Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion delay of 24 hours is vetoed (Gov. Janet Napolitano claims "undue government intrusion.")
Arizona Daily Star ^ | March 5, 2004 | Howard Fisdher

Posted on 03/05/2004 4:38:17 PM PST by Still Thinking

PHOENIX - The governor vetoed legislation Thursday that would have forced a 24-hour delay between a woman being told the risks of abortion and actually being able to terminate the pregnancy.

Gov. Janet Napolitano had the legislation on her desk only briefly before sending the five-paragraph veto letter. She cited various constitutional provisions, state laws and court rulings.

"SB 1077 represents undue government intrusion into the relationship between a woman and her doctor, her family, her religious counselor, or whomever else she wishes to consult in making this most difficult of personal and medical decisions," the Democratic governor wrote.

Napolitano said current case law already requires a doctor to obtain informed consent before performing any surgery. And she said written consent for abortion is required by state regulations.

Napolitano's action, which she had vowed to do during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign, kills the measure for at least this year. The 18-11 Senate vote and 32-27 margin in the House of Representatives both fall short of the necessary two-thirds vote for an override.

Kathi Herrod, lobbyist for the Center for Arizona Policy, said the veto shows "the governor put the profits of the abortion industry ahead of the health needs of women." She said the fact that the two Planned Parenthood organizations in the state - the major abortion providers - are nonprofit operations does not change that view.

The legislation said no abortion could be performed unless a woman were given certain information at least 24 hours beforehand.

That included the nature of the procedure and the risks and alternatives that a "reasonable patient would consider material" before deciding whether to go ahead. The legislation also would have required that women be told the probable age of the fetus and the medical risks of carrying the child to term.

That information could have been provided by phone so the woman wouldn't have had to make two trips to a clinic. Only in cases of emergency could the waiting period have been waived.

Rep. Steve Tully, R-Phoenix, one of the sponsors of the legislation, said the veto letter contradicts itself. He said the letter states the information is already provided but it goes on to say that requiring the information would be an undue burden. "It's got to be one or the other."

Napolitano said she believes the legislation violates state constitutional provisions, one that guarantees a right to privacy and one saying all privileges of law apply equally to all.

But Herrod, whose organization spent more than $50,000 on a media campaign to urge Napolitano to sign the bill, said 30 other states have similar laws, all withstanding constitutional challenges.

Napolitano, however, cited a 2002 Arizona Supreme Court ruling that said the state must pay for medically necessary abortions for women who cannot afford them. That decision was based on rights outlined in the state constitution, which in some cases are broader than the federal document.

The Governor's Office, which reported earlier this week that calls for signing were running ahead of requests for veto, said Thursday that it did not have a final tally. Napolitano made that unnecessary, saying Tuesday any action on the bill would be based on her own beliefs and not on public sentiment.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: abortion; napolitano; regulation; veto; waitingperiod
Janet actually used the phrase "undue government intrusion"! I wonder if she was able to keep a straight face. Check the weather forecast for Hades! Next she'll get the religion of states' rights (only for stuff like gay marriage, of course).</ sarcasm>
1 posted on 03/05/2004 4:38:17 PM PST by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
You guys voted for her~

There is one way to correct the situation.

2 posted on 03/05/2004 5:24:00 PM PST by BIGZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Where did this creepy woman come from?
3 posted on 03/05/2004 5:28:51 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
She's probably a Kalifornication refugee
4 posted on 03/05/2004 5:31:02 PM PST by Centurion2000 (Resolve to perform what you must; perform without fail that what you resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
You mean she was unable to "get enough" (as it were) in California?

That's difficult to imagine.

5 posted on 03/05/2004 5:36:56 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Undue Goverment intrustion------What the heck is a gun a month or a waiting period to pick your firearm up? Should we do a bdckground check when a woman shows up at an abortion clinic to see if she has ever been addicted to drugs or commited to a mental institution? Does she have to fill aout a yellow form for the government and does the abortion clinic get inspected at least yearly where the bureau of abortion agents(BAA) can demand to see these yellow forms?
6 posted on 03/06/2004 9:02:56 AM PST by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson