Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Prestor Jon wrote: It says right in the article that the governor hasn’t signed it yet so it’s not a law yet. It also makes it clear that the Republicans in the state legislature passed the bill in the hope that it would improve their chances in the upcoming midterm elections so the governor probably won’t sign prior to the election in order to make it easier for legislators to run on it as a campaign issue..
She signed it today. So now my state, which has been pretty moderate, now has the most restrictive abortion law in the country. My tax dollars are now going to be flushed in the toilet as they lose court challenge after court challenge defending this clearly unconstitutional law. Terrific.
I would have thought that the smart move would have been to let it wait until after midterms that would let Republican incumbents run on having passed it while making it slightly harder to mobilize opposition against it. Now Democrats will be running against and possibly get more momentum for the fall elections.
Is there anything in the state constitution that prohibits a law like this? Nebraska passed a ban on abortions after 20 weeks back in 2010 and it’s stayed on the books being enforced for the last 8 years and counting.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.
From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?
Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.
Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.
That's a false choice. Not having an abortion doesn't compel anyone to raise the child. A woman can give birth and then give the baby up for adoption.
They can. However, that point was in response to an earlier comment in the thread about sex and choice and consequences, and even with an adoption, there are costs and risks to the mother (childbirth can be fatal), costs and risks the mother alone bears.
To expand on adoption however, while great and amazing and I in no way denigrate that, it is not a cure-all. There are not enough willing parents for all potential abortions, not by an order of magnitude, and just expecting there to be an adoption for every child in need is naieve in the extreme, not only today but especially so in a world without access to abortion. Even moreso for children who have or would have major physical and developmental disabilities, which I get is a touchy subject for a lot of good reasons, but at the same time the stark truth is that almost nobody wants to adopt a kid with mental health issues or major physical debilitations, and we already massively fail to meet the needs of those who are born with such conditions as is much of the time.
I've got family members who were adopted and friends who have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to adopt children. The process you have to go through to adopt children in the US is insane considering that women who are biologicially capable of having babies can have as many babies as they want with whomever they want.
That difference is one largely constructed from liability, the state or agency has assumed responsibility for the child, and the childs proper placement and may suffer consequences from poor placement, while people who naturally have children basically dont have to deal with that issue.
Nobody is ever punished with a baby because nobody is ever forced to raise one. A fetus is typically viable outside the womb around 24 weeks and that should be the cut off for abortions.
At that age the fetus is dangerously premature and will have a high likelyhood of potentially life altering medical issues. Also, viability is relative, with access to modern medical facilities and healthcare, sure 24 weeks is doable, but even then is dangerous, and there is a 30-50% mortality rate that early IIRC. Without access to healthcare? The picture changes dramatically for the worse.
That said, I can buy this argument to a certain degree, there is a merit to it, and I grant that. There is a lot of quibbling to be done over where the line should be, and thats probably what my paragraph above basically is, but as I'm not anatomically equipped to have such a procedure myself in any event, my primary retort would be that the mother still has right to her body and what it does, as below.
Once a fetus gestates to the point of being a baby that can survive without the mother then it is no longer part of her body, the baby is it's own body and person so the woman loses the right to arbitrarily kill it.
I will refer to my earlier point about personal body/property rights. If I will die without your blood or spare kidney, the state cannot compel you to give of your body to prevent my death.
It's not like premature babies aren't humans, there's an entire ward full of them at your local hospital. If a baby is born prematurely it's a baby person and is treated as such so why would a baby that's still in the womb at that time not be considered a baby and we should condone killing it?
That's a good argument, and I'm not sure I have a satisfying answer. My thoughts are basically that once actually removed from the mother and into a hospital, there is another layer of care and responsibility involved, the mothers body is no longer what is keeping the child alive and thus her ability to end the pregnancy based on her rights to her body is gone.
I used 24 week mark because that’s the answer you get when you google When is a fetus viable outside the womb? I’m not a doctor or an expert so there could be a better cut off date to use. The point I’m trying to make is that obviously gestation leads to changes over time from fertilized egg —> clump of cells —> fetus —> tiny person meaning that at some point the pregnancy creates a second (or more in the case of multiples) person that can survive independently of the mother. If a baby is viable without the mother it’s better to take it out early so it can live than kill it.
In regards to birth defects and healthcare costs you’re right they can be very burdensome and expensive. However those issues aren’t used to discourage deliberate pregnancies. While I agree that bringing a child into the world when you can’t afford to properly care for it is bad it’s not like the state requires means testing to allow people to have babies. People in poverty with inadequate or no health insurance are free to have as many babies as they want. Babies born into bad situations isn’t good but abortion isn’t the only or best means to prevent that scenario from happening.
Abortions are decreasing over time and as has been mentioned previously abortions after 24 weeks are extremely rare. It’s not difficult to avoid getting pregnant and I doubt anyone ever wants to need an abortion so that’s not a surprising trend to me. I think society should focus on discouraging unplanned pregnancies, help struggling people improve their lives, allow abortions within the first few months of a pregnancy and protect developed tiny humans that aren’t not people just because they’re still in the womb.
Frazzled wrote: Now you want to get weird, let's start talking about designer babies. Scary stuff.
Edit : daughter starts talking about CRISPR and the gak gets real man.
Wait till I get the money for that super Soldier program, man. If you think the world is messed up with brainwashed religious nutjobs, wait till I get to unleash brainwashed Native American genetic supermen. Nazis will quail in fear as they find that the true Master Race is Red! Hail Hydra!
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Kilkrazy wrote: Less than 2% of abortions take place after 20 weeks. The exact figures depend on the period and area you look at.
Such late abortions are usually done for medical reasons, such as a non-viable embryo or serious risk to the mother.
Thus, the Republican obsession with late abortions is a shibboleth which has more to do with virtue signalling than real world health policy.
Right, the point is that it is legal for states to place a cut off at week X for at will abortions that aren’t a medical emergency. Since it’s legal to have such a cut off then all that’s left to decide is what is the appropriate X number of weeks? It’s legal to put restrictions on abortion what needs to be determined is what those restrictions should be. Man, that line of reasoning sounds eerily familiar.
Realistically, any law that deals with “x weeks = viability” is pretty stupid from a medical and scientific standpoint.
Yes, generally speaking the point of viability has moved forward with the advances in medicine. Over the past decades we’ve managed to shave off a couple weeks, and we have the ability to keep a child born at 22 weeks gestation alive in the NICU.
My issues with focusing on using “viability” boil down to:
1) They are a based on best case scenarios. In a pregnancy where everything has gone right to that point, with a mother and fetus as healthy as possible, a child born extremely premature has a shot at surviving. If the mother isn’t healthy and the child hasn’t developed as well as others, it won’t have the same chances at surviving until much later in the pregnancy. Which also has to do with:
2) # Weeks gestation is a somewhat poor indicator of fetal development, and an even poorer indicator of fetal survival chances. Fetal weight and birth weight are much more accurate measures to predict the stages of development and chances for survival. I don’t deal with pregnancies and birth, so this is from memory, but I want to say that neonatal interventions in extreme pre-term births basically come down to putting the newborn on a scale and see if made it past the 500 g point to determine if it’s worth the effort to keep it alive. Prior to that point the body just isn’t developed enough to make it. But children born to mothers in poverty, minority parents, without prenatal care, and other risk factors have lower birthweights as a group. During fetal development their children would reach the weight at which they are viable at a later point than others. Even at full term their health outcomes are negatively affected by their lower weight, and this problem just gets worse for pre-term births.
3) Being able to be kept alive doesn’t equal quality of life. Sure, this argument might cross over into the death panels category. But it’s also a question we deal with every day for all our patients. Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. Pre-term children often have lifelong complications, from simple things like always being on the low end of the growth curve and having some minor developmental delays from severe physical and mental impairments requiring a lifetime of care at a minimal quality of life. Yeah, we can keep a child alive at 24 weeks, but that child may never be more than a drooling body on a ventilator with no awareness of anything. Again, birth weights and maternal health has a bigger impact on this than simply relying on gestational age. I’m not saying that we should abort children because they might have poor health outcomes as pre-term births, but I do want to paint a clear picture of what “being viable” really means. It doesn’t mean that a child born at that age means a healthy baby, it just means that it has a higher than 50% shot at surviving regardless of the type of life it might have. I’m also trying to find what “survival” is defined as (made it to discharge, random age, etc).
Viability is a complex medical concept, and I don’t know that it’s wise to give the power to determine what is viability to legislators and set a somewhat arbitrary number when the reality depends on a case-by-case basis.
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.
My question is, if a woman is irresponsible enough to have sex without birth control, by what magic is she going to become a responsible mother and raise a responsible child? Sometimes it's better for society to erase the mistake an irresponsible person makes.
Especially when paying for adding a million kids a year into foster care or welfare system will wind up costing us over 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars a year after 18 years... before inflation. And that doesn't include any welfare costs for the kids when they become adults.
And yes, the kids born after an abortion ban will, in the vast majority, be born to poor families and therefore eligible for welfare if not given up to the foster care system. Middle-class and rich women will just travel to wherever abortion is legal (China, if nowhere else) and get their abortions anyway. So is it really worthwhile to demand large numbers of ADDITIONAL poor children be born, just so the very people demand they be born can then scorn them as welfare leeches?
As far as involving parents in sex education, there's a problem with that. Far too many received a sex education that basically consisted of "DON'T!", and are themselves completely unfamiliar with anything involving sex and birth control except the bare mechanics of the act. And worse, they think that's all that's needed... even if they fell into the honey trap and had kids way too early and really made a mess of their lives AND the lives of their kids because of their ignorance. Why? Because 'Comprehensive sex education is liberals giving kids permission to have sex!'... as if kids NEED permission to have sex.
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.
I'm not in agreement with demanding the genes of a rapist be preserved at his victim's expense.
Basically, what you propose is demanding a woman who has been raped live with the evidence of that rape for nine months. You demand she allow her body to undergo a fairly dangerous physical process - and bear in mind that America has THE WORST rate of pregnancy related deaths in the developed world - regardless of her ability to pay for the medical care required. You demand she potentially lose her job (especially if her job involves physical labor), and with it everything she owns. You demand that she deal with all the emotional and physical trauma of an unwanted pregnancy ON TOP OF the emotional and physical trauma of being raped.
I do not approve.
If she CHOOSES to keep the child of her rape, that's her choice. But I will be DD, sir, before I let society rape her continuously for nine months after some animal raped her and got her pregnant.
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.
I'm not in agreement with demanding the genes of a rapist be preserved at his victim's expense.
Basically, what you propose is demanding a woman who has been raped live with the evidence of that rape for nine months. You demand she allow her body to undergo a fairly dangerous physical process - and bear in mind that America has THE WORST rate of pregnancy related deaths in the developed world - regardless of her ability to pay for the medical care required. You demand she potentially lose her job (especially if her job involves physical labor), and with it everything she owns. You demand that she deal with all the emotional and physical trauma of an unwanted pregnancy ON TOP OF the emotional and physical trauma of being raped.
I do not approve.
If she CHOOSES to keep the child of her rape, that's her choice. But I will be DD, sir, before I let society rape her continuously for nine months after some animal raped her and got her pregnant.
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.
I could get behind this. Viability occurs sometime around 23 weeks. Yes, a bare handful have survived a week or two earlier; many more did not survive.
The majority (64.0%) of abortions are performed at or before 8 weeks' gestation, most (91.7%) are performed at or before 13 weeks' gestation and few abortions (7.0%) are performed at 14–20 weeks' gestation. Very few (1.3%) abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks' gestation... almost always for medical reasons, not as retroactive birth control.
In short, the conditions that already exist in America and do not need to be further legislated.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/05 20:10:55
Vulcan wrote: My question is, if a woman is irresponsible enough to have sex without birth control, by what magic is she going to become a responsible mother and raise a responsible child? Sometimes it's better for society to erase the mistake an irresponsible person makes.
Let's not forget the irresponsible man who wanted to get his rocks off so badly that he never considered protection. It does take two to tango, as they say.
Sex ed is a bogeyman for many conservative (often religious) people in many countries, not just the USA. Their basic reasoning seems to be that their nice kid will never do something she (or he) didn't hear about from them, so forbidding sex ed makes the kids safer. Not mentioning sex means that they won't do it, because of reasons. But it's one of the most basic needs of humans - and other life on this planet - and people WILL try it even if they don't fully understand what it means. IMO it's better to tell them how to do it responsibly, without forgetting to tell them they don't HAVE to just because their best friend brags about doing it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/05 20:45:46
Prestor Jon wrote: It says right in the article that the governor hasn’t signed it yet so it’s not a law yet. It also makes it clear that the Republicans in the state legislature passed the bill in the hope that it would improve their chances in the upcoming midterm elections so the governor probably won’t sign prior to the election in order to make it easier for legislators to run on it as a campaign issue..
She signed it today. So now my state, which has been pretty moderate, now has the most restrictive abortion law in the country. My tax dollars are now going to be flushed in the toilet as they lose court challenge after court challenge defending this clearly unconstitutional law. Terrific.
Can you file a lawsuit suing the governor and legislature for wasting your tax money in this manner?
With a decent sex ed program, sure. But if you deny all knowledge, then kids won't know how to do it safely.
Amazingly, despite 5000 years of human life accumulating knowledge in the field of child rearing, we still haven't learned that "just don't do it" is a clear message to the young that they should go right out and do exactly what we just told them not to
With a decent sex ed program, sure. But if you deny all knowledge, then kids won't know how to do it safely.
I agree completely. That’s the big problem with politicizing sex Ed or any kind of Ed (or anything else really) as soon as it becomes about political narratives the important things like efficacy and pragmatism go out the window. I’m fine with teaching sex Ed in whatever manner actually gets the results of low rates of teen pregnancy/unplanned pregnancy and reduced incidence of STDs.
While we're on the subject of rape victims and sex education, that's another failing of abstinence-only sex ed. It doesn't teach girls what to do if they ARE raped. It just teaches them that being raped means they are now spoiled and no 'good' man will want them.
Trump is totally right, that's why only the attackers died in the Pulse and Las Vegas shootings!
The French might want to line up after the British he offended, he's such a great ally
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Ouze wrote: This has made me realize it was fun to laugh at Greg Abbott until we got our own Greg Abbott. There is a lesson in there.
Hey, it's all fun and games until you get caught trying to sell a seat in congress. No wait, that was my ex-governor Blagojevich. Why are our leaders so bad?
Vaktathi wrote:I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.
From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?
Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.
Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.
"My Body, My Choice......until I decide I want those child support gibsmedats. Then YOU have no choice, bucko. Pay up!"
I personally know women (and one guy) who collected child support on their kids.....and STILL raised them on Welfare, EBT, and WIC up to a point. And blew the money on themselves, or on non-essentials for the kids. One woman who frequented a store I patronized would go in every month and blow all 800 bucks of her child support check on the State lottery. I asked her one night about that, and asked if that money would be better spent on the kids it was intended for. She responded in a huffy manner that "I don't need dat. Uncle Suga is raisn' mah kids."
I had a buddy (Rest in peace, Jay. You'll be missed) who fell on hard times, went to social services and the courts to ask for an adjustment until he got back on his feet. They refused, implying that he was just another "deadbeat dad" trying to get out of his obligations. His ex-wife was in the goddamned USAF and remarried, and they still wouldn't cut the guy any slack. He ended up in prison for a while because he ended up selling dope for a couple of big time local "kingpins", just to pay his bills and meet his child support obligations. The man was literally living off of dollar box Mac and Cheese and ramen noodles like a 20 year old broke college kid, and only got meat because people in the community (myself included) gave him fish and deer meat that they caught/killed in season. He tried to get help from social services to buy groceries and get medicaid. He was turned down because he "made too much money".
A relative of mine's husband also got caught in the web of blatant abuse of the child support system. He is a tradesman and remarried (to my cousin). He has a young son and daughter from his previous marriage. When his daughter was 18 years old, he was still forced to pay child support on her until she was 21. She was a lazy little bitch that didn't want to work because daddy was paying for her partying and tattoos, and momma was shacked up with Mister Moneybags that bought her nice cars and condo rentals at the beach. Nothing he did or said to social services of the courts made any difference, and he would have been in jail more than he was for late child support if it wasn't for his second wife trying to help him out.
That is why I firmly believe that the child support system as it stands is outmoded and needs to be reformed, with more oversight and scrutiny over how the money is spent by the recipient. And it needs to be flexible enough to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Also, when a kid hits 18 years of age, that should be the cutoff. They are old enough to fend for themselves, being at their legal majority.
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
Smallergovernment... 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.
The very reason that you mentioned ('get out of jail free' card) is why I'm opposed to abortion on demand, even though birth control was the driving force behind Roe v. Wade, and the court's questionable conclusions that led to their ruling, from the start. Abortion should be done in hospitals, not abortuaries (aka "family planning clinics"). And it should only be performed in the case of medical emergencies or rape-induced pregnancy (and only after the rape is determined to have taken place by a police investigation, not on word alone). Abortion is just another way of getting out of responsibility for one's actions. People want to play, but they don't want to pay.
And I also agree (in part) with the above regarding sex education. My view is that it's the responsibility of the parents to talk to their kids about the "birds and the bees", and not the State using tax payer dollars to do what parents should be doing (i.e. raising their damned spawn) to begin with. But if there is to be comprehensive sexual education in schools, then I agree that the parents need to be involved 100%.
However, considering the "it won't happen to me" mindset of the eternally invincible, know-it-all typical teenager, I expect school sex ed programs will be about as effective as the parents trying to talk sense to the kids about sex (and banging their heads against the proverbial brick wall in the process).
oldravenman3025 wrote: [
However, considering the "it won't happen to me" mindset of the eternally invincible, know-it-all typical teenager, I expect school sex ed programs will be about as effective as the parents trying to talk sense to the kids about sex (and banging their heads against the proverbial brick wall in the process).
Demonstrably false. Comprehensive sex education programmes in schools greatly reduce teen pregnancy and std transmission.
Your mistake is assuming that the parents all have knowledge of std transmission, contraception availability and effectiveness, etc.
Many of them will not and will not do research to find out.
Which is why well trained teachers are necessary.
And what is your burden of proof for determining whether rape took place to allow abortion? Does it need a conviction? What is the average length of a rape trial? What about appeals?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/05 23:48:52
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
oldravenman3025 wrote: And it should only be performed in the case of medical emergencies or rape-induced pregnancy (and only after the rape is determined to have taken place by a police investigation, not on word alone). Abortion is just another way of getting out of responsibility for one's actions.
Good idea! I wonder how hard it is to abort a 1 year old based on how long it takes for law enforcement to even properly process rape kits
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: And what is your burden of proof for determining whether rape took place to allow abortion? Does it need a conviction? What is the average length of a rape trial? What about appeals?
You will get lucky to even get a proper case:
For years, public safety professionals and advocates have known that the majority of sexual assaults are never reported and, therefore, fail to be represented in the national crime statistics database. Using Department of Justice surveys and statistics, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAIIN) estimates that only 344 out of 1,000 sexual assaults are actually reported to law enforcement. This translates into approximately 2 out of 3 sexual assaults never being reported to authorities.
....
There are tens of thousands of untested rape kits sitting in the evidence rooms of the country’s approximate 18,000 police departments. No one knows the exact number of untested kits, because few jurisdictions publicly report their backlogs. In 2015, the Department of Justice estimated the national number to be as high as 400,000.
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.
Maybe that's the legalese used for current standards, but 'compelling interest' isn't enough to override things like the 13th amendment. Which is essentially the argument - that women be compelled to arduous, unreimbursed work that puts their life at risk "becuz responsibility", because some people are uncomfortable with women having autonomy.
Notably the man is not compelled to provide anything.
Oh you have done it now, prepare for incoming "a man has no choice but has to pay for it anyway" comments.
oldravenman3025 wrote: "My Body, My Choice......until I decide I want those child support gibsmedats. Then YOU have no choice, bucko. Pay up!"
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/06 00:03:08
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Vaktathi wrote:I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.
From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?
Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.
Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.
"My Body, My Choice......until I decide I want those child support gibsmedats. Then YOU have no choice, bucko. Pay up!"
I personally know women (and one guy) who collected child support on their kids.....and STILL raised them on Welfare, EBT, and WIC up to a point. And blew the money on themselves, or on non-essentials for the kids. One woman who frequented a store I patronized would go in every month and blow all 800 bucks of her child support check on the State lottery. I asked her one night about that, and asked if that money would be better spent on the kids it was intended for. She responded in a huffy manner that "I don't need dat. Uncle Suga is raisn' mah kids."
I had a buddy (Rest in peace, Jay. You'll be missed) who fell on hard times, went to social services and the courts to ask for an adjustment until he got back on his feet. They refused, implying that he was just another "deadbeat dad" trying to get out of his obligations. His ex-wife was in the goddamned USAF and remarried, and they still wouldn't cut the guy any slack. He ended up in prison for a while because he ended up selling dope for a couple of big time local "kingpins", just to pay his bills and meet his child support obligations. The man was literally living off of dollar box Mac and Cheese and ramen noodles like a 20 year old broke college kid, and only got meat because people in the community (myself included) gave him fish and deer meat that they caught/killed in season. He tried to get help from social services to buy groceries and get medicaid. He was turned down because he "made too much money".
A relative of mine's husband also got caught in the web of blatant abuse of the child support system. He is a tradesman and remarried (to my cousin). He has a young son and daughter from his previous marriage. When his daughter was 18 years old, he was still forced to pay child support on her until she was 21. She was a lazy little bitch that didn't want to work because daddy was paying for her partying and tattoos, and momma was shacked up with Mister Moneybags that bought her nice cars and condo rentals at the beach. Nothing he did or said to social services of the courts made any difference, and he would have been in jail more than he was for late child support if it wasn't for his second wife trying to help him out.
That is why I firmly believe that the child support system as it stands is outmoded and needs to be reformed, with more oversight and scrutiny over how the money is spent by the recipient. And it needs to be flexible enough to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Also, when a kid hits 18 years of age, that should be the cutoff. They are old enough to fend for themselves, being at their legal majority.
Wow...that's a...lot of venom there. I absolutely agree that there can and should be changes to that system and how that works, there are instances of true injustice there, but at the same time, lets be real, these are outlier exceptions, not the routine norm.
The very reason that you mentioned ('get out of jail free' card) is why I'm opposed to abortion on demand, even though birth control was the driving force behind Roe v. Wade, and the court's questionable conclusions that led to their ruling, from the start. Abortion should be done in hospitals, not abortuaries (aka "family planning clinics"). And it should only be performed in the case of medical emergencies or rape-induced pregnancy (and only after the rape is determined to have taken place by a police investigation, not on word alone).
Considering that in many states the backlog on rape kit testing is literally *years*, that would not appear to be effective policy. There's 6 digits worth of untested rape kits floating about the US, every few months we see another story about thousands of untested kits found in a warehouse somewhere. Oregon for example discovered their backlog in 2015 and *hopes* to have it cleared in...2019. And that's without getting into the many issues that keep people from having the tests done in the first place (trauma, not being believed, social stigma, etc).
Abortion is just another way of getting out of responsibility for one's actions. People want to play, but they don't want to pay.
And introducing a child into the world as a punishment or as a consequence just for its own sake is about the stupidest reason to have one I can imagine, and is going to rarely result in a positive outcome for anyone, and who's going to pick up the tab for unwanted children?
People will have sex. That's a driving biological imperative. It's going to happen. People also are really bad at thinking about long term consequences in general, and lets be real, a certain subset of the population is almost entirely incapable of it. Abortions happened before Roe, and, much like with Alchohol, drugs, and in many ways guns, we can either accept there are things that prohibition doesn't work in some places, or we can vainly try and drink from a firehose, complain about other people not suffering consequences we think they should suffer for matters that are not generally the business of others', and wonder why we seem to run into problems.
And I also agree (in part) with the above regarding sex education. My view is that it's the responsibility of the parents to talk to their kids about the "birds and the bees", and not the State using tax payer dollars to do what parents should be doing (i.e. raising their damned spawn) to begin with. But if there is to be comprehensive sexual education in schools, then I agree that the parents need to be involved 100%.
However, considering the "it won't happen to me" mindset of the eternally invincible, know-it-all typical teenager, I expect school sex ed programs will be about as effective as the parents trying to talk sense to the kids about sex (and banging their heads against the proverbial brick wall in the process).
To be fair, on the flip side, given how many parents simply don't or won't, don't know themselves or aren't capable of doing so for some reason, there's a reason schools started teaching it in the first place, parents clearly were not doing a good job. Hell, my parents didn't even try until after I'd already been through sex ed courses in 5th, 7th, and 9th grades, and it was the most goddamn awkward thing in the universe for all involved that was of 0 practical value. Most people I know of the same age have similar experiences.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Ouze wrote: This has made me realize it was fun to laugh at Greg Abbott until we got our own Greg Abbott. There is a lesson in there.
Hey, it's all fun and games until you get caught trying to sell a seat in congress. No wait, that was my ex-governor Blagojevich. Why are our leaders so bad?
Because we are.
You know, I just want to re-state this in the context of the post right after it.
Oh boy I wonder where the whataboutism machine will take us with this one,
Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, the Observer can reveal.
People in the Trump camp contacted private investigators in May last year to “get dirt” on Ben Rhodes, who had been one of Barack Obama’s top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, as part of an elaborate attempt to discredit the deal.
The extraordinary revelations come days before Trump’s 12 May deadline to either scrap or continue to abide by the international deal limiting Iran’s nuclear programme. Jack Straw, who as foreign secretary was involved in earlier efforts to restrict Iranian weapons, said: “These are extraordinary and appalling allegations but which also illustrate a high level of desperation by Trump and [the Israeli prime minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, not so much to discredit the deal but to undermine those around it.”
One former high-ranking British diplomat with wide experience of negotiating international peace agreements, requesting anonymity, said: “It’s bloody outrageous to do this. The whole point of negotiations is to not play dirty tricks like this.”
Sources said that officials linked to Trump’s team contacted investigators days after Trump visited Tel Aviv a year ago, his first foreign tour as US president. Trump promised Netanyahu that Iran would never have nuclear weapons and suggested that the Iranians thought they could “do what they want” since negotiating the nuclear deal in 2015. A source with details of the “dirty tricks campaign” said: “The idea was that people acting for Trump would discredit those who were pivotal in selling the deal, making it easier to pull out of it.”
The very reason that you mentioned ('get out of jail free' card) is why I'm opposed to abortion on demand, even though birth control was the driving force behind Roe v. Wade, and the court's questionable conclusions that led to their ruling, from the start. Abortion should be done in hospitals, not abortuaries (aka "family planning clinics")
I think other people handled the Trumpesque doublespeak in all this, but I want to take a minute to mention that many family planning centers offer a wide variety of care. Planned Parenthood for example offers STI screenings, gynecological exams and prenatal care. Some locations have more such as hormone therapy and blood level testing for trans people.
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
Why the are we talking about sex as if it's some kind of crime that people need to accept the punishment for? Why is "responsibility" so important that not having a kid is unacceptable? Who cares if people are using abortion as birth control, we're talking about a blob of cells with no functioning brain and less moral value than the cockroach all of us would not hesitate a moment to kill for our convenience.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
You know, you guys have taken a fun "lets see what Trump did today!" Romp and turned it into a major buzzkill.
Thanks Obama!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/06 03:39:39
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Grey Templar wrote: 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.
Actually earth is already overpopulated so we would need LESS humans. Forcing blop of non-thinking-non-emotional bunch of cells grow into human would increase population and in turn hasten process until resources go too short and at that point people WILL start dying.
Humans should be looking at ways to reduce population while they still can do that controlledly before crap hits the fan. And alas most of humanly ways takes time. Which means that until something has come up it would be good to try to keep growth not exploding up too fast.
Not forcing cells to become humans when not desired is a good start. That's much more humane than literally death lottery where people are deliberately killed to reduce population which is option humanity might have to start thinking in future if population growth can't be stopped. That or automatic death penalty to anybody older than X or forced sterilation to X% of women to ensure population doesn't grow or...
Oh and you are also demanding women to put her own life on line risking literal death. Over pile of cells. "Gee I get raped and then I have to risk dying in the process for added fun." Somehow I doubt all women are happy with that prospect...Are you btw even women? If not don't you think it's "bit" unfair that you are demanding women to risk dying like that? Easy to demand others to risk death when you aren't on the line for it...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/06 04:38:54
Peregrine wrote: Why the are we talking about sex as if it's some kind of crime that people need to accept the punishment for? Why is "responsibility" so important that not having a kid is unacceptable? Who cares if people are using abortion as birth control, we're talking about a blob of cells with no functioning brain and less moral value than the cockroach all of us would not hesitate a moment to kill for our convenience.
For me its more " I am not willing to pay for someone elses condoms and I am not willing to pay for someone elses abortions". I dont personally agree with abortion, but I dont believe we should legislate morality either, its too subjective. BUT if someone is using it for their birth control, they should pay for it themselves.
D, sir, before I let society rape her continuously for nine months after some animal raped her and got her pregnant.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
