Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 31, 2015, 06:30:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters  (Read 10995 times)
The True Adonis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 45365


"We Will Correct All This."


« Reply #225 on: March 26, 2015, 01:25:31 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

E
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #226 on: March 26, 2015, 01:31:33 PM »

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.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 27234


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #227 on: March 27, 2015, 09:19:02 PM »

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?
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #228 on: April 03, 2015, 10:35:01 AM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #229 on: April 08, 2015, 10:36:11 AM »

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/
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #230 on: April 22, 2015, 10:57:10 AM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #231 on: April 23, 2015, 11:06:53 AM »

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/
Report to moderator   Logged
bears
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2129


« Reply #232 on: April 23, 2015, 01:50:05 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #233 on: May 13, 2015, 06:34:03 PM »

U.S. House Passes Abortion Ban That Could Challenge Roe V. Wade [UPDATE]
Laura Bassett Become a fan
[email protected]
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
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 27234


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #234 on: May 13, 2015, 06:44:28 PM »

U.S. House Passes Abortion Ban That Could Challenge Roe V. Wade [UPDATE]
Laura Bassett Become a fan
[email protected]
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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #235 on: May 19, 2015, 02:20:26 PM »

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.



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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #236 on: June 11, 2015, 09:10:23 AM »

Court Upholds Texas Limits on Abortions
By MANNY FERNANDEZ and ERIK ECKHOLM
JUNE 9, 2015

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #237 on: June 29, 2015, 03:25:11 PM »

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/
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 27234


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #238 on: June 29, 2015, 06:42:22 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #239 on: July 09, 2015, 09:34:32 AM »

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

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 27234


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #240 on: July 09, 2015, 10:18:09 AM »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

great way to preach to the choir while turning off all independent and crossover voters on a national stage
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #241 on: July 20, 2015, 05:05:29 PM »

GOP presidential hopeful Scott Walker signs abortion ban bill
Published July 20, 2015
Associated Press

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 27234


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #242 on: July 20, 2015, 05:57:00 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 45025

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #243 on: August 25, 2015, 10:50:05 AM »

Ohio mulls Down syndrome abortion ban, Kasich mum for now
By Adam Shaw
Published August 24, 2015
FoxNews.com


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
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!