Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Customer Service | 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



Feb-13-13 12:54 PM

You are, however, perfectly happy with the legislature passing restrictive, likely unconstitutional legislation and opposed to social welfare programs that might actually bring about fewer abortions where the legislature's seven anti-abortion bills probably will not. You seem quite pleased with government when it does what you want it to do.

The director of the state's abortion clinic has been quoted as saying she will take legal action, so it's fair to assume that the state will indeed be dealing with expensive lawsuits.


Feb-13-13 12:46 PM

I have never said I was happy with the alleged upcoming law suits. Funny there are no clients, just promises from the left leaning pro-abortion gang. I don't see abortion bills as more restrictive. I do see them as using science to define life. If giving money from government helped, we would have fewer people on the government dole, not more. It weakens a person. It teaches them how to cheat. Case in point is the free phone program, for one. You throw education, family values, accountability and self-control under the bridge. In your mind you see women as nothing more than helpless, mindless animals who can not have control of their lives. I happen to believe and know differently.


Feb-13-13 12:05 PM

My original point still stands. You seem to be perfectly OK with government (i.e. the state legislature) passing more restrictive laws that are probably not going to do anything except cost the state money and make a lot of lawyers richer.

You don't stop people in a desperate situation from having an abortion by preaching to them about how they should have been more responsible and how they shouldn't rely on the government or anyone else to help them when they've been so darned irresponsible. Remove access to abortion and you may well have more desperate women resorting to using clothes hangers as some of them did decades ago.

As I've been pointing out, financial problems are one major cause of abortion -- i.e. helping improve the finances of low income women just might prevent some of them from having an abortion.


Feb-13-13 11:03 AM

Andrea, and yet in your mind talking about housing grants and rental subsidies will somehow magically stop abortions. The government is not an all knowing omniscent body of beings. The government does not have all the answers, but more times than not, creates situations worse than they were trying to fix. You need to think outside the box of the idea that the government is the sole answer to problems you allegedly state befuddle us lowly citizens.


Feb-13-13 10:56 AM

That girl has every legal and moral right NOT to have an abortion. No one would say otherwise.


Feb-13-13 10:34 AM

Well, if life couldn't get any stranger...

lorexxx, I'll say it again. You find the most interesting stuff.


Feb-13-13 8:41 AM

That may be so, but if the goal is to prevent an abortion I don't think talk about responsibility and how there are too many social programs is going to accomplish anything. Neither will this legislation.


Feb-12-13 10:27 PM

you and hope4change see the world through song and share that with the rest of us. WE love it.


Feb-12-13 8:56 PM

disgusted, after one of your posts, this song came to mind...

"The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind...the answer is blowing in the wind."

Appropriate for our ND plains, isn't it?


Feb-12-13 8:54 PM

"I think it is foolhardy to expect all people to act rationally when sex is involved."

Agreed. It is also foolhardy for a state or federal government to bail out people unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.

disgusted's right. Accountability and responsibility. If the state or fed gov't didn't have so many safety nets for those who choose irresponsibility, perhaps there would be more incentive for responsibility instead. Just a thought that's not going to be popular, I know.


Feb-12-13 8:36 PM

I think it is foolhardy to expect all people to act rationally when sex is involved. Given how many kids have failed to receive an adequate education in how to use birth control, I'm also skeptical that some of them know how to use it.

There WILL be lawsuits and they will be expensive and many of those bills look pretty darned unconstitutional to me. But I'm not a lawyer. I'm sure the lawyers out there are thrilled beyond measure at the prospect of all those billable hours.


Feb-12-13 7:22 PM

Oh, I forgot wpmen get pregnant via sperm blowing in the wind. I think it will be interesting to see if the state sections of Roe v Wade are unconstitutional. Media has done well burying the two sections that relate to states rights.


Feb-12-13 7:08 PM

I didn't ask if you favored lawsuits. Lawsuits are inevitable, as are court injunctions and a long and costly, drawn out legal process. Many, if not all, of these bills are likely unconstitutional. As for personal responsibility preventing all unwanted pregnancies, I can only assume you and I aren't living on the same planet.


Feb-12-13 6:46 PM

Lorexxx, you are so funny---looking at the food---

Andrea, I don't support law suits on a general basis because the unintended consequence of increased costs that we all must incur. There is rarely a reason for suits. If these bills become law, giving a full 7 months for the start up date should give woman time to get serious about birth control. Again, it is back to accountability and responsibility.


Feb-12-13 6:04 PM

There's a proven correlation between the abortion rate and financial difficulties. I would make an educated guess that programs that help ease those financial difficulties might prevent some of them.

But I have yet to hear you give an adequate defense for our legislature wasting thousands upon thousands of dollars passing legislation that will be immediately blocked and probably declared unconstitutional instead of spending that money on programs that would be of benefit to the state.


Feb-12-13 5:53 PM

IF I were you, I would ask Dr. Carson about the result of being poor, ridiculed, etc. Oh, Isuppose he is the only exception to the rule. I understand. You have NO proof that spending money on any or all of those programs will reduce or stop abortions. You are just using abortions to push your government dependency agenda.


Feb-12-13 5:28 PM

As I've argued before, you pay one way or another for the problems of the poor. Kids who are raised in low-income, single parent families have a higher risk of poor educational performance, getting into trouble with the law, teenage pregnancy, psychological issues, etc. Investing in programs that help their families early on can save thousands of dollars in law enforcement and special education costs in the long term. I'm also arguing that investing in those programs might also prevent a significant number of abortions, since financial trouble is a cause of many abortions.

But even if the lawsuits are a one-time cost, that's money I don't think the state should be spending if it isn't going to accomplish anything except making the ideologues feel righteous. Most of those bills are unlikely to save a single life; social welfare programs save many.


Feb-12-13 5:23 PM

more productive is only your arbitrary anectotal theory. Prove that everyone gets an education, training, or ability to get offer government help. Working to improve one's lot in life used to be honored.

Feb-12-13 5:16 PM

That's a one time expenditure, maybe two depending on court cases, but it seems once entitlement programs begin, they never go away and only increase in cost. Example: Unemployment went from 26 weeks to 99 weeks (after the ARRA bill was passed in Feb 2009). We're paying a person to not work for 8 1/4 years.


Feb-12-13 5:00 PM

Because the state legislature is apparently perfectly willing to throw a great deal of our hard-earned tax dollars down a rathole to defend anti-abortion legislation that will be immediately blocked and probably declared unconstitutional. I have suggested a more productive use of those dollars that might actually reduce the number of abortions, which is the legislature's intended goal.

Feb-12-13 4:55 PM

Why are we considering govt subisidies to help women who have taken no action to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. All that would seem to be doing is rewarding the person for getting pregnant. It seems every time something comes up, a new entitlement program is thought up to "help". I think people can help other people without the govt stepping in and creating more legistation.


Feb-12-13 4:48 PM

You're assuming that most people are dependent lifelong on the government, which is not the case. Aside from the time limit on a lot of those programs, the subsidies help people long enough to get in a position where they can do things on their own and don't need welfare any longer. Programs like Head Start, which help the parents as well as the kids, are a good example. Same with Pell grants and daycare assistance so the parents can go to college and eventually get a better paying job. Programs like that are a good investment because society doesn't pay as much in law enforcement and special services in the long term.

What you seem to favor is pointless struggle for the poor and legislation that only exists to make ideologues feel good, without actually making any measurable difference.


Feb-12-13 4:07 PM

icart, 8 Republicans voted for the property tax refund to renters :-)

The votes pretty much did follow party line. There are more tax bills coming up for a vote. another one was defeated today for non-profits. I don't know why they didn't pass Mock's bill that carried a fiscal note of $230,000. That seemed quite resonable, but they didn't. All the bills that failed yesterday totaled $1.5 Billion in tax incentives. It may be that everyone is trying to get their hand in the pot, and it is time to step back and not drain it dry. I am the first to believe that states should not run a surplus. It is the taxpayers' money. However, because of where we find ourselves, slow and prudent wins the day.


Feb-12-13 3:40 PM

Andrea, creating life dependency on the government certainly does make a measurable difference, and not for the best in the long term. Struggle has become a dirty word in America.


Feb-12-13 2:49 PM

Your right disgust...but you SO conveniently forgot the other part - 62 voted against it...So, being the BS'er you are...what's your excuse for the other 3 measures?? Also, could I just mention this - We have a legislature that has Of the 47 Senators, Democrates have 15 Senators and of the 94 Representatives, the Democrates have 22 Representatives. So do the math REAL QUICK ... 141 representatives only 37 are Democrates, what are the percentages for the vote on Lousers bill??? hhhmmm??


Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web