Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: All the fireworks from the IRS Hearing!

Government

North Dakota’s HUGE Pro-Life Win: ‘It’s a Good Day for Babies’

Mar. 15, 2013 11:59pm Jason Howerton

North Dakota Legislature Passes Set of Anti Abortion Bills

Photo Credit: FILE

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota on Friday moved closer to adopting what would be the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, with lawmakers sending the Republican governor measures that could set the state up for a costly legal battle over the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized the procedure.

The North Dakota Senate overwhelmingly approved two anti-abortion bills Friday, one banning abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy and another prohibiting women from having the procedure because a fetus has a genetic defect, such as Down syndrome. North Dakota would be the first state in the U.S. to adopt such laws.

Supporters said their goal is to challenge the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks, though anti-abortion activists elsewhere have expressed concern about the strategy.

“It’s a good day for babies,” said Rep. Bette Grande, a Republican from Fargo who introduced both bills. The state’s only abortion clinic is in Fargo, and abortion-rights advocates say the measures are meant to shut it down.

Gov. Jack Dalrymple hasn’t said anything to indicate he would veto the measures, and the bills have enough support in each chamber for the Legislature to override him.

Debate Friday was brief, with the Senate taking about an hour to pass both measures. No one spoke against the so-called fetal heartbeat bill, which the Senate took up immediately after passing the genetic abnormalities bill. The votes were largely on party lines, with Republicans supporting the measures and Democrats opposing them.

Opponents, who have promised legal challenges to both measures if they become law, urged Dalrymple to veto the bills. North Dakota is one of several states with Republican-controlled Legislatures and GOP governors that is looking at abortion restrictions. But the state is better positioned than most for a long court fight: It has budget surplus nearing $2 billion thanks to new-found oil wealth.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the measures “extreme,” saying they would make North Dakota “the first state in the nation to ban most abortions.”

“In America, no woman, no matter where she lives, should be denied the ability to make this deeply personal decision,” ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said in a statement.

Arkansas passed a 12-week ban earlier this month that prohibits most abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected using an abdominal ultrasound. That ban is scheduled to take effect 90 days after the Arkansas Legislature adjourns.

A fetal heartbeat can generally be detected earlier in a pregnancy using a vaginal ultrasound, but Arkansas lawmakers balked at requiring women seeking abortions to have the more invasive imaging technique.

North Dakota’s measure doesn’t specify how a fetal heartbeat would be detected. Doctors performing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected could face a felony charge punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Women having an abortion would not face charges.

While some abortion opponents welcomed Arkansas’ new law as a bold challenge to Roe v. Wade, others favor more incremental strategies, fearing such bans could lead to emphatic rejections in court.

A similar fetal heartbeat bill was debated by Ohio lawmakers last year before being blocked by the Senate president. The measure, which could be revived this year, fractured Ohio’s anti-abortion movement in a debate over its tactical effectiveness.

Grande told lawmakers that fears about a legal challenge shouldn’t prevent them from approving the North Dakota measure.

“Whether this is challenged in court is entirely up to the abortion industry,” Grande told lawmakers this week. “Given the lucrative nature of abortion, it is likely that any statute that reduces the number of customers will be challenged by the industry.”

During the Senate debate, one senator who had spoken out against the genetic abnormalities bill left the chamber in protest. The move forced the Senate to briefly halt debate, because the chambers rules require senators to be formally excused. The Senate was able to move forward with proceedings on the bill by passing a motion to excuse the senator.

“It was absolutely a silent protest,” Sen. Connie Triplett told The Associated Press after the vote. “North Dakota will have a harder time recruiting and retaining doctors because doctors will not want to be arrested for advising women on abortion issues.”

Sen. Margaret Sitte, a Republican from Bismarck, said the genetic abnormality bill is meant to ban the destruction of life based on “an arbitrary society standard of being good enough.” Some test results pointing to abnormalities are incorrect, she said, and doctors can perform surgeries even before a baby is born to correct some genetic conditions.

Sitte’s voice cracked as she described developmentally challenged children she knows. “Their hugs are tighter, their laughter louder and their empathy more sincere” than so-called “normal people,” she said.

The genetic abnormalities bill also bans abortion based on gender selection. Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma already have such laws, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion restrictions across the U.S.

The Senate approved the genetic abnormalities bill 27-15; the House vote was 64-27. The Senate approved the fetal heartbeat bill 26-17; the House vote was 63-28.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (150)

Taldren
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:56am
“and another prohibiting women from having the procedure because a fetus has a genetic defect, such as Down syndrome.”

Ok, they lost me on this one. I support abortion in cases of rape, incest, health risk to the mother, and genetic defects. All this is going to do is fill orphanages with children with genetic defects that parents are ill-equipped / unable to deal with.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 8:23am
  What orphanages in this country?
  
  Report this comment
- Doctor Strangelove
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 8:58am
  Taldren-Your photo tells the whole story: “I am as death, destroyer of infants”
  
  Report this comment
- jdoherty
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:21am
  Down syndrome babies are adopted all the time. Abortion ends a human life no matter what the reason.
  
  Report this comment
- tjalfo
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:00am
  You have to many “Reasons”, “Excuses” to end a Life.
  I Live and Set my Principles by this saying.
  “DO NOT TWIST THE PATH SET BY GOD!”
  Path = “The Way”
  Set = “The Truth”
  God = “The Life”
  
  Report this comment
- Southernsoul
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:06am
  Taldren, you might want to check your logic. You’re pro-life, unless its not perfect?
  
  And abortion in case of rape? So you’re saying to take a horrible, shattering experience and make it worse by killing some innocent life. Good Idea.
  
  Report this comment
- Gamaliel
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:02am
  Yeah, let’s just kill handicapped children. It’s better. (sarcasm)
  
  Report this comment
- Baerlin
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:12am
  Genetic defects? Browns eyes instead of blue? Girl instead of boy? Who will decide in your world what a defect is? And don’t say it won’t happen. All we have to do is look to China or India
  
  Report this comment
- ums101
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:34am
  From what I see, half the population have genetic defects.
  
  Report this comment
- SGT Rock
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:50am
  Genetic tests have a chance to be wrong and thus a healthy baby is killed.
  
  Report this comment
- Taldren
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:49pm
  You people are completely ignorant on this subject. You have limited Genetic Defects to eye color, really? That is like the liberals who water down the subject of doing away with the department of education to just not wanting children to be able to read. I am talking real Genetic Defects here … like children being born without a brain, skin, or other defects where the child lives a short time and has no chance at being able to have what any reasonable person call life. Down syndrome and other forms of severe mental retardation are a whole other issue.
  
  Report this comment
- QuincySmith
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:47pm
  And you KNOW this how?
  
  Report this comment
- QuincySmith
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:55pm
  Taldren;
  
  As Baerlin asked, who makes that decision? It seems a completely arbitrary and capricious decision. Who sets the standards? Are there Standards? I guess if you can make all those decisions we are good to go.
  
  Report this comment
- Taldren
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:41pm
  QuincySmith,
  
  No one gets to make that decision now … a ban means you are forced by government say-so in one direction. Doctors don’t get a say and neither do the parents. There is no exemptions for one case or another … all genetic defects are to be brought full term. To be forced to carry something 9 months that you know isn’t going to have a true life and die young is cruel.
  
  Report this comment
- Baerlin
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:04pm
  Taldren – So that we understand you, you’re advocating genetic testing for women so that they will not give birth to any children who will be born with any defects. Who decides what a defect is and if the parents want to care for the child or not? This pregnancy may well define exactly who the parents are as people and who we are as a society. We have already murdered more babies since ’73 than all the wars in the 20th century. Most of them viable human beings
  
  Report this comment
- Taldren
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 8:22pm
  Baerlin
  Well it certainly shouldn’t be the government that decides. So are you advocating that if they discover that a baby is developing without a brain, kidneys, or whatever and will have a short painful life should be banned from being aborted because you don’t think parents/doctors should be able to make that decision?
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 8:30pm
  “Ok, they lost me on this one. I support abortion in cases of rape, incest, health risk to the mother, and genetic defects. All this is going to do is fill orphanages with children with genetic defects that parents are ill-equipped / unable to deal with.”
  
  You are right. It will be hard, let’s just kill them. And why limit it to when they are in the womb? What if the test fails or they were unable to get one? Let’s extend that for the first few years of life. What’s the difference, really?
  
  Same for babies of rape. What if a few days after the child is born, the mother realizes she can’t deal with the child of her rapist? Just kill it. No child with a criminal father can amount to anything anyways. Let’s get rid of all the children of criminals. We’ll be better off.
  
  How do we decide what life is worthwhile and what life is not? Who is the arbiter of “good” life and “bad” life?
  
  Report this comment
- Baerlin
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 8:41pm
  Taldren – Even that baby born without a brain should feel the love and warmth of its parents rather than being ripped from the womb. I realize that you may not share my faith and love for life, but we cannot know what that life in the womb feels. It has spent 9 months connected to its mother. Both have grown together. Give them a chance to say good bye in diginity.
  
  Report this comment
- Taldren
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:16pm
  @termyt
  Your brand of extremism is why the abortion laws were so liberal to begin with. The arbiter you are speaking of should not be a politician in any form of government, but a decision made by a doctor and the family involved. The idea that you would force a mother to hold onto a dead upon birth for 9 months because of your oversimplified ideology is horrifying … and the fact that you claim that it is the “moral” thing is just disgusting. How many mothers are going to commit suicide because they are being force to birth a child that won’t live to one week because of a genetic defect? Mothers with normal healthy children are often emotionally compromised and stressed … add this in and you will not like the result.
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:40pm
  Respecting the rights of everyone is not an arbitrary application or restriction of choice that I am begging government to arbitrate. By my reckoning, protection of our rights is government’s only legitimate function. I clearly do not understand your point of view, so please let me know what is government’s purpose by your reckoning? Are you an anarchist?
  
  Because we each have he right to life, it’s not up to our families and doctors to decide for us when to terminate that life. I say let everyone keep their right to live. You are the one advocating for an arbitrary government backed decision method to prematurely revoke someone else’s right to live. I find that disgusting.
  
  Perhaps we are too far apart to understand each other and we are wasting breath, but as soon as we say a certain class of people do not have rights worth protecting, we are in danger of finding ourselves on the wrong side of that list
  
  Report this comment
- Zerodawn
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:41pm
  I can understand your thoughts on this.
  “Ok, they lost me on this one. I support abortion in cases of rape, incest, health risk to the mother, and genetic defects. All this is going to do is fill orphanages with children with genetic defects that parents are ill-equipped / unable to deal with.”
  
  As a person who regularly works with families who children have disabilities, I see so much love for these children they have bound families together and done incredible things. Not all genetic defects are going to cause a person to be a drain on society or be such a burden. I think the term “genetic defects” is a slope which has unforeseen consequences.
  Which would be acceptable and where would it stop?
  Like India which views girls as genetic defects because their worth is not as much as a man?
  Would it be like someone with no arms and legs like nick vujicic?
  What about someone who might have a mental illness like abraham lincoln?
  What about if a child has the wrong eyes or a broken smile or a broken body like stephen hawking?
  
  I just think it is wrong to murder a children because you dont like the way they might turn out. YES I think that at the point of conception a child is born.
  
  I dont want to slam you Taldren just give you something to think about.
  
  Report this comment
- Taldren
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:33pm
  @Zerodawn
  
  You are limiting the idea of Genetic Defects to something so trivial while in essence ignoring real Genetic Defects that exists. This ban not only banned sensible things like “I don’t want a homosexual child” , but real genetic defects that will cause the child to die shortly after birth and do nothing but cause anguish and pain for the parents. To prolong that for the full term of a pregnancy is cruel and immoral.
  
  Report this comment
- McMomma
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 8:30am
  @TALDREN
  Re: “To be forced to carry something 9 months that you know isn’t going to have a true life and die young is cruel.”
  Please consider reading Audrey’s story.
  http://www.amazon.com/Will-Carry-You-Sacred-Dance/dp/080546428X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363523336&sr=1-1&keywords=i+will+carry+you
  
  Report this comment
- mzk1
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 11:09am
  This is similar to the Doe decision, and would basically allow any abortion, as “Heath risk” can be anything.
  
  Woudl you consider havig ntwo XX chromsones a genetic defect? How about an X and a Y? Whole university departments are dedicated to this proposition.
  
  Report this comment
- Smartmom14
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 11:37am
  Taldren, I read most of your comments (couldn’t take it any more) & there seems to be a common thread in them. You repeatedly speak of the pain, discomfort & suffering of the mother. How hard it would be for her. As a mother, I believe it would be extremely selfish of me to put myself & my fear of the pain & suffering I’m going to feel when my baby dies, to put that before that of God’s will & the life of a human being. Extremely selfish. Too bad if it’s hard for me to handle carrying the baby for 9 months & then having to say goodbye. That’s my duty as a mother.
  
  My family just went through this. My daughter-in-law, a beautiful 1st time mother, gave birth, only to have to say goodbye a short time later. I do believe she is happy & feels blessed to have held her child & to have comforted him as he passed. Imagine if he had been ripped out of the womb, sucked out without the love & comfort of his mother’s arms. That’s selfish.
  
  This society, and that includes you, is so self-absorbed that you can’t even consider putting yourself last. God makes the decision of when that little life will leave this earth & come to him. Not you, not the government, & most definitely – not the mother.
  
  Report this comment
- Taldren
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 12:21pm
  @Smartmom14
  
  “That’s my duty as a mother. ”
  No, that is your personal opinion of what it is to be a mother. Others would find you insane.
  
  “Imagine if he had been ripped out of the womb, sucked out without the love & comfort of his mother’s arms. That’s selfish.”
  No, it’s selfish to make someone else do what makes you feel better regardless of the harm you are bearing down on them by enforcing your personal opinion on them. You are the same type of person I see make decisions to keep a terminally ill patient alive and in severe pain just because it makes you feel better. You are the one that is being selfish.
  
  “God makes the decision of when that little life will leave this earth & come to him. Not you, not the government, & most definitely – not the mother.”
  Again, YOUR personal belief which you want enforced on everyone at gun point. Some moral person you are.
  
  Report this comment
- ezekiel22
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 7:44pm
  So you follow the old eugenics argument so beloved of the Nazis? If the baby is not good enough the baby does not deserve to live. I am still amazed that people such as yourself actually follow that type of thinking.
  
  Report this comment
- bluegrandma52
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 8:18pm
  Many years ago, my cousin faced a huge dilemma; 6 mos into her pregnancy, it was found the baby was ancephalic (he had no cerebral cortex) and would only live a few hours after birth. Counseled to abort, they refused. It was a very hard delivery, but they welcomed little Preston into their family. He lived 17 hours, held and loved the whole time by his parents and siblings. It was a precious experience none of them ever regretted. They look forward to the time when, in the resurrection, they will have him back in their family, whole and perfect, forever.
  It is a terrible thing to kill an innocent, to murder one of Father’s children out of convenience or fear or selfishness. The repentance process for such an act is long and arduous, but we have the hope of forgiveness through the Atonement. It is always better not to commit the sin than it is to pay the price for it.
  
  Report this comment
who_is_john_galt_in_RI
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:38am
i am always surprised to hear how the left want to protect the right to kill babies in the mother’s womb. God has abandoned us because we have abandoned Him.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Sargeking
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:32am
As more Liberals sneak in from states such as California and New York, they will destroy more babies. They have just hacked American human gun rights in Colorado and they won’t stop there. We know the enemy. The low information people, combined with Liberal infiltrators, and the Progressive/Communist media are powerful forces. The good Americans that remain shall endeavor to persevere. The next four years are going to be very rough, to say the least. watch your back!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- audaxrex stigimoloch
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:57pm
  What’s a human gun?
  
  Report this comment
taxpro4u03
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 6:59am
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/03/the-nypd-declares-martial-law-in-brooklyn-2593426.html
Just one of the links to Civil’s post –. Old Skool – when they had a ‘Message.’ Listen up, kiddies. –>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1iDkMbJzG4

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
MisterSarcastic
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:45am
It’s an uphill battle with those nine wise clowns at SCOTUS.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- IntegrityFirst
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:42am
  @MisterSarcastic. We should call them SCLOWNUS
  Supreme Court Liberals Of Weakening the Nation of the United States
  
  Report this comment
Willik
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:53am
A wooden stake into the heart that is ‘Roe v. Wade’? I dearly hope so.
Another example of envoking the ‘States Rights’ 10th Amendment.
SOTUS should butt out by not hearing the arguments thus allowing the ND laws to stand.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
critterbait
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:30am
I swear,,,If you never held a true miracle in your hand’s a newbron ,you will never understand how wrong it is to take away that life… And to me, that is what life is realy all about,,,,
Anyone who stands for ;ife STANDS WITH GOD in my book…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
shorelineliz
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:02am
yay! good for babies. Keep socking those “pro choice’ people in the crotch until they are sterile. My little pretties.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Zipit
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:15am
  Nice pic Lizzy!
  
  Report this comment
Verceofreason
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:11am
Good day for “babies”
Sad day for the Constitution.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soundtracktowar
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:49am
  Where in the constitution do you get a right to an abortion? You have a right to life in the declaration of independence AND the 14th amendment to the constitution. 2 against 0 seems pretty simple.
  
  Report this comment
- SaturdaysWarrior76
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:16am
  “Sad day for the Constitution” Ohhhh that’s RICH, coming from YOU, Verce…
  you really don’t know jack about the constitution, do you? Or… you simply pick and choose which constitutional rights you support, and which ones you don’t support. It’s okay to rip a baby from it’s mother’s womb and smash it’s head like a grape, but it’s not okay for a law abiding citizen to own a gun for self-protection. Your backa$$wards logic astounds me.
  
  Report this comment
- who_is_john_galt_in_RI
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:41am
  i don’t see the clause in the constitution that says “you have the right to kill your children while they are in the mother’s womb”
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:52am
  Abortion is a perfectly LEGAL medical procedure. Period.. End of story.
  The law says a fetus in only a baby – out of the womb and functioning on it’s own.
  Now about just obeying the law?
  
  Report this comment
- PilgrimStuckInBizarroWorld
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:02pm
  Verce: How many babies can live on there own when just born? The answer is none. Without someone feeding and housing the baby he/she would die.
  
  Report this comment
- Zeb
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:01pm
  Fourteenth Amendment – Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
  
  Amendment Text | Annotations
  Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  
  Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
  
  Section. 3. No person shall b
  
  Report this comment
- Baerlin
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 8:18pm
  Hey Verce – Let’s say you have a car accident and are in a coma, end up on a ventilator and feeding tubes. You are no longer able to function on your own. Can we perform a late term abortion?
  
  Report this comment
- Rightwingconservativenut
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 1:27pm
  Good day for “babies”
  Sad day for the Constitution.
  
  How are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness constituting murder?
  One day (I hope soon) we will look back in shame that we allowed the murder of babies (fetus: Latin translated as baby). This will be our biggest shame in line with slavery and the holocaust.
  We all are to blame to include myself for not stopping this. We shall never live this down.
  
  Report this comment
- ezekiel22
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 7:50pm
  Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Which one does abortion violate? That would be life. The Constitution does protect that. You are one of those that does enjoy trying to make the Constitution say whatever you want it to say. I will be there to correct where necessary.
  
  Report this comment
dbeesh
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 2:32am
I know Bette Grande and Margaret Sitte and have spoken to them about this issue. I thanked them for finally bringing this issue to the forefront and speak for the majority of ND citizens who know that a child is a person from the second it is conceived. On the local news tonight Connie Triplett slipped when interviewed about this by saying this is a medical issue between a doctor and the parent (paused and corrected herself) uh, the patient. Did she give an honest slip of the tongue? You can’t have a parent if the unborn is not a child. Think about it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Verceofreason
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:13am
  Will ALL be overturned by higher courts,
  Just temporary grandstanding forcing women to go other states,
  ANYTHING not to deal with the economy.
  
  Report this comment
- Pablo
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 8:37am
  North Dakota doesn’t have an economy problem to worry about. Try again, Verceofreason.
  
  Report this comment
napari
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 2:28am
This is a step forward after many years and many long winded debates. It gives me hope!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
onetoomany
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 2:09am
Why can’t you say it is “pro-life legislation” instead of “anti-abortion” legislation.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- yournutsarenumb
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 8:02pm
  because “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are simply clever terms in order to obfuscate the issue…let’s just call it what it really is–”pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion”…you are either in favor of killing unborn babies for whatever reason by means of an abortion or you are not, period
  
  Report this comment
VoteRightDammit
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 2:06am
I think it’s fine for a woman to get an abortion if she does not want the baby ….

PROVIDING SHE GETS WRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE BABY !

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Diane TX
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:54am
Time to overturn Roe v. Wade, because it has been carried far past human decency. When a woman has an abortion, she is murdering a life that she created by her actions. Rape is a different story, and I’ll address that later.

When a woman irresponsibility engages in a sexual relationship, it IS her fault, because she has many options available to her. She can say NO. She can engage and use a contraceptive, and if the contraceptive fails, she should IMMEDIATELY have an abortion, as soon as she knows that she is pregnant. Twelve weeks is about three months. If a woman doesn’t want a child, why would she wait until the fourth, fifth, or sixth month?

Late-term abortions are the outright MURDER of a baby. What did the baby do to deserve a death sentence? There wasn’t any trial for the baby. Mother gets special rights just because her mother didn’t abort her. Talk about unequal protection – that is what abortion is.

Now, rape. The mother didn’t consent to being raped, and it’s her choice whether the innocent child is born or not. Women who believe in a higher power might well consider carrying the child to term, and give the child to an infertile couple.

Last, a mother that would die if she gives birth to a child. This is the hardest choice. I favor that the mother should live, but I know that many believe that the child should live.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Exrepublisheep
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:59am
  Well said..
  
  Report this comment
- TSUNAMI_22
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 2:11am
  “Now, rape. The mother didn’t consent to being raped, and it’s her choice whether the innocent child is born or not. ”
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Why should the child die in this case? Please explain it to me again in more detail. Why should the child be punished because of the actions of the rapist? Why is it not murder in this case as well?
  
  Report this comment
- Diane TX
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 2:48am
  @ TSUNAMI_22
  
  I’m torn about this. The mother didn’t consent to being raped, and yet a child has been conceived. I guess it depends on the woman. If the woman doesn’t want a child, I’d wish that she would have an abortion as soon as possible. Way before there is a heart beating. A Day after abortion would acceptable to me. Why wait until the seventh month?
  
  Report this comment
- CitizenCindy
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 4:47am
  @ Diane TX – Thanks for your sensitive thoughts & admitted hesitancy concerning the differences between a convenience abortion & an abortion in the case of rape or the physical threat of life to the mother. I agree.
  
  The fact that these 3 scenarios are completely different 1) no woman consents to rape 2) the physical life of a mother might not be threatened until after conception & 3) the convenience abortion as an impulse reaction after irresponsible behavior, & should not be addressed as identical things.
  
  Woman must have a legal option to pursue an abortion in the 1st and 2nd scenarios. We’d all like to help counsel the rape victim, but rape itself can severely scar women – maybe some simply can’t handle an unplanned & unwanted pregnancy – who are we to know their minds? A woman who faces death with pregnancy simply must consider her other children &/or spouse should she die, too & needs a safe & legal option to continue her own life.
  
  I don’t know the answer, either, but convenience abortions are the culprit as they’re thoughtless choices. Overwhelmingly, convenience abortions are the majority of abortions, nationwide. (Personally, I don’t think men should have a vote in the case of rape or threat of a woman’s physical life but that’s another post.)
  
  Until the laws change, we adults must keep preaching & practicing the values of non-marital abstinence as often & loudly as possible & hope our voices are heard.
  
  Report this comment
- skinflint
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 5:42am
  I disagree. Would not the murder of an innocent further exacerbate the crime originally committed by the rapist? From great darkness, a ray of light may shine.
  
  Report this comment
- CitizenCindy
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:23am
  @ Skinflint – I appreciate you comments, but may I respectfully ask if you are a man or a woman? (Your user name doesn’t give much of a clue.)
  
  Report this comment
- TSUNAMI_22
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:36pm
  @ Diane TX
  
  Thanks for answering my query. I understand your dilemma. Even as a man I can understand the feeling of damage that rape can inflict because it’s a crime of control and domination through violence. A child as a result of that might be considered a constant reminder of that event, furthering the mental anguish.
  
  Consider this, however – wouldn’t it be a slap in the ego of the rapist if that child was raised to be a good and productive member of society which might someday bring a positive change to that which is currently wrong?
  
  My personal belief is that life begins when the egg is fertilized. The proof is when the cells split and multiply. If you believe in God, you have to consider that things all happen for a reason, no matter how good or evil. How we deal with those things is what defines us in the eyes of God. This is the price of free will.
  
  Not trying to be preachy or judgmental. Just throwing it out there.
  
  Oh, and God Bless Texas !
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:04pm
  I do not pretend to know how it feels to be a woman impregnated by a violent assault on her person. I can’t even imagine being in such a situation. I pray no one ever does, of course some do.
  
  Let me ask about three of the situations you bring up:
  1. If the child is unwanted, the woman should go immediately and get an abortion. This instance, I have 0 sympathy for. Once conceived, it’s too late. If you cannot deal with the consequences of failed contraception and refuse to endure a pregnancy, don’t engage in sex.
  
  Now, the others instances are much more sensitive.
  2. Rape. I am not a woman. I will never have to deal with this personally. I believe my opinions on this are rational and well informed, but I direct you to Rebecca Kiessling. A woman with far more personal experience with this. http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html
  
  3. Mother’s life is threatened. (I will assume the child cannot be carried until a point when he/she would be viable outside the womb. If the child can be carried to that point, he/she should be and then delivered artificially.) Neither person has malice for the other, yet it is extremely unlikely both will survive. What do you do in a life threatening situation where neither person is at fault? Justice has no preference in this case, so neither do I.
  
  Report this comment
wingnut1955
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:45am
In every abortion someone dies. Roe v. Wade has cheapened life itself. It has led to the killing of children everywhere in America. The latest was in Newtown, Ct.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tajloc
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:33am
  The real question is not to or about the mother.
  It is about when life begins…ask yourself. Biologically life begins at conception. No, an embryo does not know it is dying but neither does a newborn. I doubt a five minute old egg feels pain.
  None of that matters. An unfertilized egg is just menstrual fluid. AHHH but the twining of two DNA strands…That is life.
  I guess I do have a place for abortion. When the mom and Dad AND Doc realize that it is either the mom (with two other babies) or the embryo will live then I guess a tiny fertilized egg could be terminated.
  Rom 8:28
  
  Report this comment
- wingnut1955
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 8:34pm
  @tajloc I do not believe anyone should play God. A true story. When my wife was pregnant with our second child. She has MS, by the way. The Doctor that both she and the baby would not survive the delivery and recommended an abortion. My wife told him that she would not kill her baby. The Doctor then talked to me and I said the same thing. My wife and I have been married for 45 years, so far, and we have two great adult children and two wonderful grand children. Let God decide who lives and who dies, He does it best.
  
  Report this comment
TH30PH1LUS
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:34am
Democrats will soon be marching in protest, because there is nothing more sacred to their religion than the murder of human babies.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ADNIL
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:38am
  That and their insistance that potential rape victems be kept helpless and unable to defend themselves.
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:07pm
  It’s quite a one-two punch for their platform. Women should have no defense other than vomiting or urinating on themselves to prevent a rape – but hey girls, the good news is, you can freely kill the resulting child! Win-win!
  
  Report this comment
- Yes_I_Am_Leslie_Winkle
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:55pm
  @TH30PH1LUS
  Amen Brother
  
  Report this comment
fdmike
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:18am
Hey civilwar, where do you live? I suspect it’s not New York City. Did you read or understand that there were approximately 200 people that broke off from a peaceful vigil to cause mayhem, rioting and breaking things? They are taking to the streets because an individual ( as usual we only get to see his 5th grade graduation pic), had in his possession and pointed a handgun at then after they already announced themselves. When they start treating black on black crime with equal outrage, maybe I can sympathize a little easier. As for now, zero respect .

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:29am
  I live in Missouri. I was just posting some information. I don’t support any of it. Was just letting people know what was up with the Frozen Zones thing. Doesn’t sound good….
  
  Report this comment
- MDECKER
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 7:25pm
  ” as usual we only get to see his 5th grade graduation pic” That is good! True too, except you left out the occasional gang hand sign or pile of money next to them.
  
  Report this comment
TJexcite
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:16am
They are not banning Abortions, you still will have 12 weeks to have an abortion. Nothing in this law will prevent having an abortion. Just regulating the time after there is a heart beat. Roe V. Wade did not say anything about the time when an abortion has to be allowed and absolute any time one wants from conception to term, we are just regulating the time.

To coin a phrase. Just regulating a select few number of guns or weeks how many more do you need.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
nesmond
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:13am
What’s the point in N.D. doing this? The only purpose I see in this is that it will create false hope that will be in turn shot down just like everything else these past four years.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Granny58
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 11:18am
  I suppose the point is that the citizens want it and it is, and should be, the will of the people.
  
  Report this comment
IreBelle
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:10am
Hats off to ND. Now we must pray that it holds up!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
james229
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:25am
forget rape, people should be able to have access to abortions when they need them. Choosing if and when to have a child is up to the mother within whom the baby is residing. Why don’t people go spend their energies making sure ALL of the living are in good shape before worring about the unborn.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:33am
  You spout pure EVIL!!!
  
  Report this comment
- TH777
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:57am
  @Jame229: How about people choosing “protection” to help decide when they have a child? If a person doesn’t choose protection, then you live with the consequence of your actions. Sorry but that’s life and they have created a life. So deal with it! It doesn’t give a person a right to kill another human being simply because the pregnancy interferes with their plans.
  
  Report this comment
- bullcrapbuster
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:11am
  heartless killer
  
  Report this comment
- kaydeebeau
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:20am
  Well James you are partly correct – the choice is up to the woman before she decides to spread her leg and lets any Tom, Richard or Harry into that space. Once she chooses to take that step, she has made the choice as to what happens to her body. She nderstands that another life can be involved. If she doesn’t understand how babies happen – why are we spending millions on sec education? Should a sperm and egg meet due to that leg spreading. Her choices as to what happens to her body are now limited. T
  
  hat which growing inside her is a baby – it is not a tumor, a cancer, a pig or an accident (remember she chose what to do when she spread her legs) It is a baby – with his own body and guarantee to life from our Creator.and protected by the Delaration of Independence – all men are CREATED equal.
  
  The only choice a woman has over her body is whether or not she chooses to let anything or everything inside her – knowing the possible reult of that choice.
  
  Once the egg and sperm meet – there is now another body involved – if the woman has a problem with this – she should have thought about it sooner before the life of someone else is involved. She doesn’t have the right to decide what happens to the body of another person. And for you wecinomoron – if it won’t be a person – what will it be – you idiot…..
  
  The “cure” for preganancy is delivery of a healthy baby
  
  That baby has his own body
  
  Report this comment
- burdenedsoul
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 9:51am
  @james229
  It is not a choice that people should ever have the power to make. This is up to God and only God. Just look at what happens when people take these decisions onto themselves, look at history for crying out loud. You have no more right to choose if a person should be born or not than I or anyone else has the right to choose rather or not you should live or die. You are a coward and a fool and it does not matter what you think that you believe you will be held accountable to one truth in the end and I think that deep down inside you know that to be true and it scares the hell out of you.
  
  Report this comment
- soldierofthecross
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 10:25am
  If you are a Bible believer, let me show you something. When Mary conceived Jesus, she went to see Elizabeth
  
  Report this comment
- PATTY HENRY
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:07pm
  ANSWER is simple: WE do not own life. WE were created. WE do not get to make the life/death decision (even in very old age). GOD owns it all. GOD created us. Abortion is murder in any case. MOST abortion is like birth control to some women. THEY know what causes pregnancy. THEY know how to avoid it. THEY don’t bother because…there is always abortion. Well
  the era of Madeline Murray O’Hair is gone. ROE of ROE V. WADE regrets having ever been involved and became anti-abortion decades ago. THE “death of the mother” is a tragic scenario. It makes no sense, however, to kill a living being to save one dying being.
  
  Report this comment
- ezekiel22
  Posted on March 17, 2013 at 7:58pm
  How about keeping your pants on? Killing a mistake does not make it go away. It just makes it bigger. You have to ask yourself if your convenience and ease is worth someones life? That is exactly what you are saying when it comes to aborting inconvenient pregnancies.
  
  Report this comment
chesta
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:21am
This will make blood shoot out of the eyes of the liberal, pro-baby murder demoncraps. Wonderful news!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TH777
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:13am
My favorite pro abortion statement is: “A woman has a right to choose what she does with her body”. Sorry but it’s not “your” body you are killing. It is the “body” of another human life.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dosdelgados
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:07am
Women DO have a choice: to have sex or not.

And no, silly trolls, don’t go crying about what if it’s rape. There are more infertile women/families looking to adopt than there are pregnancies conceived through rape.

NO I am not trivializing rape. But I’m sick of it being used as an excuse for unfettered abortions as a method of birth control.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:40am
  Friend of mine was adopted. His real mother was a Nun that was raped and she put him up for adoption at birth. His adopted parents couldn’t have children. He has a pretty daughter and Grand daughter now. That’s 3 good people that wouldn’t be here….
  
  Report this comment
- dosdelgados
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:53am
  My daughter is adopted. She’s the most amazing little girl. She’ll be two next month and I thank God every day that her bio mother carried her to term. We got her from right here in San Antonio. To think of all the little lives that could have, should have been is heartbreaking.
  
  Report this comment
- TH777
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:34am
  @Dosdelgados: What a heartwarming post. Bless you and your family. Your adopted daughter (which you should actually call “your” daughter) is extremely lucky! Love is what makes you the parent!
  
  Report this comment
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 3:27am
  We don’t have to make excuses. We should have unfettered abortion as a method of birth control. It’s good to have unfettered abortion as a method of birth control. There will always be people who don’t use other means of birth control because they are too stupid and irresponsible to think about the consequences of their actions. Good and smart people understand that being too stupid and irresponsible to think about the consequences of your actions is a reason to NOT have kids, and we want to make it as easy as possible for those people to not have those kids. If the wicked foes of freedom decide to punish the stupid for their irresponsibility by forcing them to have kids, the ones who will suffer most will be those kids who should never have been born.
  
  Report this comment
Budrow
Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:04am
Good for ND. It seems ND is the only state doing what’s right anymore and the state is booming economically too.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:08am
  The NYPD Declares Martial Law in Brooklyn.
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 12:22am
  On the heels of three nights of protests over the police slaying of 16 year old Kimani Gray, the NYPD has turned the East Flatbush neighborhood of Brooklyn into a State of Exception, claiming emergency powers to suspend the constitutional guarantees of the citizenry.
  
  The people regularly targeted by police harassment and violence, overwhelmingly the city’s poor and minority populations, have taken to the streets to speak out against the NYPD’s draconian tactics. The police have in turn responded with even further harsh measures by suppressing the right of the people to voice dissatisfaction with that very same police force.
  
  Cops kettled protesters at Wednesday night’s candlelight vigil, resulting in 46 arrests. Police even arrested Kimani Gray’s distraught sister, Mahnefeh.
  
  The NYPD euphemistically calls the public spaces in which the Constitutional rights of the people are suspended “frozen zones.”
  
  Allison Kilkenny wrote about the NYPD’s so-called “frozen zones” in December 2011:
  
  Report this comment
- dosdelgados
  Posted on March 16, 2013 at 1:07am
  Keep ‘em coming, CIVIL.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.