Posted on 03/01/2013 2:19:07 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Arkansas state legislators voted to override Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe's veto of a bill that will ban abortions in the state at 20 weeks, unless the woman is a victim of rape, incest or her life is at risk due to a medical emergency.
On Wednesday, the override passed the House with 53 votes, which included all 51 Republicans and two Democrats. The bill then moved to the Senate floor on Thursday, where it received 19 Republican votes to complete the override.
In Arkansas, legislators can override a governor's veto by a simple majority, which is 51 votes in the House and 18 votes in the Senate. During this legislative session, Republicans have a slight majority in the House, holding 51 of the 100 seats, and in the Senate, where they hold 21 of the 35 seats.
Rep. Andy Mayberry (R-Hensley), the sponsor of HB 1037, "an act to create the pain-capable unborn child protection act and to declare an emergency," told The Christian Post that he's happy about the outcome. "I am certainly pleased that the Arkansas General Assembly chose to override the veto of this life-preserving bill that reflects the pro-life values of the people of this state," Mayberry said. "This is a good law that I believe will hold up under constitutional and judicial scrutiny. Most importantly, it will save innocent babies who are capable of feeling pain from suffering a horrific, painful death."
Mayberry told CP that under the current Arkansas law, abortions can be performed up-to 25 weeks. He also added that an abortion can be performed up-to 40 weeks, if a doctor says that a baby is not viable, or if the mother faces a medical emergency.
Beebe, who vetoed HB 1037 earlier this week, said in his veto letter that he's concerned about legal costs the state could incur if an outside organization decides to challenge the constitutionality of the bill.
"In the last case in which the constitutionality of an Arkansas abortion statute was challenged, Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Jegley (1999), the state was ordered to pay the prevailing plaintiffs and their attorneys nearly $119,000 for work in the trial court, and an additional $28,900 for work on the state's unsuccessful appeal," said Beebe.
According to Mayberry, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has claimed that they will challenge the law. "I'm not sure what they would gain," said Mayberry who added that the Arkansas law is based on similar legislation that passed in Nebraska and has not been challenged since it became law in October 2010.
The majority opinion held that "ethical and moral concerns", including an interest in fetal life, represented "substantial" state interests, which (assuming they do not impose an "undue" burden) could be a basis for legislation at all times during pregnancy, not just after viability. Thus, the Court clarified that the pre-viability/post-viability distinction was not implicated in Carhart.
Nothing here about personhood. Your judgment of the "immorality" of the law is uncalled for and unwarranted.
But it’s not, in fact, baby steps. A) It’s not morally right to pass laws that say you can kill some innocent persons. B) It’s not constitutional. C) We have forty years of experience that tells us it doesn’t work, because you’re giving up the principles that argue against the practice of human abortion every time you pass one of these bills.
Wilberforce went through the same thing in the effort to end slavery in the British Empire. For decades he and his cohort in Parliament tried the compromise, incremental approach, until finally they figured out that it wasn’t right, and that it DID NOT WORK. So, they changed to a no-compromise equal protection approach, which very quickly prevailed. Without a civil war, I might add.
I don’t get it. Court opinions don’t determine morality.
And just because some court ignores the facts of the personhood of the child that doesn’t change the reality that they are quite self-evidently persons.
Rita Sklar and the ACLU are going to lead the charge on the challenge. There is already a plan in place for fending it off - unfortunately, it is going to get expensive.
While I don't find Beebe to be a horid Dem - hell, I supported him (compared to Northern Dems, he would be considered a rampant Conservative), we need to put in place a strong Constitutionalist Gov. and AG. If we run Asa, it will not end well - he is a plague and will get trounced at the polls. Curtis Coleman is the man, and we need to get him past Asa in the primary.
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973 "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." -- The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution "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." -- The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
“A) It’s not morally right to pass laws that say you can kill some innocent persons.”
“B) It’s not constitutional.”
I agree with you. And if we had an enlightened majority in the Supreme Court and the Arkansas law was struck down because it violates the inalienable right to life of innocent human beings, then we would get exactly what we want, thatnks to that law. Unfortunately, if the law was struck down, it would be for not permitting abortion in enough circumstances. The law that you and I would pass would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional, and would set back the pro-life cause for years.
“C) We have forty years of experience that tells us it doesn’t work, because you’re giving up the principles that argue against the practice of human abortion every time you pass one of these bills.”
“Wilberforce went through the same thing in the effort to end slavery in the British Empire. For decades he and his cohort in Parliament tried the compromise, incremental approach, until finally they figured out that it wasn’t right, and that it DID NOT WORK. So, they changed to a no-compromise equal protection approach, which very quickly prevailed.”
Wilberforce then fought until his death for emancipation, and died a few days after hearing confirmation that slavery would finally be banned in the British Empire. And even then, the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 did not prohibit slavery on certain parts of the British Empire (such as what are now India and Sri Lanka, and the island of St. Helena); that came 10 years later, with a law that passed thanks to the prior passage of the imperfect emencipation act of 1833.
So the lesson we should learn from Wilberforce’s fight to end slavery is not to compromise on your principles, but accept partial victories instead of total defeats.
There is no such thing as a “partial victory” when it comes to life. Not for the person being murdered. There’s no in between. When you’re dead you’re dead.
And there is nothing “perfect” or “good” about legislation that violates the most important explicit, imperative requirements of the supreme law of the land.
If you have sufficient power to pass lawless “laws” that fail to provide equal protection, as the Constitution requires, you have the power to save all.
If you support creating a class of human beings that can be murdered “legally,” based solely on the belief that they cannot feel pain, surely you would have no problem with a “law” that said it was okay to put a bullet through the heart of a paraplegic, right? Or one that said you could snuff out Grandma if you’ve given her enough morphine? I mean, after all, they won’t feel a thing!
That’s what I call this legislation: The “Don’t Worry, They Won’t Feel A Thing” laws.
Latest word has it that Gov. Beeb is stuned!
“We are too young to realize that certain things are impossible... So we will do them anyway.”-- William Wilberforce
The law bans abortion (with some exceptions) after 20 weeks, which is earlier than any law that has withstood judicial review. The “pain” thing is the gimmick used to convince courts that the state has a compelling state interest that outweighs “the woman’s right to privacy” that Harry Blackmun pulled out of his [donkey] in 1973.
Did he say that before or after he accepted a ban on the slave trade, knowing that emancipation would take much longer to be adopted and that enacting a ban on the slave trade was a good start towards his eventual goal?
And insisting that only a total abortion ban in Arkansas would be acceptable is even dumber than settling only for total emancipation would be in Parliament in 1807, since not only would a total abortion ban not pass, if somehow it did it immediately would be enjoined by the courts from going into effect and it would be declared unconstitutional soon thereafter.
William Wilberforce was nothing like you, thank God.
This “gimmick” is shifting the law and the debate completely away from the core principles which are the only true basis of the rule of law in this country.
-- William Wilberforce“If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow-creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large.”
Exceptions, ie failure to provide equal protection to all, is what opened the door to abortion on demand in this country, and they are what keeps abortion on demand in place.
You’ve given up the moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against abortion. Therefore you can never possibly end it, any more than a soldier who disarmed and stripped naked could walk into Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban.
That does not mean he agrees with Roe v. Wade, because he doesn't. He thinks it is made up Law that has no basis of fact in the Constitution.
Nonetheless, the chances of any reversal of Roe v. Wade sailed out to Sea the moment Obama won his Second Term and the Rats kept the Senate. The day will not come for its repeal in our Lifetimes or our Children's Lifetimes.
Stacking the Court for generations to come with Liberal Justices is set in stone. Obama will haunt us all until the day we die, of that I am certain. We have to take whatever Victories we can, whether pure to our intentions or not. As Obama says, if we protect just one Child's life. (yeah, I know)
Well, this Law, for all its faults, will do just that.
Fundamentally, your arguments are purely Utilitarian, not moral, and not Constitutional.
Utilitarianism can never restore the moral basis of our form of government and our claim to liberty.
The bottom line is that the child in the womb is a person, and our Constitution absolutely requires that every person be provided with the equal protection of the laws. The oath of office that every officer of government, in every branch, at every level, must take requires that this be done.
You either stand for that or you don’t. It’s that simple.
Yes, I’m well aware that Scalia thinks that the God-given, unalienable right to life should be left up to, as he says, “democratic choice.”
You can’t look to the courts to stop this holocaust, and you most certainly can’t look to legislators who also fail in their first, most important duty, which is to provide equal protection for all.
Unlike, it seems, you, I actually want to see Roe v. Wade overturned and abortion banned. By taking your ridiculous stand, you are a useful idiot for the abortionists.
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.