Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet

[Anton Bruckner]

Miss. Bill to Ban Most Abortions Advances

By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 15 minutes ago

JACKSON, Miss. - A state House committee voted to ban most abortions in Mississippi, which already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation.
ADVERTISEMENT

The bill approved by the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday would allow abortion only to save the pregnant woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest. The bill now goes to the full House, which could vote next week, and then to the Senate.

South Dakota lawmakers passed a similar bill last week that was intended to provoke a court showdown over the legality of abortion.

The Mississippi lawmaker who introduced the near-ban, Democrat Steve Holland, said he acted because he was tired of piecemeal attempts to add new abortion restrictions year after year.

Holland said he has voted for some abortion restrictions and against others in the past. "I have a strong dilemma within myself on this," Holland said. "I can only impregnate. I can't get pregnant myself."

Mississippi already requires a 24-hour waiting period and counseling for all abortions, plus the consent of both parents for minors who seek the procedure. Republican Gov. Haley Barbour favors restrictions on abortion, but he has not spoken about the current legislation.

The state has one abortion clinic, in Jackson, and its leaders plan to fight if more restrictions are imposed.

"We're realists. We know we're in a state where the Legislature is anti-choice," said Susan Hill, president of the National Women's Health Organization, which runs the clinic.

The South Dakota legislation went to Republican Gov. Mike Rounds on Tuesday, and he has 15 days to act. Rounds has said he's inclined to sign the bill into law.Link

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by joshua
I don't understand why they even have the so-called exception that is still there.

I guess by some folks' logic we ought to just kill anybody who was conceived by rape or incest. Let's round them up.

Actually, it is quite rare that women actually get pregnant from violent rape. This is one of those typical, point to the horrific to take the focus off of murder, arguments.

 

[Puritanhead]

Abortion kills women who seek the procedure. I just read the other day of horrendous infections that prove lethal within 48 hours of infection. Women that make the mistake of coming back to clinic for treatment in response to an infection, usually receive negligent treatment. Quite a few have died. Of course, the militant abortion lobby conceals this, and our government ignores it. It seems clinics care more about their reputation than the welfare of the mother as well, as they try and make up false causes of death like dehydration.

 

[turmeric]

The reason it's on there is so the Supreme Court won't throw it out as unconstitutional - that's why we haven't been able to get rid of partial-birth abortion, someone forgot to put that exception in.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by turmeric
The reason it's on there is so the Supreme Court won't throw it out as unconstitutional - that's why we haven't been able to get rid of partial-birth abortion, someone forgot to put that exception in.

The Supreme Court has no efficacy to its judgment unless the President enforces them as law... Alexander Hamilton makes that abundantly clear in Federalist #78. The sitting President lacks the resolve to put the resources of the Department of Justice to the task of enforcing the partial-birth abortion ban that he signed into law, therefore it was a meaningless rubber-stamping political charade.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

Originally posted by turmeric
The reason it's on there is so the Supreme Court won't throw it out as unconstitutional - that's why we haven't been able to get rid of partial-birth abortion, someone forgot to put that exception in.

The Supreme Court has no efficacy to its judgment unless the President enforces them as law... Alexander Hamilton makes that abundantly clear in Federalist #78. The sitting President lacks the resolve to put the resources of the Department of Justice to the task of enforcing the partial-birth abortion ban that he signed into law, therefore it was a meaningless rubber-stamping political charade.

That may have been Hamilton's view, but others saw it differently, including Hamilton's fellow Federalist, John Marshall with Marbury v. Madison.

But in a practical sense what you say is true. I think Brown vs. Board of Education is a good example of a decision that took decades to implement, and then I think the implementation eventually went far beyond the original decision. And you can go back to the Plessy decision. Things were separate, but they were never equal.

I haven't really studied these issues in over a decade, but my recollection is that Hamilton also opposed adding the Bill of Rights because he thought it should be clear that the Federal Government (having enumerated powers in the Constitution) didn't have the power to do what the Bill of Rights prohibited and that folks would get the idea that the federal government had the power to do anything not prohibited by the Bill of Rights.

[Edited on 3-2-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[LadyFlynt]

In just about any medical condition that a pregnancy could put the mother's life at risk...an abortion procedure would also put the mother's life at risk...in some cases even more so.

Take the partial birth procedure "done for the life of the mother". Tell me...is it more dangerous for the mother to go through labour and release a healthy baby (or have a c-section) or is it more dangerous to induce the mother into labour, force the baby into a breech delivery, and then instead of delivering the child hold it partially in the mothers body while killing the child, then delivering the rest of it???

Common sense ppl tell you that a natural delivery or c-section is more vital to a mother's survival and the aborting procedure is both harsher on the body and can cause furthur complications.

Never understood the "for the mother's health" on this issue. Abortion is invasive, a surgical procedure, etc....AND murder.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

all Mississippi has to do now is ban gambling, and kick the Arminians out.

But I'll settle for banishment of gambling first. Those riverboats etc are vice breeders.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Slippery
all Mississippi has to do now is ban gambling, and kick the Arminians out.

So if you kick the Arminians out...that'll leave, what, a handful of people?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by joshua
Well, I may be naive, but I don't think active abortion is acceptable in any case. Seriously, I may just be naive, but I don't see there being a case made even if the life of the mother "is at stake". How often does that happen, realistically?

Oh, I agree...but since they wish to use only so-called "medical" arguments...then I have wondered why no one has EVER pointed this out. That their own "medical" solutions actually undermine the supposed intent (ie the saving of the mother's life).

Basically, I was showing that their logic stinks.