 |
| |
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Senate Passes Bill Limiting Abortion
By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 13, 2003; 11:55 AM
The Senate today overwhelmingly approved legislation to ban what critics describe as "partial birth" abortions, putting the measure on track for enactment -- and a court test -- after an eight-year struggle between opposing camps in the broader fight over abortion restrictions.
The vote was 64-33, with 16 Democrats joining 48 Republicans in support of the bill and 29 Democrats, three Republicans and one independent opposing it.
President Bush, who had made passage of the measure one of his top legislative priorities, hailed the Senate action. "Partial birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity. . . . Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of life in America," he said in a statement.
House passage is considered a virtual certainty. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's constitution subcommittee, said the subcommittee will take up the bill by the end of the month and predicted the House will act on it by the end of April.
But abortion rights forces have vowed to challenge the abortion restriction in federal court, arguing that, despite some changes by its sponsors, it still fails to address faults that the Supreme Court found three years ago in a Nebraska law outlawing the procedure.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), seeks to bar doctors from committing an "overt act" to kill a partially delivered fetus. It would cover situations where "the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."
The bill's opponents contend it still runs afoul of the Supreme Court ruling on several grounds, including the lack of provisions to protect a woman's health. Santorum argued that the bill is now constitutional and says it addresses the health issue by declaring that the procedure is never necessary for health reasons.
Thirty-one states have passed statutes banning the procedure, but many have not taken effect because of injunctions, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service.
Both the Senate and House have approved a ban on the controversial procedure in the past, but it was either vetoed by President Clinton or sidetracked because of the ruling in the Nebraska case.
Win or lose in the courts, the prospect of congressional enactment amounts to a political victory for anti-abortion forces, who concentrated their fire on the partial-birth procedure in recent years as their best target to chip away at abortion rights asserted in the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. They cited it as an especially gruesome procedure, a strategy that proved effective in gaining the votes of some senators who regard themselves as abortion rights supporters.
In the only victory for abortion rights forces during three days of debate on the measure, the Senate approved a non-binding resolution endorsing the Roe decision and urging that it not be overturned. Santorum predicted that Roe language will be dropped from the final version of the bill.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company |
This is terrible. The Pro-Life camp has started down the slippery slope to spreading it's message of hypocrisy and self-righteous authoritarian "values". Although I think partial-birth abortions are wrong, it's not the governments' place to place a law against them. I could understand if millions of partial-birth abortions were taking place. But my suspicion is that not many women in the middle of labor decide they want abortions. 
If anything, this crap will impede the doctor's ability to save a woman's life. Although I'm not aware of the specifics of this yet. This bill is only a stepping stone to the eventual outlaw of abortion.
There's more to come.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
It gets worse people....
quote:
5 Antiabortion Bills Advance in House
Va. Delegates Also Pass Vietnam Flag Bill
By Steven Ginsberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 1, 2003; Page B01
RICHMOND, Jan. 31 -- Virginia's House of Delegates approved a bill today that would allow health care workers to invoke a "conscience clause" if they wish to avoid participating in abortion or birth control procedures.
The measure was among five abortion limits that cleared various stages in the General Assembly, and activists on both sides of the issue said they were predicting a landmark year for abortion regulation in Virginia.
Bills that would bar a practice defined as "partial-birth infanticide," a late-term procedure commonly called "partial-birth abortion" by opponents; require parental consent for abortions; and remove a woman's mental health as a condition for allowing a late-term abortion all advanced toward final votes on the House floor.
The Senate's Education and Health Committee approved a parental consent bill for the first time. The one setback today for abortion opponents came when the committee failed to pass a bill that would have toughened the regulation of abortion clinics.
"We are very optimistic," said Victoria Cobb, director of legislative affairs for the Family Foundation, who said today was a "historic day in Virginia. We believe the voice of Virginians has been heard."
Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax), who voted against Thursday's late-term abortion bill and today's parental consent and clinic regulation bills, said "there's been nothing like this, this wave of anti-choice legislation." To become law, the bills must win approval in both chambers of the assembly and receive the signature of Gov. Mark R. Warner (D).
Meanwhile today, the House and Senate advanced many other bills as they approached the halfway point in their 46-day session. The House of Delegates passed a measure that would pay tribute to the flag of the defeated Republic of Vietnam.
Delegates also approved a bill that would require doctors to inform parents when minors seek treatment for such conditions as sexually transmitted diseases and depression.
The House Privileges and Elections Committee approved a measure that would permit Virginia's governor to run for successive terms, setting up a vote on the floor. Virginia is the only state that does not allow its governor to run for consecutive terms. If approved, the legislation would apply to governors elected after Warner.
The action on abortion issues in Virginia leads a nationwide push by abortion opponents to place new restrictions on the procedure, said Leah Oliver, a policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. There are nearly 200 bills in 38 states seeking to restrict abortions, but none has as many as Virginia or has acted as quickly, Oliver said.
Abortion opponents in Maryland say they hope to advance some restrictions under Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). Ehrlich has said he would consider bills on the late-term procedure and parental consent, but he faces strong opposition in the General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats.
Many of Virginia's abortion bills have been proposed before, and anti-abortion activists attributed their success this year to strong efforts by interest groups and lawmakers.
Those working to limit abortions also have been aided by last year's election of several antiabortion legislators and more supportive representation on the Health and Education Committee.
Lobbyists said legislators are mindful of those election successes as they look forward to this November, when all 140 assembly seats will be on the ballot. "They are more sensitive in an election year," Cobb said.
Supporters of the conscience clause said it would allow physicians, pharmacists and other health care professionals to opt out of providing birth control pills, morning-after pills or other medicine that they see as a form of murder.
The bill's opponents worried about what a rural resident would do if her pharmacist wouldn't fill a prescription for medication, particularly morning-after pills that could let her avoid a surgical abortion.
In brief but passionate debate on the floor of the House, supporters of a parental consent bill said it was one of "the most significant to ever come before the assembly," while others said a ban on the late-term procedure would help to stop the "killing" that occurs in Virginia.
Supporters of parental consent said it would ensure that parents have a greater say in the health and safety of their daughters. The Senate version includes a provision that allows minors to obtain consent from a judge if their parents refuse to allow an abortion.
Opponents said a consent law would lead to back-alley abortions for those afraid to tell their parents that they were pregnant.
Warner vetoed a late-term ban last year, and he has signaled his intent to do so again unless it allows exceptions for the health of a mother, which the assembly versions do not. He also said Thursday that he opposed the consent bill.
The Senate narrowly upheld Warner's late-term veto last year, but abortion opponents said they believe they have the votes to override one this year.
Despite the possibility of several new restrictions, abortion rights activists were pleased with the defeat of the clinic regulation bill, because they said its tough regulations would have forced most abortion clinics to close.
"It was the most important vote in the General Assembly so far on whether abortion rights would still be available to the women of Virginia," said Bennet Greenberg, director of government relations at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, an abortion rights group.
Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax), sponsor of the bill, said he would try to "come up with an alternate scheme that would improve the health and safety in those clinics. It can be done, and it can be done in this session."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company |
This is terrible. In this next round of bills, there is a piece that allows doctors to violate the doctor-patient privilage in order to inform the parents of minors that they have been treated for STD's.
What's next? Is Bush going to form a new sector of law-enforcement called the "Pregnancy Police"? They go around making sure women that are pregnant, stay pregnant. Or else they get charged with murder.
This isn't about the morality of abortion, it's about the government taking away the right for woman, parents, and doctors to make those decisions for themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
i don't see it like that all, you can't distort this into banning all abortions
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Did you read the second article? |
virginia's messed up. *shrug*
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-03-2003 02:11
Hey without nuts like me, there wouldn't be any freedoms at all.
|