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 ...
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.
You are trying to equate killing a baby over a lawful and rightful eviction??
Roe v. Wade has tied the hands of elected officals
Well, it shouldn't. They swore to support the Constitution, not the Court.
The judicial supremacist mindset is doing more than just about anything else I can think of to destroy this free republic.
And "pro-life" "Republicanism" is rotten to the core with it.
One’s legalized murder. The other isn’t nice, but isn’t a death sentence.
And it still does. And in exchange for nothing you’ve codified the killing of innocent persons, contrary to the moral law, the natural law, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, all the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution, the explicit, imperative requirements of that Constitution, and the principles, purposes, and requirements of all the state constitutions as well.
Congratulations.
We won't get perfect until PP v Casey, Roe v Wade, and Doe v Bolton are gone. That won't be done until SCOTUS fixes its mistake.
You're fooling yourself if you think you have enough power or perspective to play incremental games with evil.
Compromise with evil and you've already lost.
All we can do is the right thing, leaving the results to God. He has the perspective and the power to bring about His will, either immediately or over time. We do not.
If every Christian in America would simply adopt George Washington's attitude concerning things like this, the abortion carnage would stop.
-- George Washington"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."
“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.”
Try getting a tenant evicted with 24 hours notice. Just go ahead and try...
“Landlords may evict tenants for a variety of reasons, however, all eviction notices must be in writing. The amount of time a tenant has to either vacate the premises or fix the problem, if possible, is dependent upon the type of eviction. For example, if you have an unauthorized pet, the landlord could give you 10 days to either vacate the premises or get rid of the pet. If the problem involves such things as criminal activity or threatening other residents or apartment staff, the required notice to vacate is 24 hours and there is no opportunity to fix the problem.”
To follow your analogy - if the baby in the womb is threatening the lives of other people...
“Giving notice is the first step in the eviction process. The notice required in Arizona for all situations except non-payment is a 10 Day Notice. Notice must be in writing and delivered in person or by certified mail to the tenant.”
So I guess if the baby has agreed to pay the mother rent, and then withholds the payment...
Bottom line: The baby, unlike a tenant, has a 100% chance of death in abortion. And the mother, by conceiving the baby, has an obligation to fulfill ‘the contract’ - which means delivery.
If the baby refuses to leave at 9 months, feel free to evict. It is called a C-section.
I have always wondered why there has not been a push to have “fetal transplants”. If a baby in a womb can be transfered to another womb (human or artificial), then the issue moves from termination to viability.
It also opens the door to “fetal adoption”. (of course the issue of fetus selling becomes a possible issue)
No it isn't. The "law" is immoral, lawless, and blatantly unconstitutional.
The Constitution of the United States requires equal protection for the God-given, unalienable right to life of every single innocent person. No exceptions. It's not optional. It is imperative.
"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."
In the end, the Supreme Court decides (for better or for worse) what is Constitutional.
I support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, but that would seem impossible to get ratified at this point.
The makeup of the SCOTUS has changed greatly since 1973 and the there are 4 justices who understand and respect the Constitution and another who is on the fence. If a case regarding a law like this makes it to the SCOTUS we might well be freed from the evil of Roe v. Wade.
Would you vote against a law banning the murder of “viable” unborn babies, newborn babies, toddlers, children and adults, because it does not protect the younger unborn?
What actions do you propose to end abortion? Would you support actions that greatly reduce it (say by 90%) but didn’t completely ban it, provided taking such actions did not preclude a total ban in the future?
>>>Your arguments are Utilitarian, not moral or constitutional. <<<
Is it “moral” to refuse to save 10 innocent lives that you have the ability to save, because there are 10 others that you cannot save?
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.