I hope they also made judicial interference an equally abhorrent crime, otherwise this bill is useless.
Not a serious measure to reduce the number of abortions, but a deliberate assault on the rights of women.
Yeah, the GOP is sure going to do well in the upcoming elections. *****rollingeyes*****
Not a serious measure to reduce the number of abortions, but a deliberate assault on the rights of women.
Yeah, the GOP is sure going to do well in the upcoming elections. *****rollingeyes*****
I hope they also made judicial interference an equally abhorrent crime, otherwise this bill is useless.
Wow. What about the assault on life?? Roe V. Wade clearly stipulated guidelines using trimesters; yet over time those boundaries have been grossly extended and we now have fetus' being aborted well into the third trimester with proposals of terminating life right after birth! Imagine a baby just being born into this world and then immediately killed and discarded like a piece of garbage. How do you feel that this is ok?
Some statistics that you just might want to ponder for awhile and truly ask yourself what about the rights of the baby:
Survival Rates (approximately based on multiple factors)
Babies born 23 weeks have a 17 percent chance of survival.
Babies born at 24 weeks have a 39 percent chance of survival.
Babies born at 25 weeks have a 50 percent chance of survival.
Babies born at 26 weeks have an 80 percent chance of survival.
Babies born at 27 weeks have a 90 percent chance of survival.
Babies born between 28-31 weeks gestation have at 90-95 percent chance of survival.
Babies born between 32-33 weeks have a 95 percent chance of survival.
Most babies born 34 weeks or greater have the same likelihood of survival as a full term infant.
??? So a political party should go along with terminating life of a child right after birth, or well into the baby's third trimester to win votes?? To me that is just plain sick.
As modern medicine and technology progresses, a life is becoming more and more viable earlier and earlier into the pregnancy.
Sorry, but I truly find your liberal stance on this quite offensive.
“I think Alabama has gone too far, they’ve passed a law that would give a 99-year prison sentence to those who commit abortions,†Mr Robertson said during an episode of his long-running Christian television show, The 700 Club.
“There’s no exception for rape or incest,†he continued. “It’s an extreme law and they want to challenge Roe v Wade, but my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the Supreme Court because I think this one’ll lose.â€
https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-abortion-ban-gone-too-224201197.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-abortion-ban-gone-too-224201197.html)
Didn’t expect that.
Your support for infanticide is the real and true assault on women’s rights.Just to set the record straight @Jazzhead does not support infanticide or assault women's rights.
This is common sense. I'm not sure what it says about us that common sense is so shocking because it is unexpected!
The danger here is that Republicans of all stripes will have to render opinions on these bills, and it will cleave the party in two. A divided GOP is a vulnerable GOP, and we've given the Dems a gift. And to think the GOP was united several months ago in opposition to Dems' callous calls to defeat measures that would require a born-alive baby to be given medical care!
Now the maelstrom is here - a frontal assault on women's rights that will galvanize the sensible center against us.
Your support for infanticide is the real and true assault on women’s rights.
We must ALL conform to the worldview of the coasts. They will tell us how to think about these things.
Asserting our own regional values simply will not be tolerated.
The anti-abortion laws passed in recent days by legislatures in Alabama and Georgia seem designed for one purpose: to get the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion. The Court — more solidly conservative now than ever thanks to the recent addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh — may well uphold those new laws.
Will voters do the same?
Maybe not. There is plenty of evidence that citizens of conservative states are, to some extent, actually protective of abortion rights. It may not be something they proclaim in their offices, at church, or to pollsters — but their secret beliefs can become quite evident once they enter the voting booth. This should make the legislators who passed the new bills very nervous.
"There's a lot of public pressure to be anti-abortion," Marvin Buehner, a South Dakota OB-GYN said at the time of the 2008 proposal. "People are more likely to answer the poll that they'll support [a ban]. Then they get into the ballot booth and decide they just can't vote for something like that."
These sweeping new laws do very little to assuage the concerns of such voters. Alabama's bill, for example, makes no exception for incest or rape. Georgia's law would grant personhood protections to fetuses just six weeks after conception. Even if the Supreme Court upholds the laws, the examples from Kansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota suggest that legislators who passed these new bills could find themselves suddenly vulnerable.
Your "regional values" may not be what you think:
Why America's strict new anti-abortion laws could backfire (https://theweek.com/articles/841763/why-americas-strict-new-antiabortion-laws-could-backfire)
Why trust people to run their own lives and allow them to choose their own laws and leaders when we know whats really best for them? Wouldn't want things to backfire.
You sure are selective about how this liberty thing gets applied.
Even the voters of Alabama won't support the State forcing a raped woman to give birth.
Just to set the record straight @Jazzhead does not support infanticide or assault women's rights.
You sure are selective about how this liberty thing gets applied.
Then they'll vote their representatives out and change the law. Isn't that the way things are supposed to work?
No. If a right is protected under the Federal Constitution,
it can reasonably regulated by a state, but not denied. See, e.g., Heller.
I have faith that the people of Alabama voted for the law makers they wanted, and the law makers are hearing their voters say they want this. As is there right as a state under the Constitution.
From my mid-west WI perspective a GOP that abandons the right to life is less attractive for my vote.
Heller is a 2nd Amendment issue...it's an enumerated right in the Constitution.
Abortion is not.
But Alabama (and the several other states that have passed "heartbeat" bills) have countered with extreme legislation of their own, which are blatantly unconstitutional under current law
Hopefully the statements by Reed and Robertson will knock some sense into the GOP.
@Jazzhead
Exactly what part of the Constitution do these statutes violate? Please be specific.
In other news, Reed and Ribertson have reprimanded Jesus of Nazareth for using harsh language against the politicians in 1st century Judea.
Wrong. The individual RKBA - that is, outside the obsolete context of a militia - exists as a Constitutional right on the same basis as the choice right - by reason of a SCOTUS decision interpreting the Constitution's purpose and protections with respect to INDIVIDUAL liberty.
@Once-Ler@Jazzhead
The GOP is not going to abandon its stance as the pro-life party, nor should it. Recent state law restrictions on abortion after 20 - 25 weeks are reasonable and likely Constitutional. But the Alabama bill is a whole 'nother matter. It represents that point where pro-life extremism runs up against the liberty of Americans to order their own lives. It will no doubt be struck down. But the far greater consequence is that it risks turning the sensible center against the GOP.
Wrong. The individual RKBA - that is, outside the obsolete context of a militia - exists as a Constitutional right on the same basis as the choice right - by reason of a SCOTUS decision interpreting the Constitution's purpose and protections with respect to INDIVIDUAL liberty.
No it's not. You're just spewing leftist talking points on RKBA.
There is no interpretation needed on "shall not infringe". None...zip...zero...nada.
There is no "right" to abortion anywhere in the Constitution. I'm still waiting for you to show us which Amendment it falls under.
That interpretation thing you keep falling back on instead of taking the Constitution as it was written...leads to all kinds of things the Framers never dreamed of happening.
It's not a living document as you Liberals like to believe it is.
RKBA...protected by the 2nd Amendment. Period.
"Right" of abortion...made up out of whole cloth by two of Harry Blackmun's clerks.
Good grief, stop lying already. Heller specifically and directly refetences Amendment II as the basis for the ruling. This has been pointed out to you again and again, but you continue to peddle lies.
Good grief, stop lying already. Heller specifically and directly refetences Amendment II as the basis for the ruling. This has been pointed out to you again and again, but you continue to peddle lies.
Exactly!!! It doesn't matter how many times facts are put in front of him; he refuses to acknowledge. It's just not on abortion, it's on other issues as well.
@Jazzhead you are certainly entitled to your opinion and your liberal stance. Quite frankly, I'm not into blatant disregard for life and last time I checked, murder was against the law. I love this country and am willing to fight for its sovereignty, and I hold the 2nd amendment very dear and that right shall not be infringed, period!
I am sickened by the moral decay in this country and this is one of those instances. Personally, I am done discussing this issue with you. Peace.
Believe the mythology you want.
But the reality is that the left will do the same thing to your gun right as the State of Alabama seeks to do to the choice right. It will pass laws taking your individual RKBA away to try to force the SCOTUS to overturn Heller.
The 2A by its plain language addresses the right of the People with respect to the citizen militia.
It is a collective right, not an individual right.
The Heller decision interpreted the Constitution to find an individual RKBA outside the context of the militia.
It was the correct decision, for the same reason the choice right is Constitutionally protected -
we all have inalienable rights as individuals for which the government was instituted to protect.
You have the inalienable right to defend your home,
and a woman has the inalienable right - rooted in the individual rights of privacy and self-determination - to decide whether to give birth.
The tactics you advocate to ban abortion will be used by the left to ban your guns.
Just to set the record straight @Jazzhead is not spewing leftist talking points on RKBA.
Full disclosure.
I have an opinion based on personal experience.
I was born at 6 months, and brought some medical challenges along with me.
Under developed lungs and a hip joint that didn't fully form.
I learned to walk at 2-1/2 years old.
People can argue that this bill goes too far.
I don't know about that.
I can say that the New York and Virginia bills go too far.
I can say that with 100% certainty.
I was born pre-Roe v Wade, 57 years ago.
My parents had 2 children, ages 12 and 14, quite set in their family.
I was "unexpected".
I never asked if it had been legal, would I have been terminated?
They never told me, either.
They are long gone now, and I cannot ask them the question, not that I would want to anyway.
If bills like this are what is needed to get everybody in a room, reach a consensus, and stop the crazy abortion up to birth crowd, so be it.
I think people around the USA would agree that the New York and Virginia bills are more extreme than the Alabama bill.
I believe that.
Of course, it will not be portrayed this way, but people, by and large are not, and have never been, in favor of wholesale abortion on demand, and those other 2 bills do that.
This is awesome! Inspiring, encouraging, life saving goodness.
Bullshit. The individual RKBA exists only so long as the Heller opinion exists.
@libertybele
Look, this 2A dispute on this thread is a sideshow.
Full disclosure.
I have an opinion based on personal experience.
I was born at 6 months, and brought some medical challenges along with me.
Under developed lungs and a hip joint that didn't fully form.
I learned to walk at 2-1/2 years old.
People can argue that this bill goes too far.
I don't know about that.
I can say that the New York and Virginia bills go too far.
I can say that with 100% certainty.
I was born pre-Roe v Wade, 57 years ago.
My parents had 2 children, ages 12 and 14, quite set in their family.
I was "unexpected".
I never asked if it had been legal, would I have been terminated?
They never told me, either.
They are long gone now, and I cannot ask them the question, not that I would want to anyway.
If bills like this are what is needed to get everybody in a room, reach a consensus, and stop the crazy abortion up to birth crowd, so be it.
I think people around the USA would agree that the New York and Virginia bills are more extreme than the Alabama bill.
I believe that.
Of course, it will not be portrayed this way, but people, by and large are not, and have never been, in favor of wholesale abortion on demand, and those other 2 bills do that.
It is a sideshow that YOU initiated, just as you have done on every other thread on this topic.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,361839.msg1972615.html#msg1972615 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,361839.msg1972615.html#msg1972615)
Funny how he left out the part he started the side show.
I had merely pointed out the example of Heller for the proposition that if a right is protected under the Federal Constitution, it can reasonably regulated by a state, but not denied.
Then you and others started the sideshow by chiming in with your usual demand of rights for you but not for others
alleging some difference because the 2A is an "enumerated" right but the choice right was found by way of judicial interpretation.
Except that the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms was found only by reason of judicial interpretation.
The only reason your individual right exists is Heller.
Your gun right is just as vulnerable as your daughter's choice right to denial by the tyranny of some majority in a state legislature. There is absolutely no difference.
Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun, who wrote Roe V. Wade:
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather….
“What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent Â- at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.â€
Certainly glad your parents chose life.
My story, and I've posted it before (in short): My grandson was born at est. 24 1/2 weeks; my daughter was told that his chances of survival was slim and was given meds to help accelerate the growth of the lungs and brain which would bring gestation to about appx. 25-251/2. After a long labor he was born only weighing 1 lb. 11 oz. and 14 inches long! He IS a miracle baby. We watched his progression outside of the womb and he never regressed; definitely some scares along the way...
I will never, ever forget, my daughter calling me late at night, to tell me that he was strong enough for her to finally hold him for the very first time, and in the background in my den the song Hallelujah was playing. I cried and cried happy tears as I am crying now. It is something that as a mother and a grandmother you just never forget. BTW Happy Mother's Day to all!!!
All I can say is Hallelujah that prayers were answered and if anyone ever has any doubt whatsoever that the heartbeat bill is too stringent or that the AL bill goes too far, please sit down and talk to a grandparent or parent of a baby that survived against all odds.
We will soon be celebrating his 9th birthday and in a couple of months we will also celebrate his 9th homecoming birthday (yes we celebrate twice). Thanks all for letting me tell my story again.
This will always be my absolute favorite song and my favorite rendition of that song ....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXxqWkJIUnQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXxqWkJIUnQ#)
I had merely pointed out the example of Heller for the proposition that if a right is protected under the Federal Constitution, it can reasonably regulated by a state, but not denied. Then you and others started the sideshow by chiming in with your usual demand of rights for you but not for others, alleging some difference because the 2A is an "enumerated" right but the choice right was found by way of judicial interpretation.Sure, the right of self-defense protection in your mind is no different than the right of some selfish individual to decide to kill an unborn child.
Except that the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms was found only by reason of judicial interpretation. The only reason your individual right exists is Heller.
Your gun right is just as vulnerable as your daughter's choice right to denial by the tyranny of some majority in a state legislature. There is absolutely no difference.
Sure, the right of self-defense protection in your mind is no different than the right of some selfish individual to decide to kill an unborn child.
You still do not realize as yet how weak an argument you are making by comparing a sacrosanct human right with one that is dubious to the extreme.
Individual liberty is a sacrosanct human right. Yes, even for women.
Great news about you grandson!
My story, and yours, is not as unique as people think.
That is why those abortion on demand up to labor bills bother me so much.
I've had a great life, 3 kids and have a wonderful wife, a modest (but paid for) home in a good community, and a nice career for 37 years now.
How many won't get to experience this out of fear that there children may be less than perfect?
(Not sure what perfection is, anyway).
So my individual liberty to rob you, batter you, and even murder you is a sacrosanct human right?
Individual liberty is a sacrosanct human right. Yes, even for women.@Jazzhead
I'm just gonna leave this right here...
https://clinicquotes.com/harry-blackmuns-former-clerk-speaks-roe-v-wade/
:whistle: