Arkansas Legislature Overturns Veto, Bans Abortions 12+ Weeks

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the sharpest challenge yet to Roe v. Wade, Arkansas adopted Wednesday what is by far the country’s most restrictive ban on abortion, at 12 weeks of pregnancy, around the time that a fetal heartbeat can be detected by abdominal ultrasound.

The law was passed by the newly Republican-controlled legislature over the veto of Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, who called it “blatantly unconstitutional.” On Tuesday the state Senate voted to override his veto by a vote of 20 to 14; on Wednesday the House enacted the bill into law by a vote of 55 to 33, with several Democrats joining the Republican majority.

The law contradicts the limit established by Supreme Court decisions, which give women a right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and abortion rights groups promised a quick lawsuit to block it.


Adoption of the law, called the “Human Heartbeat Protection Act,” is the first statewide victory for a restless emerging faction within the anti-abortion movement that has lost patience with the incremental whittling away at abortion rights — the strategy of established groups like National Right to Life and the Catholic Church while they wait for a more sympathetic Supreme Court.

“When is enough enough?” asked the bill’s sponsor in the legislature, Senator Jason Rapert, a 40-year-old Republican and conservative Christian, who compared the more than 50 million abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade, in 1973, to the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. “It’s time to take a stand.”

But abortion rights groups and many legal experts, including some in the anti-abortion movement, say the law so sharply contradicts existing constitutional doctrine that it will quickly be voided.

“The 12-week ban actually bars abortion within the first trimester,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York. “It has no chance of surviving a court challenge.”

The center and the American Civil Liberties Union have vowed to swiftly bring a case in federal court, aiming to head off the law before it takes effect 90 days after the legislature disbands in the next month or so.

Traditional anti-abortion leaders have opposed or remained neutral on more sweeping proposals — unsuccessful until this week — to adopt early bans on abortion by declaring fertilized eggs to have the legal rights of a person, or to bar the procedure when a fetal heartbeat is detected, the inspiration for the Arkansas law.

At the same time, the strategy of incrementally narrowing abortion rights has proved successful, especially since 2010, when Republicans gained control of many more states. Measures have been adopted by the dozens in the past few years include waiting periods, parental consent for minors, ultrasound requirements and stringent regulations aimed at clinics.

In Mississippi, a rule requiring doctors performing abortions to have visiting privileges at local hospitals threatens to close down the state’s only remaining abortion clinic, which relies on traveling doctors. A court decision on the measure is expected any day.

In a less brazen challenge to existing law than Arkansas’s newest measure, 10 states have pushed time limits for abortions down to 20 weeks into pregnancy on the theory, disputed by most medical experts, that a fetus can feel pain by then. Such laws have wider support in the anti-abortion movement. Arkansas adopted a 20-week ban over the governor’s veto last week, and most who supported it went on to vote for Mr. Rapert’s more stringent bill as well.

The 20-week laws also violate the existing standard of fetal viability, and in two states are under legal challenge. Few abortions take place that late in pregnancy, and often they are for emergency medical reasons that may be permitted in any case.

By contrast, a 12-week ban would affect an estimated 12 percent of abortions nationwide, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager with the Guttmacher Institute, a research group in Washington that supports abortion rights. In Arkansas in 2011, 4,033 abortions were performed; 676 of them, or 17 percent, were after 12 weeks, according to state data. How many of these later procedures involved medical emergencies or cases of rape or incest — exceptions allowed under the new law — is not known.

The state currently has only one clinic, in Little Rock, that performs surgical abortions; a second, run by Planned Parenthood, only offers medicinal abortions, which are done only within the first eight weeks of pregnancy.

Senator Rapert, who cited the strong support for his bill from conservative evangelical groups like the Arkansas Family Council, hopes the Arkansas law will start a groundswell. “We crafted a bill that apparently has the ability to stand the test in courts and change abortion policy in our nation coast to coast, he said in an interview this week.

But so far, more radical measures elsewhere have fallen flat. In Mississippi a so-called personhood amendment lost at the polls, while in Ohio, a “fetal heartbeat” bill resembling that in Arkansas was defeated in the legislature, in part because it was opposed by one of the state's leading anti-abortion groups, Ohio Right to Life.

These proposals have faced deep skepticism or outright opposition from many traditional anti-abortion leaders who disagree with the strategy of directly challenging the time limit set by the Supreme Court at this time.

“As much as we would like to protect the unborn at that point, it is futile and it won’t save any babies,” said James Bopp Jr., a prominent anti-abortion lawyer, of the Arkansas law. Mr. Bopp, who lives in Indiana, is general counsel of National Right to Life.

He said that lower courts are virtually certain to affirm existing Supreme Court rulings, and he predicted that the Supreme Court is very unlikely to agree to hear such a case.

Mr. Rapert originally proposed setting the Arkansas ban even earlier, about six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period. But the nascent fetal heartbeat, at that point, can be detected only by using intrusive technology like a trans-vaginal ultrasound.

Wary of the national firestorm that erupted last year after Virginia tried to require an intrusive procedure, Mr. Rapert and his allies revised the bill to specify that a fetal heartbeat should be detected by abdominal ultrasound or other external methods, which is not feasible at six weeks.

In recent days, anticipating Thursday's vote, House leaders worked to make sure that Republican members would be in the chamber for the vote and to persuade some Democratic members to cross the aisle. Last weekend, a number of Democrats “got worked over” by constituents who support stringent anti-abortion measures, said Representative Greg Leding, 27, a Democrat and House minority leader.

“Some represent rural districts that are absolutely opposed to reproductive rights,” he said. “There’s no reaching them.”

Abortion rights groups have watched the legislation with chagrin.

“It sets Arkansas back several decades in the eyes of the nation and the world,” said Rita Sklar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas. “ It shows an utter disregard for women and their ability to make important personal decisions about their own reproductive health.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/u...rictive-abortion-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Wasting time on clearly illegal bans. Should focus on the economy rather than making their own moral points that are costly and time consuming for the courts and state.
 
“When is enough enough?” asked the bill’s sponsor in the legislature, Senator Jason Rapert, a 40-year-old Republican and conservative Christian, who compared the more than 50 million abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade, in 1973, to the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. “It’s time to take a stand.”

Oh, you are so brave and mighty upon your righteous steed, my lord.

Abortions are good for society.
 
Oh, you are so brave and mighty upon your righteous steed, my lord.

Abortions are good for society.

Why doesn't he blame the tens of millions of christian women who go out of their way to get abortions every year? He's making it sound like these abortion clinics are going door to door looking for fetuses to abort.

Abortion clinics don't kill children. Women seeking abortions do.
 
I, for one, am glad to see this. I hope this leads to a successful challenge of Roe v. Wade.

Yes so you have more mothers who arent fit to take care of their kids, a larger population of teenage parents and watch as your costs shoot up trying to take care of it all.
 
For reference:
ivdnvYKQX1YZa.png


I'm ok with a 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion ban, barring exceptional circumstances.
 
What type of state can overturn a veto with 50% of the legislature? Doesn't that take away the purpose of a veto...?

Also, horrible. See you in court, Christianists.
 

Presumably because that is the point at which he believes a fetus has developed far enough to deserve legal protection. It's very hard to draw that line. There is no scientific basis for personhood at conception, but a baby at 8 months could survive outside the womb and I certainly don't think those should be aborted. Logic dictates that the limit should be somewhere between those two extremes, but where?
 
Presumably because that is the point at which he believes a fetus has developed far enough to deserve legal protection. It's very hard to draw that line. There is no scientific basis for personhood at conception, but a baby at 8 months could survive outside the womb and I certainly don't think those should be aborted.

I personally am against abortions unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy beyond the second trimester and in many cases after the first. My wife and I lost our first child who was stillborn and was 28 weeks to the day. My daughter was delivered, had all of her organs, looked beautiful, but for one reason or another didn't make it. If it's able to survive outside of the womb with medical assistance then I am against aborting it.
 
Oh, you are so brave and mighty upon your righteous steed, my lord.

Abortions are good for society.

The easier the access to abortions, birth control, sex ed and contraception the less abortions there are. Pro-lifer's are nutters to think that limiting access does anything, it just makes it more risky, encourages "abortion tourism" and other societal ills.

All of the Pro-Life fears are largely unfounded. Late terms abortions won't become commonplace or abortions won't all of a sudden be in vogue, it doesn't cause metal illness or suicide, it doesn't means everyone will have unprotected sex left and right, it isn't sanctioning eugenics or infanticide. I find Pro-Life groups to be morally abhorrent.
 

Because i barely agree with the notion that yes some women cant handle a pregnancy and they should take care of it in first 12-16 weeks, after that unless its rape, deformed or unhealthy fetus or unsafe pregnancy for mother, its really bordering on unethical beyond 12-16 weeks
 
I personally am against abortions unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy beyond the second trimester and in many cases after the first. My wife and I lost our first child who was stillborn and was 28 weeks to the day. My daughter was delivered, had all of her organs, looked beautiful, but for one reason or another didn't make it. If it's able to survive outside of the womb with medical assistance then I am against aborting it.

Most states ban late term abortions without some sort of medical basis. People should read up. There's already all sorts of regulations and limitations on when you can get them and why depending on the state.
 
There is a protest organizing on Facebook. We're meeting at the capital on the 23rd. Hopefully we can show our government that we aren't all living in the dark ages.
 
I'm against abortion unless the pregnancy harms the mother, but banning them is absolutely the wrong way to go. There needs to be better education and access to proper birth control and doctors, and sex ed should probably start earlier than it does. Banning them will just lead to more dangerous abortions being done.

(There should also be better programs and funding for after the baby is born)
 
I'm against abortion unless the pregnancy harms the mother, but banning them is absolutely the wrong way to go. There needs to be better education and access to proper birth control and doctors, and sex ed should probably start earlier than it does. Banning them will just lead to more dangerous abortions being done.

(There should also be better programs and funding for after the baby is born)

So...if the baby (fetus) is confirmed to have a disorder that completely prevents is from functioning...you're against aborting it? Something like having only a brain stem?
 
So...if the baby (fetus) is confirmed to have a disorder that completely prevents is from functioning...you're against aborting it? Something like having only a brain stem?

My view is that no one should be able to take a life without consent unless they are in jeopardy themselves. So since that fetus can't consent, yes. Same goes for euthanasia, I am fine with it if the person is able to give consent, or previously does in a will or whatever.

Life is all we have, and I personally feel that any life is better than no life.
 
My view is that no one should be able to take a life without consent unless they are in jeopardy themselves. So since that fetus can't consent, yes. Same goes for euthanasia, I am fine with it if the person is able to give consent, or previously does in a will or whatever.

Life is all we have, and I personally feel that any life is better than no life.

So you feel that suffering is okay.
 
My view is that no one should be able to take a life without consent unless they are in jeopardy themselves. So since that fetus can't consent, yes. Same goes for euthanasia, I am fine with it if the person is able to give consent, or previously does in a will or whatever.

Life is all we have, and I personally feel that any life is better than no life.

That's insanity....
 
So you feel that suffering is okay.

I feel that suffering is better than not existing for me, yes. It's not "okay" and if someone suffering consented to be euthanized I support their decision

That's insanity....

You have to draw the line somewhere, that's where mine is. But I understand others feel different, so I don't push my views on others. Nothing makes me more right than someone else. The only time I would try to insist if it was my child.
 
You've gotta ask, yourself: Why do woman get abortions? It's often a tough decision but, it's still their decision.

Arkansas legislature needs to get a life (no pun intended).
 
Who should make a decision if its known that a fetus will be born with deformities, abnormalities that may limit full functionality and/or lead to suffering? Should it be the parents? Psychologists? Doctors? Government? Who?
 
I feel that suffering is better than not existing for me, yes. It's not "okay" and if someone suffering consented to be euthanized I support their decision.

For you, I think it's best you don't make this decision for others. And I'm not just talking about the suffering endured by the baby with deformities either.
 
I feel that suffering is better than not existing for me, yes. It's not "okay" and if someone suffering consented to be euthanized I support their decision



You have to draw the line somewhere, that's where mine is. But I understand others feel different, so I don't push my views on other. Nothing makes me more right than someone else. The only time I would try to insist if it was my child.

you are a quantity, not quality person
 
Who should make a decision if its known that a fetus will be born with deformities, abnormalities that may limit full functionality and/or lead to suffering? Should it be the parents? Psychologists? Doctors? Government? Who?

The parents....jesus....why would it be anyone else?
 
The parents....jesus....why would it be anyone else?

Calm down, I was asking the question. When I read certain posts it comes off (to me) that if we know that a child will be born with certain deformity that drastically limits it's life that the only and automatic choice should be to abort it. That is why I asked the question.
 
I don't care if you are for or against abortion; But you have to realize that it is morally, philosophically, and scientifically ambiguous when "personhood" begins.

The only thing we can all agree upon is that birth is the point after which the life is a person.

Legally, we celebrate the day of birth as the beginning. Some cultures celebrate the day of conception instead (this is why you will see birthdays of 1/1 for a lot of Somalian immigrants). The cultures may differ with an individual's beliefs (religious or otherwise).

Understand that practically no woman chooses to get an abortion on a whim, or as a casual method of birth control; There is an internal struggle between nearly all aspects of their life; Their convictions, their obligations to themselves, their friends, their families, their communities, and their jobs; Their financial and emotional security, and their confidence in their ability to provide for a new child. And the choice they make weighs on their mind for years, or the rest of their lives, even.

It's not an easy choice they make. And as much as it may disgust you, you just need to understand that those affected by the pregnancy may view things differently. Respect their decision for their own pregnancy, and society will respect yours. Even if you choose to birth a child that you can not financially afford to raise. It's your decision. And ideally, society will be there to help you along the way, whatever that decision may be.
 
For you, I think it's best you don't make this decision for others. And I'm not just talking about the suffering endured by the baby with deformities either.

Absolutely! My irrational fear of death shouldn't override others beliefs. I don't think there is a right answer to the problem, which is why I fully understand and acknowledge that abortions are necessary, good for society, and generally a "positive thing". I would never vote to ban them, and have been to support rallies in the past, but they do go against my world view.

you are a quantity, not quality person

When the quantity may be 0, yes I am.
 
I'm pro-choice. I don't think it's a good idea to just have an abortion casually but there are lots of necessary reasons why a woman might need one. Also, I think the line should be drawn to when the baby has consciousness (signs of brain wave activity).

Also, things like life threatening deformities or life threatening situations to the mother are reasons for the necessity of abortion.


There are logical arguments on pro-life and pro-choice but the government shouldn't make abortions completely illegal. If you want to convince someone to not get an abortion then you should use logic to persuade the person. Overall, it's a personal thing and an individual decision.
 
I'm pro-choice. I don't think it's a good idea to just have an abortion casually but there are lots of necessary reasons why a woman might need one. Also, I think the line should be drawn to when the baby has consciousness (signs of brain wave activity).

by that logic, terry schiavo should still be on life support as a vegetable.
 
by that logic, terry schiavo should still be on life support as a vegetable.

Why? If someone is in a state of suffering that doesn't seem ideal. I was basically saying that I don't think late-term abortions are ideal if the baby is viable for life.

If you haven't decided to abort by the near end of the pregnancy then that seems a bit off. Maybe someone could enlighten me? Again overall I don't think it should be illegal regardless.
 
I'm pro-choice. I don't think it's a good idea to just have an abortion casually but there are lots of necessary reasons why a woman might need one. Also, I think the line should be drawn to when the baby has consciousness (signs of brain wave activity).

Also, things like life threatening deformities or life threatening situations to the mother.

I would think most, if not all people, take the decision very seriously.
Anti-abortion proponents seems to think it's like an AbortionPlex situation. (hence why the Onion article took in so many people)
 
I would think most, if not all people, take the decision very seriously.
Anti-abortion proponents seems to think it's like an AbortionPlex situation. (hence why the Onion article took in so many people)

Yup. You can argue is the same sort of emotional appeal that the people that are against the decriminalization of drugs use.
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would want to be on life support for as long as possible.

I wouldn't. What a waste of resources and man power keeping me alive when others could use the help. Also my organs could be given to people in dire need.
 
I would think most, if not all people, take the decision very seriously.
Anti-abortion proponents seems to think it's like an AbortionPlex situation. (hence why the Onion article took in so many people)

Yeah I know I was just speaking my mind. I know most people don't have them casually. I'm saying that the option should be left open and that people need to be smart and educated about these kinds of decisions. This is the kind of thing where you'd have to weigh the pros and cons.

If I got a girl pregnant I would try and talk with the girl about the situation and weigh out the pros and cons. If the baby was viable to live a happy and healthy life with no signs of complications to the baby or mother then I hope I could convince her to maybe put it up for adoption but it would be her choice since it's her womb. Unless she actually cared about what I had to say. I mean ideally I would only get my hypothetical wife pregnant so that's probably what would happen.
 
I wouldn't. What a waste of resources and man power keeping me alive when others could use the help. Also my organs could be given to people in dire need.

Yeah I'm an organ donor, and they can have them when I'm done with them, but if I am still alive I want to be stay alive on the chance they find a cure for me (technology is advancing so fast). When my existence is at stake, I don't care about the resources.
 
Even at the cost of your family going massively into debt?

I live in Canada, so they wouldn't. Plus life insurance would help in any case. Now if my situation was different, I would have to think very hard. I do see myself putting my loved ones first so it may change my mind, yes.
 
I'm personally against abortions except in cases where the mother is at risk, but I'm not at a point where I think I should be forcing anyone into my views. If people want to have an abortion, that's on them.

My problem with all the anti-abortionists is that very few of them actually talk about alternatives. For instance, a government program for matching women who have an unwanted pregnancy with couples unable to conceive but want a child. It's always about telling people, "No, you have to go somewhere else to do this or just have the child born into a bad situation." rather that "Well what alternative methods are there that could be used?"

I understand that in not all cases that woman with the unwanted child would want to go through 9 months of being pregnant, but there being other options would certainly cut down on the amount of abortions. At least I would guess so.

Sex ed. is another issue entirely in the US. You can't just teach abstinence. Is it the most effective way not to get pregnant? Sure. But when kids don't know or aren't encouraged to do things like carry a condom around with them, when hormones strike (which they do) there is nothing there for them to fall back on. It's stupid to think otherwise. But no, their children are perfect angels that would never have sex.
 
Yup, glad to see this.

You guys must have loved Ceausescu.


The biggest thing is that you can be pro-choice but still be against abortions. There have been several studies (one by the WHO) that link accessibility to contraception, birth control and abortion to LOWER abortion rates, not higher.
 
I can't agree with abortion bans anytime before the third trimester. And, with the third trimester, there should be exceptions for health reasons, obviously.
 
This gestation period differs globally; 12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and Britain).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#Legal_restrictions
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom