The Arizona Court of Appeals has upheld a 2009 pro-life state law that, in part, requires the mother to be informed of abortion risks and alternatives at an in-person doctor visit the day before getting an abortion, requires notarized parental consent for abortion on a minor child, and includes right of conscience religious provisions.
You can bet that this sort of law would never apply to, say, vasectomies, or a prescription for Viagra. No flipping way. The reason that the rural PP offices were forced to stop offering abortion was because their services were provided by nurse practitioners and, thus, don't fulfill the "in-person doctor visit" portion of the law. I call bullsh*t.
The reason this law was enacted was to force women into other alternatives besides abortion. There has been much debate, and I think we can all agree that abortion is not a desired outcome for anyone, pro-life or pro-choice. But if our true intention is to decrease the number of abortions, than we ought to be aiming our arrows at preventing unwanted pregnancies and offering early prenatal care to avoid life-threatening conditions that could prompt abortions in desired pregnancies. Instead, lawmakers are defunding one of the best-known agencies that provides both of those services - Planned Parenthood. This law was aimed directly and unyeildingly at abortion service providers and the women who access them.
Some politicians say they are simply trying to make abortions safer. Bullsh*t again. Abortions are as safe as any other in-office surgical procedure. Most of them occur without any sort of intravenous or general anesthesia, which cannot be said for other surgeries such as many plastic surgeries, tubal ligations, and trauma repair that occur in-office these days. As with any other procedure, getting an abortion requires informed consent. Clearly, the woman seeking those services has to speak with her provider and get the information necessary to agree to this procedure. So what's the deal?
Here is where abortion is different. It is a decision that must be made within a certain, specific time period or the decision is effectively made for you. A man seeking a vasectomy can wait a few weeks after seeing a physician to make his decision. He can either abstain from sexual activity or use some form of birth control in the meantime. A woman seeking an abortion is already pregnant. She doesn't have much time to consider her options.
The man is also not subjected to picketers judging him and showing him graphic photos of his surgery. I'm willing to bet that most men, should they see 11x14 full-color posters of their testicles exposed, painted with Betadine, and a surgeon's hand with the scalpel at the ready, would run for the nearest bush, vomit violently, and pass out.
These laws are not aimed at preventing unwanted or risky pregnancies. They are not aimed at protecting women. They are not aimed at improving the quality of the healthcare that women receive. They are designed to limit access to a safe, viable, legal surgical procedure that some lawmakers disagree with morally. The fact that they feel the need to lie about their intentions is a warning bell. Like I tell my kids, "If you feel like you need to hide what you're doing, it's probably not the right thing to do."