Surprise! Pregnancy before conception in Arizona

Amitti Mackey

Disclaimer: This post is filled with sarcasm and the content may not reflect the views of everyone at the UI Women’s Center

Governor Jan Brewer (R-Ariz) recently signed a law into existence that further limits the control women have over their own bodies when it comes to abortion. The law states that a woman is considered pregnant two weeks before conception.

Yes, you read that correctly. A fetus in Arizona is considered “conceived” before an egg is ever fertilized inside a woman’s body. Please try to wrap your brain around that for a second.

Can’t do it? That’s because it sounds as though women’s uteruses in Arizona have suddenly become time machines and there is some paradoxical, constant pregnancy happening. According to this (unethical and biologically impossible) logic, women are perpetually pregnant, provided at some point in time they have sex and a sperm makes its way to an egg. Sound crazy? It is.

This law was designed to further limit the amount of time in which a woman can proceed with an abortion. Most laws state abortions must occur before the point of viability, or when a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb. Many medical experts say this stage occurs about 22 to 26 weeks into pregnancy. The logic behind the new law is to calculate the gestational age according to the first day of the previous menstrual period, rather than the date of conception. For all intents and purposes, that is about two weeks, shortening the time frame for women to have abortions to roughly 20 weeks post actual-conception.

I am not going to get into my views on pro-life versus pro-choice. It is irrelevant for the topic at hand and a can of worms I don’t want to bust open for discussion less than two weeks prior to graduation—priorities, people, priorities. The point I’m trying to make is how scientifically and medically dishonest the wording of this bill is. As my friend Rachel so astutely said, it’s really sad when real-life headlines resemble those of The Onion.

Sex is messy, life is messy: HBO’s “Girls”

Hannah Blankenship

Like everyone and their mother, I have anticipated the arrival of HBO’s newest show “Girls” since it was announced.

Twenty five year-old Lena Dunham (from 2010’s “Tiny Furniture”) wrote and stars in the half-hour comedy/drama series, with Hollywood heavyweight Judd Apatow producing. The show is about four 20-somethings trying to figure out their lives in New York City. If that sounds like the second coming of “Sex and the City,” it is—kind of. Yes, the plot sounds identical, but as Dunham has said, the unglamorous demographic is one we haven’t seen on television before.

And the demographic isn’t the only thing new on the show.  From the language the characters use to their challenges to their tattoos to their awkward sexual encounters, the show is refreshingly real. Hannah’s sex scene in the first episode is cringe-worthy (ABC News called it “borderline date rape on a dirty futon”) but it is refreshingly far from the normally romanticized and male-driven sex scenes we’re used to. Dunham recently told CBS:

“I often said that I I’ve felt a little unfairly duped by the sex I see on television. I’m not saying this is every girl’s sexual experience, but I am saying that sex isn’t always glamorous, painful, it’s embarrassing, it’s complicated and I really wanted to see scenes where girls weren’t wearing negligees and sighing.”

Dunham’s “sex is messy” principle spills into other aspects of the show through the lives of the characters. Instead of dealing with a $40,000 shoe bill a la “Sex and the City,” Dunham’s character Hannah must find a job when her parents cut her off financially and figure out an undefined relationship with Adam, her sort-of boyfriend.

Her friends are also struggling with both big and everyday issues that young women of my generation can relate to: unintended pregnancy, job hunting, unrequited love, communicating with the opposite sex in the twenty-first century, slang, interning and more. According to one reviewer writing for Mother Jones, the next two episodes will address other taboo issues, including “passionless sex, STIs, casual abortions, boring boyfriends, gay boyfriends, drugs, money woes, body image.”

Surprisingly Good News From Georgia: Opinion

Kristen Carey

This little tidbit of information took me by surprise.  Georgia’s legislature is attempting to pass a bill that would make it illegal to shackle or restrain women inmates that are in labor, delivering, and recovering from the delivery.

This came as a bit of a shock to me.  Georgia is relatively notorious for its anti-women’s rights, especially abortion.  Although you could not categorize this in the “pro-choice” category, it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Georgia is not only keeping an eye out for women’s rights, but apparently inmates’ rights as well.  In general, inmates are often viewed as second-class citizens and therefore not entitled to the rights everyone outside of the prison system enjoys.  While it is more or less a consensus that some rights should be taken away, where should the line be drawn?

For those in Georgia, health care and the well being of the inmate seems to be one of them.  Although, at least for me, this one is kind of a no brainer.  What could the possible flight risk be for someone in labor?  Even if she did manage to get away, it is not like she could get very far.

So kudos to Georgia for actually using some common sense.  While I am not holding my breath for an emergence of Georgia as the champion of women’s and inmates’ rights, this is one of those stories that gives me a little more hope that the state has not gone completely nuts.