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.
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.