As quoted from an AP news source: "A pregnant woman in Phoenix, Arizona is staging a personal protest after she was ticketed for driving in the carpool lane during restricted hours."
Let me digress for a moment: At the conclusion of Roe v. Wade, the Uniform Abortion Act which had allowed for abortion up to a certain gestational point at 20 weeks, and enacted to form strict guidelines as to when and how an abortion might be sanctioned against retaliation from any existing State laws, was repealed. The repeals were based on numerous arguments centered around arbitrary opinions as to just exactly when fetal tissue becomes a human being.
"In the matter of abortions, as of any other medical procedure, the Judicial Council becomes involved whenever there is alleged violation of the Principles of Medical Ethics as established by the House of Delegates."
40 "UNIFORM ABORTION ACT:
"SECTION 1. [Abortion Defined; When Authorized.]
"(a) 'Abortion' means the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.
"(b) An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed:
"(1) by a physician licensed to practice medicine [or osteopathy] in this state or by a physician practicing medicine [or osteopathy] in the employ of the government of the United States or of this state, [and the abortion is performed [in the physician's office or in a medical clinic, or] in a hospital approved by the [Department of Health] or operated by the United States, this state, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of either;] or by a female upon herself upon the advice of the physician; and
"(2) within [20] weeks after the commencement of the pregnancy [or after [20] weeks only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe (i) there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother, (ii) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or (iii) that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or illicit intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years].
"SECTION 2. [Penalty.] Any person who performs or procures an abortion other than authorized by this Act is guilty of a [felony] and, upon conviction thereof, may be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding [$ 1,000] or to imprisonment [in the state penitentiary] not exceeding [5 years], or both.
"SECTION 3. [Uniformity of Interpretation.] This Act shall be construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among those states which enact it.
"SECTION 4. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Abortion Act."
Since the repeal of the Uniform Abortion Act, attempts have been argued incessantly over the past three decades to justify a "woman's right to choose" over and above anything construed as "uniform, defined, and clear-cut." The fetal tissue arguably never becomes a human being until it can scream or cry. Yet even then it is questionable. The woman's choice regarding when life begins truly falls to whatever is most convenient at any given moment, as women have the uncanny ability to change their minds twenty times per day and redefine female-logic via their Midol dosage instructions. Interestingly, Pro-Choice groups (which are predominantly female) probably won't regard a woman's desire to "choose" using her fetal tissue as qualification of her right to drive in HOV lanes during restricted rush hours.
I base this on the uproar among Pro-Choice groups who denounced CA prosecutors' determination in charging Scott Peterson with second-degree murder of his unborn fetal tissue, whom the Rosch family named Connor. Such a conviction, they argued, threatened the precedent in the repeal of certain articles in the Uniform Abortion Act following Roe v. Wade..... which wasn't centered so much around "a woman's right to choose," as it was more regarding "a woman's right to choose when she can change her mind about the choice, especially when convenience is involved." So I ask this........ if pregnant women wind up with a valid right to use the HOV lanes during restricted rush hours, does it still apply if they are driving to an abortion clinic?
I'm going to buy a box of Midol and check the PMS indemnity-protection-clause on the dosage instructions regarding the mental instability of women. Personally, I don't think women's voices ought to be heard on political mandates. And maybe men should finally just take up arms and go to war over it. You know, before some woman changes her mind about the Constitutional amendment regarding the right to bear arms.
On the other hand, I considered rallying with the pregnant chick in her protest of being cited for driving in the HOV lanes. For I believe, technically, that I have a small country of under-developed people in my balls...... and I too, feel overly qualified to use the restricted lanes.
Posted by theblurbs
at 4:36 PM MST
Updated: Friday, 18 November 2005 5:40 PM MST