Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 13, 2011, 06:36:50 PM
-
Interesting question. Does life begin at conception?
Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
By Shannon Bream
Published September 12, 2011
FoxNews.com
Fresh off a win at the Mississippi Supreme Court, backers of a so-called "Personhood Amendment" are looking forward to making their case to voters.
On Nov. 8, voters across the state will decide whether or not to amend the Mississippi constitution so that in the words of the proposed amendment, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization."
A number of pro-choice groups, including the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, sued to keep the initiative off the November ballot. In ruling to allow it, the Mississippi Supreme Court held, "Just as this Court cannot prohibit legislators from offering proposals in the House or Senate, this Court cannot impede voters from submitting proposals through the voter initiative process." The Court did not address the content of the ballot initiative.
Opponents warn that the measure will radically interfere with women's most personal healthcare decisions. "This measure is harmful to women," Brian Atwood, legal director of the ACLU said.
Atwood characterized the proposed amendment as something that could "severely limit women's access to birth control, in vitro fertilization and life-saving medical procedures."
Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, said those claims are simply false.
"We are planning to take these arguments head-on in Mississippi," Mason says. He also argues that many of the groups that oppose measures like the one in Mississippi stand "to profit" from abortion, and that accounts for at least part of their motivation.
Although a similar ballot measure has failed twice in Colorado, Mason is optimistic about success in Mississippi.
"Around 80 percent of the electorate is pro-life," Mason said. "The only way we could see defeat in Mississippi ... is if folks just sit at home and do nothing."
Though it was among the losing parties at the Mississippi Supreme Court, the Center for Reproductive Rights believes it will ultimately prevail. It is urging voters to defeat the Personhood Amendment and warning, "This measure should raise all kinds of alarms."
Should voters approve the measure, legal fights are guaranteed and opponents feel confident the content of the amendment will not survive legal scrutiny.
Supporters plan to forge ahead. They hope to have Personhood Amendments on at least a dozen state ballots by Election Day 2012.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/supporters-personhood-amendment-make-case-to-mississippi-voters/
-
'Personhood,' a new tack in abortion fight
By Erik Eckholm
New York Times
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Oct 26, 2011
A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder.
With this far-reaching anti-abortion strategy, the proponents of what they call personhood amendments hope to reshape the national debate.
"I view it as transformative," said Brad Prewitt, a lawyer and executive director of the Yes on 26 campaign, which is named for the Mississippi proposition. "Personhood is bigger than just shutting abortion clinics; it's an opportunity for people to say that we're made in the image of God."
Many doctors and women's health advocates say the proposals would cause a dangerous intrusion of criminal law into medical care, jeopardizing women's rights and even their lives.
The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar birth control methods, including IUDs and "morning-after pills" that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories.
The amendment has been endorsed by candidates for governor from both major parties, and it appears likely to pass, said W. Martin Wiseman, director of the John C. Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University. Legal challenges would surely follow, but even if the amendment is ultimately declared unconstitutional, it could disrupt vital care, critics say, and force years of costly court battles.
"This is the most extreme in a field of extreme anti-abortion measures that have been before the states this year," said Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy group.
Opponents, who were handing out brochures Saturday to tailgate partiers before the University of Southern Mississippi football game in Hattiesburg, said they hoped to dispel the impression that the amendment simply bars abortions -- a popular idea in Mississippi -- by warning that it would also limit contraceptives, make doctors afraid to save women with life-threatening pregnancies and possibly hamper in vitro fertility treatments.
The drive for personhood amendments has split the anti-abortion forces nationally. Some groups call it an inspired moral leap, while traditional leaders of the fight, including the National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, have refused to promote it, charging that the tactic is reckless and could backfire, leading to a Supreme Court defeat that would undermine progress in carving away at Roe v. Wade.
The approach, granting legal rights to embryos, is fundamentally different from the abortion restrictions that have been adopted in dozens of states. These try to narrow or hamper access to abortions by, for example, sharply restricting the procedures at as early as 20 weeks, requiring women to view ultrasounds of the fetus, curbing insurance coverage and imposing expensive regulations on clinics.
The Mississippi amendment aims to sidestep existing legal battles, simply stating that "the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
A similar measure has been defeated twice, by large margins, in Colorado. But the national campaign, promoted by Personhood USA, a Colorado-based group, found more receptive ground in Mississippi, where anti-abortion sentiment crosses party and racial lines, and where the state already has so many restrictions on abortion that only one clinic performs the procedure.
In 2009, an ardent abortion foe named Les Riley formed a state personhood group and started collecting the signatures needed to reach the ballot. Evangelicals and other longtime abortion opponents have pressed the case, and Proposition 26 has the support of a range of political leaders. Its passage could energize similar drives brewing in Florida, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin and other states.
In Mississippi, the emotional battle is being fought with radio and television ads, phone banks and old-fashioned canvassing.
Among the picnicking fans being lobbied outside the stadium in Hattiesburg on Saturday, Lauree Mooney, 40, and her husband, Jerry Mooney, 45, USM alumni, disagreed with each other. She said that she is against abortion but that the amendment is "too extreme." Jerry Mooney said he would vote yes because "I've always been against abortion."
Shelley Shoemake, 41, a chiropractor, said the proposal is "yanking me in one direction and the other." She knows women who had abortions as teenagers, and feels compassion for them. "I've got a lot of praying to do" before the vote, she said.
Mississippi will also elect a new governor on Nov. 8. The Republican candidate, Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, is co-chairman of Yes on 26 and his campaign distributes bumper stickers for the initiative. The Democratic candidate, Johnny DuPree, the mayor of Hattiesburg and the state's first black major-party candidate for governor in modern times, says he will vote for it though he is worried about its impact on medical care and contraception.
No one can yet be sure of how the amendment would affect criminal proceedings, said Jonathan Will, director of the Bioethics and Health Law Center at the Mississippi College School of Law. Could a woman taking a morning-after pill, for instance, be charged with murder?
But many leaders of the anti-abortion movement fear that the strategy will be counterproductive. Federal courts would almost surely declare the amendment unconstitutional, said James Bopp Jr., a prominent conservative lawyer from Terre Haute, Ind., and general counsel of National Right to Life, since it contradicts a woman's current right to an abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy.
"From the standpoint of protecting unborn lives it's utterly futile," he said, "and it has the grave risk that if it did get to the Supreme Court, the court would write an even more extreme abortion policy."
Bishop Joseph Latino of Jackson, Miss., said in a statement last week that the Roman Catholic Church does not support Proposition 26 because "the push for a state amendment could ultimately harm our efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade."
Conservative Christian groups including the American Family Association and the Family Research Council are firmly behind the proposal.
Dr. Randall S. Hines, a fertility specialist in Jackson working against Proposition 26 with the group Mississippians for Healthy Families, said that the amendment reflects "biological ignorance." Most fertilized eggs, he said, do not implant in the uterus or develop further.
"Once you recognize that the majority of fertilized eggs don't become people, then you recognize how absurd this amendment is," Hines said. He fears severe unintended consequences for doctors and women dealing with ectopic or other dangerous pregnancies and for in vitro fertility treatments. "We'll be asking the Legislature, the governor, judges to decide what is best for the patient," he said.
Dr. Eric Webb, an obstetrician in Tupelo, Miss., who has spoken out on behalf of Proposition 26, said that the concerns about wider impacts were overblown and that the critics were "avoiding the central moral question."
"With the union of the egg and sperm, that is life, and genetically human," Webb said.
Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, said he did not agree that the Supreme Court would necessarily reject a personhood amendment. The ultimate goal, he said, is a federal amendment, with a victory in Mississippi as the first step.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/nyt/20111026_Personhood_a_new_tack_in_abortion_fight.html
-
Kind of shocking that this thread didn't explode into 30 pages.
My personal belief is that life does start at conception. With that said I sure would not want to tell rape and incest victims they had to have the baby that resulted from their rape or force a mother to give birth to a baby that doesn't have any chance at life. Also not cool if it results in the state deciding who dies if it comes down to the mother or the baby.
-
On Nov. 8, voters across the state will decide whether or not to amend the Mississippi constitution so that in the words of the proposed amendment, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization."
That's hilarious!!!
Next I'll be tried on charges of genocide for squirting about 39 million people into my girlfriends anal cavity! ::)
-
Life begins when your check is cashed on the filing fee for your Articles of Incorporation
-
Hahaha come on. This has to be a joke.
-
I'm no supporter of abortion, but come on!
Insanity, lol
-
Kind of shocking that this thread didn't explode into 30 pages.
My personal belief is that life does start at conception. With that said I sure would not want to tell rape and incest victims they had to have the baby that resulted from their rape or force a mother to give birth to a baby that doesn't have any chance at life. Also not cool if it results in the state deciding who dies if it comes down to the mother or the baby.
I agree life begins at conception. That's the logical starting point, rather than some arbitrary "viability" line, etc. I think people who have been involved with the pregnancy and the birth of a child (male or female) is more likely to understand and appreciate that there is actually a life in the womb (whether the law recognizes it or not).
In terms of the rape and incest exceptions, I don't think there can be a logical distinction between aborting a baby conceived through consensual sex and aborting one conceived through rape. It's still an innocent child. So, if a state is going to ban it, a rape/incest exception isn't reasonable IMO.
I view the mother's life and health differently, because then you have competing interests (mother vs. baby). Not saying this should happen, just following the argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion.
In any event, I've said this many times before, but I don't think there is a political solution to this issue, short of a "personhood amendment," and even then it probably will never be settled.
-
If life begins at conception then God is the biggest abortionist on the planet since, "according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists .... anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage"
As to when human life "begins" I agree with Bill Hicks
You're not a human being until you're in my phone book. - Bill Hicks
-
"The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar birth control methods, including IUDs and "morning-after pills" that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories."
I don't see how this will survive current SCOTUS rulings, but...
-
I agree life begins at conception. That's the logical starting point, rather than some arbitrary "viability" line, etc. I think people who have been involved with the pregnancy and the birth of a child (male or female) is more likely to understand and appreciate that there is actually a life in the womb (whether the law recognizes it or not).
In terms of the rape and incest exceptions, I don't think there can be a logical distinction between aborting a baby conceived through consensual sex and aborting one conceived through rape. It's still an innocent child. So, if a state is going to ban it, a rape/incest exception isn't reasonable IMO.
I view the mother's life and health differently, because then you have competing interests (mother vs. baby). Not saying this should happen, just following the argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion.
In any event, I've said this many times before, but I don't think there is a political solution to this issue, short of a "personhood amendment," and even then it probably will never be settled.
Bum, from your statement above I assume if your wife, sister, daughter was raped and became pregnant (and I certainly hope that never happens) that you would want them to bear the child of their rapist.
How would you suggest they deal with the trauma/horror of having to carry the child of their rapist and then what would you want them to do with the child (I'm assuming you would have some influence if this were your wife or daughter). Would you want them to raise the child oftheir rapist or put it up for adotption. Which one do you think would create more trauma for them. Raising the child or giving it up?
-
Sperm are living beings? Right?
I don't think we should be blindly trying to protect "life". What we know as human life should be protected.
-
Interesting distraction. Let's all worry about this while dems and repubs wipe their asses with our tax dollars.
-
That's hilarious!!!
Next I'll be tried on charges of genocide for squirting about 39 million people into my girlfriends anal cavity! ::)
Sperm are living beings? Right?
I don't think we should be blindly trying to protect "life". What we know as human life should be protected.
PIP, you may be having a brain fart because you know that fertilization in this case = a male sperm + female egg = zygote (the life they are talking about not just your sperm [sperm or egg on their own = not a human life])
For instance, vegetarians can eat unfertilized chicken eggs as you know them but wouldn't eat fertilized ones....because the unfertilized egg is, as Toxic Avenger would say, simply "hen period."
-
PIP, you may be having a brain fart because you know that fertilization in this case = a male sperm + female egg = zygote (the life they are talking about not just your sperm [sperm or egg on their own = not a human life])
For instance, vegetarians can eat unfertilized chicken eggs as you know them but wouldn't eat fertilized ones....because the unfertilized egg is, as Toxic Avenger would say, simply "hen period."
Thanks for taking the time to lay it out like that Mr. Bean! ;D
I realize that, and agree but I don't know that sperm should instantly be considered "a human" because it's merely penetrated the egg. I believe it takes a little while for stuff to begin. I don't know that these earliest forms of life should be considered "a human". I know that at some point in the womb a tiny human is formed, but I believe the human part comes a little bit later.
-
It may be wrong of me, and this probably isn't the appropriate thread, but the fact that we're at a world population of 7,000,000,000 concerns me.
This is a much bigger problem than anything we're currently concerned about.
-
Thanks for taking the time to lay it out like that Mr. Bean! ;D
:)
-
Interesting distraction. Let's all worry about this while dems and repubs wipe their asses with our tax dollars.
::) Troll. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=399809.0
-
If this passes then anyone who is raped in Mississippi will be forced to carry their rapists spawn to term
Will the rapist get parental visits? I assume the rapist will have to pay child support but what if he's still in jail serving a term for the rape (and let's fucking hope that he is). Will the state then pay child support since they forced the woman to give birth?
Will all miscarriages be investigated as a potential homicide?
Will birth control be illegal?
-
If this passes then anyone who is raped in Mississippi will be forced to carry their rapists spawn to term
Will the rapist get parental visits? I assume the rapist will have to pay child support but what if he's still in jail serving a term for the rape (and let's fucking hope that he is). Will the state then pay child support since they forced the woman to give birth?
Will all miscarriages be investigated as a potential homicide?
Will birth control be illegal?
what happens now when a man with a child is paying child support and goes to jail?
id say the same thing should happen in your idiotic scenario ;)
-
If this passes then anyone who is raped in Mississippi will be forced to carry their rapists spawn to term
wow, it sounds evil when it's written like that. Spawn!
-
what happens now when a man with a child is paying child support and goes to jail?
id say the same thing should happen in your idiotic scenario ;)
I must say this is a suprising new low in stupidity, even for you.
first of all this is not my scenario
this would the the scenario if this amendment were to pass
here is the key difference that you seemed to have failed to comprehend
the state would be forcing the woman to give birth to the child of her rapist
The state now becomes a responsible party in this situation
Does the state now pay child support?
Does the state pay for counseling for the trauma to the woman for having to bear the child of her rapist and the trauma of having to either raise the child of her rapist of having to part with it.
This is an outcome forced by the state and they are now a responsible party and perhaps even THE primary responsible party in this situation
-
I must say this is a suprising new low in stupidity, even for you.
first of all this is not my scenario
this would the the scenario if this amendment were to pass
here is the key difference that you seemed to have failed to comprehend
the state would be forcing the woman to give birth to the child of her rapist
The state now becomes a responsible party in this situation
Does the state now pay child support?
Does the state pay for counseling for the trauma to the woman for having to bear the child of her rapist and the trauma of having to either raise the child of her rapist of having to part with it.
This is an outcome forced by the state and they are now a responsible party and perhaps even THE primary responsible party in this situation
the state forces the man to be a father if he doesnt want the child, THIS IS THE SIMILARITY THAT YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND!!!
but I agree I would be ok with a choice clause in the case of rape.
-
the state forces the man to be a father if he doesnt want the child, THIS IS THE SIMILARITY THAT YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND!!!
but I agree I would be ok with a choice clause in the case of rape.
I can't figure out if you're actually joking or really this stupid
the state did not force the "father" to commit rape
we're talking about conception by rape
do you understand?
-
I can't figure out if you're actually joking or really this stupid
the state did not force the "father" to commit rape
we're talking about conception by rape
do you understand?
agreed which is why i said I would be ok with a clause in exceptions of rape...what part of that did you not understand?
fact of the matter is though if you want to complain about a woman being forced to take care of a child you should be equally upset about a man being forced to take care of a child...pretty logical if you ask me...
-
agreed which is why i said I would be ok with a clause in exceptions of rape...what part of that did you not understand?
fact of the matter is though if you want to complain about a woman being forced to take care of a child you should be equally upset about a man being forced to take care of a child...pretty logical if you ask me...
there is no exclusion for anything in this ammendment
that is the purpose of this ammendment and the mindset of the people who support it
for example
I agree life begins at conception. That's the logical starting point, rather than some arbitrary "viability" line, etc. I think people who have been involved with the pregnancy and the birth of a child (male or female) is more likely to understand and appreciate that there is actually a life in the womb (whether the law recognizes it or not).
In terms of the rape and incest exceptions, I don't think there can be a logical distinction between aborting a baby conceived through consensual sex and aborting one conceived through rape. It's still an innocent child. So, if a state is going to ban it, a rape/incest exception isn't reasonable IMO.
I view the mother's life and health differently, because then you have competing interests (mother vs. baby). Not saying this should happen, just following the argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion.
In any event, I've said this many times before, but I don't think there is a political solution to this issue, short of a "personhood amendment," and even then it probably will never be settled.
-
so we know fundies are against abortion even in the case of rape or incest and it appears that couldn't give less of a shit of about the resulting trauma to the woman forced to give birth to their rapists child. Here are some other consequences they probably don't give a shit about either.
The bottom line - if this passes then fundies will have successfully required everyone in the state to follow their religious beliefs and they could give a rats ass about the consequences to the actual fully formed human beings which it will effect
http://www.fertilityauthority.com/articles/chilling-effect-mississippis-personhood-amendment
The Effect on Infertility Patients
IVF necessitates that multiple eggs are fertilized in a lab to increase the likelihood of pregnancy. The fertilized eggs develop for three to five days, and then one or more are transferred to the woman’s uterus with the hope that one will implant and develop into a successful pregnancy and birth. However, there are often extra fertilized eggs remaining after a couple becomes pregnant. Many infertile couples require more than one attempt at implantation before a pregnancy occurs; many experience miscarriages; and many infertile couples plan on having additional children. The fertilized embryos that remain are often frozen (cryopreserved).
Passage of a Personhood Amendment would call into question many of these fertility treatments. If embryos are full humans, anything that puts an embryo at risk could be a criminal violation. For example, If embryos from an IVF cycle do not develop normally in the lab or do not result in a live birth after embryo transfer, could the fertility doctor or lab be criminally liable? Will patients be prohibited from donating frozen embryos to research? Will laws like this take away a person's rights of disposition over their embryos? Would non-IVF treatments such as artificial insemination be threatened because they carry the risk of miscarriage, and would a woman who suffers a miscarriage be subject to criminal charges? Who will have legal responsibility for fertilized eggs created during fertility treatment but not transferred to a woman's uterus?
As a guest columnist in the Mississippi's Clarion Ledger, Rims Barber, director of the Mississippi Human Services Agenda wrote:
Since more than one egg is harvested and fertilized to achieve a successful IVF pregnancy, making all the embryos "people" under Mississippi law will make it difficult if not impossible to continue offering IVF treatment in our state ...
Moreover, IVF is not the only medical treatment that could be prevented by passage of the Personhood Amendment. Effective treatment of tubal pregnancies, severe preeclampsia, and molar gestation could be prevented.
-
more pesky details
Mississippi’s Ambiguous ‘Personhood’ Amendment
By I. GLENN COHEN and JONATHAN F. WILL
ON Nov. 8, Mississippi voters will be asked to decide on a proposed amendment to the state constitution, which would define as a person “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.”
Most of the debate on this proposal has fallen on traditional lines. In our charged political climate, that is understandable, but it is also profoundly misleading. Whether one supports abortion rights or not, there are serious issues with this amendment — not because of the principles it seeks to represent, but because, as a legal matter, it is profoundly ambiguous.
First, what does “fertilization” mean? As embryologists recognize, fertilization is a process, a continuum, rather than a fixed point. The term “fertilization” — which is sometimes considered synonymous with “conception” — could mean at least four different things: penetration of the egg by a sperm, assembly of the new embryonic genome, successful activation of that genome, and implantation of the embryo in the uterus. The first occurs immediately; the last occurs approximately two weeks after insemination (or, in the case of embryos created through in vitro fertilization that do not get implanted, never). Thus, on some reasonable readings of the amendment, certain forms of birth control, stem cell derivation and the destruction of embryos created through in vitro fertilization would seem impermissible, while on other equally reasonable readings they are not.
Second, the proposed amendment does not clearly indicate what the immediate legal impact would be. Would the amendment be “self-executing” — that is, effectuate a change to Mississippi law on its own — or would it require enabling legislation to set that change in motion?
Under existing doctrine, constitutional provisions or amendments that only set forth “first principles” or “policies” are not treated as self-executing, because they need laws enacted to further the stated principles or policies. In this case it’s not clear whether the amendment would, for example, immediately redefine thousands of references to “human beings” or “persons,” including those in provisions governing criminal homicide, or whether additional legislation would be necessary. Because of this uncertainty, voters considering this amendment cannot tell what actions would and would not immediately be subject to prosecutorial investigation were the amendment to pass.
It is obvious why those who support abortion rights will be uncomfortable with this amendment. But opponents of abortion rights may find that it covers more than they bargained for, including some forms of in vitro fertilization and birth control. Indeed, even opponents of abortion rights who would like nothing more than to give the courts an opportunity to reverse Roe v. Wade may find this amendment a bad vehicle for doing so. Courts frequently read ambiguous language as a strategy to avoid raising serious constitutional questions. By endorsing a ballot initiative that is deeply ambiguous, pro-life constituencies could be inviting courts to read the amendment in a way that sidesteps the very constitutional question they want to force.
Mississippi voters, whatever their views on abortion, deserve an amendment that is clear on its face. This is not such an amendment.
-
Barbour: Life-at-Fertilization Prop 'Ambiguous'
Wednesday, 02 Nov 2011
JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi's Republican governor, Haley Barbour, says the life-at-fertilization initiative on next Tuesday's state ballot is "ambiguous" and he's not sure whether he'll vote for or against it.
Initiative 26 seeks to amend the state constitution to declare that life begins when a human egg is fertilized.
Barbour told reporters Wednesday he opposes abortion but thinks the initiative could have unintended consequences if it passes. For example, he said it's unclear whether the measure would hamper in vitro fertilization or limit medical treatment for women with ectopic pregnancies. Such concerns have also been raised by physicians' groups, including one that represents Mississippi obstetricians and gynecologists.
Barbour, who leaves office in January after two terms, said he believes life begins at conception, but he thinks that's different than what the initiative asks.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/MississippiAbortionAmendment/2011/11/02/id/416616
-
Barbour: Life-at-Fertilization Prop 'Ambiguous'
Wednesday, 02 Nov 2011
JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi's Republican governor, Haley Barbour, says the life-at-fertilization initiative on next Tuesday's state ballot is "ambiguous" and he's not sure whether he'll vote for or against it.
Initiative 26 seeks to amend the state constitution to declare that life begins when a human egg is fertilized.
Barbour told reporters Wednesday he opposes abortion but thinks the initiative could have unintended consequences if it passes. For example, he said it's unclear whether the measure would hamper in vitro fertilization or limit medical treatment for women with ectopic pregnancies. Such concerns have also been raised by physicians' groups, including one that represents Mississippi obstetricians and gynecologists.
Barbour, who leaves office in January after two terms, said he believes life begins at conception, but he thinks that's different than what the initiative asks.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/MississippiAbortionAmendment/2011/11/02/id/416616
I wonder why Barbour has no qualms about forcing rape victims to bear their rapists child
no fundie on this board seems to have a problem with it either
-
can you imagine the women having the baby and all the family members saying oh how quite looks just like the little rapest :D
-
can you imagine the women having the baby and all the family members saying oh how quite looks just like the little rapest :D
I thought the Repubs were the party who didn't intrude into a persons private life
can you imagine the horror of surviving a violent attack and then being forced by the state to have to give birth to that child.
Given that the morning after pill can be given immediately and actually prevent conception it's an ubelievably cruel thing to do to a woman and imagine if it wasn't an adult woman but let's say a 14 year old girl and let's say the girl was raped by her father or some other family member.
Fundies who believe in this ideoa of life beginning basically at the moment or rape would insist that the girl bear her fathers child
I haven't heard one fundie come on this thread and say one word about this
-
Barbour Votes for Life-at-Fertilization Initiative
Thursday, 03 Nov 2011
PEARL, Miss. — Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour says he voted for a state ballot initiative that would declare life begins at fertilization.
The Republican said he voted by absentee ballot Thursday because he won't be in his hometown for Tuesday's election.
Barbour had told reporters on Wednesday that he was undecided because he thinks the initiative is ambiguous and he had concerns about how it might affect in vitro fertilization and ectopic pregnancies.
Barbour said he still has concerns about how it might affect healthcare, if passed. But he said he voted for it, ultimately, because he believes life begins at conception.
Barbour weighed a presidential bid in 2012 but decided against it.
He answered questions after appearing at a campaign rally for Phil Bryant, the Republican trying to succeed him as governor.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Barbour-fertilization-amendment-voted/2011/11/03/id/416819
-
still not a word from any of our resident fundies on how they would deal with the trauma inflicted on rape victims by forcing them to bear the child of their rapist
I agree life begins at conception. That's the logical starting point, rather than some arbitrary "viability" line, etc. I think people who have been involved with the pregnancy and the birth of a child (male or female) is more likely to understand and appreciate that there is actually a life in the womb (whether the law recognizes it or not).
In terms of the rape and incest exceptions, I don't think there can be a logical distinction between aborting a baby conceived through consensual sex and aborting one conceived through rape. It's still an innocent child. So, if a state is going to ban it, a rape/incest exception isn't reasonable IMO.
I view the mother's life and health differently, because then you have competing interests (mother vs. baby). Not saying this should happen, just following the argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion.
In any event, I've said this many times before, but I don't think there is a political solution to this issue, short of a "personhood amendment," and even then it probably will never be settled.
-
Good article. Touches on both sides.
Mississippi gov. supports amendment to declare fertilized egg a person
By Mallory Simon, CNN
Fri November 4, 2011
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/111103032321-pregnant-woman-sonogram-story-top.jpg)
If the Mississippi amendment passes, the moment an egg is fertilized a woman would not be able to get an abortion in the state.
(CNN) -- Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour offered his support Friday for an amendment to the state constitution that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception, saying he cast his absentee ballot for the measure despite struggling with its implications.
"I have some concerns about it," he said in a statement issued Friday, a day after casting his ballot. "But I think all in all, I believe life begins at conception, so I think the right thing to do was to vote for it."
On Wednesday, Barbour, a Republican, said that he was still undecided and that the measure was "too ambiguous."
Initiative 26 would define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
Though the text of the amendment is simple, the implications if it passes couldn't be more complex. If approved by Mississippi voters on Tuesday, it would make it impossible to get an abortion and hamper the ability to get some forms of birth control.
Because the amendment would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights, it could have an impact on a woman's ability to get the morning-after pill or birth control pills that destroy fertilized eggs, and it could make in vitro fertilization treatments more difficult because it could become illegal to dispose of unused fertilized eggs. This could lead to a nationwide debate about women's rights and abortion while setting up a possible challenge to the landmark Roe v. Wade case, which makes abortion legal.
The ballot initiative is part of a national campaign brought by Personhood USA. The Colorado-based group describes itself as a nonprofit Christian ministry that "serves the pro-life community by assisting local groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all innocent humans."
The idea for personhood was born during Roe v. Wade's oral arguments, when Justice Potter Stewart said, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an impossible case here." Now, Personhood USA is trying to use the amendment to establish "personhood" as a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade ruling.
The initiative has been gaining support across many demographics, according to polls suggesting that it will probably pass.
The Mississippi State Medical Association and Doctors Against MS 26 are voicing concern about implications for the health care of women as well as their ability to practice medicine.
Clergy and church officials in the heavily religious state are split on the issue. Some anti-abortion religious groups say they think this step may be so extreme, it could lead to a Supreme Court ruling that actually strengthens Roe v. Wade.
The Democratic and Republican candidates for governor have both said they are behind the amendment, and Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, has said he would enforce the measure if it passed.
While Barbour said he still has concerns, he said in a statement Friday that a group opposed to the measure is calling Mississippi voters and telling them he is opposed to it.
"These misleading calls were made without my knowledge, without my permission and against my wishes," Barbour's statement said. "I have demanded that this deception be stopped, and those responsible have assured me that no more calls will be made."
The governor's office identified the group as Mississippians for Healthy Families.
A statement from the group said the calls used "the exact words of Gov. Haley Barbour about the 'unintended consequences' caused by this dangerous initiative," noting that the concerns expressed earlier in the week by the governor "echo those of doctors, nurses, clergy, parents and many pro-life Mississippians who are opposed to Initiative 26."
Jonathan F. Will, director of the Bioethics and Health Law Center at the Mississippi College of Law, said he, too, is concerned that people may not be able to understand the complexity of the amendment.
"My first thought, literally, was people aren't going to understand what this means ... what implications it has beyond abortions," he said.
Differing voices
What the amendment means, and whether it is either the most sensible measure or the most extreme and dangerous one, depends on whom you talk to in Mississippi.
Terri Herring, the national director for the Pro-Life America network and an advisory board member for Yes on 26, said the goal of the amendment is to give people the chance to say there is a better way than abortion. She also said the vote is a way to change the national conversation and push to give more rights to the unborn.
"In Mississippi, we have the opportunity to lead the way on a social justice issue," Herring said. "We may have been behind on civil rights, but we can be ahead on human rights, and that's what personhood is really all about."
But those opposed to the measure say that voting yes would be a huge mistake.
Cristen Hemmins, a mother from Oxford, has been speaking out against Initiative 26 because of what it could mean for her, her daughters and the ability of families to make the choices they want with their doctors.
"Whether or not you believe life begins at conception, this amendment goes too far," she said. "It is too ambiguous. It seems so obvious to me that it is far-reaching and it is going to be big government getting all up in my uterus."
Whether or not you believe life begins at conception, this amendment goes too far.
Cristen Hemmins, opponent of Initiative 26
Hemmins believes that passing the amendment would give the state too much control over women's reproductive rights.
Herring, on the other hand, thinks the amendment would be a way for Mississippi to be the first to support the rights of an unborn fetus while correcting contradictions in the state's constitution.
"If a woman was attacked and her unborn child was killed, it would be fetal homicide. That is considered a person," she said. "But on that very same day in the same area, a woman could go and have an abortion and kill her child, and nothing would happen. So we have a contradiction, and that is what we're trying to fix here."
But Hemmins believes that passing the amendment would be a "blight" on Mississippi, not a shining moment, and she cautions those who think this is just a local issue.
Mississippi is the only state voting on a "personhood" initiative this year, but similar measures have gone on the ballot in other states and were defeated by wide margins. Other personhood measures are being planned for next year in Florida, Montana and Ohio, according to supporters. Efforts in at least five other states are in the planning stages.
"Apparently, they thought they needed to find a place more religious and more conservative, so they headed down here," Hemmins said. "But this is big government going too far in the poorest state in the country, with the highest teen pregnancy rate, the highest STD rate -- let's focus on fixing those things."
But many of those who support Initiative 26 say that defining life as the moment an egg is fertilized will allow women to really think about the decision of raising a child and open the door for a more successful adoption policy.
"We're trying to say there is another way besides abortion, that there can be a home for every child," Herring said. "Not every unwanted child has to die. There are over a million couples waiting to adopt. It's time to stop the senseless killing of children. We can provide these children, if people don't want them, to all of those who cannot have children themselves and stop the rush of people going to Russia, China and other areas to get children."
What would the measure mean?
Hemmins and others who work with No on 26 say the measure brings up more questions than answers, such as: What does it mean for women's reproductive rights? What does it mean about the decisions a woman can make with her doctor? Will it mean women will be at the mercy of the state when it comes to everything from taking certain birth control pills to trying to conceive if a couple is infertile?
But those in support of this measure say those questions are scare tactics used to sway votes.
"(They should) stop the fear-mongering and the tactics that are just talking about outrageous things that we do not believe will happen," Herring said. "This is really about saying, 'What did our forefathers intend when they used the word "person"?' I think very clearly, there is no way that long ago they had any intention of not including the unborn as a person. So in my mind, this is a historic vote, and it provides the people to have a voice in protecting life."
This is a historic vote, and it provides the people to have a voice in protecting life.
Terri Herring, supporter of Initiative 26
The vote is a way to start the conversation, Herring said, and laws that would help govern the definition change would come later.
"What legislation falls under that is yet to be determined," she said.
That is exactly the problem, according to opponents.
"Talking about the (implications) is just being smart; it's not fear-mongering," Hemmins said. "You don't pass an amendment like this and not think about what it might mean. That is just reckless."
Will, as a legal expert, said that if the amendment were to pass, it will probably face several legal challenges, but it also opens the doors for interpretation by local officials.
"The concern is that you could have local prosecutors that as soon as this amendment goes into place would say 'OK, well clearly this is the policy the people of this state want, so now I'm going to use our code to investigate miscarriages and IVF,' " Will said.
An area of particular concern for opponents is that it doesn't provide exception for victims of rape or incest who wish to terminate their pregnancy. Many states have varying bans on abortions but allow exceptions for such circumstances.
Hemmins, who was abducted, raped and shot twice by two men while she was in college, said it is "terrible" to not allow for any exceptions.
"I did not get pregnant, thank goodness, but if I had and Initiative 26 had been in place, I would have had no options," she said. "I would have been forced to have had this child by the government. I think it's a travesty in the United States of America that a state could force a woman against her will to bear a child."
Those supporting the amendment note that only a small fraction of people have to deal with that issue. A 2005 study by the Guttmacher Institute of New York shows that only 1% of women who had had an abortion said they had been raped. The study also showed that fewer than 0.5% became pregnant because of incest.
Herring said she has spoken to several rape victims who have been more haunted by their decision to abort their babies than by the rapes themselves. The Yes on 26 group even has videos posted of women speaking at local forums, discussing that exact issue.
One thing supporters and opponents of the amendment agree on is that this vote has the potential to change the entire debate about women's rights and abortion nationwide.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html
-
yet another article with no comment about the additional trauma that would be incurred when the state forces a rape victim to bear her rapists child
I guess it's just easier to not think about such things rather than have to face reality
-
If would refreshing if fundies would just for once admit that their goal it to use our laws to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone
Right now we have a system that says if you don't believe in abortion or believe that life begins at intercourse then you are free to choose a path congruent with those beliefs. The ammendment will basically require everyone to conform to that belief thereby codifying a religious belief into our legal system
Essentially fundies will now have their own version of sharia law
This is from the list of Frequently Asked Questions from
http://personhoodmississippi.com/amendment-26/why.aspx
Finally, and most importantly:
•If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26 we will be honoring God and loving our neighbors in our law system.
-
Apparently these "pro-life" christians don't think the government should be trying to limit their freedom
I wonder if they feel the same way about abortion. I assume they must since they have no problem with a procedure that might end in the death of a fertilized egg
Why can't these fundies just face the obvious fact that if god wanted them to have children they would be able to have them the normal way then won't be tempted by Satan toward that devil of modern science of in vitro fertilization
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Mississippi amendment on 'personhood' divides Christians
Columbus, Mississippi (CNN) -- In the Carpenter home, every meal begins with a prayer. Robin and his wife, Emily, are devout Christians. But they part ways with many other Christians over a measure that would expand the legal definition of human life.
Their son, Luke, now 4 years old, was born through in vitro fertilization.
The anti-abortion amendment being voted on this week in the state could restrict in vitro procedures, and the Carpenters are worried that if they wait too long to add to their family, they may end up breaking the law.
"I don't really want or need anybody else getting involved in trying to limit how that works for us, or stopping it," said Robin Carpenter. "We need to have the same rights to have a family as anybody else does."
The Carpenters fear that if Mississippi Amendment 26 passes on Tuesday, their whole future will change.
The controversial measure, known as "Personhood," will ask Mississippians to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception, which would eliminate abortion, including in the cases of women who are the victims of rape and incest. The law would also outlaw certain forms of birth control and the destruction of embryos in laboratories -- which puts in vitro fertilization procedures in question because it results in unused fertilized eggs.
Mississippi governor supports amendment to declare fertilized egg a person
"The amendment is simple," said Dr. Freda Bush, a Mississippi obstetrician and strong supporter of the measure.
"I can't imagine anyone who is truly pro-life not supporting or acknowledging the fact that the baby begins at conception, deserves life, has done nothing to deserve death, she told CNN.
"In rape and incest, the life that has been created during that process has done nothing to deserve death. The mother is a victim and there's no reason to make a victim a murderer," she said.
But while the Carpenters consider themselves pro-life, they say their personal situation can't bring them to support this amendment. They've decided to move up their next In vitro fertilization procedure.
"We're trying to hurry up and get it started before all of this takes place," Emily Carpenter said.
In vitro fertilization has "helped our family grow, and that's what we want as parents. We don't want anybody to limit our ability to have children," she said.
If it passes, the amendment would take effect before the end of the year.
And although the amendment's wording is simple, what has the Carpenters and others worried is that it would compel the Mississippi legislature to develop the rules and laws to enforce the amendment.
"I think it's the whole wording of the amendment. There's too much gray area to vote for it, said Emily Carpenter. "You can't trust what their intentions are if they don't state it."
Representatives in the Yes on 26 movement say that anyone who considers themselves to be pro-life should be supporting the amendment.
"Embryologists, medical doctors, lawyers are going to have to inform our representatives to help them develop the law," said Bush, a Yes on 26 spokeswoman.
"This is a principle. ... All of those other details can be worked out," she said.
Experts and state officials say that if the amendment passes, the court battles to stop it will soon begin.
"Clearly we would anticipate there would be a litigation challenge on this issue and the legislature would have to fill in all of the blanks for this as we go forward," said Mississippi's secretary of state, Delbert Hosemann.
"The constitution is a working document, so this would have a number of different issues that would have to be addressed," he said.
It's that lack of specifics that has many people upset. Many worry about voting for an amendment without knowing the exact medical, moral, legal and criminal implications.
Diane Derzis, who runs Mississippi's only abortion clinic, said most people don't understand how far-reaching the amendment could be.
"By this very definition of this bill, a fertilized egg is a person, so that does away with the IUD and most forms of birth control," she said. "For a woman who has a miscarriage -- is she going to be investigated? I mean, this may sound like the Twilight Zone, but this is where we are with this stuff."
Supporters of the amendment dismiss such speculation as scare tactics.
The ballot initiative is part of a national campaign brought by Personhood USA. Mississippi is the only state voting on a personhood initiative this year, but similar measures have been defeated in Colorado. Other personhood initiatives are being planned next year in Florida, Montana and Ohio, according to supporters. Efforts in at least five other states are in the planning stages.
Personhood USA, a Colorado-based group, describes itself as a nonprofit Christian ministry that "serves the pro-life community by assisting local groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all innocent humans."
The idea for personhood was born during Roe v. Wade's oral arguments, when Justice Potter Stewart said, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an impossible case here." Now, Personhood USA is trying to use the amendment to establish "personhood" as a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade ruling.
Legal experts say Mississippi is a good place for the movement to make that challenge.
"It's a religious issue in a very conservative state," said W. Martin Wiseman, director of the John C. Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University.
"The national movement that's ready to fight the final battle over Roe v Wade could not have picked a better state," he said.
But for the Carpenter family -- despite their pro-life beliefs -- voting for this amendment is just not something they can live with. Their in vitro fertilization attempts to have a brother or sister for their son, Luke, will soon begin. They fear that under the amendment, they could be labeled as murderers if their fertilized eggs die.
"It is a concern, but a bigger concern for us is to not be able to have children," said Robin Carpenter. "If it means that I'm labeled a murderer, but I am able to have children, it's a risk that we'll definitely take."
-
Mississippi defeats life at conception ballot initiative
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) – Mississippi voters Tuesday defeated a ballot initiative that would've declared life begins at conception, a proposal that supporters sought in the Bible Belt state as a way to prompt a legal challenge to abortion rights nationwide.
The so-called "personhood" initiative was rejected by more than 55 percent of voters, falling far short of the threshold needed for it to be enacted. If it had passed, it was virtually assured of drawing legal challenges because it conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a legal right to abortion. Supporters of the initiative wanted to provoke a lawsuit to challenge the landmark ruling.
The measure divided the medical and religious communities and caused some of the most ardent abortion opponents, including Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, to waver with their support.
Opponents said the measure would have made birth control, such as the morning-after pill or the intrauterine device, illegal — and that it would have deterred physicians from performing in vitro fertilization because they would fear criminal charges if an embryo doesn't survive.
Supporters were trying to impose their religious beliefs on others by forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies, including those caused by rape or incest, opponents said.
Amy Brunson voted against the measure, in part because she has been raped. She also has friends and family that had children through in vitro fertilization and she was worried this would end that process.
"The lines are so unclear on what may or may not happen. I think there are circumstances beyond everybody's control that can't be regulated through an amendment," said Brunson, a 36-year-old dog trainer and theater production assistant from Jackson.
Hubert Hoover, a cabinet maker and construction worker, voted for the amendment.
"I figure you can't be half for something, so if you're against abortion you should be for this. You've either got to be wholly for something or wholly against it," said Hoover, 71, who lives in a Jackson suburb.
Mississippi already has tough abortion regulations and only one clinic where the procedures are performed, making it a fitting venue for a national movement to get abortion bans into state constitutions.
Keith Mason, co-founder of the group Personhood USA, which pushed the Mississippi ballot measure, has said a win would send shockwaves around the country. The Colorado-based group is trying to put similar initiatives on 2012 ballots in Florida, Montana, Ohio and Oregon. Voters in Colorado rejected similar proposals in 2008 and 2010.
Barbour, long considered a 2012 presidential candidate before he ruled out a run this year, said a week ago that he was undecided. A day later, he voted absentee for the amendment, but said he struggled with his support.
"Some very strongly pro-life people have raised questions about the ambiguity and about the actual consequences — whether there are unforeseen, unintended consequences. And I'll have to say that I have heard those concerns and they give me some pause," Barbour said last week.
Barbour was prevented from seeking re-election because of term limits. The Democrat and Republican candidates vying to replace him both supported the abortion measure.
Specifically, the proposed state constitutional amendment defined a person "to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
The state's largest Christian denomination, the Mississippi Baptist Convention, backed the proposal through its lobbying arm.
The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi and the General Conference of the United Methodist Church opposed it.
Bishop Joseph Latino of the Catholic Diocese of Jackson, a church traditionally against abortion, issued a statement neither supporting nor opposing the initiative. The Mississippi State Medical Association took a similar step while other medical groups opposed it.
Mississippi already requires parental or judicial consent for any minor to get an abortion, mandatory in-person counseling and a 24-hour wait before any woman can terminate a pregnancy.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-11-08/Mississippi-Abortion-Amendment/51129886/1
-
Barbour said the mistake they made was not sending it through the legislature first to resolve ambiguities.
'Personhood' Effort Still Alive after Miss. Defeat
Wednesday, 09 Nov 2011
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Abortion opponents say they're still pursuing life-at-fertilization ballot initiatives in six other states after Bible Belt voters in Mississippi defeated one Tuesday.
The "personhood" proposal was intended to prompt a legal challenge aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a legal right to abortion.
Keith Mason is co-founder of Personhood USA, which pushed the Mississippi measure. The Colorado-based group is trying to put initiatives on 2012 ballots in Florida, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Nevada and California. Voters in Colorado rejected similar proposals in 2008 and 2010.
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the initiatives represent an "extreme, dangerous and direct assault" on abortion rights.
Mason told The Associated Press that Personhood USA might revive efforts for another ballot initiative in Mississippi.
Speaking of the failure in Mississippi on Tuesday, Mason said, "it's not because the people are not pro-life. It's because Planned Parenthood put a lot of misconceptions and lies in front of folks and created a lot of confusion."
Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a statement: "Mississippi voters rejected the so-called 'personhood' amendment because they understood it is government gone too far, and would have allowed government to have control over personal decisions that should be left up to a woman, her family, her doctor and her faith, including keeping a woman with a life-threatening pregnancy from getting the care she needs, and criminalizing everything from abortion to common forms of birth control such as the pill and the IUD."
The so-called "personhood" initiative was rejected by more than 55 percent of Mississippi voters, falling far short of the threshold needed for it to be enacted.
The measure divided the medical and religious communities and caused some of the most ardent abortion opponents, including Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, to waver with their support.
Opponents said the measure would have made birth control, such as the morning-after pill or the intrauterine device, illegal. More specifically, the ballot measure called for abortion to be prohibited "from the moment of fertilization" — wording that opponents suggested would have deterred physicians from performing in vitro fertilization because they would fear criminal charges if an embryo doesn't survive.
Opponents also said supporters were trying to impose their religious beliefs on others by forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies, including those caused by rape or incest.
Amy Brunson voted against the measure, in part because she has been raped. She also has friends and family that had children through in vitro fertilization and she was worried this would end that process.
"The lines are so unclear on what may or may not happen. I think there are circumstances beyond everybody's control that can't be regulated through an amendment," said Brunson, a 36-year-old dog trainer and theater production assistant from Jackson.
Buddy Hairston, 39, took his 8-year-old triplets to a precinct outside Jackson to hold signs supporting the initiative.
"Unborn children are being killed on a daily basis in our state and country, and it's urgent that we protect them," said Hairston, a forestry consultant.
Mississippi already has tough abortion regulations and only one clinic where the procedures are performed, making it a fitting venue for a national movement to get abortion bans into state constitutions.
The state's largest Christian denomination, the Mississippi Baptist Convention, backed the proposal through its lobbying arm, the Christian Action Commission.
"We mourn with heaven tonight over the loss of Initiative 26, which would have provided the hope of life for thousands of God's unborn babies in Mississippi," said the commission's director, the Rev. Jimmy Porter. "Instead the unborn in Mississippi will continue to be led down on a path of destruction to horrible deaths both inside their mothers and in laboratories."
The bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi and the General Conference of the United Methodist Church opposed the initiative.
Bishop Joseph Latino of the Catholic Diocese of Jackson, a church traditionally against abortion, issued a statement neither supporting nor opposing the initiative. The Mississippi State Medical Association took a similar step, while other medical groups opposed it.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/MississippiAbortionAmendment/2011/11/09/id/417354
-
Barbour said the mistake they made was not sending it through the legislature first to resolve ambiguities.
the ambiguity was intentional
-
Would this amendment have made taking the morning after pill murder? ???
-
Would this amendment have made taking the morning after pill murder? ???
absolutely and some fundies on this board actually believe that too
-
Will be interesting to see if he gets behind these personhood amendments.
Democrats continue to push Romney on abortion
Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough
Washington (CNN) – A Democratic group joined in Saturday on the attacks against Mitt Romney, arguing that he's a true anti-abortion-rights supporter and was only "faking it" when he took opposing positions as a political candidate in Massachusetts.
"If Romney wins the presidency, he won’t have to ‘fake it’ ever again," said Bill Burton, senior strategist at Priorities USA, a super political action committee dedicated to helping President Barack Obama win re-election.
The comments came in a memo to supporters on Saturday, as the former Massachusetts governor has been taking heat for weeks for wavering on some of his positions, including abortion, during his political career.
But Burton argued that Romney never truly meant it when he previously said he supported a woman's right to choose and only said so in order to win votes in the largely Democratic state of Massachusetts.
"Put simply, the people who knew Romney best knew he was lying," Burton said.
The group falsely said Romney had endorsed a controversial proposal in Mississippi that would define life at conception and ban abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is at risk.
While Romney hasn't made an official comment on the so-called "personhood" proposal, which was voted down in the state by a wide margin this week, he said in an interview last month that he would have supported a similar amendment in Massachusetts.
Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a 2008 GOP presidential candidate, asked Romney on his Fox News show if he would have supported a "constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception."
Romney replied: "Absolutely."
The exchange was featured in a web video released by the Democratic National Committee last week, targeting Romney as an extremist on abortion rights.
In his bid for president, Romney has taken the line that “life begins at conception," but he has said any legal measures should be decided by the states, not the federal government.
In response to the Priorities USA memo on Saturday, Romney's team said Democrats are simply fearful of the candidate taking the nomination and proving a tough competitor for Obama.
"The very last thing the Democrats want to do is run against Mitt Romney. That is why they are focused on Mitt Romney and not the economy," said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, in a statement. "The Democrats are continuing their campaign of deception in their strategy to ‘kill Romney.’ President Obama’s campaign is going to be very interesting to watch, but it’s not going to work.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/12/democrats-continue-to-push-romney-on-abortion/
-
Will be interesting to see if he gets behind these personhood amendments.
Democrats continue to push Romney on abortion
Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough
Washington (CNN) – A Democratic group joined in Saturday on the attacks against Mitt Romney, arguing that he's a true anti-abortion-rights supporter and was only "faking it" when he took opposing positions as a political candidate in Massachusetts.
"If Romney wins the presidency, he won’t have to ‘fake it’ ever again," said Bill Burton, senior strategist at Priorities USA, a super political action committee dedicated to helping President Barack Obama win re-election.
The comments came in a memo to supporters on Saturday, as the former Massachusetts governor has been taking heat for weeks for wavering on some of his positions, including abortion, during his political career.
But Burton argued that Romney never truly meant it when he previously said he supported a woman's right to choose and only said so in order to win votes in the largely Democratic state of Massachusetts.
"Put simply, the people who knew Romney best knew he was lying," Burton said.
The group falsely said Romney had endorsed a controversial proposal in Mississippi that would define life at conception and ban abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is at risk.
While Romney hasn't made an official comment on the so-called "personhood" proposal, which was voted down in the state by a wide margin this week, he said in an interview last month that he would have supported a similar amendment in Massachusetts.
Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a 2008 GOP presidential candidate, asked Romney on his Fox News show if he would have supported a "constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception."
Romney replied: "Absolutely."
The exchange was featured in a web video released by the Democratic National Committee last week, targeting Romney as an extremist on abortion rights.
In his bid for president, Romney has taken the line that “life begins at conception," but he has said any legal measures should be decided by the states, not the federal government.
In response to the Priorities USA memo on Saturday, Romney's team said Democrats are simply fearful of the candidate taking the nomination and proving a tough competitor for Obama.
"The very last thing the Democrats want to do is run against Mitt Romney. That is why they are focused on Mitt Romney and not the economy," said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, in a statement. "The Democrats are continuing their campaign of deception in their strategy to ‘kill Romney.’ President Obama’s campaign is going to be very interesting to watch, but it’s not going to work.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/12/democrats-continue-to-push-romney-on-abortion/
Let's hope he is for it and even makes it a part of his campaign
-
Now this is different. Should the government prevent people from doing this?
Abortion Battle Heats Up on the Hill
By Shannon Bream
Published December 05, 2011
FoxNews.com
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., an outspoken pro-life advocate, is preparing to do battle again on Capitol Hill.
On Tuesday, he'll chair a House hearing in support of his latest legislative effort, the Prenatal NonDiscrimination Act (PreNDA). The measure would ban abortions done on the basis of gender or race.
"It would simply say that you cannot discriminate against the unborn by subjecting them to an abortion based on their race or sex," Franks says.
Pro-choice advocates say PreNDA is an "anti-choice" measure. Nancy Northup, President of Center for Reproductive Rights, calls it a "trumped up bill for a trumped up problem," and says it's a ridiculous waste of congressional resources at a time when the U.S. economy is faltering.
"This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away," said Northup.
PreNDA contains both civil penalties and jail time for those who violate the ban, but not the women who seek or obtain abortions. Franks says he believes women who find themselves with an unintended pregnancy are "victims" who need help in the midst of a crisis, not punishment.
However, those who perform abortions done solely for sex- or race-selection purposes could face fines and up to five years in prison.
The bill will be vetted during a hearing in the House on Tuesday, which is slated to include testimony from a number of experts. Franks says the bill currently has about 60 co-sponsors and he's hoping to add more. "I would hope that even my friends on the left would be able to say 'No, this can't be who we are.'"
Critics say the bill has no chance of being passed this term. Even so, Franks says he hopes it will at least spark important conversations.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/05/abortion-battle-heats-up-on-hill/?test=latestnews#ixzz1fk2rFYPR
-
Now this is different. Should the government prevent people from doing this?
Abortion Battle Heats Up on the Hill
By Shannon Bream
Published December 05, 2011
FoxNews.com
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., an outspoken pro-life advocate, is preparing to do battle again on Capitol Hill.
On Tuesday, he'll chair a House hearing in support of his latest legislative effort, the Prenatal NonDiscrimination Act (PreNDA). The measure would ban abortions done on the basis of gender or race.
"It would simply say that you cannot discriminate against the unborn by subjecting them to an abortion based on their race or sex," Franks says.
Pro-choice advocates say PreNDA is an "anti-choice" measure. Nancy Northup, President of Center for Reproductive Rights, calls it a "trumped up bill for a trumped up problem," and says it's a ridiculous waste of congressional resources at a time when the U.S. economy is faltering.
"This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away," said Northup.
PreNDA contains both civil penalties and jail time for those who violate the ban, but not the women who seek or obtain abortions. Franks says he believes women who find themselves with an unintended pregnancy are "victims" who need help in the midst of a crisis, not punishment.
However, those who perform abortions done solely for sex- or race-selection purposes could face fines and up to five years in prison.
The bill will be vetted during a hearing in the House on Tuesday, which is slated to include testimony from a number of experts. Franks says the bill currently has about 60 co-sponsors and he's hoping to add more. "I would hope that even my friends on the left would be able to say 'No, this can't be who we are.'"
Critics say the bill has no chance of being passed this term. Even so, Franks says he hopes it will at least spark important conversations.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/05/abortion-battle-heats-up-on-hill/?test=latestnews#ixzz1fk2rFYPR
this is the slippery slope that all pro choice people refuse to believe exists. if you were to walk into a room of pro choice advocates in the 1970's and tell them that there would be 2 million abortions per year in the US alone and that 30 years from now we will be aborting kids because they are male, female, minority, or gay (everyone knows this is coming. if you don't you're fucking stupid), you would be laughed out of the room and labelled a far right loon.
it's an absolute certainty that in a few years our pro choice constituents are going to regret not being more careful about what they wished for.
-
this is the slippery slope that all pro choice people refuse to believe exists. if you were to walk into a room of pro choice advocates in the 1970's and tell them that there would be 2 million abortions per year in the US alone and that 30 years from now we will be aborting kids because they are male, female, minority, or gay (everyone knows this is coming. if you don't you're fucking stupid), you would be laughed out of the room and labelled a far right loon.
it's an absolute certainty that in a few years our pro choice constituents are going to regret not being more careful about what they wished for.
but hey keep fighting the good fight guys! LOL.
-
this is the slippery slope that all pro choice people refuse to believe exists. if you were to walk into a room of pro choice advocates in the 1970's and tell them that there would be 2 million abortions per year in the US alone and that 30 years from now we will be aborting kids because they are male, female, minority, or gay (everyone knows this is coming. if you don't you're fucking stupid), you would be laughed out of the room and labelled a far right loon.
it's an absolute certainty that in a few years our pro choice constituents are going to regret not being more careful about what they wished for.
no they wont, ppl like straw man, lurker and blacken are perfectly ok with aborting a baby for any reason what so ever.
There is no boundry for ppl like them on this issue.
-
I'm glad that bill was defeated.
-
I'm glad that bill was defeated.
when are you going to start fighting for the rights of men to not pay child support if they dont want to? :)
-
when are you going to start fighting for the rights of men to not pay child support if they dont want to? :)
don't fuck if you don't wanna take that chance.
-
don't fuck if you don't wanna take that chance.
agreed, why dont we hold women to the same standard?
sad isnt it, women have strived for decades for equal treatment...
-
agreed, why dont we hold women to the same standard?
sad isnt it, women have strived for decades for equal treatment...
in what aspect you mean. So let's say for arguements sake, neither person wants a child but keep the child. But he don't wanna pay..Fuck that noise. Nut up you better man up
-
in what aspect you mean. So let's say for arguements sake, neither person wants a child but keep the child. But he don't wanna pay..Fuck that noise. Nut up you better man up
again why do women get a pass?
why do you not want to hold them to the same standard...
if you let him nut up and you better woman up ;)
why only hold one person responsible for a decision that both of them made?
-
again why do women get a pass?
why do you not want to hold them to the same standard...
if you let him nut up and you better woman up ;)
why only hold one person responsible for a decision that both of them made?
hell yes she should also. If she don't want child, she better pay the father support. Wether she is in the childs life or not, same with man.
-
hell yes she should also. If she don't want child, she better pay the father support. Wether she is in the childs life or not, same with man.
LOL but what if she chooses not to have the child?
why is she the only one who gets a choice? after all she let him nut up didnt she?
-
LOL but what if she chooses not to have the child?
why is she the only one who gets a choice? after all she let him nut up didnt she?
if she doesn't want to have it but he does, I gotta say that's tough. Put it in writing that she must give child to said father at delivery I guess
-
if she doesn't want to have it but he does, I gotta say that's tough. Put it in writing that she must give child to said father at delivery I guess
and what if she chooses to not have the child?
-
and what if she chooses to not have the child?
I see what you're saying now. And he wants the child. Guess back to the drawing board. I think I stated in a similar thread last year, if both want to terminate pregnancy BOTH have to sign something, if he wants child and she doesn't, she has to sign document that she will stay healthy and give child to father and is off the hook and terminate rights or be in child's life and pay support or I could throw other scenarios in the mix
-
don't fuck if you don't wanna take that chance.
wow holy fucking double standard batman.
-
I see what you're saying now. And he wants the child. Guess back to the drawing board. I think I stated in a similar thread last year, if both want to terminate pregnancy BOTH have to sign something, if he wants child and she doesn't, she has to sign document that she will stay healthy and give child to father and is off the hook and terminate rights or be in child's life and pay support or I could throw other scenarios in the mix
yeah that scenario sounds like it would work out perfectly. ::)
you understand that the pro choice movement would NEVER allow this scenario to EVER happen right? Men have ZERO rights in their eyes. It is solely the woman's choice. She can abort the baby out of spite if she wants. No harm no foul. This is what the pro choice movement votes for. They also vote for amendments allowing children to not have to tell their parent's about an abortion. Basically their school gym teacher can fuck them, get them pregnant, take them to planned parenthood, and planned parenthood will keep their secret for them so non one gets in trouble. Isn't that a great thing to vote in favor of? The right may not have everything figured out on this issue, but I just hate when the liberal left loons acts like they have this all figured out.
-
bears, I didn't say I have the right answer, just a scenario and all things have flaws, tell you what champ, come up with something, let's take a gander
-
bears, I didn't say I have the right answer, just a scenario and all things have flaws, tell you what champ, come up with something, let's take a gander
this may sound crazy to you but bear with me for a minute. we make everyone take personal responsibility for what they do with their dick or their pussy. if you create a life, take care of it. If you want to do adult things like have sex, that comes with the assumption of adult responsibilities like caring for the life that YOU created.
It's really not that fucking hard.
It's just that liberals have a hard time with the whole personal responsibility thing. That's where we start butting heads. Women in this day and age still try and portray a pregnancy as something that happened "to them", not something that they did and now don't want to take reponsibility for. You know even though they're so strong and liberated.
Now this would take care of roughly 99.9957% of all abortions. The others, the ones from rape/incest we can leave up to the patient and physician.
I'm sure you don't like that answer because you know that there's a shitload of people who like to fuck without condoms. Unlike yourself, I don't believe that we should support legislation that caters to fucking animals like them.
-
this may sound crazy to you but bear with me for a minute. we make everyone take personal responsibility for what they do with their dick or their pussy. if you create a life, take care of it. If you want to do adult things like have sex, that comes with the assumption of adult responsibilities like caring for the life that YOU created.
It's really not that fucking hard.
It's just that liberals have a hard time with the whole personal responsibility thing. That's where we start butting heads. Women in this day and age still try and portray a pregnancy as something that happened "to them", not something that they did and now don't want to take reponsibility for. You know even though they're so strong and liberated.
Now this would take care of roughly 99.9957% of all abortions. The others, the ones from rape/incest we can leave up to the patient and physician.
I'm sure you don't like that answer because you know that there's a shitload of people who like to fuck without condoms. Unlike yourself, I don't believe that we should support legislation that caters to fucking animals like them.
ok maybe that was a tad harsh. what i mean is that citizens should not vote in favor of legislation that caters to the irreponsible. Why? Because they're irresponsible. And the slippery slope applies to everyone. Even with the most responsible citizens there are slippery slopes. So when you cater your decision making process in favor of the irresponsible, that slippery slope is always going to be exponentially more slippery.
I've said over and over again on this board that I truly believe that the legislators behind Roe v Wade had their hearts in the right place. But if you were to show them how far the citizens would push the boundaries of this legislation 30 years later, the law probably never would have been passed.
-
when are you going to start fighting for the rights of men to not pay child support if they dont want to? :)
if you don't want to support your own kids then don't have any
problem solved
in a more practical sense, use a condom and make sure the woman you're having sex with agrees to get an abortion if the condom fails.
that's about the best you can do other than never having sex
and you can spare me the crying about how life is unfair to men because I agree
men don't get the opportunity to have their body altered by pregnancy. Men don't get the opportunity to suffer during pregnancy and men certainly don't get the opportuntiy to die from pregnancy or childbirth
there's simply nothing we can do about this unfairness at the moment but maybe someday, god willing, our science will find a way to make life fair for men
-
if you don't want to support your own kids then don't have any
problem solved
in a more practical sense, use a condom and make sure the woman you're having sex with agrees to get an abortion if the condom fails.
that's about the best you can do other than never having sex
and you can spare me the crying about how life is unfair to men because I agree
men don't get the opportunity to have their body altered by pregnancy. Men don't get the opportunity to suffer during pregnancy and men certainly don't get the opportuntiy to die from pregnancy or childbirth
there's simply nothing we can do about this unfairness at the moment but maybe someday, god willing, our science will find a way to make life fair for men
although i appreciate the logic in this regarding the responsibility of men in this matter you are still missing one very basic point. although my wife carried my babies that never meant that the baby growing inside of her was any less mine or any more hers at ANY point in time. those are and always have been my kids. and i should have as many rights as she does with regards to them. and as a father of two boys, you saying "tough shit" about my rights towards them because i'm a man and am not the one who gets pregnant is just flat out ignorant.
-
although i appreciate the logic in this regarding the responsibility of men in this matter you are still missing one very basic point. although my wife carried my babies that never meant that the baby growing inside of her was any less mine or any more hers at ANY point in time. those are and always have been my kids. and i should have as many rights as she does with regards to them. and as a father of two boys, you saying "tough shit" about my rights towards them because i'm a man and am not the one who gets pregnant is just flat out ignorant.
actually the baby growing inside your wife is literally part of her body and depends on her body for it's very survival
that is a distinct difference from you
I'm not saying you have no rights
you have the right and responsibility to take care of your kids
-
actually the baby growing inside your wife is literally part of her body and depends on her body for it's very survival
that is a distinct difference from you
I'm not saying you have no rights
you have the right and responsibility to take care of your kids
well what you're saying is that if a woman gets pregnant i have no say in anything unless SHE wants to keep it. If she decides to keep it then it is my responsibility. But if i want to keep the baby and she kills it first without asking. tough shit. right?
-
well what you're saying is that if a woman gets pregnant i have no say in anything unless SHE wants to keep it. If she decides to keep it then it is my responsibility. But if i want to keep the baby and she kills it first without asking. tough shit. right?
sorry to inform you that you have no property rights to someone else's body
what you can do is act like a responsible adult and talk with your spouse/girlfriend about this before you have sex and if she is not agreeable to what you want then don't have sex or proceed at your own risk
-
sorry to inform you that you have no property rights to someone else's body
what you can do is act like a responsible adult and talk with your spouse/girlfriend about this before you have sex and if she is not agreeable to what you want then don't have sex or proceed at your own risk
LOL! but i have the responsibility to pay for something over which i have no rights? either its hers or its both of theirs. choose. you're the one who is comparing this to "property rights" not me. so i'll go along with your comparison. if i am liable to pay for property, i better have the right to refuse to buy the property. sorry but your metaphor reveals the absurdity of your argument.
-
LOL! but i have the responsibility to pay for something over which i have no rights? either its hers or its both of theirs. choose. you're the one who is comparing this to "property rights" not me. so i'll go along with your comparison. if i am liable to pay for property, i better have the right to refuse to buy the property. sorry but your metaphor reveals the absurdity of your argument.
if you're in the unfortunate situation of having gotten a woman pregnant who does not want to bear your child then just ask her have the blastocyst extracted and given to you
or even better
have your attorney draw up a contract outlining in explicit detail what your preferences are in any possible circumstance and then present this to your gf/spouse and if they don't agree then don't have sex
-
if you're in the unfortunate situation of having gotten a woman pregnant who does not want to bear your child then just ask her have the blastocyst extracted and given to you
or even better
have your attorney draw up a contract outlining in explicit detail what your preferences are in any possible circumstance and then present this to your gf/spouse and if they don't agree then don't have sex
because the MAN should have planned ahead and been more responsible. right? but you don't seem to hold women to the same standard. do you? my question to you is why not? maybe the woman should have gotten an attorney draw up a contract in explicit detail what their preferences are in any possible circumstance and then present this to your bf/spouse and if they don't agree then don't have sex. why are you so opposed to using this same logic with the woman? the funny part of this is that if I were to say the same thing to a woman I would be an asshole. how can you not see the disconnect?
the difference between you and I is that you see the woman in an unplanned pregnancy as a "victim". I don't. Unless of course they were raped.
the problem is that woman want "fair and equal treatment" as long as it's convenient.
-
because the MAN should have planned ahead and been more responsible. right? but you don't seem to hold women to the same standard. do you? my question to you is why not? maybe the woman should have gotten an attorney draw up a contract in explicit detail what their preferences are in any possible circumstance and then present this to your bf/spouse and if they don't agree then don't have sex. why are you so opposed to using this same logic with the woman? the funny part of this is that if I were to say the same thing to a woman I would be an asshole. how can you not see the disconnect?
the difference between you and I is that you see the woman in an unplanned pregnancy as a "victim". I don't. Unless of course they were raped.
the problem is that woman want "fair and equal treatment" as long as it's convenient.
of course both should be reponsible but since the thread had veered to how somehow pregnancy is unfair to men (and I haven't looked all your prior posts - my response on this topic was to Tony) so that's why I didn't metion the woman.
Woman actually have more of a reason to act responsible then men because they have the MUCH greater burden should a pregnancy occur and with that greater burden comes choices that are not available to the man.
I honestly don't understand why any man would make an issue out of this at all.
I also don't understand how any adult would not want to take care of his own flesh and blood regardless of whether he wanted the child or not. If we agree on that then the only other issue is the situation where the woman doesn't want to give birth and at this time in our evolution we don't have a way to create equality between man and woman on this.
-
LOL bear making straw look foolish as usual on this subject.
-
LOL! but i have the responsibility to pay for something over which i have no rights? either its hers or its both of theirs. choose. you're the one who is comparing this to "property rights" not me. so i'll go along with your comparison. if i am liable to pay for property, i better have the right to refuse to buy the property. sorry but your metaphor reveals the absurdity of your argument.
LOL this is the crux of the straw man argument and it hold little to no water.
either both get the option to walk away or neither does.
-
LOL this is the crux of the straw man argument and it hold little to no water.
either both get the option to walk away or neither does.
we've been over this many times
the woman has the greater burden than the man so she get's more options than the man
btw - has this ever been a problem for you in your life?
-
LOL this is the crux of the straw man argument and it hold little to no water.
either both get the option to walk away or neither does.
you also might want to look up the definition of a Straw Man argument
-
we've been over this many times
the woman has the greater burden than the man so she get's more options than the man
btw - has this ever been a problem for you in your life?
no has being denied gay marriage ever been a problem in your life?
youre for that arent you?
ignorant argument.
so the man has a burden as well but still gets no say, they should at the very least be able to sign over their rights for less/no child support.
the fact that only one person is held responsible is idiotic, you dont have to force women to have an abortion to give the men rights. There are plenty of other ways to go about doing that.
-
you also might want to look up the definition of a Straw Man argument
LOL "the" straw man was referring to you not the type of argument...
thats funny coming from a hypocrite such as yourself, that is if you still remember the definition of hypocrite.
and not the one you made up ;)
-
we've been over this many times
the woman has the greater burden than the man so she get's more options than the man
btw - has this ever been a problem for you in your life?
i am a parent of 2, and i can say with the utmost confidence that the gestation period is by far the easiest part of raising a kid.....for BOTH parents.......Easily.
So this argument doesn't make much sense to me.
Straw your logic is spot on concerning how each party needs to be more responsible in their sexual lives. however the way the legislation is being pushed, in my opinion, is placing all decision making in favor of the female, allowing her to do whatever she wants (so i ask what is her incentive to behave more responsibly?), and making the man sit by the wayside hoping her decision coincides with his own. Granted, in most cases, this is the correct way to go. However, there are cases in which the man's rights are being grossly trounced upon by our state legislatures. You can't deny that. And if you're going to make legislative decisions based upon the cases of rape/incest, you can't possibly dismiss in good conscience the small number of cases in which the rights of the male are being ignored.
-
i am a parent of 2, and i can say with the utmost confidence that the gestation period is by far the easiest part of raising a kid.....for BOTH parents.......Easily.
So this argument doesn't make much sense to me.
Straw your logic is spot on concerning how each party needs to be more responsible in their sexual lives. however the way the legislation is being pushed, in my opinion, is placing all decision making in favor of the female, allowing her to do whatever she wants (so i ask what is her incentive to behave more responsibly?), and making the man sit by the wayside hoping her decision coincides with his own. Granted, in most cases, this is the correct way to go. However, there are cases in which the man's rights are being grossly trounced upon by our state legislatures. You can't deny that. And if you're going to make legislative decisions based upon the cases of rape/incest, you can't possibly dismiss in good conscience the small number of cases in which the rights of the male are being ignored.
I don't know what you're referring to
can you provide some examples.
also, just to be clear are you in favor of the state either forcing a woman to give birth or forcing a woman to have an abortion?
-
I don't know what you're referring to
can you provide some examples.
also, just to be clear are you in favor of the state either forcing a woman to give birth or forcing a woman to have an abortion?
come on man. you know the answer to this one. under current law, a man can be deceived into having a baby and forced to support that child. a woman cannot. she has options. she has choices. the man does not. also, in some states, if a man raises a child and finds out 2-3 years later that it is not in fact his, he can still be forced to support that child by the courts.
and you might be quick to say "tough shit he should have been more careful" but why can't I say the same thing to those women? the bottom line is that the woman is in the drivers seat and under the current legislation can use her pussy as an atm machine. and plenty do. I know you know that.
in all honesty i do not care to overturn Roe v Wade. I am morally opposed to abortion but I don't think it's anyone's business what anyone else does to their child. My job is to raise my sons to respect human life and to take personal responsibility for any life that they may create. I am under no disillusion that they most probably will have sex outside of marriage. my advice to them will be that if you decide you want to participate in adult things you, as a man, must assume the adult responsibilities that go along with it.
I just see where this is headed and believe me, once science advances to the point where we can see more about the child during the gestational period, many will change their tune on abortion once people start aborting based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, IQ, etc. And this will all occur within the next 20 years. So get your popcorn ready.
-
come on man. you know the answer to this one. under current law, a man can be deceived into having a baby and forced to support that child. a woman cannot. she has options. she has choices. the man does not. also, in some states, if a man raises a child and finds out 2-3 years later that it is not in fact his, he can still be forced to support that child by the courts.
and you might be quick to say "tough shit he should have been more careful" but why can't I say the same thing to those women? the bottom line is that the woman is in the drivers seat and under the current legislation can use her pussy as an atm machine. and plenty do. I know you know that.
in all honesty i do not care to overturn Roe v Wade. I am morally opposed to abortion but I don't think it's anyone's business what anyone else does to their child. My job is to raise my sons to respect human life and to take personal responsibility for any life that they may create. I am under no disillusion that they most probably will have sex outside of marriage. my advice to them will be that if you decide you want to participate in adult things you, as a man, must assume the adult responsibilities that go along with it.
I just see where this is headed and believe me, once science advances to the point where we can see more about the child during the gestational period, many will change their tune on abortion once people start aborting based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, IQ, etc. And this will all occur within the next 20 years. So get your popcorn ready.
I would not say tough shit at all
I know there are cases where a man has been led to believe it's his kid and paid child support and found out later that it wasn't his kid and the court still made him continue paying and I think that is absolute bullshit. Not only should he not have to pay but he should be reimbursed.
I wasn't even considering that as a scenario.
-
Kathleen Sebelius Pressed On Plan B Decision By 14 Democratic Senators
First Posted: 12/13/11 02:57 PM ET Updated: 12/13/11 02:58 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Fourteen Democratic senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sent the Obama administration a letter on Tuesday asking for the scientific basis behind its decision to limit access to emergency contraception.
Last week, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rejected the Food and Drug Administration's conclusion that the Plan B One-Step pill was safe enough to be placed on pharmacy shelves without an age limit. The decision raised eyebrows because HHS has never before overruled the FDA on a drug recommendation. Many reproductive rights groups openly questioned whether the Obama administration was putting electoral politics above sound science ahead of next year's election.
"We are writing to express our disappointment with your December 7, 2011 decision to block the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter," wrote the senators in their letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision."
The senators asked Sebelius to share the "specific rationale and the scientific data" she relied upon when overruling FDA experts.
"On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women's health will be based on medical and scientific evidence," they concluded.
Besides Murray, the Senate Demorats who signed the letter were Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Carl Levin (Mich.), John Kerry (Mass.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Al Franken (Minn.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.). Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also signed on.
HHS did not return a request for comment on the letter.
Sebelius has stated that she rejected the FDA's conclusion because she believed the pill's effect on girls in the 11-12 age range needed to be studied further.
Yet as Susan Wood, a former FDA official who resigned in 2005 to protest what she saw as the Bush administration's politicization of Plan B, has noted, "[T]his type of age restriction, and worries about the use of medicines by teenagers, have not been applied to other products. Apparently there is no problem in allowing younger teens to purchase products such as acetaminophen, and others with known and serious risks, over the counter."
Murray has been a leading voice on Plan B access in the Senate. In 2005, she and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced they were blocking the nomination of Lester Crawford, President George W. Bush's choice to head the FDA, until the agency made a decision about whether to make Plan B available over the counter without a prescription.
Many pro-choice House members have been far more cautious in their criticism of the Obama administration in the aftermath of Sebelius' decision, saying it could be a smart political move if officials are able to expand reproductive rights for women in other areas in exchange for tighter restrictions on Plan B.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/plan-b-kathleen-sebelius-morning-after-pill_n_1146217.html
-
http://news.yahoo.com/video/tech-15749651/india-s-deadly-secret-27566497.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Ftech-15749651%252Findia-s-deadly-secret-27566497.html
i didn't know about this. 300 women for every 1,000 men in India? This is what happens when you give the masses this kind of power over the unborn. This will inevitably lead to the destruction of their race. I mean statistically how could it not?
also here's one part of this video that confuses me. she says "my husband hates me because i haven't given him sons". He is a doctor. He doesn't know that the male determines the sex of the baby not the woman?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/video/tech-15749651/india-s-deadly-secret-27566497.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Ftech-15749651%252Findia-s-deadly-secret-27566497.html
i didn't know about this. 300 women for every 1,000 men in India? This is what happens when you give the masses this kind of power over the unborn. This will inevitably lead to the destruction of their race. I mean statistically how could it not?
also here's one part of this video that confuses me. she says "my husband hates me because i haven't given him sons". He is a doctor. He doesn't know that the male determines the sex of the baby not the woman?
That's pretty sad. Planned Parenthood approved. :-\
-
That's pretty sad. Planned Parenthood approved. :-\
so now women's rights groups are fighting against that. my response to that is "huh? abortion is OK but only if people abort who you say it is OK to abort?" are they going to push for a law that only allows people to abort straight white males?
this issue, believe it or not has been very simple compared to what this issue will turn into within the next 20 years.
and the pro choice movement needs to be continually reminded that this is EXACTLY what those "bible thumping maniacs" were predicting that abortion was going to become back in the 1970's. They were laughed at. And everything they said was going to happen is happening.
-
so now women's rights groups are fighting against that. my response to that is "huh? abortion is OK but only if people abort who you say it is OK to abort?" are they going to push for a law that only allows people to abort straight white males?
this issue, believe it or not has been very simple compared to what this issue will turn into within the next 20 years.
and the pro choice movement needs to be continually reminded that this is EXACTLY what those "bible thumping maniacs" were predicting that abortion was going to become back in the 1970's. They were laughed at. And everything they said was going to happen is happening.
It's definitely a powder keg. If abortion is part of "reproductive healthcare" and the woman can do whatever she wants, why can't she abort a baby solely because it is the "wrong" sex, or has a disability, etc.?
It would actually be consistent with the views of some of early abortion proponents in the U.S. Some of the most ardent early supporters (e.g. Sanger) were targeting minorities.
-
It's definitely a powder keg. If abortion is part of "reproductive healthcare" and the woman can do whatever she wants, why can't she abort a baby solely because it is the "wrong" sex, or has a disability, etc.?
It would actually be consistent with the views of some of early abortion proponents in the U.S. Some of the most ardent early supporters (e.g. Sanger) were targeting minorities.
the sad part is that the hypocrisy of the left will be so evident that the liberal pro choice movement will not have a leg to stand on after they realize that the right to terminate a pregnancy will turn into the right to terminate ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations. there will be no stopping it.
ironically their victory will be the catalyst of their demise.
-
the sad part is that the hypocrisy of the left will be so evident that the liberal pro choice movement will not have a leg to stand on after they realize that the right to terminate a pregnancy will turn into the right to terminate ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations. there will be no stopping it.
ironically their victory will be the catalyst of their demise.
That's essentially what the Freedom of Choice Act would permit. Obama, in one of his many false campaign promises, said his first act as president would be to sign that Act. It has never gotten to his desk, so it's not entirely his fault, but I haven't heard him talking about it.
-
Virginia's "personhood" bill is latest front in the culture war
By Athena Jones, CNN
updated 4:24 PM EST, Sun February 19, 2012
Richmond, Virginia (CNN) -- In the Virginia House of Delegates, Republican Robert Marshall is a longtime abortion opponent who has tried repeatedly to pass legislation in his state that would give rights to the unborn.
This year, on his third try, Marshall just might get his wish, and that has advocates for women's reproductive rights concerned.
The House of Delegates passed a so-called "personhood" bill Tuesday sponsored by Marshall that would give unborn children at all stages of development -- including embryos -- the same rights available to "other persons" in the state "subject only to the laws and constitutions of Virginia and the United States, precedents of the United States Supreme Court, and provisions to the contrary in the statutes of the Commonwealth."
"We need to get back to the respect for life that we used to have in this country that's been lost," Marshall told CNN.
Virginia is the latest front in a long-running battle over women's reproductive rights -- a fight that has taken center stage in recent weeks after a controversial decision by the Obama administration to require religious groups to provide their employees access to birth control in their insurance plans at no cost.
The administration later offered a compromise, after drawing fire from Catholic leaders and other religious organizations. However, the issue has stayed in the headlines.
Marshall's bill must still be passed by the Virginia state Senate. If that happens, Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell's office has said he will review the measure if it reaches his desk, but he has not committed to signing it.
Opponents of the legislation believe it could restrict access not only to abortions but to some forms of contraception, like those that prevent implantation of fertilized eggs. Democratic Delegate Eileen Filler-Corn, who supports abortion rights, said the legislation represented an "overreach by the state."
"These decisions should be left to a woman and her physician, a medical professional," Filler-Corn said. "This is a slippery slope and eventually, the goal of the personhood movement is to ensure that birth control is illegal."
Marshall says his law does not directly challenge the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision affirming a woman's right to an abortion, although he acknowledged it is a step in that direction. He has dismissed what he calls the "sky is falling" claims of his critics, saying all his bill does is grant legal recognition to the unborn prior to birth.
"By itself, it does not outlaw abortion. It doesn't address birth control," he said. "This is a side show designed to distract people's attention from what we're doing here."
A bill similar to Marshall's is pending in Oklahoma's state legislature. Voters in Colorado and Mississippi have rejected "personhood" ballot initiatives in recent years.
Women's rights advocates say these legislative and ballot efforts around the country to establish fetal personhood are part of a move to place greater restrictions on women's access to abortion.
"Over the past several years, we've seen more and more attempts to restrict abortion directly," said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that describes itself as advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights through research and policy analysis. "These efforts around redefining 'person' are a little more of a back door approach, because they don't use the term abortion. They're not an outright abortion ban. Instead they're using a less obvious approach in a way that does not exactly indicate exactly how far they go."
According to the Guttmacher Institute, new laws in 24 states in 2011 restricted access to abortion services, while according to the advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America, the number of "anti-choice" measures being implemented in states has risen steadily over the past decade, from 303 in 2001 to 713 in 2011.
NARAL cites measures that place limits on when and where a women can have an abortion, limit state aid or insurance coverage for the procedure, and mandate counseling.
Whether the Virginia bill ultimately succeeds, politicians like Marshall are committed to keeping the issue front and center.
"I've been here for 20 years," he said. "That means I don't quit."
His dedication is matched by those on the other side -- proof positive that 39 years after the Roe decision, the debate over women's reproductive rights is not going away any time soon.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/19/politics/virginia-personhood-bill/index.html
-
Mississippi poised to tighten abortion regulations, could close last clinic
Published April 07, 2012
FoxNews.com
Mississippi GOP Gov. Phil Bryant is poised to sign legislation that would tighten abortion regulations and could close the state’s only abortion clinic.
The state legislature bill sent Thursday to Bryant requires doctors working in abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology.
GOP state Sen. Dean Kirby, chairman of the chamber’s Public Health Committee, said the legislation is to ensure safe abortions by requiring physicians meet the proposed certifications – not to regulate the clinic into closing.
Diane Derzis, the owner of the clinic, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, said its physicians are OB-GYN certified but only one has admitting privileges. She said clinic doctors live out of state because they have been stalked and threatened. And most hospitals will not grant such privileges to out-of-state physicians.
Kirby has acknowledged he was originally not aware that the doctors were already OB-GYN certified but argued the bill would ensure that they remain that way.
Derzis said the bill would not make abortion safer and that the clinic already has a transfer agreement with a local hospital, so patients who need medical intervention are automatically admitted.
She also said the clinic would do everything possible to comply with the new regulations but more than one physician is needed to stay open. Derzis said she would sue the state if the doctors cannot comply with the new regulations and the clinic is forced to close.
Terri Herring, national director of Pro Life America Network, said several other states have laws requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges.
"This is one of the laws that we don't anticipate them winning in a court challenge," she said. "I think there is truly reason for us to want to know who is in the abortion business in Mississippi. Requiring admitting privileges allows our hospitals to vet these doctors, see what their credentials are."
Bryant opposes abortion rights and supported the so-called Personhood Amendment, which states life begins when an egg is fertilized and was defeated last year by Mississippi voters.
"It is critically important, I think, to make sure we've got a certified physician there for that very complicated procedure, and if a complication does occur, that they have admission privileges or rights to a local hospital," Bryant said. “Look forward to signing it."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/07/mississippi-poised-to-tighten-abortion-regulations-could-close-last-clinic/?test=latestnews
-
Dumb Fundies in Mississippi already have the highest "single mother" birth rate in the nation
I guess we can expect even more of our tax dollars to go to this state
The Tax Foundation (conservative think tank) ranked them #2 in "Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes"
Maybe they are shooting for #1
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
Mississippi single mom birth rate tops nation
State is warned of economic effect
By Kat Bergeron
MCT NEWS SERVICE
November 9, 2008
http://ww.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081109/news_1n9missmoms.html
BILOXI, Miss. – No other state has a higher rate of children born to single mothers than Mississippi, at 53.7 percent. That compares with the lowest state, Utah, at about 18 percent.
Last year 46,456 Mississippi children were born, 24,939 to single mothers. The 2008 figures show those numbers rising.
Pete Walley, an economic analyst who studies and reports trends to state leaders, warns that if Mississippi doesn't change the numbers, it will permanently become No. 50 in income, health, education, economy, even in per capita traffic deaths.
“Mississippi will not be able to improve its economy or build a more coherent, equitable society until we significantly reduce the number of births to single mothers and return to two-parent families,” Walley said. “Studies on children born and raised to single mothers clearly demonstrate a significant negative effect on both the children born to single mothers and on society as a whole.
“This trend will doom the majority of Mississippians – and not just those having the babies – to a lower quality of life and poor state economic performance.”
First place for unwed mothers alternates between New Mexico, Louisiana and Mississippi.
Walley, director of the Bureau of Long Range Economic Development Planning for the Mississippi Institutes of Higher Learning, studies trends to paint economic pictures for state leaders.
Walley said he wants to make one point clear: He does not present his findings to be judgmental or to support moral attitudes about marriage. For him, it's economics, and the relationship of single-mother births to the state's uncertain economy and future.
Teens giving birth is, for some, the most startling of the recently released fall figures from Mississippi State Department of Health and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that Walley uses.
Walley estimated that teen birth costs to Mississippi taxpayers exceed $230 million a year, and the cost to society exceeds $540 million. Those figures are just for teens and is not the broader picture of all single mothers, many of whom rely heavily on state welfare.
About 15 percent of all single-mother births are to teens ages 15 to 19. That is a slight drop from a decade ago but the trend is upward, as are the rest of the unwed-mother statistics.
“If we have that many children born to single mothers, the standard of living is low not just for them but for all of us,” Walley said. “The high number of single mothers fundamentally changes the way our economy works.”
Walley said that 60 years ago, the rate of unwed Mississippi mothers was less than 18 percent.
“In my opinion, improving the state's human capital will be the determining factor as to whether Mississippi breaks out of its 100-year position as last in the rankings, or begins converging steadily toward the center of the nation's economy.”
-
yea, i mean its not like there is any way to prevent unwanted pregnancies...OH WAIT!!!
-
yea, i mean its not like there is any way to prevent unwanted pregnancies...OH WAIT!!!
there are many ways ...including abortion
what's the point of excluding any, especially for a state with an epidemic of unwed mothers and receives more federal spending when compared to taxes paid than 48 other states
-
there are many ways ...including abortion
what's the point of excluding any, especially for a state with an epidemic of unwed mothers and receives more federal spending when compared to taxes paid than 48 other states
abortion doesnt prevent an unwanted pregnancy, it is used after the fact...
I know personal responsibility isnt that big a thing to you but how about taking care of the child that was a result of your intentional actions?
-
abortion doesnt prevent an unwanted pregnancy, it is used after the fact...
I know personal responsibility isnt that big a thing to you but how about taking care of the child that was a result of your intentional actions?
personal responsibility includes not bringing another unwanted child into the world, especially one that you can't support
if you're against abortion then you lucky to live in the USA and can exercise your freedom to not have one......or have one
both are an exercise in personal responsibility and personal freedom
-
abortion doesnt prevent an unwanted pregnancy, it is used after the fact...
I know personal responsibility isnt that big a thing to you but how about taking care of the child that was a result of your intentional actions?
Are airplanes natural and should people be allowed to fly on them?
-
Now this is different. Should the government prevent people from doing this?
Abortion Battle Heats Up on the Hill
By Shannon Bream
Published December 05, 2011
FoxNews.com
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., an outspoken pro-life advocate, is preparing to do battle again on Capitol Hill.
On Tuesday, he'll chair a House hearing in support of his latest legislative effort, the Prenatal NonDiscrimination Act (PreNDA). The measure would ban abortions done on the basis of gender or race.
"It would simply say that you cannot discriminate against the unborn by subjecting them to an abortion based on their race or sex," Franks says.
Pro-choice advocates say PreNDA is an "anti-choice" measure. Nancy Northup, President of Center for Reproductive Rights, calls it a "trumped up bill for a trumped up problem," and says it's a ridiculous waste of congressional resources at a time when the U.S. economy is faltering.
"This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away," said Northup.
PreNDA contains both civil penalties and jail time for those who violate the ban, but not the women who seek or obtain abortions. Franks says he believes women who find themselves with an unintended pregnancy are "victims" who need help in the midst of a crisis, not punishment.
However, those who perform abortions done solely for sex- or race-selection purposes could face fines and up to five years in prison.
The bill will be vetted during a hearing in the House on Tuesday, which is slated to include testimony from a number of experts. Franks says the bill currently has about 60 co-sponsors and he's hoping to add more. "I would hope that even my friends on the left would be able to say 'No, this can't be who we are.'"
Critics say the bill has no chance of being passed this term. Even so, Franks says he hopes it will at least spark important conversations.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/05/abortion-battle-heats-up-on-hill/?test=latestnews#ixzz1fk2rFYPR
This issue is back. Sort of.
House debates bill to ban sex-selective abortions
By Shannon Bream
Published May 30, 2012
FoxNews.com
House members launched into a contentious debate Wednesday over a bill that would ban abortions performed on the basis of gender-selection.
Though sex-selective abortions are typically thought of as a problem in countries like China, bill author Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said Democrats and Republicans in the House agree that sex-selection abortions are occurring in the United States.
"The people of this country are overwhelmingly for this bill, and liberals are going to have to make up their mind whether they are so committed to abortion on demand that they think that includes killing little girls because they are little girls," Franks said.
Under his proposal, physicians who perform sex-selective abortions would face heavy fines and up to five years in jail.
The House, after closing out debate late Wednesday afternoon, is expected to vote on the proposal Thursday. It needs a two-thirds majority to pass.
Though few would advocate sex-selective abortions, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer voiced concern Wednesday about the impact the bill would have on doctors.
"It puts doctors in a very untenable position," Hoyer said, noting that doctors would have to either ask about or surmise the purpose of an abortion.
Hoyer stressed that he doesn't know anybody who supports abortion based on gender, "period."
The debate launches at the same time pro-life group Live Action released a hidden camera video taken at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas. In the video, a woman posing as an expectant mother asks for advice about getting an abortion -- but indicates she only wants to terminate her pregnancy if she's carrying a girl.
After receiving advice on how to get an ultrasound and then late-term abortion, which is legal, the woman is sent off by the staff member who says, "I hope that you do get your boy."
Planned Parenthood has termed the video a "hoax," and issued a statement indicating the staff member in the video is no longer employed by the clinic. The organization also notes that all other employees at the clinic were "immediately scheduled for retraining in managing unusual patient encounters."
Lila Rose, president of Live Action, said pro-choice groups are fighting the bill and trying to minimize the issue "because they don't want to get people focused on the fact that they're willing to support sex-selective abortions."
The groups claim their opposition is based on the fact that the measure is designed to "intimidate" doctors who perform abortions and also aimed at defunding groups like Planned Parenthood.
The bill contains language that would strip federal funding from any clinic found in violation of the measure.
Miriam Yeung, director of The National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, worries that the proposed law would also subject Asian-American women seeking abortions to inappropriate screening because of the stereotype that male children are preferred in Asian families.
"The decisions of Asian-American women, in particular, would be extra scrutinized," she said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/30/house-debates-bill-to-ban-sex-selective-abortions/?test=latestnews
-
If pro abortion people were being honest, they'd just come out in opposition to this kind of measure, because (according to their mindset), an unborn baby isn't a person and the mom should be able to terminate the pregnancy for any reason (birth control, finances, gender, etc.).
House defeats bill to ban gender-based abortions
Published May 31, 2012
FoxNews.com
A bill that would ban sex-selective abortions failed to muster enough support to pass the House Thursday following a contentious debate.
The final vote was 246-168. Though a majority voted in favor of the bill, this particular proposal required a two-thirds majority to pass -- supporters of the bill fell 30 votes short.
The proposal would have made it a federal crime to carry out an abortion based on the gender of the fetus. The measure takes aim at the aborting of female fetuses, a practice more common to countries such India and China, where there is a strong preference for sons, but which is also thought to take place in the U.S.
The White House and Democratic lawmakers opposed the bill out of concern that it could end up subjecting doctors to strict punishment, suggesting the law would be difficult to follow.
"The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.
But GOP lawmakers pointed to the opposition as further proof of the administration's abortion advocacy.
"It is inconceivable to me how our Nobel Prize-winning president can refuse to protect little girls from the violence of sex-selection abortion," Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said Thursday.
Bill sponsor Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said "there has never been a more pro-abortion president in the White House ... I'm astonished the leader of the free world would fail to protect the unborn from being aborted on the basis of sex."
The mainly Republican supporters of the bill characterized the vote as a sex-discrimination issue at a time when Democrats are accusing Republicans of waging a war on women. A day before the vote, Planned Parenthood also launched an ad against GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney accusing him of planning to "deny women the right to make their own medical decisions."
The legislation would have made it a federal offense, subject to up to five years in prison, to perform, solicit funds to perform or coerce a woman into a sex-selection abortion. Bringing a woman into the country to obtain such an abortion would also be punishable by up to five years in prison.
Franks and others say there is evidence of sex-selection abortions in the United States among certain ethnic groups from countries where there is a traditional preference for sons. The bill notes that countries such as India and China, where the practice has contributed to lopsided boy-girl ratios, have enacted bans on the practice.
But the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that favors abortion rights, said evidence of sex selection in the United States is limited and inconclusive. It said that while there is census data showing some evidence of son preference among Chinese-, Indian- and Korean-American families when older children are daughters, the overall U.S. sex ratio at birth in 2005 was 105 boys to 100 girls, "squarely within biologically normal parameters."
Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said the bill fosters discrimination by "subjecting women from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds to additional scrutiny about their decision to terminate a pregnancy."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/debate-heats-up-over-proposal-to-ban-gender-based-abortions/?test=latestnews
-
Law could force Mississippi's only abortion clinic to close
By Rich Phillips, CNN
updated 6:50 PM EDT, Sat June 30, 2012
Anti-abortion protesters set up their signs outside the Jackson Women's Health Organization and regularly preach their beliefs to anyone who will listen. They pray the clinic will close. Their prayers may soon be answered.
Clinic owners are in a fight to save the only abortion clinic operating in the state of Mississippi. New state requirements may close their doors forever, making Mississippi the first abortion-free state.
"I want to say over my dead body, but I'm afraid," said clinic owner and president Diane Derzis.
"We're going to do whatever it takes to keep servicing the women of Mississippi," she said.
A state law that takes effect Sunday requires all of a clinic's abortion providers to be certified OB/GYN's, and all of them must have privileges at a local hospital.
"I think the intent is to make sure that women who are receiving these abortions are receiving abortions by a professional physician who is certified," said state Rep. Sam Mims, who sponsored the legislation.
"If something goes wrong, which it might -- we hope it doesn't, but it could -- that physician could follow the patient to a local hospital. That's the intent. And what happens afterwards, we'll have to see what happens," he told CNN.
State Rep. Sam Mims says his goal is to protect women, but if the law means fewer abortions, "then that's a good thing."
Mississippi has been one of the toughest states on the abortion rights movement. The state already has laws requiring a 24-hour waiting period, as well as parental consent if the patient seeking an abortion is a minor.
"All of that is wrapped in that cloak of conservative religion," said W. Martin Wiseman, director of the Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University.
"You'll find very few legislators, regardless of whether they are white, black, Democrat or Republican who will say, 'I'm pro-abortion,'" Wiseman said.
Gov. Phil Bryant signed the bill with the new requirements into law in April after the Republican-dominated legislature overwhelmingly passed it.
"It's historic. Today you see the first step in a movement, I believe, to do what we campaigned on -- to say that we're going to try to end abortion in Mississippi," Bryant said at the bill-signing event.
Bryant signs bill tightening restrictions on abortion providers
The clinic says it is trying to comply. All of its doctors are OB/GYNs who travel in from other states. But only one can practice at a local hospital. The new law states that all doctors in a clinic must have hospital privileges.
"We're going to do whatever it takes to keep servicing the women of Mississippi," said clinic president Diane Derzis.
Officials at the Jackson clinic say they're trying to gain privileges at Jackson-area hospitals but that the cumbersome process and red tape has forced them to file suit. They've gone to federal court to try to get an injunction that would allow them to stay open while they fight the new law. The court has not yet ruled on their motion.
The Mississippi Department of Health says it will inspect the clinic on Monday for compliance. If the clinic cannot meet the new state law requirements, then it will have the right to appeal and begin an administrative process that could take several months. But, Derzis says, employees would be subject to arrest and fines of up to $2,000 a day if the clinic stays open. So, it would essentially be forced to close.
"It's an absolute tragedy," Derzis said.
"No one wants to talk about abortion. No one wants to think about abortion until they're there," she said.
"There are three reasons you have an abortion: Rape, incest and 'mine.' I hear that all the time: 'You know, I don't believe in abortion, but, now it's my kid,'" she told CNN's George Howell.
But the law's sponsor says the law is about having the proper license to operate, and if that law closes the only abortion clinic in the state, then so be it.
"I'm very pro-life, Mims said. "I believe life begins at conception. And I think a lot of Mississippians do, as well. If this legislation causes less abortions, then that's a good thing."
Derzis believes that this was the real intent of the newly elected Republican majority -- to end abortion in the state, not to improve women's health care.
"I love that it's white, old men, making those statements," she said. "We've been able to be with women at a time in their lives where they are in crisis, when they need to have something done and need that support. That's why it has to be available. It has to be," she said.
"This is not about safety. This is about politics. Politics do not need to be in our uterus."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/30/us/mississippi-abortion-clinic/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
-
States with Abstinence Only policies also have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/?mobile=nc
Mississippi has the highest teen birth rate in the country
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/teen-pregnancy-rates_n_1413820.html
By making abortions almost impossible it's likely the rate of teen pregnancy will increase and with it even more people on welfare
I have to assume the fundie GOP knows this and this is what it wants to happen
I assume christians from all over the country will do the christian thing and step and help these poor kids
-
States with Abstinence Only policies also have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/?mobile=nc
Mississippi has the highest teen birth rate in the country
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/teen-pregnancy-rates_n_1413820.html
By making abortions almost impossible it's likely the rate of teen pregnancy will increase and with it even more people on welfare
I have to assume the fundie GOP knows this and this is what it wants to happen
I assume christians from all over the country will do the christian thing and step and help these poor kids
BumB
-
Mississippi abortion law temporarily blocked by US judge
Published July 01, 2012
Associated Press
JACKSON, Miss. – A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked enforcement of a Mississippi law that could shut down the only abortion clinic in the state.
U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan in Jackson issued a temporary restraining order the day the new law took effect.
He set a July 11 hearing to determine whether to block the law for a longer time.
"Though the debate over abortion continues, there exists legal precedent the court must follow," Jordan wrote.
The law requires anyone performing abortions at the state's only clinic to be an OB-GYN with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. Such privileges can be difficult to obtain, and the clinic contends the mandate is designed to put it out of business. A clinic spokeswoman, Betty Thompson, has said the two physicians who do abortions there are OB-GYNs who travel from other states.
The clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization, filed a lawsuit seeking to block it. The suit says the admitting privileges requirement is not medically necessary and is designed to put the clinic out of business.
If Jackson Women's Health Organization closes, Mississippi would be the only state without an abortion clinic.
Republican Gov. Phil Bryant has said repeatedly he wants Mississippi to be abortion-free. Bryant spokesman Mick Bullock was preparing a response Sunday night to the judge's decision to issue a temporary restraining order.
In the order, Jordan wrote: "Plaintiffs have offered evidence -- including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers -- that the Act's purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi. They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted."
Jordan also wrote that Jackson Women's Health Organization is "the only regular provider of abortions in Mississippi, and as of the Act's effective date, JWHO cannot comply with its requirements."
The Center for Reproductive Rights, based in New York, helped file the lawsuit for the Mississippi clinic. The center's president and CEO, Nancy Northup, said in statement Sunday: "Today's decision reaffirms the fundamental constitutional rights of women in Mississippi and ensures the Jackson Women's Health Organization can continue providing the critical reproductive health care that they have offered to women for the last 17 years.
"The opponents of reproductive rights in the Mississippi legislature have made no secret of their intent to make legal abortion virtually disappear in the state of Mississippi," Northup said. "Their hostility toward women, reproductive health care providers, and the rights of both would unquestionably put the lives and health of countless women at risk of grave harm."
Mississippi physicians who perform fewer than 10 abortions a month can avoid having their offices regulated as an abortion clinic, and thus avoid restrictions in the new law. The Health Department said it doesn't have a record of how many physicians perform fewer than 10 abortions a month. Clinic operators say almost all the abortions in the state are done in their building.
The clinic says if it closes, most women would have to go out of state to terminate a pregnancy -- something that could create financial problems for people in one of the poorest states in the nation. From Jackson, it's about a 200-mile drive to clinics in New Orleans; Mobile, Ala.; or Memphis, Tenn.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/01/mississippi-abortion-law-temporarily-blocked-by-us-judge/?test=latestnews
-
Mississippi's only abortion clinic can remain open, but new state law can take effect, judge rules
Published July 14, 2012
Associated Press
JACKSON, Miss. – A federal judge on Friday allowed Mississippi's anti-abortion law to take effect but said the state's only clinic can remain open and will not face any penalties as it tries to comply with new requirements.
U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III gave the clinic and the state each a partial victory with his ruling on the clinic's request for a preliminary injunction. The law requires anyone who does abortions at the clinic to be an OB-GYN with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. The clinic's two out-of-state OB-GYNS don't have those privileges and have had difficulty getting them from local hospitals.
The ruling gives the clinic time to seek the privileges during the next several months. Jordan wrote that the dispute over the law is a "fluid situation."
"We do not yet know whether the clinic will obtain admitting and staff privileges," the judge wrote. "As both parties stated during the hearing, the resolution of that issue will impact the ultimate issues in this case."
The clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization, has said it could be forced out of business with the admitting privileges requirement, making it nearly impossible to get an abortion in Mississippi.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled states can't place undue burdens on, or create substantial obstacles to, women seeking abortions.
The clinic said its OB-GYNs have applied for admitting privileges at most Jackson-area hospitals but haven't received responses. When clinic employees called a Catholic hospital to ask about applying for privileges, clinic owner Diane Derzis recently said, "We were told not to bother."
The clinic sued the state June 27 seeking to block the law. Jordan temporarily blocked the measure July 1, the day it was supposed to take effect. He heard arguments Wednesday about the clinic's request for a longer injunction, and granted the request in part on Friday.
"The act will be allowed to take effect, but plaintiffs will not be subject to the risk of criminal or civil penalties at this time or in the future for operating without the relevant privileges," the judge wrote.
Jordan noted that during Wednesday's hearing, clinic attorneys said the facility would continue to seek hospital admitting privileges. He wrote that he blocked penalties because the clinic had shown it would face "irreparable injury" if criminal prosecution or civil penalties were possible if the clinic didn't obtain the privileges quickly.
"Given the highly charged political context of this case and the ambiguity still present, the court finds that there would be a chilling effect on the plaintiffs' willingness to continue operating the clinic until they obtained necessary privileges," he wrote.
Supporters of the law passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature this year said it's designed to protect patients, and Republican Gov. Phil Bryant has said he hopes it will help make Mississippi "abortion-free."
Bryant said Friday he was "gratified" that the judge will allow the law to start taking effect.
"Mississippi will continue to defend this important measure as the legal process moves forward," Bryant said in a news release.
Republican Rep. Sam Mims, who sponsored the law, said he's also pleased Jordan allowed the law to take effect.
"I am confident that the new legislation will result in the improvement of health care for women," Mims said.
The state health officer, Dr. Mary Currier, filed a sworn statement in federal court Thursday showing how long it would take to fully implement the law if it takes effect. If the clinic is inspected and found out of compliance, it would get about 10 months to try to follow the mandates and to exhaust its administrative appeals with the Health Department. If the clinic loses its state license, it would then get more time to appeal to a state court.
Health Department spokeswoman Liz Sharlot said Currier and other department officials late Friday were reviewing the judge's decision to see what the agency's next steps will be.
The clinic says its physicians perform almost all of the roughly 2,000 abortions that are performed in Mississippi each year. If Mississippi physicians perform 10 or fewer abortions a month, or 100 or fewer a year, they can avoid having their offices regulated as abortion facilities.
A spokeswoman for Pro-Life Mississippi, Tanya Britton, said Friday of the judge's ruling that keeps the clinic open for now: "It's not a victory for the women of the state of Mississippi. This law was always about their health. If a woman is going to have an abortion and if people who perform abortions say they really care about the health of women, then they should want the best standard of care."
The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which has been helping the clinic in the lawsuit, says it has no plans to appeal.
"The federal judge has provided crucial temporary protection for the clinic and its physicians," Nancy Northup, the center's president and CEO, said in a news release. "We will remain vigilant in our fight to ensure the clinic isn't subject to penalties that would force its doors to close and deprive Mississippi women of their constitutionally-protected rights."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/13/judge-allowing-miss-abortion-clinic-to-stay-open/
-
ND lawmakers define life as starting at conception, in bid to outlaw abortions
Published March 22, 2013
Associated Press
North Dakota lawmakers moved Friday to outlaw abortion in the state by passing a bill defining life as starting at conception.
The bill is one of a series of anti-abortion measures the Republican-controlled Legislature has passed this year despite critics' insistence that they are unconstitutional and violate the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion until a fetus considered viable, which is usually at 22 to 24 weeks.
The North Dakota House approved the bill 57-35 Friday, sending it to the Republican governor, who has not yet said whether he will sign or veto it. The Senate approved it last month.
The so-called personhood measure bestows human rights on fertilized human eggs. Efforts to pass similar measures in other states have failed, but anti-abortion legislation has had strong momentum in North Dakota this year with lawmakers introducing a slew of measures aimed at closing the state's sole abortion clinic in Fargo and challenging Roe v. Wade.
Before the House voted on the personhood bill, the Legislature had already passed measures that would ban abortion as early as six weeks, or as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, and because of genetic defects such as Down syndrome. Together, those bills would give North Dakota the strictest abortion laws in the nation.
Abortion-rights activists have said that if Gov. Jack Dalrymple signs any of them into law, they will fight them in court.
The threat of costly litigation may be less of a deterrent in oil-rich North Dakota than in other states, however. Booming oil production has helped the state avoid the kind of budget cuts seen elsewhere and left it with comfortable surpluses.
Lawmakers Friday also passed a bill outlawing abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed premise that at that point, fetuses feel pain. Lawmakers also approved another measure that requires a doctor who performs abortions to be a physician with hospital-admitting privileges.
Many of the North Dakota bills are modeled on legislation from other states.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/22/nd-lawmakers-define-life-as-starting-at-conception-in-bid-to-outlaw-abortions/?test=latestnews
-
I think the majority of the country would support this, but it is DOA in the Senate, and the president would veto it anyway.
House Passes Far-reaching Anti-abortion Bill
Tuesday, 18 Jun 2013
The Republican-led House on Tuesday passed a far-reaching anti-abortion bill that conservatives saw as a milestone in their 40-year campaign against legalized abortion and Democrats condemned as yet another example of the GOP war on women.
The legislation, sparked by the murder conviction of a Philadelphia late-term abortion provider, would restrict almost all abortions to the first 20 weeks after conception, defying laws in most states that allow abortions up to when the fetus becomes viable, usually considered to be around 24 weeks.
It mirrors 20-week abortion ban laws passed by some states, and lays further groundwork for the ongoing legal battle that abortion foes hope will eventually result in forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, that made abortion legal.
It passed 228-196, with 6 Democrats joining 6 Republicans in voting for it.
In the short term, the bill will go nowhere. The Democratic-controlled Senate will ignore it and the White House says the president would veto it if it ever reached his desk. The White House said the measure was "an assault on a woman's right to choose" and "a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade."
But it was a banner day for social conservatives who have generally seen their priorities overshadowed by economic and budgetary issues since Republicans recaptured the House in 2010.
Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, called it "the most important pro-life bill to be considered by the U.S. Congress in the last 10 years."
Marjorie Dannenfeiser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List — a group that seeks to eliminate abortion, said the legislation differed significantly from past abortion measures in that it restricts, rather than merely controls, the abortion procedure.
Democrats chided Republicans for taking up a dead-end abortion bill when Congress is doing little to promote jobs and economic growth. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called it "yet another Republican attempt to endanger women. It is disrespectful to women. It is unsafe for families and it is unconstitutional."
Democrats also said the decision by GOP leaders to appease their restless base with the abortion vote could backfire on Republican efforts to improve their standing among women.
"They are going down the same road that helped women elect Barack Obama president of the United States," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's delegate to the House. The bill is so egregious to women, said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., that women are reminded that "the last possible thing they ever want to do is leave their health policy to these men in blue suits and red ties."
Democrats repeatedly pointed out that all 23 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee that approved the measure last week on a party-line vote are men.
Republicans countered by assigning women to conspicuous roles in managing the bill on the House floor and presiding over the chamber. Republican women were prominent among those speaking in favor of the legislation.
The bill, said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who was assigned to manage the bill despite not being on the Judiciary Committee, would "send the clearest possible message to the American people that we do not support more Gosnell-like abortions."
The Republican leadership gave the green light to the abortion bill after social conservatives coalesced around the case of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor who was recently sentenced to life in prison for what prosecutors said was the murder of three babies delivered alive. Abortion foes said it exemplified the inhumanity of late-term abortions.
"After this Kermit Gosnell trial, (and) some of the horrific acts that were going on, the vast majority of the American people believe in the substance of this bill, and so do I," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Absent from the debate was the bill's main sponsor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who last week sparked a controversy by saying that rape resulted in few pregnancies.
After Franks' remark, which he later modified, Republicans quietly altered the bill to include an exception to the 20-week ban for instances of rape and incest. Democrats still balked, saying the exception would require a woman to prove that she had reported the rape to authorities.
The bill has an exception when a physical condition threatens the life of the mother, but Democratic efforts to include other health exceptions were rebuffed.
The legislation would ban abortions that take place 20 weeks after conception, which is equivalent to 22 weeks of pregnancy.
Some 10 states have passed laws similar to the House bill, and several are facing court challenges. Last month a federal court struck down as unconstitutional Arizona's law, which differs slightly in banning abortion 20 weeks after pregnancy rather than conception.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based reproductive health research organization that supports abortion rights, in 2009, 1.3 percent of the 1.2 million abortions in the country, about 15,600, occurred 20 weeks after the fetus was conceived.
Supporters of the legislation also contended that fetuses can feel pain after about 20 weeks, and the bill cites extensively from studies agreeing with that conclusion. Opponents say such findings are inconclusive.
Pro-choice groups argued that the 20-week ban, in addition to being unconstitutional, would affect women just at the point of learning of a fetal anomaly or determining that the pregnancy could put the mother's life in danger.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Congress-Abortion/2013/06/18/id/510618
-
I think the majority of the country would support this, but it is DOA in the Senate, and the president would veto it anyway.
House Passes Far-reaching Anti-abortion Bill
Tuesday, 18 Jun 2013
The Republican-led House on Tuesday passed a far-reaching anti-abortion bill that conservatives saw as a milestone in their 40-year campaign against legalized abortion and Democrats condemned as yet another example of the GOP war on women.
The legislation, sparked by the murder conviction of a Philadelphia late-term abortion provider, would restrict almost all abortions to the first 20 weeks after conception, defying laws in most states that allow abortions up to when the fetus becomes viable, usually considered to be around 24 weeks.
It mirrors 20-week abortion ban laws passed by some states, and lays further groundwork for the ongoing legal battle that abortion foes hope will eventually result in forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, that made abortion legal.
It passed 228-196, with 6 Democrats joining 6 Republicans in voting for it.
In the short term, the bill will go nowhere. The Democratic-controlled Senate will ignore it and the White House says the president would veto it if it ever reached his desk. The White House said the measure was "an assault on a woman's right to choose" and "a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade."
But it was a banner day for social conservatives who have generally seen their priorities overshadowed by economic and budgetary issues since Republicans recaptured the House in 2010.
Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, called it "the most important pro-life bill to be considered by the U.S. Congress in the last 10 years."
Marjorie Dannenfeiser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List — a group that seeks to eliminate abortion, said the legislation differed significantly from past abortion measures in that it restricts, rather than merely controls, the abortion procedure.
Democrats chided Republicans for taking up a dead-end abortion bill when Congress is doing little to promote jobs and economic growth. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called it "yet another Republican attempt to endanger women. It is disrespectful to women. It is unsafe for families and it is unconstitutional."
Democrats also said the decision by GOP leaders to appease their restless base with the abortion vote could backfire on Republican efforts to improve their standing among women.
"They are going down the same road that helped women elect Barack Obama president of the United States," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's delegate to the House. The bill is so egregious to women, said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., that women are reminded that "the last possible thing they ever want to do is leave their health policy to these men in blue suits and red ties."
Democrats repeatedly pointed out that all 23 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee that approved the measure last week on a party-line vote are men.
Republicans countered by assigning women to conspicuous roles in managing the bill on the House floor and presiding over the chamber. Republican women were prominent among those speaking in favor of the legislation.
The bill, said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who was assigned to manage the bill despite not being on the Judiciary Committee, would "send the clearest possible message to the American people that we do not support more Gosnell-like abortions."
The Republican leadership gave the green light to the abortion bill after social conservatives coalesced around the case of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor who was recently sentenced to life in prison for what prosecutors said was the murder of three babies delivered alive. Abortion foes said it exemplified the inhumanity of late-term abortions.
"After this Kermit Gosnell trial, (and) some of the horrific acts that were going on, the vast majority of the American people believe in the substance of this bill, and so do I," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Absent from the debate was the bill's main sponsor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who last week sparked a controversy by saying that rape resulted in few pregnancies.
After Franks' remark, which he later modified, Republicans quietly altered the bill to include an exception to the 20-week ban for instances of rape and incest. Democrats still balked, saying the exception would require a woman to prove that she had reported the rape to authorities.
The bill has an exception when a physical condition threatens the life of the mother, but Democratic efforts to include other health exceptions were rebuffed.
The legislation would ban abortions that take place 20 weeks after conception, which is equivalent to 22 weeks of pregnancy.
Some 10 states have passed laws similar to the House bill, and several are facing court challenges. Last month a federal court struck down as unconstitutional Arizona's law, which differs slightly in banning abortion 20 weeks after pregnancy rather than conception.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based reproductive health research organization that supports abortion rights, in 2009, 1.3 percent of the 1.2 million abortions in the country, about 15,600, occurred 20 weeks after the fetus was conceived.
Supporters of the legislation also contended that fetuses can feel pain after about 20 weeks, and the bill cites extensively from studies agreeing with that conclusion. Opponents say such findings are inconclusive.
Pro-choice groups argued that the 20-week ban, in addition to being unconstitutional, would affect women just at the point of learning of a fetal anomaly or determining that the pregnancy could put the mother's life in danger.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Congress-Abortion/2013/06/18/id/510618
Why do you think a majority of the country would support this?
-
Why do you think a majority of the country would support this?
Because a majority of the country is pro life, a majority favor some restrictions on abortion, and I think a majority would likely think it's reasonable for a woman to make a decision about an elective abortion before she's five months pregnant.
-
Some of those abortion extremists are just whacked.
Fun with Infanticide! Video Game has Players Search for Abortion in Texas
By Katie Yoder | August 28, 2013
If Wendy Davis’ 11-hour filibuster to protect late-term abortion in the Lone Star State wasn’t proof enough of the Texas pro-abortion movement’s desperation, a new video game does the trick.
In “Choice: Texas,” designed by Carly Kocurek and Allyson Whipple and currently in development, players hunt for abortion access in Texas via the “choose-your-own-adventure” technique – and confront obstacles such as geography and healthcare.
Gamers live vicariously through characters such as 35-year-old Latrice who, despite a long-time boyfriend, “has never planned to have children, and between her career and family obligations, she feels she has her hands full enough.” Another,19-year-old Leah, bartends as she “save[s ] up money and think[s ] about what she would like to do.”
Wow! So it’s of like Frodo bearing the Ring to Mordor to save Middle Earth. But the Ring you want to lob into the lava is a baby, and Middle Earth is your personal convenience. How inspiring.
Besides teaching “awareness and empathy,” Kocurek and Whipple hope the game provides, “a sex education tool for older high schoolers.” Whipple explained their intent in an interview, highlighting how “Many people, including privileged pro-choice people, do not realize the extent to which people with less privilege struggle with geography, time, and money to obtain abortions.”
Their IndieGoGo, which asked for donations, advertised the game in further detail:
The game “Choice: Texas” is an educational interactive fiction game which will be freely available on the web. Players will explore the game through one of several characters, each of whom reflects specific socioeconomic, geographic, and demographic factors impacting abortion access in Texas. Although billed as interactive fiction, Choice: Texas is based on extensive research into healthcare access, legal restrictions, geography, and demographics, and is reflective of the real circumstances facing women in the state.
In other words, as feminist site Jezebel translated: “Sounds like a uniquely challenging game, and maybe something every anti-choice legislator should by forced to play.”
Yeah, a thrill-a-minute experience. If you’re going to trivialize infanticide with a video game, shouldn’t it at least be fun?
The project so far raised $4,855 of the $9,250 goal needed for completion just in time for Valentine’s Day.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2013/08/28/fun-infanticide-video-game-has-players-search-abortion-tx#ixzz2dIxjWYNf
-
If pro abortion people were being honest, they'd just come out in opposition to this kind of measure, because (according to their mindset), an unborn baby isn't a person and the mom should be able to terminate the pregnancy for any reason (birth control, finances, gender, etc.).
House defeats bill to ban gender-based abortions
Published May 31, 2012
FoxNews.com
A bill that would ban sex-selective abortions failed to muster enough support to pass the House Thursday following a contentious debate.
The final vote was 246-168. Though a majority voted in favor of the bill, this particular proposal required a two-thirds majority to pass -- supporters of the bill fell 30 votes short.
The proposal would have made it a federal crime to carry out an abortion based on the gender of the fetus. The measure takes aim at the aborting of female fetuses, a practice more common to countries such India and China, where there is a strong preference for sons, but which is also thought to take place in the U.S.
The White House and Democratic lawmakers opposed the bill out of concern that it could end up subjecting doctors to strict punishment, suggesting the law would be difficult to follow.
"The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.
But GOP lawmakers pointed to the opposition as further proof of the administration's abortion advocacy.
"It is inconceivable to me how our Nobel Prize-winning president can refuse to protect little girls from the violence of sex-selection abortion," Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said Thursday.
Bill sponsor Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said "there has never been a more pro-abortion president in the White House ... I'm astonished the leader of the free world would fail to protect the unborn from being aborted on the basis of sex."
The mainly Republican supporters of the bill characterized the vote as a sex-discrimination issue at a time when Democrats are accusing Republicans of waging a war on women. A day before the vote, Planned Parenthood also launched an ad against GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney accusing him of planning to "deny women the right to make their own medical decisions."
The legislation would have made it a federal offense, subject to up to five years in prison, to perform, solicit funds to perform or coerce a woman into a sex-selection abortion. Bringing a woman into the country to obtain such an abortion would also be punishable by up to five years in prison.
Franks and others say there is evidence of sex-selection abortions in the United States among certain ethnic groups from countries where there is a traditional preference for sons. The bill notes that countries such as India and China, where the practice has contributed to lopsided boy-girl ratios, have enacted bans on the practice.
But the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that favors abortion rights, said evidence of sex selection in the United States is limited and inconclusive. It said that while there is census data showing some evidence of son preference among Chinese-, Indian- and Korean-American families when older children are daughters, the overall U.S. sex ratio at birth in 2005 was 105 boys to 100 girls, "squarely within biologically normal parameters."
Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said the bill fosters discrimination by "subjecting women from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds to additional scrutiny about their decision to terminate a pregnancy."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/debate-heats-up-over-proposal-to-ban-gender-based-abortions/?test=latestnews
A different view from abroad.
Why women have a right to sex-selective abortion
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter why any woman wants to end her pregnancy. If it's to select for sex, that's her choice
Sarah Ditum
theguardian.com, Thursday 19 September 2013
When you talk about being pro-choice, sex selective abortion is often slung at you as the triumphant gotcha. "You love women so much you want them to be in charge of what grows inside their bodies, but what about the women who are aborted, have a go at answering that? ZING!"
The answer is actually remarkably simple, and it's this: it doesn't matter whether what's growing inside you is liable to end up as a man or a woman. What matters is whether the person it's growing inside – the person who is going to have to deliver the resulting baby, at not inconsiderable personal peril – actually wants to be pregnant and give birth to this child. In a world where it's possible to end a pregnancy safely and legally, it seems like rank brutality to force anyone to carry to term against her will.
And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter why any woman wants to end her pregnancy. As the conscious and legally competent entity in the conception set-up, it's the woman's say that counts, and even the most terrible reason for having an abortion holds more sway than the best imaginable reason for compelling a woman to carry to term.
In this, I probably sound like a radical. Perhaps more of a radical than Ann Furedi of BPAS, who has won outraged headlines simply by saying that abortion on the grounds of sex selection may be within the terms of the 1967 Abortion Act – which, on a scrupulous reading of the act, it may well be. The act doesn't lay out foetal sex explicitly as a grounds for abortion, but as Furedi points out, it also doesn't lay out rape, incest, poverty, relationship breakdown or being underage as legal grounds for abortion. All those things are nevertheless accepted as legitimate causes for termination.
What the act does say is that an abortion is legal when two doctors agree that "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, to the physical or mental health of the woman or any existing children of her family". And that rubric is reasonably understood to comprehend the risks of continuing a pregnancy resulting from rape, from incest, one that would extend a woman beyond her means to support a child, or one that would stop her from completing her education and establishing herself as an independent adult.
What's the difference with sex selection? The most obvious objection is that it doesn't matter what sex a baby is: the UK is an equal society, or at least a society that pretends to equality, and no prospective parent has any reason to prefer a son over a daughter or vice versa. And this is true. It's so true that there is no demographic evidence of women practising sex selective abortion in Britain: this whole scandal is based on a totally fictive set-up.
But what about when a pregnant woman lives in a society that gives her real and considerable reason to fear having a girl? The kind of society where dowry systems mean an inconveniently gendered child could bankrupt a family, or one where a livid patriarch deprived of a male heir could turn his fury on both mother and daughter? In those situations, a woman wouldn't just be justified in seeking sex selective abortion; she'd be thoroughly rational to do so.
Ultimately, if you believe strongly that girls have as much right to be born as boys, then you should also believe that women have the right to decide what happens within the bounds of their own bodies. Sex-selective abortion is a negligible issue in Britain. In the countries where it is a serious concern, it's a symptom of brute misogyny. And the answer to such misogyny is never to deny women power over their own bodies.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/19/sex-selective-abortion-womans-right
-
Vote Lands Albuquerque at Center of Abortion Battle
National groups collide in New Mexico's largest city as residents weigh the first municipal ban of late-term abortions in the U.S.
By Grace Wyler @grace_lightning
Nov. 18, 2013
Students leaving afternoon classes at the University of New Mexico last Thursday were greeted with a raucous spectacle: abortion protesters had flooded the campus, passing out flyers and occasionally yelling slurs from across the quad. Near the school entrance, a gaggle of teens calling themselves the Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust brandished a huge image of a dismembered, fully developed fetus. Ten feet away, pro-choice advocates handed out free pizza and abortion testimonials to interested classmates.
Outside the library, notorious pro-life protester Rives Grogan, who was banned from Washington, D.C., last year after lodging himself in a tree during President Obama’s Inauguration, was taken into custody for screaming at students and faculty.
This circus has become familiar in Albuquerque, where city residents will vote Tuesday on the nation’s first-ever municipal referendum to ban abortions after 20 weeks. The vote — which would effectively end late-term abortions in New Mexico — has turned this low-key, progressive city of a half million people into the latest flash point in the abortion culture wars. It opens a new pro-life strategy to push abortion restrictions at the local as well as state and federal levels.
“I would be surprised if what’s happening in Albuquerque didn’t start to replicate itself in other places,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a national pro-life organization that has been involved in the ballot initiative and has pushed for a similar ban at the federal level.
Titled the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Ordinance, the initiative would prevent women in the city from obtaining an abortion after five months of pregnancy, with a narrow exception for cases when a woman’s life is in immediate danger.
Based on the disputed claim that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, late-term-abortion bans target the small number of abortions performed after that point — 1.5% of U.S. abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health think tank. Thirteen states have passed late-term-abortion bans, although judges have struck down those laws in Idaho and New Mexico’s neighbor Arizona. A federal 20-week abortion ban passed the House of Representatives in June, and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, introduced a 20-week ban bill in the Senate earlier this month.
Albuquerque, called by antiabortion activists “the late-term-abortion capital of the country,” is a natural testing ground for the nation’s first municipal abortion restrictions. Following the murder of late-term-abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009, two of the physicians from his clinic in Wichita, Kans., moved to Albuquerque to practice at Southwestern Women’s Options, making it one of only a few clinics the country that offer abortions after the sixth month of pregnancy, and one of just two clinics in New Mexico that perform the procedure after 20 weeks.
In 2010, pro-life activists Tara and Bud Shaver, who had trained with the Wichita-based antiabortion group Operation Rescue, moved to Albuquerque with the express goal of shutting down Southwestern Women’s Options. Since then, the couple has engaged in what Tara Shaver calls “prayerful witness” at the clinic, launching investigations into the clinic’s doctors and routinely circling the practice in a “Truth Truck” emblazoned with images of a dismembered fetus.
While these efforts failed to close down the clinic, the Shavers’ aggressive activism galvanized the local pro-life community and drew attention to the lack of a gestational limit on abortion in New Mexico. “Whenever we tell people abortion is legal for all nine months, they argue that no one ever does it that late in a pregnancy,’” Tara Shaver said. “They do, and they are coming to Albuquerque to do it.”
After attempts to pass state abortion restrictions repeatedly languished in New Mexico’s Democratic-controlled legislature, pro-life groups teamed up with the Shavers this past summer to petition for a citywide late-term-abortion ban in Albuquerque, where the city charter allows citizens to file ballot initiatives as long as 12,091 signatures are gathered. What began as a local effort has morphed into a million-dollar campaign, with national groups on both sides of the abortion issue pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into advertisements and get-out-the-vote initiatives.
At least six antiabortion groups have campaigned to support the ban, including the Susan B. Anthony List, which spent $176,000 on the Albuquerque campaign in the six weeks leading up to the vote. To thwart these efforts, a coalition of liberal groups, including Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, have banded together under the banner Respect ABQ Women.
With an assist from Organizing for Action, the grassroots fundraising machine spun out of Obama’s presidential campaign, Respect ABQ Women has raised $680,000 to defeat the ordinance, in the hopes of deterring other antiabortion groups from pursuing a similar strategy in other parts of the country.
“Albuquerque voters are carrying a lot of responsibility,” said Micaela Cadena, policy director for Young Women United, a reproductive-justice group working with Respect ABQ Women. “Not only are we voting for our own lives and families, we’re voting for residents from across the state who come to the city for care. But also across the country as well, it’s important that we show the opposition here and now.”
A record number of voters have already turned out for the Albuquerque referendum, with more than 35,000 people casting ballots as of Friday. Both sides expect that the final tally will be close.
“This is a new strategy — no one has ever tried this at a municipal level,” said Patrick Davis, director of ProgressNow New Mexico. “The bottom line is we don’t know how this is going to go.”
While the fate of Albuquerque’s referendum remains uncertain, the strategy is already drawing interest from pro-life groups in other cities. Last week, pro-life activists in New Mexico’s Valencia County, south of Albuquerque, asked county commissioners to consider adopting a similar ban on late-term abortions. And regardless of the outcome on Tuesday, Davis believes that antiabortion activists will use the city’s ordinance as a template for similar municipal abortion restrictions. “If it fails, other places will still have a model for how this works,” he said. “No matter what happens, they will have a better strategy going out of this.”
Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that a pro-choice group Respect ABQ Women had raised more than $68,000. The correct figure is $680,000, according to financial disclosures filed with the City of Albuquerque as of Nov. 8.
http://nation.time.com/2013/11/18/vote-lands-albuquerque-at-center-of-abortion-battle/#ixzz2l1QSv7JB
-
I agree life begins at conception. That's the logical starting point, rather than some arbitrary "viability" line, etc. I think people who have been involved with the pregnancy and the birth of a child (male or female) is more likely to understand and appreciate that there is actually a life in the womb (whether the law recognizes it or not).
In terms of the rape and incest exceptions, I don't think there can be a logical distinction between aborting a baby conceived through consensual sex and aborting one conceived through rape. It's still an innocent child. So, if a state is going to ban it, a rape/incest exception isn't reasonable IMO.
I view the mother's life and health differently, because then you have competing interests (mother vs. baby). Not saying this should happen, just following the argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion.
In any event, I've said this many times before, but I don't think there is a political solution to this issue, short of a "personhood amendment," and even then it probably will never be settled.
My comments were deleted when I realized how old this thread was. D'oh!!
-
Supreme Court allows Texas to keep enforcing abortion restrictions
WASHINGTON A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to continue enforcing abortion restrictions that opponents say have led more than a third of the state's clinics to stop providing abortions.
The justices voted 5-4 to leave in effect a provision requiring doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The court's conservative majority refused the plea of Planned Parenthood and several Texas abortion clinics to overturn a preliminary federal appeals court ruling that allowed the provision to take effect.
The four liberal justices dissented.
The case remains on appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. That court is expected to hear arguments in January, and the law will remain in effect at least until then.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the liberal justices, said he expects the issue to return to the Supreme Court once the appeals court issues its final ruling.
The Texas Legislature approved the requirement for admitting privileges in July.
In late October, days before the provision was to take effect, a trial judge blocked it, saying it probably is unconstitutional because it puts a "substantial obstacle" in front of a woman wanting an abortion.
But a three-judge appellate panel moved quickly to overrule the judge. The appeals court said the law was in line with Supreme Court rulings that have allowed for abortion restrictions so long as they do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Writing for the appeals court, Judge Priscilla Owen noted that the Texas law would not end the procedure, only force women to drive a greater distance to obtain one.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in support of the high court order Tuesday, said the clinics could not overcome a heavy legal burden against overruling the appeals court. The justices may not do so "unless that court clearly and demonstrably erred," Scalia said in an opinion that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not write separately or join any opinion Tuesday, but because it takes five votes to overturn the appellate ruling, it is clear that they voted with their conservative colleagues.
Planned Parenthood and several Texas abortion clinics said in their lawsuit to stop the measure that it would force more than a third of clinics in the state to stop providing abortions. After the appeals court allowed the law to take effect, the groups said that their prediction had come to pass.
In their plea to the Supreme Court, they said that "in just the few short days since the injunction was lifted, over one-third of the facilities providing abortions in Texas have been forced to stop providing that care and others have been forced to drastically reduce the number of patients to whom they are able to provide care. Already, appointments are being canceled and women seeking abortions are being turned away."
Breyer said the better course would have been to block the admitting privileges requirement at least until the court issued its final ruling because some women will be unable to obtain abortions. If courts ultimately find the law is invalid, "the harms to the individual women whose rights it restricts while it remains in effect will be permanent," he said.
The five justices and three appeals court judges who sided with Texas are all Republican appointees. The four dissenting justices are Democratic appointees. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, who initially blocked the provision, is a Republican appointee.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, praised the Supreme Court action. "This is good news both for the unborn and for the women of Texas, who are now better protected from shoddy abortion providers operating in dangerous conditions. As always, Texas will continue doing everything we can to protect the culture of life in our state," Perry said.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the groups will continue the legal fight:
"We will take every step we can to protect the health of Texas women. This law is blocking women in Texas from getting a safe and legal medical procedure that has been their constitutionally protected right for 40 years. This is outrageous and unacceptable - and also demonstrates why we need stronger federal protections for women's health. Your rights and your ability to make your own medical decisions should not depend on your ZIP code," Richards said.
Tennessee and Utah are the other states enforcing their laws on admitting privileges. Similar laws are under temporary court injunctions in Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, North Dakota and Wisconsin.
In Texas, 12 abortion providers say they have attempted to obtain hospital privileges for their doctors, but so far none of the hospitals have responded to the requests. That means those clinics can no longer offer abortions, leaving at most 20 facilities open in a state of 26 million people. All of those facilities are in metropolitan areas, with none in the Rio Grande Valley along the border with Mexico. Currently, only six out of 32 abortions clinics in Texas qualify as ambulatory surgical centers, and some have doctors who do not meet the admitting privileges requirement.
Texas women undergo an average of 80,000 abortions a year.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57613068/supreme-court-allows-texas-to-keep-enforcing-abortion-restrictions/
-
Bum, from your statement above I assume if your wife, sister, daughter was raped and became pregnant (and I certainly hope that never happens) that you would want them to bear the child of their rapist.
How would you suggest they deal with the trauma/horror of having to carry the child of their rapist and then what would you want them to do with the child (I'm assuming you would have some influence if this were your wife or daughter). Would you want them to raise the child oftheir rapist or put it up for adotption. Which one do you think would create more trauma for them. Raising the child or giving it up?
I'm mostly pro-life, but this is part of my stance as well. You cannot rightly demand a woman to carry a baby that was forced upon her by a rapist. Abort the rapist instead.
I also think abortion should be allowed if at least two doctors agree that the mother's life is at risk.
-
:-\
Anchor Dares to Ask Planned Parenthood Boss When Life Begins; She Dodges: It 'Isn't Really Relevant'
By Tim Graham | February 28, 2014
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion conglomerate, did an interview Thursday on the new Fusion network with anchorman Jorge Ramos.
The section sparking everyone’s attention came when Ramos – self-respecting enough to offer more than the piffle a Ronan Farrow offers on MSNBC – asked when life begins for Richards. She labored mightily not to answer, since abortion advocates eschew science and believe that women should be able to abort even AFTER a child is born:
JORGE RAMOS: Can I ask you a philosophical question?
CECILE RICHARDS: Sure.
RAMOS So for you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?
RICHARDS This is a question, I think, that will be debated through the centuries, and people come down to very different views on that.
RAMOS But for you, what’s the point?
RICHARDS It is not something that I feel like is really part of this conversation. I mean, to me, we work with women – I guess the way I’d really like to I think every woman has to make her own decision. What we do at Planned Parenthood is make sure that women have all their options for health care, and they have the option to have a healthy pregnancy, they have the option to put a child up for adoption if they decide to carry the pregnancy to term, or they have the right to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy.
Ramos tried to pierce through the moral relativism one more time, and Richards repeated "I don’t think it’s really relevant to the conversation," but then she said for her three children, their “life began when I delivered them.”
On Friday, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser offered a pro-life response:
Cecile Richards’ comments were insensitive and unfeeling to any woman who has ever been pregnant, especially those women who have suffered the pain of miscarriage.
This is an example of the problem of getting so wrapped up in the politics of ‘reproductive choice,’ that the real experience of pregnant women becomes secondary. Richards’ statement misses what most Americans understand about pregnancy, especially women. There are two human beings involved.
If there are disappointments at the ballot box for Planned Parenthood in 2014 it will be an outgrowth of this disconnect with the women they claim to represent.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/02/28/anchor-dares-ask-planned-parenthood-boss-when-life-begins-she-avoids-ans#ixzz2vttmxzV8
-
I'm mostly pro-life, but this is part of my stance as well. You cannot rightly demand a woman to carry a baby that was forced upon her by a rapist. Abort the rapist instead.
I also think abortion should be allowed if at least two doctors agree that the mother's life is at risk.
Didn't Spain just ban abortion except for cases of rape/incest and risk to the mother?
-
It's funny how my view of this topic has changed since I have aged a bit and have a child of my own. It's a difficult decision, that hopefully nobody has to make, but I realize it is an issue. I just hope, people who choose to abort, have a good reason other than "birth control" because they made a mistake. Kids are amazing and I couldn't do without mine.
-
It's funny how my view of this topic has changed since I have aged a bit and have a child of my own. It's a difficult decision, that hopefully nobody has to make, but I realize it is an issue. I just hope, people who choose to abort, have a good reason other than "birth control" because they made a mistake. Kids are amazing and I couldn't do without mine.
I agree.
Very complicated and emotional issue. I've always said I don't think there is a political solution. Or really any solution for that matter.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of abortions are nothing more than birth control.
-
I agree.
Very complicated and emotional issue. I've always said I don't think there is a political solution. Or really any solution for that matter.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of abortions are nothing more than birth control.
yup. I do always say that back in the 70's the people who fought to push Roe v Wade had their hearts in the right place and a vision of what they wanted abortion to be. they wanted it to be infrequent, and absolutely necessary.
the neocon liberal movement takes a big fucking piss on their vision every single day.......and they don't even know it.
-
yup. I do always say that back in the 70's the people who fought to push Roe v Wade had their hearts in the right place and a vision of what they wanted abortion to be. they wanted it to be infrequent, and absolutely necessary.
the neocon liberal movement takes a big fucking piss on their vision every single day.......and they don't even know it.
Good point. The movement has been hijacked by extremists.
-
US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules
Published March 27, 2014
A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld Texas' tough abortion restrictions that have led to the closure of nearly 20 clinics around the state, saying the new rules don't jeopardize women's health.
A panel of judges at the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court judge who said the rules violate the U.S. Constitution and served no medical purpose. Despite the lower court's ruling, the appeals court already had allowed some rules to go into effect while it considered the case. The latest decision means more regulations will begin later this year, as scheduled, and sets the case up for a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its opinion, the appeals court said the law "on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman."
Gov. Rick Perry hailed the ruling in a statement released by his office.
"The people of Texas have spoken through their elected leaders and in support of protecting the culture of life in our state," he said. "Today's court decision is good news for Texas women and the unborn, and we will continue to fight for the protection of life and women's health in Texas."
Planned Parenthood, which sued to block the law, called the ruling "terrible" and said that "safe and legal abortion will continue to be virtually impossible for thousands of Texas women to access."
"The latest restrictions in Texas will force women to have abortions later in pregnancy, if they are able to get to a doctor at all," Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Votes, said in a statement. The American Civil Liberties Union said "The law is having a devastating impact on women in Texas, and the court should have struck it down."
Texas lawmakers last summer passed some of the toughest restrictions in the U.S. on when, where and how women may obtain an abortion. The Republican-controlled Legislature required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and placed strict limits on doctors prescribing abortion-inducing pills.
Debate of the law drew thousands of demonstrators on both sides of the issue to the state Capitol in Austin and sparked a 12-plus hour filibuster by state Sen. Wendy Davis, a Fort Worth Democrat who succeeded in temporarily blocking passage. Though the restrictions later passed overwhelmingly, Davis catapulted to political stardom and is now running for governor.
The office of Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is also running for governor, defended the law in court.
Republican leaders in Texas oppose abortion, except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. In passing the new rules, they argued they were protecting the health of the woman.
But abortion-rights supporters called the measures an attempt to effectively ban abortion statewide through overregulation. Many abortion doctors do not have admitting privileges and limiting when and where they may prescribe abortion-inducing pills discourages women from choosing that option, they say.
Other aspects of the new rules, including a requirement that all procedures take place in a surgical facility, do not take effect until September.
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled in October that the provisions place an unconstitutional burden on women's access to abortion.
Three days after Yeakel's ruling, the 5th Circuit allowed Texas to enforce the law while the state appealed the decision. Some 19 clinics have shut down since, leaving 24 still open to serve a population of 26 million Texans. More closures could happen after the additional restrictions are in place.
Regardless, the Supreme Court probably will have the last word on the restrictions. The court's four liberal justices already have indicated they are inclined to hear an appeal.
In November, the four dissented from a high court ruling that upheld the 5th Circuit's decision to allow Texas to enforce the law while the appeal proceeded.
Justice Stephen Breyer called the issue of the law's constitutionality a difficult question. "It is a question, I believe, that at least four members of this court will wish to consider irrespective of the Fifth Circuit's ultimate decision," Breyer wrote in a brief opinion that was joined by Justices Rith Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Five votes constitute a majority on the nine-justice court, but it takes only four to grant full review of a lower court ruling.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/27/us-appeals-court-upholds-new-texas-abortion-rules/
-
Rubio: Left Ignores Consensus of Science on Abortion
Thursday, 15 May 2014
By Greg Richter
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio says the left is hypocritical when it comes to scientific consensus.
Appearing Wednesday on Sean Hannity's radio show, Rubio said that liberals who label him a climate-change denier cite "settled science" on the issue. But they are not so settled when it comes to the abortion issue.
"Let me give you a bit of settled science that they’ll never admit to. The science is settled, it’s not even a consensus, it is a unanimity, that human life begins at conception," Rubio told Hannity. "So I hope the next time that someone wags their finger about science, they’ll ask one of these leaders on the left: 'Do you agree with the consensus of science that human life begins at conception?'"
"That is a proven fact," Rubio said. "That’s a scientific consensus they conveniently choose to ignore."
Rubio most recently came under fire after an appearance Sunday on ABC's "This Week." Rubio told ABC's Jonathan Karl that climate is often changing, but it can't all be blamed on human activity.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/abortion-science-liberal-bias/2014/05/14/id/571398#ixzz31oS47Gdw
-
Here's How Long You Have To Wait For An Abortion In Each State
Huffington Post | by Alissa Scheller
Posted: 05/15/2014
The Missouri legislature approved a measure on Wednesday that would mandate a 72-hour waiting period between required counseling and abortion. Only two states, Utah and South Dakota, currently have a 72-hour waiting period, though 26 states make women wait at least 18 hours for an abortion.
Counseling in some states must include misinformation on a supposed link between abortion and breast cancer, as well as inaccurate information on mental health and future fertility. Five states mandate that women are told life begins at conception, either verbally or in writing, before they can have an abortion.
Missouri currently only has one clinic, in St. Louis, that performs elective abortions. Abortion advocates say the increased wait time could place a such burden on women — who may have to make two long trips or travel there for several days to have an abortion — that Missouri could effectively be considered an "abortion-free" state.
(http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AbortionWaitTimes.png)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/missouri-abortion-waiting_n_5331758.html
-
Dems veer into danger zone with abortion bill
By Chris Stirewalt
Published July 15, 2014
FoxNews.com
DEMS VEER INTO DANGER ZONE WITH ABORTION BILL
Democrats today are kicking up their election-year effort to shift the discussion to social issues in a bid to drive a wedge between female voters and the GOP. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., is leading a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today on his bill that would override the laws banning late-term abortions and imposing regulations on abortion clinics in an increasing number of states. The bill, which already has the support of nearly two-thirds of Senate Democrats, would eradicate the restrictions in at least a dozen states where abortions have been banned after the start of the sixth month of pregnancy and rules in many more states that regulate the conditions at abortion clinics. The New York Times editorial board is enthused as are others on the left who have seen access to elective abortions restricted in the aftermath of the discovery of a house of horrors at the Philadelphia abortion clinic operated by Dr. Kermit Gosnell. But Blumenthal’s anti-anti-Gosnell bill takes Democrats into some very dangerous political territory.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/15/dems-veer-into-danger-zone-with-abortion-bill/
-
Do the people who criticize Republicans for talking about abortion as a political issue have a problem with Democrats making this a major issue?
Ted Cruz: Abortion Access Law Is Part of 'Real' War on Women
Tuesday, 15 Jul 2014
By Cathy Burke
A proposed bill to protect access to abortion services is a "manifestation of a war on women," Sen. Ted Cruz charged Tuesday.
Speaking at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Texas Republican questioned the Women's Health Protection Act, which would prevent states from implementing restrictions—such as doctors' admitting privileges at local hospitals, structural requirements for clinics, mandated waiting periods, and mandated ultrasounds—that make abortion services more difficult to get.
The bill is aimed at actions like those in Texas, which last summer passed a set of restrictive laws that has already closed about a third of the abortion clinics in the state, the National Journal reported.
There were 40 clinics operating in 2011; 20 are still open, the National Journal notes, and all but six are expected to close.
"This legislation is a very real manifestation of a war on women, given the health consequences that unlimited abortion access has had on many woman," Cruz said of the proposed bill.
Though Democrats say the bill would prevent states from singling out abortions and protect women’s reproductive rights, with no Republican support, the bill has little chance of passing the House and critics dismissed the measure as a political tactic aimed at the midterm election.
"This bill is a weak political ploy," said Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. "It’s unfortunate that the [Senate] majority is using this issue to appear compassionate and concerned about women's rights when, in reality, the bill disregards popular and common sense laws enacted by various states aimed at protecting women and children across the country."
Breitbart News wrote Tuesday the proposed bill is "so far-reaching in its deregulation of the abortion industry, pro-life advocates have named it the 'Gosnell Prerogative Act,'" referring to Philadelphia physician Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murder.
"This legislation being considered is extreme legislation," Cruz said at the hearing.
"It is legislation designed to eliminate reasonable restrictions on abortion that states have put in place. It is designed to force a radical view from Democrats in the Senate: that abortions should be universally available, without limits, and paid for by the taxpayers."
The National Journal notes states are currently allowed to set abortion regulations, as long as they do not impose an "undue burden" on women seeking the procedure. Republicans argue the new bill is broad enough that it would eliminate any state regulation at all.
"The bill is really about just one thing: It seeks to strip away from elected lawmakers the ability to provide even the most minimal protections for unborn children, at any stage of their prenatal development," Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, told the National Journal.
"While the proposal is so sweeping and extreme that it would be difficult to capture its full scope in any short title, calling the bill the 'Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act' would be more in line with truth-in-advertising standards."
Republican lawmakers said the Democrat-backed bill was overreaching and interfered with state rights.
"I don’t recall Congress ever passing a law that prohibited states from enacting certain categories of laws simply because Congress says so," said Republican Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch.
"I can’t imagine why any state legislature would support this no matter their position on abortion."
At the start of Tuesday's hearing, Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn held up a photo of her grandson's ultrasound, saying: "I could tell, three months before he was born, that he had my eyes and nose. For a grandmother, that's a really big deal," the National Journal reported.
"We all want what's best for women," she said. "We differ on what that is, and we differ how to get there."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ted-cruz-abortion-access-bill/2014/07/15/id/582897#ixzz37lvZFayO
-
Abortion Amendments on 2014 Ballot in Colorado, North Dakota, and Tennessee
Elizabeth Nolan Brown|Nov. 3, 2014
This Tuesday, voters in Colorado and North Dakota will decide whether to grant rights to "unborn human beings" while Tennessee residents consider a constitutional amendment allowing the state legislature more power to regulate abortion. Here's a quick look at the three abortion-related measures on Election 2014 ballots:
COLORADO - Amendment 67
In both 2008 and 2010, more than 70 percent of Colorado voters rejected Personhood USA's attempt to give fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses full rights under the Colorado constitution. This year the anti-abortion group is back at it with an updated, less-broad ballot measure. If Amendment 67 passes, it will amend the state's constitution to include "unborn human beings" under the definition of "person" with regard to Colorado criminal code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act. The previous personhood measures would have amended the definition of person unilaterally.
Supporters of Amendment 67, also known as the Brady Amendment, have been trying to keep focus on Heather Surovik, a woman whose car was hit by a drunk driver when she was eight months pregnant. Surovik lived, but her unborn baby "Brady" didn't. The driver responsible was charged with vehicular assault and driving under the influence, but not for Brady's death.
"In honor of her son, Heather Surovik has initiated the Brady Amendment to recognize unborn babies as persons in law," sates Personhood Colorado.
Opponents say the measure is an attempt to criminalize abortion.
NORTH DAKOTA - Measure 1
North Dakota residents will also vote this Tuesday on a constitutional amendment concerning personhood. Measure 1, also known as the "Life Begins at Conception" or "Human Life" Amendment, would change the state constitution to provide for the "inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development."
Some supporters of Measure 1, led by a group called North Dakota Choose Life, insist that it's not meant to address abortion per se and would merely change the state constitution to "recognize that human life is a gift". This is necessary, according to North Dakota Choose Life, because "wealthy out-of-state special interest groups" are trying to overturn restrictions on abortion that the state has already passed, such as a parental notification requirement for abortion-seeking teens.
State Sen. Margaret Sitte (R-35), however, claims "this amendment is intended to present a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. By passage of this amendment, the people of North Dakota are asking government to recognize what science already defined."
Opponents of the measure say it's so vague it could be used in any manner of ways, including to criminalize in-vitro fertilization or taking terminally-ill patients off life support.
TENNESSEE - Amendment 1
Personhood USA/FacebookPersonhood USA/Facebook
Amendment 1, also known as the "Tennessee Legislative Powers Regarding Abortion" amendment, would add the following to the state constitution:
Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.
The amendment would have no immediate effect, but supporters say it would allow the legislature to more intensely regulate abortion in the future. Specifically, they believe it would neutralize a 2000 Tennessee Supreme Court ruling which struck down several laws restricting abortion access—including a 48-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions and a requirement that second-trimester abortions be performed in hospitals—as unconstitutional.
"For those thinking that a state constitutional amendment may be overkill, in fact its need comes from the state court itself," said Dan McConchie, vice president of government affairs at Americans United for Life.
Opponents of Amendment 1 point out that the goal of its backers is to make all abortion illegal. "Their pitch is that this would make the constitution neutral on abortion," said former Tennessee Sen. Roy Herron. "How would they like the Constitution neutral on the Second Amendment so legislators could outlaw the right to bear arms? How about making the First Amendment neutral?"
Amendment 1 was placed on the ballot by the state legislature, under the guidance of State Sen. Mae Beavers (R-17) and U.S. Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.), who was a state senator at the time. As a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, it must earn a majority vote from those voting on the amendment and those voting for Tennessee governor. For this reason, Amendment 1 supporters have been urging residents not to cast a vote in the gubernatorial race.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/03/abortion-ballot-measures-2014-elections
-
Colorado And North Dakota Voters Reject Fetal Personhood Measures
Posted: 11/04/2014 10:14 pm EST Updated: 11/05/2014 8:59 am EST
Voters in Colorado rejected an anti-abortion ballot measure on Tuesday that would have granted personhood rights to developing fetuses from the moment of fertilization.
The ballot measure, known as Amendment 67, would have amended the state's criminal code to include fetuses in the category of "human" and "child." Supporters of the measure said it would have more harshly prosecuted someone who caused a pregnant woman to lose her baby in a situation like a drunk driving accident.
Opponents warned that it also would have criminalized women who have abortions, without exception for rape or incest.
Colorado voters rejected the amendment by a vote of 63 percent to 37 percent -- the third time they have voted down a personhood measure in the past few years.
“For the third time, Colorado voters have said loud and clear: We don’t want extremists interfering in our personal and private decisions, and we won’t stand for attempts to ban abortion," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project. "This isn’t surprising: Voters in Mississippi, South Dakota, Florida and other states defeated attempts to curb access to safe, legal abortion. Time and time again, Americans have shown that they support a woman’s right to make the best decision for herself and her family.”
Colorado voters on Tuesday did, however, elect to the Senate Republican Cory Gardner, who co-sponsored fetal personhood legislation in the House of Representatives.
North Dakota voters on Tuesday also rejected a personhood ballot measure by a margin of 64 percent to 36 percent. The measure would have amended the state constitution to say, "The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.'"
Supporters of the measure said it was not, in fact, a personhood bill and that it was only a statement of anti-abortion values. Opponents argued that the measure was so vaguely written, it could have been interpreted to ban all abortions without exception and even complicate the legality of some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization.
Reproductive rights groups applauded the amendment's defeat.
"Today, North Dakotans saw through right-wing extremists' attempts to insert a highly controversial measure into the state's constitution that would have robbed North Dakota women of their inalienable rights to their own body and their own lives," said NARAL president Ilyse Hogue. "We stand with the women of North Dakota who have the right to make personal health care decisions without interference from politicians."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/personhood-colorado_n_6104120.html
-
Kind of shocking that this thread didn't explode into 30 pages.
My personal belief is that life does start at conception. With that said I sure would not want to tell rape and incest victims they had to have the baby that resulted from their rape or force a mother to give birth to a baby that doesn't have any chance at life. Also not cool if it results in the state deciding who dies if it comes down to the mother or the baby.
You are a moron.
-
You are a moron.
No he isn't. ::)
-
No he isn't. ::)
Yes he is. You probably are as well if you think fetuses deserve rights.
-
Yes he is. You probably are as well if you think fetuses deserve rights.
He said he believes life begins at conception. I agree with him. But what I was responding to was your broad contention that he is moron. He's not. People are not dumb simply because they have a different viewpoint. Pretty simplistic thought process if that's what you believe.
Regarding this particular subject, I pretty much know you believe an unborn child isn't actually a person. The majority of the country disagrees with you.
-
He said he believes life begins at conception. I agree with him. But what I was responding to was your broad contention that he is moron. He's not. People are not dumb simply because they have a different viewpoint. Pretty simplistic thought process if that's what you believe.
Regarding this particular subject, I pretty much know you believe an unborn child isn't actually a person. The majority of the country disagrees with you.
Not true.
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qj2ctl2rmuoc8rz1pzyoka.png)
-
Not true.
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qj2ctl2rmuoc8rz1pzyoka.png)
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about whether people believe an unborn child is actually a baby.
-
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about whether people believe an unborn child is actually a baby.
How can anything that is unborn be anything other than unborn?
What we have is failure of intelligence, yours included.
I guess acorns should now be classified as trees. ::)
-
How can anything that is unborn be anything other than unborn?
What we have is failure of intelligence, yours included.
I guess acorns should now be classified as trees. ::)
Yes, acorns should be trees. Seeds should be fruit trees. Blah blah blah. ::) And you called Hugo a moron? lol
You should ask the next pregnant mother you encounter how she would describe her unborn child.
-
Yes, acorns should be trees. Seeds should be fruit trees. Blah blah blah. ::) And you called Hugo a moron? lol
You should ask the next pregnant mother you encounter how she would describe her unborn child.
I heard one describe it as a parasite right before she got her abortion. Does that help?
So you think acorns are trees? You really are teh stupid, aren`t you?
-
I heard one describe it as a parasite right before she got her abortion. Does that help?
So you think acorns are trees? You really are teh stupid, aren`t you?
No, that doesn't help. Talk to someone who doesn't plan on killing her unborn child how she would describe her unborn child.
No I don't believe acorns are trees. I was mocking you.
-
No, that doesn't help. Talk to someone who doesn't plan on killing her unborn child how she would describe her unborn child.
No I don't believe acorns are trees. I was mocking you.
If an Acorn isn`t a tree, how is a fetus a human being? ???
-
If an Acorn isn`t a tree, how is a fetus a human being? ???
lol. Oh you got me. ::)
An acorn is a plant. An unborn child is not. What is it with some people and these asinine comparisons? lol
At what point does an unborn child become a human being?
-
lol. Oh you got me. ::)
An acorn is a plant. An unborn child is not. What is it with some people and these asinine comparisons? lol
At what point does an unborn child become a human being?
When the umbilical cord is clipped, separating it from the mother.
-
When the umbilical cord is clipped, separating it from the mother.
So even after delivery, but before the cord is cut, you don't consider the baby to be a human being?
-
So even after delivery, but before the cord is cut, you don't consider the baby to be a human being?
Minimum after it leaves the vagina, but the umbilical cord makes the definition a bit more concrete.
Before that, its a fetus, not a human being.
Also, if you don`t like abortions, don`t have one. But DO NOT tell someone else they are not allowed. Its none of your business unless you want to pick up the tab for all the unwanted babies, rape babies, crack babies, pregnancy mistakes and retards. Perhaps you should be taxed more in order to support them then.
-
Minimum after it leaves the vagina, but the umbilical cord makes the definition a bit more concrete.
Before that, its a fetus, not a human being.
Also, if you don`t like abortions, don`t have one. But DO NOT tell someone else they are not allowed. Its none of your business unless you want to pick up the tab for all the unwanted babies, rape babies, crack babies, pregnancy mistakes and retards. Perhaps you should be taxed more in order to support them then.
Oh stop with the canned talking points. I'm not even talking about abortion. ::)
You're waffling. Is a baby that comes out of the womb, but is still attached to the cord, a human being or not?
-
Oh stop with the canned talking points. I'm not even talking about abortion. ::)
You're waffling. Is a baby that comes out of the womb, but is still attached to the cord, a human being or not?
Its a newly birthed fetus that has yet to be separated from the mother and if we assume that the umbilical cord is the determining factor than, no, its not official yet.
If we use the after it leaves the mothers womb or vagina, then it may be. Either definition is fine by me, but I do prefer the umbilical version.
Anything prior to those two, the fetus is a parasite.
-
Anyone who uses abortion as a form of birth control is a piece of shit. That said, make your own choices and deal with the reprocussions. To each their own.
-
Anyone who uses abortion as a form of birth control is a piece of shit. That said, make your own choices and deal with the reprocussions. To each their own.
Why?
You are against the morning after pill which is essentially an abortion according to morons like Dos Equis and Hugo?
-
Its a newly birthed fetus that has yet to be separated from the mother and if we assume that the umbilical cord is the determining factor than, no, its not official yet.
If we use the after it leaves the mothers womb or vagina, then it may be. Either definition is fine by me, but I do prefer the umbilical version.
Anything prior to those two, the fetus is a parasite.
You're still waffling. What do you mean a baby "may be" a human after it leaves the womb? Why can't you be more definitive?
Also, you should talk to pregnant mothers, especially in their third trimester. None of them refer to their baby as a fetus.
-
You're still waffling. What do you mean a baby "may be" a human after it leaves the womb? Why can't you be more definitive?
Also, you should talk to pregnant mothers, especially in their third trimester. None of them refer to their baby as a fetus.
I thought it was pretty obvious what I stated.
I have talked to women who have had children and gave birth and wished they either never had them. Men as well.
-
I thought it was pretty obvious what I stated.
I have talked to women who have had children and gave birth and wished they either never had them. Men as well.
You obviously stated that a baby may or may not be a human being after it is born, but before the cord is cut. Clear as mud.
What is the distinction between a newborn baby that is a few days old and one that is in the womb shortly before birth or after birth before the cord is cut?
-
You obviously stated that a baby may or may not be a human being after it is born, but before the cord is cut. Clear as mud.
What is the distinction between a newborn baby that is a few days old and one that is in the womb shortly before birth or after birth before the cord is cut?
Uh, its no longer attached to the mother.
-
Uh, its no longer attached to the mother.
Yes. Although I'm talking about in terms of dependency and the newborn baby's ability to survive on its own.
-
Yes. Although I'm talking about in terms of dependency and the newborn baby's ability to survive on its own.
Why? Just put the baby up for adoption and then the biological mother becomes irrelevant. However, the mother should have had the right to terminate the unnecessary birth.
-
Why? Just put the baby up for adoption and then the biological mother becomes irrelevant. However, the mother should have had the right to terminate the unnecessary birth.
I see you don't like giving straight answers, which is fine because this is only a message board and nobody has to say anything they don't want too.
But here is what I'm getting at (or trying to understand): where do you draw the line, logically, between the ability to kill a baby after it comes out of the womb? Is it before the cord is cut?
Overall, there is no logical distinction between a newborn and a third trimester baby at say 38 weeks. The lungs are the last thing to develop and by 38 weeks they are good to go. A newborn is just as dependent as a third trimester baby. Arguably, a newborn is more dependent because the baby has to be fed, changed, held, etc., whereas an unborn child has the cord and placenta providing everything the baby needs to survive.
-
I see you don't like giving straight answers, which is fine because this is only a message board and nobody has to say anything they don't want too.
But here is what I'm getting at (or trying to understand): where do you draw the line, logically, between the ability to kill a baby after it comes out of the womb? Is it before the cord is cut?
Overall, there is no logical distinction between a newborn and a third trimester baby at say 38 weeks. The lungs are the last thing to develop and by 38 weeks they are good to go. A newborn is just as dependent as a third trimester baby. Arguably, a newborn is more dependent because the baby has to be fed, changed, held, etc., whereas an unborn child has the cord and placenta providing everything the baby needs to survive.
If you don`t like abortion, don`t have one. Simple as that.
I don`t care about dependency because that is what abortion prevents.
-
I see you don't like giving straight answers, which is fine because this is only a message board and nobody has to say anything they don't want too.
But here is what I'm getting at (or trying to understand): where do you draw the line, logically, between the ability to kill a baby after it comes out of the womb? Is it before the cord is cut?
Overall, there is no logical distinction between a newborn and a third trimester baby at say 38 weeks. The lungs are the last thing to develop and by 38 weeks they are good to go. A newborn is just as dependent as a third trimester baby. Arguably, a newborn is more dependent because the baby has to be fed, changed, held, etc., whereas an unborn child has the cord and placenta providing everything the baby needs to survive.
If you really want to get to a logical argument, then the organism really is just 50 percent of genes owned by the mother and 50 percent owned by the father. If both mother and father agree that they do not want their genes spread, maybe they should have the right to stop it at any time as biologically the entire makeup solely belongs to them.
Just how Biologically logically do you want to take it? (see what I am doing here?)
-
If you don`t like abortion, don`t have one. Simple as that.
I don`t care about dependency because that is what abortion prevents.
We're not talking about abortion, but I can see you have tunnel vision.
We're talking about when a baby becomes a human being and the logical distinction between killing a baby before and after birth.
-
If you really want to get to a logical argument, then the organism really is just 50 percent of genes owned by the mother and 50 percent owned by the father. If both mother and father agree that they do not want their genes spread, maybe they should have the right to stop it at any time as biologically the entire makeup solely belongs to them.
Just how Biologically logically do you want to take it? (see what I am doing here?)
Are you suggesting parents should have the right to kill their kids at any time?
-
We're not talking about abortion, but I can see you have tunnel vision.
We're talking about when a baby becomes a human being and the logical distinction between killing a baby before and after birth.
Its clear, you want your own set of rules. Logically speaking, humans are just vehicles for the genes they contain. Genes are the only thing we are talking about. You could, logically break it down further by elements and atoms therein.
I don`t think you understand the inanity of it all yet.
-
Are you suggesting parents should have the right to kill their kids at any time?
Depends on how far you want to take the logic as you seemingly wanted to do. How far do you want to take it? If you take it all the way to a biological level, then it would be permissible, logically and biologically speaking.
-
Its clear, you want your own set of rules. Logically speaking, humans are just vehicles for the genes they contain. Genes are the only thing we are talking about. You could, logically break it down further by elements and atoms therein.
I don`t think you understand the inanity of it all yet.
What rules are you talking about? If you're talking about the basic "rules" regarding having a conversation, then yes I like to stay on topic.
What seems apparent is you want to talk about abortion and are either unwilling or incapable of having a discussion about human life and death without spouting political talking points.
If you're able to step outside the box, maybe you can discuss precisely when you believe a baby becomes a human being and whether we should kill newborn babies. And if you're smart enough, maybe you can do it without talking about abortion.
-
Depends on how far you want to take the logic as you seemingly wanted to do. How far do you want to take it? If you take it all the way to a biological level, then it would be permissible, logically and biologically speaking.
Ok. So "logically and biologically speaking," you believe parents should be able to kill their children. Got it.
-
Ok. So "logically and biologically speaking," you believe parents should be able to kill their children. Got it.
Depends on how far you want to take it. You tried to make a "logical" argument and I shot it to shit if you really want to break it down biologically.
-
Depends on how far you want to take it. You tried to make a "logical" argument and I shot it to shit if you really want to break it down biologically.
A sign of someone who isn't quite sure of themselves and isn't right too often is to pound their chest and proclaim victory, particularly when it's done completely out of context. Nobody is keeping a scorecard here. When you are "right" about something, you don't have to tell people.
But I digress. I understand your pretty extreme position on parents having the right to kill their kids.
-
A sign of someone who isn't quite sure of themselves and isn't right too often is to pound their chest and proclaim victory, particularly when it's done completely out of context. Nobody is keeping a scorecard here. When you are "right" about something, you don't have to tell people.
But I digress. I understand your pretty extreme position on parents having the right to kill their kids.
I already told you what would be the ideal law. Abortions all the way until leaving the womb or before cutting the umbilical cord. I am fine with either.
-
I already told you what would be the ideal law. Abortions all the way until leaving the womb or before cutting the umbilical cord. I am fine with either.
I understand your position. You are fine with killing a baby post birth before the cord has been cut, because that baby is "maybe" not a human being until after the cord is cut.
You also support parents killing their kids. I assume that means at any age before the kids become adults?
-
I understand your position. You are fine with killing a baby post birth before the cord has been cut, because that baby is "maybe" not a human being until after the cord is cut.
You also support parents killing their kids. I assume that means at any age before the kids become adults?
I already told you what would be the ideal law. Abortions all the way until leaving the womb or before cutting the umbilical cord. I am fine with either.
-
I already told you what would be the ideal law. Abortions all the way until leaving the womb or before cutting the umbilical cord. I am fine with either.
Do you believe parents should be able to kill their kids up to the age of majority?
-
Do you believe parents should be able to kill their kids up to the age of majority?
No.
-
No.
Holy smokes. A straight answer. :D Thanks. Since we are on a roll: Up to what age should parents be able to kill their kids?
-
Holy smokes. A straight answer. :D Thanks. Since we are on a roll: Up to what age should parents be able to kill their kids?
Depends. Consider the crying baby dilemma: It's war time, and you are hiding in a basement with several other people. The enemy soldiers are outside. Your baby starts to cry loudly, and if nothing is done the soldiers will find you and kill you, your baby, and everyone else in the basement. The only way to prevent this from happening is to cover your baby's mouth, but if you do this the baby will smother to death. Is it morally permissible to do this?
-
Depends. Consider the crying baby dilemma: It's war time, and you are hiding in a basement with several other people. The enemy soldiers are outside. Your baby starts to cry loudly, and if nothing is done the soldiers will find you and kill you, your baby, and everyone else in the basement. The only way to prevent this from happening is to cover your baby's mouth, but if you do this the baby will smother to death. Is it morally permissible to do this?
Even though you answered my question with a question, I'll answer yours: aside from the fact your hypothetical is completely unrealistic and would never happen in this country, it is immoral for a parent to kill their baby solely to save themselves. I'd go further and say it is immoral to kill someone who is completely vulnerable solely to save yourself.
Now what is your answer? I'm asking, in general, up to what age should parents be able to kill their children?
-
Even though you answered my question with a question, I'll answer yours: aside from the fact your hypothetical is completely unrealistic and would never happen in this country, it is immoral for a parent to kill their baby solely to save themselves. I'd go further and say it is immoral to kill someone who is completely vulnerable solely to save yourself.
Now what is your answer? I'm asking, in general, up to what age should parents be able to kill their children?
Interesting. I would smother the baby as it would be the most logical thing to do as it would save the most people. You on the other hand, would let everyone die, including the baby. I find that to be the most immoral choice.
This is a real scenario and happened in Germany.
-
Interesting. I would smother the baby as it would be the most logical thing to do as it would save the most people. You on the other hand, would let everyone die, including the baby. I find that to be the most immoral choice.
This is a real scenario and happened in Germany.
I would not sacrifice the life of a baby to save an adult.
But back to my question (that you answered with a question): I'm asking, in general, up to what age should parents be able to kill their children?
-
I would not sacrifice the life of a baby to save an adult.
But back to my question (that you answered with a question): I'm asking, in general, up to what age should parents be able to kill their children?
I already gave the answer several times.
-
I already gave the answer several times.
No you didn't. I've only asked the question twice. I previously asked you whether parents should be able to kill their kids up to the age of majority and you said "no."
My next question was up to what age should parents be able to kill their kids? You have not answered that question. In fact, you answered my question with a question.
-
No you didn't. I've only asked the question twice. I previously asked you whether parents should be able to kill their kids up to the age of majority and you said "no."
My next question was up to what age should parents be able to kill their kids? You have not answered that question. In fact, you answered my question with a question.
No age.
They should be allowed to abort the fetus though.
-
No age.
They should be allowed to abort the fetus though.
Thank you.
-
Thank you.
Abortion is good stuff, especially for society.
-
Abortion is good stuff, especially for society.
If you say so. I think it's a tragedy, regardless of whether it's legal or illegal. Very traumatic for the woman. Obviously traumatic for the baby. No winners.
-
If you say so. I think it's a tragedy, regardless of whether it's legal or illegal. Very traumatic for the woman. Obviously traumatic for the baby. No winners.
No its not. I know plenty of women who have had them. Many who are high income earners even. And even some who were Catholic and religious. :-X I never knew one of them to be regretful. I`m sure some are, but you need to check yourself when you say that its traumatic for the woman. In a lot of cases, its not at all.
-
No its not. I know plenty of women who have had them. Many who are high income earners even. And even some who were Catholic and religious. :-X I never knew one of them to be regretful. I`m sure some are, but you need to check yourself when you say that its traumatic for the woman. In a lot of cases, its not at all.
I know lots of women and I've known a number of them who had abortions. It was a traumatic experience for every single one of them, at least according to them. I've never heard it described otherwise. I'm sure for some women it's just a form of birth control and they don't care, but they are a minority.
And when I say it's traumatic, I mean both physically and emotionally.
-
I know lots of women and I've known a number of them who had abortions. It was a traumatic experience for every single one of them, at least according to them. I've never heard it described otherwise. I'm sure for some women it's just a form of birth control and they don't care, but they are a minority.
And when I say it's traumatic, I mean both physically and emotionally.
No and No. Not from anyone I know.
-
I know lots of women and I've known a number of them who had abortions. It was a traumatic experience for every single one of them, at least according to them. I've never heard it described otherwise. I'm sure for some women it's just a form of birth control and they don't care, but they are a minority.
And when I say it's traumatic, I mean both physically and emotionally.
Hmmmmm.
http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion
The impact of an abortion on a woman's mental health has been questioned for years. Some studies have suggested that many women suffer depression, regret and even a form of post-traumatic stress disorder called 'post-abortion syndrome.'
But a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion. In fact, the rate of depression in the postabortion group was equal to the rate of depression in the general population. As for post-traumatic stress symptoms, the rate was 1% in the postabortion group compared with an estimated 11% in women of the same age in the general population.
-
Continued:
The study's authors say the results agree with previous studies -- including one by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, MD -- showing that severe mental distress following an abortion is rare.
"Most women were satisfied with their decision, believed they had benefited more than had been harmed by their abortion, and would have the abortion again," writes study author Brenda Major, PhD. "These findings refute claims that women typically regret an abortion." Major is a professor of psychology at the University of California in Santa Barbara.
-
72% reported more benefit than harm. Of those who reported depression or regret after the abortion, most were depressed or had emotional problems prior to becoming pregnant.
Experts express little surprise at the findings and say this study is more proof that for the majority of women, abortion has few aftereffects
In an editorial accompanying the study, Nancy Adler, PhD, says that rather than contributing to mental stress, the studies suggest a significant decrease in mental distress and an increase in positive emotions and self-esteem.
-
TA - you haven't considered that the women who Bum knows have probably been exposed to the kind of judgement and harassment that christians like to dish out on this subject.
That's probably a significant factor in why the women that he knows feel traumatized
-
Thus Jewish organizations actively work for and support laws legalizing abortions in Christian European ethnic countries and societies but do not oppose or publicize the fact that Israeli law outlaws abortion for woman of childbearing age.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/11/jews-oppose-abortion-for-jews/
I'm white
I wonder why I've never heard of this site before
-
Hmmmmm.
http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion
The impact of an abortion on a woman's mental health has been questioned for years. Some studies have suggested that many women suffer depression, regret and even a form of post-traumatic stress disorder called 'post-abortion syndrome.'
But a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion. In fact, the rate of depression in the postabortion group was equal to the rate of depression in the general population. As for post-traumatic stress symptoms, the rate was 1% in the postabortion group compared with an estimated 11% in women of the same age in the general population.
Meh. Going through a traumatic experience doesn't mean the person suffers from depression, so this is pretty meaningless.
-
72% reported more benefit than harm. Of those who reported depression or regret after the abortion, most were depressed or had emotional problems prior to becoming pregnant.
Experts express little surprise at the findings and say this study is more proof that for the majority of women, abortion has few aftereffects
In an editorial accompanying the study, Nancy Adler, PhD, says that rather than contributing to mental stress, the studies suggest a significant decrease in mental distress and an increase in positive emotions and self-esteem.
Oh look. I can be a Google.com expert too, but without the super sized, colored font:
In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. (2) A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among women with a history of abortion. Most significant was the finding that 25% of women who had abortions made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group. (3) Women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion. (4)
http://afterabortion.org/2011/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-psychological-complications-related-to-abortion/
-
It's edited by Dr. Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor at Cal State, Long Beach. He is a very learned man.
seems like a kook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald
-
seems like a kook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald
Total nutcase.
-
seems like a kook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald
Funny thing about him is that there is absolutely no such thing as group selection in terms of evolution. As Richard Dawkins states, group selection is "the poorly defined and incoherent view that evolution is driven by the differential survival of whole groups of organisms".
-
Far better educated and more intelligent than you could ever hope to be.
No and No. I for one, know that Group Selection is total nonsense and that is the basis of this morons entire "worK". His is a complete joke and nobody but morons like you take him seriously.
-
You "for one" are wrong. I encourage GBers to read Dr. MacDonald's works for themselves and learn the truth.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/
::)
Richard Dawkins and Pinker and all the other Evolutionary Biologists and such disagree as does all the Science and Evidence.
http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection
-
You "for one" are wrong. I encourage GBers to read Dr. MacDonald's works for themselves and learn the truth.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/
ROFLMAO, this has to hurt:
The Human Behavior and Evolution Society has never "welcomed" MacDonald's ideas. Their peer-reviewed journal has never published his theories.
-
ROFLMAO!!!!!
Daniel Kriegman, an evolutionary psychologist, produced a 50-page analysis criticizing MacDonald's work as "pseudo-scientific theorizing." He wrote that MacDonald "believes his own nonsense." Kriegman remarked in an email, "MacDonald is not the first person to avoid the narcissistic injury of having his ideas rejected by concluding that there was a conspiracy against him rather than becoming aware of the substandard nature [as evidenced in his trilogy] of his thinking."[27]
-
Hits just keep on coming!
John Hartung, the associate editor of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology and an associate professor of anesthesiology at the State University of New York said that MacDonald's The Culture of Critique was "quite disturbing, seriously misinformed about evolutionary genetics, and suffering from a huge blind spot about the nature of Christianity."[27]
-
MexicanForLife proving himself the tin-foil hat wearing moron as always.
-
Wear your tin foil hat moron.
-
I just skeeted a load of "persons" into a sock whilst watching some adult entertainment.
Thankfully these "persons" were all white so I won't be charged with a hate crime.
-
Thus Jewish organizations actively work for and support laws legalizing abortions in Christian European ethnic countries and societies but do not oppose or publicize the fact that Israeli law outlaws abortion for woman of childbearing age.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/11/jews-oppose-abortion-for-jews/
Great source. Got anything from Stormfront while you're at it? ::)
-
Dr. MacDonald is a tenured professor at Cal State, Long Beach. He has numerous degrees from many legitimate institutions of higher learning. Read his scholarly work before you discredit it.
And the fact remains, the abortion laws in Israel are very stringent. You can't get an abortion w/out appearing before a committee, and the committee can only grant authority for the abortion under very defined circumstances, e.g., life of the mother, etc. You can find this information in any mainstream publication.
A bigot dressed up with degrees and a tenured professorship is still a bigot.
I actually read most of the article you posted. Sounds like gibberish to me. I cannot believe that guy gets paid to write crap like that. Good work if you can get it.
-
I don't believe for one second that he's a bigot.
We're all entitled to our opinions.
Yes we are.
-
Dr. MacDonald is a tenured professor at Cal State, Long Beach. He has numerous degrees from many legitimate institutions of higher learning. Read his scholarly work before you discredit it.
And the fact remains, the abortion laws in Israel are very stringent. You can't get an abortion w/out appearing before a committee, and the committee can only grant authority for the abortion under very defined circumstances, e.g., life of the mother, etc. You can find this information in any mainstream publication.
Thats just it, he has no scholarly work. Its never been able to meet the muster to be even considered for peer review its that bad. :-\
-
You're not even in his stratosphere when it comes to academic achievement and ability. MacDonald had tons of academic/peer support until he started to take on the one group that cannot be questioned. The same thing happened to David Irving. Once you dare challenge you know who, it's over.
MacDonald is the author of seven books on evolutionary theory and child development and is the author or editor of over thirty academic articles in refereed journals. He received his B.A. from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1966, and M.S. in biology from the University of Connecticut in 1976. He earned a Ph.D. in 1981 (Biobehavioral Sciences) from the University of Connecticut where he studied under Professor Benson E. Ginsburg, one of the founders and leaders of modern behavior genetics, as his advisor. His thesis was on the behavioral development of wolves and resulted in two publications: MacDonald, K. B., and Ginsburg, B. E. (1981). "Induction of normal behavior in wolves with restricted rearing." Behavioral and Neural Biology, 33, 133-162; MacDonald, K. B. (1983). "Development and stability of personality characteristics in prepubertal wolves." Journal of Comparative Psychology, 97, 99-106, 1983.
MacDonald completed a post-doctoral fellowship with Ross Parke at the psychology department of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1983. His work there concerned rough and tumble play in children (he had two small boys at home at the time as well) and resulted in three publications:
MacDonald, K. B., & Parke, R. D. (1984). "Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interactions and peer interactive competence." Child Development, 55, 1265-1277;
MacDonald, K. B., & Parke, R. D. (1986). "Parent-child physical play: The effects of sex and age of children and parents." Sex Roles, 15, 367-378, 1986;
MacDonald, K. B. (1987). "Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected and popular boys." Developmental Psychology, 23, 705-711.
He has been with the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach since 1985 and as a full professor since 1995. He has announced his retirement at the end of 2014.
::)
-
ROFLMAO!!!!!
Daniel Kriegman, an evolutionary psychologist, produced a 50-page analysis criticizing MacDonald's work as "pseudo-scientific theorizing." He wrote that MacDonald "believes his own nonsense." Kriegman remarked in an email, "MacDonald is not the first person to avoid the narcissistic injury of having his ideas rejected by concluding that there was a conspiracy against him rather than becoming aware of the substandard nature [as evidenced in his trilogy] of his thinking."[27]
Not taking any sides here, as I've already stated my opinion, but psychology is a pseudo science.
-
Not taking any sides here, as I've already stated my opinion, but psychology is a pseudo science.
Oh good,so you agree that Macdonald is pseudoscience.
How is the study of mental functions and behaviors pseudoscience? Are you a computer program or something.
-
Oh good,so you agree that Macdonald is pseudoscience.
How is the study of mental functions and behaviors pseudoscience? Are you a computer program or something.
I have a BS is psychology with some post graduate studies, and totally lost faith in it. Aside from the portions that can be repeated through experiments or brain scans etc., there are alot of "fail safes" with the theories. As far as Mcdonald, I can't say, as I didn't read that portion, what was written in your post jumped out at me and I made the statement, that really had nothing to do with the original post.
-
'Heartbeat' Abortion Ban Advances In Ohio
Laura Bassett Become a fan
lbassett@huffingtonpost.com
Posted: 11/20/2014
Republican lawmakers in Ohio on Thursday advanced a bill that would ban abortion as soon as the fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
H.B. 248, the so-called "Heartbeat bill," advanced out of the House Health and Aging Committee by a party-line vote of 11 to 6. If it passes the Republican-controlled House and Senate, doctors who perform abortions after the imposed limit would face a fifth-degree felony. Opponents warn the bill would ban abortions before some women even realize they're pregnant.
“The members of the Health Committee are so callous that they refused to add amendments to provide exceptions for victims of rape and incest or to remove criminal penalties that could be used to imprison doctors that provide abortion care," said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. "The chilling effect of this crusade is being felt throughout the medical community and will no doubt result in talented physicians leaving Ohio to practice in other states.”
Only one state in the country, North Dakota, has ever passed an abortion bill as extreme as the one pending in Ohio, and the North Dakota bill was struck down and declared "unconstitutional" by a federal judge in April.
Supporters of the Ohio bill argued during the committee meeting that the heartbeat is undeniable proof of life. But the president of the state Senate, Keith Faber (R), said he's worried the bill is so extreme that it could undermine the anti-abortion cause. “I have grave concerns that if the Heartbeat Bill were to be passed, it would jeopardize some of the good, pro-life work that we've done in the General Assembly," he said.
The state Senate blocked an earlier version of the bill last year. Then-Senate President Tom Niehaus (R) said at the time that lawmakers wanted to "focus on jobs and the economy."
Ohio is steadily making it harder for women in the state to obtain legal abortions. Existing anti-abortion laws are expected to shut down all of the Cincinnati-area abortion clinics, and the state Senate on Wednesday approved the nomination of Rick Hodges, an opponent of legal abortion, to lead the Ohio Department of Health. Reproductive rights advocates pointed out that Hodges, a former Republican state lawmaker, has no experience working in public health.
“The confirmation of Rick Hodges is a huge step backward and is an assault on the rights of Ohio women by politicians pushing their personal ideologies," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We insist on the appointment of qualified men and women for posts in charge of public health decisions and safeguarding the programs that keep our families safe. We demand accountability for anyone who puts partisan politics over sound public policy."
Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) said Hodges has the "management ability" to run the heath department and will have assistance "recruiting an expert clinical team."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/20/ohio-heartbeat-bill_n_6193534.html
-
'Heartbeat' Abortion Ban Advances In Ohio
Laura Bassett Become a fan
lbassett@huffingtonpost.com
Posted: 11/20/2014
Republican lawmakers in Ohio on Thursday advanced a bill that would ban abortion as soon as the fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
H.B. 248, the so-called "Heartbeat bill," advanced out of the House Health and Aging Committee by a party-line vote of 11 to 6. If it passes the Republican-controlled House and Senate, doctors who perform abortions after the imposed limit would face a fifth-degree felony. Opponents warn the bill would ban abortions before some women even realize they're pregnant.
“The members of the Health Committee are so callous that they refused to add amendments to provide exceptions for victims of rape and incest or to remove criminal penalties that could be used to imprison doctors that provide abortion care," said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. "The chilling effect of this crusade is being felt throughout the medical community and will no doubt result in talented physicians leaving Ohio to practice in other states.”
Only one state in the country, North Dakota, has ever passed an abortion bill as extreme as the one pending in Ohio, and the North Dakota bill was struck down and declared "unconstitutional" by a federal judge in April.
Supporters of the Ohio bill argued during the committee meeting that the heartbeat is undeniable proof of life. But the president of the state Senate, Keith Faber (R), said he's worried the bill is so extreme that it could undermine the anti-abortion cause. “I have grave concerns that if the Heartbeat Bill were to be passed, it would jeopardize some of the good, pro-life work that we've done in the General Assembly," he said.
The state Senate blocked an earlier version of the bill last year. Then-Senate President Tom Niehaus (R) said at the time that lawmakers wanted to "focus on jobs and the economy."
Ohio is steadily making it harder for women in the state to obtain legal abortions. Existing anti-abortion laws are expected to shut down all of the Cincinnati-area abortion clinics, and the state Senate on Wednesday approved the nomination of Rick Hodges, an opponent of legal abortion, to lead the Ohio Department of Health. Reproductive rights advocates pointed out that Hodges, a former Republican state lawmaker, has no experience working in public health.
“The confirmation of Rick Hodges is a huge step backward and is an assault on the rights of Ohio women by politicians pushing their personal ideologies," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We insist on the appointment of qualified men and women for posts in charge of public health decisions and safeguarding the programs that keep our families safe. We demand accountability for anyone who puts partisan politics over sound public policy."
Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) said Hodges has the "management ability" to run the heath department and will have assistance "recruiting an expert clinical team."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/20/ohio-heartbeat-bill_n_6193534.html
Strange fascination with the Fetus.
Why don`t you just let people make their own fucking decisions and keep the government out of it.
-
Strange fascination with the Fetus.
Why don`t you just let people make their own fucking decisions and keep the government out of it.
Or we could let the Democratic process allow people and legislators to vote on issues that are important to them. I think I prefer that option.
-
Or we could let the Democratic process allow people and legislators to vote on issues that are important to them. I think I prefer that option.
If it was left up to pure democracy, we would probably still have segregation.
-
If it was left up to pure democracy, we would probably still have segregation.
And if we had pure capitalism there would probably be a handful of companies that dominated the entire country. Good thing we're not talking about either one.
-
Report Finds 18 States Are Strongly Pro-Life
Tuesday, 06 Jan 2015
By Joel Himelfarb
The number of states regarded as "extremely hostile" to abortion has more than tripled during the past four years, according to a new report by an abortion-rights research organization.
In 2010, five states had six or more abortion restrictions on the books, enough to get that label from the Guttmacher Institute. By 2014, the number of states
The increase is part of a longer-term trend. The number of states listed as "hostile" (having enacted four or more restrictions on abortion) rose from 13 in 2000 to 22 in 2010 and 27 last year, The Washington Post reported.
The entire South "is now considered hostile to abortion rights, and much of the South, along with much of the Midwest, is extremely hostile to abortion rights,” according to Guttmacher.
In all, the percentage of American women living in states listed as "hostile" to abortion has nearly doubled since 2000, rising from 31 percent then to 57 percent last year.
Pro-life groups cited the Guttmacher report findings as evidence that abortion-rights groups are losing the political battle.
"No wonder abortions are at historic lows and 73 abortion facilities closed last year," LifeNews.com said. "These huge pro-life victories have come about in part because states have approved 231 pro-life laws to stop abortions since 2010."
Although some people are skeptical that "electing pro-life candidates makes a difference, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute is bemoaning the fact that, in the last four years, mostly Republican lawmakers in states across the country have passed a record number of pro-life laws," the website added.
Republicans are expected to press for more pro-life legislation this year. Mallory Quigley, a spokeswoman for the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, told the Post that measures banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy will advance in West Virginia, Wisconsin, and South Carolina.
http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Guttmacher-Institute-pro-life-states/2015/01/06/id/616758/#ixzz3O4Maqa3O
-
Higher standards for veterinary clinics than abortion clinics? Absurd.
Why Don’t Abortion Advocates Care About Women’s Safety?
Genevieve Wood / @genevievewood /
January 14, 2015
Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve.
Should abortion facilities have to follow the same standards as other medical clinics?
If you thought the answer to that, regardless of your views on abortion, should be “duh,” you’d be wrong.
In fact, we had quite the spirited debate on PBS’s “To The Contrary” this week about that. A provision in a Texas law passed in 2013 states “minimum standards for an abortion facility must be equivalent to the minimum standards adopted for ambulatory surgical centers.”
And what are such standards? According to documents of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals now hearing the challenge to the Texas law:
Subscribe to updates and alerts
The regulatory standards for ambulatory surgical centers contain two main categories: (1) physical plant, which includes architectural, electrical, plumbing and HVAC requirements, …and (2) operations, which includes requirements for medical records systems, training, staffing and cleanliness…
Abortion rights supporters say it’s not necessary for abortion clinics to have the same standards as other medical clinics. In fact, one of my fellow panelists went so far as to claim no surgeries are happening in these clinics.
Do they really believe that?
The fact is that unless a woman is in her earliest stages of pregnancy, under eight weeks, a surgical and invasive procedure must be used. You can read the unpleasant details of what is involved right here under what Planned Parenthood calls “In-Clinic Abortion Procedures.”
Planned Parenthood specifically states that, “Even though in-clinic abortion procedures are generally very safe, in extremely rare cases, serious complications may be fatal.”
Not sure about you, but if I’m undergoing any procedure that has the risk of being fatal, I’d like the facility in which I’m having that procedure to be prepared to perform life-saving measures.
The fact is that women who undergo a surgical abortion face several of the same risks that someone who undergoes any type of serious surgery face: risks of blood clots, hemorrhaging and infection.
And because abortion clinics have not been more regulated, there is a growing list of clinics around the country now coming under investigation and scrutiny for failing health inspections and harming women. Kermit Gosnell’s “house of horrors” in Philadelphia is not, as this listing of violations in over 15 states shows, an outlier.
Abortion advocates claim that if abortion clinics are forced to comply with these regulations they will be forced to close down because they can’t afford the upgrades.
But perhaps abortion facilities should consider asking the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, for financial assistance–it receives hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government each year and reported income of more than $58 million for 2012-2013.
This is one area where one would think both pro-lifers and abortion rights advocates could find some common ground.
But those supporting abortion rights seem to care more about keeping the doors to abortion clinics open than preserving the health and safety of women.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/14/dont-abortion-advocates-care-womens-safety/
-
House passes abortion bill after earlier stumble
Published January 22, 2015
Associated Press
This Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2015 photo shows anti-abortion activists stage a "die-in" in front of the White House in Washington. (AP)
As thousands of abortion foes surged through the city on their annual protest march to the Supreme Court, Republicans muscled legislation through the House on Thursday tightening federal restrictions on abortions. The vote came after internal divisions forced them into an embarrassing fumble of a similar bill.
Even as a White House veto threat all but ensured the bill would never become law, the House voted by a near party-line 242-179 to permanently bar federal funds for any abortion coverage. The measure would also block tax credits for many people and businesses buying abortion coverage under President Barack Obama's health care law.
GOP leaders pushed the measure to the House floor hours after abruptly abandoning another bill banning most late-term abortions because a rebellion led by female Republican lawmakers left them short of votes.
While that stumble underscored the challenges GOP leaders face in controlling their newly enlarged House majority, they were eager to act the same day that March for Life protesters streamed through town to protest the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
"I urge my colleagues to stand with the hundreds of thousands of people out on the Mall right now by voting for this bill," said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. "Stand up and commit to creating an America that values every life."
Democrats accused the GOP of an assault on women's freedom and painted Republicans as trying to placate the marchers not far from the Capitol.
"They certainly wanted to appeal, I would say pander, to that group," said Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill.
"Women's rights should not be theater, should not be drama," said Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn.
The approved bill would permanently ban the use of federal money for nearly all abortions -- a prohibition that's already in effect but which Congress must renew each year.
It would also go further. The bill would bar individuals and many employers from collecting tax credits for insurance plans covering abortion that they pay for privately and purchase through exchanges established under Obama's Affordable Care Act. It would also block the District of Columbia from using its money to cover abortions for lower-income women.
The House had approved the same measure last year but it went nowhere in the Senate, then run by Democrats. Its fate in this year's GOP-led Senate is uncertain.
In its veto message, the White House said, "The administration strongly opposes legislation that unnecessarily restricts women's reproductive freedom and consumers' private insurance options."
The action came the day of the annual March for Life protesting the Supreme Court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion. It also came with GOP leaders eager to showcase the ability of the new Republican-led Congress to govern efficiently and avoid gridlock.
The bill that was postponed would have banned abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy but allow exemptions for some victims of rape or incest and in cases when a woman's life was in danger. GOP leaders ran into problems because some GOP women and other lawmakers objected that the rape and incest exemptions covered only women who had reported the crimes to authorities.
Those rebellious Republicans argued that that requirement put unfair pressure on women who had already suffered. A 2013 Justice Department report calculated that only 35 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to police.
Political pressures cut both ways. GOP leaders had resisted the awkwardness of postponing a high-profile abortion vote scheduled for the day of the anti-abortion march. But they didn't want to push anti-abortion legislation through the House that was opposed by GOP women, especially as the party tries appealing to more female voters ahead of the 2016 elections.
Yet when the leaders considered eliminating the requirement that rapes and incest be previously reported, they encountered objections from anti-abortion groups, Republican aides said. They chose not to anger that powerful GOP constituency.
A report Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, citing the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, estimated that about 10,000 abortions annually are performed 20 weeks or later into pregnancies. The budget office estimated that if the bill became law, three-fourths of those abortions would instead occur before the 20th week.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/22/house-passes-abortion-bill-after-earlier-stumble/?intcmp=HPBucket
-
'Heartbeat' Abortion Ban Advances In Ohio
Laura Bassett Become a fan
lbassett@huffingtonpost.com
Posted: 11/20/2014
Republican lawmakers in Ohio on Thursday advanced a bill that would ban abortion as soon as the fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
H.B. 248, the so-called "Heartbeat bill," advanced out of the House Health and Aging Committee by a party-line vote of 11 to 6. If it passes the Republican-controlled House and Senate, doctors who perform abortions after the imposed limit would face a fifth-degree felony. Opponents warn the bill would ban abortions before some women even realize they're pregnant.
“The members of the Health Committee are so callous that they refused to add amendments to provide exceptions for victims of rape and incest or to remove criminal penalties that could be used to imprison doctors that provide abortion care," said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. "The chilling effect of this crusade is being felt throughout the medical community and will no doubt result in talented physicians leaving Ohio to practice in other states.”
Only one state in the country, North Dakota, has ever passed an abortion bill as extreme as the one pending in Ohio, and the North Dakota bill was struck down and declared "unconstitutional" by a federal judge in April.
Supporters of the Ohio bill argued during the committee meeting that the heartbeat is undeniable proof of life. But the president of the state Senate, Keith Faber (R), said he's worried the bill is so extreme that it could undermine the anti-abortion cause. “I have grave concerns that if the Heartbeat Bill were to be passed, it would jeopardize some of the good, pro-life work that we've done in the General Assembly," he said.
The state Senate blocked an earlier version of the bill last year. Then-Senate President Tom Niehaus (R) said at the time that lawmakers wanted to "focus on jobs and the economy."
Ohio is steadily making it harder for women in the state to obtain legal abortions. Existing anti-abortion laws are expected to shut down all of the Cincinnati-area abortion clinics, and the state Senate on Wednesday approved the nomination of Rick Hodges, an opponent of legal abortion, to lead the Ohio Department of Health. Reproductive rights advocates pointed out that Hodges, a former Republican state lawmaker, has no experience working in public health.
“The confirmation of Rick Hodges is a huge step backward and is an assault on the rights of Ohio women by politicians pushing their personal ideologies," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We insist on the appointment of qualified men and women for posts in charge of public health decisions and safeguarding the programs that keep our families safe. We demand accountability for anyone who puts partisan politics over sound public policy."
Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) said Hodges has the "management ability" to run the heath department and will have assistance "recruiting an expert clinical team."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/20/ohio-heartbeat-bill_n_6193534.html
Ohio House OKs Bill Banning Abortions After 1st Heartbeat
Wednesday, 25 Mar 2015
A bill that would ban most abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat again cleared the state House on Wednesday following a startlingly emotional floor debate in which a veteran female lawmaker revealed she'd been raped and had an abortion and a male legislator shed tears as he recounted praying his stillborn child would take a breath.
Advocates now have the rest of the two-year session to lobby the bill's opponents in the Senate.
The Republican-controlled House approved the bill 55-40 in its third vote on it in as many sessions. The legislation met its demise in the Senate two sessions ago and last session made it as far as the House floor and was voted down.
Proponents on Wednesday defended the bill as life-protecting, while opponents called it unconstitutional and heavy-handed.
Sponsoring Rep. Christina Hagan, a Uniontown Republican, set the tone for the debate by revealing in her opening remarks that her heartbeat had stopped repeatedly while she was being delivered and her mother might have given up hope but didn't.
"This bill is very much about loving women and loving children and providing that expansion of rights to the unborn," she said.
Rep. Stephanie Howse, a Cleveland Democrat, also had to compose herself while speaking as she urged colleagues to "love thy neighbor," including women she said make decisions to have abortions "in love."
For Rep. Teresa Fedor, a Toledo Democrat, the debate was progressing with one important voice missing: that of the rape victim.
Fedor, a champion of legislation against human trafficking, jotted down words such as "judge," ''God!" ''shame" and "political ambition" from Wednesday's debate and, when enough of them filled her paper, stood to speak.
"I heard all these stories that just fit your scenario, and I respect that, but you don't respect my reason — my rape, my abortion," she said. "And I guarantee you there are other women who should stand up with me and be courageous enough to speak that voice."
She called the bill "fundamentally inhuman."
After the vote, Fedor told several reporters she was "very young" when she was raped and had told "probably two people."
"I'm in this political arena, you know, and you have to make a decision: How far are you willing to go to really represent?" she said. "And then, with something like this (bill), it just was time."
The Associated Press generally doesn't identify people who say they're victims of sexual assaults unless they come forward publicly, as Fedor has done.
Several major anti-abortion groups, including Ohio Right to Life, have failed to support passage of the heartbeat bill, fearing it would prompt a losing challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that would serve only to expand abortion rights.
Senate President Keith Faber, a Celina Republican, said he shared those concerns but intends to review the latest version of the bill and hold hearings.
"I'm still waiting for that legal scholar to come forward and say, 'The heartbeat bill is constitutional,'" he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/ohio-abortion-bill-first/2015/03/25/id/634544/#ixzz3VVyT9HGH
-
Ohio House OKs Bill Banning Abortions After 1st Heartbeat
Wednesday, 25 Mar 2015
A bill that would ban most abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat again cleared the state House on Wednesday following a startlingly emotional floor debate in which a veteran female lawmaker revealed she'd been raped and had an abortion and a male legislator shed tears as he recounted praying his stillborn child would take a breath.
Advocates now have the rest of the two-year session to lobby the bill's opponents in the Senate.
The Republican-controlled House approved the bill 55-40 in its third vote on it in as many sessions. The legislation met its demise in the Senate two sessions ago and last session made it as far as the House floor and was voted down.
Proponents on Wednesday defended the bill as life-protecting, while opponents called it unconstitutional and heavy-handed.
Sponsoring Rep. Christina Hagan, a Uniontown Republican, set the tone for the debate by revealing in her opening remarks that her heartbeat had stopped repeatedly while she was being delivered and her mother might have given up hope but didn't.
"This bill is very much about loving women and loving children and providing that expansion of rights to the unborn," she said.
Rep. Stephanie Howse, a Cleveland Democrat, also had to compose herself while speaking as she urged colleagues to "love thy neighbor," including women she said make decisions to have abortions "in love."
For Rep. Teresa Fedor, a Toledo Democrat, the debate was progressing with one important voice missing: that of the rape victim.
Fedor, a champion of legislation against human trafficking, jotted down words such as "judge," ''God!" ''shame" and "political ambition" from Wednesday's debate and, when enough of them filled her paper, stood to speak.
"I heard all these stories that just fit your scenario, and I respect that, but you don't respect my reason — my rape, my abortion," she said. "And I guarantee you there are other women who should stand up with me and be courageous enough to speak that voice."
She called the bill "fundamentally inhuman."
After the vote, Fedor told several reporters she was "very young" when she was raped and had told "probably two people."
"I'm in this political arena, you know, and you have to make a decision: How far are you willing to go to really represent?" she said. "And then, with something like this (bill), it just was time."
The Associated Press generally doesn't identify people who say they're victims of sexual assaults unless they come forward publicly, as Fedor has done.
Several major anti-abortion groups, including Ohio Right to Life, have failed to support passage of the heartbeat bill, fearing it would prompt a losing challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that would serve only to expand abortion rights.
Senate President Keith Faber, a Celina Republican, said he shared those concerns but intends to review the latest version of the bill and hold hearings.
"I'm still waiting for that legal scholar to come forward and say, 'The heartbeat bill is constitutional,'" he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/ohio-abortion-bill-first/2015/03/25/id/634544/#ixzz3VVyT9HGH
What is your stake in this? Why do you want more humans, mostly unwanted, being born? Why do you want the government to step in and stop abortions? What is your angle and how do you benefit? How do you think society benefits from your point of view? Please answer all these questions as I am generally very curious to the answers you have.
-
What is your stake in this? Why do you want more humans, mostly unwanted, being born? Why do you want the government to step in and stop abortions? What is your angle and how do you benefit? How do you think society benefits from your point of view? Please answer all these questions as I am generally very curious to the answers you have.
I don't have a stake in legislation in Ohio. I am updating a thread I started a long time ago, because it is an interesting political topic.
I am pau making more humans, so I don't have a stake in producing any more offspring. I don't care if people choose to have (or not have) kids.
I never said I wanted the government to stop abortions.
I cannot have an angle or benefit from something I haven't advocated.
Society doesn't benefit from an unexpressed viewpoint of mine.
I typically don't answer these kinds of questions that people pull out of their rear end, but I made an exception for you. :)
-
I don't have a stake in legislation in Ohio. I am updating a thread I started a long time ago, because it is an interesting political topic.
I am pau making more humans, so I don't have a stake in producing any more offspring. I don't care if people choose to have (or not have) kids.
I never said I wanted the government to stop abortions.
I cannot have an angle or benefit from something I haven't advocated.
Society doesn't benefit from an unexpressed viewpoint of mine.
I typically don't answer these kinds of questions that people pull out of their rear end, but I made an exception for you. :)
Ok, so according to the above, you would not vote to stop abortions and you would not support any legislation stopping or limiting abortions. You get no benefit, society gets no benefit from these types of legislation and you only post because its a "hot topic".
Is this correct?
-
Ok, so according to the above, you would not vote to stop abortions and you would not support any legislation stopping or limiting abortions. You get no benefit, society gets no benefit from these types of legislation and you only post because its a "hot topic".
Is this correct?
Incorrect.
I have no idea how I would vote if abortion legislation appeared on my ballot in my state. It would depend on the specific language of the legislation, why it is being introduced, whether I think it's necessary, whether I agree with it, etc.
-
Incorrect.
I have no idea how I would vote if abortion legislation appeared on my ballot in my state. It would depend on the specific language of the legislation, why it is being introduced, whether I think it's necessary, whether I agree with it, etc.
Can you give me an example of legislation that you would support and why?
-
Can you give me an example of legislation that you would support and why?
I support parental notification of minors getting abortions, because parents should know anytime their kids are having medical procedures done, especially if the kid is below the age of consent.
Why do you ask?
-
I support parental notification of minors getting abortions, because parents should know anytime their kids are having medical procedures done, especially if the kid is below the age of consent.
Why do you ask?
Would you go any further than that or is that it? I ask because I am curious of the "logic" (lack thereof) of why someone would want to support or promote an anti-abortion agenda. I never really get any decent answers from any pro-life people ever or they usually just don't answer or dodge all of the questions. I guess doing so makes it easier for them to rationalize their position.
-
Would you go any further than that or is that it? I ask because I am curious of the "logic" (lack thereof) of why someone would want to support or promote an anti-abortion agenda. I never really get any decent answers from any pro-life people ever or they usually just don't answer or dodge all of the questions. I guess doing so makes it easier for them to rationalize their position.
I don't know. Would depend on the legislation. As I've said numerous times, I'm torn on this issue. I don't really have a political position. I don't really believe there is a political solution.
What I have focused regarding my own personal views is how both sides are a bit disingenuous. Pro abortion people try and dehumanize the baby. Pro life people ignore the woman's bodily integrity issue. I've framed it as: the woman's right to choose whether or not to kill her baby. That's what it comes down to in my book. What should happen legally? I really don't know. At the core, it's really a decision between a woman and her God. Although it's much more complicated than that.
But it is an interesting subject.
That said, I am a big critic of Planned Parenthood. They are an immoral abortion mill IMO. "Immoral" because they encourage rape victims to have abortions without telling their parents or law enforcement. Anything to make money off abortion.
-
I support parental notification of minors getting abortions, because parents should know anytime their kids are having medical procedures done, especially if the kid is below the age of consent.
Why do you ask?
so as long as parent and minor agree then you're all for them exercising their legal and god given choice to have an abortion
right?
-
Arizona first in nation to require patients be informed of abortion-reversal option
By Aalia Shaheed
Published April 02, 2015
FoxNews.com
Feb. 24, 2015: Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signs the American Civics Act into law during a bill signing ceremony at the Capitol in Phoenix. (AP)
Arizona will become the first state in the nation to require doctors to tell patients that abortions may be reversible, under a controversial bill that deals with an equally controversial method.
Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed the bill earlier this week.
The highly debated abortion-reversal procedure is done to try and reverse the effects of the so-called abortion pill. It involves a woman being injected with progesterone to counteract the effects of mifepristone – a.k.a., the abortion pill.
Doctors say a patient must undergo the hormone treatment within 72 hours of taking the pill if she decides to keep her baby.
“Women who have initiated a medical abortion process and who change their minds for whatever reason should not have their babies stolen from them because Planned Parenthood or any abortionist withheld life-saving facts or withheld information,” anti-abortion advocate Dr. Allan Sawyer said in testimony before the legislature.
The relatively new procedure was pioneered by Dr. George Delgado, the medical director of California-based non-profit Culture of Life Family Services. He co-authored the first-ever medical literature detailing how progesterone could reverse an abortion in 2007.
That same year, his organization completed its first successful reversal.
“I received a call about a woman who had taken mifepristone, RUU 486, and changed her mind. She wanted help and I offered it,” he told Fox News. “Then I received calls from across the country of doctors and others seeking advice. In 2012, we established Abortion Pill Reversal and its attendant website and hotline.”
News eventually spread to Arizona Republican state Sen. Nancy Barto, who included the provision about disclosing information on abortion reversals as part of broader insurance legislation to prevent women who receive federal subsidies under Affordable Care Act exchanges from being able to buy optional abortion coverage with their plans.
Ducey signed the legislation Monday evening, but stayed mum on the abortion reversal provision, which would require doctors to inform patients about the option when they seek access to the abortion pill.
"The American people overwhelmingly oppose taxpayer funding of abortions, and it's no different in Arizona, where we have long-standing policy against subsidizing them with public dollars," Ducey said in a statement. "This legislation provides clarity to state law."
Critics of the bill have been vocal in their disappointment.
"Instead of delivering on his campaign promises to reduce the negative stigma our state has taken on because of extreme and out-of-touch politics, Gov. Ducey has put Arizona once again in the national spotlight for interfering in the medical decisions of women," Planned Parenthood of Arizona President Bryan Howard said in a statement.
Opponents also say there isn’t enough documented evidence on abortion reversals.
“We like to practice medicine that is evidenced based, and unfortunately the protocol that has been suggested for reversing a medication abortion has no evidence to support it,” Dr. Ilana Addis said in testimony against the bill.
But Delgado says his organization has a success rate of 60 percent, with 87 births since 2007 and 75 women currently still pregnant after successful reversals.
“There have been negative reactions from those who seem to have an agenda and can’t seem to imagine that a woman might change her mind after taking mifepristone … [but] many are relieved to know they have a second chance,” Delgado said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/02/arizona-first-in-nation-to-require-patients-be-informed-abortion-reversal/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Kansas first state to ban second-trimester abortion procedure critics call 'dismemberment'
Published April 08, 2015
FoxNews.com
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has signed a bill making his state the first in the nation to ban a controversial second-trimester abortion procedure that critics describe as dismembering a fetus.
The new law, which takes effect July 1, was drafted by the National Right to Life Committee. The group hailed the signing of the bill Tuesday and is aiming to pass such a law in several other states next.
"The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is the first of what we hope will be many state laws banning dismemberment abortions," group president Carol Tobias said in a statement. "This law has the power to transform the landscape of abortion policy in the United States."
Already, similar measures have been introduced in Missouri, Oklahoma and South Carolina.
The Kansas law would ban what's known as a dilation and evacuation procedure and redefine it as "dismemberment." Doctors now no longer can use forceps, clamps, scissors or similar instruments on a fetus to remove it from the womb in pieces.
Two abortion rights groups that operate Kansas clinics with abortion services, Trust Women and Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said they're considering challenging the new law in court.
"We will become a bellwether for future introductions of this bill in the states," said Laura McQuade, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood chapter.
Abortion rights supporters say the law could be vulnerable to a lawsuit because it bans some abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb and contains no mental health exception for the mother. Under the new law, the procedure is banned except when necessary to save a woman's life or prevent irreversible damage to her physical health.
A Delaware-based law professor said U.S. Supreme Court precedents over the past 15 years suggest the Kansas law wouldn't survive a challenge but added that the justices may revise past stances.
Anti-abortion groups are confident the new law will withstand a legal challenge, based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2007 in which it upheld a federal ban on a late-term procedure described by abortion opponents as "partial-birth abortion."
But in that ruling, the court's 5-4 majority rejected an argument that the federal law would have banned the more common dilation and evacuation procedure described by the Kansas law, according to Widener University law professor John Culhane.
"If it was so obvious that it wouldn't run afoul of the court, you would have seen a law like this sooner," he said.
Brownback, a Republican and strong abortion opponent, signed the bill in a private ceremony at his official residence; his office said he would re-enact it at multiple public events later this month. A photo from Tuesday's ceremony tweeted by the governor's office showed Brownback flanked by anti-abortion leaders and two large photos of fetuses.
Abortion rights supporters said the procedure is often the safest for women seeking to terminate pregnancies during the second trimester. It accounted for about 9 percent of abortions last year in Kansas, where most pregnancies are terminated in the first trimester and the state already bans most abortions at or after the 22nd week.
Brownback spokeswoman Eileen Hawley called it "a horrific procedure." But Julie Burkhart, founder and CEO of Trust Women, said in a statement that the new law is "dangerous" and "dictates to qualified physicians how they can practice medicine and treat their patients."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/08/kansas-is-first-state-to-ban-second-term-abortions-redefine-procedure-as-fetus/
-
New abortion controversy hits Congress
By Deirdre Walsh, Senior Congressional Producer
Wed April 22, 2015
Washington (CNN)The same day that the Senate reached a deal on abortion language in a bill to combat human trafficking, the House of Representatives began considering legislation that is igniting a new controversy over the divisive social issue.
The House Oversight Committee approved a resolution on Tuesday night with a party line vote that would attempt to overturn a law passed by the District of Columbia Council in December that bans employers from taking punitive action against any employees for using abortion services or birth control. The bill could be scheduled for a full House vote as early as next week.
The new House resolution, sponsored by Tennessee Rep. Diane Black, says the D.C. law, the "Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act," accomplishes the opposite of what its name implies.
"This coercive measure would ban pro-life organizations in D.C. from even considering a job seeker's views on abortion as a condition of employment," Black said in a statement. "This is an affront to the conscience rights of every American who believes, as I do, in the cause of protecting the unborn. Congress must not remain silent while this injustice unfolds."
The Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups have pressed the GOP-led Congress to block the D.C. law. In an analysis published by two Heritage policy analysts, the group asserts that anti-abortion rights groups based in Washington would be faced with decisions about hiring candidates that could conflict with their beliefs.
"Organizations whose mission is to empower women facing unplanned pregnancies with physical and emotional support or who advocate for policies that affirm the dignity and value of both mother and child could be forced to provide health insurance for the life-ending procedure they oppose," the report states.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called this latest GOP abortion bill "outrageous."
"Allowing employers to fire employees for using birth control, or in vitro fertilization, or any other reproductive health care service is an unconscionable intrusion into workers' personal lives," said Pelosi in a written statement on Monday. "By disapproving D.C.'s law, House Republicans would even allow employers to fire employees for the reproductive health decisions that their employees' spouses and dependents make."
Debate on the measure in the oversight panel became both heated and personal on Tuesday.
"This is a continued attack on religion and a person's 1st Amendment rights of freedom of belief," Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, said the committee's markup on the bill.
But Democrats on the panel argued the GOP was once again raising a controversial issue and imposing its views on the District of Columbia.
"It is absurd and arrogant and ignorant that in 2015 we would be having these discussions," Democratic Rep. Watson Coleman of New Jersey said Tuesday. She added she would come back for the vote but refused to listen to the debate on the issue.
Congress has the authority under the Constitution to nullify a law passed by the District of Columbia government. To roll back the bill, both the House and Senate need to pass a resolution of disapproval 30 days after the measure was transmitted to Capitol Hill. The resolution would need to be signed into law by the President.
But the chances that this move by the House will actually overturn the law are low. Time is running out, since the legislation was sent up to the Hill on March 6, and even if the measure is approved by the full House and Senate, the President Barack Obama is expected to veto it.
Earlier this year many of the anti-abortion rights groups were disappointed when House Republican leaders pulled a bill from the bill that would have banned so-called "late-term" abortions for women who are beyond 20 weeks into their pregnancy. The decision to move this legislation could help quell the criticism from those groups as GOP leaders are still negotiating changes to that bill to address internal divisions.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/21/politics/congress-abortion-dc/index.html
-
ACLU sues feds in bid to make Catholic groups provide abortion to illegal immigrants
By Aalia Shaheed
Published April 23, 2015
FoxNews.com
Providing food and shelter to illegal immigrants isn't enough for federally-funded Catholic organizations, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is suing the federal government to help ensure the religious organizations provide abortion and contraception to them as well.
The suit aims to obtain government records related to reproductive healthcare policy for unaccompanied immigrant children in the care of federally funded Catholic agencies, which do not believe in abortion.
“We have heard reports that Catholic bishops are prohibiting Catholic charities from allowing teens in their care to access critical services like contraception and abortion- even if the teenager has been raped on her journey to the United States or in a detention facility,” said ACLU staff attorney Brigitte Amiri.
“Let’s be clear about the ACLU’s purpose here: ending the productive and successful partnership between the Catholic Church and the federal government on the care and shelter of vulnerable populations."
- Kevin Appleby, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Almost 60,000 unaccompanied minors illegally crossed over from Mexico border last year. Nearly a third were young girls, and Amiri claims up to 80 percent were victims of sexual assault.
The government contracts with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to care for those children until they can either reunite with a relative or face an immigration hearing. The organization has received $73 million overall from the government- with $10 million coming in to care for unaccompanied minors in 2013 alone.
A letter from the USCCB shows the organization strongly objecting to a regulation proposed by the Obama administration requiring contractors provide abortions to immigrants who have been raped.
“The Catholic Bishops are taking millions of dollars in federal grants- and then imposing their beliefs on this vulnerable population who they are supposed to serve… and that raises serious concerns under the separation of church and state provision in our Constitution,” said Amiri.
But the bishops are hitting back at the ACLU- maintaining they are well within their rights to exercise religious freedom while taking care of the minors.
“For decades, we have provided exemplary services to this vulnerable population without facilitating abortions, and despite ACLU’s extreme assertions to the contrary, the law not only permits our doing so, but protects it,” said Kevin Appleby, Director of the USCCB's Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs.
Appleby says instances in which a client under his organization’s care asks for a service contrary to the beliefs of the Church are rare. He insists the USCCB informs the government of a girl’s desire to access reproductive healthcare if the government has legal custody of that child.
“Let’s be clear about the ACLU’s purpose here: ending the productive and successful partnership between the Catholic Church and the federal government on the care and shelter of vulnerable populations. Denying us the freedom to serve betrays the very children the ACLU is purportedly attempting to help,” he told Fox News.
The ACLU is only suing for federal documents on the USCCB’s policies at the moment, but will consider further legal actions depending on what those documents indicate. The government has not yet officially responded to the ACLU’s request.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/23/aclu-sues-feds-in-bid-to-make-catholic-groups-provide-abortion-to-illegal/
-
so as long as parent and minor agree then you're all for them exercising their legal and god given choice to have an abortion
right?
god given right to abortion? jesus. look it's a convenient way to make your life easier because you like to fuck without a condom and you don't want to pull out. But don't call it a god given right.
-
U.S. House Passes Abortion Ban That Could Challenge Roe V. Wade [UPDATE]
Laura Bassett Become a fan
lbassett@huffingtonpost.com
Posted: 05/13/2015
Kate Williams was 21 weeks pregnant in 2011 when she had an ultrasound anatomy scan to check on the progress of her baby. The news was not good: Her unborn son had Potter syndrome, a fatal condition in which the kidneys fail to develop in the womb.
The doctor told Williams, then 31, that her baby had no kidneys and no bladder and would not develop lungs, and there was very little amniotic fluid left to support his life. She was told she could either choose to induce labor right then and go through a full delivery, only to have the baby die in the process, or she could undergo anesthesia and have an abortion procedure.
"I was absolutely devastated to get that news," Williams told The Huffington Post in an interview. "I called my regular OB-GYN to discuss with her if there was any chance this might not be true. But she looked at the ultrasounds and told me, 'No, this is the situation.'"
Williams, a retail store manager with a 9-month-old son at the time, decided to have the abortion procedure to avoid having to go through the labor and delivery. Because she lives in Philadelphia, where there are abortion providers who are trained to perform the second-trimester procedure, and because the abortion was covered by her insurance, she could afford to make that choice. "If I wasn't in Philadelphia, who knows where I would have had to go," she said.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday that bans the procedure Williams chose to have. The so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act aims to prohibit doctors from performing abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. There is no exception for severe fetal anomalies, and the bill requires a neonatal doctor to try to save the fetus if there is any chance it could survive outside the womb.
Republicans claim the 20-week limit is based on the disputed theory that fetuses can feel pain at that point in their development.
"This is a vote all of us will remember forever, and it will be considered in the annals of history, and I believe the counsels of eternity itself," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the author of the bill, on the House floor Wednesday. "But it shouldn’t be such a hard vote. Protecting little pain-capable unborn children and their mothers is not a Republican issue, or a Democrat issue. It is a test of our basic humanity and who we are as a human family."
The bill passed in the House Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 242 to 184.
House Republicans tried to pass the bill earlier this year, but they had to cancel the vote unexpectedly after a group of GOP women voiced their concerns that the rape exception was too narrow. The original bill required a woman to have reported her rape to the police in order to qualify for the exemption, but lawmakers have since tweaked it to say that a woman who has been raped must seek counseling or medical care at some point in the 48 hours before the abortion.
Anti-abortion activists hope the 20-week abortion ban will be their opening to challenge and ultimately overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's landmark abortion rights decision. The high court ruled in 1973 that laws cannot interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion before the fetus would be viable outside the womb, around the 22- to 24-week mark. This legislation would establish a limit at a point several weeks earlier than that. "Our belief is that this bill, in particular, would be upheld by the court," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List.
Abortions after 20 weeks are extremely rare, accounting for only about 1 percent of all abortions. Opponents of the legislation worry that it will hurt women like Williams who discover severe medical problems late into their pregnancies.
"This bill would deny abortion care to a woman even if her health care provider determined that abortion care was her best medical option," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. "It would also force a woman to wait until severe medical conditions became life-threatening before she could obtain the abortion care she needed."
The bill has little chance of becoming law this year. If Senate Democrats fail to block it, President Barack Obama will likely veto it. But the legislation is gaining momentum: Every single 2016 GOP presidential candidate has endorsed it, and 10 Republican-controlled state legislatures have already passed it into law. With a different administration after 2016, the abortion limit could easily become the law of the land.
Williams, who now has two healthy children, said she will be watching the legislation closely as it moves through Congress. "It doesn't make sense to me," she said. "Women in my situation or in any situation should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term."
UPDATE: 5:50 p.m. -- Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president, issued the following statement Wednesday evening, following the bill's passage:
This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which has protected a woman's constitutional right to privacy for over forty years. The bill puts women's health and rights at risk, undermines the role doctors play in health care decisions, burdens survivors of sexual assault, and is not based on sound science. It also follows a dangerous trend we are witnessing across the country. In just the first three months of 2015, more than 300 bills have been introduced in state legislatures -- on top of the nearly 30 measures introduced in Congress -- that restrict access to abortion. Politicians should not interfere with personal medical decisions, which should be left to a woman, her family and her faith, in consultation with her doctor or health care provider.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/13/20-week-abortion-ban_n_7274874.html
-
U.S. House Passes Abortion Ban That Could Challenge Roe V. Wade [UPDATE]
Laura Bassett Become a fan
lbassett@huffingtonpost.com
Posted: 05/13/2015
Kate Williams was 21 weeks pregnant in 2011 when she had an ultrasound anatomy scan to check on the progress of her baby. The news was not good: Her unborn son had Potter syndrome, a fatal condition in which the kidneys fail to develop in the womb.
The doctor told Williams, then 31, that her baby had no kidneys and no bladder and would not develop lungs, and there was very little amniotic fluid left to support his life. She was told she could either choose to induce labor right then and go through a full delivery, only to have the baby die in the process, or she could undergo anesthesia and have an abortion procedure.
"I was absolutely devastated to get that news," Williams told The Huffington Post in an interview. "I called my regular OB-GYN to discuss with her if there was any chance this might not be true. But she looked at the ultrasounds and told me, 'No, this is the situation.'"
Williams, a retail store manager with a 9-month-old son at the time, decided to have the abortion procedure to avoid having to go through the labor and delivery. Because she lives in Philadelphia, where there are abortion providers who are trained to perform the second-trimester procedure, and because the abortion was covered by her insurance, she could afford to make that choice. "If I wasn't in Philadelphia, who knows where I would have had to go," she said.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday that bans the procedure Williams chose to have. The so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act aims to prohibit doctors from performing abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. There is no exception for severe fetal anomalies, and the bill requires a neonatal doctor to try to save the fetus if there is any chance it could survive outside the womb.
Republicans claim the 20-week limit is based on the disputed theory that fetuses can feel pain at that point in their development.
"This is a vote all of us will remember forever, and it will be considered in the annals of history, and I believe the counsels of eternity itself," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the author of the bill, on the House floor Wednesday. "But it shouldn’t be such a hard vote. Protecting little pain-capable unborn children and their mothers is not a Republican issue, or a Democrat issue. It is a test of our basic humanity and who we are as a human family."
The bill passed in the House Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 242 to 184.
House Republicans tried to pass the bill earlier this year, but they had to cancel the vote unexpectedly after a group of GOP women voiced their concerns that the rape exception was too narrow. The original bill required a woman to have reported her rape to the police in order to qualify for the exemption, but lawmakers have since tweaked it to say that a woman who has been raped must seek counseling or medical care at some point in the 48 hours before the abortion.
Anti-abortion activists hope the 20-week abortion ban will be their opening to challenge and ultimately overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's landmark abortion rights decision. The high court ruled in 1973 that laws cannot interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion before the fetus would be viable outside the womb, around the 22- to 24-week mark. This legislation would establish a limit at a point several weeks earlier than that. "Our belief is that this bill, in particular, would be upheld by the court," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List.
Abortions after 20 weeks are extremely rare, accounting for only about 1 percent of all abortions. Opponents of the legislation worry that it will hurt women like Williams who discover severe medical problems late into their pregnancies.
"This bill would deny abortion care to a woman even if her health care provider determined that abortion care was her best medical option," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. "It would also force a woman to wait until severe medical conditions became life-threatening before she could obtain the abortion care she needed."
The bill has little chance of becoming law this year. If Senate Democrats fail to block it, President Barack Obama will likely veto it. But the legislation is gaining momentum: Every single 2016 GOP presidential candidate has endorsed it, and 10 Republican-controlled state legislatures have already passed it into law. With a different administration after 2016, the abortion limit could easily become the law of the land.
Williams, who now has two healthy children, said she will be watching the legislation closely as it moves through Congress. "It doesn't make sense to me," she said. "Women in my situation or in any situation should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term."
UPDATE: 5:50 p.m. -- Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president, issued the following statement Wednesday evening, following the bill's passage:
This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which has protected a woman's constitutional right to privacy for over forty years. The bill puts women's health and rights at risk, undermines the role doctors play in health care decisions, burdens survivors of sexual assault, and is not based on sound science. It also follows a dangerous trend we are witnessing across the country. In just the first three months of 2015, more than 300 bills have been introduced in state legislatures -- on top of the nearly 30 measures introduced in Congress -- that restrict access to abortion. Politicians should not interfere with personal medical decisions, which should be left to a woman, her family and her faith, in consultation with her doctor or health care provider.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/13/20-week-abortion-ban_n_7274874.html
Great Job
So brain dead fundie assholes would prefer to force this unfortunate woman (who was already devastated by the news of her unborn childs fatal condition) to go through the trauma of inducing labor so that she can give birth to a baby that would die in the process
Praise Jeebus
-
Tennessee Just Passed A Law Forcing Women To Wait 48 Hours For An Abortion
The Huffington Post | By Alissa Scheller
Posted: 05/19/2015
Starting July 1, women seeking an abortion in Tennessee will have to wait 48 hours before they’re allowed to have the procedure.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam signed a bill on Monday requiring the two-day wait, which makes Tennessee the 27th state to impose a delay for women who want to end a pregnancy. Earlier this month, Oklahoma’s governor signed a law increasing that state's mandatory waiting period from 24 hours to 72.
Legislators who introduce bills requiring waiting periods typically claim that they afford women time to consider her decision and the information provided in pre-procedure counseling. However, research has shown that 87 percent of women seeking an abortion were highly confident in their decision prior to counseling, leading researchers to conclude that women don't benefit from these delays. All they serve to do, opponents say, is to make obtaining an abortion more difficult for low-income women or women who live far from an abortion clinic, and second-guess a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body.
Many states that require waiting periods also require women to hear false information about fetal pain (research hasn’t proven fetuses feel pain prior to the first trimester), personhood (when personhood begins is a highly personal belief, not fact), and breast cancer (there is no proven link to abortion) before they have an abortion.
(http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AbortionWaitingPeriods.png)
State legislatures in North Carolina and Florida recently approved bills requiring or increasing waiting periods as well. Laws in those states are still awaiting governor approval. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion rights research organization, legislation restricting abortion has surged in recent years. The organization says that by the end of 2014, more than half of American women of reproductive age lived in states that were hostile to abortion access.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/abortion-waiting-periods_n_7315042.html
-
Court Upholds Texas Limits on Abortions
By MANNY FERNANDEZ and ERIK ECKHOLM
JUNE 9, 2015
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/06/10/us/10ABORTIONWEB/10ABORTIONWEB-master675.jpg)
A room at the Whole Woman’s Health clinic in McAllen, the sole abortion provider in its area. Credit Jennifer Whitney for The New York Times
Advertisement
WACO, Tex. — A federal appellate court upheld some of the toughest provisions of a Texas abortion law on Tuesday, putting about half of the state’s remaining abortion clinics at risk of permanently shutting their doors and leaving the nation’s second-most populous state with fewer than a dozen clinics across its more than 267,000 square miles. There were 41 when the law was passed.
Abortion providers and women’s rights groups vowed a quick appeal to the United States Supreme Court, setting the stage for what could be the most far-reaching ruling in years on when legislative restrictions pose an “undue burden” on the constitutional right to an abortion.
A three-judge panel of the appellate court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, sided for the most part with Texas and the abortion law the Republican-dominated Legislature passed in 2013, known as House Bill 2.
The judges ruled that Texas can require all abortion clinics in the state to meet the same building, equipment and staffing standards that hospital-style surgical centers must meet, which could force numerous clinics to close, abortion rights advocates said.
If the law requiring abortion facilities to be licensed as ambulatory surgery centers takes effect, Texas would be left with fewer than 10 clinics.
In addition to the surgical standards, the court upheld a requirement that doctors performing abortions obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of a clinic. The court said that except as applied to one doctor working in McAllen in South Texas, the provision did not put an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions.
Texas lawmakers argued that the provisions were intended to improve safety. But major medical associations say these measures do not improve patient safety, and abortion rights advocates say they are really intended to restrict access to abortion.
Under the 1973 Roe v Wade decision and later cases, the Supreme Court has permitted a wide array of abortion regulations, including waiting periods and parental consent for minors, but said states may not impose an “undue burden” on the right to an abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb.
Throughout the ruling, the Fifth Circuit judges cited the explanations given by the Texas Legislature for what is considered one of the most restrictive abortions laws in the country.
“Texas’ stated purpose for enacting H.B. 2 was to provide the highest quality of care to women seeking abortions and to protect the health and welfare of women seeking abortions,” the Fifth Circuit ruling read. “There is no question that this is a legitimate purpose that supports regulating physicians and the facilities in which they perform abortions.”
But clinic owners, women’s health groups and the American Civil Liberties Union said that if the Fifth Circuit’s decision were to take effect, the results would be “devastating” for women seeking abortions in Texas.
“Not since before Roe v. Wade has a law or court decision had the potential to devastate access to reproductive health care on such a sweeping scale,” said Nancy Northup, the president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, whose lawyers were part of the legal team representing the clinics that sued the state. “Once again, women across the state of Texas face the near total elimination of safe and legal options for ending a pregnancy, and the denial of their constitutional rights.”
The decision by the Fifth Circuit, regarded as one of the most conservative federal appellate courts in the country, is expected to take effect in about 22 days. In the meantime, however, the clinics and their lawyers plan to ask the court to stay the decision while they appeal it. If the Fifth Circuit declines, the clinic lawyers said, they will seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court that would prevent the ruling from taking effect while the Supreme Court considered whether to hear the case.
There are 18 facilities providing abortions in Texas, and if and when the Fifth Circuit’s decision goes into effect, eight clinics will close and 10 facilities are expected to remain open, largely because they are ambulatory surgery centers or have relationships with such centers, according to Dr. Daniel Grossman, an investigator with the Texas Policy Evaluation Project and one of the experts who testified for the clinics in the case. But the fate of at least one of the facilities expected to stay open, a clinic in McAllen in the Rio Grande Valley, remained uncertain.
Lawyers for the Texas clinics that sued the state said about 900,000 reproductive-age women will live more than 150 miles from the nearest open facility in the state when the surgical-center requirement and admitting-privileges rule take effect.
The Fifth Circuit panel found that the percentage of affected women who would face travel distances of 150 miles or more amounted to 17 percent, a figure that it said was not a “large fraction.” An abortion regulation cannot be invalidated unless it imposes an undue burden on what the Supreme Court has termed “a large fraction of relevant cases.”
Previously, a panel of the same federal appeals court ruled that Mississippi could not force its only remaining abortion clinic to close by arguing that women could always travel to neighboring states for the procedure. But the panel in the Texas case on Tuesday held that the closing of a clinic in El Paso — which left the nearest in-state clinic some 550 miles to the east — was permissible because many women had already been traveling to New Mexico for abortions, and because the rule did not close all the abortion clinics in Texas.
In the case of the McAllen clinic, the sole abortion provider in the Rio Grande Valley, Tuesday’s decision held that the distance of 235 miles or more to the nearest clinic did pose an undue burden. For now, at least, the Fifth Circuit panel exempted that clinic from aspects of the surgical-center and admitting-privileges requirements. But Amy Hagstrom Miller, the chief executive of Whole Woman’s Health, which runs the McAllen facility and was one of the abortion providers that sued the state, said the organization was evaluating whether the ruling would permit the clinic to continue operating.
The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, called the Fifth Circuit’s decision upholding the law a “victory for life and women’s health.”
“H.B. 2 both protects the unborn and ensures Texas women are not subjected to unsafe and unhealthy conditions,” Mr. Paxton said in a statement. “Today’s decision by the Fifth Circuit validates that the people of Texas have authority to establish safe, common-sense standards of care necessary to ensure the health of women.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/court-upholds-texas-law-criticized-as-blocking-access-to-abortions.html?_r=1
-
Supreme Court blocks Texas abortion-clinic rules
Published June 29, 2015
Associated Press
The Supreme Court acted Monday to keep Texas' 19 abortion clinics open, amid a legal fight that threatens to close more than half of them.
The justices voted 5-4 to grant an emergency appeal from the clinics after a federal appeals court upheld new clinic regulations and refused to keep them on hold while the clinics appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court order will remain in effect at least until the court decides whether to hear the clinics' appeal of the lower court ruling, not before the fall.
The court's decision to block the regulations is a strong indication that the justices will hear the full appeal, which could be the biggest abortion case at the Supreme Court in nearly 25 years.
If the court steps in, the hearing and the eventual ruling would come amid the 2016 presidential campaign.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have allowed the state to move ahead with regulations requiring abortion facilities to be constructed like surgical centers. Doctors at all clinics also would be required to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
The clinics said enforcing the new regulations would lead to a second major wave of clinic closures statewide since the law was enacted in 2013. Texas had 41 abortion clinics in 2012; 19 remain.
The admitting privileges requirement already is in effect in much of the state. Stephanie Toti, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights who is representing the clinics, said some clinics that closed because doctors lacked admitting privileges might be able to reopen.
While the clinic operators said they were relieved by the court's action, supporters of the state law criticized the order. "Women and babies are being denied protections with the Supreme Court blocking pro-life legislation," said Lila Rose, president of Live Action, an anti-abortion advocacy group.
The regulations would have left the state with no clinic west of San Antonio. Only one would have been able to operate on a limited basis in the Rio Grande Valley.
The Supreme Court also is weighing an appeal from Mississippi, which is seeking to enforce an admitting privileges requirement that would close the last abortion clinic in the state. A different three-judge panel of the same federal appeals court, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has blocked the Mississippi law.
In November 2013, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that four justices probably would want to review the constitutionality of the Texas regulations. Last year, the high court prevented enforcement while the case was on appeal to the 5th Circuit.
Backers of the regulations say they are common-sense measures intended to protect women. Abortion rights groups say the regulations have only one aim: to make it harder, if not impossible, for women to get abortions in Texas.
The case could be attractive to the justices because it might allow them to give more definition to the key phrase from their last big abortion ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992. States generally can regulate abortion unless doing so places "an undue burden" on a woman's right to get an abortion.
Monday was the 23rd anniversary of the Casey ruling.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-blocks-texas-abortion-clinic-rules/
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good News for Texas
Weird how the Republican argument against ANY kind of gun legislation is that it won't stop all gun violoence so what's the point
They seem to have forgotten about that arguement when it comes to abortion laws
I guess making it harder to get an abortion is worth the effort to save a few lives (from the point of view) but trying to make it harder to get a gun to save a few lives (fully formed human beings) is just not worth the effort
-
Scott Walker set to revive abortion hard line on eve of presidential bid
Before his re-election last year, Governor Scott Walker struck a conciliatory tone on the issue. Now he’s behind a bill to ban terminations after 20 weeks
(http://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d9de89c6954947c0201fd0647927032d8a82628e/115_0_2709_1625/master/2709.jpg?w=700&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=f00bd77b8485f4b6a1c2d8b5c80654a0)
Governor Scott Walker addresses the Wisconsin legislature which is expected to present him with a bill to sign prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks, a bill reportedly instigated by Walker himself. Photograph: Andy Manis/AP
Lauren Gambino in New York
@LGamGam
Thursday 9 July 2015
In the final weeks of a tough, expensive re-election campaign for governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker ran an advertisement that raised eyebrows on both sides of the culture war over abortion.
“Hi, I’m Scott Walker. I’m pro-life,” Walker says in the ad. “But there’s no doubt in my mind the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy is an agonizing one. That’s why I support legislation to increase safety and to provide more information for a woman considering her options. The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor. Now, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Our priority is to protect the health and safety of all Wisconsin citizens.”
The ad aired in October, when polls showed him unpopular with female voters, with his challenger, Democrat Mary Burke, leading among women. This softer tone from a politician with a long record of rolling back access to abortions angered social conservatives, who were upset that Walker appeared to have abandoned his staunchly pro-life views. The shift also outraged reproductive rights activists, who said the ad was misleading to obscure his extreme stances on women’s issues.
In the months since winning re-election, Walker, the son of a Baptist minister, has been under pressure to defend his record on opposing abortion and convince supporters that he is socially conservative enough to be the Republican nominee.
“My policies throughout my career have earned a 100% rating with pro-life groups in Wisconsin,” Walker wrote in an open letter in March. “Just in my first term I signed numerous pieces of pro-life legislation and I will continue working for every life.”
Since being elected governor in 2011, Walker has signed off on legislation requiring women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasounds, prohibiting the procedure from being covered by healthcare plans and defunding Planned Parenthood.
Now, days before he is expected to announce his candidacy for president, the Republican governor may get one more chance to reinforce his conservative credentials should a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy land on his desk.
The Wisconsin bill, which is similar to legislation passed in 14 other states, is rooted in the belief that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, a claim that has been disputed in medical research.
Walker’s office confirmed on Wednesday that he “plans to sign the bill” if it passes the legislature.
But in the runup to his re-election last year, Walker had refused to take a stand on the ban. Pressed in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in mid-October, he demurred.
He said late-term abortions “raised some concerns” and repeated that he believes a fetus is “a human life”. He then offered a hypothetical: what if my wife had been in a terrible car accident while pregnant with one of our sons and lost the baby, he asked rhetorically. “You wouldn’t send just a get-well card you’d probably send a sympathy card to us because we lost that unborn child,” he said.
“To say one thing, when you’re seeking the vote, get elected, then operate in a way that’s completely antithetical to what you said when you were running, is incredibly frustrating,” said Dayna Long, president of the Madison chapter of the National Organization for Women.
“It’s a betrayal and frankly I think it makes him a really untrustworthy politician.”
Some critics say the ban was a calculated move by the governor to attract national conservatives.
Though he has repeatedly pledged his support for the bill, the governor has been more discreet about the genesis of the bill. The New York Times reported that Walker asked legislative leadership to deliver the bill to his desk during a meeting in his office earlier this year. A spokesman with the office of the state senate majority leader confirmed the report.
Wisconsin representative Chris Taylor, the former director of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, who opposes the ban, said she has no doubt the ban is at least in some way a part of a broader political calculation.
“He’ll say anything to get elected,” Taylor said. “And this is a guy who’s done a lot of devastating things for the women of the state.”
Taylor said she is prepared to argue against the bill, which she called “unconscionable”, on Thursday, when the Wisconsin assembly is expected to vote. The state senate approved the bill in June on a party-line vote, with Republicans in favor, after a nearly three-hour debate.
The bill would prohibit abortions 20 weeks after conception. The bill provides some exemptions for women in medical emergencies, but not in cases of rape or incest.
Doctors and medical professionals who perform abortions could face criminal charges, punishable by $10,000 in fines or three and a half years in prison. The legislation also allows the father to sue the doctor for damages.
Supporters of the legislation says it protects women’s health, because late-stage abortions can have more complications, as well as the fetus’s.
“It is undisputed that the risk to women from abortion increases with gestational age,” said Mailee Smith, a staff attorney for Americans United for Life.
“As such, bills limiting abortion at or after 20 weeks protect both women’s lives as well as protect unborn children from the pain inflicted in later-term abortions,” Smith added in a statement.
Abortions after 21 weeks of gestation are infrequent in the United States – nearly 99% of abortions in the US occur before 21 weeks, according to Planned Parenthood. The rate is similar in Wisconsin, where abortion clinics don’t perform the procedure at that point in a pregnancy. (They are performed in hospitals in cases involving medical problems.) In 2013, just over 1% – 89 out of 6,462 – abortions were performed after 20 weeks of gestation, according to state figures.
But opponents of the 20-week bans say that the women who have abortions at this stage in their pregnancy often do so out of medical urgency. Abortions later in the pregnancy, reproductive rights activists say, are more likely to involve severe fetal abnormalities and serious risks to women’s health.
Though the bill carves out exemptions for medical emergencies, women and their doctors have to meet a series of requirements that opponents say are too onerous before the procedure is allowed.
The Wisconsin bill is just the latest in a rash of bills seeking to ban abortion at or earlier than 20 weeks. Such bans challenge the fetal viability standard on abortions established by the 1973 US supreme court decision Roe v Wade, which legalized abortions. Fetal viability is generally believed to occur between 22 and 24 weeks.
Bans in Georgia, Idaho and Arizona have been struck down by courts. The ninth circuit court of appeals struck down the Arizona law in 2013, a decision the US supreme court declined to reconsider. In May, the same court found that Idaho’s law was unconstitutional.
Eleven other states have some version of the 20-week ban in place, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research group. The US House also recently passed a bill banning abortion at 20 weeks, which includes an exemption for rape. Even if the bill were taken up and passed by the Senate, it would face a veto by President Barack Obama.
“Voters and the public are becoming more attuned to the fact that these are all part of a nationwide scheme to ban abortion altogether,”said Hayley Smith, an advocacy and policy associate at the American Civil Liberties Union.
“They might hear about a 20-week ban this year, and next year they might hear about a bill to close abortion clinics in their state,” she said. “And over time they realize it’s not just one piece of legislation. It’s a whole scheme of legislation designed to ban access altogether.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/09/scott-walker-abortion-20-week-ban-wisconsin
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
great way to preach to the choir while turning off all independent and crossover voters on a national stage
-
GOP presidential hopeful Scott Walker signs abortion ban bill
Published July 20, 2015
Associated Press
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/assets/876/493/scottwalkercampaigning.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Republican presidential candidate Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker addresses a crowd at Giese Manufacturing, Sunday, July 19, 2015, in Dubuque, Iowa. (Mike Burley/Telegraph Herald via AP)
OSHKOSH, Wis. – Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, one week after launching his bid for the 2016 presidential nomination, signed a bill Monday that outlaws non-emergency abortions at or beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Abortion is a core issue for the conservative Republican base whose support Walker will seek as he tries to stand out in a crowded presidential field that also includes former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and billionaire Donald Trump.
While Walker has a long history of opposing abortions, it's an issue where he could be targeted by rivals: Just nine months ago he ran a television ad during his gubernatorial re-election campaign where he said whether to obtain an abortion is an agonizing decision between a woman and her doctor.
Walker's record includes defunding Planned Parenthood, requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, a law currently blocked by a federal court judge, and requiring women to have ultrasounds and be shown images of the fetus before having an abortion.
Walker last year, during his re-election campaign, refused to say last year whether he would support a 20-week abortion ban.
But in the face of questions from anti-abortion conservatives over his commitment to the issue in the light of the campaign ad,Walker in March came out in support of the 20-week abortion ban.
"The truth is that Scott Walker lied to Wisconsin voters when he was elected governor after saying that abortion is between a woman and her doctor," said Sasha Bruce with NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights advocacy group. "Now, in an effort to win the votes of the extreme base of the Republican Party, Walker has traded the health and well-being of women and families to score cheap political points."
The governor's signature makes Wisconsin the 15th state to pass similar bans. There is no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
The new law — which cleared the Legislature without any Democratic support — is expected to be challenged in court. Walker, speaking with reporters after the bill signing, said he was confident it would survive any legal challenge, calling the five-month ban a "reasonable standard."
"For people, regardless of where they might stand, when an unborn child can feel pain I think most people feel it's appropriate to protect that child," Walker said.
But Kaylie Hanson, speaking for the Democratic National Committee, said the new law was nothing more than a "timely favor" for the Republican base days after Walker joined the presidential race.
"The harsh reality is that this law will hurt women, as it puts up barriers to care for rape and incest survivors - no exceptions - and threatens the health of the mother," Hanson said in a statement. "This law doesn't only undermine the most basic women's health services. It's radical, dangerous, and lacks respect for half the population of Wisconsin."
Bans on abortion after 20 weeks are popular, at least on the surface. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted in November of 2014 found that 6 in 10 Americans support banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape or incest.
On the other hand, a 2012 CNN/ORC poll found the vast majority of Americans — more than 8 in 10 — said abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.
An Associated Press-GfK poll conducted in January and February found that 51 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 45 percent think it should be illegal in most or all cases.
Under the new Wisconsin law, doctors who perform an abortion at or after 20 weeks in non-emergency situations could be charged with a felony punishable by up to $10,000 in fines and 3½ years in prison. Doctors could also be sued for damages.
Doctors would be allowed to perform abortions beyond 20 weeks only if the mother is likely to die or suffer irreversible injuries within 24 hours.
The law's supporters say fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks. They say the ban will spare those unborn children an excruciatingly painful death. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, says fetuses can't feel pain until the third trimester starts at 27 weeks. Minority Democrats have complained that Republicans should leave women alone and let them decide how to handle their own bodies.
Abortions after 20 weeks are rare in Wisconsin. According to the most recent state Department of Health Services information, 89 of nearly 6,500 abortions performed in Wisconsin in 2013, or roughly 1 percent, occurred after the 20-week mark.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established a nationwide right to abortion but allowed states to restrict the procedures after the fetus reaches viability, the point where it could survive outside the womb. The ruling offered no legal definition of viability but said it could range from the 24th to 28th week of pregnancy.
Courts have blocked bans in Georgia, Idaho and Arizona. Litigation in other states is ongoing. A federal appellate court in May struck down Arkansas' ban on abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat, finding that prohibition unconstitutionally burdens women.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/gop-presidential-hopeful-scott-walker-signs-abortion-ban-bill/?intcmp=latestnews
-
It's weird the Repubs waste so much time on abortion legislation when they have no hope of stopping all abortions
Isn't that their favorite argument for why we can't have ANY gun legislation
It won't stop all gun violence so there is no points in doing anything
I'm starting to think that's just an excuse on their part
-
Ohio mulls Down syndrome abortion ban, Kasich mum for now
By Adam Shaw
Published August 24, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/kasichohiointernal5454.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
At left; the Ohio Statehouse. At right, Ohio Gov. John Kasich. (Reuters)
Ohio lawmakers are considering a controversial bill that would ban abortions sought because the baby has Down syndrome, placing the swing state at the center of a new battle for anti-abortion advocates.
The measure also has implications for the 2016 presidential race, as Ohio Gov. John Kasich seeks the Republican nomination and tries to walk a fine line between burnishing his pro-life credentials and positioning himself as a moderate member of the GOP field. He has not taken a position on the legislation.
"The governor is pro-life and believes strongly in the sanctity of human life, but we don't take a public position on every bill introduced into the Ohio General Assembly," Rob Nichols, a Kasich spokesman, told FoxNews.com.
The Ohio bill would ban a physician from performing an abortion if they know the woman is seeking the procedure solely because of a test indicating Down syndrome in the unborn child.
The bill would hold the doctor, not the mother, responsible for violating the proposed law, which carries a penalty of six-to-18 months in jail.
The legislation is unique, though not unprecedented. North Dakota passed a similar measure in 2013 that banned abortions motivated by the sex of the baby; a diagnosis for a genetic abnormality such as Down syndrome; or the potential for a genetic abnormality.
The proposal in politically purple Ohio, though, could have widespread implications, particularly if it spurs even more states to act. According to a 2012 study in the medical journal "Prenatal Diagnosis," U.S. women who receive a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to have an abortion between 50 and 80 percent of the time, down from 90 percent in 1999 from a study in the same journal.
The legislation is thought to have a good chance of passing. The bill recently passed out of committee in the state House of Representatives on a 9-3 bipartisan vote. Ohio Right to Life, which helped draft the bill, is hoping it will be voted on in a few weeks, when lawmakers return from recess, and reach Kasich’s desk by Christmas.
“What does that say of us as a society if we make decisions about who lives or who dies dependent on if they are going to be an inconvenience, or they are [costing] too much money for health care costs?” Ohio Right to Life President Michael Gonidakis told FoxNews.com. “Someday we are going to find a genetic marker for autism. Are we going to have a 90 percent abortion rate for people with autism? I hope not.”
Gonidakis says he thinks the legislation will pass and Kasich will ultimately sign it.
“We have a track record of being strategic and putting forth an incremental approach to all our initiatives,” Gonidakis said, adding that they have worked with Kasich on roughly a dozen pro-life measures, including a late-term abortion ban.
Republican state Rep. Sarah LaTourette, a co-sponsor of the bill, also told FoxNews.com she is confident the bill will pass.
"While I make no effort to conceal my pro-life convictions, I firmly believe this bill is about discrimination, not abortion. Choosing to end an individual's life simply because they are different, or might have Down syndrome, is discrimination," she said in an email. "There is simply no other way to look at it."
However, if Kasich chooses to back the bill, he is sure to face stiff opposition from pro-choice groups.
"We believe we should all work to ensure people with disabilities are treated with equality and dignity. However, we oppose this ban because it interferes with the medical decisions of Ohioans and does nothing to help people with disabilities or their families,” Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, told FoxNews.com.
Copeland said she believes it will be an “uphill battle” to oppose the legislation, but people have flooded her group's phone lines with calls offering donations to fight it.
“We have to make it clear to Gov. Kasich that this is not good health care, this is not what the people of Ohio want,” Copeland said. “This ban would encourage patients to keep information from their doctors and that is bad medicine.”
Gonidakis said he is “100 percent” confident the governor will sign the bill. “He is the most pro-life governor in our state’s history,” he said.
Copeland seemed to agree with Gonidakis: “He’s signed everything they slapped on his desk so far so I don’t see why this would be anything different.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/24/ohio-legislature-to-consider-down-syndrome-abortion-ban/?intcmp=hplnws
-
Planned Parenthood approved.
Police search home of Michigan doctor after finding what seems to be fetus parts in car trunk
By Cody Derespina
Published October 15, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/876/493/ROTH1015%20-%20FOX2.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Dr. Michael Roth's car allegedly had plastic containers of human tissue in its trunk when cops searched it. (FOX2)
Police in Michigan raided the home and office of an allegedly rogue abortion doctor Tuesday night, following the discovery of what appeared to be a dozen containers of aborted fetus parts and a powerful anesthetic in the trunk of his car.
The grisly discoveries were made after Dr. Michael Roth, an OB/GYN who has been repeatedly sued by patients and sanctioned by health authorities, asked police to retrieve items from his car, which was impounded after Roth allegedly struck a 32-year-old disabled man in West Bloomfield two weeks ago. Roth has not yet been charged in connection with the accident or the aborted remains allegedly found in his car, though local, state and federal authorities are investigating, according to the Detroit Free Press.
"We do have an opinion from the medical examiner's office that this is remnants of conception, but there was nothing that was seen within the containers that were recognizable," West Bloomfield Deputy Chief Curt Lawson told the Detroit Free Press.
“I think that abortion should be available on demand...I haven’t turned anybody down”
- Dr. Michael Roth, 1988
The state Attorney General's Office suspects Roth may be performing illegal abortions, according to Fox2, which cited sources.
Roth is listed as the primary doctor at the Novi Laser & Aesthetic Center in Novi, Mich., about 30 miles northwest of Detroit. The clinic's website says that “with over 30 years of experience, Dr. Roth strives to provide the best possible care for his patients.” Calls placed to the Novi clinic went straight to voicemail, and a listing for Roth's home number was disconnected.
Roth's request for items from his car, including a garage door opener, allegedly turned up a drug later identified as Fentanyl, a drug the Drug Enforcement Administration describes as “potentially lethal, even at very low levels,” and which is frequently used to reduce pain during abortion procedures. That discovery prompted cops to open the trunk, where they allegedly found 14 jars containing suspected fetal parts.
On Tuesday night, police executed a search warrant at Roth’s West Bloomfield apartment and were later seen carrying out grocery bags full of evidence, according to Fox2.
Roth is well known to pro-life groups in Michigan, including one which has posted at least six malpractice complaints and judgments lodged against Roth from 1988 to 2015, some involving home abortions that led to alleged complications and allegedly botched procedures that later necessitated hysterectomies.
“He has a long and sordid history,” Right to Life of Michigan's legislative director Ed Rivet told FoxNews.com. “This isn’t just like, ‘Oh wow, this guy all of a sudden did something off the legal or ethical path.’ This has been a whole career of this stuff.”
A state health inspector found during a January 2002 check that Roth’s drug-control license had expired more than 20 years previously and resulted in Roth being placed on professional probation for six months, fined $15,000 and barred from performing abortions outside of a clinical setting.
He also has been sanctioned for shoddy record-keeping and improprieties in prescribing medication, and in 2012 was fined $2,000 and sanctioned by a state disciplinary committee for a range of violations.
In 2005, Roth's wife claimed in an application for a restraining order that she “lives locked in the basement” out of fear Roth “would continue to assault, attack, molest, wound, follow, confront and otherwise injure her as well as continue to prescribe and administer medication to her.”
A 1988 New York Times article on sex-selective abortions quoted Roth.
“I think that abortion should be available on demand," he said, later adding, “I haven’t turned anybody down.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/15/police-search-home-michigan-doctor-after-allegedly-finding-fetus-parts-in-car/?intcmp=hpbt3
-
Supreme Court Prepares to Hear Key Texas Abortion Case
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=431ac702-36de-42d7-a5c5-e143d3d85904&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Supreme Court Prepares to Hear Key Texas Abortion Case
Sunday, 03 Jan 2016
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear its first abortion case in nearly a decade, both sides have been quietly gathering vivid personal accounts from women to supplement the dry legal arguments, believing the effort could appeal particularly to swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The case, which arises from a challenge to new Texas regulations covering clinics and physicians that perform abortions, could have broad political repercussions in a presidential election year. Depending how the nine justices rule, the court could embolden -- or discourage -- other states in imposing regulations affecting women's access to abortion.
A ruling in the dispute over the socially and politically contentious issue of abortion rights is expected by late June.
Some opponents of abortion are seizing on past comments by Kennedy, who has said that some women come to "regret" the procedure and, while affirming a right to abortion, has voted for certain regulations governing the procedure. Seeking to bolster the argument for Texas's strict requirements, they are signing up women who say they suffered medical complications.
The group of health clinics challenging the state, meanwhile, is trying to counter any perception of abortion as an option used only by the young and inexperienced.
Taking a page from the successful approach of gay-marriage proponents, they have sought lawyers and other professional women who say abortions helped them for economic, medical or other reasons. They hope the vignettes from lawyers will help justices identify with their view.
The diverging experiences will emerge in "friend of the court" briefs - the clinics' set due on Jan. 4, the Texas state government's set on Feb. 3.
The briefs, known as amicus curiae, are compiled to represent the broader outside interests at stake in a case, and are rarely so devoted to personal narratives.
The disputed Texas law requires clinics that perform abortions to have hospital-grade facilities and clinic doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital.
The clinics challenging the regulations as an unconstitutional burden on women say Texas is using costly, needless requirements to shut down facilities and restrict access to the procedure. Texas counters that it is safeguarding women's health.
The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a New York-based non-profit group, is representing the clinics in the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Cole. Texas's legal strategy is being coordinated in Austin by state Solicitor General Scott Keller, who worked as a law clerk to Kennedy in 2009-2010.
Texas and CRR lawyers would not comment before filing deadlines on details of their respective briefs.
PERSONAL NARRATIVES
For months CRR lawyers have been reaching out for personal testimonies through emails and phone calls, according to women who have been contacted in Texas and elsewhere.
Former Democratic Texas state senator Wendy Davis, who led a filibuster against the abortion legislation in 2013 and revealed her two abortions in a memoir a year later, said she was asked in August to join a brief of public officials. She agreed.
David terminated two pregnancies in the 1990s for medical reasons. "Did I grieve tremendously? Yes, I did, in an indescribable way," she said in an interview with Reuters. "But never did I regret it."
Heather Busby, director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas in Austin, provided her story for a brief to be filed on behalf of lawyers who had abortions. She said she often wonders whether she would have finished college and gone to law school if she had not ended an unwanted pregnancy at age 22, two decades ago.
Among those preparing briefs to support Texas is lawyer Allan Parker of the San Antonio-based Justice Foundation, which runs an "Operation Outcry" website asking women to sign declarations labeled "How My Abortion Hurt Me."
Parker said many women will not be fully identified in the filing, such as a Cindy H., who lived in Texas and now resides in Washington state.
She told Reuters her uterus was punctured during an abortion in the 1990s in a Texas clinic and she began hemorrhaging. "I thought I could have bled to death," she said.
Separately, Cindy Collins, an outspoken anti-abortion advocate in Louisiana, said she will be lending her full name to that brief about the harms of abortion.
Disputes over abortion rights, like gay marriage, have come down to Kennedy, a 1988 appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan. Kennedy tipped the balance to the liberal side in gay marriage disputes in 2013 and 2015, notably in last June's landmark ruling for a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.
Over a series of decisions, Kennedy moved consistently toward greater protection for gay men and lesbians. On abortion rights, his record has not been as predictable.
Based on their records, the current four conservatives are likely to favor the Texas law; the four liberals are likely to reject it.
The last time the Supreme Court heard an abortion case, in 2007, Kennedy cited a friend of the court brief from women who said they regretted going through with the procedure.
"While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon," Kennedy wrote, "it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/supreme-court-abortion-texas/2016/01/03/id/707941/#ixzz3wIfbnhRh
-
Republicans just love government intrusion.
-
Cardinal Wuerl on Election: Abortion 'Fundamental Issue,' Has Taught Generation 'It's Alright to Kill'
By Bill Hoffmann
Monday, 11 Jan 2016
The hot-button issue of abortion and the "disrespect for human life" it represents will be a key issue in the upcoming presidential race, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., tells Newsmax TV.
"It remains the fundamental basic issue," the influential Roman Catholic leader said Monday on Newsmax Prime.
"One reason it strikes me, one reason why we are so casual in our country with violence, we see violence exercised with such ease, such disrespect for human life."
Wuerl, who is archbishop of Washington, DC, said that a generation growing up in the wake of the notorious Roe vs. Wade decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion, has been "taught since they were infants, that it's alright to kill."
"It's all right to kill as long as the person is inconvenient to you and fits into a certain category. This category is nine months or less," he told Newsmax Chief Political Correspondent John Gizzi.
"What we have done is create a mentality that so depreciates the value of life, that all these other things follow very easily. You can't say to someone, life only has the value you give it and expect that they're not going to apply that principle in areas where you might differ."
Wuerl's archdiocese is currently embroiled in a lawsuit involving the church’s Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, which has challenged the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that some religious-affiliated organizations provide insurance that includes birth control.
"We're challenging the government on two points. One, we don't believe the government has the right to tell us what we should or shouldn't be doing when it comes to activities that we consider immoral," he told Gizzi.
"And secondly, we don't believe the government has the right to tell us that there's a distinction between what the Gospel tells us to do and how we worship. That's all part of being Catholic, of being part of a religious community.
"So we're in court for multiple reasons and we have to wait and see what the court actually decides. It's outrageous that we're even forced to this point and I know there are those that suggest maybe you should just all shut down."
Wuerl said he is hoping the Supreme Court will come to a decision that "recognizes that the right to religious freedom, the right to religious liberty is every bit as much our right as is the government's right to impose contraceptives."
Wuerl — the former Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle and Bishop of Pittsburgh before being promoted to the cardinalate by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010 — is author of "Ways to Pray: Growing Closer to God," published by Our Sunday Visitor.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/cardinal-wuerl-abortion-obamacare/2016/01/11/id/709047/#ixzz3x37wreuQ
-
Zika Virus Threat Puts Abortion Rights And Disability Rights On Collision Course
As the epidemic spreads, women's right to an abortion are a hot topic -- but what about the rights of the disabled?
02/04/2016
Chloe Angyal
Front Page Editor, The Huffington Post
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/56b264801a00002d00ab1f23.jpeg)
FELIPE DANA/ASSOCIATED PRESS
As more cases of Zika virus pop up in the U.S., abortion rights advocates are raising concerns about whether harsh abortion restrictions will affect pregnant women’s ability to terminate pregnancies if they’re infected with the virus.
Zika has been linked to microcephaly, in which babies are born with underdeveloped brains and abnormally small heads. Some cases seen in Brazil and elsewhere in the Americas have been severe. As The Huffington Post reported last week, people born with microcephaly “may suffer from additional ailments, including convulsions, impaired vision and hearing, deformed limbs and severe breathing problems.”
In El Salvador, where abortion is completely outlawed, the government has advised women to simply not get pregnant until 2018. In Brazil and other Latin American countries, the outbreak has officials re-examining strict abortion laws. Here in the U.S., officials have stayed mum on the topic, but abortion rights advocates are rightly wondering what an increase in fetal abnormalities would mean at a time where abortion restrictions -- from lengthy waiting periods to laws designed to shutter clinics -- have left millions of American women without access to abortion care.
But if what the WHO calls an “explosion” of Zika does indeed lead to an uptick in fetal abnormalities in the U.S., the abortion rights movement faces another problem: a coming clash with the disability rights movement.
While abortion rights advocates might well point to Zika-linked microcephaly as evidence that the U.S. needs to liberalize abortion laws, disability rights advocates might argue otherwise. On the issue of abortion, the feminist and disability rights movement often come into uncomfortable conflict as they struggle to accommodate both the rights of a woman to control her own fertility and the rights of people with disabilities to exist.
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/56b37e961f00000d0121754e.jpeg)
SUSAN WALSH/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Pro-choice supporters rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., Jan. 22, 2016, during the annual March for Life 2016.
Now, with the threat of Zika-linked fetal abnormalities looming, that fault line could well crack open, and at least one thought leader in disability rights is concerned by the hastiness with which calls for loosened abortion restrictions are being made.
There are clear parallels between the experiences of women and those of people with disabilities (not to mention overlaps between the two groups), noted Rosemarie Garland-Thompson, a professor of English at Emory University and a pioneer of the discipline of disability studies. Through much of history, she said, able-bodied women were not allowed to control their own reproduction.
“There’s a long, deep and troubling history of women’s reproduction being taken over by men and by a variety of other cultural institutions,” she told HuffPost. Likewise, people with disabilities have long been subject to reproductive coercion, from the abandonment of newborns with disabilities to mandatory sterilization of women with disabilities. They have, said Garland-Thompson, “been eugenically eliminated from the world through selective abortion and other biomedical practices.”
Both groups have similar histories of subjugation, particularly around medical decision-making. And on the issue of access to abortion, particularly in the age of prenatal fetal testing, those histories collide.
It’s important to note that the causal connection between Zika and microcephaly has not been clearly established. In Colombia, for example, many cases of Zika have been reported, with no corresponding increase in microcephaly. “I think everyone is concerned about that and with good reason, but we don’t know that 100 percent for sure yet. It’s not completely established," said Dr. Anne Davis, a practicing OB-GYN and an associate professor of Clinical Obstetrics at Columbia University.
And, though this week saw the first U.S. case of sexually transmitted Zika, most reproductive rights organizations are calling for a measured response, while the CDC is warning pregnant women to postpone travel to areas affected by Zika.
Complicating the abortion issue is the fact that microcephaly in a fetus cannot be detected until well into the second trimester of a pregnancy. “Late in the first trimester you can see the complete absence of the brain, anencephaly, but not microcephaly,” says Davis, who is also an abortion provider who performs second-trimester abortions.
This presents a problem if microcephaly cases spike in the U.S. One percent of abortions performed in the U.S. happen in the second trimester and when they do, they usually happen because of a threat to the life of the mother or due to fetal abnormalities.
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/56b264091f00007f00217460.jpeg)
FELIPE DANA/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Luiza, who has her head measured at the Mestre Vitalino Hospital in Caruaru, Pernambuco state, Brazil, was born in October with a head just 11.4 inches in diameter, more than an inch below the range doctors define as healthy.
Abortion at this point in a pregnancy is rare and hard to come by. It’s expensive -- often well over $1,000 -- and that’s before you factor in the cost of traveling and accommodation to see the few providers who perform the procedure, skipping days of work for travel and recovery (and waiting periods in between appointments, which some states require), securing childcare for any kids you might already have, and so on. “Once you detect [a fetal abnormality], it’s not like you have an ultrasound and right that second they say ‘OK, if it’s the right choice for you, you can have your abortion,’” Davis says. The longer a woman waits -- to make her choice, or to raise the money to exercise it -- the more expensive the procedure becomes.
Pregnant women who choose to have an abortion when microcephaly shows up in fetal testing have an enormously difficult decision to make, Davis said. She does her best to explain to expecting families what they can expect their child’s life to be like. “It depends on the severity of the microcephaly,” she said. “There’s a range, and you do have some information about that from ultrasounds. We can guide families about the severity of what we see. And that’s where the real conversation occurs, doctor to family, doctor to woman. You can give people some guidance, it’s not just a diagnosis and then you say ‘well we’ll see what happens.’”
Still, it’s not an easy decision, as reproductive rights advocates acknowledge, and considering a potential child's quality of life is central to it. “What we argue for is empowered, informed decision-making,” says Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “Women make decisions for all sorts of reasons, and no one walks in their shoes but them. At the end of the day, we could litigate every individual case, but that undercuts the core value that’s at stake, which is that we live in a country that prizes autonomy and information.”
Embedded in the calls for re-examining abortion policies as Zika looms is the assumption that aborting a fetus with microcephaly is ethical and that women will want and should have the right to ability-selective abortions. There’s little room, in the usual pro-choice argument, for the notion that that disabled child has the right to exist, or for questioning the notion that life with a disability is inherently worse than life without one. That having a child with a disability is undesirable is usually taken as a given, not just by pro-choice advocates, but by much of U.S. society.
Somehow, what got written into the idea of reproductive choice and freedom is the assumption no woman is prepared or would want to parent a child with a disability.
Rosemarie Garland-Thompson
Disability rights advocates argue otherwise. "Somehow, what got written into the idea of reproductive choice and freedom and self determination for women is the assumption that no woman is prepared or would want to parent a child with a disability," Garland-Thompson said.
She acknowledges that there are very real challenges involved in parenting a child with disabilities. Raising special needs children can be enormously resource-intensive, and is often done with limited government or other structural support. The same states that are narrowing abortion access “also offer almost no support for women who need quality care for special needs children,” Hogue observed.
Nicole Cliffe, editor of The Toast and the mother of a special needs child, expressed her frustration this week in a series of tweets. “We fail so terribly not just at providing disability resources, but for providing parents (esp[ecially] ESL parents) with the info to ACCESS them," she wrote. "My child needs such minor support and I do not know how people without money and/or education navigate the paperwork and services and hoops."
"It's days off work, it's out-of-pocket therapies until diagnoses kick in, it's fighting your insurance, it's becoming a full-time advocate," she continued. "A kid with disabilities born into poverty should be able to receive adequate support and care, and we just do not provide that.”
How is it just, abortion rights advocates rightly ask, that the government force women to bring children with disabilities into the world under these circumstances? Garland-Thompson isn’t unsympathetic to this argument, but she notes that it wouldn’t hold water were we to substitute “disability” for race or gender.
She blames the lack of public knowledge about the lives of people with disabilities for the widespread belief that ability-selective abortions are normal, desirable and ethical.
“Reproductive self-determination is understood as a kind of carte blanche for women to exercise basically a kind of set of discriminatory attitudes and practices,” she said.
To allow reproductive justice and disability justice to coexist more harmoniously, Garland-Thompson doesn’t advocate restricting reproductive rights any further than they’ve been curtailed. "I think what we have to do is rescript the story: the story of disability is almost always a grim one, particularly in terms of prognosis,” she says. The solution, she argues, is to expand reproductive choices, “but we expand them in a deliberative way. I don’t think we should have a no-questions-asked abortion policy -- we should have a lot of questions asked after viability.” The decision to terminate a pregnancy, she said, “should be a very deliberative process where there is full consideration of all the possible vectors of consideration for women, rather than just “holy shit, I don’t want to have a disabled kid.’”
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/56b37e051f00007f0021754b.jpeg)
FELIPE DANA/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Daniele Ferreira dos Santos holds her son Juan Pedro, who was born with microcephaly, outside her house in Recife, Pernambuco state, Brazil.
It’s hard to imagine, in the current political climate, how American states might enact policies to genuinely encourage that deliberative process. Disguising hurdles to abortion access as a way of ensuring that women carefully consider their choices -- making them look at the ultrasound image, explaining to them what the fetus looks like -- is a favored tactic of the anti-abortion movement. The result, as Davis says, is that “abortion access has been shrunken down to the size of a postage stamp.” Garland-Thompson is calling for a genuine, non-coercive version of that process, but in the U.S. in 2016, it’s hard to imagine how to protect it from anti-abortion hijacking. She also calls for new policies and systems that will allow all parents, regardless of means and the abilities of their children to flourish.
While that sounds intensely desirable -- as a long-term societal project -- it doesn’t suggest an answer to the fiercely urgent question: what do we do now? What do we do if a few months from now, when mosquito season arrives, hundreds or thousands of low-income women in Texas and Florida find themselves pregnant with fetuses that show severe brain damage? What does ethical behavior look like in the here and now, in this political reality?
As is often the case when it comes to abortion, the stakes are high -- and there are no easy answers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/zika-virus-us-abortion-disability_us_56b2601be4b04f9b57d83192
-
Abortion Activists Trash Doritos Super Bowl Commercial Because It “Humanizes Fetuses”
STEVEN ERTELT, MICAIAH BILGER
FEB 8, 2016
The abortion activists to NARAL were demonstrably upset last night during the Super Bowl — and not because the Denver Broncos beat the Carolina Panthers in the big game seen bi billions of people across the globe.
No, NARAL had a huge problem with a Super Bowl commercial from Doritos, which shows an unborn baby reacting to his father on an ultrasound screen.
The 30-second commercial (see below) shows a father and mother in a doctor’s office watching the ultrasound of their unborn baby boy. As the father snacks on a bag of chips, he notices that his unborn son is reaching out in the womb, grabbing for the snack. As the father moves the chip near his wife’s stomach, the baby reaches out again.
While most viewers probably thought the ad was cute and pro-life viewers appreciated that ultrasound images of unborn children were seen by millions, the pro-abortion stalwarts at NARAL were beside themselves and trashed the ad as “humanizing fetuses.”
Writing at The Federalist, pro-life columnist Mollie Hemingway had this to say in response:
This is what hating babies and the scientific technology that allows us to see them in utero looks like, I guess.
It’s easy to mock the pro-choice activists’ tweets and headlines deriding depictions of the beauty of human lives that result from a good sex life, but it also speaks to a deeper truth. There is no art or beauty in the pro-choice message, which is about ending human lives after they’ve begun and at their most nascent. Abortion is dark and sterile, even when it’s not performed in Gosnell-like conditions. The pro-life message is artistically overwhelming in its combination of reality and possibility.
Still, NARAL should have known that the best course of action when faced with the beauty of human life is simply to be quiet, not showing the world how much it rejects science and wonder.
Peter Carstairs, a Melbourne, Australia filmmaker who created the life-affirming commercial for the contest, said he was inspired after seeing his second child, Freddy, on an ultrasound screen. Carstairs said the ultrasound image that he used in his commercial actually is his son Freddy, who is now 9-months old.
Though Carstairs manipulated his son’s ultrasound image for the commercial, his portrayal of unborn babies isn’t far from the truth. Studies have shown unborn babies reacting to various stimuli in the womb, including music and sound. Researchers also found that unborn babies develop a sense of taste in the womb and learn to recognize the flavors and spices of the culture’s cuisine.
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/08/abortion-activists-trash-doritos-super-bowl-commercial-because-it-humanizes-fetuses/
-
Abortion Clinics Are Closing at a Record Pace
At least 162 providers have closed since 2011.
by Esmé E Deprez
from Bloomberg Businessweek Reprints
February 24, 2016
Abortion access in the U.S. has been vanishing at the fastest annual pace on record, propelled by Republican state lawmakers’ push to legislate the industry out of existence. Since 2011, at least 162 abortion providers have shut or stopped offering the procedure, while just 21 opened.
At no time since before 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion, has a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy been more dependent on her zip code or financial resources to travel. The drop-off in providers—more than one every two weeks—occurred in 35 states, in both small towns and big cities that are home to more than 30 million women of reproductive age.
No region was exempt, though some states lost more than others. Texas, which in 2013 passed sweeping clinic regulations that are under scrutiny by the Supreme Court, saw the most: at least 30. It was followed by Iowa, with 14, and Michigan, with 13. California’s loss of a dozen providers shows how availability declined, even in states led by Democrats, who tend to be friendly to abortion rights.
Stand-alone clinics, not doctors’ offices or hospitals, perform the vast majority of pregnancy terminations. They account for the vast majority of the tally, which was compiled by Bloomberg News over the past three months and builds on a similar undertaking from 2013.
Typically defined by medical researchers as facilities that perform 400 or more abortions per year, the ranks peaked in the late 1980s at 705, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based reproductive-health research organization. By 2011, the most recent year for which Guttmacher has data, that number had fallen to 553.
(http://assets.bwbx.io/images/ibgNWPaqQttM/v1/-1x-1.png)
Bloomberg’s reporting shows that the downward trend has accelerated to the fastest annual pace on record since 2011, with 31 having closed or stopped performing the procedure each year on average.
State regulations that make it too expensive or logistically impossible for facilities to remain in business drove more than a quarter of the closings. Industry consolidation, changing demographics, and declining demand were also behind the drop, along with doctor retirements and crackdowns on unfit providers.
Texas stands as a case study in the way abortion opponents have changed strategies, opting for legislative action over the clinic blockades and violence of the past.
Most providers there closed after the state became the largest and most populous in the U.S. to require that they become hospital-like outpatient surgical centers, which can cost millions to buy or build. The state also mandates that doctors have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The drop-off in access has helped depress the abortion rate in the state by 13 percent, according to a July study, and providers there say full implementation of the law would leave almost a fifth of Texas women 150 miles or more from a facility.
Summit Women’s Center in Bridgeport, Conn., closed in 2015 after 40 years in business, citing reduced demand. In Kalispell, Mont., Susan Cahill said she didn’t have the money to rebuild after her practice got vandalized in 2014. Following the loss of two providers, Missouri is now one of five states in which a sole clinic remains. Of all the facilities in the nation that closed or stopped performing terminations, about a third were operated by Planned Parenthood; of the ones that opened, three-quarters were.
That just 21 new clinics opened in five years underscores the difficulty the industry has faced in replenishing the ranks of health-care providers willing and financially able to operate in such a fraught field. The impact of that challenge is likely to be long-lived: Even rarer than the building of a new clinic is the reopening of one that has shut.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-24/abortion-clinics-are-closing-at-a-record-pace
-
Key Justice Kennedy Wavers as U.S. Top Court Confronts Abortion
Wednesday, 02 Mar 2016
A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court struggled with its biggest abortion case in years on Wednesday, with pivotal Justice Anthony Kennedy voicing concerns about a restrictive Texas law yet stopping short of signaling he would strike it down.
The court's four liberal justices indicated they believed the law, which imposes strict regulations on abortion doctors and clinic buildings, intrudes on a woman's constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in a 1973 ruling.
Conservative justices including Kennedy expressed doubt during the 85-minute oral argument about claims by abortion providers who asserted that the Republican-backed 2013 law forced numerous clinics to shut down.
Kennedy at one point suggested sending the case back to a lower court to get further evidence on the law's impact, including an assessment of the ability of existing Texas clinics to meet the demand for abortions.
If there is evidence new clinics that meet the state's regulations have increased capacity to perform abortions, it would show the law has provided a "beneficial effect," Kennedy said.
The outcome appeared to be in the hands of Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in close rulings. In past abortion cases, he has backed a fundamental right to abortion while supporting some restrictions.
The court was shorthanded with only eight justices following the Feb. 13 death of conservative Antonin Scalia, leaving the liberals and conservatives evenly divided.
The best that supporters of the law could hope for would be a 4-4 split that would let stand a lower-court ruling that affirmed the Texas regulations but set no nationwide legal precedent on whether other states could enact similar measures.
However, a such ruling leaving the Texas law intact could encourage other states with anti-abortion legislatures to pass similar laws.
Kennedy gave little indication he would be willing to uphold the law in full, as his three conservative colleagues would be expected to do. If Kennedy sides with the court's four liberals, the court could either send the case back to the lower court or strike it down.
A ruling is due by the end of June. A decision sending the case to a lower court could mean the dispute might not be resolved for years.
Some justices questioned the lack of evidence on why specific clinics closed after the law was passed, which could be addressed if new legal proceedings take place. Abortion providers assert that the law caused 22 of 41 clinics to close, but the state contests those numbers.
"What is the evidence in the record that the closures are related to the legislation?" conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
Texas contends the law, passed by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor, protects women's health. The abortion providers who have challenged it assert that the regulations are aimed at shutting down their clinics.
MEDICALLY INDUCED ABORTIONS
In a sign that he was not comfortable with aspects of the law, Kennedy sounded concerned about a possible increase in surgical abortions prompted in part by the state's separate new restrictions on medically induced abortions, in which women take pills to terminate a pregnancy. Kennedy said that "this law has really increased the number of surgical procedures as opposed to medical procedures, and that this may not be medically wise."
Abortion rights advocates say surgical abortions increased because of the delays women seeking an abortion faced as a result of the 2013 law.
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the need for a provision of the law requiring clinics to have costly, hospital-grade facilities, when abortions almost always are low-risk procedures for the woman.
"What was the problem the legislature was responding to that it needed to improve the facilities for women's health?" Ginsburg asked.
The Texas law requires abortion doctors to have "admitting privileges," a type of formal affiliation, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic. Abortion providers say the provision already has forced clinics to close because such an affiliation is hard to obtain.
The abortion providers also challenged a provision, not yet in effect, requiring clinics to have hospital-grade facilities with standards for corridor width, plumbing, parking spaces, room size, the spacing of beds and many other attributes.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito indicated support for the regulations and referred to evidence that abortion facilities in Texas "have been cited for really appalling violations when they were inspected: holes in the floor where rats could come in, the lack of any equipment to adequately sterilize instruments."
The Supreme Court's last major abortion ruling came in 2007 when it upheld a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure.
The Supreme Court legalized abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. But abortion remains a disputed issue in the United States, as it does in many countries, and some states have passed laws aiming to place a variety of restrictions on a woman's ability to terminate a pregnancy.
The court is considering the Texas case in the midst of the heated campaign ahead of the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/anthony-kennedy-waivers-abortion/2016/03/02/id/717113/#ixzz41oGGt7OT
-
Why Millennials Lean Pro-Life
Natalie Johnson / @nataliejohnsonn / March 04, 2016
(http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/160304_MillennialsAbortion_Johnson-1250x650.jpg)
Pro-life demonstrators wait for the Supreme Court ruling in the “Hobby Lobby” case to be announced June 30, 2014. (Jonathan Ernst /Reuters/Newscom)
Millennials lean more pro-life than the generation preceding them because of advances in medical technology and science, leaders in conservative media said Friday.
Dana Perino, co-host of Fox News Channel’s “The Five,” moderated the panel on the relevance of conservative principles to the millennial generation.
Perino noted a survey by the Associated Press found a 12 percent decline nationwide in abortions since 2010, including in blue states such as New York, Washington, and Oregon.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
Americans aged 18 to 29, part of the millennial generation, also have become more pro-life than their parents, according to a Gallup poll cited by Perino. In 2010, it found, 24 percent of millennials agreed abortion should remain legal in all cases, compared with 36 percent of those aged 18 to 29 in 1991.
Robert Bluey, editor in chief of The Daily Signal, said the ability for pregnant women to see an ultrasound of their baby in the womb has helped expand the pro-life movement.
“I’m the father of two children and I think when you see that ultrasound and you have that experience … that changes a lot,” Bluey said during a panel discussion at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.
Bluey said pregnancy centers strategically located across from Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics have allowed women to discuss what potentially could be a “challenging situation” and consider options.
Katie Pavlich, editor of Townhall.com and a Fox News contributor, appeared on the panel with Bluey and Benny Johnson, creative director at the Independent Journal Review.
“I’m excited that the millennial generation is pro-life,” Pavlich said. “I think that science has been on our side for a long time on this issue.”
She said the anger from abortion activists after Doritos aired its “ultrasound” commercial during the Super Bowl illustrates how “extreme” the pro-choice movement is.
The ad shows a mother getting an ultrasound while her baby kicks in her womb, supposedly trying to get closer to the expectant, oblivious father who is munching on chips.
NARAL Pro-Choice America, a group that advocates abortion rights, immediately tweeted its opposition to Doritos for “humanizing fetuses.”
She also called on men to join the pro-life movement, pushing back on Johnson for refusing to comment because he is “not a woman.”
“Just because you’re a man doesn’t mean you can’t comment on the issue.”
http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/04/why-millennials-lean-pro-life/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest
-
Abortion a ‘Totally Joyful Experience’ Says Fusion Reporter
By Daniel Garza | March 13, 2016
In the run-up to the United States Supreme Court’s pending decision on the Texas law that mandates stricter medical requirements for abortion facilities, a reporter for Univision’s extreme left sister network, Fusion, has weighed in with her testimony about the ‘joy’ that comes from getting an abortion.
“I had an abortion and it was a totally joyful experience” is the title of the article by Fusion technology reporter Kristen Brown, replete with emojis including multiple smiles, party celebrations and champagne bottles popping.
In her post, Brown does not take into account even one mention of the fact that she is terminating a human life. In Brown’s world, her abortion was comparable to being cured of some disease. The unmentioned child was essentially tantamount to a cancerous tumor, the removal of which would allow her to live her fairytale dream life filled with career success, rainbows and lollipops.
As Brown tells it, she became pregnant after a night of drunken sex with an ex she hooked up with “on yet another friendless Friday night.” “I drank too much. I don’t especially remember how, but we wound up back at his place. I do remember asking him to wear a condom. I also remember being too out of it to effectively protest when he declined. The next day, I made an appointment for an STD test, blocked his number, unfriended him on Facebook, and sincerely hoped to never see him again.”
She unfriended him on Facebook? Wow.
The author’s evident disregard for the psychological aftermath felt after getting an abortion also fails to respect the experiences of many other women. Brown’s narrative does not take into account the fact that women who have an abortion are more likely to commit suicide, are more likely to have mental health issues and are more prone to depression.
It’s also worth noting that the millennial generation Fusion aims to reach is not as pro-choice as Brown would have you believe. Recent trends have shown not only a steady decrease in the amount of abortions occurring, but also a shift in the stance among millennials, with 58% considering abortion doing “more harm than good.”
Below are relevant portions of the referenced March 1, 2016 segment on Fusion:
KRISTEN BROWN, TECHNOLOGY REPORTER, FUSION: …I worried that my life was over. The pregnancy itself made me physically ill, and the worrying only made me sicker. But once I got an abortion, suddenly, everything was fine again. My life went back to normal—actually it was better than that.
…
KRISTEN BROWN, TECHNOLOGY REPORTER, FUSION: I had handled the situation and taken back command of my own body and life. I felt powerful, as if there were no obstacle I couldn’t surmount. I felt a deep sense of freedom, knowing that my only responsibility was to myself. I was overcome with gratitude and optimism and a new-found sense of control. I felt awesome.
…
KRISTEN BROWN, TECHNOLOGY REPORTER, FUSION: My abortion did change me. The ability to choose for myself when and if I want children was empowering—it affirmed for me that I am in control of how I choose to live my life. There are plenty of situations in life in which control is out of our hands, but thanks to laws that recognize my right to do what I want with my own body, this was not one of them. Becoming pregnant was a grief and a blackness. Getting an abortion was just a relief.
…
KRISTEN BROWN, TECHNOLOGY REPORTER, FUSION: Certainly, for some women, the decision to get an abortion is difficult and going through with it can be equally traumatic. For me, though, it was neither. I never wavered in my decision and I have not once regretted it since. The right to make that decision—to take control of my body and my life—allowed me to pursue the life I wanted, and to become the person that I wanted to be. I wouldn’t call that dark or painful. Actually, I think I would call it a joy.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/latino/daniel-garza/2016/03/13/abortion-totally-joyful-experience-says-fusion-reporter
-
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law
By Theodore Schleifer, CNN
UThu March 24, 2016
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150506132844-mike-pence-gallery-1-exlarge-169.jpg)
Gov. Pence speaks at a press conference on March 31, 2015 at the Indiana State Library in Indianapolis.
Washington (CNN)Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on Thursday signed a bill that bars women from seeking an abortion because the child will be born with a disability, a controversial restriction that is one of the tightest abortion laws in the country.
Indiana already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation, and Pence called the bill, House Enrolled Act 1337, a "comprehensive pro-life measure."
"HEA 1337 will ensure the dignified final treatment of the unborn and prohibits abortions that are based only on the unborn child's sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, or disability, including Down syndrome," he said in a statement. "Some of my most precious moments as Governor have been with families of children with disabilities, especially those raising children with Down syndrome."
Pence has never shied away from legislation that advances the agenda of social conservatives, pushing a religious freedom bill last year that some LGBT rights activists claimed promoted discrimination. He later signed into law a "fix" for the bill.
On Thursday, Pence's bill rose into the national political fray, with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders criticizing Pence.
"The decision to have an abortion is for a woman to make, not the Governor of Indiana," Sanders tweeted.
Indiana Right to Life, an anti-abortion group in the state, saluted Pence for forbidding women to discriminate against "the unborn."
"We are pleased that our state values life no matter an individual's potential disability, gender or race," Mike Fichter, the organization's president, said in a statement.
In 2013, North Dakota became the first state in the country to pass a law that banned abortions due to abnormalities in the child's genes, among other restrictions.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/mike-pence-indiana-disability-abortion/index.html
-
Utah Governor Signs Anesthesia Requirement For Some Abortions
Previous state law gave women the choice whether or not to opt for anesthesia.
03/29/2016
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/56fa3c0f150000ad000b3584.jpeg?cache=y2qgukicss)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Utah governor Gary Herbert (R) signed a bill that would make Utah the first state to require doctors to give anesthesia to women having an abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy or later.
(Reuters) - Utah’s governor on Monday signed a bill requiring doctors to administer anesthesia to women receiving an abortion at the 20th week of gestation, his office said.
The bill, the first of its kind in the nation according to the Salt Lake Tribune, states that an anesthetic or analgesic will “eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child.”
“The governor is adamantly pro-life. He believes in not only erring on the side of life, but also minimizing any pain that may be caused to an unborn child,” a spokesman for Republican Governor Gary Herbert said in a statement.
Supporters of the bill and anti-abortion groups say that around the 20th week of pregnancy a fetus can feel physical pain, and anesthesia can eliminate discomfort.
Reproductive health advocates, including Planned Parenthood of Utah, told the Tribune the position is scientifically unproven and lawmakers have inserted politics into a private medical matter.
Under the new law, doctors performing abortions would be required to administer anesthesia to women seeking an elective abortion around 20 weeks. Previous state law gave women the choice whether or not to opt for anesthesia.
Abortions are prohibited in Utah after the point when the fetus is viable, which is around 22 weeks.
The law will not affect a large number of women, the Tribune reported, with 17 women in Utah receiving abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy or later in 2014, it said.
Republican state Senator Curt Bramble, who sponsored the bill, had originally wanted to ban abortions after 20 weeks but was told the move would be unconstitutional, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/utah-abortion-law_us_56fa3b5de4b014d3fe240b0b
-
Planned Parenthood, ACLU Sue Indiana Over Law Banning Abortions of Down Syndrome Babies
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/04/world-down-syndrome-day-poster-640x480.jpg)
world-down-syndrome-day poster
by DR. SUSAN BERRY
8 Apr 20161,523
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky and the ACLU are suing the state of Indiana over its new law that bans abortions sought for genetic abnormalities such as Down syndrome, or for undesirable sex or race.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, also challenges a provision of the law that requires aborted babies to be buried or cremated, a direct response to the practice of abortion clinics contracting with waste management companies that ultimately burn aborted babies with biohazard medical waste.
“The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that a woman, not the state, is to determine whether or not to obtain an abortion,” ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk said, reports CBS News. “The State of Indiana’s attempt to invade a woman’s privacy and to control her decision in this regard is unprecedented and unconstitutional.”
Republican Gov. Mike Pence’s signature on the bill last month made Indiana only the second state in the nation, following North Dakota, to prohibit abortions for fetal abnormalities. The new law sparked a social media campaign called “Periods for Pence,” which asked women to call Pence’s office to talk about their menstrual periods with him.
According to Pence’s deputy press secretary, Stephanie Hodgin, the governor “has every confidence this law is constitutional.”
“We will work with the Attorney General to defend the law that enhances information expectant mothers receive and enhances protection for the unborn,” Hodgin said.
The Indiana attorney general’s office said challenges to new laws are part of the legislative process.
“It is important to recognize that all laws passed by the elected legislators and signed by the Governor are presumed constitutional until a court determines otherwise, and I would ask that everyone respect this legal process,” a statement from the attorney general’s office said.
Indiana Right to Life observed that Planned Parenthood is a key player in the abortion industry and that the lawsuit reflects the organization’s desire to protect its profit margin.
“This is the same song and dance we have seen from the abortion provider anytime they feel their lucrative abortion business is threatened,” the pro-life group’s president Mike Fichter said in a statement. “They oppose any common sense law that protects women and children because they want to protect their bottom line.”
Planned Parenthood claims in its lawsuit that the new law places “undue burden on women’s right to choose an abortion,” and that it violates women’s privacy since the abortion business does not ask women the reason for seeking an abortion. Regarding the mandate to bury or cremate the aborted baby, Planned Parenthood says such a requirement introduces further costs for medical waste.
The Hillary Clinton campaign denounced Indiana’s new abortion law. This past week, Clinton said unborn children have no constitutional rights.
Maya Harris, senior policy adviser for Clinton’s campaign, said:
Once again, Hoosier women’s reproductive rights are under attack, and people across Indiana are rightfully standing up against this unprecedented assault on women. Republicans signed into law one of the country’s most restrictive bills that puts women’s health and rights at risk. Politicians like Governor Pence should not interfere with personal medical decisions, which should be left to a woman, her family and her faith, in consultation with her doctor or health care provider.
Clinton received Planned Parenthood’s first-ever endorsement in a primary. As the Washington Free Beacon reported, “Clinton received financial support from the organization, collecting more than $20,000 from executives and employees of the national organization and its regional affiliates—20 times more money than the rest of the presidential field combined.”
In return, Clinton’s campaign sent four separate payments to Planned Parenthood as “reimbursements for staff time” for get out the vote efforts against Clinton rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
http://www.breitbart.com/abortion/2016/04/08/planned-parenthood-aclu-sue-indiana-law-banning-abortions-syndrome-babies/
-
South Carolina governor signs 20-week abortion ban
Associated Press
Updated May 25, 2016
(http://3shqw4169sd63714s5302bi8.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/web1_20160525_brk_sca01.jpg)
Protesters called for South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to veto a bill that would outlaw most abortions in the state past 19 weeks, today, in Columbia, S.C. The only exceptions would be to save the life of the mother or if the fetus cannot survive outside the womb.
COLUMBIA, S.C. » Republican Gov. Nikki Haley signed legislation today that immediately outlaws most abortions in South Carolina at 20 weeks beyond fertilization.
The only exceptions are if the mother’s life is in jeopardy or a doctor determines the fetus can’t survive outside the womb.
Doctors face up to $10,000 in fines and 3 years in prison for each violation; prison time is mandatory on a third conviction.
These bans are now in effect in at least 13 states and blocked by court challenges in three others. South Dakota’s ban takes effect July 1.
Women nationwide have the right to obtain abortions under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which said states could restrict abortions after viability — the point when a fetus has a reasonable chance of surviving outside the uterus. “Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks,” the ruling said.
The Supreme Court has yet to rule on bans that would limit even earlier abortions.
As in other states, South Carolina’s law ties the fetus’ age to conception, rather than a women’s monthly cycle. But since this date cannot be scientifically pinpointed, the ban actually refers to what doctors consider a gestational age of 22 weeks.
Supporters of the bill cite the disputed claim that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. Opponents say later-term abortions usually happen with wanted pregnancies that go horribly wrong.
“The reality is that abortion later in pregnancy is extremely rare and often takes place in complex and difficult situations where a woman and her doctor need every medical option available,” said Alyssa Miller, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman for South Carolina.
South Carolina’s definition of “fetal anomaly” makes it illegal to abort a fetus with a severe disability if the child could live. Such anomalies are generally detected around 20 weeks.
Advocates for abortion rights contend these measures are aimed at restricting women’s access to a safe, legal abortion.
The sponsor of South Carolina’s law, state Rep. Wendy Nanney, said the killing needs to stop, and sees this law as a step to eventually “get rid of abortion altogether.”
Haley’s signature comes only days after Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed legislation to outlaw the procedure at any stage, by making it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion. Fallin, a Republican who opposes abortion, said the measure would not withstand a legal challenge.
Abortion-rights supporters rallied Tuesday at the Statehouse to ask Haley to veto the measure. But Haley’s signature was no surprise.
“I’m strongly pro-life, very pro-life and not because my party tells me to be, but my husband was adopted, and so every day I know the blessings of having him there,” Haley said during her 2010 campaign for governor.
As a House member that year, Haley voted to end abortion coverage for victims of rape and incest in the state health plan for employees. The Senate defeated that proposal.
In 2012, Haley signed a bill intended to ensure that a fetus surviving an abortion attempt is not treated as medical waste. It defined a person as anyone who is breathing and has a beating heart after birth, whether by labor, cesarean section, or abortion, copying a 2002 federal law enforceable on federal property.
The ban would affect only hospitals, since none of the three abortion clinics in South Carolina provide abortions beyond 15 weeks.
On average, fewer than 30 abortions yearly are performed at 20 weeks gestation or beyond in South Carolina, according to data since 1990 from the state’s public health agency. Most of these women have been white, married and older than 24, according to the agency.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-news/south-carolina-governor-signs-20-week-abortion-ban/
-
Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion law
Published June 27, 2016
FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Texas law regulating abortion clinics, delivering a 5-3 decision that was the high court’s first major foray into the abortion issue in nine years.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion for the court, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joining him. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
"We agree with the District Court that the surgical center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so," Breyer wrote.
President Obama said in a statement that he was "pleased" with the outcome.
"As the brief filed by the Solicitor General makes clear and as the Court affirmed today, these restrictions harm women's health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a woman's reproductive freedom," Obama said. "We remain strongly committed to the protection of women's health, including protecting a woman's access to safe, affordable health care and her right to determine her own future."
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, in a series of Tweets, hailed the decision as "a victory for women" -- but said there's more work to be done.
"This fight isn't over: The next president has to protect women's health. Women won't be 'punished' for exercising their basic rights. -H," Clinton tweeted.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott decried the decision in a statement Monday.
"The decision erodes States’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost," Abbott said. "Texas' goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women."
Texas abortion clinics had challenged a 2013 state law and regulations that cut the number of abortion providers in half, to roughly 20. Fewer than 10 would have remained open if the law was allowed to take full effect. The Center for Reproductive Rights had sued Texas, on behalf of a coalition of abortion clinics.
The Texas law required all clinics performing abortions in the state to operate as certified “ambulatory surgical centers,” which would be regulated under the same standards as hospitals. Doctors who performed abortions were also required to first obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Proponents of the law argued it would improve patient care and safety, though abortion rights groups contended the law made it nearly impossible to operate a clinic in Texas.
"When we decide cases on particularly controversial issues, we should take special care to apply settled procedural rules in a neutral manner," Alito wrote in his dissent. "The Court has not done that here."
Alito also referenced the Kermit Gosnell case, in which an abortion doctor in Pennsylvania was convicted of the murder of three infants who were born alive and the death of a patient. Alito said the Texas law was designed to prevent similarly shoddy medical practices from remaining open.
Thomas quoted the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February, in his dissent.
Thomas wrote that the decision "exemplifies the court's troubling tendency `to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue."'
Several dozen activists on both sides of the abortion issue gathered at the Supreme Court early Monday, chanting, holding signs and awaiting the ruling. Some abortion rights activists played Madonna’s song “Like A Virgin.”
Some court watchers pointed to a decision in the case a year ago, when the court gave a temporary 5-4 victory to the clinics, allowing them to remain fully operational while the Texas law was appealed. One of the dissenters, Scalia, has not yet been replaced on the court. Kennedy, typically thought of as swing vote, voted with the four liberal members of the court to issue that order, just as he did in Monday's decision.
The court had last ruled on abortion in a 2007 case, upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
With the ruling, the eight-person court avoided yet another split decision after twice tying on Thursday in the aftermath of Scalia’s death. President Obama’s nominee to fill Scalia’s seat, Judge Merrick Garland, waits in limbo as the Republican-controlled Senate has refused to give him a hearing or vote during an election year.
The abortion ruling was one of three high-profile cases decided on Monday, likely the final day of the court’s session before a summer break. Decisions on public corruption and guns were also handed down.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/supreme-court-strikes-down-texas-abortion-law.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion law
Published June 27, 2016
FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Texas law regulating abortion clinics, delivering a 5-3 decision that was the high court’s first major foray into the abortion issue in nine years.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion for the court, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joining him. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
"We agree with the District Court that the surgical center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so," Breyer wrote.
President Obama said in a statement that he was "pleased" with the outcome.
"As the brief filed by the Solicitor General makes clear and as the Court affirmed today, these restrictions harm women's health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a woman's reproductive freedom," Obama said. "We remain strongly committed to the protection of women's health, including protecting a woman's access to safe, affordable health care and her right to determine her own future."
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, in a series of Tweets, hailed the decision as "a victory for women" -- but said there's more work to be done.
"This fight isn't over: The next president has to protect women's health. Women won't be 'punished' for exercising their basic rights. -H," Clinton tweeted.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott decried the decision in a statement Monday.
"The decision erodes States’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost," Abbott said. "Texas' goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women."
Texas abortion clinics had challenged a 2013 state law and regulations that cut the number of abortion providers in half, to roughly 20. Fewer than 10 would have remained open if the law was allowed to take full effect. The Center for Reproductive Rights had sued Texas, on behalf of a coalition of abortion clinics.
The Texas law required all clinics performing abortions in the state to operate as certified “ambulatory surgical centers,” which would be regulated under the same standards as hospitals. Doctors who performed abortions were also required to first obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Proponents of the law argued it would improve patient care and safety, though abortion rights groups contended the law made it nearly impossible to operate a clinic in Texas.
"When we decide cases on particularly controversial issues, we should take special care to apply settled procedural rules in a neutral manner," Alito wrote in his dissent. "The Court has not done that here."
Alito also referenced the Kermit Gosnell case, in which an abortion doctor in Pennsylvania was convicted of the murder of three infants who were born alive and the death of a patient. Alito said the Texas law was designed to prevent similarly shoddy medical practices from remaining open.
Thomas quoted the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February, in his dissent.
Thomas wrote that the decision "exemplifies the court's troubling tendency `to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue."'
Several dozen activists on both sides of the abortion issue gathered at the Supreme Court early Monday, chanting, holding signs and awaiting the ruling. Some abortion rights activists played Madonna’s song “Like A Virgin.”
Some court watchers pointed to a decision in the case a year ago, when the court gave a temporary 5-4 victory to the clinics, allowing them to remain fully operational while the Texas law was appealed. One of the dissenters, Scalia, has not yet been replaced on the court. Kennedy, typically thought of as swing vote, voted with the four liberal members of the court to issue that order, just as he did in Monday's decision.
The court had last ruled on abortion in a 2007 case, upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
With the ruling, the eight-person court avoided yet another split decision after twice tying on Thursday in the aftermath of Scalia’s death. President Obama’s nominee to fill Scalia’s seat, Judge Merrick Garland, waits in limbo as the Republican-controlled Senate has refused to give him a hearing or vote during an election year.
The abortion ruling was one of three high-profile cases decided on Monday, likely the final day of the court’s session before a summer break. Decisions on public corruption and guns were also handed down.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/supreme-court-strikes-down-texas-abortion-law.html?intcmp=hpbt1
I bet you are upset. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
I bet you are upset. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Not one bit.
Are you upset about Bernie? Have you apologized to all those people you insulted who disagreed with you about Bernie? :)
-
Not one bit.
Are you upset about Bernie? Have you apologized to all those people you insulted who disagreed with you about Bernie? :)
They should be the ones apologizing to him, though. Now we've got Hillary on the horizon.
-
They should be the ones apologizing to him, though. Now we've got Hillary on the horizon.
The whole situation stinks.
-
The whole situation stinks.
It does. Just unbelievable.
-
Kasich under pressure from both sides as major abortion bills hit desk
By Barnini Chakraborty
Published December 12, 2016
FoxNews.com
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who built a reputation during the raucous GOP presidential primaries as an affable and moderate alternative, is suddenly finding himself at the center of the national abortion debate -- and under pressure to cast a decision bound to make him more unpopular with one side or the other.
Two bills passed by the legislature await his signature or veto. If signed into law, they would become two of the most restrictive time-based abortion measures in the country.
The more controversial is known as the “heartbeat bill.” It would ban abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected -- roughly around the six-week mark. The second prohibits abortions after the 20-week mark in almost all circumstances.
Kasich, who said during the Republican presidential primaries that he’s “pro-life with the exceptions of rape, incest and the life of the mother,” faces a looming deadline for a decision.
After receiving the bills, he has 10 days to sign or veto.
If he does nothing, the bills become law. However, with the "heartbeat bill" which passed as an amendment to another measure, the governor could use his line item veto and nix only the amendment.
The "heartbeat bill" passed last Tuesday, and the 20-week ban passed the following day -- it's unclear when exactly the bills hit Kasich's desk, in turn starting the clock. The deadline to sign could be as early as Friday.
So far, the governor's office has stayed quiet on his intentions.
But anti-abortion advocates are fighting hard against the "heartbeat bill," arguing it would in some cases prohibit abortion before women even realize they are pregnant. Critics argue such a strict cut-off denies women time to weigh their options.
The bill also includes no exceptions for rape or incest and would criminalize the procedure for doctors.
NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland said the bill is “out of touch with Ohio values and is completely unacceptable.”
“Once a woman has made the decision to end a pregnancy, she needs access to safe, legal healthcare in her community,” Copeland said in a written statement. “This bill would effectively outlaw abortion and criminalize physicians that provide this care to their patients.”
If Kasich signs the bill, it would pose a direct challenge to multiple Supreme Court rulings that say women have a constitutional right to abortion until the point of viability, which occurs around 24 weeks.
Similar “heartbeat” bills in North Dakota and Arkansas were blocked by lower courts this year. They were appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the cases in January.
But conservative lawmakers in Ohio say this year may be different.
They point to the presidential election of Donald Trump and cite his campaign promise to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, a 1973 decision that made abortion legal, as a positive sign the legislation has a shot.
“A new president, new Supreme Court appointees change the dynamic, and there was consensus in our caucus to move forward,” Senate President Keith Faber recently told reporters, adding that he believes the bill’s chance of surviving a constitutional challenge is greater now.
But if the measure becomes law, the ACLU has already vowed to fight it.
The ACLU of Ohio tweeted, “Just a reminder, if the unconstitutional #HeartBeatBill passes and become law, we will challenge it in court.”
The Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that supports pro-choice and tracks abortion legislation, said if the measures become law, they would be some of the most restrictive in the land.
In the four decades since Roe v. Wade was handed down, states have enacted 1,074 abortion restrictions. Of those, 288 – or about 27 percent – have been put in place since 2010, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
The 20-week “pain capable” bill, meanwhile, would change the time abortions could be performed to 20 weeks from 26 weeks, which is the current law in Ohio.
Since he’s been in office, Kasich has signed 17 bills sponsored by Ohio Right to Life. If Kasich signs the "pain capable" bill, Ohio would become the 15th state in the nation to pass a 20-week abortion ban.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/12/kasich-under-pressure-from-both-sides-as-major-abortion-bills-hit-desk.html
-
Ohio governor OKs 20-week abortion ban, nixes heartbeat bill
Published December 13, 2016
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Republican Gov. John Kasich signed a bill Tuesday imposing a 20-week abortion ban while vetoing stricter provisions in a separate measure that would have barred the procedure at the first detectable fetal heartbeat.
Kasich acted on both proposals the same day they landed on his desk.
The so-called heartbeat bill would have prohibited most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy — or before many women know they are pregnant. Its provisions cleared the Republican-led Legislature during a lame-duck flurry last week after being tucked into separate legislation.
Similar measures elsewhere have faced legal challenges, and detractors in Ohio feared such legislation would lead to a costly fight in the courts. Opponents predicted it would be found unconstitutional, a concern Kasich shared.
Kasich said the heartbeat provision would have been struck down based on federal court rulings on similar measures elsewhere. Enacting the law would also invite challenges to current Ohio abortion prohibitions and would mean costly litigation.
"The State of Ohio will be the losing party in that lawsuit and, as the losing party, the State of Ohio will be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to cover the legal fees for the pro-choice activists' lawyers," Kasich said.
"Therefore, this veto is in the public interest," the governor said.
Kasich, an abortion-rights opponent, chose instead to sign off on a 20-week ban similar to those now in effect in 15 states and blocked from enforcement in two others. The measures are based on the assertion that fetuses can feel pain then. Opponents have challenged the "pain-capable" characterization as scientifically unsound. Ohio lawmakers rejected a Democratic amendment that would have added exceptions for rape and incest.
Ohio lawmakers still have the option to override his veto. Doing so would require a three-fifths majority of each chamber.
The developments in Ohio are a prelude to a broad offensive to be launched in January by abortion-rights opponents emboldened by the election success of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
GOP lawmakers in numerous states — including Texas, Missouri, Iowa, Indiana and Kentucky — plan to push for new anti-abortion legislation. Their efforts are being supported by a national anti-abortion group, Americans United for Life, which released a report Tuesday contending that many abortion clinics are in violation of state health and safety standards.
In Congress, Republicans are expected to advance legislation banning most abortions after 20 weeks and halting federal funding for Planned Parenthood as long as it performs abortions. The president-elect has pledged to support both measures
The Republican-controlled Ohio Senate acted with initial caution on the divisive heartbeat bill before passing it suddenly last week.
Abortion-rights groups oppose it and Ohio Right to Life, the state's oldest anti-abortion group, has remained neutral because of constitutional questions.
The idea of its backers was to spark a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until viability, usually at 22 to 24 weeks, that would ultimately outlaw abortion nationwide.
Also on Tuesday, the Oklahoma Supreme Court threw out a law requiring abortion clinics to have doctors who have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their facility.
The court ruled that measure, which requires doctors with admitting privileges to be present for abortions, violates both the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions. Republican Gov. Mary Fallin signed it into law in 2014, but courts had blocked it from going into effect. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year struck down a similar provision in Texas.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/13/ohio-governor-oks-20-week-abortion-ban-nixes-heartbeat-bill.html
-
Trump Signs Resolution Overturning Obama Planned Parenthood State Funding Mandate
by Dr. Susan Berry
13 Apr 2017
President Donald Trump signed a resolution Thursday that overturns former President Barack Obama’s rule that forced states to provide family planning grants under Title X to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
In a signing ceremony that was closed to the press, Trump signed H.J. Res. 43, which allows states to withhold federal funds from facilities that provide abortions. In attendance were Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administrator Seema Verma, Susan B. Anthony president Marjorie Dannenfelser, and Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America.
“Prioritizing funding away from Planned Parenthood to comprehensive healthcare alternatives is a winning issue,” said Dannenfelser, reports the Washington Examiner. “We expect to see Congress continue its efforts to redirect additional taxpayer funding away from Planned Parenthood through pro-life healthcare reform after the spring break recess.”
“I think the president’s signature today is an important step and it shows that the president is keeping his campaign promises,” Verma said. “This shows that we want states to be in charge of their own decision making.”
Planned Parenthood tweeted its disapproval of the measure:
The House approved H.J. Res. 43, introduced by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), in February. The resolution used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to rescind the Obama administration rule, enacted during the last days of the former president’s term.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) sponsored the measure in the Senate. Vice President Mike Pence cast a tie-breaking vote at the end of March to enable approval in that chamber after Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against it.
In a floor speech in the House, Black said the purpose of the resolution is to “affirm the right of states to fund the healthcare providers that best suit their needs, without fear of reprisal from their own federal government.”
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the U.S., performing at least 300,000 abortions every year.
About a dozen states have attempted to eliminate Planned Parenthood’s funding in the wake of the release of videos that alleged the group harvests the body parts of babies aborted in its clinics and sells them for profit. These states have attempted to redirect the funding to other community healthcare centers, which provide more expansive services than Planned Parenthood and outnumber the abortion chain by at least 20 to 1.
Despite the overwhelming number of community healthcare centers, however, the Obama administration, an avid supporter of Planned Parenthood, said that by redirecting funding away from the group, the states “have interfered with” low-income individuals’ ability to access federal assistance quickly.
The Heritage Foundation’s Melanie Israel wrote at The Daily Signal the resolution was necessary “to both protect life and reassert that the states have Tenth Amendment rights to allocate Title X family planning grants in such a manner that prioritizes community health clinics and true family planning over the industrial abortion industry as represented by Planned Parenthood.”
“The HHS rule is a classic example of excessive federal rulemaking and executive overreach for partisan political gain, making it a perfect target for nullification under the CRA,” she added.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/13/trump-signs-resolution-overturning-obama-planned-parenthood-state-funding-mandate/
-
Can some fundie on this board explain why they have a problem with contraception and family planning?
I checked the bible but I can't find anything so maybe someone here can explain it
-
Can some fundie on this board explain why they have a problem with contraception and family planning?
I checked the bible but I can't find anything so maybe someone here can explain it
I have no problem with contraception or family planning, can you tell us why institutions who provide female healthcare cannot keep separate accounts for their abortion services?
-
I have no problem with contraception or family planning, can you tell us why institutions who provide female healthcare cannot keep separate accounts for their abortion services?
I'm not familiar with this but you seem to be
can you provide some context or proof of this claim
-
Can some fundie on this board explain why they have a problem with contraception and family planning?
I checked the bible but I can't find anything so maybe someone here can explain it
Lol go hang out with Catholics. My fiancee is Catholic, and they are quite firm on ZERO contraception, ZERO abortion, and ZERO masturbation (at least in our diocese). Even the "pull-out" method is frowned upon.
The Catholic Church's "Natural Family Planning" was way over my head though; vaginal temperature/mucous viscosity/etc. - I tuned out during that lesson...
I could see how putting their money towards that would make them upset, but contraception shouldn't be that big of an issue in politics. However, that's the price we pay for letting government get involved in healthcare. The crazies tend to have loud voices.
-
I still don't understand why Republicans are not more like Tomi Lahren when it comes to abortion
-
I'm not familiar with this but you seem to be
can you provide some context or proof of this claim
Of course you're not, why would you need to be educated on a subject before having an opinion?
-
I still don't understand why Republicans are not more like Tomi Lahren when it comes to abortion
I actually agree with this, I wouldn't want someone i know to have an abortion unless their health was an issue but if you're for small government then its hard to see how you justify being against it.
I also think that men need to be equally represented in the process and not made to take a backseat. How you do that I don't know, forcing the women to pay the man if she has an abortion she wants and he doesn't...iono
-
Of course you're not, why would you need to be educated on a subject before having an opinion?
I'm not educated on the subject of their accounting fucktard
I'm assuming you are since you made the claim that they don't keep separate accounts for their abortion services?
Is this one the many things you just assume and then state as a fact
Seems totally ridiculous to me that they wouldn't have every service they provide documented just like any other medical provider but since YOU made the claim how about you actually show some proof
Shit, haven't we been down this same road about a thousand times now
-
I actually agree with this, I wouldn't want someone i know to have an abortion unless their health was an issue but if you're for small government then its hard to see how you justify being against it.
I also think that men need to be equally represented in the process and not made to take a backseat. How you do that I don't know, forcing the women to pay the man if she has an abortion she wants and he doesn't...iono
I know how. Allow either party to "opt out" before birth. If the man does not want the baby, let him opt out with no penalty if she decides to have it. If the man wants the baby and she does not, have him find a new girlfriend or wife. He should not be able to force her to have the baby unless she agrees and she can also opt out and pass the burden on him totally. Pretty simple stuff really.
-
I know how. Allow either party to "opt out" before birth. If the man does not want the baby, let him opt out with no penalty if she decides to have it. If the man wants the baby and she does not, have him find a new girlfriend or wife. He should not be able to force her to have the baby unless she agrees and she can also opt out and pass the burden on him totally. Pretty simple stuff really.
This is one subject you and I agree on.
I've given McTones that simple and obvious answer ad nauseum.
He seems to just not understand that getting a woman pregnant does not convey ownership interest of her womb to the man.
-
I'm not educated on the subject of their accounting fucktard
I'm assuming you are since you made the claim that they don't keep separate accounts for their abortion services?
Is this one the many things you just assume and then state as a fact
Seems totally ridiculous to me that they wouldn't have every service they provide documented just like any other medical provider but since YOU made the claim how about you actually show some proof
Shit, haven't we been down this same road about a thousand times now
What % of planned parent hood comes from abortion services?
-
This is one subject you and I agree on.
I've given McTones that simple and obvious answer ad nauseum.
He seems to just not understand that getting a woman pregnant does not convey ownership interest of her womb to the man.
LMFAO no ive never said that, my point has always been that the women should have to pay the man if she doesn't want it and he does
-
LMFAO no ive never said that, my point has always been that the women should have to pay the man if she doesn't want it and he does
if she doesn't want it then she can get an abortion
-
if she doesn't want it then she can get an abortion
No you garner her paycheck just like they do for guys, how is this a difficult concept for you to grasp?
-
No you garner her paycheck just like they do for guys, how is this a difficult concept for you to grasp?
Why would the "garner" her paycheck if she had an abortion
Seems you're still having a problem understanding that
-
Why would the "garner" her paycheck if she had an abortion
Seems you're still having a problem understanding that
If the man wanted the child and she chose not to keep it then yes
-
we're talking about conception by rape
do you understand?
Is there any other kind?
-
If the man wanted the child and she chose not to keep it then yes
???
LOL WTF? That is some bizarre shit right there.
-
As disgusting as his view is, logically he is right. But they're both essentially infanticide.
Univ. Chicago Prof Argues for Morality of Infanticide by Logic of Abortion Rights
by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.
25 Jul 2017
In a recent blogpost, University of Chicago Professor Jerry Coyne contends that if abortion is morally acceptable there is no reason to condemn infanticide.
If you are allowed to abort a fetus, Coyne argues, “then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?”
“I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral,” he writes.
Of course, Coyne adds qualifiers, speaking specifically of a child with “a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on,” but the core of his logic does not depend on this. The fact remains, if one may abort a fetus for whatever the reason may be, then why not a newborn baby? The only thing that changes as far as the baby is concerned is her environment (mother’s womb or crib).
Atheist author Richard Dawkins has referred to Coyne’s work to bolster his claim that an unborn baby with Down syndrome should be aborted because it would be “immoral to bring it into the world.”
According to Coyne, who teaches in UC’s department of ecology and human evolution, killing an unborn fetus does not differ morally from killing a newborn infant, since their level of sentience and awareness of the world is virtually identical and interchangeable.
“After all,” he writes, “newborn babies aren’t aware of death, aren’t nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments.”
The question then becomes, what motivation might justify the killing of an infant. Here Coyne states that it “makes little sense to keep alive a suffering child who is doomed to die or suffer life in a vegetative or horribly painful state.” Euthanasia by lethal injection is a better option, he proposes.
And yet one may well wonder why such an extreme situation is morally required in order to take the life of an infant. If one may legally abort a fetus up until childbirth for any reason whatsoever, why must there be a higher moral bar for justifying infanticide? Why aren’t parents or doctors morally justified in taking the life of an infant born into poverty, or as the child as a single teenager, or simply because the child has come at an inconvenient time?
According to Coyne’s logic, it should make no difference.
“It’s time to add to the discussion the euthanasia of newborns, who have no ability or faculties to decide whether to end their lives,” Coyne proposes. “Although discussing the topic seems verboten now, I believe some day the practice will be widespread, and it will be for the better.”
Although some people may find Coyne’s conclusions to be abhorrent, his basic logic is airtight. If we accept the moral justification for abortion, it makes no sense not to allow infanticide as well.
Which should lead right-thinking people to ask not whether infanticide might be a morally acceptable procedure, but whether abortion itself has any moral justification other than the logic of raw power over those unable to speak or defend themselves.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/25/univ-chicago-prof-argues-for-morality-of-infanticide-by-logic-of-abortion-rights/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
Life begins when your check is cashed on the filing fee for your Articles of Incorporation
;D
-
"What kind of society do you want to live in?": Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing
By JULIAN QUINONES, ARIJETA LAJKA CBS NEWS
August 14, 2017
"CBSN: On Assignment" airs Mondays at 10 p.m. ET/PT on CBS and on our streaming network, CBSN. Explore more on this topic in our "Behind the Lens" report.
With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland.
Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women -- close to 100 percent -- who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.
While the tests are optional, the government states that all expectant mothers must be informed about availability of screening tests, which reveal the likelihood of a child being born with Down syndrome. Around 80 to 85 percent of pregnant women choose to take the prenatal screening test, according to Landspitali University Hospital in Reykjavik.
"CBSN: On Assignment" headed to Iceland with CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano to investigate what's factoring into the high termination rates.
Using an ultrasound, blood test and the mother's age, the test, called the Combination Test, determines whether the fetus will have a chromosome abnormality, the most common of which results in Down syndrome. Children born with this genetic disorder have distinctive facial issues and a range of developmental issues. Many people born with Down syndrome can live full, healthy lives, with an average lifespan of around 60 years.
Other countries aren't lagging too far behind in Down syndrome termination rates. According to the most recent data available, the United States has an estimated termination rate for Down syndrome of 67 percent (1995-2011); in France it's 77 percent (2015); and Denmark, 98 percent (2015). The law in Iceland permits abortion after 16 weeks if the fetus has a deformity -- and Down syndrome is included in this category.
With a population of around 330,000, Iceland has on average just one or two children born with Down syndrome per year, sometimes after their parents received inaccurate test results. (In the U.S., according to the National Down Syndrome Society, about 6,000 babies with Down syndrome are born each year.)
"Babies with Down syndrome are still being born in Iceland," said Hulda Hjartardottir, head of the Prenatal Diagnosis Unit at Landspitali University Hospital, where around 70 percent of Icelandic children are born. "Some of them were low risk in our screening test, so we didn't find them in our screening."
When Thordis Ingadottir was pregnant with her third child at the age of 40, she took the screening test. The results showed her chances of having a child with Down syndrome were very slim, odds of 1 in 1,600. However, the screening test is only 85 percent accurate. That year, 2009, three babies were born with Down syndrome in Iceland, including Ingadottir's daughter Agusta, who is now 7.
According to Ingadottir, three babies born with Down syndrome is "quite more than usual. Normally there are two, in the last few years." Since the birth of her daughter, Ingadottir has become an activist for the rights of people with Down syndrome.
As Agusta grows up, "I will hope that she will be fully integrated on her own terms in this society. That's my dream," Ingadottir said. "Isn't that the basic needs of life? What kind of society do you want to live in?"
Geneticist Kari Stefansson is the founder of deCODE Genetics, a company that has studied nearly the entire Icelandic population's genomes. He has a unique perspective on the advancement of medical technology. "My understanding is that we have basically eradicated, almost, Down syndrome from our society -- that there is hardly ever a child with Down syndrome in Iceland anymore," he said.
Quijano asked Stefansson, "What does the 100 percent termination rate, you think, reflect about Icelandic society?"
"It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling," he said. "And I don't think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable. … You're having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way."
Stefansson noted, "I don't think there's anything wrong with aspiring to have healthy children, but how far we should go in seeking those goals is a fairly complicated decision."
According to Hjartardottir, "We try to do as neutral counseling as possible, but some people would say that just offering the test is pointing you towards a certain direction." Indeed, more than 4 out of 5 pregnant women in Iceland opt for the prenatal screening test.
For expectant mother Bergthori Einarsdottir, who chose to have the test, knowing that most women did so helped steer her decision. "It was not pressure, but they told me that most women did it," she said. "It did affect me maybe a little bit."
Over at Landspitali University Hospital, Helga Sol Olafsdottir counsels women who have a pregnancy with a chromosomal abnormality. They speak to her when deciding whether to continue or end their pregnancies. Olafsdottir tells women who are wrestling with the decision or feelings of guilt: "This is your life — you have the right to choose how your life will look like."
She showed Quijano a prayer card inscribed with the date and tiny footprints of a fetus that was terminated.
Quijano noted, "In America, I think some people would be confused about people calling this 'our child,' saying a prayer or saying goodbye or having a priest come in -- because to them abortion is murder."
Olafsdottir responded, "We don't look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended. We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication... preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder -- that's so black and white. Life isn't black and white. Life is grey."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/
-
Oregon abortion law funds procedures for illegal immigrants
By Paulina Dedaj
Published August 17, 2017
Fox News
Oregon has passed the nation’s most progressive abortion bill, requiring state insurers to provide free abortions for all, including illegal immigrants.
Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat, signed the historic health bill Tuesday, after the Legislature approved it in July. It would require Oregon insurance companies to cover reproductive procedures, all on the taxpayers' dime.
The $10.2 million bill takes effect immediately, allocating $500,000 for abortions for the estimated 22,873 women eligible under the Oregon health plan, the Washington Times reported. This will include abortions for immigrants who are otherwise ineligible under the state’s Medicaid program.
Opponents argued that the bill will force people who morally object to abortions to assume some of the costs. They also predicted that lawsuits will quickly follow, arguing that the new law violates the Weldon Amendment, a 2004 congressional provision that prohibits Health and Human Services funds for states that discriminate against health care providers that refuse to cover abortions, the Washington Times further reported.
Providence Health Care, a nonprofit Catholic health care provider that is also the only insurer operating in Oregon that does not cover abortions, will have its expenses reimbursed by the state.
Two other states, California and New York, also require state insurers to cover abortion.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/17/oregon-abortion-law-funds-procedures-for-illegal-immigrants.html
-
Oregon abortion law funds procedures for illegal immigrants
By Paulina Dedaj
Published August 17, 2017
Fox News
Oregon has passed the nation’s most progressive abortion bill, requiring state insurers to provide free abortions for all, including illegal immigrants.
Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat, signed the historic health bill Tuesday, after the Legislature approved it in July. It would require Oregon insurance companies to cover reproductive procedures, all on the taxpayers' dime.
The $10.2 million bill takes effect immediately, allocating $500,000 for abortions for the estimated 22,873 women eligible under the Oregon health plan, the Washington Times reported. This will include abortions for immigrants who are otherwise ineligible under the state’s Medicaid program.
Opponents argued that the bill will force people who morally object to abortions to assume some of the costs. They also predicted that lawsuits will quickly follow, arguing that the new law violates the Weldon Amendment, a 2004 congressional provision that prohibits Health and Human Services funds for states that discriminate against health care providers that refuse to cover abortions, the Washington Times further reported.
Providence Health Care, a nonprofit Catholic health care provider that is also the only insurer operating in Oregon that does not cover abortions, will have its expenses reimbursed by the state.
Two other states, California and New York, also require state insurers to cover abortion.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/17/oregon-abortion-law-funds-procedures-for-illegal-immigrants.html
Free abortions for all
This is great news !!!
Thanks for posting Bum
-
India Supreme Court Allows 13yo to Abort 32-Week Pregnancy
By Solange Reyner | Wednesday, 06 Sep 2017
A 13-year-old girl who said she was raped by her father's colleague has received permission from the Supreme Court of India to terminate her 32-week pregnancy, the BBC reported Wednesday.
The court had rejected a similar petition by a 10-year-old girl several weeks earlier, as India law does not allow abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy. The 13-year-old girl's pregnancy was detected at 27 weeks after her parents took her to her doctor for obesity treatments.
"This is a pathbreaking judgment by the Supreme Court," Nikhil Datar, the Mumbai-based gynecologist who discovered the pregnancy, told Reuters.
"I hope the Supreme Court now gives directions to the government to make amendments to India's abortion law."
Child sexual abuse is a major problem in India, with one in every two children reported as victims, according to a survey conducted by humanitarian aid organization World Vision India that surveyed 45,844 respondents. One in five respondents said they do not feel safe because of the fear of being sexually abused.
"Despite one in every two children being a victim of child sexual abuse, there continues to be a huge silence," World Vision India National Director Cherian Thomas said recently in India. "The magnitude of sexual violence against children is unknown."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/india-child-abuse-sexual-abuse-rape/2017/09/06/id/812059/
-
Cecile Richards on DACA: 'Every Person Has a Right to Live'
Lauretta Brown Lauretta Brown |Posted: Sep 06, 2017
Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, sent out a fundraising email Tuesday about President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program which allows certain immigrants, who had arrived in the country illegally as minors, the ability to remain without risk of deportation.
The abortion giant’s leader said, “here at Planned Parenthood, we firmly believe that every person has the right to live, work, and raise a family freely and without the threat of deportation or separation.”
Many on Twitter pointed out the irony of the language Richards chose, since those in the pro-life movement emphasize the unborn child’s “right to live.”
Follow
Heritage Foundation ✔ @Heritage
Well, not *everyone.* https://twitter.com/kgscanlon/status/905167867280326656 …
10:46 AM - Sep 5, 2017
27 27 Replies 182 182 Retweets 360 360 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Erielle Davidson ✔ @politicalelle
Irony is dead. https://twitter.com/kgscanlon/status/905167867280326656 …
8:54 PM - Sep 5, 2017
7 7 Replies 40 40 Retweets 84 84 likes
5 Sep
Kate Scanlon ✔ @kgscanlon
Planned Parenthood fundraising email: “We firmly believe that every person has the right to live” pic.twitter.com/yLwEhiufaK
Cameron Gray ✔ @Cameron_Gray
And PETA just endorsed bacon
10:42 AM - Sep 5, 2017
3 3 Replies 39 39 Retweets 274 274 likes
5 Sep
Kate Scanlon ✔ @kgscanlon
Planned Parenthood fundraising email: “We firmly believe that every person has the right to live” pic.twitter.com/yLwEhiufaK
Steve Ahlers @Steve_Ahlers
Sounds like PP is making a strong case against PP.
12:23 PM - Sep 5, 2017
Replies 9 9 Retweets 89 89 likes
Richards also said in the email that Trump’s decision to end DACA was “an attack that will leave 800,000 young people who have grown up in this country at risk of deportation, including members of the Planned Parenthood community.”
“I’m infuriated,” she said. “I’m heartbroken. But I’m sure about one thing: Planned Parenthood stands with DREAMers, the young people in this community who are the future of this country.”
She added that DACA “has helped so many young DREAMers access health care, get driver’s licenses, receive an education, and work to provide for their families — and without DACA, their fate and ability to remain in this country is unknown.”
Richards did not talk about every person’s “right to live” in the official Planned Parenthood press release on the DACA decision but called the decision one that “will rip millions of families apart and do irreparable harm to communities that already face discrimination and barriers to accessing health care in this country.”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2017/09/06/cecile-richards-on-daca-every-person-has-a-right-to-live-n2377769
-
Illinois GOP Gov. Rauner faces conservative fury for expanding taxpayer-funded abortions
Fox News
Illinois GOP Gov. Bruce Rauner’s decision to expand taxpayer-funded abortions has sparked outrage from state and congressional Republicans who say he flip-flopped on the issue and are now hinting at a primary challenge.
The backlash built last week after the first-term governor signed a bill allowing state health insurance and Medicaid coverage for abortions. It spread this week to Capitol Hill, where the state's entire House Republican delegation blasted the decision.
“In a reversal of long-standing Illinois policy, Governor Rauner has let down Illinois taxpayers and the unborn by signing” the state bill, GOP Reps. Peter Roskam, John Shimkus, Randy Hultgren, Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger, Darin LaHood and Mike Bost said in a statement.
Republican sits down with Bret Baier to discuss illegal immigration policy, state budget crisis on 'Special Report'Video
Illinois Gov. Rauner talks Chicago's sanctuary city fight
The lawmakers issued the statement Tuesday, the same day they and other Republicans in the GOP-controlled House voted overwhelmingly to impose criminal penalties on anybody who performs or attempts to perform an abortion on a fetus after 20 weeks -- with exceptions for incest, rape and saving the mother’s life.
HOUSE PASSES 20-WEEK ABORTION BAN
The pushback from state Republicans to the governor's decision was more immediate and visceral. Illinois state GOP Rep. Peter Breen argued that Rauner, in signing the bill, double-crossed voters, GOP state legislators and even Chicago's Cardinal Blasé Cupich. Rauner reportedly had pledged earlier to oppose the measure.
“I mean, you lied to a priest,” Breen told a local radio station. “This guy is done.”
'Governor Rauner has let down Illinois taxpayers and the unborn.'
- Statement from Illinois' U.S. House Republicans
Breen said the bill signing was “the straw, for me, that broke the camel’s back” and claimed it has badly damaged Rauner’s credibility and political future.
He also suggested a Rauner primary challenge in 2018 was “inevitable” but that he doesn’t plan to mount one, in liberal-leaning Illinois.
State Rep. Jeanne Ives said she “wouldn’t rule out” running against Rauner, who is seeking a second term, according to Politico.
Rauner campaign spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski issued a statement saying voters know Rauner "is leading the effort to overcome [Speaker] Mike Madigan's political machine and deliver more jobs, better results for taxpayers and term limits."
Rauner, a former venture capitalist with a massive reelection war chest, also upset conservative and other critics in August when he signed a plan that limits the role local and state police play in cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
And in July, the Democratic-controlled General Assembly overrode his gubernatorial veto to allow a multibillion-dollar tax increase, further upsetting conservative critics .
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/04/illinois-gop-gov-rauner-faces-conservative-backlash-for-signing-abortion-law.html
-
Late-Term Abortion Clinic Opens Its Doors In Maryland
GRACE CARR
Reporter
10/17/2017
Wildwood Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., opened a new late-term abortion clinic on Tuesday.
Pro-life protesters are expected to make an appearance at the abortion clinic, especially given the fact that it will administer what it deems as “advanced gestation abortion” per it’s website description. The website also lists nearby hotels that women coming to get late-term abortions can stay at before and after their procedure.
The Maryland Coalition for Life indicated it will hold a prayer vigil at the clinic at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, according to Bethesda Magazine. The Maryland Coalition for Life had a contract to purchase the building, according to The Washington Post, but lost the space after a separate management company leased the building directly to AbortionClinic.org.
The clinic lists its abortion services, which include the medical abortion pill, first trimester surgical abortions, second trimester multi-day abortions, induction abortions, maternal/fetal indication abortions, and self-induced abortions.
Women who have gotten abortions at Nebraska’s clinic described some of their experiences on the website. “Thank you for helping women like myself get a second chance. Allowing us to have a CHOICE,” wrote one woman. “You’re not alone. Life throws us curve balls sometimes, but bad times don’t last forever. So swing and hope for your homerun ladies!” wrote another.
“They genuinely care about each and every person that walks through those doors … and they actually completely took my mind off the fact that I’m here!” wrote a third.
AbortionClinics.org operates one other clinic in Bellevue, Neb.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/17/late-term-abortion-clinic-opens-it-doors-in-maryland/
-
"What kind of society do you want to live in?": Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing
By JULIAN QUINONES, ARIJETA LAJKA CBS NEWS
August 14, 2017
"CBSN: On Assignment" airs Mondays at 10 p.m. ET/PT on CBS and on our streaming network, CBSN. Explore more on this topic in our "Behind the Lens" report.
With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland.
Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women -- close to 100 percent -- who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.
While the tests are optional, the government states that all expectant mothers must be informed about availability of screening tests, which reveal the likelihood of a child being born with Down syndrome. Around 80 to 85 percent of pregnant women choose to take the prenatal screening test, according to Landspitali University Hospital in Reykjavik.
"CBSN: On Assignment" headed to Iceland with CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano to investigate what's factoring into the high termination rates.
Using an ultrasound, blood test and the mother's age, the test, called the Combination Test, determines whether the fetus will have a chromosome abnormality, the most common of which results in Down syndrome. Children born with this genetic disorder have distinctive facial issues and a range of developmental issues. Many people born with Down syndrome can live full, healthy lives, with an average lifespan of around 60 years.
Other countries aren't lagging too far behind in Down syndrome termination rates. According to the most recent data available, the United States has an estimated termination rate for Down syndrome of 67 percent (1995-2011); in France it's 77 percent (2015); and Denmark, 98 percent (2015). The law in Iceland permits abortion after 16 weeks if the fetus has a deformity -- and Down syndrome is included in this category.
With a population of around 330,000, Iceland has on average just one or two children born with Down syndrome per year, sometimes after their parents received inaccurate test results. (In the U.S., according to the National Down Syndrome Society, about 6,000 babies with Down syndrome are born each year.)
"Babies with Down syndrome are still being born in Iceland," said Hulda Hjartardottir, head of the Prenatal Diagnosis Unit at Landspitali University Hospital, where around 70 percent of Icelandic children are born. "Some of them were low risk in our screening test, so we didn't find them in our screening."
When Thordis Ingadottir was pregnant with her third child at the age of 40, she took the screening test. The results showed her chances of having a child with Down syndrome were very slim, odds of 1 in 1,600. However, the screening test is only 85 percent accurate. That year, 2009, three babies were born with Down syndrome in Iceland, including Ingadottir's daughter Agusta, who is now 7.
According to Ingadottir, three babies born with Down syndrome is "quite more than usual. Normally there are two, in the last few years." Since the birth of her daughter, Ingadottir has become an activist for the rights of people with Down syndrome.
As Agusta grows up, "I will hope that she will be fully integrated on her own terms in this society. That's my dream," Ingadottir said. "Isn't that the basic needs of life? What kind of society do you want to live in?"
Geneticist Kari Stefansson is the founder of deCODE Genetics, a company that has studied nearly the entire Icelandic population's genomes. He has a unique perspective on the advancement of medical technology. "My understanding is that we have basically eradicated, almost, Down syndrome from our society -- that there is hardly ever a child with Down syndrome in Iceland anymore," he said.
Quijano asked Stefansson, "What does the 100 percent termination rate, you think, reflect about Icelandic society?"
"It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling," he said. "And I don't think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable. … You're having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way."
Stefansson noted, "I don't think there's anything wrong with aspiring to have healthy children, but how far we should go in seeking those goals is a fairly complicated decision."
According to Hjartardottir, "We try to do as neutral counseling as possible, but some people would say that just offering the test is pointing you towards a certain direction." Indeed, more than 4 out of 5 pregnant women in Iceland opt for the prenatal screening test.
For expectant mother Bergthori Einarsdottir, who chose to have the test, knowing that most women did so helped steer her decision. "It was not pressure, but they told me that most women did it," she said. "It did affect me maybe a little bit."
Over at Landspitali University Hospital, Helga Sol Olafsdottir counsels women who have a pregnancy with a chromosomal abnormality. They speak to her when deciding whether to continue or end their pregnancies. Olafsdottir tells women who are wrestling with the decision or feelings of guilt: "This is your life — you have the right to choose how your life will look like."
She showed Quijano a prayer card inscribed with the date and tiny footprints of a fetus that was terminated.
Quijano noted, "In America, I think some people would be confused about people calling this 'our child,' saying a prayer or saying goodbye or having a priest come in -- because to them abortion is murder."
Olafsdottir responded, "We don't look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended. We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication... preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder -- that's so black and white. Life isn't black and white. Life is grey."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/
Wow, this is sad.
-
Left Using Illegal Immigrant To Push U.S.-Sponsored Abortions For Non-Citizens
At issue is whether the United States will expand its mission to ending the lives of preborn infants for all those who travel here illegally.
By Kristan Hawkins
OCTOBER 18, 2017
The story of a pregnant teenager, an illegal alien, has captured attention as the American Civil Liberties Union and abortion industry argue the United States should open its doors to all seeking abortion. Naturally, they believe that U.S. taxpayers ultimately should pay for it.
At issue is whether the United States will expand its mission to ending the lives of preborn infants for all those who travel here illegally, whether the United States should become the home base of International Abortion Inc.
The Central American teen illegally entered the United States through Texas, where state officials placed her in a private facility contracted by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. According to reports, the girl said she sought an abortion because she was worried her parents might abuse her if they found out she was pregnant.
Because Texas law requires either parental or judicial signoff for an underage girl seeking an abortion, attorneys intervened to get a judge’s permission. However, Texas officials refused to allow the girl to be taken from state care to an abortion facility. Instead, they arranged for the young girl to talk with pregnancy care center volunteers to let her know her options were more than the death of her unborn child.
Do Foreigners Have a Right to U.S. Abortions?
Courageously, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton weighed in on the case in an amicus brief, noting “(n)o federal court has ever declared that unlawfully-present aliens with no substantial ties to this country have a constitutional right to abortion on demand. The Court should decline to break that new ground.”
The establishment of some of universal right to abortion would add a whole new income stream for the abortion industry and new taxpayer burden, even before we consider the morality of becoming a destination for worldwide abortion. Attorneys general of Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Carolina joined Paxton in opposing this unprecedented expansion of abortion.
Lost in this conflict is a discussion of how best to help this young girl. A real person behind the headlines needs care and guidance, not abortion. It’s a tragedy that the abortion industry will use this young girl to try and create a “safe haven” for abortion in the United States rather than trying to empower her future and the future of her unborn child.
The ACLU is not only seizing on this opportunity to push for expanded abortion access, it also wants to add the girl to a current lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, even though they are not the caretakers for the teenager. Faith-based organizations are, however, on the forefront of care for immigrants.
Rather than embracing this long-term partnership between people of faith and immigrants in need, the ACLU wants to strip organizations like the Catholic bishops of federal funding for refugee and immigrant aid because they refuse to allow refugees and immigrants in their care to procure abortions due to church teaching on abortion. It is of course this respect for the dignity of human life that informs both the church’s role in resettling refugees and immigrants and its role in opposing abortion.
The Ultimate Goal: An International Jane Roe
Fundamentally, the ACLU and the lucrative abortion industry want to turn this teenager into an international Jane Roe, to create new court-mandated Roe v. Wade of sorts, requiring that U.S. taxpayers and governments facilitate the abortions of all who happen to be in the United States
Now, the billion-dollar abortion industry could donate their “services” or fundraise to pay for international abortions. Instead, their consistent push is to “show them the money.” While they are fundraising from this case, claiming some monies will go to the girl, in fact, a so-called “right” to abortion for illegal aliens will result in major bills for U.S. taxpayers on behalf of non-citizens. As Paxton wrote in his brief: “Granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction would create a right to abortion for anyone on Earth who entered the United States illegally, no matter how briefly. And with that right, countless others undoubtedly would follow.”
There are many great reasons to immigrate to the United States, but abortion should not be one of them. Shame on the ACLU and abortion industry for putting the future of a teenager in a virtual tug-of-war in court as a ploy to get their hands on even more money.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/18/left-using-illegal-immigrant-push-u-s-sponsored-abortions-non-citizens/
-
Left Using Illegal Immigrant To Push U.S.-Sponsored Abortions For Non-Citizens
At issue is whether the United States will expand its mission to ending the lives of preborn infants for all those who travel here illegally.
By Kristan Hawkins
OCTOBER 18, 2017
The story of a pregnant teenager, an illegal alien, has captured attention as the American Civil Liberties Union and abortion industry argue the United States should open its doors to all seeking abortion. Naturally, they believe that U.S. taxpayers ultimately should pay for it.
At issue is whether the United States will expand its mission to ending the lives of preborn infants for all those who travel here illegally, whether the United States should become the home base of International Abortion Inc.
The Central American teen illegally entered the United States through Texas, where state officials placed her in a private facility contracted by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. According to reports, the girl said she sought an abortion because she was worried her parents might abuse her if they found out she was pregnant.
Because Texas law requires either parental or judicial signoff for an underage girl seeking an abortion, attorneys intervened to get a judge’s permission. However, Texas officials refused to allow the girl to be taken from state care to an abortion facility. Instead, they arranged for the young girl to talk with pregnancy care center volunteers to let her know her options were more than the death of her unborn child.
Do Foreigners Have a Right to U.S. Abortions?
Courageously, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton weighed in on the case in an amicus brief, noting “(n)o federal court has ever declared that unlawfully-present aliens with no substantial ties to this country have a constitutional right to abortion on demand. The Court should decline to break that new ground.”
The establishment of some of universal right to abortion would add a whole new income stream for the abortion industry and new taxpayer burden, even before we consider the morality of becoming a destination for worldwide abortion. Attorneys general of Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Carolina joined Paxton in opposing this unprecedented expansion of abortion.
Lost in this conflict is a discussion of how best to help this young girl. A real person behind the headlines needs care and guidance, not abortion. It’s a tragedy that the abortion industry will use this young girl to try and create a “safe haven” for abortion in the United States rather than trying to empower her future and the future of her unborn child.
The ACLU is not only seizing on this opportunity to push for expanded abortion access, it also wants to add the girl to a current lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, even though they are not the caretakers for the teenager. Faith-based organizations are, however, on the forefront of care for immigrants.
Rather than embracing this long-term partnership between people of faith and immigrants in need, the ACLU wants to strip organizations like the Catholic bishops of federal funding for refugee and immigrant aid because they refuse to allow refugees and immigrants in their care to procure abortions due to church teaching on abortion. It is of course this respect for the dignity of human life that informs both the church’s role in resettling refugees and immigrants and its role in opposing abortion.
The Ultimate Goal: An International Jane Roe
Fundamentally, the ACLU and the lucrative abortion industry want to turn this teenager into an international Jane Roe, to create new court-mandated Roe v. Wade of sorts, requiring that U.S. taxpayers and governments facilitate the abortions of all who happen to be in the United States
Now, the billion-dollar abortion industry could donate their “services” or fundraise to pay for international abortions. Instead, their consistent push is to “show them the money.” While they are fundraising from this case, claiming some monies will go to the girl, in fact, a so-called “right” to abortion for illegal aliens will result in major bills for U.S. taxpayers on behalf of non-citizens. As Paxton wrote in his brief: “Granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction would create a right to abortion for anyone on Earth who entered the United States illegally, no matter how briefly. And with that right, countless others undoubtedly would follow.”
There are many great reasons to immigrate to the United States, but abortion should not be one of them. Shame on the ACLU and abortion industry for putting the future of a teenager in a virtual tug-of-war in court as a ploy to get their hands on even more money.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/18/left-using-illegal-immigrant-push-u-s-sponsored-abortions-non-citizens/
Federal court clears way for immigrant teen to get abortion
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court on Tuesday cleared the way for a 17-year-old immigrant held in custody in Texas to obtain an abortion.
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 6-3 that new dates should be set for the teen to obtain the procedure. The decision overruled a ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that at least temporarily blocked her from getting an abortion. Tuesday's decision could still be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The teen, whose name and country of origin have been withheld because she's a minor, is about 15 weeks pregnant. She entered the U.S. in September and learned she was pregnant while in federal custody in Texas.
She obtained a state court order Sept. 25 permitting her to have an abortion. But federal officials have refused to transport her or temporarily release her so that others may take her to have an abortion.
Lawyers for the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for sheltering children who illegally enter the country unaccompanied by a parent, have said the department has a policy of "refusing to facilitate" abortions and that releasing the teenager would require arranging a transfer of custody and follow-up care.
The teenager's lawyers have said all the government needed to do was "get out of the way." An attorney appointed to represent the teen's interests has said she could transport her to and from appointments necessary for the procedure, and the federal government would not have to pay for it.
A federal judge sided with the teen and set dates for the procedure last week, but the government appealed. The three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled 2-1 on Friday that the government should have until Oct. 31 to release the teen, so she could obtain the abortion outside government custody.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/24/federal-court-clears-way-for-immigrant-teen-to-get-abortion.html
-
Federal judge blocks Texas' law banning 'barbaric' second-trimester abortion procedure
By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News
A new Texas law banning a second-trimester abortion practice was blocked by a federal judge on Wednesday, claiming the ban puts "undue burden" on Women in the Lone Star state.
Austin-based U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel extended indefinitely the ban he issued in August for the law outlawing the second-trimester abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation following lawsuits by Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The judge said the provisions in the law “are facially unconstitutional” and it “intervenes in the medical process of abortion prior to viability in an unduly burdensome manner.”
Pro-life groups have opposed the dilation and evacuation procedure on the grounds that it is inhumane and brutal as doctors use surgical instruments to remove pieces of fetal tissue, the Texas Tribune reported.
Yeakel wrote in the ruling that the Supreme Court has already ruled on second-trimester abortions in the past and in all cases the court found that “the law imposed an undue burden on a woman seeking a pre-fetal-viability abortion.”
"The court concludes that requiring a woman to undergo an unwanted, risky, invasive, and experimental procedure in exchange for exercising her right to choose an abortion, substantially burdens that right,” the judge added.
The dilation and evacuation procedure is used in most second-trimester abortions, but they only constitute 10 percent of all abortions performed, Reuters reported.
The law was supposed to come into effect last September after Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed it in June. Texas already filed an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, but the effort will likely face obstacles as four other states had already blocked a similar initiative.
The ruling follows an extensive trial earlier this month, when Texas defended the ban on “the barbaric practice” while pro-abortion groups argued that the ban puts undue burden on women seeking abortions as without the banned procedure it increases health risks.
“A five-day trial in district court allowed us to build a record like no other in exposing the truth about the barbaric practice of dismemberment abortions,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement.
“We are eager to present that extensive record before the 5th Circuit. No just society should tolerate the tearing of living human beings to pieces.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/23/federal-judge-blocks-texas-law-banning-barbaric-second-trimester-abortion-procedure.html
-
Pa. gov says he'll veto 20-week abortion ban passed by legislature
BY JESSIE HELLMANN - 12/13/17
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) vowed to veto a bill passed by the state's legislature that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
"This bill is an attack on women, and it should never have reached my desk," Wolf tweeted Wednesday.
"I will veto it, because all Pennsylvania women deserve to make their own health care decisions."
The Republican-controlled House passed the bill by a vote of 121-70 Tuesday after it passed the Senate earlier this year.
Under current Pennsylvania law, abortions aren't permitted after 24 weeks, but there are exceptions if the life of the mother is endangered.
The bill would move that limit up to 20 weeks and keep the current exceptions. It doesn't allow exceptions for rape or incest.
Supporters argue that with advances in technology and medicine, fetuses can now survive after 20 weeks.
Opponents argue the decision should be left to the parents.
At the national level, the U.S. House passed a similar bill earlier this year, with a vote in the Senate expected early next year.
However, because Republicans only have a slim majority in the Senate, it's not expected to pass.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/364713-pa-gov-says-hell-veto-20-week-abortion-ban-passed-by-legislature
-
Bill banning Down syndrome abortions passes in Ohio, heads to Kasich's desk
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News
The GOP-led Ohio state Senate on Wednesday passed a ban on abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, and Republican Gov. John Kasich has sent signals that he will soon sign the measure into law.
Lawmakers voted 20-12 in favor of the ban, which would prohibit doctors from performing an abortion if doctors know that it is being sought, "in whole or in part," to avoid a Down syndrome pregnancy.
Doctors who violate the ban would lose their medical license and face a fourth-degree felony charge, including up to a $5,000 fine and 18 months in prison. Mothers would not be punished by the law.
Three Republicans voted against the measure, which was opposed by all of the state Senate’s Democratic lawmakers.
The bill has also divided the disability community in Ohio, with some disability advocates testifying against the proposal because, they said, it prioritizes Down syndrome over other disabilities.
"This bill sends a very clear message, that some disabilities are more worthy of life than others and that one disability -- Down syndrome -- is the most worthy," Jane Gerhardt, a woman whose daughter suffers from Down syndrome, testified Tuesday, according to local reports.
The ACLU has characterized the bill as an unconstitutional effort to usurp well-established abortion rights.
ACLU
✔
@ACLU
Don't be fooled. Ohio's latest abortion ban isn't about fighting discrimination, it's about pushing abortion out of reach. https://www.thecut.com/2017/10/down-syndrome-abortion-ban-women-explain.html …
10:28 AM - Nov 30, 2017
3 Women on Banning Abortions for Down Syndrome
Three women who received prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome discuss their views.
thecut.com
12 12 Replies 129 129 Retweets 224 224 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
A group of abortion-rights activists staged a silent protest in the Senate chamber after the Down syndrome bill’s approval, standing in a row wearing T-shirts that spelled out "Stop the Bans."
The legality of aborting fetuses with Down syndrome, a genetic abnormality that causes developmental delays and other serious medical problems, has recently been debated in other states. Indiana and North Dakota already have passed laws like the one that Ohio is advancing.
The Indiana measure, enacted in 2016, was blocked by a federal judge on constitutional grounds after a lawsuit by the ACLU. An appeal by state officials is pending.
The 2013 North Dakota law has not been challenged, so courts have not yet had the ability to rule on its constitutionality. The state’s sole abortion clinic, in Fargo, says the issue hasn’t arisen under its policy of not performing abortions after 16 weeks into a pregnancy.
The Ohio vote was a key policy victory for Ohio Right to Life, the state’s oldest and largest anti-abortion group.
“Both the House and the Senate sent a loud message that we are a society built on compassion, love, equality,” said president Mike Gonidakis. “We expect Governor Kasich will sign this legislation, as he said he would in 2015. Every Ohioan deserves the right to life, no matter how many chromosomes they have.”
Kasich’s spokesman declined to say what the governor would do. Kasich has said in recent weeks that he thought the measure seemed “appropriate,” but that he would review it when he received it.
Last December, Kasich vetoed the so-called "Heartbeat Bill," which would have banned abortions after a heartbeat is detected -- typically about six weeks into a pregnancy.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/14/bill-banning-down-syndrome-abortions-passes-in-ohio-heads-to-kasichs-desk.html
-
Kasich signs Ohio law banning abortions for Down syndrome
BY JESSIE HELLMANN - 12/22/17
Ohio became the third state Friday to ban abortions after a diagnosis of Down syndrome.
Gov. John Kasich (R) signed a bill that would make it a fourth-degree felony for a doctor to perform an abortion if there is a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis.
The doctor could face up to 18 months in prison. There is no punishment for the woman.
The law will take effect in March.
Anti-abortion rights advocates say abortions because of Down syndrome are discrimination and cheered Kasich's decision Friday.
“Ohio has given unborn children with Down syndrome and their families an early Christmas present and created a safe haven from lethal discrimination,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.
Opponents argue the law will prevent women from making their own decisions on their pregnancies.
"When a woman receives a diagnosis of Down syndrome during her pregnancy, the last thing she needs is Gov. Kasich barging in to tell her what's best for her family," said NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland.
The law could face legal challenges.
A similar law was struck down in Indiana in September by a U.S. District Judge after a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/366201-kasich-signs-law-banning-abortions-over-down-syndrome-diagnosis
-
Kasich signs Ohio law banning abortions for Down syndrome
BY JESSIE HELLMANN - 12/22/17
Ohio became the third state Friday to ban abortions after a diagnosis of Down syndrome.
Gov. John Kasich (R) signed a bill that would make it a fourth-degree felony for a doctor to perform an abortion if there is a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis.
The doctor could face up to 18 months in prison. There is no punishment for the woman.
The law will take effect in March.
Anti-abortion rights advocates say abortions because of Down syndrome are discrimination and cheered Kasich's decision Friday.
“Ohio has given unborn children with Down syndrome and their families an early Christmas present and created a safe haven from lethal discrimination,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.
Opponents argue the law will prevent women from making their own decisions on their pregnancies.
"When a woman receives a diagnosis of Down syndrome during her pregnancy, the last thing she needs is Gov. Kasich barging in to tell her what's best for her family," said NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland.
The law could face legal challenges.
A similar law was struck down in Indiana in September by a U.S. District Judge after a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/366201-kasich-signs-law-banning-abortions-over-down-syndrome-diagnosis
Ah, the party of small government and personal responsibility... not only telling you who, when and how to fuck but also limiting you from making decisions about yourself, your "unborn child" and your family in general.
I believe most states have "safe haven" laws that allow one to surrender a newborn at "safe" locations (fire departments, etc) with no questions asked. Women and/or couples forced to carry a baby to term, instead of being allowed to have an abortion, ought to simply take advantage of this program and start turning those newborns in. Soon enough, the "pro-lifers" will change their tune.
-
They want you to have it, they won't help once it's born... I love me some right wing govment.
-
Well, if you drop it off at their doorstep (which they do allow) they have to do something about it. Wouldn't want to look too hypocritical. Once they start having to care for a lot, they'll have to get the money from somewhere, and all of a sudden Mr. and Mrs. Fervent Christian will have to pay more in taxes, at which point you can be sure that they'll start complaining. It won't be long before their Pastor will start claiming that these children, these angels really, ought not to have to live through this evil world and that scripture says they ought to be allowed to return to the Lord, where they'll be completely unfettered from the crud Satan put in their chromosome 21. Let's not forget Luke 13:30: "Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last." And we all know those poor, abandoned angels are last, aren't they? It's the sign of a fallen society. Can I get an amen?
-
Well, if you drop it off at their doorstep (which they do allow) they have to do something about it. Wouldn't want to look too hypocritical. Once they start having to care for a lot, they'll have to get the money from somewhere, and all of a sudden Mr. and Mrs. Fervent Christian will have to pay more in taxes, at which point you can be sure that they'll start complaining. It won't be long before their Pastor will start claiming that these children, these angels really, ought not to have to live through this evil world and that scripture says they ought to be allowed to return to the Lord, where they'll be completely unfettered from the crud Satan put in their chromosome 21. Let's not forget Luke 13:30: "Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last." And we all know those poor, abandoned angels are last, aren't they? It's the sign of a fallen society. Can I get an amen?
Amen
-
were you quoting the bible or The Ghost of Tom Joad?
He pulls a prayer book out of his sleeping bag
Preacher lights up a butt and he takes a drag
Waiting for when the last shall be first and the first shall be last
In a cardboard box 'neath the underpass
You got a one-way ticket to the promised land
You got a hole in your belly and a gun in your hand
Sleeping on a pillow of solid rock
Bathing in the city's aqueduct
-
Well, if you drop it off at their doorstep (which they do allow) they have to do something about it. Wouldn't want to look too hypocritical. Once they start having to care for a lot, they'll have to get the money from somewhere, and all of a sudden Mr. and Mrs. Fervent Christian will have to pay more in taxes, at which point you can be sure that they'll start complaining. It won't be long before their Pastor will start claiming that these children, these angels really, ought not to have to live through this evil world and that scripture says they ought to be allowed to return to the Lord, where they'll be completely unfettered from the crud Satan put in their chromosome 21. Let's not forget Luke 13:30: "Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last." And we all know those poor, abandoned angels are last, aren't they? It's the sign of a fallen society. Can I get an amen?
Are you assuming that all or a significant number of these kids will wind up on public assistance?
-
Are you assuming that all or a significant number of these kids will wind up on public assistance?
I'm saying that if the government prevents women from having an abortion after a diagnosis of Down syndrome, then a womn that is forced to carry a baby with Down syndrome to term ought to avail herself of laws which allow them to drop the baby off at a "safe haven" location. Do you really think that babies with Down syndrome are high on the adoption list? I don't have actual data, but I'm betting that the answer is no. Unless I'm wrong then where do you think those children will end up, if not as wards of the state?
-
Kasich signs Ohio law banning abortions for Down syndrome
BY JESSIE HELLMANN - 12/22/17
Ohio became the third state Friday to ban abortions after a diagnosis of Down syndrome.
Gov. John Kasich (R) signed a bill that would make it a fourth-degree felony for a doctor to perform an abortion if there is a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis.
The doctor could face up to 18 months in prison. There is no punishment for the woman.
The law will take effect in March.
Anti-abortion rights advocates say abortions because of Down syndrome are discrimination and cheered Kasich's decision Friday.
“Ohio has given unborn children with Down syndrome and their families an early Christmas present and created a safe haven from lethal discrimination,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.
Opponents argue the law will prevent women from making their own decisions on their pregnancies.
"When a woman receives a diagnosis of Down syndrome during her pregnancy, the last thing she needs is Gov. Kasich barging in to tell her what's best for her family," said NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland.
The law could face legal challenges.
A similar law was struck down in Indiana in September by a U.S. District Judge after a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/366201-kasich-signs-law-banning-abortions-over-down-syndrome-diagnosis
The law will DEFINITELY face legal challenges and almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional (assuming we still care about that in the era of Trump)
I'm guessing Kasich only signed this because he's going to be running for POTUS in a year or so and needs to appeal to fundies
-
Pro-Life Leader Says Trump Is Reversing Abortion Policy
DAVID KRAYDEN
Ottawa Bureau Chief
01/20/2018
Tony Perkins, the pro-life leader who heads the Family Research Council, says there has never been a “better political climate” to roll-back abortion. Speaking to The Daily Caller Friday after the annual March for Life, Perkins noted, “The sun was shining today and we’ve never had better weather for the March for Life; but we’ve also never enjoyed a better political climate to promote pro-life polices.”
The reason for the favorable political environment is President Donald Trump, says Perkins. Trump addressed the march via satellite, and on Friday a White House news release entitled “President Donald J. Trump is Standing Up for the Sanctity of Life” explained how the current administration is working to restrict abortion services: “Today, the Department of Health and Human Services is announcing a proposal to revise its conscience regulations to protect President Trump’s promise to enforce Federal conscience and religious freedom protections.”
The provisions include “restricting taxpayer funds, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare, from being used by entities with discriminatory polices or convictions.”
Perkins says the Trump presidency has been the most effective pro-life administration since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision made abortion legal in the U.S. “Under previous pro-life presidents, we’ve seen abortion legislation stopped or slowed down; we’ve rarely seen it reversed.”
Like most pro-life leaders, Perkins remains committed to overturning Roe v. Wade but he says the “chipping away” of the abortion industry will continue at the state and federal level. Perkins noted that current technology is also demonstrating that life begins at conception, intensifying the argument that abortion is the murder of the unborn.
“You cannot make abortion morally right even if you make it legal,” he says.
Perkins contrasted Trump’s enthusiastic embrace of the pro-life movement to the hostility that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has demonstrated, including a recent decision to cut-off some government funding for groups who oppose abortion. But he cautions that former president Barack Obama was not much better.
“Obama was moving in the same direction of forcing Americans to support abortion. Fortunately, he didn’t get the job done.”
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/20/pro-life-leader-says-trump-is-reversing-abortion-policy/
-
Dems block 20-week abortion ban
BY JESSIE HELLMANN - 01/29/18
Democrats blocked a bill on Monday that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks, a blow to anti-abortion groups that considered its passage a top priority for Congress in 2018.
The bill, authored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), was unable to get the 60 votes necessary to end a filibuster and proceed to a vote, meaning the bill is effectively dead in the upper chamber.
The bill failed with a 51-46 vote. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) were among those who voted "no." Alabama Sen. Doug Jones (D), who recently won in a special election against Republican candidate Roy Moore, also voted "no."
Graham's bill had little chance of passing the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority. It sailed through the House on a party-line vote, 237-189, in October.
Most Democrats voted against the bill Monday, except for Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Bob Casey (Pa.), all of whom are facing tough reelection bids in November.
The legislation would have made it illegal for any person to perform or attempt an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with the possible penalty of five years in prison, fines or both. A woman seeking an abortion would not be penalized.
About 20 states already have similar bans. Republicans and anti-abortion activists argue the bill is necessary because advances in science and medicine make it possible for babies born prematurely to survive earlier than in previous years.
A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 found that a small minority of babies born at 22 weeks were able to survive with few health problems.
“We’re trying to proceed to make sure that America will be a better place, that we become part of the mainstream of the world when it comes to protecting unborn children in the fifth month of presidency,” Graham said.
President Trump, speaking at the March for Life earlier this month, urged the Senate to pass the bill, declaring that he was with the "pro-life" movement "all the way."
"It is disappointing that despite support from a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators, this bill was blocked from further consideration," Trump said in a statement following Monday's vote. "The vote by the Senate rejects scientific fact and puts the United States out of the mainstream in the family of nations, in which only 7 out of 198 nations, including China and North Korea, allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. We must defend those who cannot defend themselves. I urge the Senate to reconsider its decision and pass legislation that will celebrate, cherish, and protect life."
Democrats and abortion rights activists, however, argue abortions after 20 weeks are rare and such bans would infringe on a woman's right to make her own health care decisions.
“It goes against the Constitution, against medical experts, and against the rights of women across the country,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Health Committee.
Democrats also criticized Republicans for holding a vote on a bill that won’t pass instead of focusing on more pressing issues, like reaching a spending deal by Feb. 8, when the government will run out of money.
While the bill failed to pass Monday, anti-abortion groups plan to use it to hit vulnerable Democrats up for reelection in 2018.
A similar bill failed in the Senate in 2015.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/371269-dems-block-20-week-abortion-ban
-
Mississippi passes law banning abortion after 15 weeks
by ASSOCIATED PRESS
MAR 8 2018
JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi lawmakers on Thursday passed what is likely to be the nation’s most restrictive abortion law, making the procedure illegal after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The House voted 75-34 in favor of the measure, and Gov. Phil Bryant has said he will sign it.
The owner of Mississipi's only abortion clinic has said she'll sue if the bill goes into law — a move lawmakers not only know to expect, but seem to be encouraging, in hopes of eventually getting the nation's highest court to revisit its rulings and allow states to begin restricting abortion earlier in pregnancy.
"It seems like a pretty simple bill designed to test the viability line that the Supreme Court has drawn," said David Forte, a law professor at Ohio's Cleveland State University.
There are two exceptions to House Bill 1510: if the fetus has a health problem that would prevent it from surviving outside the womb at full term, or if the pregnant woman’s life or a “major bodily function” is threatened by the pregnancy. Pregnancies as a result of rape and incest are not exempt.
A number of states, including Mississippi, have already tiptoed up to the viability line with 20-week bans, although the U.S. Senate earlier this year rejected such a ban nationwide when supporters couldn't reach a 60-vote supermajority to act.
Related: This doctor just explained late-term abortion on Twitter
An appeals court in 2015 struck down efforts in North Dakota to ban most abortions after six weeks, when a fetus develops a detectable heartbeat, and in Arkansas after 12 weeks. Abortion rights supporters are dubious that the outcome in Mississippi would be any different.
"The Supreme Court has said and resaid again and again that states cannot prohibit women from obtaining abortions prior to viability, which is what a 15-week ban would do," said Hillary Schneller, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights. The New York-based group, which advocates for free access to abortion, called the bill unconstitutional and “medically unsound.”
Mississippi’s own 20-week ban has never been legally challenged, in part because the state’s only abortion clinic, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, doesn’t perform abortions that late in pregnancy. According to state Department of Health statistics, 85 percent of abortions in Mississippi took place before 12 weeks in 2016.
But Diane Derzis, who owns the clinic, has said the clinic does provide abortions until about 18 weeks after pregnancy. Most of Mississippi’s 2,500 abortions in 2015 took place at the clinic.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mississippi-passes-law-banning-abortion-after-15-weeks-n854941
-
Federal Judge Blocks Mississippi’s 15 Week Abortion Ban
GRACE CARR
Reporter
03/20/2018
A federal judge on Tuesday halted a Mississippi law prohibiting doctors from performing abortions after 15 weeks in pregnancy, less than a day after its governor signed the measure into law.
U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves granted a temporary restraining order following a lawsuit filed immediately after Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the measure into law Monday — meaning the law is ineffective, according to ABC News. Jackson Women’s Health Organization owner Diane Derzis, who runs the only remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi, filed the suit.
The restraining order comes after Mississippi became the first state to pass such a restrictive abortion law. Bryant signed House Bill 1510, which bans women from having abortions after 15 weeks gestation unless the unborn baby is not expected to live outside the womb or if continuing the pregnancy jeopardizes the woman’s life.
“It’s a great day in Mississippi,” Republican Miss. Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves tweeted Monday after the law passed.
A woman past 15 weeks pregnant is scheduled for a Tuesday afternoon abortion, according to Jackson Women’s Health Organization’s Dr. Sacheen Carr-Ellis. The patient will be able to proceed with the abortion now that House Bill 1510 has been blocked.
Currently, no states ban abortion before 20 weeks of pregnancy.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/20/mississippi-judge-abortion-ban/
-
Supreme Court rejects challenge to Arkansas abortion law
BY LYDIA WHEELER - 05/29/18
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a challenge to an Arkansas law that would impose restrictions on abortion pills, clearing the way for the measure to go into effect.
As is custom, the court did not provide an explanation as to why it refused to hear the appeal brought by Planned Parenthood, which warned that the law would make Arkansas the only state to effectively ban medication-induced abortions.
The measure, passed in 2015, imposes criminal penalties on doctors who provide medication-induced abortions unless they have a signed contract with a physician who has active admitting privileges at a hospital.
Medication-induced abortion involves the combination of two pills, called mifepristone and misoprostol. Planned Parenthood said that in 2014 alone it accounted for 45 percent of all abortions in the U.S. before nine weeks gestation.
“Protecting the health and well-being of women and the unborn will always be a priority,” Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) said Tuesday after the Supreme Court decision. “We are a pro-life state and always will be as long as I am Attorney General.”
Planned Parenthood had argued the law was strikingly similar to a measure in Texas that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. That law required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, a requirement the court said constituted an undue burden on abortion access.
Rutledge maintained that the Arkansas law, known as the Abortion-Inducing Drugs Safety Act, only requires such abortion providers to have a contractual relationship with a physician in case follow-up treatment is needed.
Lawmakers said the law was needed to protect women's health, after finding that abortion-inducing drugs present significant medical risks, including abdominal pain, cramping, vomiting, headache, fatigue, uterine hemorrhage, viral infections and pelvic inflammatory disease.
Planned Parenthood said Tuesday it plans to take its case back down to the district court.
“Arkansas is now shamefully responsible for being the first state to ban medication abortion,” Planned Parenthood executive vice president Dawn Laguens said in a statement.
“This dangerous law immediately ends access to safe, legal abortion at all but one health center in the state. If that’s not an undue burden, what is? This law cannot and must not stand.”
The district court had originally issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law, saying it would force clinics to stop offering abortion services.
But the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out that decision, saying the district court needed to determine how many women would be unduly burdened by the state's requirement.
In October, the appeals court granted Planned Parenthood’s request to put the ruling on hold while the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Pro-life advocates hailed the Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday, calling the court's refusal to take up the challenge to the Arkansas law a victory for women.
Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, told The Hill she hopes legislators in all 50 states will take a look at health and safety standards designed to protect women.
“It’s up to legislators to decide which approach they want … This law merely said in an emergency there needs to be a plan in place to make sure women don’t bleed to death,” she said.
But NARAL Pro-Choice America argued the Arkansas law, and a separate state law requiring women to receive certain state-mandated information 48 hours before an abortion, could force some women to travel hundreds of miles to receive an abortion.
“Seven in 10 Americans believe that abortion should remain legal and accessible, yet the anti-choice GOP remains obsessed with ignoring the will of the people and using every tool at their disposal, including the courts, to chip away at our fundamental rights,” the group’s spokeswoman Kaylie Hanson Long said in a statement.
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/389679-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-abortion-law
-
Is this legit??
CALIFORNIA: PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST PROUDLY BREAKS WORLD RECORD BY GETTING HER 27TH ABORTION
A 34-year-old Pro-Choice activist has officially broken a world record after receiving her 27th abortion.
The historic operation was performed at the Sacramento Street Health Center and required Elena Travis, 34, to visit the abortion clinic three consecutive times because she was 24 weeks pregnant.
Elena Travis, 34, a medical school student who hopes to one day perform abortions herself, believes abortion is a right and hopes to inspire other women to have it practiced on them by showing others that it is a safe and healthy procedure.
“I feel great. I love the feeling of being pregnant, but I would never want to bring a newborn baby into this miserable world,” she told reporters.
Medical staff at the Sacramento Street Health Center required the abortion be performed in three consecutive operations due to the fact that Ms. Travis was 24 weeks pregnant at the time.
“If abortion is murder, then I’m a mass murderer,” she told reporters jokingly.
Elena Travis had her first abortion at the age of 9 and says abortions have since been the ideal solution for her since she reacts negatively to birth control and emergency contraceptive pills.
Although Travis says she loves the feeling of being pregnant and bearing life within her womb, she says she realizes that giving birth would only doom her child to “a life of misery and suffering” and be “an extra burden for the planet.”
“I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby. I can give life and then take it away,” she added.
Other Pro-Choice activists on social media have even compared her to legendary feminists such as Margaret Sanger and Margaret Thatcher, although she claims she is just doing her part to make the world a better place.
https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/california-pro-choice-activist-proudly-breaks-world-record-by-getting-her-27th-abortion/
-
Is this legit??
Well, that you felt compelled to ask that question suggests it probably isn’t. But let’s see.
CALIFORNIA: PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST PROUDLY BREAKS WORLD RECORD BY GETTING HER 27TH ABORTION
Uhm, just the title suggests that “no, it fucking isn’t”.
https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/california-pro-choice-activist-proudly-breaks-world-record-by-getting-her-27th-abortion/
Dude, seriously? I mean come on. Even if the content of the article and the wording didn’t give it away, and even if you didn’t know that this site is a known satire/parody site, the fucking website has this disclaimer:
”World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any person, living, dead or undead, is purely a miracle.”
Even if you missed that, simply typing “is world news daily report legit” on Google would have given you the answer!
It scares me to think you’re probably representative of the average American.
-
Well, that you felt compelled to ask that question suggests it probably isn’t. But let’s see.
Uhm, just the title suggests that “no, it fucking isn’t”.
Dude, seriously? I mean come on. Even if the content of the article and the wording didn’t give it away, and even if you didn’t know that this site is a known satire/parody site, the fucking website has this disclaimer:
”World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any person, living, dead or undead, is purely a miracle.”
Even if you missed that, simply typing “is world news daily report legit” on Google would have given you the answer!
It scares me to think you’re probably representative of the average American.
You typed all that just to point it is a satirical website? How will I ever recover? ::) I would thank you for this if you didn't act like such an arrogant punk when taking so much time to point this out. lol
-
You typed all that just to point it is a satirical website? How will I ever recover? ::) I would thank you for this if you didn't act like such an arrogant punk when taking so much time to point this out. lol
I typed all that (took all of 45 seconds) because you’ve done this shit before and have been called out for it repeatedly, asshole.
I’m not sure if you do it because your memory is not working, or because you are too stupid to understand that this is a satirical website, or because you’re just don’t care about posting nonsense and asking “zomg is this like for realz u guyzzz?!?!?”
I’m not sure and I don’t much care. But if you think that I won’t call you out for it when I come across it, prepare to be disappointed.
-
I typed all that (took all of 45 seconds) because you’ve done this shit before and have been called out for it repeatedly, asshole.
I’m not sure if you do it because your memory is not working, or because you are too stupid to understand that this is a satirical website, or because you’re just don’t care about posting nonsense and asking “zomg is this like for realz u guyzzz?!?!?”
I’m not sure and I don’t much care. But if you think that I won’t call you out for it when I come across it, prepare to be disappointed.
Listen you pseudo-intellectual, you don't impress me. Take your high and mighty attitude and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. (I didn't time this, but I think it took me less than a minute.)
-
Listen you pseudo-intellectual, you don't impress me. Take your high and mighty attitude and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. (I didn't time this, but I think it took me less than a minute.)
I don’t need to impress you, bub. And I don’t need to stay quiet when you post bullshit. If you don’t like it, tough.
-
I don’t need to impress you, bub. And I don’t need to stay quiet when you post bullshit. If you don’t like it, tough.
Good because you don’t. I don’t give a rip how loud or quiet you are. But as I’ve said before, you are one angry little buggah. You should consider smoking dope or something. I hear it makes people pretty mellow.
-
Catholic Leaders Decry ‘Extreme Pro-Abortion Shift’ in Democrat-Run House
(https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/01/Pelosi-for-Planned-Parenthood-640x480.png)
Pelosi for Planned ParenthoodAssociated Press/Drew Angerer
12 Jan 201913
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has wasted no time in passing pro-abortion legislation, an “extreme shift” denounced by Catholic leaders.
When the House passed a bill to fund the government last week, it not only omitted financing for a border wall, it also expanded taxpayer funding for abortion.
“They’re making this one of their conditions to reopen the government, which is a pretty extreme position to say, ‘We’re going to force funding, U.S. taxpayer dollars, to promote abortion overseas as part of our foreign policy,’” said Maureen Ferguson, senior policy adviser for the Catholic Association.
“The bill would have ended Trump’s “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” policy that blocks taxpayer funds to nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas,” notes an article this week in the National Catholic Register. “It also increased funding by $5 million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which Trump had previously cut off due to UNFPA’s participation in coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization in China.”
Many Catholic groups have expressed concern over the “extreme pro-abortion shift” enacted by the Democratic majority in the House, the article stated.
The Democrats’ party platform has become “rabidly pro-abortion,” said Tom McClusky, the president of March for Life Action and pro-life Democrats have become a dying breed in danger of extinction.
“We have seen the number of pro-life Democrats dwindle from, at one point, over 40 to just two: Reps. Lipinski and Peterson,” McClusky said.
Abortion has become so central to the Democrat Party platform, that being a pro-life Democrat sounds like an oxymoron.
“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” DNC chairman Tom Perez famously said in 2017. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”
“At a time when women’s rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country,” he added, “we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.”
Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., one of the two pro-life Democrats and a Catholic, said that he will keep fighting to allow space in the party for pro-lifers.
“They need to stop pushing pro-life Democrats out of the party,” he said. “I faced a very serious primary challenge last time and expect I may face one again, largely based on the abortion issue and the question of whether or not a Democrat can be pro-life.”
Although the Democratic Party’s pro-abortion platform was galvanized in 1992, when the Party refused to allow the late Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania to give a speech against abortion at its National Convention, it has now become a fundamental pillar of the Party.
The 2016 platform of the Democratic Party was called “the most pro-abortion platform in history,” and the President of NARAL Pro-Choice America Ilyse Hogue praised the 55-page document “far and away the most progressive platform on reproductive health, freedom and justice in the history of the party.”
“We just need to keep speaking out about the horrors of abortion,” Lipinski said, “and that being pro-life is being pro-woman — but politically we may see some tough times in the next couple of years.”
Greg Schleppenbach, the associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that a top priority of the bishops is “to protect all pro-life policies from being repealed or weakened, including the Mexico City Policy, Hyde Amendment and other policies that prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion or its promotion.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/12/catholic-leaders-decry-extreme-pro-abortion-shift-in-democrat-run-house/
-
New York’s Abortion Problem
By KATIE YODER
January 10, 2019
(https://i2.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/abortion-protester.jpg?resize=789%2C460&ssl=1)
A pro-abortion rights protester holds a sign in Queens, New York October 20, 2012. (Andrew Kelly/REUTERS)
Law and government ought to cherish and protect life and its continuation. That’s why shielding abortion — which ends human lives — insults the system. But politicians currently are fixated on making abortion still more easily accessible in the state that already boasts the highest abortion rate in the country: New York.
On Monday, Governor Andrew Cuomo and former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton joined forces at a Barnard College rally to promote the Reproductive Health Act (RHA). As Jack Crowe reported for National Review, Cuomo has “no doubt” that conservative justices will enable the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion at the a federal level. If that happens, the RHA will fortify abortion right in New York state law.
But the bill doesn’t just preserve abortion rights early in pregnancy, which is legal in every state — it protects late-term abortion, too. With the passage of this law, abortions will be permitted “within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or [when] there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.” And, according to New York magazine, not only will abortion “move from the criminal code to the health code,” but also “it will be easier for physicians’ assistants and nurse practitioners to perform abortions.”
The bill states that New York’s “outdated” laws have “proved burdensome to women seeking to assert their constitutionally protected right to an abortion.”
But, looking at the numbers, current New York law doesn’t appear to discourage women from abortion at all. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) most recent Abortion Surveillance report, for the year 2015, New York City performed 544 abortions for every 1,000 live births.
That means roughly one in three unborn babies are aborted in the city. That also means the New York City’s abortion rate makes up more than half of the city’s birth rate.
Stay Updated with NR Daily
NR's afternoon roundup of the day's best commentary & must-read analysis.
Email Address
GO
With the state’s voluntarily reported data, the CDC found that 63,646 abortions occurred in the New York City during 2015, with 32.8 abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44.
New York — with the city and state data combined — saw a lower number in 2015. As a whole, New York performed 93,096 abortions total, with 23.1 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age. It counted 392 abortions per 1,000 live births.
The rest of the country doesn’t even come close to 93,096. The next-highest abortion rate is in Florida, with 72,023 abortions, then Texas, with 53,940. That’s keeping in mind that three states (California, Maryland, and New Hampshire) refuse to report their abortion statistics to the CDC. Those numbers could easily be higher. Meanwhile, the media praised the abortion rate in the CDC’s report for 2015, released in November 2018, for being at a “historic low.”
But it’s a historic low that is still much too high — especially when Americans stop and consider that each number represents a human life.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-yorks-abortion-problem/
-
Three-fourths back restricting abortion to first three months of pregnancy at most, poll finds
By Samuel Chamberlain | Fox News
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2018/09/1862/1048/march-for-life.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Demonstrators take part in the 2016 March for Life (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
Three-quarters of Americans -- including 60 percent of self-identified Democrats and 61 percent of those who identify as pro-choice -- support restricting legal abortion to the first three months of pregnancy at most, according to a new poll released Tuesday.
The study also found that 59 percent of Americans supported a ban on abortions after 20 weeks except to save the mother's life.
The phone survey of 1,066 adults was funded and sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and conducted by the Marist Poll. The two have teamed up every January since 2008 to gauge Americans' attitudes toward abortion.
MISSISSIPPI'S 15-WEEK ABORTION BAN RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY FEDERAL JUDGE
The poll found that 55 percent of Americans identify as pro-choice, up four percentage points from the previous year's survey. However, the same percentage of respondents said medical professionals with moral objections to abortion should be allowed to opt out of performing the procedure.
"As in past years, this poll shows that the pro-choice label on the abortion issue is simply insufficient,” Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Carl Anderson said in a statement. "The majority of Americans – in both parties – support legal restrictions on abortion ... The majority of the American people deserve to have their opinions heard
PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S NEW PRESIDENT WANTS TO FOCUS ON HEALTH CARE OVER POLITICS
The survey also found that if the Supreme Court revisits the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, 49 percent of Americans support upholding abortion restrictions legislated by the states while another 16 percent supported outlawing the procedure completely. Just 30 percent of respondents favored a Supreme Court ruling allowing unrestricted abortion.
CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
A whopping 75 percent of Americans -- including 56 percent of self-described Democrats -- also opposed taxpayer funding of abortion overseas while more than half of respondents (54 percent) opposed any taxpayer funding of abortion.
The poll's release coincided with Friday's 46th annual March for Life in Washington.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/three-fourths-back-restricting-abortion-to-first-three-months-of-pregnancy-at-most-poll-finds
-
Disgusting POS
https://www.lifenews.com/2019/01/16/new-york-bill-allowing-abortions-up-to-birth-says-a-person-is-only-a-human-being-who-has-been-born/
-
What is the medical necessity of killing a baby that is in the process of being born? This is macabre:
Here's the exchange between Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) and Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax):
Gilbert: So how late in the third trimester would you be able to do that?
Tran: It’s very unfortunate that our physician witnesses were not able to attend today.
Gilbert: No, I’m talking about your bill. How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?
Tran: Or physical health.
Gilbert: Okay. I’m talking about the mental health.
Tran: Through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.
Gilbert: Okay. But to the end of the third trimester?
Tran: Yep. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.
Gilbert: Where it’s obvious a woman is about to give birth, that she has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating.
Tran: Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make at that point.
Gilbert: I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.
Tran: My bill would allow that, yes.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42803/watch-virginia-democrats-propose-bill-allowing-ryan-saavedra
-
Virginia Governor Defends Bill Legalizing Aborting Babies During Childbirth
30 Jan 2019
Wednesday on WTOP’s “Ask The Governor,” Gov. Ralph Northam (D-VA) defended the Repeal Act, which would repeal Virginia’s current restrictions on late-term abortions and legalize abortion up to the point of birth.
Northam said, “This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved.”
He continued, “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician—more than one physician, by the way—and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non-viable.”
Discussing the controversy over Democratic delegate Kathy Tran acknowledging her bill would allow abortion when a woman was going into labor, Northam said, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion. We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.”
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/01/30/virginia-governor-defends-bill-legalizing-aborting-babies-during-childbirth/?fbclid=IwAR3uvf9KOp8tf3wtSjqmZvPz7sBVW-uvxoxmlQQgNsZ-yVJiz7810qi-jeU
-
These people don't deserve to use the terms "mother" and "father". They need to create a new title for the people who would do these things.
-
Kill them all, let allah sort them out.
-
Personally I'm shocked that a good many of the Getbig regulars have a problem with killing anyone or anything at anytime. If the parents are Jews, or Blacks, would it make a difference? From what I can tell from this board many of these people on this thread who regularly get all excited about a dindu nuffin or a Jew getting killed.. all up in arms over this law that will affect probably less than 1% of the population.. seems like crocodile tears
-
Personally I'm shocked that a good many of the Getbig regulars have a problem with killing anyone or anything at anytime. If the parents are Jews, or Blacks, would it make a difference? From what I can tell from this board many of these people on this thread who regularly get all excited about a dindu nuffin or a Jew getting killed.. all up in arms over this law that will affect probably less than 1% of the population.. seems like crocodile tears
::)
-
Personally I'm shocked that a good many of the Getbig regulars have a problem with killing anyone or anything at anytime. If the parents are Jews, or Blacks, would it make a difference? From what I can tell from this board many of these people on this thread who regularly get all excited about a dindu nuffin or a Jew getting killed.. all up in arms over this law that will affect probably less than 1% of the population.. seems like crocodile tears
You need Jesus, and I'm not even religious. ;)
-
You need Jesus, and I'm not even religious. ;)
;D
-
What is the medical necessity of killing a baby that is in the process of being born? This is macabre:
Here's the exchange between Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) and Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax):
Gilbert: So how late in the third trimester would you be able to do that?
Tran: It’s very unfortunate that our physician witnesses were not able to attend today.
Gilbert: No, I’m talking about your bill. How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?
Tran: Or physical health.
Gilbert: Okay. I’m talking about the mental health.
Tran: Through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.
Gilbert: Okay. But to the end of the third trimester?
Tran: Yep. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.
Gilbert: Where it’s obvious a woman is about to give birth, that she has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating.
Tran: Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make at that point.
Gilbert: I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.
Tran: My bill would allow that, yes.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42803/watch-virginia-democrats-propose-bill-allowing-ryan-saavedra
Priorities.
VIRGINIA DEL. KATHY TRAN SUBMITTED BILL TO SAVE CATERPILLARS ON SAME DAY AS LATE-STAGE ABORTION BILL
01/31/2019
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/31/kathy-tran-caterpillars-same-day-abortion/
-
Personally I'm shocked that a good many of the Getbig regulars have a problem with killing anyone or anything at anytime. If the parents are Jews, or Blacks, would it make a difference? From what I can tell from this board many of these people on this thread who regularly get all excited about a dindu nuffin or a Jew getting killed.. all up in arms over this law that will affect probably less than 1% of the population.. seems like crocodile tears
::)
-
Powerful.
-
Democrats are the party of infanticide.
Senate blocks bill on medical care for children born alive after attempted abortion
By Mike DeBonis and Felicia Sonmez
February 25, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-bill-on-medical-care-for-children-born-alive-after-attempted-abortion/2019/02/25/e5d3d4d8-3924-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.267daef3a2cf
-
What is the medical necessity of killing a baby that is in the process of being born? This is macabre:
Here's the exchange between Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) and Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax):
Gilbert: So how late in the third trimester would you be able to do that?
Tran: It’s very unfortunate that our physician witnesses were not able to attend today.
Gilbert: No, I’m talking about your bill. How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?
Tran: Or physical health.
Gilbert: Okay. I’m talking about the mental health.
Tran: Through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.
Gilbert: Okay. But to the end of the third trimester?
Tran: Yep. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.
Gilbert: Where it’s obvious a woman is about to give birth, that she has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating.
Tran: Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make at that point.
Gilbert: I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.
Tran: My bill would allow that, yes.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42803/watch-virginia-democrats-propose-bill-allowing-ryan-saavedra
This, and the Dr./racist Governor of VA's radio interview caught on camera discussing an abortion with the child now out of the womb, layin on the table with umbilical cord attached and having a discussion about aborting the child is what I keep trying to direct people on the left here and elsewhere to. They either say I'm making shit up, and refuse to read or watch the clip, because it sounds absurd and their leaders would never allow that....
IT IS ABSURD....and your leaders will allow it!!! Lefties need to wake the fuck up! >:(
BTW, anyone else think the best thing to happen to Democrats was Jussie Smollet this year? All the blackface, and racist democrats stuff GONE from all station's coverage. POOF....like it never happened. ::)
-
This, and the Dr./racist Governor of VA's radio interview caught on camera discussing an abortion with the child now out of the womb, layin on the table with umbilical cord attached and having a discussion about aborting the child is what I keep trying to direct people on the left here and elsewhere to. They either say I'm making shit up, and refuse to read or watch the clip, because it sounds absurd and their leaders would never allow that....
IT IS ABSURD....and your leaders will allow it!!! Lefties need to wake the fuck up! >:(
BTW, anyone else think the best thing to happen to Democrats was Jussie Smollet this year? All the blackface, and racist democrats stuff GONE from all station's coverage. POOF....like it never happened. ::)
Someone had to take one for Aunt Kamala. ;)
-
Someone had to take one for Aunt Kamala. ;)
Kinda freaked out that me and Mega might be on to something in the JS thread? ??? :o
I might need some of Pray 4 War's stockpiles to go into hiding :-X
-
Personally I'm shocked that a good many of the Getbig regulars have a problem with killing anyone or anything at anytime. If the parents are Jews, or Blacks, would it make a difference? From what I can tell from this board many of these people on this thread who regularly get all excited about a dindu nuffin or a Jew getting killed.. all up in arms over this law that will affect probably less than 1% of the population.. seems like crocodile tears
and yet you willingly come here and post your nonsense - glad that you brought up race! you'd think leftists (The Champions of the Minority™) would give a shit about "a dindu nuffin or a Jew getting killed" since those are future votes being chopped up and sold.
-
Personally I'm shocked that a good many of the Getbig regulars have a problem with killing anyone or anything at anytime. If the parents are Jews, or Blacks, would it make a difference? From what I can tell from this board many of these people on this thread who regularly get all excited about a dindu nuffin or a Jew getting killed.. all up in arms over this law that will affect probably less than 1% of the population.. seems like crocodile tears
So we should not be worried about murdering people if it effects less than 1% of the population?
-
Personally I'm shocked that a good many of the Getbig regulars have a problem with killing anyone or anything at anytime. If the parents are Jews, or Blacks, would it make a difference? From what I can tell from this board many of these people on this thread who regularly get all excited about a dindu nuffin or a Jew getting killed.. all up in arms over this law that will affect probably less than 1% of the population.. seems like crocodile tears
Any tears and anger are certainly more genuine than leftard's concern for immigrants they'd never even speak with, and their precious Earth they're convinced is being destroyed by acid rain, global warming, climate change as they are just soooooo concerned about it in the most polluted democratic cities in the country. >:(
-
A Bill Banning Most Abortions Becomes Law In Ohio
April 11, 2019
GABE ROSENBERG
FROM
WOSU 89.7 NPR News
The six-week abortion ban known as the "heartbeat bill" is now law in Ohio. That makes Ohio the sixth state in the nation to attempt to outlaw abortions at the point a fetal heartbeat can be detected.
Gov. Mike DeWine signed the bill Thursday afternoon, just one day after it passed the Republican-led General Assembly. The law is slated to take effect in 90 days, unless blocked by a federal judge.
Now known as the "Human Rights Protection Act," SB 23 outlaws abortions as early as five or six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women know they're pregnant. It is one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.
The bill does include an exception to save the life of the woman, but no exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
Government's role should be to protect life from the beginning to the end.
Gov. Mike DeWine, Ohio
"The essential function of government is to protect the most vulnerable among us, those who don't have a voice," DeWine said as he signed the bill. "Government's role should be to protect life from the beginning to the end."
Federal judges in Kentucky and Iowa have blocked the laws or struck them down as unconstitutional. Another bill in Georgia has yet to be signed by the governor.
DeWine's signature will set off a lengthy legal fight. The ACLU of Ohio announced it will sue to stop the law, which the group says "virtually bans all abortion care."
Federal Judge Blocks North Carolina Ban On Abortions Later Than 20 Weeks
LAW
Federal Judge Blocks North Carolina Ban On Abortions Later Than 20 Weeks
Trump's Overhaul Of Federal Family Planning Program Faces Multiple Lawsuits
NATIONAL
Trump's Overhaul Of Federal Family Planning Program Faces Multiple Lawsuits
"This legislation is blatantly unconstitutional and we will fight to the bitter end to ensure that this bill is permanently blocked," said ACLU of Ohio legal director Freda Levenson in a statement.
The group plans to sue on behalf of Pre-Term Cleveland, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio and the Women's Med Center of Dayton.
We will fight to the bitter end to ensure that this bill is permanently blocked.
Freda Levenson, ACLU of Ohio
But DeWine and lawmakers said they aren't dissuaded by the threat of legal action. Since taking office in January, DeWine had said he planned to sign whichever version of the heartbeat bill ended up on his desk.
"Will there be a lawsuit? Yeah, we are counting on it," said state Rep. Ron Hood on Wednesday. "We're counting on it. We're excited about it."
Anti-abortion groups such as Ohio Right To Life say they intend the heartbeat bill to trigger a U.S. Supreme Court case striking down the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. That case legalized abortion up until viability, usually at 22-24 weeks.
"If this is what it takes, we will see you at the Supreme Court," said Planned Parenthood of Ohio President Iris Harvey at a rally Wednesday outside the Statehouse.
The Ohio Senate originally passed the bill last month. The Republican-led House Health Committee then made several changes before sending it to the House floor, where it passed by party-line vote.
Beyond changing the name, the Ohio House version allows for the use of transvaginal ultrasounds to detect a fetal heartbeat even earlier in a pregnancy.
The bill institutes criminal penalties for doctors who violate the law. Doctors who perform abortions after detecting a heartbeat would face a fifth-degree felony and up to a year in prison. The legislation also allows the State Medical Board to take disciplinary actions against doctors found in violation and impose penalties of up to $20,000.
After hearing testimony from lawmakers and advocates, the Ohio House passed the bill Wednesday afternoon, 56-40, and the Ohio Senate quickly followed to affirm the changes, 18-12.
"Pro-life Ohio thanks Governor DeWine for taking a courageous stand on behalf of unborn children with beating hearts," said Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis in a statement.
Currently, Ohio prohibits abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and lawmakers in 2018 passed a law banning the "dilation and evacuation" method of abortion used most commonly after 12 weeks of pregnancy. The latter was blocked from taking effect by a federal judge in March.
The Ohio Senate in March passed another bill requiring the burial or cremation of fetal remains. The bill is now being considered in the Ohio House.
Legislators attempted several times before to pass the heartbeat bill, but the legislation was twice vetoed by former Gov. John Kasich, who warned it would prove costly for the state to defend in court.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/712455980/a-bill-banning-most-abortions-becomes-law-in-ohio
-
Georgia's Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signs early abortion ban
The bill outlaws abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as early as six weeks and before many women know they're pregnant.
May 7, 2019
By Associated Press
ATLANTA — Georgia's Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed legislation on Tuesday banning abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected. That can be as early as six weeks, before many women know they're pregnant.
Kemp said he was signing the bill "to ensure that all Georgians have the opportunity to live, grow, learn and prosper in our great state."
The signing caps weeks of tension and protests at the state Capitol in Atlanta, and marks the beginning of what could be a lengthy and costly legal battle over the law's constitutionality.
The legal showdown is exactly what supporters are looking for.
Anti-abortion activists and lawmakers across the country, energized by the new conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court that includes President Donald Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, are pushing abortion bans in an attack on the high court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion nationwide until a fetus is developed enough to live outside a woman's uterus.
ACLU of Georgia legal director Sean Young said the group would challenge Georgia's new abortion restriction in court.
"Under 50 years of Supreme Court precedent, this abortion ban is clearly unconstitutional," Young said in a recent interview. "Every federal court that has heard a challenge to a similar ban has ruled that it's unconstitutional."
Under current law, women in Georgia can seek an abortion during the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy. If it's not blocked in court, the new ban would take effect Jan. 1, 2020.
HB 481 makes exceptions in the case of rape and incest — if the woman files a police report first — and to save the life of the mother. It also would allow for abortions when a fetus is determined not to be viable because of serious medical issues.
The bill also deals with alimony, child support and even income tax deductions for fetuses, declaring that "the full value of a child begins at the point when a detectable human heartbeat exists."
Republican Rep. Ed Setzler, the bill's author, said in an interview after the bill passed the state House that it's a "common sense" measure that seeks to "balance the difficult circumstances women find themselves in with the basic right to life of a child."
But Democratic Sen. Jen Jordan disagreed that the legislation was balanced. "There's nothing balanced about it, it's an all-out abortion ban," Jordan said in a recent interview.
Jordan said she is especially worried the new law will push obstetricians away from practicing in Georgia, worsening health care outcomes for women in a state that already has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the country.
"It's about the unintended consequences," Jordan said. "They're making policy choices that are going to end up causing women to die, and they're preventable deaths."
In the first few months of 2019, "heartbeat abortion" bans have been signed into law in four states: Mississippi, Kentucky, Ohio, and now Georgia. Lawmakers in a number of other states including Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia are considering similar proposals. A bill that recently passed the Alabama House would outlaw abortions at any stage of pregnancy, with a few narrow exceptions.
Kentucky's law was immediately challenged by the ACLU after it was signed in March, and a federal judge temporarily blocked it.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, about 33,000 abortions were provided in Georgia in 2014.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-s-republican-gov-brian-kemp-signs-early-abortion-ban-n1002811?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR27xie__4IwY5dYj9ZpD25mw12ub9VDngaOf97GASkDlGS9u5QGqt_xY5A
-
Dear Dos Equis,
I skimmed over some of the more serious posts and respect your knowledge on legislation on this topic.
For me, personally, abortion isn't a top priority issue.
Having said THAT, I personally support limiting abortions to the first 12-15 weeks.
The economy is roaring and our military is very strong.
The republicans could cruise with a big win across the board if they had laser focus on THAT.
The social issues might ignite the Trump and Christian voter but it will alienate the moderates and independents.
LOL, no worries the dems will end up promoting some dopey program that would make even me go, WTF. :o
Yes Howard you've mentioned your support for killing unborn children many times on the board.
Regarding alienating "moderates and independents," what makes you think "moderates and independents" support killing unborn children through birth, which is where the Democrat Party is today?
-
I can't read minds, but I assume they don't like extreme positions on either side.
To me, abortion during the 1st 3 months of an unwanted pregnancy seems reasonable.
In other words, you don't know and just made it up.
-
Good zinger :D
My point is that most people are fine with basic abortion as legal early in the pregnancy.
Late term abortions are when the approval falls off.
Of course, if you're strongly "pro life" any abortion is one too many regardless of when.
The religious right can get too extreme by asking for restricting abortion by any means.
Same as the progressive side that wants all late term abortions with no restrictions.
I've always been for legal abortion during the 1st 3-4 months .
Again, you're just making this up. How do you know what "most people" think about this?
Why do you keep stating your position on abortion?
-
Because most polls show this to be true . This is been obvious and consistent for decades.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/17/nearly-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal/
Of course that's the national avg.
In Ga or Miss, you'd likely get under 50% and in Cal or NY it might be over 70%.
Dems have a much higher support for abortion laws while republicans are the opposite .
Hey Dos, it's a large diverse country and not everyone thinks like you...or me. :D
Which part of the link shows this overwhelming support for abortion through the point of delivery?
And which part specifically shows "moderates and independents" support abortions through delivery?
-
6 in 10 is a clear majority on a national avg (USA).
I'm always careful to point out that support for abortion falls as the procedure gets closer to delivery date (9 mos).
Plus, I also stated that support % varies by state. Miss, AL, and Ga tend to be majority pro life .
States like NY and Cal tend to be pro choice by a wide margin.
Before I call you a liar, please post the exact portion of the link that says "a clear majority" of Americans and "a clear majority" of "moderates and independents" support abortion through delivery.
-
Ok, I posted several times that support for abortion rights DROPS as the woman gets further along in the pregnancy. * We agree.
Like me, the clear majority ( 60%) support abortion for the 1st 12-16 weeks of pregnancy.
I don't know how to break it down any clearer or more direct.
Here is what you said:
The social issues might ignite the Trump and Christian voter but it will alienate the moderates and independents.
The "social issue" is abortions through the 9th month of pregnancy, which is where today's Democrat Party is. You then gave me a link that likely talks about first trimester abortions. First trimester abortions are not the issue.
If you have poll data that shows "moderates and independents" support abortions up through delivery, please share it. Otherwise, all you've done is set up a straw man.
-
Ok, I didn't realize you're main focus was on the late abortion issue.
I skimmed and figured it was about abortion and included the late term issue.
I just looked and one poll said 80% of women support late term abortion bans
https://thefederalist.com/2016/01/19/poll-80-percent-of-women-support-late-term-abortion-bans/.
This poll had the same results but a bit less support at 59% wanting to ban abortion after 20 weeks .
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/07/12/huffington-post-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-lateterm-abortion-ban-n1639073
I think we actually agree on this aspect of abortion law, along with the majority of woman.
Lastly, my position and most of America supports abortion rights for the early stages of pregnancy.
Liberals want unrestricted access and strict conservatives want to ban all abortion.
I think either side is too extreme
You didn't realize I was talking about abortion through delivery, despite the fact I said it in every response to you about this issue?
Why are you citing statistics about women? You specifically said Trump will alienate "moderates and independents." Still waiting for reliable polling data showing "moderates and independents" support abortion through delivery.
And you have stated your position that you support killing unborn babies in the first trimester about four or five times in this discussion, and probably 100 times on the board. Nobody cares. We're talking about whether or not "moderates and independents" support killing unborn babies through delivery.
-
I guess we will find out where Kavanaugh and Gorsuch stand on this issue.
Alabama Governor Signs Near-Total Abortion Ban Into Law
Wednesday, 15 May 2019
Alabama's Republican governor signed the most stringent abortion legislation in the nation Wednesday, making performing an abortion a felony in nearly all cases.
"To the bill's many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," Republican Gov. Kay Ivey said in a statement.
The bill's sponsors want to give conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court a chance to gut abortion rights nationwide, but Democrats and abortion rights advocates criticized the bill as a slap in the face to women voters.
"It just completely disregards women and the value of women and their voice. We have once again silenced women on a very personal issue," said Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison, a Birmingham Democrat.
Coleman-Madison said she hopes the measure awakens a "sleeping giant" of women voters in the state.
But Republican pollster Chris Kratzer noted that there is no congressional district and likely no legislative district with enough swing voters to put Republicans at serious risk in the state.
"The people who are outraged about this are not the people who are electing these guys, generally speaking, especially when we're talking about the primary," he said.
The legislation Alabama senators passed Tuesday would make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by 10 to 99 years or life in prison for the provider. The only exception would be when the woman's health is at serious risk. Women seeking or undergoing abortions wouldn't be punished.
Ivey acknowledged Wednesday that the measure may be unenforceable in the short term.
"The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur," Ivey said.
Rep. Terri Collins, the bill's sponsor, said she believes the bill reflects the beliefs of the majority of the state electorate.
"I've heard from lots of women in the state who are extremely pro-life and they're very supportive," Collins said.
Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia recently have approved bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur in about the sixth week of pregnancy. The Alabama bill goes further by seeking to ban abortion outright.
Abortion rights advocates vowed swift legal action.
"We are laser-focused on urging Gov. Kay Ivey to veto this dangerous bill. If she chooses not to, then we will take this to court and ensure that abortion remains safe and legal and accessible in the state of Alabama," said Staci Fox, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast.
Supporters of the bill acknowledged the ban would not be effective anytime soon, because they expected it to be blocked by the courts as they fight upward toward the court.
One mile from the Alabama Statehouse — down the street from the Governor's Mansion — sits Montgomery's only abortion clinic. Because of its location, the clinic sees a stream of patients from Mississippi and the Florida Panhandle because other clinics have closed.
Clinic staff on Wednesday fielded calls from patients, and potential patients, wrongly worried that abortion was now illegal in the state. They were assured abortion remained legal in the state.
"It's been a lot of fear. A lot of people who are afraid they can't get their procedure," said Kari Crowe, a clinic employee and escort.
"Abortion is OK!" read a banner paid for by abortion rights advocates that a plane carried as it circled the Alabama Capitol and Statehouse on Wednesday.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/abortion-kay-ivey-signs-bill/2019/05/15/id/916170/
-
I guess we will find out where Kavanaugh and Gorsuch stand on this issue.
Alabama Governor Signs Near-Total Abortion Ban Into Law
Wednesday, 15 May 2019
Alabama's Republican governor signed the most stringent abortion legislation in the nation Wednesday, making performing an abortion a felony in nearly all cases.
"To the bill's many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," Republican Gov. Kay Ivey said in a statement.
The bill's sponsors want to give conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court a chance to gut abortion rights nationwide, but Democrats and abortion rights advocates criticized the bill as a slap in the face to women voters.
"It just completely disregards women and the value of women and their voice. We have once again silenced women on a very personal issue," said Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison, a Birmingham Democrat.
Coleman-Madison said she hopes the measure awakens a "sleeping giant" of women voters in the state.
But Republican pollster Chris Kratzer noted that there is no congressional district and likely no legislative district with enough swing voters to put Republicans at serious risk in the state.
"The people who are outraged about this are not the people who are electing these guys, generally speaking, especially when we're talking about the primary," he said.
The legislation Alabama senators passed Tuesday would make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by 10 to 99 years or life in prison for the provider. The only exception would be when the woman's health is at serious risk. Women seeking or undergoing abortions wouldn't be punished.
Ivey acknowledged Wednesday that the measure may be unenforceable in the short term.
"The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur," Ivey said.
Rep. Terri Collins, the bill's sponsor, said she believes the bill reflects the beliefs of the majority of the state electorate.
"I've heard from lots of women in the state who are extremely pro-life and they're very supportive," Collins said.
Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia recently have approved bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur in about the sixth week of pregnancy. The Alabama bill goes further by seeking to ban abortion outright.
Abortion rights advocates vowed swift legal action.
"We are laser-focused on urging Gov. Kay Ivey to veto this dangerous bill. If she chooses not to, then we will take this to court and ensure that abortion remains safe and legal and accessible in the state of Alabama," said Staci Fox, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast.
Supporters of the bill acknowledged the ban would not be effective anytime soon, because they expected it to be blocked by the courts as they fight upward toward the court.
One mile from the Alabama Statehouse — down the street from the Governor's Mansion — sits Montgomery's only abortion clinic. Because of its location, the clinic sees a stream of patients from Mississippi and the Florida Panhandle because other clinics have closed.
Clinic staff on Wednesday fielded calls from patients, and potential patients, wrongly worried that abortion was now illegal in the state. They were assured abortion remained legal in the state.
"It's been a lot of fear. A lot of people who are afraid they can't get their procedure," said Kari Crowe, a clinic employee and escort.
"Abortion is OK!" read a banner paid for by abortion rights advocates that a plane carried as it circled the Alabama Capitol and Statehouse on Wednesday.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/abortion-kay-ivey-signs-bill/2019/05/15/id/916170/
Justice Roberts has made some unlikely decisions, so he's in the mix I think.
Most of the E.U. fall into the grey area on the left. The UK allows abortions up until 24 weeks, and they benignly call it, "emptying the womb."
(https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/images/381.state_trends_jan23_0.png)
-
We can all google different sites and come up with various polls, graphs and % on various abortion laws.
That has it's place and I'll leave it to you and the political pundits to decide how this issue shakes out with the voters..
This is a forum to discuss politics and our political beliefs.
I'm no expert on what everyone thinks and should avloid trying to do so.
I can tell you what I believe and have several times on the abortion issue.
You,like anyone else is free to disagree and post what you think is relevent.
In the end, I doubt any of us will change anyone's view pt on abortion rights.
Thank you for confirming that when you claimed Trump would alienate "moderates and independents" on the issue of abortion through delivery that you were not relying on any empirical data and just making stuff up.
-
Heating up.
Legal battle heats up as more states test strict abortion bans
Other states are already pursuing and defending laws to ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy
Posted May 15, 2019
Sandhya Raman
@SandhyaWrites
Abortion politics: Will Doug Jones’ opposition to Alabama ban hurt him? Trump aide sees room for talks on Democrats’ opioid bill Lawmakers aim to double down with more opioids legislation
(https://cdn.images2.rollcall.com/image/b5c8c9ed786b58e4fd2a9330538821aa5aec733105774d29a6295c7507f71749/author/2019/05/SupremeCourt_062618_SS_175.jpg)
Pro-choice protesters shout at pro-life protesters outside of the Supreme Court June 26, 2018. Alabama’s new abortion law, which would essentially ban abortion in most cases, could open the door to restrictions in other states — even though they will all likely be challenged in court. (Sarah Silbiger/CQ Roll Call file photo)
Advocates are preparing for a legal battle after Alabama passed the strictest abortion bill in the country late Tuesday, part of a growing national push by abortion opponents to test whether the courts will curb constitutional protections for the procedure.
Alabama’s move, which would essentially ban abortion in most cases, could open the door to restrictions in other states — even though they will all likely be challenged in court. Other states are already pursuing and defending laws to ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
[Trump civil rights official wants to defend abortion opponents and religious freedom]
“This is not just about Alabama. We are seeing these extreme bills being introduced across the country,” said Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen in a call with reporters Wednesday. “These extreme bans banning abortions at six weeks or earlier, before women even know we’re pregnant, is happening in 16 states.”
Alabama’s bill, which Wen called the most extreme abortion ban since the landmark Roe v. Wade case guaranteed a national right to abortion in 1973, would go farther than the approach taken in many other red states. The legislation would ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy, unless needed to save the life of the woman, and has no exceptions for rape or incest. Abortion providers who violate these terms could be charged with a felony and punished for up to 99 years in prison.
[She miscarried 8 times. Today she’s telling Lindsey Graham why abortion should remain legal]
“Doctors would be scared to provide needed medical treatment because we’d be worried that by doing what’s needed for our patients we could go to prison for a lifetime,” said Wen, who is also a trained emergency room physician.
Alabamians already face many barriers to abortion, including a 48-hour waiting period and mandated counseling. Half of the patients in Alabama and two other states served by Planned Parenthood Southeast travel over 100 miles to reach a clinic, said Staci Fox, who heads the group’s advocacy arm.
The American Civil Liberties Union has already signaled it will challenge the Alabama bill in court if Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, who opposes abortion, signs it.
The ACLU and Planned Parenthood also filed suit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio over Ohio’s six-week abortion law.
This year, four states have already passed bans after six weeks of pregnancy, and Missouri is expected to pass its own ban by Friday when the legislative session ends. The state legislature there is considering an omnibus abortion bill that would combine a number of restrictions.
Elizabeth Watson, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, on a separate press call, called the Ohio bill part of the growing “concerted national effort to limit abortion.”
“Let this be a warning to the anti-abortion politicians in Ohio and across the country: if you attack our right to abortion, we will always be here to defend it,” said Watson.
Ohio legislators, whose previous Republican governor vetoed two versions of abortion bans after six weeks, moved quickly on approving restrictions under its new, more conservative governor Mike DeWine.
Restrictions on funding for abortion in public programs are common, but the legislature is currently considering a bill that would ban even private insurance coverage of abortion — which, if passed, could pave a steeper path for women seeking the procedure in Ohio. Doctors and advocacy groups criticized the bill last week for including language that would require the re-implantation of ectopic pregnancies that occur when a fertilized egg is attached outside of the uterus — which is not a medically recognized procedure.
“What was considered too extreme for state politicians just a few years ago is becoming law in a few states,” said Wen.
Court battles
Anti-abortion groups see an opening for further policies like Alabama’s bill and are ready to fight in the courts with the goal of winning a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court on Monday overturned, 5-4, an unrelated 40-year-old precedent over the ability of individuals to sue a state in another state court, which could hint that the high court is more open to reviewing rulings decided decades ago like Roe.
Susan B. Anthony List is among the many anti-abortion groups hoping for a challenge to rise to the Supreme Court. The group pushed for the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year after swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement.
“It is clearer than ever that Roe is far from being settled law in the eyes and hearts of the American people, and this is increasingly reflected in state legislatures. The American people want a fresh debate and a new direction, achieved by consensus and built on love for both mothers and babies,” said SBA List’s Marjorie Dannenfelser in a statement. “The time is coming for the Supreme Court to let that debate go forward.”
Catherine Glenn Foster, the president and CEO of American United for Life, a legal advocacy group that opposes abortion, said Alabama has “created the opportunity to implement new, comprehensive policies to ensure the most life-affirming outcomes for both the mother and the child throughout life.”
Next week, U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi will hear oral arguments in a hearing over whether to grant a preliminary injunction over the state’s six-week abortion ban.
The Center for Reproductive Rights filed suit on behalf of the state’s only abortion provider — Jackson Women’s Health Organization — after the legislation was enacted in March. The ban is slated to take effect in July.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/legal-battle-heats-states-test-strict-abortion-bans
-
Somebody should explain to her that Congress has to pass a bill, which is never going to happen unless enough pro abortion Democrats control both Houses.
Gillibrand says she’d ‘codify’ Roe v. Wade if elected president
By Brooke Singman | Fox News
Reaction and analysis from The Federalist senior contributor Mollie Hemingway on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Thursday vowed to “codify” Roe v. Wade if elected president, amid a fierce abortion debate in the wake of Alabama’s new state law banning almost all abortion procedures.
During a visit to Atlanta Thursday, the 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful touted her “robust reproductive rights agenda,” and promised to take her plans a “step further.”
ALABAMA GOVERNOR SIGNS RESTRICTIVE ABORTION BILL AS ACLU VOWS TO SUE
“First, as president, I will codify Roe v. Wade. I will make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that women in this country have a guaranteed right to an abortion,” Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said.
“Second, I will end the Hyde Amendment, which disproportionately blocks women of color and women with low incomes from getting access to abortion services,” she continued. “And third, in the most sweeping step that I’m going to take as president, I will guarantee access to reproductive health care, including abortion, no matter what state you live in.”
Gillibrand added that she would create a “funding stream” to make sure that women have access to reproductive health centers in every state.
“I would ensure that no state can pass laws that chip away at access to reproductive care or criminalize reproductive health care providers,” she explained. “Federal law should supersede harmful state laws that take away women’s reproductive freedom.”
Gillibrand said that she believed that access to abortion is a “constitutionally recognized right.”
“I’m not afraid to follow through and guarantee it,” she said. “With the power of the federal government, this is about the fundamental question of whether we value women in this country and whether we see them as humans who are able to make their own decision.”
She added: “And any Democrat who expects to win the presidency must answer definitively where they stand on this issue.”
. . . .
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gillibrand-says-shed-codify-roe-vs-wade-if-elected-president
-
Our initial disagreement was due to lack of proper communication .
I didn't read the deatils of your posts and only skimmed, so that's on me. ;)
I saw a Penn town hall on Hardball last night. It was a northereastern county that voted 2x for Obama but went 58% Trump in 2016.
EVERY time abortion came up, it got the biggest support for keeping the law as it is ( abortion until 16-20 weeks).
Very few wanted to ban all abortion OR have it legal in the later stages of pregnancy.
The AL law is way too extreme by banning all abortion from conception. That extreme position alienates people.
Abortion is and always will be a polarizing issue. I've said many times that I don't think there is a political solution.
But the worm has turned. Liberals-statists-progressive have lost their minds. Pushing abortion even as a baby is about to be delivered. Macabre. It's like a cult. It's arguably the Democrats second most important issue, with the first being Trump hatred.
Passing laws saying you can kill a baby in the ninth month of pregnancy is what will alienate millions of people.
Also, if you actually think this through, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will become a state issue. Will be legal in some states, illegal in others.
-
I'd agree the national opinion had turned if AL and Ga didn't pass such draconian abortion bans recently.
Even the RNC chair is against the AL law.
They could have passed a reasonable law banning late term abortion that moderate dems would support along with most republicans.
I think we both agree that going to extremes on either side will alienate the main stream voter.
The Alabama law isn't converting anyone and really has no comparison whatsoever to what Democrats did in Virginia and New York. Killing a baby whose head has entered the birth canal? No comparison.
"Moderate dems." That's funny.
I'm not sure we agree about pretty much anything. lol But it's all good. :)
-
Federal judge blocks Mississippi ‘heartbeat’ abortion law
By Louis Casiano | Fox News
A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked Mississippi from moving ahead with a so-called "heartbeat" abortion law that bans the procedure after a cardiac activity is first detected, which occurs at around six weeks of pregnancy.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves stops the order from taking effect July 1.
Pay only $49 down to access the best mountains, including Vail, Whistler Blackcomb, Park City, Breck & more. Buy your Pass before May 27!
"Here we go again," Reeves wrote. "Mississippi has passed another law banning abortions prior to viability."
2020 DEMS JUMP INTO ABORTION FRAY AS LEGAL BATTLE HEATS UP
Reeves also struck down a 2018 Mississippi law that banned abortion at 15 weeks. The state is appealing that ruling.
"It sure smacks of defiance to this court," he said of lawmakers passing another ban after he struck down the earlier one.
Attorneys for the state’s only abortion clinic – the Jackson Women's Health Organization -- argued Tuesday that the newest law would eliminate all abortions because most women don't yet know they are pregnant when a fetal heartbeat is first discovered. The state said the law only limits when abortions can be performed.
Exemptions will be made if a woman's health is at risk.
ALABAMA SENATE PASSES BILL BANNING NEARLY ALL ABORTIONS
Reeves wrote Friday that the new measure "prevents a woman's free choice, which is central to personal dignity and autonomy. This injury outweighs any interest the State might have in banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat."
Mississippi’s Republican Gov Phil Bryant expressed disappointment after Friday's ruling.
"As governor, I've pledged to do all I can to protect life," Bryant said. "Time and time again the Legislature and I have done just that."
Lawmakers in several states have recently passed or advanced restrictive abortion measures in light of a conservative-majority Supreme Court Abortion opponents are hoping to mount legal challenges to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
Supreme Court bound? Alabama abortion bill could test Roe v. WadeVideo
ALABAMA DEM ATTACKS TRUMP JR. WITH SLUR AFTER ABORTION COMMENTS SPARK OUTCRY
Alabama recently passed a law its own law that makes it a felony to perform an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy. Other states – Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Ohio -- have approved their own abortion measures. Missouri recently approved a bill to ban abortion at eight weeks.
All the bans are expected to face legal challenges. Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the Alabama measure.
A federal judge in March issued a preliminary injunction on the Kentucky ban.
ACLU, Planned Parenthood working on lawsuits to block Alabama abortion lawVideo
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Under Mississippi’s abortion ban, doctors who perform the procedure could have their medical licenses revoked.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/federal-judge-blocks-mississippi-heartbeat-abortion-law
-
Justice Roberts has made some unlikely decisions, so he's in the mix I think.
Most of the E.U. fall into the grey area on the left. The UK allows abortions up until 24 weeks, and they benignly call it, "emptying the womb."
(https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/images/381.state_trends_jan23_0.png)
I'm not convinced Roberts and/or Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
-
Missouri's last abortion clinic says it may lose its license this week
BY KATE SMITH
UPDATED ON: MAY 28, 2019
St. Louis, Missouri — The last remaining abortion clinic in Missouri says it expects to be shut down this week, effectively ending legal abortion in the state.
In a statement Tuesday, Planned Parenthood said Missouri's health department is "refusing to renew" its annual license to provide abortion in the state. If the license is not renewed by May 31, Missouri would become the first state without a functioning abortion clinic since 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided.
Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit requesting a restraining order against the state, hoping to restore the license and avoid service disruption. A circuit court judge will hear arguments on Wednesday.
. . .
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/planned-parenthood-missouri-last-abortion-clinic-says-it-may-lose-its-license-this-week-exclusive-2019-05-28/
-
Justice Clarence Thomas Blasts Abortion As A Tool Of Racist Eugenicists
MAY 28, 2019
By Madeline Osburn
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld part of an Indiana law requiring aborted infants to be cremated or buried after an abortion. However, they sidestepped a larger ruling on abortion by deciding not to weigh in on whether a child can be aborted for their race, sex, or disability.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, in which he addressed the pro-abortion movement’s well-known history with eugenics, and how the Court’s decision not to rule on the Indiana statute leaves an open question on whether eugenic abortions are protected by the Constitution.
The Indiana law in question, enacted in 2016 by former Governor Mike Pence, included a provision stating, “Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.”
These characteristics of an infant can be known early on in a pregnancy. Blood tests can now predict a baby’s sex at seven weeks. The law is intended to prevent mothers and abortion providers from using abortion as a tool of “modern-day eugenics,” as Thomas writes.
“So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination,” he said.
Thomas’ argument is two-fold. First, embracing abortion for the sake of eugenics was an endorsed practice and long-held belief of early 20th century progressive leaders. Second, with the development of more accurate prenatal tests, aborting children with unwanted characteristics is a modern threat disguised as “reproductive health services.”
Indeed, 21st century progressives often engage in a revisionist history of their early 20th century counterparts’ embrace of eugenics. But Thomas recounts the lengthy history Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger had with the practice of population control. In 1921, she wrote that “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’ [is] admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization” and that “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
Sanger was a featured guest of the Ku Klux Klan and a proponent of the forced sterilization program of the Nazi regime in the 1930s. She deemed the population of black Americans “degenerate and defective” and her clinics targeted black and immigrant communities like central Harlem in New York City.
Alan Guttmacher, president of Planned Parenthood in the 1960s and early 1970s who explicitly endorsed eugenic reasons for abortion, is also included in Thomas’ opinion. Guttmacher wrote that “it should be permissible to abort any pregnancy … in which there is a strong probability of an abnormal or malformed infant.”
The racist work of Planned Parenthood today is built on the foundational beliefs of their predecessors, Sanger and Guttmacher. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in minority communities. Blacks make up 12.1 percent of the U.S. population, but 35 percent of the country’s abortions. In his opinion, Thomas cites New York Department of Health data that states, “there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive—and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area.”
Other modern uses of eugenics are rising around the world. In Iceland, nearly 100 percent of women who receive positive prenatal tests for Down syndrome abort their children. In the U.S. around 67 percent of women who find out their child will be born with Down syndrome opt to have an abortion, and in the United Kingdom, it’s around 90 percent.
In India and China, millions of female babies are aborted every year just because of their sex. The Invisible Girl Project estimates that 5 to 7 million sex-selective abortions are performed in India every year.
Thomas concludes that the increased use of eugenic abortions is exactly why Indiana passed a law protecting the unborn from discrimination, and exactly why the Supreme Court cannot ignore a ruling on the subject for much longer.
“Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement,” he writes. “In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination.”
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/28/justice-clarence-thomas-blasts-abortion-tool-racist-eugenicists/
You can read the opinion by Thomas here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052819zor_2dq3.pdf
-
I think everyone here would have supported abortion rights for my mom , back in the 1950's. :D
No way, we get great entertainment from your presence.
-
ARE WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS ALSO MOTHERS? HERE’S WHAT RBG SAID
05/29/2019 | POLITICS
Mary Margaret Olohan | Reporter
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a woman who decides to have an abortion “is not a ‘mother,'” citing her “constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy.”
Ginsburg contested Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s use of the word “mother” in a footnote in the Supreme Court case of Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. by saying pregnant women who choose to terminate their pregnancies are not mothers.
“A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’; the cost of, and trauma potentially induced by, a post-procedure requirement may well constitute an undue burden,” she wrote in a footnote.
. . . .
https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/29/ruth-bader-ginsburg-abortion-mother/
-
Gov. J.B. Pritzker signs abortion rights law making procedure a 'fundamental right' for women in Illinois
Chicago Tribune staff
Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law Wednesday morning sweeping new abortion rights legislation, establishing the procedure as a “fundamental right” for women in Illinois.
“In a time when too many states across the nation are taking a step backward, Illinois is taking a giant step forward for women’s health,” Pritzker said in remarks at the Chicago Cultural Center before signing the bill. “Today, we proudly proclaim that in this state, we trust women.”
Illinois lawmakers approved the legislation in the recently ended spring session amid an increased sense of urgency among advocates looking to protect abortion access as a series of states recently passed laws essentially banning the practice.
“I believe, frankly, there’s a war against women’s rights going on,” Sen. Melinda Bush, the Grayslake Democrat who sponsored the bill in the Senate, said at the time.
Bush and Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, were among those standing behind Pritzker as he signed the bill.
The bill establishes the “fundamental right” of a woman to have an abortion and states that a “fertilized egg, embryo or fetus does not have independent rights.” It repeals the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, doing away with provisions for spousal consent, waiting periods, criminal penalties for physicians who perform abortions and other restrictions on facilities where abortions are performed. A number of those provisions have not been enforced because of court injunctions.
Inside the Illinois abortion clinic that could become the nearest option for women in St. Louis and beyond
State lawmakers approved the measure on their last scheduled day of the General Assembly’s spring session, before heading into legislative overtime to handle other high-profile bills such as casino gambling expansion and a $45 billion capital projects package.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-met-illinois-abortion-rights-law-governor-jb-pritzker-20190612-story.html
-
Supreme Court to hear Louisiana abortion case
BY JESSIE HELLMANN - 10/04/19
The Supreme Court announced Friday it would take up an abortion case from Louisiana, setting the stage for a national fight over a contentious issue during a presidential election year.
It will be the first abortion case taken up by the Supreme Court since President Trump's two nominees — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — were confirmed to the bench.
The case centers on the law in Louisiana that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, a requirement that critics say is designed to force abortion clinics to close.
The Supreme Court in February ruled 5-4 to block the law from taking effect while it was being challenged in court, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the liberal justices.
But it’s not certain whether Roberts’s decision in February means he will vote to block the law after the court hears oral arguments.
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch sided with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in dissenting.
In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a similar Texas law 5-3, with former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy siding with liberal justices and Roberts in dissenting.
But Kennedy has since retired, and two conservative justices have taken seats at the court.
Abortion rights groups say the Supreme Court should follow the precedent it set when it struck down the Texas law.
The court's ruling stated that requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges placed an "undue" burden on women seeking abortions.
"Three years ago, the Supreme Court decided that laws like this one in Louisiana had no purpose other than to make abortion more difficult to access," said Planned Parenthood acting President Alexis McGill Johnson.
"There’s only one reason the court would not strike down the Louisiana law and that is because Justice Kennedy, who voted to protect abortion access just three years ago, has been replaced with Justice Kavanaugh."
Despite the Supreme Court's 2016 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the Louisiana law last year in a 2-to-1 vote, ruling it “does not impose a substantial burden on a large fraction of women.”
Opponents of the law argued it would force most of the state's abortion clinics to close.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/464367-supreme-court-to-hear-louisiana-abortion-case
-
Federal judge halts Alabama abortion law deemed the strictest in the nation
PUBLISHED TUE, OCT 29 2019
Tucker Higgins
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that an Alabama abortion law considered the strictest in the country will not go into effect, citing Supreme Court precedents that forbid bans on abortion prior to fetal viability.
Supporters of the Alabama law hope to use it to spur the Supreme Court to revisit those reproductive rights precedents, including the landmark decision Roe v. Wade. They expected lower courts to block the law.
The law criminalizes providing an abortion at any stage during a pregnancy, threatening doctors with prison sentences up to 99 years. It was set to take effect Nov. 15. The law provides no exception for rape or incest victims, but allows the procedure in cases where the patient’s life is at risk.
“Enforcement of the ban would yield serious and irreparable harm, violating the right to privacy and preventing women from obtaining abortions in Alabama,” District Judge Myron Thompson wrote. Thompson issued a temporary injunction that will prevent the law from going into effect until the court resolves the case in full.
Gov. Kay Ivey signed the law in May, acknowledging at the time that it was illegal under federal law and likely unenforceable.
The law came amid a flurry of other abortion restrictions passed in states led by Republicans attempting to test the Supreme Court’s new conservative majority.
The nine-judge panel has five Republican appointees, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom President Donald Trump selected to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh is generally seen as more conservative than his predecessor.
The ACLU, which has challenged a number of those laws, said in a statement that none of those measures have survived legal scrutiny.
“With this federal court ruling, it’s official: None of the state abortion bans passed earlier this year are in effect,” the group wrote in a post on Twitter.
In a statement, Attorney General Steve Marshall said that the district court’s decision was “not unexpected.”
“As we have stated before, the State’s objective is to advance our case to the U.S. Supreme Court where we intend to submit evidence that supports our argument that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the Constitution does not prohibit states from protecting unborn children from abortion,” he said.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a 1992 Supreme Court decision that affirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade.
Read more: ACLU and Planned Parenthood sue to bar Alabama abortion law from taking effect
The lawsuit was brought by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union in the United States District Court for Middle Alabama.
The Supreme Court will hear a case this term challenging a Louisiana abortion law that opponents say will limit the state to one provider. The law requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their clinics.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/federal-court-strikes-down-alabama-abortion-law.html
-
Here Are The Most Extreme Pro-Abortion Policies Of 2019
MARY MARGARET OLOHAN
SOCIAL ISSUES REPORTER
December 26, 2019
Pro-abortion lawmakers fought fiercely to loosen abortion laws in 2019.
January bills in New York and Virginia particularly demonstrated Democratic lawmakers’ determination to make abortion available at all stages of a pregnancy.
Lawmakers pushed to expand abortion access, to discard abortion health and safety standards, and to remove age requirements for obtaining abortions.
Pro-abortion lawmakers throughout the United States sought to instate policies in 2019 that expanded abortion access and removed safeguards on abortions.
As Democratic lawmakers fought to stem the tidal wave of pro-life legislation in red states across the country, pro-abortion advocates pushed to loosen abortion laws in states such as New York, Virginia, Maine, Illinois, Nevada, and Rhode Island. (RELATED: Pro-Life Policies Growing ‘Like A Steady Drumbeat,’ Abortion Analyst Says)
Democratic lawmakers in these states introduced legislation that enabled non-doctors to perform abortions, took away standards intended to help women make informed decisions about abortion, and sought to legalize abortion up until the mother gives birth.
New York
Timing his move with the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act in January. The bill not only removed abortion from New York’s criminal code, but it also allows non-doctors to perform abortions and allows women to obtain late-term abortions if their health is in danger or if their unborn baby is not viable.
Cuomo said at the signing that the moment was ” bittersweet.”
“I say bittersweet, because there is a bitterness,” Cuomo said. “We shouldn’t be here in the first place. … This administration defies American evolution. We’re supposed to be moving forward; we’re supposed to be advancing.”
Cuomo also ordered that the One World Trade Center, or the “Freedom Tower,” glow pink night to celebrate the passage of the bill.
“I am directing that New York’s landmarks be lit in pink to celebrate this achievement and shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow,” Cuomo said.
Virginia
Democratic Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran introduced HB 2491 in January, a bill that would allow doctors to perform abortions while the mother is giving birth. Virginia law currently states that second and third-trimester abortions should only be performed to preserve the health or life of the mother.
The law would also remove the requirement that mothers have an ultrasound before they obtain an abortion, that three physicians conclude the third-trimester abortion is necessary, and that the second and third-trimester abortions be performed in hospitals.
The bill was “left in Courts of Justice” on Feb. 5.
Virginia House Democrats propose legislation to allow abortions up until the moment of birth
Todd Gilbert (R): Where it’s obvious a woman is about to give birth…would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion?
Kathy Tran (D): My bill would allow that, yes pic.twitter.com/UHgzU3EGDA
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) January 29, 2019
Shortly after Tran introduced the bill, Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam spoke out in January about abortion up until birth, suggesting that if the baby survived the abortion, then the child’s life would be up for discussion between the physician and the mother.
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Maine
Maine took a shot at the state’s health and safety standards for abortions when Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed a bill June 11 permitting nondoctors, physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses to perform abortions.
Democratic Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon sponsored the bill, which went into effect in September. “These health care professionals are trained in family planning, counseling, and abortion procedures, the overwhelming majority of which are completed without complications,” Mills said at the time. (RELATED: Maine Will Allow Non-Doctors To Perform Abortions)
Illinois
Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker in June signed the Reproductive Health Act, a law that makes abortion “a fundamental right” in the state of Illinois. The law is designed to alert women in surrounding states that they can travel to Illinois to receive abortions if they cannot receive them at home.
Like the Maine bill, the Illinois legislation allows non-doctors to perform abortion. But the Illinois law also abolished the state’s parental notification law, forces religious and private health care organizations to provide abortions, and eliminates required investigations into deaths of mothers. (RELATED: Lawmakers Repeal Abortion Safeguards To Build ‘A Firewall Around Illinois To Protect Access’ To Abortion)
The law also eliminates requirements to publicly report abortion data, including “the number of abortions performed on out-of-state women or underage girls” according to a press release from the Susan B. Anthony List.
Nevada
The Nevada Assembly in May passed The Trust Nevada Women Act, which removed the obligation of doctors to inform women about the “emotional implications” involved in abortions. Democratic Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak signed the bill into law on May 31.
The bill, SB179, “removes the requirement that a physician certify a pregnant woman’s marital status and age before performing an abortion” and “also removes the requirement that a physician certify in writing that a woman gave her informed written consent.”
Democratic Nevada Rep. Dina Titus praised the bill in May, calling restrictive abortion legislation “dangerous anti-choice agenda.”
“The Trust Nevada Women Act is a crucial piece of legislation that will bring Nevada’s laws in line with Nevadans’ values,” said Caroline Mello Roberson, NARAL Pro-Choice Nevada state director, in a statement at the time. “We know that Nevadans are overwhelmingly pro-choice and the [Trust Nevada Women Act] will finally ensure these values are reflected in state law.”
Rhode Island
The governor of Rhode Island signed a bill protecting abortion access within the state and repealing pro-life laws.
Rhode Island Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo signed HB 5125 in June, a bill otherwise known as the Reproductive Privacy Act, which Raimondo called an “important, consequential bill” protecting abortion access within the state, repealing pro-life laws, and legalizing abortion up until birth.
“Fundamentally this bill is about health care,” Raimondo said in June. “It’s about protecting and providing access to health care for all the women of Rhode Island.” (RELATED: Rhode Island Legalizes Abortion Up Until Birth)
The Reproductive Privacy Act says that Rhode Island will not restrict a mother’s right to obtain an abortion before the baby is able to survive outside of the womb and that the state will allow abortions after fetal viability if the mother’s health is at risk. This effectively allows abortion up until birth.
The bill also repeals several chapters of Rhode Island General Laws on abortion that charge doctors with murder and jail time for inducing miscarriages and declare dying admissions of women who die during abortion procedures to be used as evidence in homicides.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/26/most-extreme-abortion-laws-2019/
-
Trump Declares Roe v. Wade Anniversary 'National Sanctity of Human Life Day'
By Eric Mack | Wednesday, 22 January 2020
In an effort to promote a reduction in abortion, President Donald Trump declared Wednesday, Jan. 22, National Sanctity of Human Life Day, the 47th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, and announced he will be the first president to attend the March for Life rally Friday.
"Every person — the born and unborn, the poor, the downcast, the disabled, the infirm, and the elderly — has inherent value," Trump's declaration read. "Although each journey is different, no life is without worth or is inconsequential; the rights of all people must be defended.
"On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our Nation proudly and strongly reaffirms our commitment to protect the precious gift of life at every stage, from conception to natural death."
Also, Trump plans to be the first president to address the expected hundreds of thousands of attendees live at the March for Life on Friday. It will be a way to reach a large swath of pro-life voters amid his 2020 presidential campaign, one of the fundamentals he holds dear and that polarizes voters against pro-choice Democrat opponents.
"We are deeply honored to welcome President Trump to the 47th annual March for Life," March for Life President Jeanne Mancini said, according to LifeNews. "He will be the first president in history to attend, and we are so excited for him to experience in person how passionate our marchers are about life and protecting the unborn."
In the National Sanctity of Human Life Day declaration, Trump trumpeted a decline in the abortion rate from 2007-2016, along with a decline in teen pregnancies, "contributing to the lowest rate of abortions among adolescents since the legalization of abortion in 1973."
"All Americans should celebrate this decline in the number and rate of abortions, which represents lives saved," Trump's declaration continued. "Still, there is more to be done, and, as president, I will continue to fight to protect the lives of the unborn."
Trump also vows to build "international coalition to dispel the concept of abortion as a fundamental human right," announcing 24 nations have signed on.
"I call on the Congress to join me in protecting and defending the dignity of every human life, including those not yet born," Trump concluded. "I call on the American people to continue to care for women in unexpected pregnancies and to support adoption and foster care in a more meaningful way, so every child can have a loving home.
"And finally, I ask every citizen of this great nation to listen to the sound of silence caused by a generation lost to us, and then to raise their voices for all affected by abortion, both seen and unseen."
On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in Roe v. Wade that held that women in the United States have a fundamental right to choose whether or not to have abortions without excessive government limits.
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/roe-v-wade-pro-life-pro-choice-march-for-life/2020/01/22/id/950897/
-
This shouldn't be controversial. What other medical procedures can a minor undergo without parental knowledge/consent?
Florida Legislature passes abortion parental consent bill
Girls under the age of 18 will have to get a parent's permission before having an abortion under a bill that Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to sign.
Image:
Feb. 21, 2020
By The Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Girls under the age of 18 will have to get a parent's permission before having an abortion under a bill passed by the Florida Legislature on Thursday that Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to sign.
The House voted 75-43 largely along party lines for the legislation that expands a current law that requires a girl's parents are notified before she can have an abortion. DeSantis asked lawmakers to send him the bill during his State of the State speech that kicked off the legislative session last month.
“What we are talking about is a child, and here were are talking about a child who is carrying a child,” said Republican Rep. Erin Grall, who sponsored the bill. “By including parents in this decision we empower the family. It is the critical backbone of our civilized society.”
The debate over the measure lasted nearly four hours.
The bill has a provision that will allow a girl to ask a judge for a waiver from the law in cases of abuse, incest or when involving a parent could cause more harm than allowing the procedure. But opponents argued that asking minors to negotiate the legal system when they are already scared and ashamed could drive them to illegal abortions.
“We are codifying into law that someone else can force a girl to have a child she does not want to have,” Democratic Rep. Susan Valdes said. “I worry that many girls will, when deprived access to a safe termination of pregnancy, take the risks of finding an unsafe, dangerous and untested method of terminating their pregnancies.”
She said that might include searching the internet for “mystery concoctions” in an attempt to end the pregnancy.
Democrats also said some girls might risk being thrown out of their homes or beaten if they tell their parents they're pregnant. But Grall said that just because there are some bad parents, it doesn't mean the rights of others to be part of the decision should be taken away.
“We hear the stories about the bad parent, the human trafficking, the intolerant parent, the abusive parent, the parent who will kill their child. I refuse to accept that we should diminish the rights of all parents in the raising of their children because of the acts of a few,” Grall said.
Republicans argued that children need a parent's permission to go on a school field trip and can't go to an R-rated movie without a parent or guardian, so it makes no sense to make a life-altering decision on their own.
“We require parental consent for a minor to get a driving learner’s permit because it is common sense. It is not common sense to suggest that getting a learner’s permit is a less significant life decision than a child getting an abortion," Republican Rep. Ana Maria Rodriguez said. ”A parent guiding their children through major life decisions is a good thing."
Florida will join 26 other states in requiring that at least one parent give written permission authorizing a doctor to terminate the pregnancy of a minor. Doctors who perform abortions without the parental consent of a girl under 18 would face up to five years in prison for a third-degree felony.
In 1979, the Florida Legislature enacted a similar parental consent law, but it was struck down a decade later by the Florida Supreme Court, which ruled that a woman’s right to privacy extended to pregnant minors. Bill supporters say the constitutional issue has been addressed in the current bill by including the judicial waiver and with a provision that would allow abortions in cases of medical emergencies without parental notification.
Once DeSantis signs the bill, it will become law July 1. It is certain to be challenged in court, but the current makeup off the state Supreme Court is overwhelmingly conservative.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-legislature-passes-abortion-parental-consent-bill-n1140476?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR08r3YbrfEOPF4WtJEaX3G58dssBrCDcN2uMQHTC1xzyNXtgmtCj69Thm4
-
New Poll Shows Americans Still Divided On Abortion, Most Support Restrictions After First Trimester
By Charlotte Pence Bond
Jun 25, 2021 DailyWire.com
A new poll showed that Americans are still vastly divided on the issue of abortion despite the talking points of many in the pro-choice movement.
An AP-NORC poll released on Thursday was conducted between the dates of June 10 – 14 and included 1,125 adults across the country. It showed that 61% of Americans felt that abortion should be legal in most or all cases during the first trimester of pregnancy, but that number went down to 34% in the second trimester and 19% in the third trimester.
Among non-religious people, 89% of the respondents said that it should be legal in all or most cases during the first trimester with 34% of born-again or evangelical Christians agreeing that it should be legal in the first trimester. Among other religions, 65% believed it should be legal in the first trimester.
When a woman’s health is involved, the respondents widely agreed. Overall, 87% of respondents said that abortion should be legal if the woman’s health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy and 84% believed it should be legal in the case where pregnancy results from rape or incest.
Only 49% of overall respondents said that abortion should be legal if the “woman does not want to be pregnant for any reason.” When asked the same question, 69% of Democrats said it should be legal if the woman does not want to be pregnant whereas only 46% of Independents agreed and 27% of Republicans agreed.
As the Associated Press noted, “Americans are closely divided over whether a pregnant woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion if she wants one for any reason, 49% yes to 50% no.”
With regard to the role of government in abortion, 52% of overall adults said that the federal government should have more responsibility for making laws related to abortion and 45% said the state government should have more responsibility.
According to the AP, 23% of adults said that abortion should be legal in all cases in general whereas 33% said it should be legal in most cases. In addition, 30% said it should be illegal in most cases and 13% said it should be illegal in all cases.
The poll also found that Democrats and non-religious people were more likely to support abortion in most cases, but Independents were notably more split. Of those who identified as Independent, 53% said abortion should be legal in all or most cases and 45% said it should be illegal in all or most cases.
If the “child would be born with a life-threatening illness,” 74% of adults said that a woman should be able to get a legal abortion. When asked the same question, 86% of Democrats agreed, 72% of Independents agreed, and 63% of Republicans agreed.
Michael New, a pro-life advocate who teaches social research at the Catholic University of America, said that the poll’s discoveries regarding abortions after the first trimester will help the pro-life movement, per the AP.
“This helps counter the narrative that the abortion policy outcome established by the Roe v. Wade decision enjoys substantial public support,” he said.
David O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, said the poll discoveries suggest that pro-choice advocates are “way out of the public mainstream” to the degree that they are in support of abortions even late into a woman’s pregnancy.
The poll came out as the U.S. Supreme Court recently said it would hear a case regarding a Mississippi law that many believe will either solidify or overturn precedent from Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-poll-shows-americans-still-divided-on-abortion-most-support-restrictions-after-first-trimester
-
Doulas Create Abortion Book for Kids to Normalize It as ‘Another Outcome of Pregnancy’
KATHERINE HAMILTON
27 Jun 2021
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2021/06/27/doulas-create-abortion-book-kids-normalize-it-another-outcome-pregnancy/
-
Democrats seek to abolish anti-abortion Hyde Amendment – but how far are they willing to go?
The Hyde Amendment has been a part of every government spending bill since 1976
By Chad Pergram | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-abolishing-hyde-amendment
-
‘Catholic’ Joe Biden No Longer Believes Life Begins at Conception, Supports Abortions
September 4, 2021
President Joe Biden has walked back remarks he made years ago when he said he believed life began at conception. Speaking on Friday, Biden said that although he respects Americans who believe life begins at conception, he does not agree with them.
Biden, a “staunch Catholic,” discussed Texas’ new Heartbeat Act, which the Supreme Court refused to block earlier in the week, on Friday morning with reporters. Under the Texas law, abortions are banned after six weeks and allow “any person” to sue a doctor, abortion clinic, or anyone else who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.”
Contrary to fears sparked by alarming posts on social media, the law does not allow individuals to sue expectant mothers who choose to have an abortion, nor does it allow anyone to sue women who have already had an abortion. Likewise, the law does not prohibit abortions from being performed in life-threatening medical situations.
“I am a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade, number one,” Biden said, according to the Daily Caller. “The most pernicious thing about the Texas law, it sort of creates a vigilante system … I know this sounds ridiculous, almost un-American, what we are talking about.”
“I respect people … who don’t support Roe v. Wade. I respect their views,” he said. “I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all, I respect that. Don’t agree, but I respect that. Not going to impose that on people.”
Biden’s remarks are a clear reversal from his own prior statements when he stated that he supported the Catholic view that life began at conception.
“I’m prepared to accept that the moment of conception is a human life and being, but I’m not prepared to say that to … people that have a different view,” said Biden in an interview with Father Matt Malone of America Media in 2015.
During a 2012 vice-presidential debate against Republican Paul Ryan, who was running for office with Mitt Romney, Biden said: “With regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide (doctrine ?). Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.”
“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear,” he added. “No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy — any hospital — none has to either refer contraception. None has to pay for contraception. None has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”
In a 2007 interview with “Meet the Press,” then-Senator Joe Biden said that he agreed with the Catholic view that life begins at conception.
“I am prepared to accept my church’s view,” he said. “I think it’s a tough one. I have to accept that on faith. That is a tough, tough decision to me.”
According to NBC News, he once described abortion to a Catholic newspaper as “wrong from the moment of conception.”
Biden’s reversal of his views seemed to have occurred in 2020 when he adopted his entirely new stance on abortion during the 2020 presidential campaign. His new views fly in the face of his voting record, which saw him voting against many pro-choice laws as a senator.
In 2019, the Biden presidential campaign said that although Biden supported Roe v. Wade, he still supported the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. The statement from the campaign was so widely decried by progressives, prompting Biden himself to reverse course within less than 24 hours to say that he could “no longer support an amendment” that cuts off federal funds from being used to perform abortions.
https://conservativebrief.com/joe-biden-reversal-50441/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=DJD&fbclid=IwAR1BfiW_1zyHv_pYKb7eYzDXJ94h9RscoINRfMU7sFhkRjDtYETTxHPokA0
-
Supreme Court to hear oral arguments challenging Roe v. Wade on Dec. 1
by Christian Datoc | | September 20, 2021
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear oral arguments in a Mississippi challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that effectively legalized abortion in America, on Dec. 1.
The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, focuses on the 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi and will force the nation's highest court to determine "whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional."
Anti-abortion activists have looked at the case as a legitimate chance to reverse Roe.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, one of the largest anti-abortion advocacy groups, claimed Dobbs marks "a landmark opportunity for the Supreme Court to recognize the right of states to protect unborn children from the horrors of painful late-term abortions."
Abortion rights activists have also sounded the alarm on the case given the court's current makeup. All three justices nominated by former President Donald Trump, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, are conservative, and opponents claim that each will attempt to overturn Roe given the opportunity.
Some liberal lawmakers have instead called on Congress to codify abortion rights.
"This shouldn’t just be up to the Supreme Court," Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren previously said. "Congress can, and must, pass a law to protect the right to a safe and legal abortion, no matter what Trump’s justices say."
The Supreme Court declined earlier this year to hear a challenge to S.B. 1, Texas's recently enacted six-week abortion ban. At the time, President Joe Biden directed the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to find ways around the Texas law and help providers offer abortion services without facing the new legal consequences, but he told reporters in early September he isn't "sure" the federal government will find the authority to circumvent the law.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-to-hear-oral-arguments-in-direct-challenge-to-roe-v-wade-on-december-1
-
House Democrats Unite to Pass Barbaric Abortion Bill
By THE EDITORS
September 24, 2021
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/house-democrats-unite-to-advance-barbaric-abortion-bill/
-
Supreme Court hears Mississippi abortion case that could overturn Roe v. Wade: LIVE UPDATES
The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday heard a challenge to a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks.
Covered by: Tyler Olson , Brie Stimson, Sam Dorman and Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/supreme-court-mississippi-abortion-roe
-
(https://offthepress.com/app/uploads/2021/12/Screen-Shot-2021-12-01-at-6.01.23-PM-1170x500-c-default.png)
-
(https://offthepress.com/app/uploads/2021/12/Screen-Shot-2021-12-01-at-6.01.23-PM-1170x500-c-default.png)
Like they are in any danger of getting pregnant.
-
That's hilarious!!!
Next I'll be tried on charges of genocide for squirting about 39 million people into my girlfriends anal cavity! ::)
Anal sex is natures own form of birth control.
-
Like they are in any danger of getting pregnant.
The one with short red hair and her arm up, looks like Mark Zuckerburg in drag. ;D
-
Supreme Court hears Mississippi abortion case that could overturn Roe v. Wade: LIVE UPDATES
The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday heard a challenge to a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks.
Covered by: Tyler Olson , Brie Stimson, Sam Dorman and Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/supreme-court-mississippi-abortion-roe
I tend to be pro CHOICE, but understand the "other side" and don't get too excited over the "abortion debate".
It does boggle my brain, how anyone could be against using birth control.
To me, using birth control and avoiding unwanted pregnancy in the first place, is the way to go.
My motto is : Pull out early , finish in her fart locker and you'll be fine. :D
-
(https://offthepress.com/app/uploads/2021/12/Screen-Shot-2021-12-01-at-6.01.23-PM-1170x500-c-default.png)
Psychos
-
Florida State House Approves 15-Week Abortion Ban
by Susan Berry, PhD | Feb 18, 2022
https://thestarnewsnetwork.com/2022/02/18/florida-state-house-approves-15-week-abortion-ban/
-
With the possible end of Roe v. Wade coming soon, people need to understand what will actually happen:
1. Abortion will not be outlawed by the Supreme Court's decision. The court will simply return the issue to state legislatures, which is how the issue was handled before Roe.
2. People will have the opportunity to lobby their respective state legislatures to allow abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy (likely California), to imposing bans after a certain number of weeks (Mississippi), to an outright ban (maybe Alabama).
3. If the overwhelming majority of people support abortion, then they shouldn't have a problem getting states to allow it.
4. Regardless of what happens, this issue will never be resolved. I've maintained for a long time that there is no political solution to this issue.
-
With the possible end of Roe v. Wade coming soon, people need to understand what will actually happen:
1. Abortion will not be outlawed by the Supreme Court's decision. The court will simply return the issue to state legislatures, which is how the issue was handled before Roe.
2. People will have the opportunity to lobby their respective state legislatures to allow abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy (likely California), to imposing bans after a certain number of weeks (Mississippi), to an outright ban (maybe Alabama).
3. If the overwhelming majority of people support abortion, then they shouldn't have a problem getting states to allow it.
4. Regardless of what happens, this issue will never be resolved. I've maintained for a long time that there is no political solution to this issue.
It should be a state issue just like everything else.
#4 is correct. No matter the outcome there will not be much change across the board.
-
This is a member of Congress saying abortion allows you to control how many mouths you have to feed.
-
Fetus = Good Snack': Disturbing images, 'sick and disgusting' videos emerge from pro-abortion 'Bans Off Our Bodies' rally in Phoenix
DAVE URBANSKI May 16, 2022
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSxDQl6UsAIg1nA?format=jpg&name=medium)
Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @DrewHLive
https://www.theblaze.com/news/fetus-good-snack-pro-abortion
-
Psychopaths.
-
Oklahoma Passes a More Restrictive Texas-Style Abortion Ban
The bill now heads to the governor’s desk. With his signature, it would become the strictest abortion ban in the nation, going further than the Texas ban it’s modeled on.
By Kaia Hubbard
May 19, 2022
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2022-05-19/oklahoma-passes-a-more-restrictive-texas-style-abortion-ban
-
U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ends constitutional right to abortion
By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung
June 27, 2022
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-overturns-abortion-rights-landmark-2022-06-24/
-
Minnesota Poised To Legalize Infanticide, Nuke Protections For Women And Babies In Radical Abortion Bill
BY: JORDAN BOYD
JANUARY 19, 2023
https://thefederalist.com/2023/01/19/minnesota-poised-to-legalize-infanticide-nuke-protections-for-women-and-babies-in-radical-abortion-bill/
-
IN CANCEL CULTURE ATTEMPT, FAR LEFT WRITER CALLS TONY DUNGY ‘RIGHT-WING ZEALOT’ FOR ATTENDING MARCH FOR LIFE
by IAN MILLER
https://www.outkick.com/in-cancel-culture-attempt-far-left-writer-calls-tony-dungy-right-wing-zealot-for-attending-march-for-life/
-
Minnesota Poised To Legalize Infanticide, Nuke Protections For Women And Babies In Radical Abortion Bill
BY: JORDAN BOYD
JANUARY 19, 2023
https://thefederalist.com/2023/01/19/minnesota-poised-to-legalize-infanticide-nuke-protections-for-women-and-babies-in-radical-abortion-bill/
Minnesota Legislature Passes Barbaric Bill to Legalize Abortions Up Until Birth
BY RICK MORAN
JANUARY 29, 2023
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2023/01/29/minnesota-legislature-passes-barbaric-bill-to-legalize-abortions-up-until-birth-n1666028
-
Kamala Harris stumbles on question about abortion limits: 'She doesn't answer'
Democrats have been accused of supporting abortions up until the moment of birth
By Lindsay Kornick Fox News
Published September 11, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/media/kamala-harris-stumbles-question-abortion-limits-she-doesnt-answer
-
Georgia State Supreme Court Allows LIFE Act to Stand
BY CHRIS QUEEN OCTOBER 24, 2023
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/chris-queen/2023/10/24/breaking-georgia-state-supreme-court-allows-life-act-to-stand-n1737463
-
Kamala Harris stumbles on question about abortion limits: 'She doesn't answer'
Democrats have been accused of supporting abortions up until the moment of birth
By Lindsay Kornick Fox News
Published September 11, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/media/kamala-harris-stumbles-question-abortion-limits-she-doesnt-answer
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Alabama Supreme Court declares frozen embryos children, say they have the same rights as the unborn
ALSC Chief Justice Tom Parker sited the Bible in his concurring opinion.
By Charlotte Hazard
Published: February 20, 2024
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/alabama-supreme-court-declares-frozen-embryos-children-say-they-have-same-rights?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
-
Florida Supreme Court hands down two key abortion decisions
BY NATHANIEL WEIXEL - 04/01/24
The Florida Supreme Court in two rulings Monday upheld the state’s 15-week abortion ban, but also approved a ballot measure that would protect abortion access if voters pass it in November.
. . . .
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4568219-abortion-measure-allowed-florida-supreme-court-says/
-
Arizona state House passes bill to repeal 1864 abortion ban
The issue now moves to the state Senate, which is also expected to vote to repeal the near-total ban the Arizona Supreme Court upheld earlier this month.
April 24, 2024
By Adam Edelman and Alex Tabet
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/arizona-abortion-ban-lawmakers-repeal-rcna149181