Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Louisiana House approves bill banning abortions after 20 weeks
Reuters ^ | 6/01/12 | Kathy Finn

Posted on 06/03/2012 5:02:08 PM PDT by Libloather

Louisiana House approves bill banning abortions after 20 weeks
By Kathy Finn
Fri Jun 1, 2012 7:50pm EDT

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - The Louisiana state House of Representatives on Friday unanimously approved a bill that would prohibit abortion beyond 20 weeks after fertilization unless the mother's life is in danger.

Georgia a month ago became the seventh state to ban most or all abortions after 20 weeks. Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska and North Carolina also have such restrictions.

Under the Louisiana measure, doctors who violate the 20-week provision could face up to two years in prison.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama; US: Georgia; US: Idaho; US: Indiana; US: Kansas; US: Louisiana; US: Nebraska; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortions; al; alabama; ban; deathpanels; ga; georgia; house; id; idaho; in; indiana; kansas; louisiana; nebraska; northcarolina; obamacare; zerocare
Baby steps.
1 posted on 06/03/2012 5:02:21 PM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Why not pass a law where it would be okay to Murder a person who in under 20 years old, but against the law to murder someone who is older than 20?


2 posted on 06/03/2012 5:07:20 PM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; wagglebee; narses; Salvation

Heading to the Surpeme Court. Incidentally, whoever wins the 2102 Presidential election will be appointing new justices.


3 posted on 06/03/2012 5:09:23 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Obama and Company lied, the American economy died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Don’t forget Arizona as well.


4 posted on 06/03/2012 5:15:00 PM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The libs will find a lib judge to declare it unconstitutional before the ink dries on the bill.


5 posted on 06/03/2012 5:27:39 PM PDT by HChampagne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

Falwell once said, “if hijackers have a plane on the tarmac with all the passengers hostages, and are willing to let some of the hostages go right now, you accept what you can get from them now and try to get the rest out later”.

He said that in answer to a question how could he support a law that would outlaw abortion except in the cases of rape and incest.

It’s a good principle and I think it applies here. This is the law they can get in Louisiana right now. Should pro-life people reject this law and hold out for all the hostages or nothing?


6 posted on 06/03/2012 5:27:54 PM PDT by samtheman (select environmentalists with clue > 0 .... Result set: no rows returned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
It’s a good principle and I think it applies here. This is the law they can get in Louisiana right now. Should pro-life people reject this law and hold out for all the hostages or nothing?

Get what you can get when you can get it.

Then, go to work on the rest.

It is this practice of incrementalism that has allowed the left to gain so much ground over the past sixty years.

It is the policy of "a whole loaf or none at all" that has kept conservatives from advancing their agenda to any important degree.

7 posted on 06/03/2012 5:35:10 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Thank God for Romney. We can be sure that he’ll appoint conservatives just like he did in MA. :barf:


8 posted on 06/03/2012 5:51:27 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Absolutely. Swing for the fences, and take the walk when offered. It’s not an ‘either/or’ situation.


9 posted on 06/03/2012 6:07:26 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

We will be hearing the usual squawk from the commie donks.

Dark allies and coat-hangers, chained to the kitchen barefoot, etc.

All too predictable...

.


10 posted on 06/03/2012 6:09:16 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Exactly. The left is content to make slow gains over time, block by block, store-front by store-front.

We are more inclined to demand all-or-nothing... and usually nothing comes of our demands... and the left continues its slow progressive march forward.


11 posted on 06/03/2012 6:48:22 PM PDT by samtheman (select environmentalists with clue > 0 .... Result set: no rows returned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

Watch it. Humanism’s bio-ethics “experts” are advocating the right of parents to murder their children in their first year if they don’t want them.


12 posted on 06/03/2012 7:17:41 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

Because a law making it illegal to murder both those under 20 years old and those over 20 years old wouldn’t get struck down by the courts.

A state can pass a law banning abortion from the moment life begins (i.e., fertilization), but it would be struck down immediately and babies would continue to get murdered in the womb up to the 9th month of gestation, which would save 0 lives. Or a state can pass a law banning abortion after 20 weeks, which would have a good chance of being upheld and would save the lives of countless babies; such law would also set the stage for the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, after which a state could indeed pass the law that you and I both recognize is the only moral alternative in a perfect world (one that prohibits the intentional taking of an innocent human life, except for self-defense, from conception until natural death). Sitting back and denigrating every pro-life law as “insufficiently pro-life” won’t save any babies, and it won’t bring about the overturning of Roe any sooner. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good, particularly when babies’ lives are at stake.

After the post-20-week bans are upheld by SCOTUS, we can try for a post-10-week ban, or, if a conservative replaces Kennedy or one of the 4 liberal Justices, we can go for the outright ban. But right now, we’ve got to take what we can get.


13 posted on 06/03/2012 9:54:44 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: okie01; samtheman
I'm with you guys. Half a loaf is better. And there is also a more subtle benefit. If this bill is upheld, we have an absurd situation. Is an unborn child 20 weeks old a person, while one 19 weeks 6 days 23 hours old is a mere blob of cells?

This imaginary line, like any other, is indefensible. There is only one bright line in the entire human lifespan, the line drawn by Nature (or, if you will, Nature's God) at the moment of conception. Everything that follows is a continuum.

And the more people realize this, the closer we are to the goal worthy of our historic Republic: the equal protection of the laws for all, born or unborn. No ifs, ands, buts, or penumbras.

14 posted on 06/04/2012 1:00:30 AM PDT by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson