Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Our legislators have better things to do than pass anti-abortion legislation

February 11, 2013 - Andrea Johnson
Don't our legislators have better things to do than write and pass anti-abortion legislation that will likely be proven unconstitutional and expensive to defend in court?

There are currently seven bills up before the state legislature that are intended to restrict access to abortion.

Senate Bill 2303 would grant legal protection to a fetus at every stage of development from conception and would likely effectively outlaw abortion. The second version of the bill grants exceptions in cases of in vitro fertilization services or an abortion necessary to save the life of the mother.

Senate Bill 2305 would require that any physician performing an abortion within the state be an OBGYN with privileges at a local hospital.

House Bill 1356 would prohibit an abortion if the doctor can detect a heartbeat, something that can be detected as early as six weeks of gestation – before many women know they're pregnant – and would probably require the woman to undergo an invasive transvaginal ultrasound.

The Right to Life Act would add a new section to Article I of the state constitution, relating to the inalienable right to life of every human being at every stage of development. This would require a vote of the people.

Senate Bill 2368 would prohibit an abortion past 20 weeks of gestation.

House Bill 1305 would prohibit an abortion for sex selection or genetic abnormalities.

Our esteemed legislators appear to be throwing everything at the wall in hope that some of it will stick. The legislation will all likely be immediately challenged in court and judges will grant injunctions. They will weave their way through the court system, presumably until they reach the Supreme Court. Lawyers are likely salivating, but no one else should be happy.

Shouldn't some of that time and money be diverted to more fruitful pursuits, such as funding for social service programs, funding for low income housing grants and rent subsidies and other programs that actually will help prevent some of those abortions?

 
 

Article Comments

(109)

AndreaJohnson

Feb-14-13 3:13 PM

Its, not it's. My iPad is misbehaving and changing words.

AndreaJohnson

Feb-14-13 3:12 PM

I will concede that the bill that would forbid abortion prior to 20 weeks gestation might be constitutional since they likely can save babies born at that stage. I don't disagree with that, since I am more pro life than not. The other bills appear problematic. I also am and always will be a strong supporter of a social welfare safety net and it's ability to help people better their lives.

Feb-14-13 1:53 PM

Cont ... that you want the govt to fix everyones problems, I just don't prescribe to that solution

Feb-14-13 1:50 PM

Andrea, although neither you or I are lawyers, looking at the brief description you gave for SB 2368 ... if (and that say IF for all these) passed and was challenged, it could very well win at the Supreme Court as it has prior precedent. In Planned Parenthood Vs Casey (1992), the Supremem Court held ...The plurality then overturned the formula used in Roe to weigh the woman's interest in obtaining an abortion against the State's interest in the life of the fetus. Continuing advancements in medical technology meant that at the time Casey was decided, a fetus might be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks that was more common at the time of Roe. If the state could prove that continued medical advancement could now show the fetus viable at 20 weeks, I'm thinking the Supreme Court will uphold this law. Anyway, that aside, I am still very much against the govt (state or federal) taking my tax dollars and spending it on more social programs. Its painfully aware

disgusted

Feb-14-13 1:39 PM

I also believe that it is the duty and responsibility of church's to fund the needs of people in THIS country first. Then if there is moeny left over from taking care of our poor, then they can go to other countries.

disgusted

Feb-14-13 1:06 PM

And yet in Andrea's own words to my repeated questions of "Have you heard a woman actually say, if I had $5000.00, I wouldn't have to get an abortion? Or $10,000? or $50,000. Is it easy to say, they can't afford something. How much does it take for them to afford their baby? " Her response was" I 'm not going to answer your question because there is not answer." But we are just supposed to give money to whom? For what? And how much? But it will fix the prblem, maybe, or might, or something like that. That solution has about as much thought as that of a child. According to the Director, economics has little to do with killing a baby in ND.

AndreaJohnson

Feb-14-13 10:24 AM

Abortion, unlike meth manufacturing, is a recognized constitutional right and laws restricting it are likely to be smacked down by the Supreme Court after expensive legal battles.

My point remains. These efforts aren't likely to have the intended effect of ending abortion and they are wasting your tax dollars and mine. The legislature should put its dollars to a more productive use and I continue to think more investments in programs that help low income families might be a way to go.

Heisenberg

Feb-14-13 1:32 AM

Try something other than the straw man. It gets old and boring if you stick with the same red herring every time.

Bornandraised

Feb-14-13 1:02 AM

Department of Health shows.

"Remove access to abortion and you may well have more desperate women resorting to using clothes hangers as some of them did decades ago." We better legalize meth then. Hate to see anyone smoking that stuff without proper supervision! ***********inforum****/event/article/id/381703/

Bornandraised

Feb-14-13 12:57 AM

The punishing recession that ended just before the latest national data was collected probably played a part in pushing abortion rates lower.

“I think when the economy is bad … people are generally pessimistic about adding to their family,” and would make a point of using birth control, Kromenaker said. Well, by all means when things are good have at it, but when my W-2's look a little weak I guess I'll take the misses down to the clinic (and snuff a human life) so I won't have to pay for my transgressions!

I agree with Andrea that our state has better things to do than try and pass bills that have no legs to stand on. But the notion of government social welfare reform helping or even slowing down the abortion rate is hopeful daydreaming at best.

In 2009, 35.6 percent of abortions recorded in North Dakota were performed for women from other states, primarily Minnesota and South Dakota, but also from a few other states and Canada, information from the CDC and the North Dakota

disgusted

Feb-13-13 10:13 PM

No, you said, during tough economic hard times. Those hard times are outside of ND. If it funny how you separate the sexes. If men work in the oil fields than women are poor because those men are not married to or living with any of those poor helpless women. Your thought pattern of women= poor=helpless and or stupid and ignorant. You sure do have a low opinion of women.

AndreaJohnson

Feb-13-13 6:33 PM

Not for people who are not working in the energy industry. Wages have not gone up significantly in other industries, but housing, food and child care costs have skyrocketed. Most people working in the energy industry are men, not women.

disgusted

Feb-13-13 6:20 PM

So abortions should be way down in ND because over-all the economy is booming!

AndreaJohnson

Feb-13-13 5:22 PM

There is considerable proof that the abortion rate increases during hard economic times and shaky finances are often cited as a reason for abortion by women who seek one. What makes you think that a better social safety net, including housing subsidies, will not help prevent some abortions? Thelegislature's extremely shortsighted bills certainly will help no one.

disgusted

Feb-13-13 4:38 PM

But there is NO proof that housing grants or rental subsidies will stop abortions.

AndreaJohnson

Feb-13-13 4:06 PM

I suspect it's the first. I'm sure there is abuse of government services by some, but I have certainly interviewed many others whose lives were improved for the better and who went on to stable lives with good jobs thanks to government programs.

The fact remains that all the state's abortion bills will do is line lawyers' pockets. They will neither preserve nor protect life.

Heisenberg

Feb-13-13 3:49 PM

"It's rare that programs aren't abused by those who might be looking to get something for nothing."

Just to be clear, do you believe that the vast majority of those who receive money or services from the programs are abusing them, or that the vast majority of those programs will be abused by at least a few individuals?

disgusted

Feb-13-13 3:45 PM

Locomotive, she condones government supporting irresponsible behavior. Go figure!

AndreaJohnson

Feb-13-13 3:39 PM

I don't agree.

locomotive

Feb-13-13 3:08 PM

Andrea, you're right, that lecturing those who are already in a pickle through their irresponsibility doesn't really "help" their present situation. But those irresponsible decisions are not good reasons to put up more safety nets (programs).

It's rare that programs aren't abused by those who might be looking to get something for nothing. What about the stories of mothers getting pregnant again to increase their welfare take? Are those stories all false all the time?

It boils down to accountability and responsibility. And even if you're right, that passing anti-abortion legislation will not curtail the rate of abortions, I'll still say providing women with more programs that subsidize their irresponsible behavior isn't what our legislature should be doing either.

disgusted

Feb-13-13 2:30 PM

lorexxx, isn't it sad that this is what we have come to, but it seems it is the only way to wean those who have lived so dependently.

disgusted

Feb-13-13 2:21 PM

You don't know that they will not asve lives. It may change behavior. Isn't that what liberals are all about?;-)

AndreaJohnson

Feb-13-13 2:16 PM

But, again, these bills will not save lives. THey just cost money and make people feel righteous. Social welfare programs are a better use of the legislature's time and money if it seeks to limit abortion.

disgusted

Feb-13-13 1:13 PM

Let's see what happens when two of the three parts of RvW are contested. Life is one thing worth fighting for. Not much else is. Once there is life, there comes work, teaching, responsibility, survival, etc. That is not the responsibility of the government to provide that. It has been tried for over 50 years and has failed. If it were successful, there would be fewer people subsisting on the hand-out. It failed to become a hand-up for the masses. Particularly the last 20 years. Government hand-outs have become more of a way of life than working and providing for oneself. But, the sooner we crash with no more money to get from the government, the better everyone will be and that I do believe from the bottom of my heart.

disgusted

Feb-13-13 1:13 PM

Let's see what happens when two of the three parts of RvW are contested. Life is one thing worth fighting for. Not much else is. Once there is life, there comes work, teaching, responsibility, survival, etc. That is not the responsibility of the government to provide that. It has been tried for over 50 years and has failed. If it were successful, there would be fewer people subsisting on the hand-out. It failed to become a hand-up for the masses. Particularly the last 20 years. Government hand-outs have become more of a way of life than working and providing for oneself. But, the sooner we crash with no more money to get from the government, the better everyone will be and that I do believe from the bottom of my heart.

 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web