Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

[Straw Man]

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

[whork]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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/

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

[whork]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

[RRKore]

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!!

[Dos Equis]

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/

[Purge_WTF]

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.

[Dos Equis]

 

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

[bears]

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?

[Irongrip400]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[bears]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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/

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/missouri-abortion-waiting_n_5331758.html