Sen. Rapert to amend fetal heartbeat bill
By The Associated Press
This article was published February 5, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.
- Comments (43)
- aAFont Size
LITTLE ROCK — An Arkansas senator proposing to ban most abortions in the state says he's changing his bill to prohibit the procedure only if a fetal heartbeat is detected using an abdominal ultrasound.
Republican Sen. Jason Rapert of Conway told reporters Tuesday he's amending his "heartbeat" bill to address concerns raised by lawmakers. The legislation originally called for banning abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected, a move that would prohibit them as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
Opponents have said the only way to detect a heartbeat that early is by vaginal probe. Rapert said limiting the test to an abdominal ultrasound would ban abortions as early as 10 to 12 weeks into a pregnancy.
A House panel earlier Tuesday had tabled Rapert's legislation.
Comments on: Sen. Rapert to amend fetal heartbeat bill
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
JakeTidmore says... February 5, 2013 at 5:49 p.m.
It's still unconstitutional.
( permalink | suggest removal )
LevyRat says... February 5, 2013 at 10:08 p.m.
Jake which part of the constitution covers abortion. I read it a couple of times and I can't find that listed.
( permalink | suggest removal )
morebeer says... February 5, 2013 at 10:35 p.m.
Right to privacy, such as not having to undergo medical procedures that have nothing to do with medical need but only serve to satisfy religious conservatives' Taliban instincts.
( permalink | suggest removal )
restoresanity says... February 5, 2013 at 10:43 p.m.
Republican Senator Rapert, I'm 63 years of age, you don't want back alley hangar abortions on your conscience. Take your bill, and dump it, we women have spoken. Thank you, and May God save the babies who are hungry, sick, and cold this evening in the world. A proud grandmother of 6 and one more on the way...
( permalink | suggest removal )
Justageek1979 says... February 5, 2013 at 11:30 p.m.
RAPERt is human garbage at BEST. At worst he's a backwards,knuckle dragging racist misogynist . I try to see the best in people but so far the only evidence he's provided proves he's most likely the worst.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lindasue says... February 6, 2013 at 6:20 a.m.
Senator,
Why is a baby disposable if they are conceived by rape or incest? Do they mean less to God? Or are they unclean to Christians?
( permalink | suggest removal )
RonalFos says... February 6, 2013 at 7:24 a.m.
Good work Senator RAPEert!
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 6, 2013 at 7:56 a.m.
LevyRat,
Tons of things are not specifically written in the constitution. Where they are written are in Supreme Court rulings which is the arbiter of what the US Constitution means and stands for. Rapert's bill is an overreach in the context of four decades of federal court application of Roe v. Wade. That ruling prohibits state bans on abortion before viability of the fetus.
Ergo, it is unconstitutional.
BTW -- there's nothing in the Constitution about corporations having the same rights as people. But....the Supremes ruled that they do and thus can legally contribute to campaigns as a corporate entity. The list of things like this can go on and on. It requires a much deeper reading into the issues, court rulings, history of cases involved, etc.
Reading the Constitution is good but it's not all that goes into determining what is or is not constitutional. Anyway...one does not have to tell an educated man this is how it works. It would be an insult, wouldn't it?
( permalink | suggest removal )
NONSHEEPLE says... February 6, 2013 at 8:14 a.m.
So why are they taking issue with a vaginal probe? That's how they ended up needing the services in the first place.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... February 6, 2013 at 8:41 a.m.
We need contraception vending machines.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 6, 2013 at 10:11 a.m.
morebeer...... With Obama's government we are not guaranteed the right to privacy.
( permalink | suggest removal )
ToTheLeft says... February 6, 2013 at 10:51 a.m.
My body, my choice. Your body, your choice.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Whippersnapper says... February 6, 2013 at 3:02 p.m.
Hey Jake,
The Supreme Court has specifically said that states CAN ban abortions once the "fetus" is "viable" and the definition of viability is that it could potentially live outside the womb with artificial aid. (this is in the infamous Roe v Wade decision itself). Since states CAN ban abortions, there must not exist an absolute right to have one, eh?
~
"State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." - Roe v Wade, majority opinion
~
"As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." - Roe v Wade, majority opinion
~
So, Jake, what part of this are you finding so hard to understand? "If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period" Sounds like states CAN ban abortion as long as they choose to do it at some point when viability has been determined (and listening for a heartbeat sounds an awful lot like putting in a uniform test for determining a standard for viability)
( permalink | suggest removal )
cindi22202170708 says... February 6, 2013 at 3:28 p.m.
"So why are they taking issue with a vaginal probe? " Are you serious??????? It's rape. It's also terrorism, "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." They know they cannot outlaw abortions when the vast majority are done. They also know it will get thrown out by the courts. They don't care. They know only a Constitutional amendment can outlaw abortions and the majority don't want Roe v Wade thrown out. They know that too. You can rest assured the voters in my area will know my representatives voted for this original bill when they run for re-election too. Shame on them all.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 6, 2013 at 4:21 p.m.
WS
*
I'll place my money with the court record on this matter. The record of court cases supporting Roe v Wade is solid.
*
The Court's 1973 ruling:
In a 7-2 vote, the Court said that the Texas law violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority, argued that a woman's decision to end her pregnancy is protected by a broad right of privacy, which though not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, previously had been found by the court to exist within the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 14th Amendments, as well as the penumbras, or shadows, of the Bill of Rights.
*
However, the Court recognized that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health of the pregnant woman, and Justice Blackmun's decision laid out a framework in which varying degrees of state regulation was allowed based on the stage of the pregnancy. The decision held that the state could not prohibit abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy; in the second trimester, states could issue regulations "that are reasonably related to maternal health"; and in the final trimester, once the fetus is viable beyond the womb, the state could regulate or even prohibit abortion except in cases "where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
*
My original statement holds correct. It is currently unconstitutional.
*
A poll by the Pew Research Center found that 63 percent of Americans believe that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, compared to 29 percent who believe it should be.
*
The poll also found that 53 percent of the U.S. public say the issue of abortion is not that important compared to other issues - the first time that number has been over 50 percent. Dimock said this may reflect Americans' current preoccupation with issues such as the national debt and gun control.
*
Politically? The furor may be testimony to the power of a small conservative minority to influence the political debate, but is unlikely to change the status quo. Candidates with a hard-line anti-abortion stance, such as Senate hopefuls Richard Mourdock of Indiana or Todd Akin of Missouri, lost soundly in recent elections.
*
So what are the chances for over-ruling Roe v Wade: Very, very slim to mostly none.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 6, 2013 at 4:33 p.m.
How nice it is to see compromise and bi-partisanship in a much needed piece of legislation. The honorable Mr. Rapert is to be commended on his statesmanship.
Hey ToTheLeft - "My body, my choice. Your body, your choice." You made your choice when you invited that unprotected "vaginal probe". Now, the unborn child and the possessor of the vaginal probe both have a say in the matter, don't you think?
Hey morebeer - Do you reckon the dead unborn child that's aborted would agree it has nothing to do with a "medical procedure"?
Hey restoresanity - So, you're good with having the death of 3,000 unborn children a day on your conscience? Really? Seriously?
Hey lindasue - No baby is disposable, except maybe to you. It is all the killing of an unborn child. Some might say the mother's right to choose is greater than the child's right to life in cases of rape or incest if the mother was forced to have sex or conceived the child due to mental defect. Abortionists say the mother's right to choose to kill the unborn child for sake of convenience is greater than the child's right to life. Regardless, it takes a severely deranged individual to say a baby, unborn or otherwise, is disposable.
Hey cindi - "You can rest assured the voters in my area will know my representatives voted for this original bill when they run for re-election too." Damn straight we will remember and again vote for the candidates that supported the bill and shame, shame, shame on those that voted against life.
Hey Jake and morebeer - Would you please answer Whipper's question?
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... February 6, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
Senator Rapert...... hear is another you may want Arkansas to try.
Virginia advances bill pushing for state to establish its own currency
Read more: foxnews. com/politics/2013/02/06/virginia-is-one-step-closer-to-returning-to-gold-standard/#ixzz2KAaLf4EZ
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 6, 2013 at 7:02 p.m.
Pack, WS's questions are hypothetical ones. I see no need to answer them since they don't involve facts or the question of precedence which is the driving force in a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court.
Neither I nor WS nor you are the arbiters of the abortion question. I personally think 28 weeks is a good enough spot to draw the line. I believe the best answer to this entire problem was summed up in a short sentence: "If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one."
I won't play the rhetorical question game. If you have facts to present, I am fine with looking into those points you raise. Demanding an answer to a question is not a right nor does it have to be acknowledged. I might find the question irrelevant, moot, or poorly worded (sometimes all three).
But I do know that Rapert's bill is currently unconstitutional and clearly trepasses the line set by Roe v. Wade. In addition, the younger generation is more supportive of abortion; the Supreme Court almost never overturns a previous ruling and has specifically stayed the course with follow-up cases that involved the '73 case; and, the public trusts Democrats more than Republicans on the abortion issue.
If you have an argument to make, then make it yourself. That's your responsibility. You don't need to foist questions upon us to prove anything (which they never do). Now, if you please, I bid you farewell on this issue. I am satisfied with my viewpoint and have confidence in my points.
( permalink | suggest removal )
cliffcarson says... February 6, 2013 at 8:03 p.m.
I think Jake summed it up best and with very few to the point words:
If you are against abortion - don't have one".
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... February 6, 2013 at 10:47 p.m.
If you are against abortion then do not impregnate a woman unless you intend to raise the child.
( permalink | suggest removal )
cliffcarson says... February 7, 2013 at 12:10 a.m.
Yes, and if the Government says that a woman cannot end an unwanted pregnancy, is the Government then responsible for paying the woman to raise the unwanted child?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Vickie55 says... February 7, 2013 at 2:19 p.m.
Bless you, HotSpringsLawyer for being the only one so far who acknowledges that the man has any responsibility.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Whippersnapper says... February 7, 2013 at 2:39 p.m.
Hey Jake,
You missed the part where the SC later determined that the Roe case's trimester test wasn't binding. In fact, they specifically said that state governments can move the date of viability earlier in pregnancy. From the 90s:
"But these facts go only to the scheme of time limits on the realization of competing interests, and the divergences from the factual premises of 1973 have no bearing on the validity of Roe's central holding, that viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions. The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on whether viability occurs at approximately 28 weeks, as was usual at the time of Roe, at 23 to 24 weeks, as it sometimes does today, or at some moment even slightly earlier in pregnancy, as it may if fetal respiratory capacity can somehow be enhanced in the future. Whenever it may occur, the attainment of viability may continue to serve as the critical fact, just as it has done since Roe was decided; which is to say that no change in Roe's factual underpinning has left its central holding obsolete, and none supports an argument for overruling it." - Planned Parenthood v Casey, majority opinion
~
So, Jake, your claims of "precedence" are overblown. The standard is not (and hasn't been) a trimester test for over 20 years. The standard is (and has been) viability, which the SC says is not a hard and fast date. They cited the same definition of viability and rejected a trimester test in the Casey case. So, given that SC Precedent now says that states CAN ban abortions after viability and also says viability is a standard that is not determined by weeks into pregnancy, what is unconstitutional about a state setting a test for viability? Oh yeah, nothing! The legislature could make this law bulletproof by changing it to say something to the effect of:
"Whereas the law currently recognizes that State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications
and whereas the law currently recognizes that the State may go so far as to proscribe abortion after viability, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother
and whereas there is not currently a uniform standard for determining viability
we hereby create this test and require it before termination of pregnancies, except as necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."
~
If the legislature does this, the courts will have a really hard time throwing it out. The other side would have the burden of proof to show that heartbeat does not indicate viability because laws are presumed to be constitutional unless proven otherwise, and all the key components of this would be based specifically on Supreme Court rulings. That would really stick in the craw of libs like you, wouldn't it, Jake?
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 7, 2013 at 2:56 p.m.
You're the one with something stuck in his craw, WS. Like I said, I'm happy with my positions. If you want to count angels on the head of a pin or cite everything ever written on the subject, it's your right to bore us to tears with it. Just don't be surprised if ennui results from your efforts.
You're already seeing politicians working to change the wording on these laws. Makes me wonder if they're not getting the message about constitutionality being an issue.
Meanwhile, I'm enjoying carrot cake, ice cream, and some good cold Arkansas water. My "craw" has no problems savoring those and dealing with the imaginary victuals dreamt up by a frustrated debater.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 7, 2013 at 3:27 p.m.
And we might add a special note:
The Plurality, in section 5 of its decision, made a special note of the precedential value of Roe v. Wade, especially how women's lives were changed by that decision:
"The sum of the precedential enquiry to this point shows Roe's underpinnings unweakened in any way affecting its central holding. While it has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable. An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe's concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions; no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe's central holding a doctrinal remnant."
—Planned Parenthood v. Casey
I remain firmly in the pro-choice camp. I believe it is the right thing to do. I respect those who disagree and ask them to do the same.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 7, 2013 at 3:56 p.m.
Hey Jake - Such an easy way out to declare a question "hypothetical" for no better reason than an honest answer would make you look foolish. You want facts? It's a fact Roe v Wade left much wiggle room in the determination of a viable "fetus". The honorable Mr. Rapert has simply proposed a bill to update the vaguearies (sp?) of Roe v Wade. Improving upon a decades old SCOTUS decision is not unconstitutional. It is actually a very good idea as a general societal concept, don't you agree?
Hey HSLawyer - "If you are against abortion then do not impregnate a woman unless you intend to raise the child." If you truly believe this statement then you must also believe the impregnator has a say in whether or not the impregnatee has an abortion. So, if you don't want to have an abortion don't have unprotected sex or allow the impregnator the chance to raise the child. Makes sense to me.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 7, 2013 at 4:44 p.m.
Tell that to a rapist. In 31 states, the rapist has rights over their child. Pro-rape in my book.
Rapert's bill: It IS unconstitutional. Most assertions to the contrary overlook the clear dictates of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which prohibits state bans pre-viability. Rapert (and others) has in the past cited a scrap of a non-pertinent clause in the Casey decision as supporting his view, but it requires ignoring the totality of the opinion.
At this point, Beebe is indicating that he will veto the bill if he considers it in any way unconstitutional.
Has anyone looked into the difficulties that in vitro fertilization labs will run into if the more severe forms of abortion laws are considered? Have heard that this will run them out of business.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Whippersnapper says... February 7, 2013 at 5:47 p.m.
...and still Jake ignores the fact that both the Roe and Casey cases clearly say that states can ban abortion. Yes, it has to be after viability, but that's what the heartbeat test is to determine. No constitutional issues whatsoever.
( permalink | suggest removal )
1soni says... February 7, 2013 at 8:38 p.m.
Does it bother anyone that Rapert, Levy and Whipper all want to grow government and the Democratic base while increasing government 10 fold? It sounds like they want to create an army of young democrats raised from before birth by the government. Who knew they would reveal themselves?
( permalink | suggest removal )
NoCrossNoCrown says... February 7, 2013 at 10:35 p.m.
Well Arkansas, Git out the big check book and get ready to pay for all the legal challenges that this bill will bring about. The bottom line is that there in no legal defense for preventing a woman from getting an abortion if that is what she chooses. All your arguments are based on YOUR religious objections. It is an invaision of privacy for big brother to oversee what you and your doctor decide is the best treatment plan for whatever condition you find yourself in. Like it or not....The government and judges have NO place in making these decissions. If it goes back to the SCOTUS, they will have to rule against the state or they will open the door for any religion to make claims based on that religions philosophy. Some of which I find very sick.......
Raper and the other teabag nutcases in the ledge need to stop trying to force their evil religious bull crap on every Arkansan.......#EvilBibleOwners
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 8, 2013 at 7:22 a.m.
One ignores the irrelevant or less than pertinent when stronger cases stand before them. Try your hand at this cryptoquote (a favorite puzzle type of mine). It speaks humorously to the topic and without the strain of self-righteousness that has made most commentary a steady drone.
RYB LF JIH PRF, VF LHKAHT AG JIRJ AT VHY PHMH JIH QYHG DHJJAYD XMHDYRYJ, RLQMJAQYG PQOKB LH HRGAHM JQ DHJ JIRY TQQB XQAGQYAYD AY VQGUQP. -- BHYYAG VAKKHM
( permalink | suggest removal )
Whippersnapper says... February 8, 2013 at 2:59 p.m.
JakeTidmore says
"One ignores the irrelevant or less than pertinent when stronger cases stand before them."
~
So, now you claim that the Roe and Casey courts (which specifically allow states to outlaw abortion after determining viability) are irrelevant or not pertinent? That's rich.
~
And by the way, comedians such as Mr. Miller are entitled to opinions just like the rest of us, and a laugh line is not necessarily the best policy to follow (though somebody ought to tell that to our current POTUS).
~
1soni says
"Does it bother anyone that Rapert, Levy and Whipper all want to grow government and the Democratic base while increasing government 10 fold?"
~
Does it bother anyone that when the government is attempting to apply a uniform, repeatable, scientific standard to the question of when life begins libs like you are up in arms? Does it bother anyone that your hypocrisy in claiming to care for the most defenseless and downtrodden only extends to those capable of making their voice heard? Does it bother anyone that any objective standard is apparently too much of a standard for the amoral such as you?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 8, 2013 at 3:40 p.m.
Hey NoCrossNoCrown - "evil religious bull crap"... Alas, what kind of person characterizes efforts to save unborn children as "evil religious bull crap"? Liberals, bless their hearts. The best thing about a liberal is they are most predictable.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... February 8, 2013 at 11:24 p.m.
packman....let's say there is a federal ban on all abortions, what percentage do you think that would reduce abortions?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 9, 2013 at 4:16 a.m.
Of course, it is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with abortion. It is republican strategy to stir their base, "get out to vote", for the next governor's race. That is all.
.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 9, 2013 at 8:29 a.m.
Dear WS
It was wholly a pleasure to see you take a sentence and completely twist it to your meaning and intent. Bravo for your imagination and fiction-making expertise. If you're capable of misreading and misinterpreting a simple sentence I have written, one wonders about all your conjectures with other writings you cite.
BTW -- it's still unconstitutional.
PS -- Glad you figured out the D. Miller quote. I kept it easy. Surely you worked it all out on your own? Or shall I be creative like you were and insist that you hired a professional code maker to solve it for you? Oh, that's ignorant speculation, you say....
Then, I guess i'd better not try to be creative like you and pass off such as an honest rebuttal when all it could be was guesswork disguised as a damning fact.
( permalink | suggest removal )
map51 says... February 9, 2013 at 8:59 a.m.
The tea party wants to shrink government control unless big government fits their beliefs.
( permalink | suggest removal )
morebeer says... February 9, 2013 at 10:13 a.m.
whipperdupe says, "both the Roe and Casey cases clearly say that states can ban abortion. Yes, it has to be after viability, but that's what the heartbeat test is to determine. No constitutional issues whatsoever." Rapert's bill isn't about viability. Even if a heartbeat is detected at 6 weeks, or 12, the fetus is not viable outside the womb. Not even close. In the first instance, at 6 weeks, it is about 0.25 inch long. Rapert wants a test case to trot to the Supreme Court so his name can be in all the stories as it works its way toward the high court, which is very unlikely to take the case after it is demolished in lower courts.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 9, 2013 at 11:29 a.m.
Hey BillSmith - "packman....let's say there is a federal ban on all abortions, what percentage do you think that would reduce abortions?" What I think and what would actually happen would likely be two different things. I "think"/hope/pray abortions of convenience would be 0% with a federal ban but more likely it would be closer to 50% as irresponsible women head to Canada, Mexico, or underground abortion providers. A bigger and better number would be the pregnancies prevented by an increased practice of abstinence and participatory birth control. What are your thoughts on the question?
( permalink | suggest removal )
nwar says... February 9, 2013 at 6:03 p.m.
Irresponsible women will just head for Canada... or I guess other countries not entralled by the "i"m the voice of God crowd" and I know what is right. At least we have Jason RAPER to decide for us, since he IS the voice of God. He KNOWS that life begins at 6 weeks! Oop!, I guess he meant 12 weeks. What will God tell him next week?
( permalink | suggest removal )
morebeer says... February 9, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
Packman and whipperdupe act like they're standing on the moral high ground. But I know what they're up to. They're planning to open a chastity belt kiosk at the mall.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... February 9, 2013 at 11:27 p.m.
packman.....My thought's on the question:
1. You failed to mention the irresponsible man that is also involved.
2. Most of the women will just head to back alley abortionist like the did before Roe vs Wade. Many don't have the money to go out of the country.
3. It is none of you business who or when people have sex.
4. You and T6 love to preach about the sinful people with your bible quotes, well everyone does not believe the way you do, you people are not judges.
5. How have those tax dollars spent on abstinence worked out for everyone. Just ask Sara and Bristol Palin. And the Pope and Paul Ryan are against participatory birth control.
6. You two are against gun control, but you sure as hell want to control women's sex lives.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NoCrossNoCrown says... February 10, 2013 at 10:44 p.m.
I'll type this real slow so you can try to understand .....Phackman
If you are having to go to the ledge to try to force a person to fall in line with your beliefe system.......It is changing the law, but not changing the hearts and minds of unbelivers....
You may have good intentions, but we also know where the road paved with those leads...
That would be your right to privacy in your person and home.....Rat
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.