Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

Abortion Ban in Alabama Designed 'To Directly Challenge Roe v. Wade'

Recommended Posts

https://reason.com/2019/05/15/reason-roundup-20/

Quote

"It is important that we pass this statewide abortion ban legislation and begin a long overdue effort to directly challenge Roe v. Wade," Alabama Lieutenant Gov. Will Ainsworth said last week. A vote on the measure had been temporarily tabled after the state Senate broke out in "chaos" debating an amendment to make exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

That bill passed the Alabama Senate 25-6 yesterday, without the rape/incest exceptions(which failed 21-11).

It not only bans abortion at any point in pregnancy but also makes it a felony for doctors to perform them, with exceptions only when the mother's life is in danger. It's now headed to a sympathetic state leader, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey (though Ivey said yesterday that she would "withhold comment until she has had a chance to thoroughly review the final version of the bill that passed").

Bill sponsor Sen. Clyde Chambliss, a Republican, specified that the law would not prohibit the destruction of fertilized eggs used for in-vitro fertilization, only those conceived within a woman's body. "The egg in the lab doesn't apply. It's not in a woman. She's not pregnant," Chambliss said, in floor debate with Democratic Sen. Rodger Smitherman.

 

Just in case anyone missed this, Alabama senator championing abortion bill differentiates between fertilized egg that is deserving of protection under the law and one that isn't: https://t.co/2T9G9QM9Dq

— Anna Claire Vollers (@acvollers) May 15, 2019

 

"Alabama paid nearly $4 million to ACLU since 2013, after losing or settling lawsuits on gay marriage, immigration and yes, abortion," noted Alabama Media Group reporter Anna Claire Vollers yesterday, calling the latest legislation "another costly test case."

But that's the point, as Alabama's lieutenant governor directly said in the quote up top.

And it's the point in other states—Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Mississippi—where legislatures have also passed near-total bans on abortion (though unlike in Alabama, these have allowed it up to six weeks gestational age).

"While these 6-week abortion bans may not ever take effect, anti-abortion advocates believe they can use them to ban abortion nationwide," writes Ema O'Connor at Buzzfeed. "The anti-abortion movement sees this current court as the most friendly in decades, and they hope getting these laws in front of it will result in them overturning Roe v. Wade."

.....

Good luck.  I find it interesting that the Republican side of the uni-party is said to whine and cry about government over-regulation in regards to industry, the environment, etc.  but most have no qualms about the government over-regulation of a women's womb by passing laws this and others designed to restrict access and close abortion clinics, like requiring doorways be a certain width.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 6:45 PM, gonzoron said:

feline healthcare.jpg

Exactly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Yet who represents the babies in a planned parenthood meeting?

is women's health really the key issue when it comes to abortions?  Data says different

https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

image.thumb.png.e24a7b43bdc8cf85055bf7ac8bcd8972.png

Only 9 countries in the world have a higher abortion rate than the US.....

So, what’s the point that you’re trying to make? That women should only be allowed to have abortions if they have a good reason? If that were the case, my guess is the people who decide whether a reason is good enough are those same old white men sitting around the table.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how a person who opposes abortion on the theory thathuman life begins at conception -- meaning from day one the embryo is an innocent human life -- would still be willing to allow an abortion in cases of rape or incest. If the operative moral principle is that the child has a right to life, why do the circumstances surrounding the baby's conception matter?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

I don't understand how a person who opposes abortion on the theory thathuman life begins at conception -- meaning from day one the embryo is an innocent human life -- would still be willing to allow an abortion in cases of rape or incest. If the operative moral principle is that the child has a right to life, why do the circumstances surrounding the baby's conception matter?  

There are plenty of people on social media saying just that. In fact, it was a comment along those lines that killed Richard Mourdock's campaign for Senator. I am still shaking my head at how he defeated Senator Lugar.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

I don't understand how a person who opposes abortion on the theory thathuman life begins at conception -- meaning from day one the embryo is an innocent human life -- would still be willing to allow an abortion in cases of rape or incest. If the operative moral principle is that the child has a right to life, why do the circumstances surrounding the baby's conception matter?  

A pregnant 11-year-old rape victim in Ohio would no longer be allowed to have an abortion under new state law: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-abortion-heartbeat-bill-pregnant-11-year-old-rape-victim-barred-abortion-after-new-ohio-abortion-bill-2019-05-13/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/18/2019 at 7:40 PM, Bobref said:

So, what’s the point that you’re trying to make? That women should only be allowed to have abortions if they have a good reason? If that were the case, my guess is the people who decide whether a reason is good enough are those same old white men sitting around the table.

No...I am saying women's health is often quoted as the reason to support abortions.  The data provided would seem to indicate in the vast, vast majority of cases, women's health had little to do with the decision to end life.

The original meme was in regard to men representing women about healthcare.  I am saying this issue is much bigger than women's health according to data behind the reason for abortions.

Edited by TrojanDad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

No...I am saying women's health is often quoted as the reason to support abortions.  The data provided would seem to indicate in the vast, vast majority of cases, women's health had little to do with the decision to end life.

The original meme was in regard to men representing women about healthcare.  I am saying this issue is much bigger than women's health according to data behind the reason for abortions.

I don't think that's the most quoted though ... it is just one of many issues that tend not to be considered when laws tend to be passed by folks that are more absolutist in the approach.  It has often been in response to more absolutist approaches that are then met with "but what about in cases of X?"  It's like attacks on defunding Planned Parenthood based on abortion procedures which run somewhere between the 3% of services and the 12-13% of people-served range.  Even at 13%, there's some 87% of patients, or more, that benefit from non-abortion services.  As such, a person who says that PP should be defunded based on abortion services will likely be met with a response about things like men's breast cancer, pap tests, etc.

The most common reasoning that I've heard is "their body, their call."  When you look at it from that reasoning, everything on that list fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the actual person that signed the Bill:

Portrait-Governor-Kay-Ivey.jpg

Wait, I thought it was all guys......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, foxbat said:

The most common reasoning that I've heard is "their body, their call."  When you look at it from that reasoning, everything on that list fits.

And it is the most logical reasoning.  Does an individual not effectively have sovereignty over their own body?  And a women has sovereignty over her own womb?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

And it is the most logical reasoning.  Does an individual not effectively have sovereignty over their own body?  And a women has sovereignty over her own womb?

 

 

I think folks on the other side of this issue would respond with something along the lines of, Yes, a person does have sovereignty over their own body, until exercising that sovereignty negatively impacts the body of another person. They'd view it as akin to the old libertarian line about, "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose."  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

I think folks on the other side of this issue would respond with something along the lines of, Yes, a person does have sovereignty over their own body, until exercising that sovereignty negatively impacts the body of another person. They'd view it as akin to the old libertarian line about, "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose."  

And exactly what "another person" are we talking about here?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And exactly what "another person" are we talking about here?  

I beleive that is a reference to the child inside the woman's womb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

I beleive that is a reference to the child inside the woman's womb.

And there is the rub.  Is an 8-week old lump of cells inside of a woman's womb really a "human child"?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And there is the rub.  Is an 8-week old lump of cells inside of a woman's womb really a "human child"?  

 

In your opinion, no, in the other side's opinion, yes. 

It is interesting, however, that you have now chosen to add in a time frame ("8-week old"). So does that mean that your logical conclusion that a woman has sovereignty over her own womb get less "logical" if the lump of cells in her womb is 35 weeks old? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wabash82 said:

In your opinion, no, in the other side's opinion, yes. 

It is interesting, however, that you have now chosen to add in a time frame ("8-week old"). So does that mean that your logical conclusion that a woman has sovereignty over her own womb get less "logical" if the lump of cells in her womb is 35 weeks old? 

If the fetus can survive, unaided by major medical technology, outside of the womb, then effectively yes. This is a stance I have held for years. I am not a proponent of late-term abortions and never have been.

I assume you believe "human life" begins at conception?

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

If the fetus can survive, unaided by major medical technology, outside of the womb, then effectively yes. This is a stance I have held for years. I am not a proponent of late-term abortions and never have been.

I assume you believe "human life" begins at conception?

 

 

How does the principle that the woman has sovereignty over her womb change just because the baby in theory could survive outside her womb? He's still in there, and if she wants her womb back, why does his potential viability mean she has to wait and let him live in her uterus for another few weeks and suffer the risks of labor or a c-section?  

Oh, and yes, I personally believe life begins at conception.  That has little to do with my views on whether abortion should be legal in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

How does the principle that the woman has sovereignty over her womb change just because the baby in theory could survive outside her womb? He's still in there, and if she wants her womb back, why does his potential viability mean she has to wait and let him live in her uterus for another few weeks and suffer the risks of labor or a c-section?  

Saying I don't personally support late term abortions doesn't mean I support a woman being criminally punished for having one.  Do you support the criminal punishment of women who choose to have an abortion, at any stage of the fetus's development?

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Saying I don't personally support late term abortions doesn't mean I support a woman being criminally punished for having one.  Do you support the criminal punishment of women who choose to have an abortion, at any stage of the fetus's development?

 

I didn't say, or mean to imply that you support criminal punishment for  woman. I don't, either. But that seems like a red herring to interject -- as far as I am aware, none of these new laws criminally punish the woman. They punish the doctor or other person who performs the abortion.    

It was simply interesting to me that you switched from talking about this issue as a statement of principle -- a woman control her own body -- to talking about what you are or are not a "proponent of."    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

Oh, and yes, I personally believe life begins at conception.  That has little to do with my views on whether abortion should be legal in the U.S.

About time that someone made the point that legality and morality are not the same thing. The legal availability of abortion is not the same thing as compelling people to undergo them. You can personally believe that abortion is wrong without attempting to impose your belief system upon others. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2019 at 5:12 PM, Irishman said:

There are plenty of people on social media saying just that. In fact, it was a comment along those lines that killed Richard Mourdock's campaign for Senator. I am still shaking my head at how he defeated Senator Lugar.

I voted for Mourdock in the primary largely because I thought he was easier to defeat than Lugar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appears that neither of Indiana's overturned abortion-related laws was taken up for action by the Supreme Court yesterday.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-takes-no-action-indiana-abortion-154955308.html

FTA:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday took no action on appeals seeking to revive two restrictive Republican-backed abortion laws from Indiana, even as debate rages over a new measure in Alabama that would prohibit the procedure almost entirely.

Neither Indiana case was on the list of appeals on which the court acted on Monday morning. The court could next announce whether or not it will hear the cases on May 28.

If the nine-justice court takes up either case, it would give the conservative majority an opportunity to chip away at the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and recognized a right under the U.S. Constitution for women to terminate pregnancies.

One of the Indiana laws requires fetal remains to be buried or cremated and bans abortions performed because of fetal disability or the sex or race of the fetus. The other law requires women to undergo an ultrasound examination at least 18 hours before they undergo an abortion.

Both Indiana measures were signed into law in 2016 by Vice President Mike Pence when he was Indiana's governor and were struck down by federal judges the following year. The state of Indiana is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...