Arizona bill declares women pregnant two weeks before conception
That's a little overwrought, but not completely inaccurate.
On page eight of the proposed amendment to H.B. 2036, lawmakers lay out the “gestational age” of the child to be “calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” and from there, outlaws abortion “if the probable gestational age of [the] unborn child has been determined to be at least twenty weeks.”And I'm sure it's meant to make things easier for lawmakers to figure out, if it's meant for anything at all and isn't simply an ignorant oversight. Otherwise the "date of conception" becomes a law says/she says matter, and we can't have that.
But to the extent that it exposes "lawmakers" as the stupid, intrusive meddlers they are, I'm very much in favor of this law. And that may well be the last opinion on the subject of abortion you'll ever read here.
H/T to the Travis McGee Reader.
4 comments:
I have been told, by people who know more about this than I ever want to, that it's entirely possible for a girl to fall pregnant without ever having a period.
And I can see that the series of events leading up to this would probably be the kind of thing one might actually want an abortion for.
So good luck with that one.
It occurs to me that there's a way for female activists to have a little fun with this, should it make it into law:
File paternity claims against lawmakers with the excuse that DNA paternity testing is inconclusive because they're still in the two week "pre-pregancy" pregnancy phase. If they're pregnant enough for that law to apply, they're pregnant enough for the rest.
I can just see the new "laws" that require every woman to report her cycle events and even electronic gadgets installed to track it... which is, of course, the only way they could enforce this insanity.
What's next... a record of our bowel function? How often we cough? Eye contact? The sky is the limit.
And yes, Carl. That does sound like fun. LOL
Well, Mama, in my bar-hopping days, I did see indications that eye contact could lead to pregnancy.
But yeah, everything you mention could be j/u/s/t/i/f/i/e/d/ rationalized under the same argument statists made for regulating sugar, salt, smoking, and so on: Your health imposes costs on other people (because the statists made other people pay, but what the hell).
Post a Comment