Skip to comments.Minnesota Bill Would Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks on Babies Who Feel Pain
Posted on 03/20/2014 9:20:30 PM PDT by Morgana
Legislation to stop abortions after the point at which the unborn child can feel pain was introduced in the Minnesota Senate today. The measure would prohibit the killing of innocent unborn children at 20 weeks from conception.
For far too long, Minnesotas abortionists have been inflicting unconscionable suffering on unborn babies by killing them when they are already extraordinarily developed and pain-sensitive, explained Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). It is illegal to treat animals in such a brutal way; this bill will finally protect unborn children at 20 weeks and older from the torturous pain of abortion.
ultrasound4d11The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, S.F. 2841 / H.F. 2927, is authored by Sen. Carrie Ruud, R-Breezy Point. The Senate measure is co-authored by Sen. Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville; Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake; Sen. Lyle Koenen, DFL-Clara City; and Sen. LeRoy Stumpf, DFL-Plummer. The initiative is modeled after a law first enacted in Nebraska in 2010 and subsequently by nine other states, which prohibits abortions after 20 weeks from conception. The legislation is different from an Arizona law that was challenged in court by the abortion industry and struck down last year.
Overwhelming anatomical, behavioral and physiological evidence confirms that the developing unborn child is capable of experiencing tremendous pain by 20 weeks post-fertilization. This evidence did not exist when the U.S. Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade decision removed all protections for unborn children and established abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.
The most common abortion procedure used at 20 weeks is dilation and evacuation (D & E), which involves dismembering the unborn child. The abortionist uses forceps to tear apart the fetus in the womb, and then reassembles the arms, legs, torso and head to ensure that no parts of the unborn childs body have been left inside the woman.
People on both sides of the abortion debate should agree that the gratuitous suffering of the unborn child is incompatible with a humane and civilized society, Fischbach said. MCCL calls upon all state legislators to support the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
Hard to believe—something FOR the nasty, rotten old non-human in mother’s womb???
Link to Minnesota legislators:
At any length of gestation, abortion should have the same societal acceptance as eating dogs.
Who the heck is this Minnesota Bill ?
I keep seeing his name time & time again.
He seems pretty powerful, but I can’t seem to find any photos of him.
Is he running for office ?
Does he hold office ?
Is he like George Soros and manipulates in the background ?
Is he related to Minnesota Fats ?
Is he related to Buffalo Bill ?
In any case, this guy sure causes a lot of trouble.
So it would be OK to kill a 36-week fetus if you used anesthesia?
They’ll resort to disconnecting their tiny little brain stems to support their agenda.
It’d be fitting if they had their own spinal cord removed, in an experiment and trials, to prove their theory..
It'd be fitting if they had their own spinal cord removed, in an experiment and trials, to prove their theory..
Don’t give the left any ideas PLEASE!
This 20 week timeframe approximates the concept of the quickening, which has a very long past, including Judaic and other ancient cultures.
The idea is that the child’s body is made ready to receive its soul, which then enters it and creates the fetus. Traditionally, this is indicated by the kicking of the child (the quickening). At that point, per ancient tradition, it is a human being, and killing it is murder.
We are at war. Against man-hating self-loathing raging fang-tooth feminazis who see a baby as patriarchal oppression.
I suspect the point of the specification of capable of experiencing pain is two-fold: first it fits with the little considered aspects of the actual decision in Roe v. Wade that actually (at least in theory) allow restrictions on abortion in cases where a compelling state interest overcomes the “right of privacy” that SCOTUS conjured out of the Constitution (as compelling state interests can allow limits even on explicitly enumerated rights), and second it provides an exception for later abortions in the case of anencephaly (which doubtless the pro-abortion side flogged as a counterargument to the measure).
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.