SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:01PM (23 children)
History will not be kind to any current legislature which attempts to rule on abortion.
The last few times a group of people who dominated the legislature attempted to wield the pen to oppress or otherwise significantly dictate how another group who was poorly represented in the legislature were woman's suffrage and the Jim Crow era.
We now have a legislature which contains well under one-third female representatives attempting to dictate what a woman is permitted to do with her body. And yes, I am absolutely asserting that the ability to choose to continue or not to sustain a parasite within one's body must be considered an innate right.
IF any legislation deviating from the clear and correct Roe v. Wade criteria (mother's right to decide until fetus is viable on its own) were ever to be enacted, it had better be argued, voted on, and signed exclusively by women or you're seeing the modern day equivalent of a Jim Crow law.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by arcz on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:06PM (3 children)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:13PM (2 children)
Incorrect.
Murder is an action, thereby a choice any human can make. Therefore, all humans are morally eligible to make law pertaining to it.
Gender (actual chromosomes here, there are two and a few genetic outliers like XO and XXY) is not. Race is not.
That's the difference. I picked the examples specifically and correctly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:03PM
Murder is an action, thereby a choice any human can make.
So is religion, yet we include it in all our civil rights statutes. Why is that? Shouldn't they only protect involuntary attributes? Like for instance, place of birth? Doesn't everyone have the basic right to live where they want? Don't we all have the same right to travel as freely around the globe as the effluence we spew into the air every day? All your borders are Jim Crow on steroids, and meth! Very selective you all are about which rights are really have.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by linuxrocks123 on Friday May 04 2018, @02:58AM
...dumbest thing I've read today, and your particular dumb is spreading, so I'll respond.
"Only X should make laws pertaining to X" leads to a number of absurd results, such as only Dreamers should make laws pertaining to Dreamers. The Dreamers didn't choose to be illegal immigrants -- that's the whole rationale for treating them with leniency -- but only the most frothing-at-the-mouth extremist would say they should be the sole arbiters of their status.
How about "only men should decide child support laws". Bet you don't like that one at all, huh? I know, I know, women can be made to pay child support, too ... but it is as involuntary a situation as unintentionally becoming pregnant. Most of the members of that involuntary class will be men.
You would argue a single woman would clearly be affected by not receiving child support. I agree ... but then men would also clearly be affected by being deprived the companionship of a future child containing half their genetic material. So it's a wash for the identity politics bullshit, then, right?
Society as a whole has to decide what to about the Dreamers, and other illegal immigrants, and child support liability. Society as a whole also has to decide what to do about killing something that many people see as disturbingly close to a person.
Some of these are hard questions, and people making your argument are trying to shut out voices that might have good ideas. Please stop.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Freeman on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:11PM (17 children)
The insanity is on the fringes. You have people on the way far right, that say no abortion, no exceptions. Then you have people on the way far left, who say abortion, woman's prerogative. Even after the child has already been born!
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:07PM (5 children)
But the odd thing is that a large number of the people who demand the Government ban abortions also go around demanding that we need to get Government to stop interfering with our lives and telling us what to do. You don't have that same cognitive disconnect on the far left.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:57PM (3 children)
So, what you're saying, is that Liberals don't want the government to interfere with their lives? So, why is it that Obama signed off on the "Patriot" Act? The Patriot Act is possibly the worst piece of legislation to have been passed by any Congress. You'd have thunk the Liberals would have fixed that abomination, if they were so against the government interfering in our lives.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:18PM (2 children)
Gee if only the politicians would follow through on their promises and listen to their constituents! What a wonderful world that would be. I don't know of any liberal that likes the Patriot Act, and bringing that up is disingenuous. Are you just mad that you are having a hard time with your anti-abortion arguments?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:22PM (1 child)
No, I was just pointing out that the cognitive dissonance they were referring to isn't restricted to one party. It's not cognitive dissonance, if you're standing by the moral and ethical principles you believe in.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:44PM
BZZZT wrong!
You are referring to the issues between what the people want and what the politicians do. Liberals don't want that nasty shit.
Religious conservatives overwhelmingly want the government out of their lives, but they feel obligated to push their morality and control the actions of others. There is no middle step where politicians do the meddling and the conservatives watch in horror. So your analogy falls apart.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @01:37AM
The cognitive disconnect is on your end. Planned Parenthood will fold up and disappear without government funding. So, WTF is government interfering with our lives by funding Planned Parenthood? Why is government telling us what to do? Yes, you are indeed cognitively disconnected. When you stop demanding tax dollar to fund your baby killing machine, then you may or may not be connected.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:20PM (9 children)
Then you have people on the way far left, who say abortion, woman's prerogative. Even after the child has already been born!
Damn, that's the most straw I've ever seen turned into a man before! Has Guinness checked that monster out for a record?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:52PM (6 children)
Please note, I was referencing what the far left and the far right believe regarding the abortion issue. You can plug your ears and say nananannana all you want. That doesn't mean it's not the truth.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:11PM (5 children)
Show me one place where the "far left" believes in this non-existent "post-birth abortion" you speak of. You're referencing what your tiny idiot mind thinks the far left and far right believe, not what they actually believe.
You saying it doesn't mean it is the truth, either. Oh, and in case you missed it, it's not the truth. Next time you use that argument, use it on something that's actually true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:20PM (1 child)
I once ran into a mechanic who had an article pinned about Democrats killing children as they were born, turns out it is incredibly rare but necessary and I forget the medical reasons. Basically taking a one in a million tragic occurrence and making that seem like a common thing that only devil worshiping liberals do.
Lots of bullshit flying around that people cling to.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:32PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction [wikipedia.org]
Fortunately it says it's incredibly rare, but I can understand how people would be disturbed by it. Although the description of the procedure is extremely clinical, it's still...bleargh.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:36PM (1 child)
It seems that I probably heard about it when this mess was happening.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html?utm_term=.6dfc07327520 [washingtonpost.com]
There's also this pole on debate.org that shows there are some who do believe it. Not that I would call debate.org an authoritative source.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-a-woman-still-be-allowed-to-abort-at-6-months [debate.org]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 04 2018, @02:14AM
‘After-birth abortion’: Can they be serious? (the first link)
Saved you a click: "we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal."
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:46PM
It's all true. Those evil democrats, Matt Stone and Trey Parker have been advocating for this since 1998 [imdb.com].
Every single democrat believes in murdering children, because they're "teh evilz"!
That's why every single democrat watches South Park to find out what they should believe this week.
Please. No one advocates child murder -- or murder in general, for that matter, except the hate peddlers who want to kill the jews, the muzzie rag-heads and the various darkies.
tl;dr: GP is talking out of his ass and it smells that way too.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:52PM (1 child)
That's not a straw man. It's a garden variety stupid argument made by a garden variety stupid person.
Remember, always apply Hanlon's Razor before assuming malice.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 04 2018, @01:53AM
That's not a straw man. It's a garden variety stupid argument made by a garden variety stupid person.
It's the very definition of straw man. He's refuting an argument nobody has made. [wikipedia.org]
Remember, always apply Hanlon's Razor before assuming malice.
Malice isn't required for something to be fallacious.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday May 04 2018, @04:21AM
I'm pro-life. But there has to be a choice. If I knocked up some woman and she asked me to pay for the abortion, how could I tell her "no"? Have you ever been in that situation? Tough situation. Very hard to say "no" to that. Planned Parenthood. Millions of millions of women -- cervical cancer, breast cancer -- are helped by Planned Parenthood. I would defund it because I'm pro-life, but millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood.
@VP [twitter.com] Pence is much tougher. He told Indiana Right to Life, "abortion should NEVER be legal."
And he's worked very hard on that. He did the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act -- that one didn't go through -- where there would be no government money for the abortion unless it was forcible rape. If she doesn't put up a fight, no money. Would have been a big money saver, if it went though.
And he worked very hard in Indiana. He said, no abortions for the wrong reasons. Because of Down's, because it's a cripple or has a VERY TINY brain, because it's a girl, because it's the wrong race, because of bad genes. They call it the reason ban. Great name.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday May 04 2018, @11:36AM
What about dad?