McCrory wants debate on abortion bill

McCrory wants debate on abortion bill

There are 11 comments on the Rocky Mount Telegram story from Jul 8, 2013, titled McCrory wants debate on abortion bill. In it, Rocky Mount Telegram reports that:

Gov. Pat McCrory said Monday he wants legislators to take a closer look at abortion regulations in North Carolina before acting further on legislation that would place higher standards upon clinics and more responsibilities upon physicians.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Rocky Mount Telegram.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1 Jul 10, 2013
Given the RCC's position on abortion, you have to love the irony of them URGING a law to be passed which will make it safer for a "murderer" to "commit murder". This just goes toward proof that the real purpose of this law is to close clinics, and make it harder for women to exercise their right to a legal medical procedure.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#2 Jul 10, 2013
Bitner wrote:
Given the RCC's position on abortion, you have to love the irony of them URGING a law to be passed which will make it safer for a "murderer" to "commit murder". This just goes toward proof that the real purpose of this law is to close clinics, and make it harder for women to exercise their right to a legal medical procedure.
Actually, Bit, the Bp. here (Burbridge) is displaying consistency.

He wants the women protected.

“HB 695 is a pro-life legislative proposal that serves to protect women in the way abortions are provided in the State.” He cited the bill’s requirement to have the State Department of Health and Human Services “ensure that standards for the clinics certified by the Department to be suitable facilities for the performance of abortions are similar to those for the licensure of ambulatory surgical centers.”

“A woman should be guaranteed safeguards when receiving this type of medical or surgical procedure,” the Bishop said.“She should expect no less.”

He cited a July 2, 2013, action taken by the State Department of Health and Human Services, which ordered the summary suspension of The Baker Clinic for Women in Durham for the findings of conditions that "present an imminent danger to the health, safety and welfare of the clients and that emergency action is required to protect the clients."

Bishop Burbidge said,“It is this type of situation that HB 695 seeks to address for the health and well-being of women.”

In his statement, the Bishop said,“I call upon the members of the House to support and pass this legislation, ensuring that the appropriate safeguards and protections are extended to all who live in our State.”

http://www.dioceseofraleigh.org/news/view.asp...

Last month, he made a statement in opposition to NC's proposed renewal of capital punishment. He's supporting the life where he can support it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3 Jul 10, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Bit, the Bp. here (Burbridge) is displaying consistency.
He wants the women protected.
“HB 695 is a pro-life legislative proposal that serves to protect women in the way abortions are provided in the State.” He cited the bill’s requirement to have the State Department of Health and Human Services “ensure that standards for the clinics certified by the Department to be suitable facilities for the performance of abortions are similar to those for the licensure of ambulatory surgical centers.”
“A woman should be guaranteed safeguards when receiving this type of medical or surgical procedure,” the Bishop said.“She should expect no less.”
He cited a July 2, 2013, action taken by the State Department of Health and Human Services, which ordered the summary suspension of The Baker Clinic for Women in Durham for the findings of conditions that "present an imminent danger to the health, safety and welfare of the clients and that emergency action is required to protect the clients."
Bishop Burbidge said,“It is this type of situation that HB 695 seeks to address for the health and well-being of women.”
In his statement, the Bishop said,“I call upon the members of the House to support and pass this legislation, ensuring that the appropriate safeguards and protections are extended to all who live in our State.”
http://www.dioceseofraleigh.org/news/view.asp...
Last month, he made a statement in opposition to NC's proposed renewal of capital punishment. He's supporting the life where he can support it.
Whatever you need to tell yourself, Dan. But, we both know that the RCC doesn't consider abortion to BE a medical procedure, but "murder". His position is still ironic.

How about the state simply makes sure that the laws already in place are being followed. THAT would make it safer too.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#4 Jul 10, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever you need to tell yourself, Dan. But, we both know that the RCC doesn't consider abortion to BE a medical procedure, but "murder". His position is still ironic.
How about the state simply makes sure that the laws already in place are being followed. THAT would make it safer too.
Well, he can't speak to things in the bill that aren't in there i.e. the bill isn't speaking to what abortion is or isn't).

The bill has a stated purpose and he's supporting that purpose.

Looks like McCrory is wanting a careful review and that's always good no matter what's being discussed.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5 Jul 10, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, he can't speak to things in the bill that aren't in there i.e. the bill isn't speaking to what abortion is or isn't).
The bill has a stated purpose and he's supporting that purpose.
Looks like McCrory is wanting a careful review and that's always good no matter what's being discussed.
Very true. Especially since the abortion part of it was added (snuck in) to a bill about Sharia law without giving anyone a chance to review it first. McCrory apparently just said he'd veto unless significant changes were made.

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#6 Jul 10, 2013
Gays, abortion, and Jim Crow, the whole GOP platform.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#7 Jul 10, 2013
AND, they've done it again. They've tacked the very same restrictions on abortion onto a "motorcycle safety" bill on the sly, without giving the public, or their opposite numbers a chance to review the additions.

Process apparently means NOTHING to these people.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#8 Jul 10, 2013
Bitner wrote:
AND, they've done it again. They've tacked the very same restrictions on abortion onto a "motorcycle safety" bill on the sly, without giving the public, or their opposite numbers a chance to review the additions.
Process apparently means NOTHING to these people.
Riders aren't exclusive province to PC people RE: legislation.

Again. looks like McCrory will do his best to see that the bill gets review.

As an aside, why on Earth is it felt necessary to codify restrictions to Sharia law anywhere in the US? Isn't that a solution in search of a problem?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9 Jul 10, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Riders aren't exclusive province to PC people RE: legislation.
Again. looks like McCrory will do his best to see that the bill gets review.
As an aside, why on Earth is it felt necessary to codify restrictions to Sharia law anywhere in the US? Isn't that a solution in search of a problem?
I'd say so, yes.

Then again, I say that a law regarding gender selection abortion is ALSO a solution in search of a problem.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10 Jul 10, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Riders aren't exclusive province to PC people RE: legislation.
Again. looks like McCrory will do his best to see that the bill gets review.
As an aside, why on Earth is it felt necessary to codify restrictions to Sharia law anywhere in the US? Isn't that a solution in search of a problem?
BTW, the rider itself is not the problem so much as sneaking it in three minutes before the debate is supposed to begin, just because the Governor had announced a few hours before that he'd veto the other bill it was attached to unless significant changes were made.
LineDazzle

Wrexham, UK

#11 Jul 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, the rider itself is not the problem so much as sneaking it in three minutes before the debate is supposed to begin, just because the Governor had announced a few hours before that he'd veto the other bill it was attached to unless significant changes were made.
Did you mention the word rider?
Maybe a Freudian sleep for your hatred of biker riders?
You know, those masculine bike riders in those big leather suits?

HAte masculinity much?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Sat Choicerocks 314,354
News Oklahoma House Declares Abortion 'Murder' May 23 bohart 7
Abortition Pros & Cons - What do you think May 23 Uncle Joe 2
News Woman had 15 abortions over 17 years (Oct '09) May 23 Uncle Joe 3
News Feminist icon Gloria Steinem adored, reviled in... May 22 They cannot kill ... 8
News Abortion clinic case summons a separate issue :... (Apr '07) May 22 silly rabbit 161
News Planned Parenthood to close 4 Iowa clinics afte... May 21 Lawrence Wolf 29
More from around the web