iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Deborah Stambler

GET UPDATES FROM Deborah Stambler
 

In Arizona, You'd Be Pregnant By Now!

Posted: 04/13/2012 6:00 pm

Question #1: When is a woman who's not pregnant actually pregnant?

Answer: When she lives in Arizona.

I know, I know. You're wondering what the hell I'm talking about. Actually, so am I. The non-sense on this one is making me crazy. It's a dizzying logic that has led the Arizona House of Representatives, Senate and now Governor Jan Brewer to approve legislation that would place the start date for a woman's pregnancy at the first day of her last menstrual cycle. Got it? So while you still have your period and haven't ovulated or conceived or maybe even had sex ever, you're pregnant.

Why? You may be banging your fist into your forehead and asking yourself why would Arizona lawmakers decide to fly in the face of simple biology. But then, if you think about the rash of laws and the outpouring of moral folks who feel the need to legislate over women's bodies and reproduction, you have your answer. Abortion.

House Bill 2036 was just signed by the governor this afternoon. It will prohibit abortion after 20 weeks (except in emergency cases). The new math, biology-defying pregnant before conception statute effectively limits the time frame for women to have an abortion to 18 weeks into the real pregnancy. Unfortunately, there are a lot of genetic tests that have to be done at 16 to 20 weeks. Then, there is a 10 day to 2 week wait for the results. There's no easy way to think about this, but this law means that women in Arizona could be forced to give birth to a child with a life-threatening, deforming disease such as spina bifida, Tay-Sachs or trisomy 18.

Let's look at a disease like Tay-Sachs. It's a genetic condition. There's no cure. Amniocentesis reveals the disease. A baby born with Tay-Sachs has a life expectancy of 4-5 years and the only treatment is to make the child comfortable as the disease progresses. According to Wikipedia, the child [with Tay-Sachs] becomes blind, deaf, unable to swallow, atrophied and paralytic. Arizona lawmakers have to know that the timeline they've created makes an excruciatingly painful situation much, much worse for everyone involved. I'm trying to decide if it's more shockingly ignorant or self-righteous.

Some who favor this law are claiming that it protects women. I'm not sure how that logic works. It seems to follow the same rule that claims every woman in Arizona who has her period is pregnant.

Question #2: How do we stop laws like this from stripping away women's need to reproductive freedom?

Answer: I really wish I knew. There has to be a way to civil discourse. There has to be a way to protect our rights.

I spoke with Cynde Cerf at Planned Parenthood in Arizona. She encouraged people to keep an eye on AZ House Bill 2625. Bill 2625 could force women to provide proof to employers that they're taking birth control for a medical reason such as ovarian cysts, rather than to prevent pregnancy. This bill has received national attention. The Arizona Senate passed the bill and it's headed to Caucus and then onto the House for a vote.

Here's what you can do:
Check out the Planned Parenthood Arizona site for info on getting involved locally.

Become a member of NARAL.

Support Arizona List. We are "a grassroots donor network supporting pro-choice Democratic women running for office in Arizona and we want you to join us!"

More questions coming soon...
(This article has been reprinted from www.betweenparents.org.)

 

Follow Deborah Stambler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@betweenparents

FOLLOW POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 76
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
08:48 PM on 05/02/2012
Did this article seriously just cite Wikipedia? Real professional, HuffPost--you may have reached a new low.
10:48 PM on 04/20/2012
I believe the Republican Party is putting itself in danger in support of the conservative movement. If people in Arizona become mobilized against this and people in Wisconsin mobilize during the governor recall, a lot of the states the Republican Party thought were sure things become more maybe and push back on all of the conservative movement's "wins." Just saying might be a trees for the forest moment for the Republican Party.
11:11 AM on 04/18/2012
So, let me get this straight. If a baby, who is still in the womb, is found to have a life-threatening disease, some malady, or something that is untenable to the mother, the baby loses its right to live? Am I understanding that correctly, Deborah? Is technology always accurate? I can testify to the fact that it is not. There was an issue with my grandchild while still in utero, but my daughter continued the pregnancy, realizing that all life is precious. The baby is now a thriving nearly three-year-old, and exhibits none of the conditions that doctors thought were a possibility based on the markers found on the ultrasound. Finally, as an aside, and this is not to denigrate anyone, but to use Wikipedia as a research tool is curious. High school teachers (for the most part) prohibit using that as a source because of its unreliability.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Deborah Stambler
is a freelance writer & poet living in LA
02:43 AM on 04/19/2012
As I said earlier and will clarify further, I was moving too fast and went with the Wikipedia reference and for that I am properly chagrined. I wanted to use those adjectives and they matched up with the substance of my research from a variety of sources. It was the first place I found those specific words in one place. A couple of you have caught me out and I assure you I won't make that mistake again.

As for the more substantive issue, technology may not always be accurate. However, I was referring, not to ultrasound testing (which has a greater margin of error), but amniocentesis. There's a different level of accuracy. Amniocentesis is more than 99% accurate and additional testing can be done for specific genetic disorders, according to the Cleveland Clinic and other sources.

I'm glad for your family that your grandchild is thriving. Enjoy the toddler years. I wish this were the case for every family.
11:28 AM on 04/19/2012
You failed, though, to answer the most important question of my comment (the Wikipedia portion of my comment was merely superfluous, an afterthought). My comment wasn't to evoke a response about technology. I ask you again: If a baby, who is still in the womb, is found to have a life-threatening disease, some malady, or something that is untenable to the mother, does the baby lose its right to live? Do you want to live in a society where the law of survival of the fittest dictates who lives? Because that is the bottom line, i.e., if there is the chance (remember no test is 100% accurate) that someone might be born with defects, then that baby doesn't have the same rights afforded to them that the healthy and the vigorous do. And, make no mistake about it. That slippery slope makes it only easier to decide that if, as an example, an elderly person is ill, heck, their care may be too costly, and since they're just going to die anyway (think your Tay Sachs example), it just might be more cost effective to withhold care. And, even if my example isn't "the case for every family," are you again saying that since it's not the case for every family, that the babies who might require sacrifice or money spent on their care, don't deserve to live?
12:11 AM on 04/18/2012
Ovulation is 2 weeks after the date the law declares as the start of pregnancy, and there is about a day on each side of ovulation in which sexual intercourse can result in conception, and then fertilization. While defining a point at which pregnancy begins is not inherently problematic, and indeed, it is difficult for a state to define the point at which pregnancy begins so Doctors can determine whether it is still legal to perform abortions, the "20 week" limit as such is, as a result, 18 weeks (give or take a date).
I am vehemently opposed to this law, but with that being said, I think there is a major problem if we are to refer people who disagree with as us "crazies" or "whakadoos." No matter the abject falsity of their claims, they are still citizens of the United States with a right to their opinions. If they are true zealots, then nothing you say or do will effect their opinion. But if they have a deeply held belief that, for instance, abortion is immoral or that a fetus is a life, we can disagree them; we ought not insult them for having a belief that we do not share. To attempt to influence and support the election of officials who agree with you is to take part in the political process of our Republic. The Religious Right has done so very well; so must their opponents.
06:46 PM on 04/15/2012
Every day, I find it harder and harder to believe that it is actually 2012 and not 1953.
photo
BigBearcatBill
This is the real Bearcat - a Binturong
04:05 AM on 04/15/2012
The young ladies in AZ will probably leave in droves, a mass migration of unfertilized eggs will leave the state with them. All the young guys will leave next because there won't be any young ones to have for girl friends. Maybe AZ will make it illegal for women to leave the state next, because who knows they may take birth control or get an abortion outside of the state and that would be breaking their laws on the road, they can't have that can they?
11:11 PM on 04/14/2012
Gosh, when I was of an age to worry about such things, my friends and I always breathed a sigh of relief when we got our periods. Little did we know that we were already pregnant.

That was back before the easy availability of home pregnancy tests, but I'm wondering if the AZ lawmakers plan to take those off of the shelves.
10:43 PM on 04/14/2012
These crazed Rs view women as nothing more than INCUBATORS.

Ignorant, hateful and reprehensible.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony Rochon
Trying to fly under the radar
10:15 PM on 04/14/2012
They should also outlaw male masturbation, as that is destroying the potential for life. That would make every man a hardened criminal.
11:11 PM on 04/14/2012
After all, "Every sperm is sacred."
06:42 PM on 04/15/2012
Don't forget vasectomies!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
retromoderne
Born right the first time
06:08 PM on 04/14/2012
This is actually how physicians define gestational age; however I don't see any need for a legislature to be defining medical terms. What's next?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kathy smelser
09:07 PM on 04/14/2012
all females born will be required to register their uterus with the court ....all periods will have to be documented by a strip search .
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SirenForSanity
The trouble vine keeps growing.
09:49 PM on 04/15/2012
Don't think that pregnancy registries won't be next. Attempts have already been made to bring legal punishment if a woman can't prove that her actions didn't bring about a miscarriage. In Georgia the legislation stated that it should bring the death penalty.
photo
xphilosoph
Almost nothing is actually impossible.
05:55 PM on 04/14/2012
It's time for Women to start a "War on Republicans".

If they do not fight back, soon and decisively, they will lose many hard won rights and be forced back into the dark ages before contraception, the vote and equal rights.

Women could end the Republican domination by the extreme religious right if they get organized and VOTE.

The current threat of Republican policies at State and Federal levels to ALL American women is REAL.

Time for all women to step up and stop this BS from taking root, before it is too late.
10:46 PM on 04/14/2012
I always vote and my candidates lose more often than not. I first voted against NIXON in '72.

(BTW, evil as he was, he would be too liberal for the current crowd.)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kara Kramer
03:06 PM on 04/15/2012
But sometimes, your candidate WINS.
Sitting out the vote in 2010 is what led to this madness.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:12 PM on 04/14/2012
Take it from someone who has spent a couple summers in the desert in Arizona - the temperature is so hot, that your cerebral cortex has to stop being active and only the reptilian brain stem operates. I'm not kidding - if you THINK in such high heat, your brain will blow up :-)

That is the simple and true scientific explanation for the endless series of "wha' the heck" that comes out of Arizona legislature - they think for only 3 months of the year. Obviously, not enough time to do it right.
photo
demisfine
Often correct, NEVER right.
04:30 PM on 04/14/2012
What if your menstrual cycle falls between the two weeks before you conceive and the conception?
Does that give a girl a "pass"?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carl Caroli
I just don't understand people
04:12 PM on 04/14/2012
Arizona. Another embarrassment. What is with these southern states (as if I didn't know the answer)?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
02:22 PM on 04/14/2012
18 weeks is almost 5 months in. No woman should still be on the fence at that point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Larri Brady McKnight
04:57 PM on 04/14/2012
Some genetic tests do not give results until 18 to 20 weeks after conception. Some even longer than that. It's not a matter of being "on the fence," it's a matter of not having enough information to make an informed choice.
photo
Papapaul49
Driver,chief cook and bottle washer, retired LO.
05:09 PM on 04/14/2012
And if she learns at 20 weeks she and her tay-Sachs fetus just have to suck it up, right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
xenubarb
Nebulon V
02:56 PM on 04/15/2012
Nah, they got that law where you can drop your unwanted offspring at the nearest fire station.

Then the taxpayers of AZ will suck it up.