Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, Iowa's voted to de facto ban abortion after 6 weeks.

Spoiler:

New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.

The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.

Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.

But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.

Advertisement

“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”

Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”

You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times

A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.

The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.

If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.

The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out

Advertisement

Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.

“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.

Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.

The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.

State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.

But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.

“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”

Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.

Advertisement

“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”

Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.

In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.

Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”

In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.

That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Advertisement

The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.

Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.

With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.

”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.

Good.

Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?

There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.

So much for the consistency of the party of small government

Smaller government... not tiny.

I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, Iowa's voted to de facto ban abortion after 6 weeks.

Spoiler:

New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.

The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.

Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.

But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.

Advertisement

“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”

Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”

You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times

A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.

The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.

If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.

The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out

Advertisement

Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.

“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.

Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.

The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.

State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.

But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.

“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”

Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.

Advertisement

“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”

Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.

In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.

Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”

In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.

That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Advertisement

The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.

Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.

With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.

”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.

Good.

Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?

There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.

So much for the consistency of the party of small government

Smaller government... not tiny.

I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things

You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.

You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.

Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, Iowa's voted to de facto ban abortion after 6 weeks.

Spoiler:

New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.

The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.

Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.

But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.

Advertisement

“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”

Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”

You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times

A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.

The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.

If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.

The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out

Advertisement

Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.

“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.

Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.

The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.

State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.

But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.

“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”

Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.

Advertisement

“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”

Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.

In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.

Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”

In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.

That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Advertisement

The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.

Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.

With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.

”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.

Good.

Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?

There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.

So much for the consistency of the party of small government

Smaller government... not tiny.

I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care?

Have you fostered or adopted a child?

Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves?

Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, Iowa's voted to de facto ban abortion after 6 weeks.

Spoiler:

New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.

The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.

Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.

But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.

Advertisement

“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”

Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”

You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times

A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.

The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.

If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.

The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out

Advertisement

Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.

“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.

Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.

The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.

State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.

But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.

“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”

Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.

Advertisement

“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”

Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.

In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.

Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”

In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.

That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Advertisement

The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.

Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.

With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.

”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.

Good.

Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?

There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.

So much for the consistency of the party of small government

Smaller government... not tiny.

I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things

You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.

You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.

Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.

Except that is has been proven that abstinence only programs have much much higher rates of teen pregnancy. It is nothing but a blanket attempt to repress sexual freedom by creepy old men who are obsessed with purity

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, Iowa's voted to de facto ban abortion after 6 weeks.

Spoiler:

New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.

The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.

Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.

But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.

Advertisement

“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”

Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”

You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times

A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.

The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.

If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.

The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out

Advertisement

Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.

“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.

Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.

The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.

State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.

But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.

“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”

Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.

Advertisement

“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”

Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.

In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.

Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”

In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.

That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Advertisement

The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.

Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.

With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.

”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.

Good.

Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?

There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.

So much for the consistency of the party of small government

Smaller government... not tiny.

I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things

You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.

You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.

Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.

Except that is has been proven that abstinence only programs have much much higher rates of teen pregnancy. It is nothing but a blanket attempt to repress sexual freedom by creepy old men who are obsessed with purity

Did I say Abstinence only? No.

What I'm saying is Abstinence should be taught along with other methods, because it is the only 100% reliable way to not get pregnant or and STD. Thus it has physical value.

The system should be "Don't do it, but if you do do it, do it this way"

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.

 Ustrello wrote:


You are literally implying they are making the wrong decision and posting false information that abstinence is the best decision, so yes you are pretty much implying abstinence only. Which is ironic because you and other republicans always complain about government overreach and then you spout gak like this

 Ustrello wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.

I have literally zero idea why I try and argue with whem and templar to be honest

 Grey Templar wrote:

You're making the mistake that being against the current way Sex Ed is implemented is being against Sex Education of any kind. Sex Ed should be taught, but differently than most schools handle it now.

You should abstain unless you are in a committed relationship(because that is the healthiest option, both physically and emotionally). But if you do not abstain, you should use protection and birth control(and should even when you are in a relationship just for safety). But you should understand that protection and birth control are not 100% effective, so by using them you take on the risk of an undesired pregnancy or STD, have some free condoms if you want them. Abortion should not be taught as a "Get out of Jail Free Card" like it is now. You made the choice to have sex and got pregnant, with or without birthcontrol, you have to live with the consequences of having a baby. Weather you keep it or give it up for adoption. We should of course funnel more money into adoption and programs to help struggling mothers, not encourage them to kill their babies for the crime of simply existing. Abortion should be limited to only being performed in the event of life threatening complications where it is impossible to save both the baby and the mother.

Sex Ed should also involve the parents and not be just handled by the schools without parental involvement. If you had a sex ed day at school and required the parents to be involved when their child's turn comes up would be ideal.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


You are literally implying they are making the wrong decision and posting false information that abstinence is the best decision, so yes you are pretty much implying abstinence only. Which is ironic because you and other republicans always complain about government overreach and then you spout gak like this

Its not false that abstinence is the best decision, if you define best decision as the lowest probability of getting pregnant or contracting an STD. I'm also saying we should teach about birth control and have it available. Ergo, that is not Abstinence only. Its Abstinence Preferred.

Abstinence Only would be only telling kids that you shouldn't have sex and not teaching them about alternatives, which is not what I am saying.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.

The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.

Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder and innocent human being and have a victimized women.

Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


You are literally implying they are making the wrong decision and posting false information that abstinence is the best decision, so yes you are pretty much implying abstinence only. Which is ironic because you and other republicans always complain about government overreach and then you spout gak like this

Its not false that abstinence is the best decision, if you define best decision as the lowest probability of getting pregnant or contracting an STD. I'm also saying we should teach about birth control and have it available. Ergo, that is not Abstinence only. Its Abstinence Preferred.

Abstinence Only would be only telling kids that you shouldn't have sex and not teaching them about alternatives, which is not what I am saying.

Abstinence doesn't need to be taught. Kids have been doing it for years up to that point.

What does need to be taught is stuff like consent, so kids feel comfortable with saying no and having that decision respected. Something abstinence teaching does not do as the people who teach it focus on how sex before marriage makes people "dirty".

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.

The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.

Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder and innocent human being and have a victimized women.

Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.

Why not just make the woman marry the rapist? The baby is innocent and frankly its disgusting you want to take the poor baby's father away! See I can fake outrage too.

Forcing a woman to be reminded of the most horrible traumatic event for the rest of her life, now that is truly disgusting and inhumane in favor of a blob of cells.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.

The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.

Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder and innocent human being and have a victimized women.

Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.

Why not just make the woman marry the rapist? The baby is innocent and frankly its disgusting you want to take the poor baby's father away! See I can fake outrage too.

Forcing a woman to be reminded of the most horrible traumatic event for the rest of her life, now that is truly disgusting and inhumane in favor of a blob of cells.

I'm not faking outrage. You are quite literally dehumanizing a person so you can justify murdering them. Because its not murder if its not a person right? That is quite literally how the Nazis justified the Holocaust.

I know plenty of women who have kept their rape babies, or given them up for adoption(like I was). It doesn't have to be a continual reminder of that traumatic event. The baby can be given to another family who wants it, or kept in the event you want it.

 Frazzled wrote:
And... CNN is reporting Trump just threw Guiliani under the bus... That he didn't have all the facts on the case. Guiliani should quickly use this as an excuse to bail.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


You are literally implying they are making the wrong decision and posting false information that abstinence is the best decision, so yes you are pretty much implying abstinence only. Which is ironic because you and other republicans always complain about government overreach and then you spout gak like this

Its not false that abstinence is the best decision, if you define best decision as the lowest probability of getting pregnant or contracting an STD. I'm also saying we should teach about birth control and have it available. Ergo, that is not Abstinence only. Its Abstinence Preferred.

Abstinence Only would be only telling kids that you shouldn't have sex and not teaching them about alternatives, which is not what I am saying.

Abstinence doesn't need to be taught. Kids have been doing it for years up to that point.

What does need to be taught is stuff like consent, so kids feel comfortable with saying no and having that decision respected. Something abstinence teaching does not do as the people who teach it focus on how sex before marriage makes people "dirty".

Who says you can't both teach Consent and Abstinence? They aren't mutually exclusive subjects.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Its not a person, its not even a baby. If you take it out at say 15 weeks its just going to die because it isn't a viable lifeform yet. You throw it on the emotional argument by just calling all 9 months a baby, but a baby can survive outside the womb.

But sure, I'm the Nazi for not wanting to destroy women's lives with rape babies. Yeah and what if the mother suffers health complications, mental traumas or financial issues. If only it was as easy as "lol adoption". I think the person fighting against women's rights should complain less about 'dehumanization' to the person with the law on his side.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Its not a person, its not even a baby. If you take it out at say 15 weeks its just going to die because it isn't a viable lifeform yet. You throw it on the emotional argument by just calling all 9 months a baby, but a baby can survive outside the womb.

But sure, I'm the Nazi for not wanting to destroy women's lives with rape babies. Yeah and what if the mother suffers health complications, mental traumas or financial issues. If only it was as easy as "lol adoption". I think the person fighting against women's rights should complain less about 'dehumanization' to the person with the law on his side.

A baby will die without someone taking care of it for the first several years after its born because it cannot take care of itself. And as medical science continues to advance, we will eventually be able to have a baby of any gestation length be able to survive outside the womb.

No, you're not a Nazi, but you are using the exact same line of justification which they used to justify ethnic cleansing. And having to have a baby and then give it up for adoption will not destroy anybody's life, given that plenty of women have done exactly that.

I'm not fighting against women's rights, I'm fighting for the right of an unborn baby to not be executed for the crime of simply existing. Women have the right to decide if they want to have sex or not, and get pregnant or not. But once pregnancy occurs the window for choice is past. Thats why Rape is such a heinous crime, it bypasses choice, but the solution isn't to murder the unborn child.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Its not a person, its not even a baby. If you take it out at say 15 weeks its just going to die because it isn't a viable lifeform yet. You throw it on the emotional argument by just calling all 9 months a baby, but a baby can survive outside the womb.

But sure, I'm the Nazi for not wanting to destroy women's lives with rape babies. Yeah and what if the mother suffers health complications, mental traumas or financial issues. If only it was as easy as "lol adoption". I think the person fighting against women's rights should complain less about 'dehumanization' to the person with the law on his side.

A baby will die without someone taking care of it for the first several years after its born because it cannot take care of itself. And as medical science continues to advance, we will eventually be able to have a baby of any gestation length be able to survive outside the womb.

No, you're not a Nazi, but you are using the exact same line of justification which they used to justify ethnic cleansing. And having to have a baby and then give it up for adoption will not destroy anybody's life, given that plenty of women have done exactly that.

I'm not fighting against women's rights, I'm fighting for the right of an unborn baby to not be executed for the crime of simply existing. Women have the right to decide if they want to have sex or not, and get pregnant or not. But once pregnancy occurs the window for choice is past. Thats why Rape is such a heinous crime, it bypasses choice, but the solution isn't to murder the unborn child.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
More to the line of discussion. When I was doing health classes in high school, our teacher certainly covered abstinence, AFTER covering in horribly gory detail ALL of the inner workings of man parts and lady parts. I'm talking, gory to the point one of the girls rushed to the hallway to puke during one of the slide shows. We got a very good understanding of the physical processes of menstruation, what sex is, how to use condoms and other contraceptives, graphic pictorial evidence of what various STIs look like (back then, they were STDs), etc. etc. Essentially, it was "here's all the sexual things that happens within the human body. . . . aaaaaaand, here's how you could avoid all that"

 feeder wrote:
I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.

 feeder wrote:
I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.

The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.

The baby is innocent of the crime. Only the rapist in this scenario has any blame.

Aborting a rape baby just creates two victims instead of one. You murder an innocent human being and have a victimized women.

Frankly, your position that the baby is also guilty of the rape and must be punished with death is the disgusting one. Thats a bigger punishment than the rapist would receive.

The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.