Posted on 07/08/2013 7:35:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed an abortion regulation bill into law that if enacted would be similar to the controversial measure being debated in Texas. Senate Bill 206, also called "Sonya's Law," would among other things require an ultrasound before an abortion and cut down the number of abortion-providing facilities in the state.
Walker signed SB 206 into law on Friday and was almost immediately sued by Wisconsin abortion providers questioning its constitutionality. Susan Armacost, legislative director for Wisconsin Right to Life, told The Christian Post that they "greatly appreciate Governor Walker's support for Wisconsin's new law."
"He understands that women need full information prior to making the life and death decision regarding whether to abort a child or give birth to that child," said Armacost.
"In addition, this legislation will protect women who suffer complications after an abortion by requiring that the individual who performed the abortion have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital."
Armacost also told CP that "Wisconsin Right to Life was the lead organization promoting Sonya's Law" through various means including "using social media, mobilizing the public behind the bill, extensive lobbying and educating public officials as to the need for the legislation."
According to Governor Walker's official website, Wisconsin's SB 206 passed the state Senate in a vote of 17 yeas to 15 nays and the Assembly in a vote of 56 yeas to 39 nays.
After Walker signed the bill into law, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the state in federal court in Madison.
According to The Associated Press, U.S. District Judge William Conley set the date for arguments for Wednesday, July 17.
Although, the law took effect on Monday, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are seeking to have a temporary restraining order to block implementation of the law as the suit is being argued.
Teri Huyck, chief executive officer and president of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a statement that the new law harms women's health.
"When women don't have access to safe, legal abortions, there are health consequences and women die," said Huyck. Regarding the lawsuit and the fate of SB 206, Armacost told CP that she believed "that Sonya's Law will be upheld as constitutional."
Wisconsin is one of many states who in recent months have seen debates flare over new laws focused on the regulation of abortion access.
In North Carolina, state senators passed new restrictions on abortion earlier this month while Kansas has been sued for its newly passed and implemented legislation. And in Texas, a much publicized debate over new rules for abortion providers is taking place during a second special session of the Legislature.
Texas passes a Wisconsin style bill.
Who are the leaders??
Expect the COURTS to intervene once again.
This is what America has become.
Susan Armacost, legislative director for Wisconsin Right to Life, told The Christian Post that they "greatly appreciate Governor Walker's support for Wisconsin's new law." "He understands that women need full information prior to making the life and death decision regarding whether to abort a child or give birth to that child," said Armacost.
I wonder how many women and girls believe, "No, it's not a person," or "No, it's not a baby," or "No, it's just tissue."
Explain to me Planned Parenthood why killing babies is the way to go. Good luck at the Pearly Gates.
If abortionists want safe abortions they would be supporting this bill and demanding abortionists have high standards
Unfortunately abortionists want non-licensed doctors to provide abortions which means a dog walker can open and perform abortions.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/24/california-no-doctors-license-needed-to-do-abortions-now/
It will be fought in court but I think whatever State passes these Bills, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, the Courts enter into it afterwards, Planned Parenthood has deep pockets but just because it goes to court doesn’t mean it loses for the Pro-Life cause, it’s just to be expected. Pro-Lifers have won a number of these court cases. Goes with the terrain.
So, you're admitting that all this bill does is to provide "safe" abortions?
Safe for whom?
The Left Judiciary has forty years of experience at easily mowing down any threat to abortion on demand. And the morally and constitutionally self-disarmed Republican "pro-life" abortion regulation industry just keeps marching straight into their guns, white flags streaming in the evil winds.
Which, of course, flies in the face of the explicit, imperative requirement of the supreme law of the land:
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
"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."
I’ve read extensively the platforms of the Constitutional and American Independent party which are against all abortions. This is true. This is a broad topic to get into but I have considered this previously.
There are 2 ways pro-lifers can eventually make abortion illegal. One is challenge Roe v Wade in the courts and two is pro-lifers engaging in this type of incrementalism with the goal of ending abortion.. I support both ways to eventually ending Roe v wade.
I’ve read plenty of pro-life stories, nearly on a daily basis, didn’t find the original story but here, a claim 1500 abortion clinics have been closed since 1991, it seems some abortion clinics close monthly. That has got to be seen as progress or at least to me, it is.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/21/report-1500-abortion-clinics-have-closed-since-1991/
Abortion is extremely rare in sparsely populated Wyoming for example.
NY and California and a few other states really bring the national average up I’m sorry to say, even Illinois and Massachusetts seem to be right on the national average meaning per capita abortions. A number of states are well beneath the national average.
No, there's a third way, a better way:
Demand that our representatives keep their sworn oath to support the Constitution of the United States, especially in the performance of their primary duty, which is the equal protection of the supreme individual right, the right to live.
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
"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."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
Here's where you find our documents, which address this subject matter in great detail:
Its been a while since Supreme Court judges and elected politicians took the Constitution seriously.
I’ve read plenty of pro-life stories, nearly on a daily basis, didn’t find the original story but here, a claim 1500 abortion clinics have been closed since 1991, it seems some abortion clinics close monthly. That has got to be seen as progress or at least to me, it is
Good news that.
They found a Judge who will find portions of the bill unconstitutional. He applied a “temporary” stay pending his hearing on July 17th, but if you read his ruling, it is apparent he has already made up his mind. Next stop, the Appeals Court.
They don’t believe in the Pearly Gates that is the problem. They are all hedonists with no conscience.
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.