Jump to content
BANGKOK 22 May 2019 09:36
webfact

Alabama governor signs nation's strictest abortion ban

Recommended Posts

Alabama governor signs nation's strictest abortion ban

By Steve Gorman and Daniel Trotta

 

2019-05-15T151806Z_2_LYNXNPEF4E19M_RTROPTP_3_ALABAMA-GOVERNOR.JPG

FILE PHOTO: Alabama Lt Governor Kay Ivey speaks to the media after being sworn in as Alabama's new governor, after Alabama Governor Robert Bentley announced his resignation amid impeachment proceedings on accusations stemming from his relationship with a former aide, in Montgomery, Alabama, U.S., April 10, 2017. REUTERS/Marvin Gentry/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - Alabama's governor on Wednesday signed a bill to ban nearly all abortions in the state, even in cases of rape and incest, in political conservatives' latest challenge to the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.

 

U.S. abortion-rights activists had already vowed to go court to block enforcement of the Alabama measure, the strictest anti-abortion law yet enacted by abortion foes aiming to provoke reconsideration of the Roe v. Wade ruling.

 

Governor Kay Ivey, a Republican, signed the measure a day after the Republican-controlled state Senate approved the ban and rejected a provision to allow abortions for women and girls impregnated by rape or incest.

 

"To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," Ivey said in a statement. "To all Alabamians, I assure you that we will continue to follow the rule of law."

 

The law would take effect in six months.

 

Legislation to restrict abortion rights has been introduced this year in 16 states, four of whose governors have signed bills banning abortion if an embryonic heartbeat can be detected.

 

Planned Parenthood joined the American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday in filing a legal challenge to Ohio's recent ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

 

The Alabama bill goes further, banning abortions at any time, unless the mother's health is in danger. Those performing abortions would be committing a felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison. A woman who receives an abortion would not be held criminally liable.

 

2020 DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES BLAST MOVE

Most of the Democratic candidates seeking their party's 2020 nomination to run for the White House condemned the Alabama law, calling it an attack on women's rights and vowing to fight to uphold legal access to abortion.

 

"The idea that supposed leaders have passed a law that would criminalize a physician for assisting a woman on something that she, in consult with her physician, with her God, with her faith leader, has made the decision to do, that is her body that you would criminalize," U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California, one of the large field of hopefuls, said at a town hall on Wednesday morning in Nashua, New Hampshire.

 

Some on Twitter had called on their allies to mail coat hangers to Ivey, as a reminder of the illegal abortion practices common before it was made legal.

 

Christian television broadcaster Pat Robertson, a staunch critic of Roe v. Wade, said the Alabama law "has gone too far."

 

“It’s an extreme law, and they want to challenge Roe versus 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 will lose,” Robertson said on his program, "The 700 Club."

 

Anti-abortion advocates are aware that any laws they pass are certain to be challenged. Courts this year have blocked a restrictive Kentucky law and another in Iowa passed last year.

 

But supporters of the Alabama ban said the right to life of the fetus transcended other rights, an idea they would like tested at the Supreme Court.

 

The high court, now with a majority of conservative justices after Republican President Donald Trump appointed two, could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade. That decision held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental right to privacy that protects a woman's right to abortion.

 

Roe v. Wade did allow states to place restrictions on the procedure from the time a fetus could viably survive outside the womb, except in cases in which a woman's health was otherwise at risk. A fetus is generally considered viable at 22 to 24 weeks. A full-term pregnancy typically is about 40 weeks.

 

Just this year, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio enacted statutes outlawing abortion after a doctor can detect an embryonic heartbeat.

 

Opponents call the "heartbeat" legislation a virtual ban because embryonic cardiac activity can be detected as early as six weeks, before a woman may even be aware she is pregnant.

 

(Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles and Daniel Trotta in New York; Additional reporting by Barbara Goldberg in New York; Ginger Gibson in Washington, and Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles; Writing by Scott Malone; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Lisa Shumaker)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-16
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was an article of Republican faith that banning things doesn’t work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webfact said:

approved the ban and rejected a provision to allow abortions for women and girls impregnated by rape or incest. 

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

and that every life is a sacred gift from God,

Can't add anymore to the above.

Says everything you need to know about these weirdo Right Wing Christian Scumbags.

Prolly also say the next school massacre was the Will of God too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Silurian said:

Alabama ranks absolutely last in education and ranks 46th in health care.

 

I just stumbled onto an article about the Alabama prison system....a real disaster.  Just like the new abortion law, this is what happens when religious zealots run the state.  Sad!

 

[A two-year Justice Department investigation found conditions throughout the entire Alabama prison system are "unconstitutional," and an "excessive amount of violence, sexual abuse, and prisoner deaths" happen on a regular basis, making the state's prisons a deadly place to work as well.]

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-prison-conditions-are-unconstitutional-investigation-finds-2019-05-15/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

The American Taliban strikes again.

Even Pat Robertson, the wacko televangelist does not support this law, stating Alabama "has gone too far" with "extreme" abortion law.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the "it's her body" argument is nonsense. It's another body within her body. Or at some point it's another person inside her body. 

 

The real argument we should be having should center around the point at which it's still acceptable to terminate a foetus/child in the womb.

 

In my opinion - a day before the baby is due is too late - but I have no problem with the day after conception. 

 

I think most people would be fine with a logical and scientifically grounded cut-off date based around the development of the baby. 

 

The rape argument is also nonsense. It's an emotional hot-button around something that happens so infrequently as to be irrelevant. If a woman gets raped, I think "Plan B" pills should be a default option of post-rape treatment. No-one gets raped and then realizes they are pregnant 8 months in - so it goes back to the cut-off date.

 

There's 2 sets of extremists shouting so loud in this debate, common sense gets ignored...

1 - The people that think anything after conception is a sin

2 - The people that argue for abortion right up to the birth date

 

Sadly, like all things nowadays - it's the extremists that make the headlines & set the tone for the debate.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Even Pat Robertson, the wacko televangelist does not support this law, stating Alabama "has gone too far" with "extreme" abortion law.

Nobody supports ‘this law’, it has only one purpose, to drive challenges to the Supreme Court in order to attempt a review of Roe v Wade.

 

The GOP has been taken over by right wing Christian zealots on a mission to get government control over women’s bodies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

I think the "it's her body" argument is nonsense. It's another body within her body. Or at some point it's another person inside her body. 

 

The real argument we should be having should center around the point at which it's still acceptable to terminate a foetus/child in the womb.

 

In my opinion - a day before the baby is due is too late - but I have no problem with the day after conception. 

 

I think most people would be fine with a logical and scientifically grounded cut-off date based around the development of the baby. 

 

The rape argument is also nonsense. It's an emotional hot-button around something that happens so infrequently as to be irrelevant. If a woman gets raped, I think "Plan B" pills should be a default option of post-rape treatment. No-one gets raped and then realizes they are pregnant 8 months in - so it goes back to the cut-off date.

 

There's 2 sets of extremists shouting so loud in this debate, common sense gets ignored...

1 - The people that think anything after conception is a sin

2 - The people that argue for abortion right up to the birth date

 

Sadly, like all things nowadays - it's the extremists that make the headlines & set the tone for the debate.

The rape argument is also nonsense. It's an emotional hot-button around something that happens so infrequently as to be irrelevant.”

 

Yeh right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The rape argument is also nonsense. It's an emotional hot-button around something that happens so infrequently as to be irrelevant.”

 

Yeh right!

You don't set the rules by the exceptions. Rape/Incest accounts for 1.5% of all abortions. It does not impact the other 98.5%

 

So you set the rules by the majority and by all means have an exception for the remaining 1.5%. You do not set rules by the minority. 

 

The rape/incest argument is used only by people that want abortions in all cases. It's a total strawman.

 

So - I stick with my case - common sense rules based on a reasonable, scientifically founded cut-off date will protect all women and the unborn. As I mentioned - "Plan B" pill should be standard part of post-rape treatment. No woman is going to be raped and suddenly find out she's pregnant 8 months later, there's plenty of time post-rape to have an early term abortion.

 

So the use of "rape" as a beating stick in this argument, is simply to push the extremist view that all abortions for all reasons up to birth are OK.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

36 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

You don't set the rules by the exceptions.

 

I really don't know what you mean by this, because you go on to say:

 

 

40 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

by all means have an exception for the remaining 1.5%

 

So which is it?  Should there be a rape/incest clause or not?

 

 

36 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

The rape/incest argument is used only by people that want abortions in all cases. It's a total strawman.

 

I favor a rape/incest clause and yet I don't want "abortion in all cases", so your statement is wrong.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

You don't set the rules by the exceptions. Rape/Incest accounts for 1.5% of all abortions. It does not impact the other 98.5%

 

So you set the rules by the majority and by all means have an exception for the remaining 1.5%. You do not set rules by the minority. 

 

The rape/incest argument is used only by people that want abortions in all cases. It's a total strawman.

 

So - I stick with my case - common sense rules based on a reasonable, scientifically founded cut-off date will protect all women and the unborn. As I mentioned - "Plan B" pill should be standard part of post-rape treatment. No woman is going to be raped and suddenly find out she's pregnant 8 months later, there's plenty of time post-rape to have an early term abortion.

 

So the use of "rape" as a beating stick in this argument, is simply to push the extremist view that all abortions for all reasons up to birth are OK.

 

 

The rape/incest argument is used only by people that want abortions in all cases. It's a total strawman.”

 

’Strawman’ you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...