North Dakota abortion law challenges Roe v. Wade

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#1
North Dakota governor approves 6-week abortion ban

By JAMES MacPHERSON | Associated Press – 15 mins ago

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed legislation Tuesday that that would make North Dakota the nation's most restrictive state on abortion rights, banning the procedure if a fetal heartbeat can be detected — something that can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

The Republican governor also signed into law another measure that would makes North Dakota the first to ban abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome, and a measure that requires a doctor who performs abortions to be a physician with hospital-admitting privileges.

The measures, which would take effect Aug. 1, are fueled in part by an attempt to close the state's sole abortion clinic in Fargo. Dalrymple, in a statement, said the so-called fetal heartbeat bill is a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

"Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade," Dalrymple said. "Because the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed state restrictions on the performing of abortions and because the Supreme Court has never considered this precise restriction ... the constitutionality of this measure is an open question."

Abortion-rights advocates have promised a legal fight that they say will be long, costly and unwinnable for the state.

Dalrymple's statement said the Legislature "should appropriate dollars for a litigation fund" before the session ends in early May.

Arkansas passed a 12-week ban earlier this month that prohibits most abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected using an abdominal ultrasound. That ban is scheduled to take effect 90 days after the Arkansas Legislature adjourns.

A fetal heartbeat can generally be detected earlier in a pregnancy using a vaginal ultrasound, but Arkansas lawmakers balked at requiring women seeking abortions to have the more invasive imaging technique.

North Dakota's legislation doesn't specify how a fetal heartbeat would be detected. Doctors performing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected could face a felony charge punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Women having an abortion would not face charges.

The legislation to ban abortions based on genetic defects also would ban abortion based on gender selection. The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion laws throughout the country, says Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma also have laws outlawing abortion based on gender selection.

The Republican-led North Dakota Legislature has endorsed a spate of anti-abortion Legislation this year. North Dakota lawmakers moved last week to outlaw abortion in the state by passing a resolution defining life as starting at conception, essentially banning abortion in the state. The measure is likely to come before voters in November 2014.

Representatives also endorsed another anti-abortion bills last week that is awaiting Dalrymple's signature. It would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed premise that fetuses feel pain at that point.

Dalrymple said the measure requiring abortion doctors to have hospital-admitting privileges also likely will be challenged in court.

"Nevertheless, it is a legitimate and new question for the courts regarding a precise restriction on doctors who perform abortions," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/north-dakota-governor-approves-6-week-abortion-ban-161115751.html
 

Haeder

South Dakota
Mar 30, 2005
5,890
4,058
608
#2
Doctors performing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected could face a felony charge punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Women having an abortion would not face charges.
1-If abortion is murder then why isn't the woman seeking an abortion punished? Doctors don't just go abortion-ing in public...at least I don't think they do. At least not in America.

2-How in the blue hell do they intend to catch people violating this law?
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,523
19,737
513
jersey
#5
I wish my brother could be aborted today, and he is 32.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,215
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#8
I pose this question to the pro-lifers:

Let's assume for a second that abortion is indeed murder. If someone is willing to murder their unborn child for the purposes of simple birth control, should that person really be breeding or responsible for a child in the first place?
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#9
I pose this question to the pro-lifers:

Let's assume for a second that abortion is indeed murder. If someone is willing to murder their unborn child for the purposes of simple birth control, should that person really be breeding or responsible for a child in the first place?
That one's easy, AH. No, such a person should be tortured for a confession, and the burned at the stake. Iz how religion rolls.
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
Oct 22, 2004
35,471
12,203
693
Ill Repute
#10
I pose this question to the pro-lifers:

Let's assume for a second that abortion is indeed murder. If someone is willing to murder their unborn child for the purposes of simple birth control, should that person really be breeding or responsible for a child in the first place?
Head assplosde.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#12
I pose this question to the pro-lifers:

Let's assume for a second that abortion is indeed murder. If someone is willing to murder their unborn child for the purposes of simple birth control, should that person really be breeding or responsible for a child in the first place?
Straw man.

Besides, there are no strict pro life people here. Only people sick of unelected assholes making law.
 

Chino Kapone

Yo, whats wrong wit da beer we got?
Jun 10, 2005
16,959
2,196
608
#13
Who cares? The state is all dudes anyway.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,082
3,006
258
Sunnydale
#15
I pose this question to the pro-lifers:

Let's assume for a second that abortion is indeed murder. If someone is willing to murder their unborn child for the purposes of simple birth control, should that person really be breeding or responsible for a child in the first place?
I would be fine with sterilization as a part of getting an abortion. If you are willing to kill a kid for your convenience, why should you ever be trusted to have a kid?
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#16
I would be fine with sterilization as a part of getting an abortion. If you are willing to kill a kid for your convenience, why should you ever be trusted to have a kid?
How about we start with overturning Roe and letting individual communities decide the issue for themselves? North Dakota isn't the same as San Francisco or Miami.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,215
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#17
How about we start with overturning Roe and letting individual communities decide the issue for themselves? North Dakota isn't the same as San Francisco or Miami.
A woman's individual right to control her body doesn't vary from community to community. It shouldn't be put to a popular vote.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,082
3,006
258
Sunnydale
#18
How about we start with overturning Roe and letting individual communities decide the issue for themselves? North Dakota isn't the same as San Francisco or Miami.
Good luck with that. I say sterilization or at least a birth control implant, at your own expense.

Their argument is that the baby is not human and does not have a choice. Only the woman has a choice. They will never concede and say that the baby is a living being that has a choice. I don't see it happening.

At first they could make it a choice. Free birth control implant with every abortion and a $50 gift card for Chilis or a free ticket to a Beyonce concert.
 
Last edited:

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,082
3,006
258
Sunnydale
#19
A woman's individual right to control her body doesn't vary from community to community. It shouldn't be put to a popular vote.
Except for when it comes to drugs, tobacco, self defense, raw milk, sugar, naming a part of your body Hitler..... That's when the state can step in and tell you what to do with your body.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,215
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#21
You know the flip side of that argument. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
An actual living person's rights over their body take precedent over the rights of a hypothetical person that effectively doesn't even exist yet.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,267
37,352
628
In a porn tree
#22
Good luck with that. I say sterilization or at least a birth control implant, at your own expense.
Their argument is that the baby is not human and does not have a choice. Only the woman has a choice. They will never concede and say that the baby is a living being that has a choice.
The arguement has nothing to do with a baby not counting as a human. The entire argument is at what stage of pregnancy does a fetus become a baby/human being.

What stage of pregnancy = "a baby" in The Big Book of Kirk's Law?

> 20 weeks?

> 10 weeks?

> 5 weeks?

> 1 week?

At conception? Ejaculation? Flirtation?
 

Wrecktum

Tounge puncher of fart boxes
Jun 29, 2006
4,367
1,471
563
Cervix spelunking
#24
Can we at least all agree brown people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce for the foreseeable future?