could still potentially be a problem is if the physician is the primary care physician of a patient desiring an abortion, the physician has a responsibility to transfer the patient to the proper level of care.
Overall I feel the provisions in the new law are overall ethical and clear up some gray areas that had existed within the current laws. Although I don’t agree with where the new law proposes to establish the beginning of life, I feel that the Supreme Court made the more correct ruling in taking a gradient view of the beginning of life.
There are several issues on the table with regards to whether or not the new AZ abortion law is ethical or not. First, making a woman have to speak with a doctor in person about her options and 24 hours before the abortion is done is unethical, in my opinion, since this could cause the woman to change her mind since she may be embarrased that she is even in this position or worse, she could be pregnant from an abusive family member and she may only get one chance to visit the doctor to get the abortion done. This mandate of orally and in person, could totally mess up her chances to take advantage of a one-time window that she can't afford to waste on a consultation visit. Second, mandating that a notary be involved for parental consent is a violation of constitutional law to privacy. Although the requirement is that this information placed in the notaries book remain confidential, it's not possible to do 100% of the time. There were plenty of times where I had to get something notarized and was able to read names and reasons of previous persons that had signed the book before me. Unless they plan on coming up with an individual book for every person that this requirement would be placed upon, this is not going to happen. Third, who goes to a total stranger, in this case a judge, to determine if an abortion is in the best interest of minor based on the minor's maturity level? I believe that if any minor were mature we wouldn't have to deal with most of the issues that come from them in the first place. It's life experience that brings about maturity and until a minor has experienced an abortion or being a single mother at least once, then we can all assume that, unless they became pregnant through some criminal sexual act, they are immature and will most likely not know what is or is not in their best interest. In addition to that, the judge will have no concrete background information, other than what he will be told by someone acting on behalf of the minor (which is a joke since I have had to deal with that part of the justice system myself personally) or what he will read in some paperwork drawn up against allowing the minor to have the abortion. He will not have solid information that the minor has parents that are drug addicts and the minor's self esteem is so low that she is looking for love in all the wrong places. Basically, the court will hope to see a level of responsibility in a minor which is contradictory to the whole process since if the minor was responsible then they would've avoided this pregnancy at all costs and because self esteem plays a role in a young woman's maturity, if she has low self esteem then the court will find that she is not mature enough to make decisions in her best interest. Then there are the issues of whether or not a judge is pro-choice or pro-life and I would bet my life that whichever way the judge's position is will sway him all the time to choose the option that goes with his belief system and not what's in the best interest of the minor. How then will our judicial system pick someone that is completely non-biased when it comes to abortions so that all minors can have a fair preceding? I also question why is it necessary to tell a woman of the anatomical characteristics of the fetus? Are we purposely trying to sway her to change her mind with this law if it is required that she be told if she was going to have a boy or girl? Last but not least, the contradiction that a minor can be automatically emancipated if they will not receive any finanacial assistance from their guardian so they can apply for public assistance, but...this public assistance cannot be used to get an abortion-what's the point? My take on this entire bill is if it's not broke then don't fix it. The changes to this bill just leave a bad feeling in my gut that this is just not going to benefit minors and the choices that should be made between them and their parents.
As of September 30, Arizona state legislation passed the bill HB 2563The new regulations clearly state what I believe should be the proper direction for abortion. I believe strongly on minor consent of parent or guardian, a judge’s motion for abortion, 24 hour waiting period for abortion and the right for medical professionals to refuse treatment.
In situations pertaining to a minor, I think it is important for a minor’s parent or guardian to provide a secured written consent for their abortion. But in cases that minors do not have the support of a parent or guardian, I think it is appropriate to have the minor meet with a judge to determine whether they are mentally capable or it is in the best interest of the minor to have an abortion. I think the judge will take into a lot of factors whether the minor explored her options and the extent to which she considered and weighed the potential consequences of each option. This is a huge decision for an adult to take in, let alone a minor. We all would like to think we live in a perfect world, but we don’t. Some minors live in situations that they live in fear of what their parent or guardian my say or do.
In regards to the 24 hour waiting period, I agree that this will give the women the necessary time to evaluate her chooses. Abortion is a big decision, and should never be taken lightly. After she has been given the opportunity to meet with medical professionals and discuss her options, she needs this time to make sure this is the right decision for herself.
Abortion is still a touchy subject, and everyone has the right to their opinion. I do think it is only right that a medical professional has the right to refuse to participate in a situation they feel is unethical, based on what they believe. This new law covers both sides of this issue.
The changes made in the Arizona legislation on abortion are not ethical. I see this change as an invasion of privacy as well as a violation of rights. I understand they still allow abortions to take place, but the restrictions they have made on allowing abortion are not essential. I don’t understand why they believe changing the restriction of having a physician make the abortion instead of a nurse practitioner will be better. All these past years nurse practitioners have been the ones to make the abortions, and obviously most abortions were successful. Why now? If physicians are the only ones that can actually perform abortions, that makes it harder for some women over others. In case of an emergency, where the mother is in risk, and there is no physician available, what is the women to do? I don’t think that whoever voted on the change thought through what the consequences of the change would be. Sometimes women don’t have 24 hours to wait for an abortion like they have enforced in the change. I think that with time, they will change it back to what it used to be because they will see that the change is not a positive one.
November 30, 2009 the state of Arizona passed a new legislation which further restricts abortions within the state. Some of those restrictions are a new mandatory 24 hour waiting period, a new mandate which only allows physicians to perform abortions, while prior to the new legislation nurse practitioners were able to perform the procedure, and also medical professionals have the right to refuse to participate based on their moral beliefs.
I believe the 24 hour waiting period is ethical because it allows the woman 24 hours to contemplate her decision. A lot can happen in a 24 hour period. The only bad side to this new addition is for the women who live in rural areas, where there may be only 1 pharmacy, a few doctors’ offices and the nearest abortion clinic might be 40 or more miles away. In cases like this it will just add another burden to an already difficult situation. I feel that the clinics performing the abortions should make certain accommodations, like some special funds for a taxi service or something to that nature, in circumstances where it may be difficult for a woman to make such a long trip.
The rule which allows healthcare workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if it would violate their moral beliefs, this to me is unethical and crazy and leaves room for discrimination. I feel that depending on the circumstance the doctor will have a right to pick and choose who he decides to offer his or her services to. I do hope the administration will soon clarify what health care workers can reasonably refuse to do for their patients. This to me gives the doctors a sense of superiority that their beliefs gives them some kind of power over others lives. I understand that abortion is a horrible thing and no one wants to see or hear about a potential life being killed. However, if a woman chooses to have an abortion no matter what the reason she should be able to get it done. I feel that no one who’s lived especially in America is without sin. So for the physician who’s stating that it is immoral for him or her to perform such a procedure, I wonder if they live completely without sin. I don’t feel that one sin is greater or lesser than the other, in god’s eyes they are probably the same. I believe this new addition should be reevaluated and possibly even thrown out.
In regards to the new mandate which only allows a licensed physician to perform the procedure to me is bogus and pointless. If nurse practitioners can deliver babies and are even allowed to open up their own practices, then why would a restriction be put on them from being able to perform abortions. This to me is just another pointless law that’s just shows how he government controls the population.
Wow! In this day in age who would think that the state of Arizona would pass such barbaric laws. As stated in article HB 2564 the state of Arizona has pass new laws that will affect the way in which a woman can receive a abortion and who can now perform abortions . As of Wednesday September 30 2009 a woman in the state of Arizona will have a 24 hour waiting period before she can have an abortion. Also nurses will no long give abortions only a physician can now perform the procedure and they have the right to say no if don't feel that it not ethical. I see this as a way that the state of Arizona is trying to make abortions almost impossible and that unethical. For a lot of woman that live in rural places that don't have someone to perform the procedure because nurses can no longer / don't have the right to perform an abortion and on top of that she now has to have to wait 24 hour . That will make it very difficult for some and most of the women that need to have abortion , being that most don't have the funds to go back and forth to the doctor especial if she is made travel because there is now no physician that feel that it's in their ethics to perform a abortion. I feel the new laws disseminate against poor woman because they can't afford to make the trips to the doctor and most of living in rural areas where their going to be force to travel and that will cause one to possible have to take off work and find transpiration. I a perfect world this law would be wonderful but we don't live in a perfect world so in our reality this law will hurt more woman then help them.
The new legislations (that have supposedly taken effect since September 30, 2009) restricting abortion within Arizona seem ethical for a couple of reasons. First of all, there is a 24 hour waiting period during which the pregnant woman has a last chance of meditating about her decision. There would always be women that are 100% sure about what they’re doing but when it comes to this delicate matter, decision shouldn’t be made with a clouded mind. Even at weddings there at times when the bride or groom don’t show up at the altar, I would imagine that a doubting woman going to get an abortion the first day would rethink things over and ultimately not have it by the next day. The new legislation also allows only physicians to perform the abortion. I feel undecided with this one in particular. I believe it is ethical to have a physician do the procedures due to the seriousness of the matter, but I also believe that nurse practitioners need to continue performing abortions in the state. Personally, I believe the most ethical of the changes is allowing the medical professional to refuse to participate in a procedure because of her/his moral beliefs. These people should not be forced to perform a procedure as polemic as abortion if they find it to go against their own beliefs. It is important to consider this because now the person has a choice, just like the woman having the abortion made her own choice [just to make things clear, I was referring specifically to a physician that has chosen not to participate in an abortion, I don’t know how much choice a medical professional is given at other situations]. I know that these restrictions are meant to make it hard on irresponsible people even though these people will always find ways of having their burden relieved. Abortion can be observed in various scenarios; there is always the young couple that precipitated in choosing an abortion to get rid of their responsibilities; there is the struggling pregnant woman who doesn’t count with the father’s moral and financial support. This is a woman’s personal choice influenced by many cultural/social factors. Let’s hope that the decision is taken with maturity and some symphaty.
A 24-hour waiting period is an unethical scare tactic used to discourage women from seeking qualified medical help to end an unwanted pregnancy. Basically, the law is like granny giving you the guilt trip talk. There is no 24-hour waiting (cooling off) period before you have sex. There is no 24-hour waiting period when you buy a new car or get a vaccine. Why should an informed adult have to wait 24 hours for a medical procedure? My body, my decision. Maybe the legislature in Arizona could better use their time to resolve the budget crises for the state that has caused so many state workers to be laid off, instead of getting involved in the private lives of the citizens. My father served and fought over 20 years in the military to preserve my right to privacy as well as my right to speak out against laws that are passed without concern for infringing on those rights.
Allowing only physicians to perform the procedure, in my opinion, is also a mistake. Why restrict the number of qualified persons who perform the procedure? Many rural communities do not have physicians with in easy access to the community but do have Nurse practitioners that staff the local clinics. If abortion is in conflict with health care provider’s personal religious beliefs, they should have the choice not to provide the procedure. Like any other procedure the physician does not provide, they should have a physician to refer the patient to for the procedure.
In order to make an informed decision in choosing a position concerning the Arizona Abortion Law, I decided to revisit Roe v. Wade, the Hippocratic Oath and the State Supreme Court decision.
According to the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade the privacy of women to get birth control including the morning after pill, which is a form of birth control falls under the 9th and 14th amendments Due Process Clause. Therefore a woman who wishes to get the morning after pill is within her constitutional right to do so, however, according to the Hippocratic Oath the physician or health care provider has the right to refuse this, if it goes against his/her moral values. Furthermore, as for abortions the right to privacy must be weighted against important state issues; to safeguard health, maintain medical standards, and to protect prenatal life was ruled dominate and constitutionally sound in Roe v. Wade. In accordance with the new imposed state abortion law the American Medical Association agreed that performing an abortion related to rape or incest was considered to be within ethical principals (AMA, 1967). I believe that constitutional rights, Federal and State Laws are in place for the safety of the American citizen, be it physical or medical, an adult or minor, therefore, I believe these new changes are ethical. The proposed notarized letter for a minor to receive an abortion I do not agree with at all this is a blatant disregard for the privacy of medical information, and the minor child.
On September 30, 2009 the U. S District Court of Arizona asked the State Supreme Court to block the enforcement of certain parts of the Arizona Abortion Law. The only thing that went through was the 24 hour waiting period, it was decided that women would not have to make two trips to the physician’s office, for the State Law mandated counseling but the information could be given over the phone, with this change I also think this part of the new law is ethical.
As for the right and responsibilities that should be used to evaluate the rights of both the physician and the mother. I think in this instance the mother who is seeking to terminate a probable pregnancy via the morning after pill, due to the advice of her PCP on the grounds of a medical issue that will affect the development or quality of life of the unborn child, or the health of the mother. In this case the health of the mother or her unborn child trumps the physician’s or medical provider’s’ moral stance. However, if the health care provider refuses to honor the mother’s request’ then the proper referral within an acceptable amount of time should be given to the mother.
The new laws are being enforced to try and reduce abortions after reading the article there were a few things I did not agree with. Abortion is not taken lightly in my eyes if I was pregnant and I knew I had to have one it would be set in stone before I went to have it done. The 24 hour wait period is not fair for the women who can only miss one day of work or who live in rural areas. I can only imagine how terrible it must be to get an abortion and to wait even longer and think about it more that is not ok for some moms. I would think that could cause more problems than it would help. Every woman has a right to her privacy I am sure that bringing up the topic of abortion is hard enough but to be turned down by your doctor because of his morals could ruin the doctor patient relationship. Either way the changes are good in the way that a girl under the age of 18 she has to go to court so they can give her a legal decision. Each law is going to have an opposing side but when there is a conflict, the court should be ready to deal with each situation and be able to have a fair judgment in the rare occasion that the laws so not apply to the specific situation. I agree with most of the new laws and every law is geared at the general public and not just a specific clique so I’m not going to agree with everything but I believe that most of the laws are just and fair.
Post a Comment