Eighty-eight percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, 2006.
Posted on 04/13/2012 5:40:09 AM PDT by Wpin
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a pro-life bill into law today to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
House members passed the bill by a 37-22 vote and abortions after that time period would not be allowed except in very rare cases of medical emergency. The bill also requires abortion facilities to allow women to have an ultrasound of their unborn baby at least 24 hours prior to having the abortion. In many cases women change their minds about a planned abortion after seeing the images of their developing child.
Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest commended Brewer and called the bill “a life-protecting bill designed to ensure that women don’t suffer from the risks of a dangerous, late-term procedure.” She said Arizona is the first state in the country to enact a late-term ban based on concerns over protecting women’s health by demonstrating that abortion is not only bad for the unborn child, it is also bad for women.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
22 voted against this.
Once you can state that the pre-born is a human worth protection of the laws, then there is no bright line as to how early the ban could be extended.
Be glad for this.
Gov. Brewer has shown an occasional RINO streak, but on these big issues, she seems to be spot on. Well done, Gov.
A landlord can have a tenant forcibly evicted even in the middle of winter, even if that tenant has nowhere else to go and no means to get there. The minimum notice for eviction in Arizona is 24 hours. Is a woman to have less authority over her own body than a landlord has over his property?
A landlord who evicts a tenant into a sub-zero winter storm is heartless, perhaps even evil, but the law still gives them that power over their property.
What should the state do if a parent evicted their child from their home and the child freezed to death?
Are you claiming that the little person in the womb is mere property?
Is a woman’s unborn baby property or a human being with inalienable rights?
If the woman wanted to excise a cyst, you’d be absolutely right. But since what we’re talking about is the intentional killing of an innocent human being (who is incontrovertedly not a body part, but a distinct human being, with different DNA than the mother), your analogy is inapposite. A better analogy would be a landlord who locked a tenant in the building and set it on fire with the intent of killing the tenant.
Hey, it’s a start. This is the best pro-life news I’ve heard in recent memory.
The claimed ends don't justify the means.
These bills, which define the child as a person, and then make "legal" provision for the killing of certain disfavored classes of these persons, are grossly immoral and completely unconstitutional.
Our Constitution ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES equal protection for ALL. There are NO exceptions. And it's NOT optional.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
That makes no sense...can you elaborate a little? How are you justifying killing a baby?
incontrovertedly = incontrovertibly
I would have as well.
To do otherwise would be a violation of the oath.
The Constitution does not allow the killing of innocent persons, and it absolutely requires equal protection for all persons.
These sorts of bills miserably fail that first and most important test. They amount to nothing more than the codification of the killing of innocent persons.
A landlord who evicts a tenant into a sub-zero winter storm is heartless, perhaps even evil, but the law still gives them that power over their property.
I suggest you reread your Constitution and US case law e.g. inalienable right to life.
The right to life trumps the right to control property; both supposedly to be protected by the government. As such, your comparison of the two equates to discounting the value of life and implying the government should value property rights over the right to life.
Right now, a moral law that prohibts the intentional killing of innocent human life from the moment of conception would be struck down immediately by the Supreme Court (and by every court on the way up to SCOTUS). We need to chip away at Roe v. Wade in order to get it struck down eventually. Besides, even if you believe that Roe can be overturned without there being any chipping away first (which may or may not be the case if a Republican president names Ginnsburg’s or Kennedy’s replacement), it is certainly the case that a law such as the one I would prefer and which is my eventual goal (banning abortion from the moment of conception, except if the continued pregnancy would likely lead to the death of the mother) would save zero lives (since it would be struck down immediately and would never go into effect) while a ban on abortions after 20 weeks and a requirement that women get the option to see an ultrasound of their baby would save thousands of lives.
As Father Frank Pavone would say, when we choose something that is not perfect, what some call “the lesser of two evils,” we aren’t “choosing evil,” but choosing to *reduce* evil, and that is an eminently moral choice. While a law that banned all abortions is the opposite of evil, the fact that it immediately would be struck down (and it *is* a fact, given the current state of our Judiciary) means that the effect of such a law is a continuation of the current abortion-on-demand at all stages of pregnancy. So even if we could convince a majority of members of the AZ House and Senate to ban abortion from the moment of conception (which I think would be unlikely), and the AZ Governor to sign the bill, it would not stop a single abortion.
If this law is upheld by the courts, it will be a huge victory in our long war to protect innocent human beings from the moment of conception. I know that “don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good” is overused and following the adage often leads to making weak choices, but in this particular instance we would save fewer lives if we passed on the AZ law and insisted that the law that we eventually want to see in place is approved right now.
More of the “war on women”? < /sarc >
The answer is that War, like Politics, is the art of the possible. You attack the enemy everywhere you can to get a win and to set up the next battle. If you can get a complete win then go for it - but do not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
In the present case you are saying that you would vote against protecting a 21-week old baby because you can't defend all children in the womb. That attitude ... is a lot of things, but at the very least it is self-defeating.
What a stupid analogy you offer.
Well said. This is a small victory, and victories are good.
An eviction is for CAUSE. You have to do something to be evicted. You can't be evicted for being "inconvenient".
A woman had the authority over her body at the time she decided to participate in the activity that resulted in a pregnancy. But you seem to hold that an innocent third party must die for the misbehavior (or mistake, if you prefer) of another or two others.
I'll pray for your enlightenment, and the safety of any child you start.
regarding Sound Judgment:
Although prudence would be applied to any such judgment, the more difficult tasks, which distinguish a person as prudent, are those in which various goods have to be weighed against
each other ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence
To clarify, I said “the misbehavior of another or two others”. That would include cases of rape and incest. The rapist’s misbehavior should not pass a death sentence on the other innocent party, nor should the willing or unwilling participation in incest.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
EV:
Equal Protection of the Law means ALL the unborn must be aborted.
Well stated; far better than my attempt.
I guess you’d rather have the status quo (up to day of birth) in your “all or nothing” approach.
You don’t attack the enemy and win wars by disarming, stripping buck naked, and walking into the battle zone talking about how committed you are to fighting and winning.
Which is exactly what this sort of legislation, pushed for years now by the Romney Republicans at National Right to Life, is.
Surrender of the moral, constitutional and legal arguments against abortion right out of the gate, in exchange for the ability to once again lie to conservatives for money and votes.
I’ll say it again, this sort of legislation is immoral, and completely unconstitutional. Anyone who supports it is in breach of the first most important duty associated with their oath of office.
No. This bill is the status quo. The Romney Republicans at National Right to Life have been playing this utterly unprincipled losers game for a decade now, and all it has accomplished is to further embed unconstitutional allowance of the killing of innocent children more deeply into our legal codes.
No. This bill is the status quo. The Romney Republicans at National Right to Life have been playing this utterly unprincipled losers game for a decade now, and all it has accomplished is to further embed unconstitutional allowance of the killing of innocent children more deeply into our legal codes.
This actually is not a bad approach. Let's get as many states as possible to limit abortion to 20 weeks. Then, take it down to 10 weeks. Then, work on getting it down to 1 month.
At that point, abortions are down to a trickle. Most abortions occur after the woman begins to show.
A baby is no more a part of a woman's body than you are a piece of furniture in your house just because you are inside it.
A baby is a being that has a certain state of dependency. The dependency lessens throughout childhood, but we don't abort 12-year-olds, do we? Then why should we kill 12-week olds? There is no material difference.
Can't believe abortion is being advocated on FR.
You don’t win wars by refusing to fight.
But let’s work those RINOs into this war-analogy, because I think there is a point of agreement between us here.
In this WW2 analogy: RINOs would happily have dropped a few bombs on Germany, declared total victory and then have gone home - leaving the status quo unchanged.
A real, lasting victory was won in AZ. We must make sure that this victory is not treated as the end of the war.
Except for the fact that it doesn’t work.
I agree. The rapist or perpetrator of incest may be the worst person in the world, visiting the most horrific experience on the woman, but none of that has any bearing on the life of the baby. Especially if it is adopted out. I have a cousin who was rescued from abortion after a rape, through adoption, and today is a contributing member of society.
No, when you sacrifice the first principles of the republic, and pass immoral unconstitutional legislation, you are surrendering, not winning.
The incremental approach has sure worked for the Left. They NEVER stop their incremental attacks on our liberties. They didn't get Obamacare in a day. It all started way back in the 60's with the employer insurance mandate.
And it's in the process of making a huge difference for 2nd Amendment liberties. Every year, states chip away at the restrictions the Left had put in place (also incrementally).
This war is more like the nuclear arms race, and less like D-Day.
Freedom-minded folks need to learn tactics in politics. Patience is the only way to win.
As someone born at 28 weeks, I can say that the baby is not her own body but a separate individual being who moves and acts on its own. At 28 weeks in many states a lot of babies could be aborted. However I was protected because I was out of the womb.
I just wish Brewer had not vetoed the Presidential eligibility (birth certificate) bill that had passed the AZ legislature several months ago. The AZ legislature is now reviving the bill in light of Arpaio’s report on Obama’s BC forgery. I consider this to be a big issue.
Your "all or nothing" approach will not roll back 39 years of immoral unconstitutional legislation and Supreme Court activity. Perhaps that's why the American Independent Party isn't very popular.
Take what you can get until Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, and PP v Casey is gone and get the rest later.
Most abortions occur after the woman begins to show.
Do you have any data to support that assertion?
The “incremental” approach works for the Left because it’s a fine way to degrade and take down good things.
But you don’t forward good things by supporting bad things. The world just doesn’t work that way.
You forward good by standing without compromise for what is right and good.
Once you compromise principle, you’ve lost.
“No. This bill is the status quo. The Romney Republicans at National Right to Life have been playing this utterly unprincipled losers game for a decade now, and all it has accomplished is to further embed unconstitutional allowance of the killing of innocent children more deeply into our legal codes.”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Respectfully disagree. While your goal is commendable, politics has to be worked incrementally. The other side has done so very effectively for decades, and that is why our country and our culture is deteriorating.
We can’t keep fighting unwinnable battles, or we will lose our generation. Keep praying - I’m sure you are.
You would apparently see children murdered in the womb rather than take legal steps to defend them: all this in the name of a notional state of constitutional purity.
Here's the thing: the status quo is already unconstitutional. The Constitution is already being flouted. The new law in AZ reduces the dominion of the current murderous misrepresentation of the Constitution. This is why it is a good thing (as long as it is not regarded as a place to stop).
Hope this is helpful.
A landlord's tenant is also a separate individual being who moves and acts on his own, but that doesn't prevent an eviction in the middle of winter.
I understand your point, but unfortunately, Roe v. Wade has tied the hands of elected officals who want to ban abortion.
If there were 1 million innocent children scheduled to be murdered this year, and you had the ability to save the lives of 200,000 of them, but were powerless to save the rest, would you let the 200,000 die along with the other 800,000 or save as many lives as you can?
Besides restricting certain abortions, and requiring sonagrams, which will convince some women to spare their babies’ lives, laws like this the push the limit back from “viability” (generally 24 weeks) to 20 weeks, might lead to constitutional challenges, that could potentially give the SCOTUS the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.
If Roe v. Wade was reviewed today, there would almost certainly be 4 votes to overturn (Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito) and Kennedy (who upheld the partial birth abortion ban) might cast the deciding vote to overturn that evil decision.
This "law" specifically allows every single child to be killed, as long as you do it on schedule.
You simply haven't thought this through.
Eighty-eight percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, 2006.
And the state of the law before this bill allowed every single child to be killed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.