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.
(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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:06PM
This is why it's stupid when one party controls too many branches of government.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:32PM (15 children)
Specifically, anencephalic fetuses [wikipedia.org]? (Yeah, I'll give you a Gross Link warning in that.) That's the big one I know of where you can still have a perfectly viable fetal heartbeat, the fetus may be survivable to term because the midbrain and steam can be intact and there is not necessarily a risk to the mother's life. Happens in about 1 out of 1,200 births.
By the way, this definition technically makes it for most that you cannot terminate a fetus at all, because at 6 weeks it is still an embryo. If you're going to use the terminology correctly. Yes, I know that the definition isn't supported directly in physiology of development, but it is a correct distinction medically.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:55PM (14 children)
There are plenty of people who would vote for abortion, if the only exceptions were for good medical reasons. A child born brain-dead would be a valid exception. A child that wouldn't survive birth, would live for a short time, but be in pain the entire time. These are things that normal people have No issue with when regarding abortion. Giving the woman the chance to decide between her own life or that of her baby's is another.
The problem is that you have left wing liberals who are pushing a distinct, Abortion, woman's right only! While at the same time defining the right to abort as any time up to 6 months after the baby is born or some such nonsense. For any reason they feel like. Guess what, a man that gets a woman pregnant has to pay child support, if they aren't together. A woman who gets pregnant should, if at all possible carry it to full term. She can adopt it out, if she doesn't want it. Otherwise, at least she would only be inconvenienced for 9 months for her indiscretion / lack of good judgment. Sure, there's also the case of rape, but that's not generally the One sticking point between the two sides.
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: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:09PM (8 children)
You're right! This is a huge problem! Pregnant men should have the right to an abortion as well!
lol!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:19PM (6 children)
Or perhaps they should have the right to not play child support? Personally, I think the guy should take responsibility for his actions and at the minimum pay child support. That's not in strict accordance to a let the guy choose! Oh, he chose when he had sex with the woman, but she didn't choose when she had sex with him?
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, @10:24PM (4 children)
You can't frame this as a men's rights issue. Don't even try.
If you're concerned about child support (a regressive system that is inherently sexist against men), then free access to abortion can help, yet that falls short of being a complete solution on its own. You're correct in bristling at the sex-negative puritan shit when it's applied against men in the context of child support, so you seek to apply pregnancy against women in retaliation by opposing abortion. Or perhaps it's not retaliation, but more like grasping at straws.
I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish. Child support should be abolished, and I'll be cheering you on if your mission is to repeal those laws. Attacking abortion is not the way.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:36PM (3 children)
No, I whole heartedly support the notion of Child Support. Even though, it can be abused in some cases.
What I'm saying is that people need to take responsibility for their actions.
Laws Against Abortion and laws for Child Support are societies' way to tell people to grow up. You don't want to have a kid, then don't have a kid. Get a procedure to get your tubes tied, a vasectomy, use birth control of various forms, etc. Just don't use abortion as your means of birth control or your lack of responsibility to make it seem ok not to support the child you helped create.
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 Friday May 04 2018, @02:12AM
Fair enough then. I disagree but don't feel like belaboring the point. How will we fund the orphanages?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @02:23AM
No, they're society's way of trying to get government thugs to force people to remain pregnant. Anyone who isn't a disgusting authoritarian opposes such laws.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday May 04 2018, @12:28PM
That logic wipes out the vast majority of medical interventions, by the way. A very high number, both medical and trauma - including virtually every traffic accident - can be laid at the feet of the individual seeking treatment.
Again, watch that mote you're looking for... the beam in your own will become apparent sooner or later.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 04 2018, @02:26AM
Or perhaps they should have the right to not play child support?
Children require support. If only there was some way to avoid that requirement....
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:58PM
And, for that matter, men should have a right to have babies [youtube.com] if they want them.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:27PM (2 children)
There are also plenty of people who take the line that every embryo gets a soul the moment the sperm enters the egg and that there are absolutely no justifications ever for destroying human life even upon rape of mother or that the mother should die because that is God's will too.
Not all those answers have to go together, but the number that would disagree with your statements outright [gallup.com] and say that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances appears to hover around 20 percent.
Those who are pushing have diversity of opinion also. The majority I'm aware of (and I may be wrong that it is a majority) feel that unless the fetus can survive on its own it is biologically integral to the mother and it is therefore the mother's choice and that of her healthcare provider and should not be anybody else's business what she decides. That is what is codified in Roe. "Some such nonsense," seems to indicate you should educate yourself as to what the law is - I believe you do not understand what the decision actually specifies nor the reasons behind them. And the history of what happened in periods when abortion was illegal: Hint - they still happened and often took the mother's life also due to lack of knowledge regarding safety.
Roe certainly can be updated to reflect what modern medicine knows about survival and viability rates.
The rationale of the court, if overturned, can come and poke you in the behind as well: If the law can intervene and say that a woman's right to pursue the care she chooses is not legal you open the door for state interference with your own healthcare on any number of grounds it deems compelling. No, you can't have a _____ procedure if your weight is over thus-and-such. A smoker is not entitled to care for his or her lungs. Are you prepared to have the government tell YOU that YOU can't have a certain procedure because the Peepul have decided that a Higher Calling Exists which means you can't have it? Be careful.
And my apologies if any of the above offended you.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:39PM (1 child)
Please note the same source also shows that there's even a higher percentage that believe it should be legal under any circumstance.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx [gallup.com]
While the majority of people (let's call them rational people) think it should be legal only under certain circumstances.
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 All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday May 04 2018, @12:23PM
Let's not call them rational people, as you have no foundation to do so. The majority of people are not necessarily rational nor educated. (Educated not meaning having attended enough school. Rather meaning having taken the time to both study things like ethics, standards of medical care, biology, and any other relevant fields to the question. Also in the sense that they have quietly and deliberately taken time to think through the issue on their own initiate and come to a moral conclusion.) Let's call that a majority of people. A mob.
Just because a majority of people believe something does not make it right, especially when considering a decision that applies to a minority of people. I'm not saying that community is unimportant, either - I've posted before that there are times when community standards may indeed override individual choice and it is right to do so in those circumstances. In this case, however, it is interference with an inidividual's right to choose a course of treatment. One done in the belief that the developing fetus has rights even though it has zero chance of survival outside the biological envelope of the mother, and with taken with absolutely no consideration of the developmental physiology involved. Sperm hit the egg and it's a person now!
Since you didn't respond to anything I said about viability, dependent survivability, and patient-provider confidentiality and autonomy that you feel the state can just dictate to you whatever it chooses about what medical treatments you may have for yourself. It implies the converse, dictating to the medical profession what it may and may not do - which is a legitimate circumscription but broadens the scope of it considerably in an alarming fashion. Enjoy that universe! Me, I'm glad I don't live in Iowa now.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:27PM (1 child)
Where do you come up with this horse shit? You need to turn off Faux News. That shit's rotting your brain.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Freeman on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:42PM
I haven't watched Fox News or any other media circus for quite some time. Instead, I get all of my interesting news through Soylent News! Though, they can be riot sometimes.
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 bzipitidoo on Friday May 04 2018, @05:12PM
This story pains me in another way. The Midwest was a practical, unpretentious, reasonably prosperous region that valued education and knowledge. Iowa has a reputation for having some of the best schools and tests in the nation.
The farmers went to church every Sunday, but weren't fanatic and reactionary about it. Church was not evangelical, it was social. And they were most definitely realists about life, and had a very low opinion of any city slicker moralizing to them, telling them how to run their farms morally or ethically, no matter which extreme they are coming from, PETA or religious fundamentalism. You raise livestock to milk and eat them. Cows give birth in the spring, and the farmers would manage everything about it. Don't want to lose any cows or calves if a little veterinary intervention will save them. Long before that, they would be pretty careful about the breeding. For instance, don't let a large breed of bull mate with a small breed of cow, or come spring that cow is going to have a rough time giving birth because the calf is just too big. She will need help, and lots of it.
To see the Midwest sink into this religious fundamentalist bullcrap is sickening. They've been hurting for a long time now, farms consolidated and most farmers forced out of the business. I don't doubt that's made them more socially conservative. They don't need to waste resources on this stupid legal challenge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @05:40PM
your "belly fruit" is not my responsibility. nor are your kids. i'm not responsible for feeding or educating them and i'm not going to second guess your parenting through some government piece of shit either. that one line in the bible about abortion and nations that is taken very literally, notwithstanding.