Roundup: The Face of Conservatism: One Arizona Law Makes Guns Far More Accessible/Portable; The Other Restricts Women’s Rights

In what some might consider an ironic twist, on Wednesday a law making guns accessible and more portable in public went into effect the same day that restrictions on women’s rights to choose to terminate an unintended pregnancy went into effect in Arizona.

Arizona reports that both laws are “stirring controversy among Arizona residents, businesses, organizations
and politicians.”

The new laws allow guns to be kept in cars on campus, as well as on
public and private properties. New abortion laws, which have been
challenged in court, impose a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking

Another new gun law allows licensed gun owners to carry concealed
weapons into bars and restaurants unless there is a sign on the
property prohibiting firearms, according to state legislative documents.

A student leader at Arizona State University (ASU), sophomore Christopher Chesny, secretary of the ASU
College Republicans, said the new gun laws “are well thought out and
protect Second Amendment rights.” In other words, more guns will be available to more people in more places.

But ASU President Michael Crow said in an Arizona Board of Regents
meeting Friday that allowing concealed weapons in locked vehicles on
campus goes against the environment he wants for the University.

“Our job as university presidents is to create an environment for
openness, tolerance, communication, understanding — all these things,”
Crow said. “The public projection of weapons is a counter to the
creation of that environment.”

There are some 30,000 deaths from handguns in the United States each year, and firearms are responsible for more deaths among children and young adults ages 10 to 19 than any other cause except car accidents.

According to testimony by Senator Carl Levin:

An analysis of firearm violence data by the Children’s Defense Fund
found that 3,006 children and teens were killed by guns in 2005. This
marked the first time that more than 3,000 kids were killed by firearms
in many years and the first yearly increase in the number of children’s
deaths since 1994. Broken down, this amounts to 1 child or teen dying
every 3 hours in America, 8 children a day, or 58 children every week.

Firearms are the cause of death of more children between the ages of 10
and 19 than any other cause except car accidents. In 2005 alone, a
shocking 69 preschoolers were killed by firearms. Between 1979 and
2005, gun violence took the lives of over 104,000 children and teens.

David Berman, a senior research fellow for ASU’s Morrison Institute
for Public Policy, said in an e-mail that the new laws are a result of
Republican Jan Brewer succeeding Janet Napolitano as governor because Brewer is a conservative.

And, says “since Brewer stepped into office as governor, abortion laws have also seen reform.”

While parts of the abortion restrictions bill passed by the Arizona legislature and signed by Brewer
were challenged and blocked in court last Tuesday, some provisions that
slow down the process of getting an abortion were allowed to take
effect Wednesday.

A state judge ruled Tuesday that women could receive information
about the risks of and substitutes for abortion on the phone from a
physician instead of meeting in person as the original bill would have

Women must now have a consultation with a physician at least 24 hours before an abortion.

Due to persistent opposition to the bills, the judge also stopped
other provisions of the bills from becoming law. These included
requiring minors to present notarized consent for an abortion from a
parent or guardian, allowing health care professionals to refuse to
assist in an abortion, and prohibiting nurse practitioners from
performing surgical abortions.

Planned Parenthood was a major opponent to the new abortion bills.

Bryan Howard, president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, said the
organization had been actively involved in trying to stop this
legislation since it was introduced in February.

About 7,000 Arizonans sent messages to legislators against these abortion measures, Howard said.

“It was a pretty significant outpouring of sentiments,” he said.

In her piece today on RH Reality Check, Tori Schroeder talks about the various was i which access to abortion in Arizona remains restricted.

Other News:

October 2

Des Moines Register: Santorum: Health bill may cover abortions

Denver Post: Abortion latest snag in health reform

Trail Gazette: Life Chain spreads pro-life message coast to coast

Creative Minority Report: Pro-Choice Violence Doesn’t Count

FOX News: Support for Abortion Rights Declines Under Obama

AsiaOne: One in 10 teens has had unsafe sex, survey shows

LifeSiteNews: Cardinal Rigali: Contraception and Abortion Create Hostility toward Children

October 1

TrueSlant: The abortion wars south of the border

LifeNews: More Than 200,000 Pro-Life Advocates to Join 2009 LifeChain Against Abortion

AP: Santorum says he wants role in GOP’s future

Christian Science Monitor: Support for abortion slips … because Obama is pro-choice?

Optimum Population Blog: Marie Stopes: new emergency contraceptive pill launched in the UK

City Pages: Bachmann: Schools might start abortion field trips

Reuters: Support for abortion rights declines in America

ThinkProgress: Does The Abortion Compromise Preserve The Status Quo?

AP: Washington University apologizes for abortion blunder

Mercury News: Goodman: Health care and equality

WaPo: A Shift on Abortion?

Courthouse News Service: Judge Rejects Challenge to Arizona Abortion Law

Taking Note: Will Preserving the “Status Quo” Resolve the Abortion Debate?

NRO: The Abortion Debate Is On

OneNewsNow: In defense of Arizona’s pro-life laws

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • veritas-vincit

    Jodi, Many folks in Arizona would consider both issues to be one in the same, self-defense.


    Firearms are simply a means of protecting those who had the opportunity of being born, while the abortion laws are simply laws to protect the unborn.


    They are just another class of human beings such as race or sexual orientation … unborn.


    And I am pleased that your mother wasn’t a customer of Planned Parenthood. Women have a choice before conception occurs. You know as well as anyone how many abortions are elective and how many are truly for the health of the woman.


    If health were truly the issue, then cosmetic surgury and lipposuction would have been banned as un-healthy procedures.  As it stands now, abortions are a very un-healthy procedure for that innocent class of human beings, the un-born.  You know this.

  • jodi-jacobson

    My mother could well have used Planned Parenthood as after four children, and living in an abusive marriage she underwent a pre-Roe abortion and had numerous complications leading to a hysterectomy.

    So your assumptions are quite unfounded.

    I am not clear what the case for "self-defense" is with respect to the many children killed by handguns, and their misuse due to widespread availability? Why gun proponents oppose reasonable registration and background checks and the like and instead cry foul when these are proposed? And why the prolife movement is not as passionate, vocal, public or strenuously complaining about (as but one example) these various forms of violence against children with handguns.

    To my knowledge, I have yet to receive an "alarmed email" from any pro-life organization about these issues nor heard a speech about them nor seen quotes in the paper about them.


    Finally, our definitions of self-defense obviously differ quite dramatically as I believe women have the right to self-defense against unintended pregnancy–elective abortion or no–and against the government and religious groups intruding on their bodies, and controlling their lives.

  • frolicnaked

    Women have a choice before conception occurs.

    This oversimplifies life a great deal. It’s certainly true that most women, most times, do get to choose whether they’re sexually active. But I know far too many women who’ve been victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse to believe that "[w]omen have a choice" is an accurate blanket statement. Additionally, even more women do not have meaningful access to adequate contraception, whether due to cost, distance, health provider preferences, lack of information, or other factors. As a result, many women have less agency than they need to make truly the choices they’d otherwise wish to make. 


    Finally — legally — women do not only have a choice "before conception occurs." Nobody gets to decide what happens in (or inhabits) my uterus but me.

  • crowepps

    So women getting abortions is wrong, but women using guns to provide for their own self-defense by shooting themselves in the pregnant belly is okay? That seems logical but isn’t it kind of dangerous for the women?

  • emma

    Perhaps the Undead The Unborn should be able to carry guns, as well? Their being citizens with human rights and all, including the inalienable right to own a mini-arsenal. If the American Undead Unborn are people, the second amendment should apply to them, too, should it not? Next, you could work on drivers’ licenses for them…

  • jarhead1982

    There is a term we use when seeing blatant lies used in support of a position, we say “We call Bullshit on this one”.

    All one has to do is go to the CDC and look up the number of death’s data and how many of these were of children. Children are those aged 18 or less. The CDC data has children grouped into a 15-24 year age group of data, and pardon us, but 19-24 year olds are not classified as children, they are leigible to vote, some states drink, enlist in the military without parental consent, etc…..

    In 2006 in table ten, you will see the data. In the 15-24 years old, the data is spread relatively evenly so divide by 10 years then multiply by 4 years (15-18 year olds) and you get really close to the real numbers.

    What you will find is that approximatley 802 children, ages 1-18, died in accidental disharges, suicides, murders, and police involvement.

    You will not find in this information, how many of these so called children in their teens, were involved in criminal activies.

    This total hasnt changed much year to year so the fact is over the last 26 years, around 21,000 children died from firearms if you neglect to remove those who were engaged in criminal activities as this does include gang bangers, rather than the 104,000 number played on by the author of this article.

    I call Bullshit on the credibility of Senator Carl Levin as a credible commenter on guns as in the two times we have spoken face to face on this matter, he couldnt look me in the eye and provide data or logic for his defense of gun control laws. I unfortunately see this waste of a congressional seat 3 to 4 times per year in my conservation activies.

    I call bullshit on the 30,000 deaths by handguns per year as per the FBI UCR data, in 2006 firearms are only used 67.2% of the time in murders (17,030 x .672 = 11,444), with handguns being used about 85% of that time (11,444 x .85 = 9,727) in criminal activity, and this includes suicides and such as suicide is indeed illegal.

    In 2006 per CDC data, there were 30,970 deaths by firearms of which approximately 26,324 involved a handgun.

    What isnt posted here by the author is that year after year, these rates continue to drop, the data trend shows this readily if you just look.

    What is also neglected to be mentioned is that up to 80% of these murders, occured when both parties were involved in criminal activity.

    This continued portrayal of every victim being an inncoent victim is a bunch of baloney as well.

    Jodi would be well served to research the data she uses as support for her position, otherwise, what should one think of her position when so much of the supporting data is unfounded?

  • colleen

    What is also neglected to be mentioned is that up to 80% of these murders, occured when both parties were involved in criminal activity.
    This continued portrayal of every victim being an inncoent victim is a bunch of baloney as well.

    “up to 80%”? seems rather high and particularly when you aren’t providing a cite or explaining what sort of “criminal activity” you’re talking about or why nonspecific accusations of “criminal activity” should justifiably result in a guilty verdict of death. I understand that you’re indifferent to the deaths but trying to paint murdered young people as (mostly) deserving of their fate
    is only acceptable in conservative circles.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • paul-bradford

    For some of us, both gun violence and abortion are causes for concern and alarm. I’m as eager to see the rate of gun violence go down as I am eager to help lower the rate of abortion.  Interestingly, neither problem can be solved by a blanket prohibition.  Some people want a law to prohibit abortion, some want a law to prohibit guns.  Both are well-meaning but simplistic solutions to very complicated problems.


    I find a great deal of similarity in two groups: NARAL and the NRA.  They each tenaciously defend constitutional rights (with NARAL it’s the 14th Amendment, with the NRA it’s the 2nd) without ever taking stock of the human carnage these defenses leave in their wake.


    If you really want to advance a respect for life you can’t throw your lot in with either the conservatives or the liberals.  They both have their pro-death leanings.  And they both justify these leanings in the name of privacy and freedom. 


    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • nishashweta

    Austin Divorce Attorneys:-Austin divorce attorneys of the Milner Law Firm help clients with family
    law matters in Texas.