Arkansas adopts US's most restrictive abortion law

Mar 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Lincoln Daily News

Arkansas now has the nation's most restrictive abortion law -- a near-ban on the procedure from the 12th week of pregnancy -- unless a lawsuit or court action intervenes before it takes effect this summer.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of31
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Robert

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The law will never go into effect as it clearly crosses the constitutional line drawn by the court years ago. Before it can go into effect it will be blocked. The only effect the law will have is to scare women away from the republican party and help elect more democrats.

This is how the democrats maintained control of the senate last election, they simply pointed their fingers at the republicans who made stupid statements over abortion and that was all it took.
Dan

Omaha, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Robert wrote:
The law will never go into effect as it clearly crosses the constitutional line drawn by the court years ago. Before it can go into effect it will be blocked. The only effect the law will have is to scare women away from the republican party and help elect more democrats.
This is how the democrats maintained control of the senate last election, they simply pointed their fingers at the republicans who made stupid statements over abortion and that was all it took.
I'm not being coy or anything-

I know the states cannot abolish abortion, but they have been granted the ability to impose restrictions.

What line does this restriction cross where others have not?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 7, 2013
 
Robert wrote:
The law will never go into effect as it clearly crosses the constitutional line drawn by the court years ago. Before it can go into effect it will be blocked. The only effect the law will have is to scare women away from the republican party and help elect more democrats.
This is how the democrats maintained control of the senate last election, they simply pointed their fingers at the republicans who made stupid statements over abortion and that was all it took.
So it's the Democrat's fault that the Republicans keep doing stupid crap?

As for the law taking effect, I think you're wrong there too. Pro-choice groups have avoided suing over any of these laws because they know the current SCOTUS might uphold them and end up overturning Roe completely.

We're waiting for the court to shift to a liberal majority before challenging the multiple state laws that have been passed restricting abortions over the past decade.

Basically we have to wait for Scalia or Kennedy to step down.
Sheik Yerbouti

Pennington, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 7, 2013
 
Typical fundietard asshattery and political posturing!
Robert

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 7, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's the Democrat's fault that the Republicans keep doing stupid crap?
As for the law taking effect, I think you're wrong there too. Pro-choice groups have avoided suing over any of these laws because they know the current SCOTUS might uphold them and end up overturning Roe completely.
We're waiting for the court to shift to a liberal majority before challenging the multiple state laws that have been passed restricting abortions over the past decade.
Basically we have to wait for Scalia or Kennedy to step down.
You might be right democrats are secretly supporting select republican candidates which makes the rest of the group guilty by association. It worked in the senate in 2012.

The law will be challenged, the ACLU said it will partner with the abortion rights organization the Center for Reproductive Rights to challenge it. The 12-week limit law — roughly the first trimester of pregnancy —“blatantly contradicts” Supreme Court precedent because it would impose a ban on elective, non therapeutic abortions before a fetus reaches viability.

The law just bumper-sticker legislation with really no chance of standing up in court. The 20 week law has already been challenged in Georgia and Arizona with injunctions currently in place to prevent them from going into effect until the court rules.

In short roe v wade is not going anywhere, it is and will remain the law of the land.
Dan

Omaha, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 7, 2013
 
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
You might be right democrats are secretly supporting select republican candidates which makes the rest of the group guilty by association. It worked in the senate in 2012.
The law will be challenged, the ACLU said it will partner with the abortion rights organization the Center for Reproductive Rights to challenge it. The 12-week limit law — roughly the first trimester of pregnancy —“blatantly contradicts” Supreme Court precedent because it would impose a ban on elective, non therapeutic abortions before a fetus reaches viability.
The law just bumper-sticker legislation with really no chance of standing up in court. The 20 week law has already been challenged in Georgia and Arizona with injunctions currently in place to prevent them from going into effect until the court rules.
In short roe v wade is not going anywhere, it is and will remain the law of the land.
Is it the time limit that's at issue?

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 7, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it the time limit that's at issue?
At this point with out having read the entire bill now law.. I would say that, yes that would be a big part of the issue.
Robert

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Mar 7, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it the time limit that's at issue?
Viability is the issue, the court ruled that a woman has a right to abortion until viability. The court recognized that viability is usually placed at 28 weeks but can occur earlier even at 24 weeks.

Nine other states besides Arkansas have enacted laws that ban abortions after 20 weeks, based on the assertion that the fetus can experience pain at that point in pregnancy. The leading organization of U.S. obstetricians and gynecologists says there is no legitimate scientific information to support that statement.

No way can viability be claimed at 12 weeks.
Dan

Omaha, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 7, 2013
 
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Viability is the issue, the court ruled that a woman has a right to abortion until viability. The court recognized that viability is usually placed at 28 weeks but can occur earlier even at 24 weeks.
Nine other states besides Arkansas have enacted laws that ban abortions after 20 weeks, based on the assertion that the fetus can experience pain at that point in pregnancy. The leading organization of U.S. obstetricians and gynecologists says there is no legitimate scientific information to support that statement.
No way can viability be claimed at 12 weeks.
Thanks.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
You might be right democrats are secretly supporting select republican candidates which makes the rest of the group guilty by association. It worked in the senate in 2012.
The law will be challenged, the ACLU said it will partner with the abortion rights organization the Center for Reproductive Rights to challenge it. The 12-week limit law — roughly the first trimester of pregnancy —“blatantly contradicts” Supreme Court precedent because it would impose a ban on elective, non therapeutic abortions before a fetus reaches viability.
The law just bumper-sticker legislation with really no chance of standing up in court. The 20 week law has already been challenged in Georgia and Arizona with injunctions currently in place to prevent them from going into effect until the court rules.
In short roe v wade is not going anywhere, it is and will remain the law of the land.
I hope you're right, but if any of these cases gets to the current SCOTUS, then Roe could easily be overturned.
Dan

Omaha, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you're right, but if any of these cases gets to the current SCOTUS, then Roe could easily be overturned.
If RvW is good law, then it will stand review.
Ink

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 7, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Basically we have to wait for Scalia or Kennedy to step down.
Good luck with that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 7, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
If RvW is good law, then it will stand review.
Conservatives don't go by what is "good law" or even what is constitutional. They've been trying to overturn Roe ever since the ruling came down.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 7, 2013
 
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck with that.
They're both 76 y/o; they can't live forever.

Statistically one is likely to step down or die in the next 4 years.

Hopefully it's Scalia so Obama can replace him with a liberal!
Robert

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 8, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Conservatives don't go by what is "good law" or even what is constitutional. They've been trying to overturn Roe ever since the ruling came down.
I guess you are right about that, nothing sounds worse than hearing dribble about them being the party championing the rule of law but when the rule of law for decades has gone against them they seek to change things with laws they know out of the gate will be ruled unconstitutional and as they rail against activist judges fight for judges which would be activist in this one area.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 8, 2013
 
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you are right about that, nothing sounds worse than hearing dribble about them being the party championing the rule of law but when the rule of law for decades has gone against them they seek to change things with laws they know out of the gate will be ruled unconstitutional and as they rail against activist judges fight for judges which would be activist in this one area.
That's the hypocrisy typical of the "conservatives". Like how they demanded the people be allowed to vote on marriage, but now that we've won 4 votes in a row they're suddenly suing to PREVENT the people from voting in Ohio & Oregon.
Dan

Omaha, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the hypocrisy typical of the "conservatives". Like how they demanded the people be allowed to vote on marriage, but now that we've won 4 votes in a row they're suddenly suing to PREVENT the people from voting in Ohio & Oregon.
To be fair, before the "wins", the pro-SSM folks were wailing and gnashing their teeth about the inherent ills of voting on the matter, and wanted their cause to be resolved at the judiciary; the same thing you're now afraid the PLM will do with laws like the one here in Ark.

Robert

Douglasville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Mar 8, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the hypocrisy typical of the "conservatives". Like how they demanded the people be allowed to vote on marriage, but now that we've won 4 votes in a row they're suddenly suing to PREVENT the people from voting in Ohio & Oregon.
I am identified as conservative because I am not a democrat but in actuality I simply believe in liberty which gives rise to a number of conflicts. To the extent that I have to pay taxes I see that is indentured servitude for the time I have to work to pay my share. As such I am highly critical of how we spend collective funds and how we take on debt.

I agree with a lot of conservatives depending on what they try to conserve, that is the rub, conservative? Trying to conserve how things are, how they were yesterday, yesteryear which year and what do you leave out. A conservative can mean too many things for me to be one.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 8, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair, before the "wins", the pro-SSM folks were wailing and gnashing their teeth about the inherent ills of voting on the matter, and wanted their cause to be resolved at the judiciary; the same thing you're now afraid the PLM will do with laws like the one here in Ark.
We STILL believe basic rights shouldn't be voted on, but because of the previous bans voted in, we don't have much choice but to vote to overturn them.

No hypocrisy on our part; we were left with no other option since the SCOTUS has a conservative 5-4 majority.

It's the "conservatives" who wanted all these votes, until they started losing them.......
Dan

Omaha, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 8, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
We STILL believe basic rights shouldn't be voted on, but because of the previous bans voted in, we don't have much choice but to vote to overturn them.
No hypocrisy on our part; we were left with no other option since the SCOTUS has a conservative 5-4 majority.
It's the "conservatives" who wanted all these votes, until they started losing them.......
.....but "you" aren't seeking the overturn of the results of the ballot initiatives you "won".

I mean, legislating from the bench and ballot initiatives can't be "good" only if you favor the results and/or only "bad" if you don't.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of31
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••