He said one aim of the law is to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in 'Roe v. Wade.'
abortion north dakota
(Photo: James MacPherson, AP)
Story Highlights
The bills bar abortions if a fetal heartbeat is heard
Residents will vote in 2014 on a ballot measure that defines life as starting at conception
Planned Parenthood official says governor has compromised women's health
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed bills Tuesday making the state's abortion laws the nation's most restrictive and setting the stage for what he called a U.S. Supreme Court challenge of "the boundaries of Roe v. Wade."
The bills bar abortions if a fetal heartbeat is heard, which can be six weeks into a pregnancy; ban abortions prompted by genetic defects; and require abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges. They become law Aug. 1 unless a court blocks them.
North Dakota residents will vote in 2014 on a ballot measure that defines life as starting at conception.
Paul Maloney of North Dakota Right to Life calls Tuesday "a landmark day." Sarah Stoesz of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota and the Dakotas says Dalrymple, "with one swipe of his pen ... severely compromised" women's health.
Dalrymple, a Republican, said the likelihood of the fetal heartbeat bill surviving a court challenge "remains in question" and asked the Legislature to create a legal fund.
Roe v. Wade
, a 1973 Supreme Court ruling, legalized abortion until a fetus can survive outside the womb, usually at about 24 weeks.
Donna Crane of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says the organization is concerned about the number of state bills seeking to outlaw abortion. Arkansas legislators passed a 12-week ban this month. Legislators who support such bills "are completely out of touch," she says.
Of the 425 state bills NARAL is tracking, 209 would limit abortions. In 23 states, Republican governors preside over legislatures where both chambers are controlled by the GOP.
READ: The governor's statement
Mary Spaulding Balch of National Right to Life says "pain-capable unborn child" bills that bar abortions after pain can be felt in the 20th week or earlier might be a better Supreme Court challenge because they rely on "science that wasn't available in 1973."
Ian Bartrum, a constitutional professor of law at Iowa's Drake University, says the latest laws are likely to end up in court, but he doubts they will succeed.
State Sen. Connie Triplett, a Democrat who voted against one of North Dakota's bills and walked out in protest during votes on the others, is disappointed. The measures are not "reflective of the citizens of North Dakota," she says.
Sen. Margaret Sitte, a Republican who supports the measures, says "the tide is turning" in public support for ending abortion.
North Dakota Abortion Ban
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple, delivers the State of the State Address at the Capitol in Bismarck, N.D. on Tuesday Jan. 8, 2013. (AP Photo/Will Kincaid)
BISMARCK, N.D. — North Dakota's governor positioned the oil-rich state Tuesday as a primary battleground in the decades-old fight over abortion rights, signing into law the nation's toughest restriction on the procedure and urging lawmakers to set aside cash for an inevitable legal challenge.
Minutes after Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed three anti-abortion measures – one banning them when a heartbeat can be detected, which is as early as six weeks into a pregnancy – unsolicited donations began pouring into the state's lone abortion clinic to help opponents prove the new laws are unconstitutional.
"Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade," Dalrymple said in a statement, referring to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion up to until a fetus is considered viable – usually at 22 to 24 weeks.
In an interview later Tuesday, Dalrymple told The Associated Press that the courts opened the door for a challenge by picking a specific moment in the timeline of gestation. He also said he studied the fetal heartbeat bill and "educated myself on the history and legal aspects as best I could. My conclusion is not coming from any religious belief or personal experience."
Dalrymple seemed determined to open a legal debate on the legislation, acknowledging the constitutionality of the measure was an open question. He asked the Legislature to set aside money for a "litigation fund" that would allow the state's attorney general to defend the measure against lawsuits.
He said he didn't know how much the likely court fight would cost, but he said money wasn't the issue.
"The Legislature has decided to ask these questions on additional restrictions on abortions, and I think they have the legitimate right to ask those questions," he said.
He also signed into law measures that would makes North Dakota the first state to ban abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome and require a doctor who performs abortions to be a physician with hospital-admitting privileges.
Lawmakers endorsed a fourth anti-abortion bill last week that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed premise that fetuses feel pain at that point. The governor stopped short of saying he would sign it, but said: "I've already signed three bills. Draw your own conclusion."
The signed measures, which take effect Aug. 1, are fueled in part by an attempt to close the Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo – the state's only abortion clinic.
Tammi Kromenaker, the clinic's director, called the legislation "extreme and unconstitutional" and said Dalrymple "awoke a sleeping giant" by approving it. The clinic, which performs about 3,000 abortions annually, was accepting cash donations and continued to take appointments Tuesday, she said.
"First and foremost, abortion is both legal and available in North Dakota," she said. "But anytime abortion laws are in the news, women are worried about access."
The Center for Reproductive Rights announced Tuesday that it has committed to challenging the fetal heartbeat bill on behalf of the clinic. The New York-based group already represented the clinic for free in a lawsuit over a 2011 law banning the widely accepted use of a medication that induces abortion. A judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of the law, and a trial is slated for April in Fargo.
Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem told the AP that lawyers from his office would defend any lawsuits that arise but an increase to the agency's budget would likely be necessary. He did not have a dollar amount.
The state has spent about $23,000 in legal costs to date defending the 2011 legislation, according to agency records obtained by the AP.
Julie Rikelman, litigation director for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the group has provided three attorneys to argue that case. But in the recent round of legislation, the fetal heartbeat measure is the priority because it would effectively ban abortion in the state, she said.
"The impact is very, very clear," she said. "It would have an immediate and very large impact on the women in North Dakota."
Rikelman said the center also would support the clinic in other litigation, if need be and at no cost.
Kromenaker said other states have spent millions of dollars defending legislation, if the case reaches the nation's highest court. Rikelman said it's impossible to put a dollar amount on the impending legal fight in North Dakota.
"Litigation is so unpredictable," she said. "It could be very quick with a ruling in our favor."
North Dakota's law, since it would ban most abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, goes further than a bill approved earlier this month in Arkansas that establishes a 12-week ban – prohibiting them when a fetal heartbeat can be detected using an abdominal ultrasound. That ban is scheduled to take effect 90 days after the Arkansas Legislature adjourns.
A fetal heartbeat can generally be detected earlier in a pregnancy using a vaginal ultrasound, but Arkansas lawmakers balked at requiring women seeking abortions to have the more invasive imaging technique.
North Dakota's legislation doesn't specify how a fetal heartbeat would be detected.
Doctors performing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected could face a felony charge punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Women having an abortion would not face charges.
The legislation to ban abortions based on genetic defects also would ban abortion based on gender selection. The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion laws throughout the country, says Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma also have laws outlawing abortion based on gender selection.
The Republican-led North Dakota Legislature has endorsed a spate of anti-abortion Legislation this year. North Dakota lawmakers moved last week to outlaw abortion in the state by passing a resolution defining life as starting at conception, essentially banning abortion in the state. The measure is likely to come before voters in November 2014.
Dalrymple attended a groundbreaking ceremony Tuesday for a new diesel refinery in western North Dakota and made no public appearance to explain his signing of the abortion legislation.
FARGO, N.D. — Gov. Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota approved the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions on Tuesday, signing into law a measure that would ban nearly all abortions and inviting a legal showdown over just how much states can limit access to the procedure.
Multimedia
Graphic
States Chipping Away at Roe v. Wade
National Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Enlarge This Image
Dan Koeck for The New York Times
Tammi Kromenaker runs the state’s only abortion provider.
Enlarge This Image
Dale Wetzel/Associated Press
Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed the laws Tuesday.
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (464) »
Mr. Dalrymple, a Republican, signed three bills passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature in Bismarck. The most far-reaching law forbids abortion once a fetal heartbeat is “detectable,” which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Fetal heartbeats are detectable at that stage of pregnancy using a transvaginal ultrasound.
Most legal scholars have said the law would violate the Supreme Court’s finding in Roe v. Wade that abortions were permitted until the fetus was viable outside the womb, generally around 24 weeks. Even some leaders of the anti-abortion movement nationally have predicted that laws banning abortion so early in pregnancy are virtually certain to be declared unconstitutional by federal courts.
“Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade,” Mr. Dalrymple said in a statement. The Supreme Court, he added, “has never considered this precise restriction” in the heartbeat bill.
“I think there’s a lot of frustration in the pro-life movement,” said Paul B. Linton, a constitutional lawyer in Illinois who was formerly general counsel of Americans United for Life. “Forty years after Roe v. Wade was decided, it’s still the law of the land.”
The new laws place North Dakota, for the moment at least, at the center of sharp efforts in several Republican-controlled states to curb abortion rights. Three weeks ago, Arkansas lawmakers adopted what at the time was the country’s most stringent abortion limit, also tied to detection of a fetal heartbeat and banning the procedure at 12 weeks of pregnancy. That is the point at which a heartbeat can be detected using an abdominal ultrasound.
The Arkansas and North Dakota laws have offered the first victories for an emerging faction of the anti-abortion movement that is frustrated by the limited progress in curbing abortions and hopes that the Supreme Court might be ready for a radical rethinking.
But that approach has caused divisions within the movement, with Mr. Linton and others calling it wishful thinking
The North Dakota fetal heartbeat law and others like it, Mr. Linton said, “have no chance in the courts.”
Abortion-rights advocates who had gathered here to urge the governor to veto the bills quickly condemned his decision as effectively banning abortion in the state and as an attack on women. Without judicial intervention, the three bills are scheduled to take effect Aug. 1.
“In the past it’s been, ‘We’re going to try and make it more difficult, more hoops, more obstacles for women to have to jump through or jump over,’ ” said Tammi Kromenaker, the director of Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, the state’s only abortion provider. “But this is specifically: ‘Let’s ban abortion. Let’s do it. Let’s challenge Roe v. Wade. Let’s end abortion in North Dakota.’ ”
The Center for Reproductive Rights, in New York, immediately condemned the new laws and said it would file a challenge to the fetal heartbeat ban.
Mr. Dalrymple also affirmed a law to require doctors performing abortions to get admitting privileges at a local hospital, which could force the closing of the Red River clinic. A similar law adopted by Mississippi last year is under challenge in federal court.
He also signed a third law that would prevent abortion in cases of gender preference or — the first of its kind in the nation — genetic defects, like Down syndrome.
The signings come on top of a resolution approved by the North Dakota Legislature last week to amend the State Constitution to assert that life begins at conception, a move that would give a fetus the rights of a person and outlaw virtually all abortions. The so-called personhood measure, asserting that “the inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and defended,” will go on the ballot next year. Such measures have been voted down in Mississippi and Colorado.
Mr. Dalrymple acted on the measures less than 24 hours after they were advanced to his desk.
Similar measures to ban abortions when fetal heartbeats are detected are under consideration in several other states, including Kansas and Ohio.
The larger, established opponents of abortion including the National Right to Life, Americans United for Life and the Roman Catholic Church have not supported fetal heartbeat proposals, saying that until the court’s composition changes, they could be counterproductive.
These groups have instead pursued more incremental measures, like waiting periods, requiring sonograms, and imposing stricter regulations on doctors and clinics and, in 10 states so far, bans on abortion at 20 weeks, an approach that is nearer to the viability threshold, but is under challenge in the courts.
“There are two clashing forces in the anti-abortion movement now,” said Caitlin Borgmann, a law professor and abortion-rights advocate at City University of New York. “The incrementalists are chipping away at Roe and the others are getting impatient.”
With passage of heartbeat laws in Arkansas and North Dakota, “this extreme wing of the movement has definitely gained momentum,” Ms. Borgmann said. “But it can only go so far because they can’t win in the courts.”
Abortion-rights advocates here have felt particularly on the defensive this year because of the sheer number of bills introduced and their sweeping scope.
Previously approved abortion measures requiring the state’s lone provider to do things like post new signs, fill out more paperwork, distribute literature and offer ultrasounds were seen as burdensome but manageable.
Some say that North Dakota lawmakers and activists opposed to abortion aggressively pushed their cause this year because they were emboldened by the huge cash reserves from oil revenue that the state can use to fight legal challenges to its laws, and by the successful passage of abortion restrictions elsewhere in the country.
In signing the measure the governor asked the Legislature to appropriate money to pay to defend a court challenge.
“Nationwide, there’s receptiveness to this,” said Paul Maloney, the executive director of North Dakota Right to Life. “People of North Dakota thought, ‘We have the kind of legislative body that would pass these kinds of pieces of legislation.’ ”
Fetal heartbeats are generally detectable six weeks into pregnancy using a transvaginal ultrasound, and at 10 to 12 weeks with abdominal ultrasounds. Doctors could face five years in prison if they knowingly violate this measure, and Ms. Kromenaker said physicians would feel compelled to perform transvaginal ultrasounds to stay in compliance.
State Representative Bette Grande, a Republican who was the primary sponsor of the heartbeat bill, praised the governor’s decision.
“This is just a great day for babies in North Dakota,” she said, expressing confidence that it would withstand the court challenges.
“The state has a compelling duty to find what is the potential life of a fetus,” she said. “What is more compelling and proof of life than a heartbeat? It meets the criteria of Roe v. Wade.”
The admitting privileges law will probably lead the Red River clinic to shut down, Ms. Kromenaker said, because there are only two hospitals within the required radius, and she was uncertain whether her doctors would be allowed privileges there. One of the hospitals requires a doctor to admit at least 10 patients per year, she said, a standard that her doctors, who fly in from out of state to perform the procedures, would be unable to meet.
John Eligon reported from Fargo, and Erik Eckholm from New York.
Choking the chicken? Spanking the monkey? Playing with himself? Each sperm cell IS a potential life after all. Same thing for guys who use condoms. Millions of potential lives lost each time.
For that matter, each period flushes a potential life down the drain. Do we force women to preserve those eggs so they might at some future time be fertilized and the potential life brought forth?
What about people who get their tubes tied? A dozen killed per year for a woman, untold TRILLIONS lost for a man.
For that matter, millions of potential lives are lost even in the instance where ONE is preserved. But no one cares at all about any of that because it's "not a viable life".
Well, neither is a fetus until about five months. Take it out of the woman's body and see what happens.
You want to make a REAL difference in abortion rates? Stop wating time, money, and effort getting it outlawed. Instead support research into removing the fetus ALIVE and bringing it to term OUTSIDE the woman's body. Do that and EVERY abortion fetus is saved - along with millions of others in ectopic pregnancies and other cases of medically complicated pregnancies.
But no, it's more fun to bash women for not living the life you would want them to live instead of actually SOLVING THE PROBLEM.
Choking the chicken? Spanking the monkey? Playing with himself? Each sperm cell IS a potential life after all. Same thing for guys who use condoms. Millions of potential lives lost each time. .
Not potential. Actual.
Here's the fun part, Roe v. Wade doesn't protect abortion. Once science makes those little blobs of cells outside of the womb the states can intervene. Oh noes! So don't hang your hat on that case. It will change.
Having said that, I'm explaining their reasoning. Don't confuse me with someone who cares.
Choking the chicken? Spanking the monkey? Playing with himself? Each sperm cell IS a potential life after all. Same thing for guys who use condoms. Millions of potential lives lost each time.
.
Not potential. Actual.
You're stirring the pot man. Now, it'll devolve into if a fertilized egg/fetus is a baby discussion...
3....
2...
1...
Choking the chicken? Spanking the monkey? Playing with himself? Each sperm cell IS a potential life after all. Same thing for guys who use condoms. Millions of potential lives lost each time.
.
Not potential. Actual.
You're stirring the pot man. Now, it'll devolve into if a fertilized egg/fetus is a baby discussion...
3....
2...
1...
Choking the chicken? Spanking the monkey? Playing with himself? Each sperm cell IS a potential life after all. Same thing for guys who use condoms. Millions of potential lives lost each time. .
Not potential. Actual.
You're stirring the pot man. Now, it'll devolve into if a fertilized egg/fetus is a baby discussion... 3.... 2... 1...
No it won't, because my entire post was a low brow masturbation joke. Frazz isn't stirring the pot. A sperm cell is is not a child, fetus, fertilized egg... it does not have the rest of the ingredients to start on the road to becoming a birthed human being...
Choking the chicken? Spanking the monkey? Playing with himself? Each sperm cell IS a potential life after all. Same thing for guys who use condoms. Millions of potential lives lost each time.
For that matter, each period flushes a potential life down the drain. Do we force women to preserve those eggs so they might at some future time be fertilized and the potential life brought forth?
What about people who get their tubes tied? A dozen killed per year for a woman, untold TRILLIONS lost for a man.
For that matter, millions of potential lives are lost even in the instance where ONE is preserved. But no one cares at all about any of that because it's "not a viable life".
Well, neither is a fetus until about five months. Take it out of the woman's body and see what happens.
You want to make a REAL difference in abortion rates? Stop wating time, money, and effort getting it outlawed. Instead support research into removing the fetus ALIVE and bringing it to term OUTSIDE the woman's body. Do that and EVERY abortion fetus is saved - along with millions of others in ectopic pregnancies and other cases of medically complicated pregnancies.
But no, it's more fun to bash women for not living the life you would want them to live instead of actually SOLVING THE PROBLEM.
Why solve the problem when you can solve a symptom?
Choking the chicken? Spanking the monkey? Playing with himself? Each sperm cell IS a potential life after all. Same thing for guys who use condoms. Millions of potential lives lost each time. .
Not potential. Actual.
You're stirring the pot man. Now, it'll devolve into if a fertilized egg/fetus is a baby discussion... 3.... 2... 1...
No it won't, because my entire post was a low brow masturbation joke. Frazz isn't stirring the pot. A sperm cell is is not a child, fetus, fertilized egg... it does not have the rest of the ingredients to start on the road to becoming a birthed human being...
I'm no longer thinking about scrambled eggs for breakfast*
*I've moved onto to thinking about fajitas for supper!
Alfndrate wrote: A sperm cell is is not a child, fetus, fertilized egg... it does not have the rest of the ingredients to start on the road to becoming a birthed human being...
Ingredients like sugar, water, enriched bleached wheat flour [flour, reduced iron, "B" vitamins (niacin, thiamine mononitrate {B1}, riboflavin {B2}, folic acid)], partially hydrogenated vegetable and/or animal shortening (contains one or more of: soybean, cottonseed or canola oil, beef fat), corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, cocoa, contains 2% or less of: soybean oil, corn flour, soy lecithin, modified corn starch, glucose, cocoa processed with alkali, chocolate liquor, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, locust bean gum, dextrose, sodium phosphate, salt, sweet dairy whey, soy protein isolate, soy flour, calcium and sodium caseinate, cornstarch, mono and diglycerides, modified wheat starch, polysorbate 60, sodium stearoyl lactylate, leavenings (sodium acid pyrophosphate, baking soda, monocalcium phosphate), palm oil, cellulose gum, natural and artificial flavors (contain caramel color, egg yolks, sodium caseinate, butter), agar, gelatin, potassium sorbate and sorbic acid (to retain freshness).
Alfndrate wrote: A sperm cell is is not a child, fetus, fertilized egg... it does not have the rest of the ingredients to start on the road to becoming a birthed human being...
Ingredients like sugar, water, enriched bleached wheat flour [flour, reduced iron, "B" vitamins (niacin, thiamine mononitrate {B1}, riboflavin {B2}, folic acid)], partially hydrogenated vegetable and/or animal shortening (contains one or more of: soybean, cottonseed or canola oil, beef fat), corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, cocoa, contains 2% or less of: soybean oil, corn flour, soy lecithin, modified corn starch, glucose, cocoa processed with alkali, chocolate liquor, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, locust bean gum, dextrose, sodium phosphate, salt, sweet dairy whey, soy protein isolate, soy flour, calcium and sodium caseinate, cornstarch, mono and diglycerides, modified wheat starch, polysorbate 60, sodium stearoyl lactylate, leavenings (sodium acid pyrophosphate, baking soda, monocalcium phosphate), palm oil, cellulose gum, natural and artificial flavors (contain caramel color, egg yolks, sodium caseinate, butter), agar, gelatin, potassium sorbate and sorbic acid (to retain freshness).
Choking the chicken? Spanking the monkey? Playing with himself? Each sperm cell IS a potential life after all. Same thing for guys who use condoms. Millions of potential lives lost each time.
.
Not potential. Actual.
You're stirring the pot man. Now, it'll devolve into if a fertilized egg/fetus is a baby discussion...
3....
2...
1...
No it won't, because my entire post was a low brow masturbation joke. Frazz isn't stirring the pot. A sperm cell is is not a child, fetus, fertilized egg... it does not have the rest of the ingredients to start on the road to becoming a birthed human being...
Well... agreed, except fraz just took the discussion towards "Not potential. Actual."
No it won't, because my entire post was a low brow masturbation joke. Frazz isn't stirring the pot. A sperm cell is is not a child, fetus, fertilized egg... it does not have the rest of the ingredients to start on the road to becoming a birthed human being...
I'm no longer thinking about scrambled eggs for breakfast*
*I've moved onto to thinking about fajitas for supper!
TexMex is the best... or Queso... definitely queso....
kronk wrote: The fiscal conservative in me is scoffing at the money what will be thrown away in courts over this when Roe vs Wade has already had its day in court.
The Libertarian in me is scoffing at the idea of any government entity limiting what a person can or can't do with her own body.
The (little remaining) Catholic in me can't get upset as I enjoy the wonders of birth control too much.
This bill has no teeth, or future. Spend your money on education, North Dakota.
Oh, carry on then! When he wrote "The party of 'Freedom for only things we agree with'" I thought he was only referring to a single one. Now it actually makes sense.
Hordini wrote: Does North Dakota consider the morning after pill an abortion?
It depends on the specific pill. Plan B only prevents fertilization by stopping the egg from falling into place, and by making the chemical environnement harder on the zoids. Ella is thought to be able to kill a (very) young foetus.
Vulcan wrote: Choking the chicken? Spanking the monkey? Playing with himself? Each sperm cell IS a potential life after all. Same thing for guys who use condoms. Millions of potential lives lost each time.
In Arizona, 140,800 of the 1,290,026 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2008. 71% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 14% in induced abortions.
Source: Guttmacher Institute
I'm bothered by the fact that old men think they deserve governance over the reproductive functions of young women.
Those old men think they are preventing the killing of millions of babies annually, thats why.
Then they are deluded and should not be in office. The epidemiological evidence is clear.
Mmmm quite the opposite. But thats ok. As noted, I just don't care (as long as you don't make me pay for them). Third trimester, thats a different story.
Kilkrazy wrote: In Arizona, 140,800 of the 1,290,026 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2008. 71% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 14% in induced abortions.
Source: Guttmacher Institute
Frazzled wrote: Do you have any proof whatsoever to that statement?
Why would it even be controversial? If you're pregnant with a baby you don't want why would you wait any longer than you have to before getting rid of it? The only plausible reasons for abortions after 20+ weeks are because the various anti-abortion laws prevented you from getting one earlier (the admitted intent of some restrictions is to slow everything down and ensure that women can't get an abortion before the deadline), or because you've just discovered that the fetus has horrible medical problems.
Frazzled wrote:Do you have any proof whatsoever to that statement?
Will a report that compares the late-term abortion restrictions by state suffice? North Dakota currently does not permit late-term abortions (nebulously referred to as post-viability, which I believe is in excess of 21 weeks -someone can correct me if I've got that part wrong) with the only exception being for life-threatening complications.
EDIT: My mistake; North Dakota apparently doesn't even allow for late-term abortions when the fetus is guaranteed not to surve; the late-term abortion is only allowed if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
hotsauceman1 wrote: you mean The party of "Freedom for only things we agree with"?
Doesn't that describe every political party?
To some extent. The issue here is that the Republicans sell themselves as the 'get government out of your life' and 'small government' party, then at every turn try to interfere just as much as the Dems. The Dems at least don't lie about wanting some government intervention.
hotsauceman1 wrote: you mean The party of "Freedom for only things we agree with"?
Doesn't that describe every political party?
To some extent. The issue here is that the Republicans sell themselves as the 'get government out of your life' and 'small government' party, then at every turn try to interfere just as much as the Dems. The Dems at least don't lie about wanting some government intervention.
Hordini wrote:Okay. They probably think they're saving thousands of babies a year then.
Then they're still deluded. Those 21+ week abortions are typically due to zero-chance-at-life conditions like being born with half a heart or brain.
I didn't know we were only talking about 21+ week abortions. I just thought we were trying to figure out why some old men think they deserve governance over the reproductive functions of women.
hotsauceman1 wrote: you mean The party of "Freedom for only things we agree with"?
Doesn't that describe every political party?
To some extent. The issue here is that the Republicans sell themselves as the 'get government out of your life' and 'small government' party, then at every turn try to interfere just as much as the Dems. The Dems at least don't lie about wanting some government intervention.
They just lie about other things.
Which makes them different, and not really equal in this instance. There is no shame in calling the Republicans out on their bs. Doing so doesn't make you a Democrat anymore than calling out Democrats on theirs makes you a Republican.
Hordini wrote:Okay. They probably think they're saving thousands of babies a year then.
Then they're still deluded. Those 21+ week abortions are typically due to zero-chance-at-life conditions like being born with half a heart or brain.
I didn't know we were only talking about 21+ week abortions. I just thought we were trying to figure out why some old men think they deserve governance over the reproductive functions of women.
Sure you did. Your quote was in response to that information:
Spoiler:
Hordini wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: In Arizona, 140,800 of the 1,290,026 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2008. 71% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 14% in induced abortions.
Source: Guttmacher Institute
Hordini wrote:Okay. They probably think they're saving thousands of babies a year then.
Then they're still deluded. Those 21+ week abortions are typically due to zero-chance-at-life conditions like being born with half a heart or brain.
I didn't know we were only talking about 21+ week abortions. I just thought we were trying to figure out why some old men think they deserve governance over the reproductive functions of women.
Sure you did. Your quote was in response to that information:
Spoiler:
Hordini wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: In Arizona, 140,800 of the 1,290,026 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2008. 71% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 14% in induced abortions.
Source: Guttmacher Institute
Frazzled wrote: Those old men think they are preventing the killing of millions of babies annually, thats why.
And their absolute, unquestioning belief that it is absolutely a baby just is the product of a political decision made in the 1970s by the leaders of the evangelical movement to align themselves with Catholic in order to increase their overall political influence.
Before then opinion on abortion among Evangelical was divided, but the overall consensus was that it was a Catholic thing.
And here we are, a generation away, and the conviction that it is a person is not only unquestionable, but so absolutely taken for granted that most aren't even aware that it could be asked as a question. It's staggering, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote: Why solve the problem when you can solve a symptom?
I don't think there really is a problem. At least there isn't a 'baby murdering' problem like so many abortionists like to claim. If there was, they'd be doing a lot more than making signs and holding rallies and sometimes passing a law that's destined to be shot down by the Supreme Court.
I mean, imagine if it was 4 year old kids. That somehow the state had said if you really don't want your child anymore you can take them to a clinic and the doctor there will get rid of them for you. Well there'd be a lot more than fundraising email chains. The odd killing of an abortion doctor would be nothing like the violence you'd see.
But there isn't. Despite the rhetoric, they anti-abortionists don't actually act as if the foetus is the same thing as a child.
I mean hell, if they really believed that, they'd jump over every chance possible to stop abortion. And right now we know that if you make contraception free we can cut abortion rates by 80%. Offering women free IUDs or implanted hormone releasers would cost about $1,000 per operation, but that should sound like a bargain if it is stopping the murder of babies. But the anti-abortion movement doesn't even consider that, in fact they're opposed to making contraception more widely available.
At which point it becomes hard to see the apparent worry over dead babies as any more than the most transparent bs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote: Abstenince itself has a 99.99% success rate.
Failure rates include the inability of the user to use the method properly. Abstinence works at about 30% success rate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Mmmm quite the opposite. But thats ok. As noted, I just don't care (as long as you don't make me pay for them).
You don't pay for them. That's been in law since the 1980s.
My wife and I hope your all right on the Supreme Court over turning this. We live in North Dakota. She even organized and lead a local rally against these bills. As did several people she knew across the state. Its a sad times to live in this state. North Dakota may have a surplus of money and jobs but it seriously lacks a good governing body with a brain. As a matter of fact this personhood bill was headed up by a woman in the legislature.
my wife almost cried when she heard the governor signed them.
azazel the cat wrote: Because your wife was so sad to learn that that the governor is dumb enough to believe that this won't get overturned by the supreme court?
I'm guessing that the Governor and everyone else involved in this piece of law knows it isn't consistent with Roe v Wade... they're hoping that when this does go up it's one more chance at the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade.
orunlu wrote: My wife and I hope your all right on the Supreme Court over turning this. We live in North Dakota. She even organized and lead a local rally against these bills. As did several people she knew across the state. Its a sad times to live in this state. North Dakota may have a surplus of money and jobs but it seriously lacks a good governing body with a brain. As a matter of fact this personhood bill was headed up by a woman in the legislature.
my wife almost cried when she heard the governor signed them.
Frazzled wrote: One would think with the morning after pill it wouldn't be an issue now. Me no understand.
Not when they consider the morning after pill an abortion too.
Does North Dakota consider the morning after pill an abortion?
The 'morning after' pill is ineffective after a VERY limited time, certainly less than six weeks - thus the name 'morning after' pill. So it's not affected by the ND 'post-six-week-abortion' ban.
hotsauceman1 wrote: you mean The party of "Freedom for only things we agree with"?
Doesn't that describe every political party?
To some extent. The issue here is that the Republicans sell themselves as the 'get government out of your life' and 'small government' party, then at every turn try to interfere just as much as the Dems. The Dems at least don't lie about wanting some government intervention.
They just lie about other things.
Which makes them different, and not really equal in this instance. There is no shame in calling the Republicans out on their bs. Doing so doesn't make you a Democrat anymore than calling out Democrats on theirs makes you a Republican.
That's certainly true, and I agree that both parties should be called out on their crap. I just wanted to point out that either party could easily be referred to as the party of "freedom for only things we agree with." The Republicans do not have a monopoly on that unfortunate kind of approach.
The only plausible reasons for abortions after 20+ weeks are because the various anti-abortion laws prevented you from getting one earlier...
You know that isn't true, or so I hope.
The girl's parents might object, the girl didn't know she was pregnant, the girl may have been in denial regarding her pregnancy, or she may have feared the procedure itself*, etc. There are many, many non-legal reasons for a girl to put off an abortion.
*A friend of mine nearly bled to death after a botched procedure.
The only plausible reasons for abortions after 20+ weeks are because the various anti-abortion laws prevented you from getting one earlier...
You know that isn't true, or so I hope.
The girl's parents might object, the girl didn't know she was pregnant, the girl may have been in denial regarding her pregnancy, or she may have feared the procedure itself*, etc. There are many, many non-legal reasons for a girl to put off an abortion.
Sigh. Do I really need to make it explicit that we're talking about common reasons, not any obscure reason that has ever happened in the history of abortions? Whether or not other reasons have occasionally happened, the basic point remains true: abortions after 20+ weeks are usually because the woman was blocked from getting one earlier (including parental interference) or because of serious medical problems. The conservative fantasy world in which deadline laws are saving millions of babies simply doesn't exist.
The only plausible reasons for abortions after 20+ weeks are because the various anti-abortion laws prevented you from getting one earlier...
You know that isn't true, or so I hope.
The girl's parents might object, the girl didn't know she was pregnant, the girl may have been in denial regarding her pregnancy, or she may have feared the procedure itself*, etc. There are many, many non-legal reasons for a girl to put off an abortion.
Sigh. Do I really need to make it explicit that we're talking about common reasons, not any obscure reason that has ever happened in the history of abortions? Whether or not other reasons have occasionally happened, the basic point remains true: abortions after 20+ weeks are usually because the woman was blocked from getting one earlier (including parental interference) or because of serious medical problems. The conservative fantasy world in which deadline laws are saving millions of babies simply doesn't exist.
Such a statement really demands support before being acceptable.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Such a statement really demands support before being acceptable.
But I suppose there's no obligation to support the claim that a non-trivial amount of abortions are happening past 20-30 weeks for reasons other than severe medical problems?
Peregrine wrote: Sigh. Do I really need to make it explicit that we're talking about common reasons, not any obscure reason that has ever happened in the history of abortions? Whether or not other reasons have occasionally happened, the basic point remains true: abortions after 20+ weeks are usually because the woman was blocked from getting one earlier (including parental interference) or because of serious medical problems. The conservative fantasy world in which deadline laws are saving millions of babies simply doesn't exist.
How 'bout lacking the cash? Or does everything always come down to Snidely Whiplash mustache-twirlers?
Peregrine wrote: Sigh. Do I really need to make it explicit that we're talking about common reasons, not any obscure reason that has ever happened in the history of abortions? Whether or not other reasons have occasionally happened, the basic point remains true: abortions after 20+ weeks are usually because the woman was blocked from getting one earlier (including parental interference) or because of serious medical problems. The conservative fantasy world in which deadline laws are saving millions of babies simply doesn't exist.
How 'bout lacking the cash? Or does everything always come down to Snidely Whiplash mustache-twirlers?
Well, given the determined efforts of conservatives to ban all funding for abortions...
Peregrine wrote: Sigh. Do I really need to make it explicit that we're talking about common reasons, not any obscure reason that has ever happened in the history of abortions?
Yes, you need to explain yourself.
But in any case, I didn't list any obscure reasons; I listed several common ones.
Whether or not other reasons have occasionally happened, the basic point remains true: abortions after 20+ weeks are usually because the woman was blocked from getting one earlier (including parental interference) or because of serious medical problems.
That wasn't your initial point. You claimed that the only plausible reason an abortion would occur after 20 weeks was legal hindrance, that was, and is, an incorrect claim.
At any rate, I like how you hand-waved the circumstance of American women. Apparently it isn't common for an American girl to hide her pregnancy from her parents.
Spyral wrote: I'm glad, it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully one day the world will realise the wrongness of intentionally killing a human baby.
The problem is not everyone feels that abortion is killing a human baby, people make distinctions where human life begins some feel it's at the embryonic stage, conception, at birth, etc it's not that simple. For me personally, I feel human life begins after birth but really it's just an arbitrary
Peregrine wrote: Well, given the determined efforts of conservatives to ban all funding for abortions...
Yes? I assume there's more to that? Perhaps an acknowledgement that there can indeed be other common factors to late term abortions beyond the two that you insisted were the only ones likely to exist?
Look, you made a remarkably short-sighted statement about third trimester abortion. As much as I admire a guy going down with the ship, it might just be time to do the "I misspoke" dance.
Spyral wrote: I'm glad, it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully one day the world will realise the wrongness of intentionally killing a human baby.
The problem is not everyone feels that abortion is killing a human baby, people make distinctions where human life begins some feel it's at the embryonic stage, conception, at birth, etc it's not that simple. For me personally, I feel human life begins after birth but really it's just an arbitrary
line in the sand.
A Planned Parenthood official testified recently that it should be legal to abort babies, post birth.
Kilkrazy wrote: Good. Now we can advance to the next stage, which is Post-death abortion.
All this would be solved if we just had more cow bell.
If elected, I would make illegal to have a babeh unless you pass a credit check, a drug test (ignoring alcohol and mary jane), and score above 80 on an IQ test.
Furthermore, post-birth abortions will be limited to rapists, murderers, and people that knock on my door at 8 AM on Saturdays to try and sell me a vacuum cleaner...
dogma wrote: That wasn't your initial point. You claimed that the only plausible reason an abortion would occur after 20 weeks was legal hindrance, that was, and is, an incorrect claim.
Wow. That's really dishonest. I didn't say that was the only reason, and you even cut half my sentence out when you quoted it to remove my explicit mention of medical problems as another reason.
At any rate, I like how you hand-waved the circumstance of American women. Apparently it isn't common for an American girl to hide her pregnancy from her parents.
Which technically isn't the same as legal hindrance (though conservatives love laws that require parental permission/notification for abortions, so there's no option to just quietly deal with the problem before anyone finds out), but you're just nitpicking the fact that the hindrance comes from family instead of the state. The general principle is the same: the wait to get an abortion is only happening because of outside interference preventing an earlier one, not because the woman really wants to wait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Yes? I assume there's more to that? Perhaps an acknowledgement that there can indeed be other common factors to late term abortions beyond the two that you insisted were the only ones likely to exist?
So do you actually have any evidence that these hypothetical reasons are actually common (outside of nitpicking the fact that some of the deliberate factors making abortions harder to get are not technically a law), or are you just going to post hypotheticals and demand that I disprove them?
Look, you made a remarkably short-sighted statement about third trimester abortion. As much as I admire a guy going down with the ship, it might just be time to do the "I misspoke" dance.
Who's going down with the ship? Nobody has provided any evidence that other reasons are common, and it goes completely against the common-sense idea that if you're pregnant and don't want to have a baby you want to get an abortion asap and avoid the whole unpleasant experience.
Wow. That's really dishonest. I didn't say that was the only reason, and you even cut half my sentence out when you quoted it to remove my explicit mention of medical problems as another reason.
And I didn't say that you said that was the only reason. I believe I said:
You claimed that the only plausible reason an abortion would occur after 20 weeks was legal hindrance, that was, and is, an incorrect claim.
It remains an incorrect claim because there exist plausible reasons for an abortion to occur after 20 weeks that do not involve the law.
Which technically isn't the same as legal hindrance (though conservatives love laws that require parental permission/notification for abortions, so there's no option to just quietly deal with the problem before anyone finds out), but you're just nitpicking the fact that the hindrance comes from family instead of the state.
Is it now "nitpicking" to distinguish private entities from public ones?
The general principle is the same: the wait to get an abortion is only happening because of outside interference preventing an earlier one, not because the woman really wants to wait.
The general principle is the same: the wait to get an abortion is only happening because of outside interference preventing an earlier one, not because the woman really wants to wait.
So you presume to know what a woman really wants?
I like where this is going. Please continue, inquiring minds want to know!
Kronk will tell you what they want, what they really, really want.
Shall I tell you what they want, what they really, really want?
Yes, I'll tell you what they want, what they really, really want.
The really, really, really want to zig-a-zig ah.
I assume that's Welsh for access to affordable birth control and/or the ability to get abortions as has been made possible and protected through the supreme court's ruling on Roe versus Wade.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The US needs to stop obesessing over this issue...
We've always been living in a Spice World...
oh Abortions? Nah, we couldn't possibly ever get along with anyone else in this country... Think about the power we could easily possess if we actually started to work together...
Those who put this up clearly know it won't hold up. It was done in the attempt to garner votes from the extreme right. It will be shot down eventually and frankly will cost them seats in their state senate.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The US needs to stop obesessing over this issue...
We've always been living in a Spice World...
oh Abortions? Nah, we couldn't possibly ever get along with anyone else in this country... Think about the power we could easily possess if we actually started to work together...
Sometimes consensus decision making can ruin a good idea.
kronk wrote: Kronk will tell you what they want, what they really, really want.
Shall I tell you what they want, what they really, really want?
Yes, I'll tell you what they want, what they really, really want.
The really, really, really want to zig-a-zig ah.
I assume that's Welsh for access to affordable birth control and/or the ability to get abortions as has been made possible and protected through the supreme court's ruling on Roe versus Wade.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Such a statement really demands support before being acceptable.
According to this website, in 2009 of the 784,507 abortions reported to the CDC, 1.3% were undertaken after the 21st week. Multiply that out and you get 10,199 abortions. Whether that is due to legal hindrance or anything else I don't know. How many were undertaken because plans changed due to medical difficulties, again I don't know.
dogma wrote: And I didn't say that you said that was the only reason.
Yes you did. Read your own words:
You claimed that the only plausible reason an abortion would occur after 20 weeks was legal hindrance, that was, and is, an incorrect claim.
Which is a blatant lie since you removed the other half of the sentence which gave an additional reason.
Is it now "nitpicking" to distinguish private entities from public ones?
Yes, because:
1) It's all part of the same self-created problem: conservatives complain about 20+ week abortions that are only happening at 20+ weeks because they have imposed additional difficulties and delays (potentially with the deliberate intent to slow down the whole process until the deadline passes). Whether or not it's technically correct that it's a law causing the delay the general point I was making is still the same.
2) It IS a law in some cases. For example, a pregnant 17 year old might try to hide it from her parents, but you can't ignore the fact that parental notification/permission laws remove the option to just quietly get an abortion and prevent them from ever knowing.
So you presume to know what a woman really wants?
So are you actually going to provide any kind of evidence that a meaningful number of women are choosing to go through months of pregnancy (not exactly a fun experience if you aren't getting a baby at the end of it) before getting an abortion when they could have easily done it earlier? Or is this just more of your usual zero-content "YOU HAVEN'T PROVED EVERYTHING 100% TO MY SATISFACTION!!!!!!" complaining?
So are you actually going to provide any kind of evidence that a meaningful number of women are choosing to go through months of pregnancy (not exactly a fun experience if you aren't getting a baby at the end of it) before getting an abortion when they could have easily done it earlier? Or is this just more of your usual zero-content "YOU HAVEN'T PROVED EVERYTHING 100% TO MY SATISFACTION!!!!!!" complaining?
No, I'm going to let you careen directly into the ground at the speed of your namesake.
Not as many as yours, but I'm curious as to what that has to do with anything.
Please continue.
Its ok HBMC, you can tell 'em.
I have it on good evidence that the Aussie census officially includes "crocodiles, killer drop bears, killer drop snakes, eat legged killing machines, killer white sharks, and other harmless critters of the usual variety." But not frogs.
After all, if killer drop bears are good enough to scare away a Japanese invasion, they're good enough for the census!
whembly wrote: Just that there's 22 million living in Australia... can ya'll agree on things?
Now factor that out towards US' population of 313 million...
No one agrees here...
Sure, no-one agrees here either. Hell, abortion is a legal mess exactly because no-one here agrees on it. In plenty of states in Australia* abortion is still illegal, but those laws are not enforced. In Queensland a few years ago there was a high profile case where some kids got an abortion pill sent from a relative in Queensland. Such is the shambles of abortion law in that state if they'd gone to a doctor to secure the pill they wouldn't have been charged (the poor kids had no idea that such a process was available and fairly common place). So they were the first people in Queensland to be charged with abortion in over 100 years, and the law they were charged under was from the 1860s, where it had remained unchanged, and was now so antiquated that it made no sense given modern medical technology. The jury dismissed the case after being given instruction by the judge that was so narrow that the only possible result was find them innocent.
And that's just Queensland. Here in WA for almost a 100 years the law on the books stated that abortion was only legal where the mother's life is at risk, and so the police and doctors get around it by noting that an abortion is safer than a pregnancy for the mother, therefore every abortion is reducing the risk to mother and therefore every abortion is legal. A law was brought in in the late 90s that allowed abortion on request under 22 weeks, and after that only if the mother's life was in danger. The ridiculous thing is that law changed nothing about how abortion operated - because of the loophole in which abortion is safer than pregnancy.
Point being, 300 million or 20 million, you're going to get differing views. Once you get to two people you're going to get differing views. And once you get differing views you get a messy legal compromise.
And the next point being, like H.B.M.C. said, we just focus on other things. Jobs. Economic development. Decent, effective regulation of major industry sectors like banking. I mean, hell, over here interest rate increases and decreases are front page of the newspaper kind of stories. The nonsense that fills up so much of the public debate in the US (guns, abortion etc) just doesn't factor in to our debate. Those issues basically aren't fixable, so get on with working on the stuff that you actually can fix.
Not that I just want to wave the flag about Australia. We have our own stupid nonsense that fills up a lot of the public debate space (refugees, sharks etc).
*Like your country criminal law is a state matter, unlike your country we never had a federal court rule on abortion, and as such abortion is a state by state matter.
Yea, 300 million or 20 million... no one would agree the same way.
Absolutely agree with your "...so get on with working on the stuff that you actually can fix." line. Right now, I feel like my face palming move is getting a lot of practice lately.
census!