Skip to comments.Arizona Governor Signs Bill Banning Abortions After 20 Weeks
Posted on 04/13/2012 5:40:09 AM PDT by Wpin
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a pro-life bill into law today to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
House members passed the bill by a 37-22 vote and abortions after that time period would not be allowed except in very rare cases of medical emergency. The bill also requires abortion facilities to allow women to have an ultrasound of their unborn baby at least 24 hours prior to having the abortion. In many cases women change their minds about a planned abortion after seeing the images of their developing child.
Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest commended Brewer and called the bill a life-protecting bill designed to ensure that women dont suffer from the risks of a dangerous, late-term procedure. She said Arizona is the first state in the country to enact a late-term ban based on concerns over protecting womens health by demonstrating that abortion is not only bad for the unborn child, it is also bad for women.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Sorry, but we live in a constitutional republic, not a judicial oligarchy.
We won't get "perfect" until the people of this country, starting with the Christians, DEMAND that ALL officers, in every branch, at every level, keep the first and most important part of their oath, which is to provide equal protection for the lives of every innocent person within their jurisdiction. And that every officer of government who will not keep the first and most important part of their oath have abdicated any legitimacy to govern anyone, and must be removed by any and all constitutional means.
You’re fooling yourself if you think you have enough power or perspective to play incremental games with evil.
Compromise with evil and you’ve already lost.
No one is fooled here and no one is compromising a single thing.
We are moving the ball toward the goal line here. This is how you win the hearts and minds of the majority.
The next step would be a law, for example, outlawing abortions after the presence of brain waves in the fetus. This happens after 6-8 weeks.
The laws passed by different states then begin to support one another. Soon some state will ban abortions altogether, more will follow, then under the right conditions, a national law could pass and not be overturned.
But it has to be done one step at a time. That is how things realistically get done.
Pray without ceasing.
No. The Constitution belongs to the people of the United States, not to the lawyers and politicians.
-- Joseph Story, Constitution (5th ed.) 345, SS 451.
"Every word employed in the Constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, rounded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. THE PEOPLE MAKE THEM, THE PEOPLE ADOPT THEM, THE PEOPLE MUST BE SUPPOSED TO READ THEM, WITH THE HELP OF COMMON-SENSE, and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning or any extraordinary gloss."
-- Joseph Story, Constitution (5th ed.) 345, SS 451.
And every officer of government is required to support the Constitution, not just judges.
-- Article VI, the United States Constitution
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
-- Article VI, the United States Constitution
You might want to explain how you think all those officers of the various branches, at all levels, can possibly keep their own oath if they can't decide what the Constitution means, that only judges somehow have such ability and authority.
Landlords aren’t allowed to murder their tenants.
That’s the parallel.
all or nothing means you get nothing.
you have to think this out to the logical extension.
At 20 weeks it is high risk so outlawed. (if the courts uphold it)
Then how can science reduce pregnancy rist to take that to 19? 18?
what if the fetus can be safely removed is a lesser risk than an abortion? Suddenly you start to shift the debate.
the science is the key, thumping religious posturing only ends up abdicating the field to the pro-abortion crowd.
Mitt Romney, the de facto nominee of the Republican party, is pro-abortion. So, it's unsurprising that abortion is advocated in Republican and nominally conservative circles. I doubt that what is left of the pro-life plank in the Republican platform would survive a Romney presidency.
Your definition of ‘eviction’ apparently means that the landlord murders the tenant, drags his corpse out of the house and dumps his lifeless body in the most convenient dumpster. You must not be using Webster.
No, you're not. You're advocating for legislation that sacrifices every decent moral, constitutional and legal argument against the practice of abortion. That is an advancement of the ball for those who hate the first principles of this republic and would like to drive those principles completely out of American public life and American jurisprudence.
This is how you win the hearts and minds of the majority.
No, you don't win the hearts and minds of anyone by sacrificing every decent moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion. You signal to the people that you don't even understand the fundamentals of what you're dealing with. Ignorant and unprincipled "leaders" aren't going to lead the people anywhere good. It's the blind leading the blind.
You actually win hearts and minds in a way that matters by steadfastly standing for what is true and right, and "legal" in the true sense.
Read about William Wilberforce's efforts to ban the slave trade in the British empire. For years he played the incrementalist game, until he finally figured out that not only was it morally wrong, it simply doesn't work.
He changed his strategy and tactics to an unbending advocacy for liberty, and guess what? Slavery was banned. Without a civil war.
So you agree with President Obama that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn laws?
Since you didn’t respond to my earlier questions, I will ask them again:
What actions do you propose to end abortion? Would you support actions that greatly reduce it (say by 90%) but didnt completely ban it, provided taking such actions did not preclude a total ban in the future?
Is it moral to refuse to save 10 innocent lives that you have the ability to save, because there are 10 others that you cannot save?
under the law tenants are alive, a fetus is not “living” and can be removed. not saying it is right just saying it is.
now if science can create a situation where a fetus can gestate OUTSIDE the body then you shift the debate.
Odd how religious groups never fund any hard research into this.
Without a moral basis there is absolutely no decent constitutional or legal argument against the practice of abortion. Because, without a moral basis there is no constitution or law. They're just dead letters.
In any case, here is my position on this in detail:
A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.
WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and
WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and
WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and
WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human persons physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and
WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;
THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.
The moment you get the immoral Roe vs Wade decision struck down, this law in AZ will become unimportant. Children will be protected in the womb from the moment of conception.
And if this law itself is struck down for not being Constitutional, then the Roe vs Wade decision will have been sidelined by history. The new X vs Y decision (whomever X and Y turn out to be) will dominate abortion jurisprudence from then on.
And in the meantime: some children in the womb are being protected BY THIS LAW from the current murderous misrepresentation of the Constitution.
As an added bonus: the noose can be tightened from here with reduced limits: 10 weeks, 5 weeks, 2 weeks, and so on.
A couple more Conservative judges and this all goes away. But until it does, Arizona is doing what it can to protect its children from murderous Federal overreach. Everything short of secession (though it may yet come to that).
Arizona has not enshrined child-murder into law any more than it is already enshrined in law: moreover Arizona is reducing the scope of the current toxic jurisprudence. This is a good thing.
The Supreme Court has the duty to follow the Constitution in every case that comes before it. If they refuse to follow the Constitution, the officers of the other branches have a sworn obligation to oppose them. It's really simple. It's called checks and balances. I'm surprised so many seem not to have heard of it.
What actions do you propose to end abortion?
There is only one way to end abortion, and that is for every officer of government, in every branch and at every level, to begin to perform the first obligation of their sacred oath, which is to provide equal protection for the God-given, unalienable right to life of every person within their lawful jurisdiction.
And again, if some officers refuse to do their first duty, they must be removed from office by the earliest and most efficient constitutional means at the people's disposal.
Would you support actions that greatly reduce it (say by 90%) but didnt completely ban it, provided taking such actions did not preclude a total ban in the future? Is it moral to refuse to save 10 innocent lives that you have the ability to save, because there are 10 others that you cannot save?
That's all moot, since we not only have the duty to save all, as is required by God, by nature, by the cornerstone principles of our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence, by every stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, and by its explicit, imperative provisions.
Ask yourself, why didn't this "pro-life" majority in AZ, with their "pro-life" possession of the Governor's mansion, simply outlaw the killing of innocent little persons in their state?
Again, you are making Utilitarian arguments, which never pan out in the real world anyhow. I'm making moral and constitutional arguments.
If the woman’s body is her “property” then the baby’s body is also its “property”.
A siren song we've been hearing for forty years. But it never seems to work out, unsurprisingly.
I know full well that oaths of office require allegiance to the Constitution, not to the prevailing interpretation by courts. But I’m not saying that AZ legislators should violate their oath. The AZ law does not say that babies of less than 20 weeks’ gestation may be aborted; it says that babies of over 20 weeks’ gestation may not be aborted.
Would you rather that AZ continue to have abortion-on-demand until the 40th week? Because that’s what you’d get if AZ passed a law banning all abortion from the moment of conception.
Simply not true.
It's been happening state by state for a decade now, driven by the unprincipled Romney Republicans at National Right to Life. It's also in the U.S. Code, put there by "pro-life" Republicans and signed into law by a Republican "pro-life" president, at the urging of the Romney Republicans at National Right to Life. Go look up the "Lacey Peterson" law. Like the legislation in question, it recognizes the personhood of the child, and then allows certain disfavored classes of said persons to be butchered by the abortionists. Immoral, unconstitutional.
Even the infamous Blackmun, in the majority Roe decision, admitted that if the child is a PERSON, they are "OF COURSE" protected by the explicit provisions of the U.S. Constitution. ALL of them.
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment."
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973
>>>Again, you are making Utilitarian arguments, which never pan out in the real world anyhow. I’m making moral and constitutional arguments.<<<
High minded, “moral” and “constitutional” arguments with no action behind them, and that condemn those who do take the actions they are able to take, are not only useless, but are immoral and sinful.
You are not interested in saving the lives of unborn children, but only pontificating and condemning those who are trying to save as many as they can.
They’re not saving any. All they are doing is assuring the continuation of abortion on demand.
But hey, they’ll have their fake credentials to raise more money and garner more votes for Republicans from naive, ignorant pro-lifers!