Arkansas House votes to override veto on 20-week abortion ban
By The Associated Press
This article was originally published February 27, 2013 at 2:08 p.m. Updated February 27, 2013 at 2:31 p.m.
- Comments (54)
- aAFont Size
LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas House has voted to reaffirm a 20-week ban on most abortions, voting 53-28 on Wednesday to override Gov. Mike Beebe's veto.
The state Senate still must weigh in. It has scheduled to vote on the veto override Thursday, according to the state legislature's website.
Beebe rejected the bill Tuesday, saying it violates the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion to the point where fetuses can survive outside the womb — usually 22 to 24 weeks. He also questioned the cost of defending the law in court.
The bill initially passed the House 80-10, and the Senate 25-7.
An override takes only a simple majority in Arkansas.
Comments on: Arkansas House votes to override veto on 20-week abortion ban
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.
MenLR2 says... February 27, 2013 at 2:47 p.m.
How freakin DUMB
( permalink | suggest removal )
jeffieboy says... February 27, 2013 at 3:04 p.m.
This is why Republicans have a hard time gaining any real ground with mainstream America, especially the growing body of Independents and Libertarians. I have generally been conservative and usually voted against Democrats for the last 40 plus years. However, there are some very contenscious and deeply personal issues in society that are best left up to individuals to decide for themselves. Abortion is one of those issues. There are much more pressing problems looming that will effect not just people with unwanted pregnancies, but every living soul in the state. Our legislators should focus on those issues and leave personal choice alone. Most of all, keep religion and religious beliefs out of civil law and politics and sever ties between the pulpit and the throne. There is nothing more dangerous than letting the two mix. My Republican friends and my friend and aquaintance of about 20 years freshman Dan Douglas, need to see the larger picture and stick to more universally important things. The sessions are short enough with much work to do and issues like these are devisive and wasteful. Lets think about doing something to bring everyone together. Let's not emulate the "Great Divider", Barry Obama!
( permalink | suggest removal )
LR1955 says... February 27, 2013 at 3:11 p.m.
Well ArkDemGaz, you need to use your FOI expert skills to quickly obtain a list of all 53 'yes' voters and post them in an article.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Lesterday says... February 27, 2013 at 3:18 p.m.
I cannot believe this and I am printing a list of those who voted for it. I shall help target those to remove them from office in the next election. Im a grandparent, retired so have plenty of time to devote to help choosing sane legislators. Taking away a womens right to care for her own body is ---------------unprintable, demeaning and a means of control freaks foisting their opinion of what is "right" on the female population. I am prolife a professional health care worker helping birth babies and some of my own, nothing more profound! Requiring women to birth unwanted babies so others can maim or kill should be the issue as most do not choose to give the baby up for adoption. Birth control should be a mans responsibility as well as a womans and birth control of choice should be required of ALL insurance companies, if not then lets take away the insurance payment for Viagra. After all AARP noted a few years back that older/old men were now the leading cause of THE SPREAD of all STD's in the country. PSHAW
( permalink | suggest removal )
chiefmom says... February 27, 2013 at 3:32 p.m.
Amen...Amen... And Amen... May life be upheld, supported and preserved by all those who cherish it!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
VoteRepublican says... February 27, 2013 at 3:54 p.m.
Ok I wasnt going to stop and comment on such a volitale subject, but i just cant not after the comments I have read on this so far. First and foremost I am prolife. So lets get that out of the way. However, while I am prolife there are situations that i feel a women should have the right to make her own moral choice and that is addressed in this bill. Most importantly, and I am not arguing Life as thats an understood, but we argue morals, convinence, a womens right to choose. Yes I agree its her body, but its only half her baby! Have you stopped to think about the father of the baby and the choices he has when it comes to abortion....thats right NONE! It has been always about the women...what if the father wanted the child, now he has to live with the selfish act of the wife, girlfiend, whatever you call the mother, who aborted your own child. Nevertheless the fact that abortion inside the fetus is unseen by the human eye as to how torchures this is...ripping the baby apart and grinding it up like a chuck of meat. Lets see how people fee about doing that same thing to a baby 1 day old. How can you define that its a womens right when the baby is in the womb but 1 day later when in her arms its murder? Lastly the moral point....yes I do think things should change....society has made women feel like its ok for abortions to happen...look for moral brochures in parent planning facilites...they dont teach morals and that you need to look to your faith as to if having a baby in high school is a time you should or shouldnt have an abortion. NO that has been left up to the parents that have morals or NOT. And those that dont and dont teach their own children, which is seemlying growing each year...parents that dont teach their kids morals....are the same children that are more apt to have an abortion. Lastly if abortions are less of an option and you dont want to be a mother then keep your pants on. I have said lastly more so then not, but this is a two way street...men its time to man up...if we tell the women they cant have an abortion, then its time to be a father as well...pay child support be their for your kid and dont run off and if you are those types of men your dick should be chopped off because you arent a man and you dont deserve the tools that create life!
( permalink | suggest removal )
Lesterday says... February 27, 2013 at 3:57 p.m.
jeffieboy----you are so right. Pressing problems, more than I have ever seen in my long life and seemingly less intelligent humans to deal with them. Crime against persons and businesses seem to be rampant in almost every section of our city. So many persons without jobs, constantly rising food prices and now fuel. We need to support the legislators that truly work for the folks that elected them; however once elected many if not most take off on their own special tangent.
( permalink | suggest removal )
rainbowharold55 says... February 27, 2013 at 4 p.m.
These clowns are just determined to waste my tax dollars defending unconstitutional laws.
( permalink | suggest removal )
TomN says... February 27, 2013 at 4:06 p.m.
Unfortunately, the specious arguments and hyperbole I have seen expressed so far have only added more heat than light to the subject at hand. This is not liberal versus conservative, Republican versus Democrat, etc. This is barbarism versus civilization. Bottom line, at some point life and individuality begin. And surely civilization and its ideals always respect life. The question is when does life begin? Some say at conception (historically the Catholic Church has strongly led this charge). Others say at viability (that is when survival can occur with outside assistance). Then others say at survive-ability (that is without outside assistance). Even the greatest minds agree, though, that at some point, there become two individuals, and it becomes not about just the mother any more. There becomes another life or individual to consider, etc. It has already been pointed out that of the thousands of abortions performed in Arkansas each year there were only 48 performed at or after 20 weeks this past year. Surely, excepting the exceptions where this law makes provision (rape, incest, etc.), we can all compromise and agree that an impregnated person can make a decision by 20 weeks into their pregnancy whether to carry full term. And, most surely, as a civilized people, we can agree that partial birth abortions are absolutely abysmal and immoral.... Just saying, can we not bring a little logic to the subject?
( permalink | suggest removal )
VoteRepublican says... February 27, 2013 at 4:18 p.m.
TomN: you said "The question is when does life begin? Some say at conception (historically the Catholic Church has strongly led this charge). Others say at viability (that is when survival can occur with outside assistance). Then others say at survive-ability (that is without outside assistance)" My agrument to those that say its not a life till it can sustatain on its own is a hypocrite. Look at the elderly...those that can not feed themsleves...do we let them starve to death because they are "no longer alive" no we aid and care for them because they have a Voice....So for the unborn child that needs a little extra help to live....I am their Voice and so is Congress today!
( permalink | suggest removal )
edo1962 says... February 27, 2013 at 4:25 p.m.
Finally a Arkansas house with some backbone!
( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoGotYurBack says... February 27, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.
When the Blackmun led court decided Roe v Wade showed constitutional law for a woman's right to privacy, there was one thing they forgot and one thing they didn't count on. The latter first: Viability of the unborn child. The Supreme Court said abortions should be available up to viability, or 28 weeks at the time. But they didn't count on science improving so much. Later court rulings have made viability a variable. In fact, children have been born and survived as early as 21 weeks and 5 days from the mother becoming pregnant. How soon before scientific improvements bring that down even further? BTW, viability according to the courts include a baby's survival on its own or by the means of medical assistance. 20 weeks isn't that far off. The second thing, the one thing the Blackmun court forgot was by the time a woman got pregnant, her privacy was already compromised. It takes two to tango, and all that. But the court really let women down with the ruling. It put the full responsibility of pregnancy on women with no responsibility on men. If a dude caused it, he should take care of it. Right now, he gets off scott free. But with the law as it is, if a woman wants her privacy, keep her privates private. Best abortion solution ever.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Dangarn says... February 27, 2013 at 4:37 p.m.
Cannot wait to see John bloviate on this one!
It is always funny (not ha ha) to me that people will not take up the cause for the rights of the unborn child but will fight tooth and nail about the evils of capital punishment, the moral injustice of killing the adult (who should know better) who has been tried by the constitution and has several years of appeals to work through before sentence is carried out if at all, but the unborn innocent has no rights or protection. Personally I am against capital punishment and abortion, they both take away a precious commodity, LIFE.
( permalink | suggest removal )
TomN says... February 27, 2013 at 4:46 p.m.
Some here might want to read recent ethical discussions regarding the topic of abortion -- i.e., the newest debates on "viability" vs. "survive-ability", etc. Other topics include philosophical and ethical systems -- i.e., teleological (the end justifies the mean), summon-bonum (the greatest or supreme good), the Categorical Imperative (do that which you would will others to do), etc. Just a few suggestions . . .
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... February 27, 2013 at 5:38 p.m.
The real problem is that women refuse to accept the fact that they are placed upon this Earth for the purpose of serving and gratifying Men, and bearing and raising our children whether we help them or not.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 27, 2013 at 5:46 p.m.
This is a great day for life in Arkansas! Please, please, please pubish the names of all the demorats who voted against life. When a woman chooses to have unprotected sex for personal pleasure she forfeits husbandry over the child that is created as a result. It is patently immoral to allow the woman alone to choose to kill the unborn child for no better reason than personal convenience. Twenty weeks today, moment of conception tomorrow. Let's keep moving forward for life.
( permalink | suggest removal )
1sport says... February 27, 2013 at 6:23 p.m.
Women can still make the chose to abort the child just not after 20 weeks. I think the real chose should be made before the child is conceived. Maybe people need to control their desires for sex if there not willing to raise a child. I think the names that should be posted are the ones the walk out on their job. If we did this we would be without a job. The people voted you in to do a job and you walk out. That is being a chicken. As far as BeBee he to took the easy way out.
( permalink | suggest removal )
mkm157 says... February 27, 2013 at 8:23 p.m.
I am so sick and tired of people that actually do not understand that the USA is NOT a christian country it is a free country with atheists's, Jew's Muslims, Hindu's, Buddist's and agnostics. We ALL have a right that should not be infringed on by narrow minded one agenda people like the Repubicans (intentially spelled). They have been giddy about all the illegal social changes they have made that will end up costing all taxpayers money to defend what will certainly be overturned in the court system. Courts are there to protect us from misguided majority that try to impose their will via the legislative process. The bible says we have "free will" to follow or not to follow Jesus teachings. While much of our society has turned their backs on God, it isn't the responsibility of any government group to try and mandate that these people change. The only change will be in their heart and there is nothing any Repubican can do to change that. I have experienced with a friend the trama of an unwanted pregnacy and what the women face. My friend decided to abort their baby. It was not a decision she came to lightly. And for all you moron's she was on birth control but had a round of antibiotics that reduced their effectivness resulting in the pregnancy. I seriously doubt that this procedure is one anyone enters into lightly and Mayberry and Raper have no business in a womens reproductive rights. It is between GOD and the indivdual, not the Arkansas Legislature.
( permalink | suggest removal )
nwar says... February 27, 2013 at 8:47 p.m.
packman and rusty don't really have a clue. They think this bill is about loose women. Their posts shout it out. Did either of you read any of the testimony on the bill? Did you see that only a miniscule number of abortions occur after this 20th week and they are almost always because of threats to the fetus and/or mother? But you continue to act like this is about morals of young women. You two need to take a look at your own morals.
( permalink | suggest removal )
gls1000 says... February 27, 2013 at 8:50 p.m.
Not every woman choosing an abortion is a prostitute, promiscuous, unmarried, or even unfaithful (though that doesn't deny them legal standing). Not an insignificant number are women facing a more difficult decision than most of these 53 legislators have yet contemplated, and which they have not even come close to contemplating in this legislation. I cannot pray for them or theirs to ever suffer such a situation, but if they would just take the small step of time and effort to learn of some of the 'other' reasons for an abortion, they could never support such unrighteous legislation (even the righteous should probably think twice before casting the first stone, though it helps to have 52 partners). Legal steps to restrict frivolous abortions, of which there are many,would be good, but that could be accomplished by requiring validated counseling constrained by legally binding guidelines developed outside the legislature by those qualified in the various relevant areas including medicine, ethics, and psychology among others. Rape, incest, and the life of the mother does not even begin to encompass the scope of this issue, but the chauvinism of 53 men is plainly on display.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... February 27, 2013 at 9:59 p.m.
mkm what in the world does intentially spelled mean? When you try to be cute intentionally spelling the words correctly makes you look smarter.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... February 27, 2013 at 11:26 p.m.
Packman...... With your way of thinking this could happen Arkansas if you and the rest of the nuts get you way.
November 16,2012 in Ireland
Earlier this week, the world reacted to the news that a hospital in Ireland refused medical care to a woman during her miscarriage and she eventually died from blood poisoning. Savita Halappanavar, a dentist, began slowly and painfully miscarrying at 17 weeks into her pregnancy, but University Hospital Galway refused to terminate the pregnancy because a fetal heartbeat could still be detected. Halappanavar and her husband, who are both Indian and Hindu, repeatedly asked for an abortion but were told no because Ireland is “a Catholic country.” Within days, the fetus died inside Halappanavar and was removed, but it was too late; she died soon after at age 31 from blood poisoning and E.coli ESBL
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... February 27, 2013 at 11:28 p.m.
Packman..... just in case you mention something about the life of the mother in the bill.
In Ireland, abortion is banned in the constitution, but a 1992 court decision decided a woman has a legal right to an abortion if her life is at risk.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... February 27, 2013 at 11:31 p.m.
The link to the article:
thefrisky. com/2012-11-16/protests-in-ireland-over-31-year-old-woman-refused-medical-care-during-miscarriage/?fb_action_ids=448801261843484&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
( permalink | suggest removal )
harley1305121514 says... February 27, 2013 at 11:58 p.m.
I am against abortion! It's my right to think and feel as I want to. I believe in God and the Lord Jesus Christ and that is my right to do so.
The women who feel that they have the right to abortion and in some cases abortions, have the right to feel that way if they choose to also.
The difference is my choices don't carry into violating someone elses choice. Women have the right to feel anyway they choose if that choice is about them AND ONLY THEM! Their choice on abortion involves two others, the father and the baby she wants to kill. Two people made a third person and they ALL have their rights. Not just one!
As to whether the baby, while in the womb, is a living being or it only comes to life once it is out of the womb, I say this. Has anyone else laid their hand on the pregnant womans stomach and felt movement from what was inside? Has anyone listened to the heartbeat of what is inside that woman?
If what is inside that woman isn't alive how could it move around and why would it have a heartbeat?
I have been around several dead humans in my life and not one of them moved around and they didn't have a beating heart!
If a woman feels she has the right to kill the life inside her then I feel I have the right to kill the mother! What is the difference?
( permalink | suggest removal )
TimberTopper says... February 28, 2013 at 5:46 a.m.
Ah! And what will be next, how bout the number of times one can wipe ones rear?
( permalink | suggest removal )
KCSAP says... February 28, 2013 at 7:07 a.m.
54 million babies aborted in America since 1973, could have have been any one of you!
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 28, 2013 at 7:16 a.m.
I think 20 weeks is too late for an abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake or the fetus is horribly deformed. While many late term abortions are performed in either of the above cases, there are still some hacks in this country who will perform them on a perfectly healthy fetus. I think the right to privacy is moot when the woman is starting to show. Lines must be drawn.
( permalink | suggest removal )
onlyGodmatters says... February 28, 2013 at 9:15 a.m.
Amen mkm157!!!! HotSpringsLawyer, go back to the dark ages and suck on a lemon!
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... February 28, 2013 at 9:37 a.m.
Did they have sarcasm in the Middle Ages?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Vickie55 says... February 28, 2013 at 9:47 a.m.
Great comment, HotSpringsLawyer. Unfortunately, many did not catch the sarcasm because that is exactly what they believe.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Dangarn says... February 28, 2013 at 10:40 a.m.
I love sarcasm, in the proper situation. This topic is way to serious to be sarcastic. We would rather argue and call each other names. We need intelligent debate and solutions. I have not read any of that here, just sarcasm, name calling and bullying but, why should we be any different than out esteemed leaders in Washington.
Of course, free speech does mean that you have to let me speak openly for the very thing you despise and I have to allow you to do the same. Liberty is hard isn't it?
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... February 28, 2013 at 12:39 p.m.
Nothing is too serious for sarcasm. For instance, Jonathan Swift's use of A Modest Proposal to protest treatment of starving children in Ireland, or Tutillian's Apology attacking Roman prosecution of Christians.
Or Mark Twain: “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of [the Arkansas Legislature]. But I repeat myself.”
( permalink | suggest removal )
nwar says... February 28, 2013 at 6:27 p.m.
Populist, this bill doesn't allow for a horribly deformed fetus. As far as Mayberry and company is concerned, the woman should be forced to bear this child.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 28, 2013 at 8:06 p.m.
Nwar,
You are correct. There are some fetuses which could be horribly deformed, but still expected to live. I know two families who must care for a horribly deformed child/adult. Everybody involved gives up anything close to a normal life. I suspect with the wording of this bill., that some doctors could fudge the prognosis and say the fetus will certainly die when, in fact, the fetus/child and parents are just doomed to a life of diapers and misery. Everybody wants to see these issues in black and white when in fact there can be hard moral choices to be made and things are really shades of gray. Abortion of a healthy fetus at 20 weeks is wrong; abortion of a horribly deformed fetus at 20 weeks is morally defensible. How deformed the fetus is and and the age of fetus results in determinations in shades of gray. The important thing is that we all try to work together toward a more humane society and not play the blame game.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 28, 2013 at 8:39 p.m.
Hey BillSmith - Please forgive me for not taking the article or your words at face value. Could the woman have died from unrelated causes? Taking your words and the article at face value, however, its not an all or none proposition. If the story is true, the woman's death was a trade-off in the quest to save the lives of countless unborn children.
Hey Populist and nwr - Would you mind defining "horribly deformed"? Would you sentence to death a Down Syndrom baby as "horribly deformed"? What about a child missing a couple of fingers in the womb? What about a child without a penis?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Walklady says... February 28, 2013 at 9:12 p.m.
Geezus Pete people, give it up! It's NOT your business! And I resent paying taxes to fund crap like this!
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... March 1, 2013 at 2:08 a.m.
Packman ........ The article is true which you know if you took the time to check it out.
If it had been your wife would you call it a trade-off in the quest to save the lives of countless unborn children? The only child involved was the 17 week old that died in her womb. Do you not understand what a miscarriage is, the baby was dying and the mother did not have to, there was a law providing for abortion in the case of the life of the mother, but the hospital and doctor's made the decision and not the woman and her husband. Who's to say our law's won't end up like Ireland's?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... March 1, 2013 at 7:04 a.m.
Packman,
Downs syndrome children and people can be quite a joy. I actually think they are happier than people with normal IQs. I am glad that I never had to make that horrible decision because my husband and I would have disagreed. You can determine if you have Downs before 20 weeks, and no, I would not classify a Downs child as horribly deformed. I know of two children who are severely retarded and handicapped, and I have seen others. The parents or the state become caretakers who must change diapers and take care of somebody who is a perpetual invalid. It is just too sad an existence. On the penis issue, this is a deformity to be sure, but I am sure that they can build something. I don't think that is a good enough reason to terminate the life of a one pound, 10 or 11 inch human being.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jjordan says... March 1, 2013 at 8:46 a.m.
I'm going to regret even making a comment on this topic, but... I'm personally not in favor of abortion unless those exceptions are involved that are previously mentioned. However, I think it's extremely interesting to see the same typical characters on here that argue how our freedoms are taken away each day, how assault rifles should not be banned (because you can't give an inch to the government because they won't stop at assault rifles - right?), how government is entirely too intrusive on business (especially if it impacts their portfolio), how we don't need the FDA, FDIC, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, etc, but argue for more government intervention in this issue. No need to lecture me on how there are lives at stake in this issue, but it's funny how we pick and choose freedom. We take the high, moral ground in this issue, but turn our backs when their is financial consequence on others.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Sarah2789 says... March 1, 2013 at 10:40 a.m.
How about instead of abortion for unwanted pregnancy, the government legislates to remove the testicles of the man who impregnated the woman? The woman gives the baby up for adoption and the man can no longer impregnate another woman. Problem solved.
How do you like this option men? Do you like women deciding what happens to your body? There are many more women voters than men......just saying...
( permalink | suggest removal )
Dangarn says... March 1, 2013 at 1:14 p.m.
Sarah2789 you have a valid solution but I have a compromise that might make better sense, if both parties were willing participants then have her tubes tied and give him a vasectomy. I would bet that the cost of the procedures are not much more than an abortion in a lot of cases more than 1. This will stop any future problems and if at some point either party decides to have children then they can adopt. Is that enough sarcasm for you HotSpringsLawyer
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... March 1, 2013 at 2:57 p.m.
Sarah 2789,
At the point where the baby is starting to show, a woman's right to privacy is about done. Would you allow abortion at 30 weeks?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Sarah2789 says... March 1, 2013 at 4:15 p.m.
Thank you for your question Populist. Before I answer a very personal question, could you please discuss your sexual habits and affinities, so we can all become acquainted with any unknown proclivities, therefore all who read these comments will know the 'privacy issues' of both you and I.
Furthermore, a woman's right to privacy is only divulged when the woman so declares and not when a bump appears in her mid-section. Several people I know have major bumps and those individuals are not described with a feminine pronoun.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Walklady says... March 1, 2013 at 4:23 p.m.
Thank you Sarah for your most intelligent posts!!! This whole issue just makes my blood boil, so I am always delighted to see posts such as yours!
( permalink | suggest removal )
nwar says... March 1, 2013 at 6:06 p.m.
I can't believe packman's incredible post -- the woman allowed to die in Ireland was just collateral damage in his war to outlaw abortion and subjugate women. Sir, you are despicable.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NoUserName says... March 1, 2013 at 7:04 p.m.
I can think of some adults that should be aborted. Oh, too insensitive?
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... March 1, 2013 at 8:21 p.m.
Sarah please explain how removing body parts from a man and killing a fetus are the same. Also removing said body parts from one man does nothing to prevent a woman from getting pregnant from another man. Now if you would like to make a sound argument that the woman has a hysterectomy and the man has a vasectomy fine, but don't make yourself look moronic by posting something so stupid.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Sarah2789 says... March 1, 2013 at 9:06 p.m.
My suggestion was to give the child up for adoption. I never equated the two actions, you did. Calling a specific commenter moronic or inserting stupid is a personal attack which clearly reflects on you rather me.
My inclination is for men to STOP legislating rules for women regarding their bodies lest women turn the tables.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... March 1, 2013 at 11:30 p.m.
There is NO question about the truth of the story of the Irish woman being allowed to die. It was on all major news sites and some sites out of Ireland. Amazing that anyone could have missed it. This could happen here if the tea party extremists and dominionists keep making inroads into government.
Jjordan makes an excellent observation.
I personally think twenty weeks is way too late for an abortion except for medically necessary reasons, but this is not the business of the state legislature. Our new tea party legislature is just grandstanding with all these right wing bills while not tending to the state's real business.
They are also on more of a campaign to shroud their dealings in secrecy than has been widely reported. Not just the total secrecy about to whom the government has issued concealed carry permits. There is a bill up for eliminating the legal requirement to publish legal notices in newspapers. They would instead be published on a state controlled website. Not only do many people not have internet access, especially the elderly, but a web site can easily be scrubbed clean and information made to vanish. This would not be a true permanent record the way a paper is. While the tea party legislature tries to become more involved in people's personal lives, they strive to make their work more secret.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... March 2, 2013 at 2:12 p.m.
Sorry Sarah you made a stupid argument and I called it like I saw it. If you want to remove body parts people are born with then let's remove the uterus after a woman has an abortion so she cannot get pregnant again. That would fit your argument much better. Let these women have abortions anyway, just don't make me pay for one penny of them. I am not paying for your 2 choices to either have sex and/or an abortion, which also means pay for your own birth control. Personally I am tired of hearing about the abortion issue, but if you choose to have unprotected sex knowing you do not want a child pay for it yourself and live with the emotional scars.
( permalink | suggest removal )
cdawg says... March 3, 2013 at 3:14 a.m.
Ever good christian male knows that once his seed has fertilized a woman he takes dominion over her body. It's the way God intended our lives to be.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Sarah2789 says... March 3, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.
Re: cdawg
The scriptures clearly state for a woman to submit to her HUSBAND As Christ loved the church. Not many men I know love their wives as Christ loves His church. Some men are adulterers, wife-beaters, just read the newspaper to see how some men behave. Woe unto any female who submits to a supposedly Christian man who socks her around on Saturday night and then is the deacon in church on Sunday morning.
IF men truly loved their wives as Christ loved the church, IF they were helpmates and as forgiving as Christ, IF they shared all responsibilities with their wives, the world would be a perfect place. The problem is that is NOT what is happening in real life and you know it.
P.S. You are one of my favorite commenters to read. You have at least one fan.
( 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.