ND House Passes Abortion Ban

[Shogun]

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

more..


ND House Passes Abortion Ban | KXNet.com North Dakota News

 

[jillian]

and it comports with Roe how???

that bill isn't going real far when it's challenged, but it's not the first time ND tried to do that. They already got smacked for it.

 

[Shogun]

indeed. I'm curious how this will play out.

Now, this is just for you Jillybean.

Bruce Springsteen Poster Retrospective -Portland Poster Pole

 

[Modbert]

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

more..


ND House Passes Abortion Ban | KXNet.com North Dakota News

I'm pretty sure ND only has one abortion clinic in the entire state which is in Fargo since all the wackos there already drove them all out.

SD only has one in the entire state too and theirs is in Sioux Falls for the same reason.

Not surprised to see Republican ignorance continuing to shine through. Sad thing is, the only ones who suffer here are the women who can't get a abortion for various reasons and will have to go out of state.

Though I do wonder if the fucktard lawmakers up there do realize that with the current law that there are so many mistakes with it.

 

[auditor0007]

Whether or not someone agrees with Roe vs. Wade or not, we cannot have states trying to circumvent Constitutional decisions. Although I'm not big on abortion rights, I believe if abortion is to be overturned, it must be overturned nationally, not state by state.

The idea that overturning Roe vs Wade would not end abortion but rather leave it up to the states is a bad idea. There are certain rights that Americans are guaranteed, and those should be guaranteed for all Americans, not just in certain states.

Hopefully, this will be put down in the courts as no one can say for certain when life begins. We all have our own thoughts on that, but until there is agreement, setting an arbitrary time for that is impossible.

 

[William Joyce]

Whether or not someone agrees with Roe vs. Wade or not, we cannot have states trying to circumvent Constitutional decisions.

Now there's the spirit of the founding fathers!

You know... Lenin, Trotsky...

 

[Sunni Man]

Why shouldn't this state be allowed to outlaw abortion if that's what the people want?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Whether or not someone agrees with Roe vs. Wade or not, we cannot have states trying to circumvent Constitutional decisions. Although I'm not big on abortion rights, I believe if abortion is to be overturned, it must be overturned nationally, not state by state.

The idea that overturning Roe vs Wade would not end abortion but rather leave it up to the states is a bad idea. There are certain rights that Americans are guaranteed, and those should be guaranteed for all Americans, not just in certain states.

Hopefully, this will be put down in the courts as no one can say for certain when life begins. We all have our own thoughts on that, but until there is agreement, setting an arbitrary time for that is impossible.

Why can't we have states trying to circumvent decisions that go against the Constitution? The Constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate abortion one way or another, therefore any law made either banning or allowing abortion is null and void. It is the duty of the state governments to make sure that the federal government does not usurp power it was never intended to have.

 

[jillian]

Because if the Court decides it, it's not, by definition, against the constitution.

That's a pretty basic concept.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because if the Court decides it, it's not, by definition, against the constitution.

That's a pretty basic concept.

President Nixon believed something similar...

 

[jillian]

Because if the Court decides it, it's not, by definition, against the constitution.

That's a pretty basic concept.

President Nixon believed something similar...

you're confusing concepts.

Nixon said if the president did it, it can't be illegal... an obvious untruth.

it is the job of the court to interpret the constitution. a decision can be, in your mind, incorrect, but it can't be unconstitutional. and sometimes, the court takes decisions that are clearly wrong (e.g, plessy v ferguson) and correct it. again...roe isn't that kind of case, though.

and no, states can't circumvent the high court. that's the whole point. they can give MORE rights than the feds, but never less.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the court decides that the federal government can regulate something that it has no authority from the Constitution to regulate, that is unconstitutional.

 

[xsited1]

Evidently, abortion is murder.

...
According to The Oklahoman newspaper, an officer pulled over Chip Harrison last week because he had in his car a sign that said, "Abort Obama, not the unborn."

...

The officer thought Harrison was threatening to kill the president, according to the article.

...

Report: Oklahoma City Police Admit Mistake in Pulling Over Man With Anti-Obama Sign - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

 

[jillian]

If the court decides that the federal government can regulate something that it has no authority from the Constitution to regulate, that is unconstitutional.

if the high court protects individual rights, then the states have no right to interfere... you know, same as when the feds had to smack them down to make them de-segregate.

again, you are misusing the term unconstitutional

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the court decides that the federal government can regulate something that it has no authority from the Constitution to regulate, that is unconstitutional.

if the high court protects individual rights, then the states have no right to interfere... you know, same as when the feds had to smack them down to make them de-segregate.

again, you are misusing the term unconstitutional

You are misusing the term Constitution if you believe ours allows the federal government to regulate abortion.

 

[Yukon]

There is no objective reason other than the way society is currently organized for women to be denied reproductive freedom. Women must be able to determine when and if they will have children as part of making more overall choices and determinations about what they will do with their lives; to be free to make such choices based not on the narrow horizons established by right-wing, religious zealots of what is best for them or their individual families but based on unleashing the full potential of women to participate in changing the world around her in the direction of the full emancipation of all of humanity.

A world where half of humanity is still having to live under ancient codes of morality that demand the subordination and submission of women is, in 2009, an obscenity