Alabama abortion ban: Nation’s strictest abortion bill passes; no rape, incest exceptions

May 15, 2019, 09:37 AM

chellim1

quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
I'm only addressing this from a political perspective...

This will galvanize the left and every race will be a referendum on abortion now - every debate, every time a candidate gets in front of a microphone the question will be where do they stand on abortion.

To a certain extent, that is true. It's long been a nightmare issue for conservative politicians, just ask Todd Akin. Putting it before the Supreme Court does intensify the issue. But that's not where it should ultimately be decided.

This illustrates all the more why it should be returned to being a State issue, not a national issue. If I'm running for a State legislature position, I'm going to be in tune with my local district. It won't hurt me politically. If I'm running for US Congress, or Senate I will say "I'm running for Federal office, that's a State issue. I'm opposed to a one-sized solution, imposed on all, whether it's a Human Life Amendment or federal protection or funding of abortion"

We won't have peace until the law reflects the local mores of the people who must live under the law.

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor

May 15, 2019, 09:43 AM

RHINOWSO

quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
I'm only addressing this from a political perspective.

Terrible move to give the democrats something to run on and something to rally around.

They've been running in circles with no direction, unable to lay a glove on Trump and nothing to run on with the economy running at a record pace.

This will galvanize the left and every race will be a referendum on abortion now - every debate, every time a candidate gets in front of a microphone the question will be where do they stand on abortion.

I think a potential flip side of the coin is the Lefts rabid embrace of the really late term abortions - even lots of Pro-Choice people are really really against that.

So say that it's legal to wake up one morning, not want a baby at 8.5 months pregnant and abort it is lunacy; if it was delivered that day it would be fine and viable. And I'm not a die hard or even firm Pro-Lifer, but that is just lunacy.

Maybe if we start calling all school shootings just 'really really late term, large scale abortions', then maybe the left will drop the gun control rhetoric?

May 15, 2019, 09:53 AM

FiveFiveSixFan

I'm not sure how disallowing an amendment which would have inserted rape and incest exceptions can be viewed as a good thing.

May 15, 2019, 10:03 AM

jaaron11

quote:
Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
I'm not sure how disallowing an amendment which would have inserted rape and incest exceptions can be viewed as a good thing.

The whole point of the Alabama bill, as stated openly by its authors, is to establish the "personhood" of a fetus. Exceptions for rape or incest muddy the waters (i.e. it's a person, unless we don't like how it was created) and negate the entire point of the bill. This bill is intended to support a Supreme Court challenge to Roe vs. Wade and was crafted to provide the best possible argument for that purpose.

I've never understood the rape or incest exceptions anyway. How is it the baby's fault how it was created?

May 15, 2019, 10:10 AM

zipriderson

quote:
Originally posted by jaaron11:
quote:
Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
I'm not sure how disallowing an amendment which would have inserted rape and incest exceptions can be viewed as a good thing.
The whole point of the Alabama bill, as stated openly by its authors, is to establish the "personhood" of a fetus. Exceptions for rape or incest muddy the waters (i.e. it's a person, unless we don't like how it was created) and negate the entire point of the bill. This bill is intended to support a Supreme Court challenge to Roe vs. Wade and was crafted to provide the best possible argument for that purpose.

I've never understood the rape or incest exceptions anyway. How is it the baby's fault how it was created?

There's got to be some fair balance of practicality with one's strict moral stance, no? The Supreme Court has shown lately that it'll rule not only on a Constitutional basis, but on what is practical, and what achieves a desired outcome.

May 15, 2019, 10:11 AM

justjoe

quote:
I think a potential flip side of the coin is the Lefts rabid embrace of the really late term abortions - even lots of Pro-Choice people are really really against that.

The left always overreaches, on everything. They are by nature extremists, ultimately wanting total power, so they know no limits. The governor of Virginia saying that a baby could be "kept comfortable" and then, on the mother's decision, be killed-- that turns the stomach of even some who are pro abortion. I know it turns my stomach.

May 15, 2019, 10:15 AM

Rigby470

quote:
Originally posted by jaaron11:
quote:
Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
I'm not sure how disallowing an amendment which would have inserted rape and incest exceptions can be viewed as a good thing.
The whole point of the Alabama bill, as stated openly by its authors, is to establish the "personhood" of a fetus. Exceptions for rape or incest muddy the waters (i.e. it's a person, unless we don't like how it was created) and negate the entire point of the bill. This bill is intended to support a Supreme Court challenge to Roe vs. Wade and was crafted to provide the best possible argument for that purpose.

I've never understood the rape or incest exceptions anyway. How is it the baby's fault how it was created?

Exactly. I'm in complete agreement and I'm thankful the tide seems to be shifting on this issue and people seeing it for what it really is--the murder of the most innocent. I'm also thankful the writers had the foresight to craft a bill that could potentially reverse Roe v. Wade. Hopeful. . .

May 15, 2019, 10:17 AM

ensigmatic

quote:
Originally posted by justjoe:
The left always overreaches, on everything. They are by nature extremists, ...

The right does the same, as evidenced by this bill.

I don't believe in unfettered abortion, but if any representative of mine voted for something this extreme they'd never see another vote from me.

May 15, 2019, 10:33 AM

jaaron11

quote:
Originally posted by zipriderson:
quote:
Originally posted by jaaron11:
quote:
Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
I'm not sure how disallowing an amendment which would have inserted rape and incest exceptions can be viewed as a good thing.
The whole point of the Alabama bill, as stated openly by its authors, is to establish the "personhood" of a fetus. Exceptions for rape or incest muddy the waters (i.e. it's a person, unless we don't like how it was created) and negate the entire point of the bill. This bill is intended to support a Supreme Court challenge to Roe vs. Wade and was crafted to provide the best possible argument for that purpose.

I've never understood the rape or incest exceptions anyway. How is it the baby's fault how it was created?

There's got to be some fair balance of practicality with one's strict moral stance, no? The Supreme Court has shown lately that it'll rule not only on a Constitutional basis, but on what is practical, and what achieves a desired outcome.

That last sentence bothers me. I don't disagree with what you said, but the Supreme Court should have no desired outcome other than the protection of the Constitution. I know that's not reality, but altruism brings a certain blind comfort with it.

Yes, blind moral legalism has to be tempered in some cases by common sense. Jesus taught that principle when the Pharisees accused him of breaking the Sabbath law to not work by healing (Mark 3:1-6). Blind legalism does no favors. But the heart behind the morality doesn't change. In the abortion case, the moral standard to not commit murder is the guiding principle. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. For example, the Alabama bill allows for abortion when the mother's life is in danger. The real debate is where those "common sense" exceptions are valid. I think most (hopefully all) would agree that a mother's life is equal to a baby's life. But is the avoidance of hardship for a mother equal to a baby's life? Those are the questions the courts are going to have to grapple with.

May 15, 2019, 11:18 AM

Skins2881

quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
I'm only addressing this from a political perspective...

This will galvanize the left and every race will be a referendum on abortion now - every debate, every time a candidate gets in front of a microphone the question will be where do they stand on abortion.

To a certain extent, that is true. It's long been a nightmare issue for conservative politicians, just ask Todd Akin. Putting it before the Supreme Court does intensify the issue. But that's not where it should ultimately be decided.

This illustrates all the more why it should be returned to being a State issue, not a national issue. If I'm running for a State legislature position, I'm going to be in tune with my local district. It won't hurt me politically. If I'm running for US Congress, or Senate I will say "I'm running for Federal office, that's a State issue. I'm opposed to a one-sized solution, imposed on all, whether it's a Human Life Amendment or federal protection or funding of abortion"

We won't have peace until the law reflects the local mores of the people who must live under the law.

This ∆∆∆

I'm anti abortion, but not pro-life either. I want my state to determine on a local level, it is different in Alabama than New York, so why not leave it to the voters? Additionally the ability to "survive outside the womb" is different in NYC and Montgomery Alabama, there's no Mount Sinai Hospital in AL. A child born prematurely, aborted, or induced can live at earlier stages of development in richer cities.

I've read the Constitution before, it's been a while since I did, does anybody know what section contains the section in the recognizing the right to kill a baby?

May 15, 2019, 11:27 AM

rusbro

quote:
Originally posted by jaaron11:
quote:
Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
I'm not sure how disallowing an amendment which would have inserted rape and incest exceptions can be viewed as a good thing.
The whole point of the Alabama bill, as stated openly by its authors, is to establish the "personhood" of a fetus.

I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but I can't see how they'd win that argument in court. That being said, to me "personhood" is the crux of the whole thing, and that discussion is mostly ignored in public debate. When, in the eyes of the law, should a developing fetus be considered to have become a person? For me it's clearly not a the moment of fertilization, but clearly also well before full term. I wish more public figures would openly debate personhood, based on our best understanding of fetal development.

Instead, the way it's framed is if you are pro-life, you therefore must oppose even all first-term abortions, and if you're pro-choice, you must support abortion up until the moment just before the baby is fully delivered. To me both positions aren't legally nor morally defensible.

May 15, 2019, 11:44 AM

zipriderson

quote:
I wish more public figures would openly debate personhood, based on our best understanding of fetal development.

Ben Shapiro does a good job of this.

May 15, 2019, 11:53 AM

Bluecobra

quote:

I'm anti abortion, but not pro-life either. I want my state to determine on a local level, it is different in Alabama than New York, so why not leave it to the voters? Additionally the ability to "survive outside the womb" is different in NYC and Montgomery Alabama, there's no Mount Sinai Hospital in AL. A child born prematurely, aborted, or induced can live at earlier stages of development in richer cities.

I've read the Constitution before, it's been a while since I did, does anybody know what section contains the section in the recognizing the right to kill a baby?

Just an FYI - we have excellent healthcare in parts of AL, probably better than in much of NY or VA. Don't fall for the stereotype.

May 15, 2019, 11:56 AM

Balzé Halzé

quote:
Originally posted by arcwelder76:
quote:
Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Of course I know what you mean by "survive outside the womb," but the fact of the matter is that no baby can survive outside of the womb without his or her mother (or father or some caregiver).

Surviving outside the womb has an obvious meaning.

I know, hence the first part of my post.

I'm simply pointing out the nonsensical nature of saying that an abortion during the 1st trimester is ok but during the 3rd trimester is not. Or even saying that during the 3rd trimester is ok but during the first year after birth is not. I can't think of any logical argument that differentiates any of those instances if we are being honest with ourselves.

May 15, 2019, 11:58 AM

rusbro

quote:
Originally posted by zipriderson:
quote:
I wish more public figures would openly debate personhood, based on our best understanding of fetal development.

Ben Shapiro does a good job of this.

I'd argue that he doesn't, at least not in terms that I'm talking about. Everything I've heard from him argues that the fetus, from it's very beginning, is a human life, which technically I can kind of understand in that it's living cells and has unique, human DNA, but I've not heard him say it is at that point in time a person. A potential person, yes, but an actual person, I've not heard that from him. If yes, I'd like to know what his definition of a person is.

May 15, 2019, 12:01 PM

jhe888

quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
This demonstrates what happens when the Supreme Court legislates from the bench, taking tough social issues away from the States and the people through their elected representatives.

Abortion is a tough issue. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision didn't "solve" the issue. We've been fighting it ever since.

I'm personally pro-life but I see abortion (like many things) as a State's rights issue. Even though I'm pro-life I'm able to accept that the law in California or New York doesn't have to be the same as the law in Alabama or Missouri.

Our system of Federalism was designed to leave most of these issues to the States.

The doctrine of enumerated powers was crucial to the ratification debate. The Federalist Papers were written to convince skeptical electors and the delegates they sent to state ratifying conventions that the new constitution was necessary and, in particular, would not give the new federal government any more power than was absolutely necessary to carry out its responsibilities. The doctrine of enumerated powers—the main restraint on the new government—was most famously stated by James Madison (Federalist No. 45):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Notice those words: “few and defined.” The federal government was to have only limited responsibilities. Most power was to be left with the state governments. They were closer to the people who could then better control them.

http://rootsofliberty.org/the-...are-few-and-defined/

I agree on all the federalism points.

Here is what will happen:

The circuit court of appeals for Alabama will strike down this law, as it has to under Roe. The Supreme Court will not take it up, as they also believe Roe is the law and are not interested in revisiting it wholesale. This won't even put any part of abortion before the Supremes.

What might is one of the laws now that restricts abortion. A law banning second trimester abortions presents a question the Supremes might be interested in. A near total ban does not.

I know many think the conservative majority on the court means they are interested in overturning Roe. I, quite strongly, believe they are not.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,

May 15, 2019, 12:05 PM

Fed161

quote:
Originally posted by ensigmatic:
quote:
Originally posted by justjoe:
The left always overreaches, on everything. They are by nature extremists, ...

The right does the same, as evidenced by this bill.

I don't believe in unfettered abortion, but if any representative of mine voted for something this extreme they'd never see another vote from me.

Most people are conflicted on this issue and don't agree with either extreme.

May 15, 2019, 12:08 PM

HRK

quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
I'm only addressing this from a political perspective.

Terrible move to give the democrats something to run on and something to rally around.

They've been running in circles with no direction, unable to lay a glove on Trump and nothing to run on with the economy running at a record pace.

This will galvanize the left and every race will be a referendum on abortion now - every debate, every time a candidate gets in front of a microphone the question will be where do they stand on abortion.

My first thought as well, its setting a stage for a media push that may screw up 2020 elections in the house and senate for the R even if Trump wins POTUS again....

At least it will be another wild election

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HRK,

May 15, 2019, 12:22 PM

BamaJeepster

quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
I know many think the conservative majority on the court means they are interested in overturning Roe. I, quite strongly, believe they are not.

I agree with both you and chellim1 regarding the fact that it should be a state issue for voters to decide and the courts should not be involved.

Also agree that SCOTUS won't hear this case because I don't think there is a 'conservative' majority. At best it's a 4-3-2 court as it sits now. Four solid liberals, 3 solid conservatives and 2 swing votes who are more interested in the Court's institutional reputation than any legal theories. (Roberts and Kavanaugh- based on his rulings thus far).

I also think that the VAST majority of Americans favor a middle road on abortion and neither of the 2 extremes. None of the barbarous late term abortions, but also exceptions allowed for health, rape, incest, etc.

Keep in mind the media will be running this, so there haven't been and won't be any questions on post birth abortion - the self appointed 'Fact Checkers' have declared that to be false. The questions will all be 'Do you support women's rights' - and it will be the major focus of all the debates and interviews going into 2020 now.

May 15, 2019, 12:24 PM

ensigmatic

quote:
Originally posted by Fed161:
quote:
Originally posted by ensigmatic:
quote:
Originally posted by justjoe:
The left always overreaches, on everything. They are by nature extremists, ...

The right does the same, as evidenced by this bill.

I don't believe in unfettered abortion, but if any representative of mine voted for something this extreme they'd never see another vote from me.

Most people are conflicted on this issue and don't agree with either extreme.

I think it's true that many people are conflicted to one degree or another, but I expect it's more a case of "Most people have an opinion, but are inclined to let others live by their own precepts."

The extremists on one end are willing to allow what is essentially "abortion outside the womb" (aka: "after-" and "partial-birth abortion") while the other extreme would ban all abortion, regardless of any qualifiers.

I'd like to send the extremists on both sides of this issue some place hot and fiery.