Oklahoma Legislature passes bill that would criminalizing abortion procedures except to save a mother's life.

[Mockingbird]

Quote

 

(CNN)The Oklahoma state legislature has passed a bill that would criminalize abortion procedures in the state. According to the language of the bill, anyone who is found to have performed an abortion -- except in instances to save the life of the mother -- will be found guilty of a felony and can receive up to three years in prison. 

 

The bill now is on its way to Gov. Mary Fallin for final approval. 

 

The governor has not decided whether she will sign the bill, according to her spokesperson Michael McNutt.

 

Once Fallin has the bill she has five business days to decide if she will approve the legislation. If she doesn't sign or veto the bill, it automatically becomes law, according to McNutt.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortion-criminalization/index.html?adkey=bn

[+Warwagon MVC]

A side from rape, there are really no reason women should be getting pregnant (knocked up) by accident. One girl I knew was having sex with a guy who she told me he never wore a condom and he never pulled out. She said, it's ok "i'm on the pill".

 

I said.. uh if you miss a pill or for some reason the pill doesn't work, I see a child in your future. She said "Don't worry about it"

 

Her child is now 8 months old

 

It really makes you wonder if these people ever took sex ed.

 

 

[DocM]

And according to court decisions states do have the right to regulate medical procedures.

[Emn1ty]

This is in my opinion the right way to go. Unless a life is on the line, or a rape has occured abortions should not be performed. I don't see there being any valid reason (ethical or moral, mind you) to prevent a pregnancy from going to term. If you don't want the child, put it up for adoption (and no, foster homes are not worse than being eliminated from existence).

[FloatingFatMan]

12 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

This is in my opinion the right way to go. Unless a life is on the line, or a rape has occured abortions should not be performed. I don't see there being any valid reason (ethical or moral, mind you) to prevent a pregnancy from going to term. If you don't want the child, put it up for adoption (and no, foster homes are not worse than being eliminated from existence).

And what if the child will be so severely impaired that'll have little quality of life?  There's no such thing as a clear cut answer with these things, sadly, so they should be decided on a case by case basis rather than by broad legislation.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

4 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

And what if the child will be so severely impaired that'll have little quality of life?  There's no such thing as a clear cut answer with these things, sadly, so they should be decided on a case by case basis rather than by broad legislation.

Doesn't the UK have to where you can abort under 24 weeks (preferably by 12 weeks)?  Something like that I can agree with.

 

This legislature ... especially if it doesn't have anything regarding cases of rape ... needs to be tossed. If anything...it may only endanger lives as females may seek alternative methods for abortion.

 

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, jjkusaf said:

Doesn't the UK have to where you can abort under 24 weeks (preferably by 12 weeks)?  Something like that I can agree with.

Yep, though personally I think 12 weeks should be the limit except for medical need.

 

 

Just now, jjkusaf said:

 

This legislature ... especially if it doesn't have anything regarding cases of rape ... needs to be tossed. If anything...it may only endanger lives as females may seek alternative methods for abortion.

 

Indeed it will. Plus, people will just go out of state for one so its pointless.

 

[Mockingbird]

Conservatives for big government!

Edited May 19, 2016 by illegaloperation

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Imagine "I am on the pill" turning into paying child support for a retard.

[Mockingbird]

1 hour ago, DocM said:

And according to court decisions states do have the right to regulate medical procedures.

Of cause they have to be reasonable restrictions. (i.e. no backyard abortions)

 

Banning abortions for political reasons aren't reasonable restrictions.

 

37 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

This is in my opinion the right way to go. Unless a life is on the line, or a rape has occured abortions should not be performed. I don't see there being any valid reason (ethical or moral, mind you) to prevent a pregnancy from going to term. If you don't want the child, put it up for adoption (and no, foster homes are not worse than being eliminated from existence).

How about every time there's a baby that nobody wants to adopt, he/she is dropped off at your house and it is your responsibility to raise him/her on your own dime?

Edited May 19, 2016 by illegaloperation

[Jim K Global Moderator]

16 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Yep, though personally I think 12 weeks should be the limit except for medical need.

 

Indeed it will. Plus, people will just go out of state for one so its pointless.

I'd suspect they based the 24 weeks off of the fact that regular EEG begins around 25 weeks.  Before that, EEG is very irregular showing only bursts of activity without sustained firing of the neurons.  One could argue that at 25 weeks ... life truly "begins".  I'm like you though  ... I think 12 weeks should be enough time for the mother to make the tough decision ... except in cases for medical necessity. 

 

Problem with the US...is that they allow the bible thumpers to make decisions where science and medicine should really be the ones advising on the tough call / cutoff.

[shockz]

It's like we're traveling backwards in time.

[BoondockSaint]

Another step backwards. All those pro lifers are very vocal in their criticism for anyone wanting to get an abortion. But of course, they will be the first ones to bitch and moan about the fact they have to pay for welfare out of their taxes for unwed single mothers. Protect life, right until they have to share the burden, at which time they do not want to know.

 

The states that pass these sorts of laws would also be the ones who don't want to teach sex-ed in schools because that's just encouraging young people to know about sex. And if they don't know about it, they won't have it.

 

Absolutely ridiculous.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Someone will take this to The Supreme Court. I don't think a state has the right to go against Roe v Wade.

[Zinomian]

5 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Someone will take this to The Supreme Court. I don't think a state has the right to go against Roe v Wade.

That's what I thought.  Isn't this unconstitutional? I thought until Roe v Wade is overturned in the supreme court, states CANT ban abortions.   They can make it harder with regulations, etc, but cant straight up ban them.

[Emn1ty]

43 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

And what if the child will be so severely impaired that'll have little quality of life?  There's no such thing as a clear cut answer with these things, sadly, so they should be decided on a case by case basis rather than by broad legislation.

What do you define as severely impaired? There's plenty of help out there for impaired children. But again, I didn't say "only the mother's life is at risk" I said "a life is at risk", this includes the child. If the child is very unlikely to make it to term then I don't see a reason to prevent abortion. Case by case is always necessary, but case by case requirement is not an argument for anytime/anyplace/any reason abortions across the board.

 

Abortions are a big deal, and they can be quite risky if not done as early as possible. From a purely medical and objective standpoint I see no real reason to have abortions take place at all (sans life threatening scenario or rape), since adoption is always an option. I don't really see why people hate the idea of putting them up for adoption.
 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

10 minutes ago, Zinomian said:

That's what I thought.  Isn't this unconstitutional? I thought until Roe v Wade is overturned in the supreme court, states CANT ban abortions.   They can make it harder with regulations, etc, but cant straight up ban them.

Yea, the whole ruling is pretty long and gets (like a lot of court rulings) ... confusing ... according to this though ...

 

Quote

Yes. State criminal abortion laws that except from criminality only life-saving procedures on the mother’s behalf, and that do not take into consideration the stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

Yes. The Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy, including a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, against state action.

 

Yes. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy.

 

No. The natural termination of Roe’s pregnancy did not render her suit moot.

 

Yes. The district court was correct in denying injunctive relief.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/roe-wade.html

[PGHammer]

54 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

And what if the child will be so severely impaired that'll have little quality of life?  There's no such thing as a clear cut answer with these things, sadly, so they should be decided on a case by case basis rather than by broad legislation.

Yet both sides seek to do exactly that, Floating.

 

While I personally am pro-choice, I find neither side has any favorability personally in trying to apply the broad-brush approach to this issue (way too many variables).

 

[FloatingFatMan]

8 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

What do you define as severely impaired? There's plenty of help out there for impaired children.

For example, a couple I know in Ireland had a baby 7 years ago. It was known in plenty of time that it would be severely brain damaged. When she was born, 8 weeks early, she was born blind and deaf and seriously brain damaged, as well as a hole in her heart and other issues. She died 4 months before her 2nd birthday.

 

This child had zero quality of life. She had no way to perceive the world around her, could never have comprehended anything even if she could, and spent her entire short life suffering, as did her parents.  Abortion is illegal in Ireland.

 

Who was served here? The child's right to life? Are we so sure, that we now condemn someone who would not live long anyway, to an entire existence of suffering, along with the parents? Is that "humanity"?

 

Governments cannot decide this, laws cannot control this; only medical based decisions, and the parents choices, can do that.

 

[Emn1ty]

21 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

For example, a couple I know in Ireland had a baby 7 years ago. It was known in plenty of time that it would be severely brain damaged. When she was born, 8 weeks early, she was born blind and deaf and seriously brain damaged, as well as a hole in her heart and other issues. She died 4 months before her 2nd birthday.

 

This child had zero quality of life. She had no way to perceive the world around her, could never have comprehended anything even if she could, and spent her entire short life suffering, as did her parents.  Abortion is illegal in Ireland.

 

Who was served here? The child's right to life? Are we so sure, that we now condemn someone who would not live long anyway, to an entire existence of suffering, along with the parents? Is that "humanity"?

 

Governments cannot decide this, laws cannot control this; only medical based decisions, and the parents choices, can do that.

So at what point do mental and physical disabilities allow you to decide that someone else's potential life is not worth living? This is the problem, it's an ethics and morals discussion. But medically there's no harm in giving birth to that child. Are we like the Spartans now? Throwing our newborns off cliffs because they don't meet the requirements for a "good life"? Where do we draw this line?

Your anecdote, while moving, is irrelevant to policy. We cannot create policy on the minority of cases out there. The thing is, prior to birth was it absolutely known the number of complications the child would have? Was it predicted they would only live under two years? What about children who were, before or even upon birth given only a few years to live but then lived to be in their 20's and 30's? This is why such anecdotes aren't meaningful. For every case you can bring forward where limited or illegal abortions were a detriment I can name a scenario where such predictions were completely wrong and an abortion in those scenarios would have prevented that life from even having a chance.

So please, tell me. At what point do we have a right to choose whether or not someone's life is worth living for them? They aren't us, and you cannot possibly think you have the ability to judge whether or not the child got anything out of the short life she lived. It may seem a shame and a waste to you, but what about the child? If you had to choose between a shot at even some existence and oblivion what would you choose (and why are you making that choice for someone else, irregardless of whether or not they are a person at the time of the decision)?

[mudslag]

 

[FloatingFatMan]

4 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

and why are you making that choice for someone else, irregardless of whether or not they are a person at the time of the decision

But that's my point, this law IS making that choice for someone else, and its making it blindly instead of doing the only logical thing and leaving it to the parents and the doctors; the only ones qualified to make that decision.

 

It's forcing the morals and beliefs of unqualified lawmakers onto other people, with zero consideration to the circumstances of the specific case. It's doubly wrong in Ireland, where the anti-abortion law is wholly based on the catholic religion and forced on -everyone- irrespective of their beliefs.

 

[Zinomian]

4 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

But that's my point, this law IS making that choice for someone else, and its making it blindly instead of doing the only logical thing and leaving it to the parents and the doctors; the only ones qualified to make that decision.

 

It's forcing the morals and beliefs of unqualified lawmakers onto other people, with zero consideration to the circumstances of the specific case.

This....^

 

Pro or against, we cannot tell a woman/couple what they can or should not do.  I agree that many will use and abuse their right for abortion, but is the same as people do with the 1st amendment/freedom of speech, we need it, but man, do some people abuse it. 

 

[PGHammer]

6 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

So at what point do mental and physical disabilities allow you to decide that someone else's potential life is not worth living? This is the problem, it's an ethics and morals discussion. But medically there's no harm in giving birth to that child. Are we like the Spartans now? Throwing our newborns off cliffs because they don't meet the requirements for a "good life"? Where do we draw this line?

Your anecdote, while moving, is irrelevant to policy. We cannot create policy on the minority of cases out there. The thing is, prior to birth was it absolutely known the number of complications the child would have? Was it predicted they would only live under two years? What about children who were, before or even upon birth given only a few years to live but then lived to be in their 20's and 30's? This is why such anecdotes aren't meaningful. For every case you can bring forward where limited or illegal abortions were a detriment I can name a scenario where such predictions were completely wrong and an abortion in those scenarios would have prevented that life from even having a chance.

So please, tell me. At what point do we have a right to choose whether or not someone's life is worth living for them? They aren't us, and you cannot possibly think you have the ability to judge whether or not the child got anything out of the short life she lived. It may seem a shame and a waste to you, but what about the child? If you had to choose between a shot at even some existence and oblivion what would you choose (and why are you making that choice for someone else, irregardless of whether or not they are a person at the time of the decision)?

And therein lies the difference between the two sides, Floating and others - emotion vs. pragmatism.  It's not that I see "either" as being bad; I see both as EQUALLY "bad" - both try to paint the issue as "one or the other".  Some issues aren't that polar - and never will be.  In fact, let's look at anti-euthanasia (anti-assisted-suicide) legislation; there are, in fact, two schools of thought on such legislation - one is based on faith, and the other is based on progresses in medicine; however, both seek to deny the facts on the ground regarding currently-terminal illnesses.  From what I have seen (based on commentaries from the folks on both sides, mind you) because they are themselves unable to make a decision, they don't want anyone ELSE making the decision, either.  In other words, NOBODY is allowed to decide - the equivalent of a "forced goal kick". (Should Marmite (or Vegemite - if not both) be made illegal to sell or manufacture?)

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, Zinomian said:

That's what I thought.  Isn't this unconstitutional? I thought until Roe v Wade is overturned in the supreme court, states CANT ban abortions.   They can make it harder with regulations, etc, but cant straight up ban them.

It has not and never will be overturned. It has been the law of the land for way too long to stop it now. Just think what the poverty level would be now without it?? The states cannot make any regulations that go against Roe v Wade.