Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-many-women-voted? dept.

Iowa approves one of strictest abortion bills in US

The US state of Iowa has approved one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, banning most abortions once a foetal heartbeat is detected. Republican lawmakers, who control both chambers, passed the bill in back-to-back votes, sending it to the governor's desk to sign into law.

If [signed], the bill would ban most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Critics argue the bill makes having an abortion illegal before most women even realise they are pregnant.

[...] If [Governor Kim] Reynolds signs the bill into law, it will likely be challenged in court for possibly violating Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in 1973. [...] Some Republican lawmakers welcomed the challenge. "I would love for the United States Supreme Court to look at this bill and have this as a vehicle to overturn Roe v. Wade," Republican Senator Jake Chapman said.

Also at NPR, Reuters, the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, and The Hill:

Nineteen states adopted a total of 63 restrictions to the procedure in 2017, which is the highest number of state laws on the issue since 2013, according to the Guttmacher Institute. State legislatures have proposed 15 bills that would ban abortions after 20 weeks and 11 bills that would ban abortions if the sole reason is a genetic anomaly like Down syndrome.

Related: Ohio Bill Would Ban Abortion when a Prenatal Test is Positive for Down Syndrome
These 9 Places in America Will Pay You to Move There


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:12PM (9 children)

    I'm definitely on the side of anti-abortion to a certain point. The exceptions are Mother's prerogative, if it would endanger her life. I.E. carrying the baby would have abnormal risk for them due to some medical reason. Also, if abortion would be a mercy to the child. I.E. some medical condition where the child won't live very long and / or they would be in pain their entire existence.

    Good for you. Since you feel that way, don't have an abortion unless the circumstances meet your criteria.

    As for anyone else, mind your own fucking business -- it's not your concern.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:41PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:41PM (#675267)

    I think that person chose their username ironically.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:47PM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:47PM (#675269) Journal

      Based on past conversations with him, I think that person thinks "ironic" has something to do with the metal content of the thing in question...

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:32PM (2 children)

      Please explain your thought process.

      Nothing ironic about my username here:

      sanguine
      [sang-gwin]
        adjective
      1.
      cheerfully optimistic, hopeful, or confident:
      a sanguine disposition; sanguine expectations.

      Source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sanguine [dictionary.com]

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:41PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:41PM (#675372)

        sigh, not you

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 04 2018, @02:06AM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 04 2018, @02:06AM (#675433) Journal

        Oh thank god!

        I though you were one of those "vampire enthusiasts!"

        (not that there's anything wrong with it)

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @01:33AM (3 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04 2018, @01:33AM (#675418) Journal

    Since it's none of my concern, then you'll agree that Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded. They have no business taking taxpayer money to do things that are none of the taxpayer's concern. Or - are you going to switch over to an authoritarian position now?

    I'm not opposed to all abortions, but I am most definitely oppposed to abortions for profit, abortions for convenience, and abortion on demand. We have a fucking baby-killing industry in this country. There aren't enough words to describe it, but we can start with detestable, deplorable, and disgusting. There are plenty of stories about young women who entered a PP facility for information, only to learn that "planned parenthood" offers virtually no services for the woman who wants to become a mother.

    Just consider that the most vocal advocate of abortion makes it's living off of abortions, while at the same time begging you and I for the money to keep it's franchises open.

    Women's rights, or money grubbing sons of bitches?

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday May 04 2018, @04:09AM (2 children)

      I'm not opposed to all abortions, but I am most definitely oppposed to abortions for profit, abortions for convenience, and abortion on demand. We have a fucking baby-killing industry in this country. There aren't enough words to describe it, but we can start with detestable, deplorable, and disgusting. There are plenty of stories about young women who entered a PP facility for information, only to learn that "planned parenthood" offers virtually no services for the woman who wants to become a mother.

      Given your feelings, you should definitely never have an abortion.

      But what you think and feel about it is irrelevant to *anyone* else. What other people do with their bodies is none of your damn business.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @04:27PM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 04 2018, @04:27PM (#675718) Journal

        Given my feelings, tax money should never be used to pay for an abortion UNLESS something like the mother's life is in danger. And, given that many other Americans feel the same way, that should be the law.

        Neither you nor I have the right to tell a woman that she can not ever abort a child. But, that woman doesn't have the right to demand that we pay for her abortion, unless she is willing to justify the abortion, and our responsibility in regards to funding her abortion.

        When someone comes to you, in person, asking for money, do you, or do you not, want to know WHY that person needs money?

        "To save my life" seems reasonably legit - I may well hand money over. I'll want some details, but that seems a legit reason to hand over cash money.

        "Because I'm not mature enough to handle my own problems" seems a lot less legit. I may not be willing to hand any money over.

        Roe vs Wade didn't establish that women may demand an abortion at any time, for any reason. It ONLY established that women might have a right to abort. Roe vs Wade didn't address funding at all. It doesn't even hint at taxpayers funding abortion on demand.

        Long story short - you need to back up and reconsider the demands made upon you and I as taxpayers, in the name of some imaginary rights that you seem to have defined very poorly.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday May 04 2018, @07:30PM

          takyon writes:

          Iowa approves one of strictest abortion bills in US

                  The US state of Iowa has approved one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, banning most abortions once a foetal heartbeat is detected. Republican lawmakers, who control both chambers, passed the bill in back-to-back votes, sending it to the governor's desk to sign into law.

                  If [signed], the bill would ban most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Critics argue the bill makes having an abortion illegal before most women even realise they are pregnant.

                  [...] If [Governor Kim] Reynolds signs the bill into law, it will likely be challenged in court for possibly violating Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in 1973. [...] Some Republican lawmakers welcomed the challenge. "I would love for the United States Supreme Court to look at this bill and have this as a vehicle to overturn Roe v. Wade," Republican Senator Jake Chapman said.

          Also at NPR, Reuters, the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, and The Hill:

                  Nineteen states adopted a total of 63 restrictions to the procedure in 2017, which is the highest number of state laws on the issue since 2013, according to the Guttmacher Institute. State legislatures have proposed 15 bills that would ban abortions after 20 weeks and 11 bills that would ban abortions if the sole reason is a genetic anomaly like Down syndrome.

          Related: Ohio Bill Would Ban Abortion when a Prenatal Test is Positive for Down Syndrome
          These 9 Places in America Will Pay You to Move There

          The above is the TFS, copied here for your reference. What does your off-topic rant about tax money, especially given that the Hyde Amendment [wikipedia.org] (sadly, IMHO) prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions, and has done so for more than 20 years (since 1997) have to do with this new Iowa law?

          Regardless, your blather has zero to do with the topic at hand. You have no right to decide what other people do with their bodies. If you don't like how your state and local governments handle funding for health services, that's between you and your elected officials.

          tl;dr: Mind your own fucking business. If you don't like how your tax money is spent, I suggest you start a tax revolt. Perhaps they'll let you post to SN from prison.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr