Skip to comments.Arkansas Legislature Overrides Gov. Beebe's Veto of 20-Week Abortion Ban
Posted on 03/01/2013 2:19:07 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Arkansas state legislators voted to override Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe's veto of a bill that will ban abortions in the state at 20 weeks, unless the woman is a victim of rape, incest or her life is at risk due to a medical emergency.
On Wednesday, the override passed the House with 53 votes, which included all 51 Republicans and two Democrats. The bill then moved to the Senate floor on Thursday, where it received 19 Republican votes to complete the override.
In Arkansas, legislators can override a governor's veto by a simple majority, which is 51 votes in the House and 18 votes in the Senate. During this legislative session, Republicans have a slight majority in the House, holding 51 of the 100 seats, and in the Senate, where they hold 21 of the 35 seats.
Rep. Andy Mayberry (R-Hensley), the sponsor of HB 1037, "an act to create the pain-capable unborn child protection act and to declare an emergency," told The Christian Post that he's happy about the outcome. "I am certainly pleased that the Arkansas General Assembly chose to override the veto of this life-preserving bill that reflects the pro-life values of the people of this state," Mayberry said. "This is a good law that I believe will hold up under constitutional and judicial scrutiny. Most importantly, it will save innocent babies who are capable of feeling pain from suffering a horrific, painful death."
Mayberry told CP that under the current Arkansas law, abortions can be performed up-to 25 weeks. He also added that an abortion can be performed up-to 40 weeks, if a doctor says that a baby is not viable, or if the mother faces a medical emergency.
Beebe, who vetoed HB 1037 earlier this week, said in his veto letter that he's concerned about legal costs the state could incur if an outside organization decides to challenge the constitutionality of the bill.
"In the last case in which the constitutionality of an Arkansas abortion statute was challenged, Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Jegley (1999), the state was ordered to pay the prevailing plaintiffs and their attorneys nearly $119,000 for work in the trial court, and an additional $28,900 for work on the state's unsuccessful appeal," said Beebe.
According to Mayberry, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has claimed that they will challenge the law. "I'm not sure what they would gain," said Mayberry who added that the Arkansas law is based on similar legislation that passed in Nebraska and has not been challenged since it became law in October 2010.
Expect good things from the state of Arkansas. Beebee is irrelevant.
The constitutional criteria for protection is whether or not it is a person, not whether or not they can feel pain.
The legislation is immoral and unconstitutional.
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Not that it will change anything.
You KNOW that Planned Parenthood won’t abide by these laws or laws about reporting statutory rape or laws about notifying parents.
What I never understand is the exception for rape or incest, the baby should die?
No the issue of heath of the mother is bogus, that can be anything.
If the issue is, will the mother die if the pregnancy is not terminated, that’s different but every effort should be made to save both.
My nice’s baby was born at 25 weeks 3 days (the best they could determine). It was really weird she had had successful pregnancies in the past put her blood pressure was dropping then shooting up, heart rate was wildly fluctuating....she was monitored complete bed rest...gave her some kind of shots (to help lung development).
Anyway, she would not connect to a C-Section unless they swore they would try and save the baby.
Little guy had his tenth birthday last month.
A Jewell among men.
Ok, that was a long way to ask the question why do these babies died because of the circumstances of their conception.
It’s a start. If the courts don’t throw it out, it’ll save some babies. That’s ultimately what we want. The governor was overridden with the slimmest margin. I morally and philosophically pure bill would have been defeated and babies would continue to die.
Because it wouldn’t have passed without that language intact. Once they get a decent AG and a decent Governor they’ll go for better legislation.
We’re long past due for some executive action on abortion, but since we’ll never get that, we have to take what we can get legislatively.
No, it won’t. When you give up the principle of equal protection of every innocent life you’ve stacked arms right up front.
I disagree that it won’t save babies. I agree that we can’t give up equal protection for all humans. I don’t think this legislation does that. This is overt incrementalism. Beebee knows that and that’s why he vetoed. They could have done nothing and allowed 22 week old babies to be murdered, or passed this legislation. Those were their options.
They need decent state-wide leadership. Which I think they’ll get. This is the first time in 100 years Arkansas has conservatives leading both houses. Obama has turned that state red. I know people in that capital and they’re true conservatives.
"Mr. Candidate, do you believe that a thirteen year old girl who is raped by her uncle should be required by law to carry that child to term and bear it? Yes or no, sir???"
This legislation does do that though.
All it really accomplishes is to further codify the allowance of the violation of the equal right to life of certain classes of disfavored human persons.
Which is actually worse than what Blackmun did in Roe.
As I said before, immoral and completely unconstitutional.
Back then, the abolitionists didn't hesitate to help as many slaves as they could to escape or to buy their families' freedom.
One thing they did not do is stick their noses righteously in the air and declaim that not one single slave should be freed until they all could be.
The candidate should say “She didnt have a whistle?”
That is true.
Leaving those exceptions at least eliminates 97% of abortions - that is a start.
What would you have done? In the end, we’re not trying to win and argument. We’re trying to save lives. Would you have authored a bill that wouldn’t have made it out of committee?
Your principal is correct, and should be the goal, but we have to start somewhere. Look at the commies, they’ve worked for decades to get us where we are now.
The problem isn’t with “saving some.” It’s with writing legislation that embeds explicit “legal” permission to kill some or most.
That is going to be the case.
The pro-life community needs to learn how to answer it, by turning the question into, does the child deserve to die because of the circumstances of their conception (or some sort of answer)
You probably can come with something better, I am sure.
I still do not beleive the child deserves to die.
Here in my state we, through the auspices of my state representative, have offered legislation that provides equal protection for all persons, as the Constitution explicitly and imperatively requires.
Because of the years of “pro-life” legislators’ encoding of “law” that allows the killing of some classes of human beings, this clean, constitutional legislation had to include the stripping out of large portions of the existing code.
I agree with you. It's a start.
“The constitutional criteria for protection is whether or not it is a person, not whether or not they can feel pain.
The legislation is immoral and unconstitutional.”
True. But the status quo ante is even worse. I’ll take the baby steps.