• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation [W:1036:1154]

Pilot

Banned
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
522
Reaction score
270
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation - chicagotribune.com
LITTLE ROCK, Ark (Reuters) - Arkansas was set to enact the nation's most restrictive law on abortion, banning most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, after the state's Republican-controlled House on Wednesday voted to override the governor's veto of the bill.

Representatives voted 56-33 to override the veto by Democratic Governor Mike Beebe, which followed the state Senate's override on Tuesday. In Arkansas, lawmakers can override a veto with a simple majority vote.

The Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act will go into effect 90 days after the formal adjournment of the legislative session. The session was set to adjourn May 17, though it could be extended.

Arkansas will have the earliest abortion ban in the country, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

The measure bans most abortions at about 12 weeks of pregnancy, once a fetal heartbeat can be detected by a standard ultrasound. It includes exemptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother and major fetal conditions. Doctors who violate the prohibition would have their licenses revoked by the state medical board.

The fetal heartbeat bill was one of one of several bills introduced by Arkansas Republicans this year seeking to restrict abortion. This is the first time the party has controlled both chambers since the Reconstruction era following the Civil War.

Beebe said in his veto letter the heartbeat bill "blatantly contradicts" the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and he questioned the potential cost to taxpayers of defending it against legal challenges.

I don't know the exact wording, but wasn't Roe v. Wade vague in the age of the fetus? I think this is borderline in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling and will probably end up going to the SCOTUS.
 
Seems likely. Complicating the situation is that 12 weeks is a de facto ban for a lot of people.

And what the hell is the point of a veto if a simple majority overrides it?
 
This simply means lots of women travelling to the next state for an abortion or worse still - back room abortions if they are not allowed to travel.
 
Actually, it may be in violation of the ruling.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 410 U. S. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 410 U. S. 163, 410 U. S. 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 410 U. S. 163, 410 U. S. 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 410 U. S. 163-164; 410 U. S. 164-165.

Looks like the state is very limited in the second trimester, which 12 weeks would fall under.
 
This simply means lots of women travelling to the next state for an abortion or worse still - back room abortions if they are not allowed to travel.

I don't think I follow. Would there be a state border patrol checking all leaving vehicles for women headed to an abortion clinic? The bill bans doctors from performing the abortion, not women from getting one.
 
I support a 12 week line.

No apologies - I am pro-choice with limits . . . 20 weeks is just too damn long. If you haven't made a decision by then what he hell have you been doing?
 
I think the government shouldn't be involved in abortion. I don't think bureaucrats should be able to legislate on something that can be complex. It is something between the patient and doctor....politicians should be out of this.
 
I think the government shouldn't be involved in abortion. I don't think bureaucrats should be able to legislate on something that can be complex. It is something between the patient and doctor....politicians should be out of this.

No involvement? You mean anyone should be able to open an abortion clinic from their home, and perform abortions without any medical training?
 
I support a 12 week line.

No apologies - I am pro-choice with limits . . . 20 weeks is just too damn long. If you haven't made a decision by then what he hell have you been doing?

Keep in mind that for some period of time you might not even be aware of the pregnancy.
 
No involvement? You mean anyone should be able to open an abortion clinic from their home, and perform abortions without any medical training?

Of course they can have standards like all medical facilities. My argument is against them making dates of when it can or cannot happen...saying whether or not it can happen...that isn't something for a bureaucrat to decide.
 
I support a 12 week line.

No apologies - I am pro-choice with limits . . . 20 weeks is just too damn long. If you haven't made a decision by then what he hell have you been doing?

i dont think so simply because of the fact many woman haven't found out until 12 weeks or longer they were pregnant that are on a BC that failed.

What about them? Secondly for most its not an easy decision why rush it and force it, im good with it up to 22weeks since thats viability anyway, then after that it still wouldnt be a flat ban it would be case by case
 
Good.

I mean, it may be 12 weeks, or 14, or 18. But pretending that there's no matter of human life involved, even as the fetus steadily acquires human features - that is more illogical - and eventually much more immoral - than pretending that a zygote is a human being.

This merely brings Arkansas within the civilized norm: abortion on demand is illegal after 12 weeks in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic (yes, the godless, jolly Czech Republic), Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland....
 
Of course they can have standards like all medical facilities. My argument is against them making dates of when it can or cannot happen...saying whether or not it can happen...that isn't something for a bureaucrat to decide.

It all depends on when the fetus becomes a human. Most would argue that that does in fact happen before birth. Is the location the only thing that matters? Should the government have no regulations on abortion at nine months?
 
It all depends on when the fetus becomes a human. Most would argue that that does in fact happen before birth. Is the location the only thing that matters? Should the government have no regulations on abortion at nine months?

IMO location isnt the only thing that matters BUT its the most important factor obviously because that makes it an unique situation not comparable to anything else.

Im pro-choice with restrictions but not at 12 weeks thats way to early since there have been many woman that didnt even know they were pregnant until that time
 
Last edited:
It all depends on when the fetus becomes a human. Most would argue that that does in fact happen before birth. Is the location the only thing that matters? Should the government have no regulations on abortion at nine months?

The government shouldn't be involved to the extent they are....it isn't an issue for bureaucrats. They have to make broad and generalized legislation...these issues have complexities that cannot all be legislated.

I don't think any reputable doctor would abort at Nine Months..
 
IMO location isnt the only thing that matters BUT its the most important factor obviously because that makes it an unique situation not comparable to anything else.

I pro-life with restricitions but not at 12 weeks thats way to early since there have been many woman that didnt even know they were pregnant until that time

My point is that regardless of our opinions on when is too early or late, most would agree that at some point there should be government regulation.
 
Last edited:
i dont think so simply because of the fact many woman haven't found out until 12 weeks or longer they were pregnant that are on a BC that failed.

What about them? Secondly for most its not an easy decision why rush it and force it, im good with it up to 22weeks since thats viability anyway, then after that it still wouldnt be a flat ban it would be case by case

You have got to be kidding LMAO!
 
The government shouldn't be involved to the extent they are....it isn't an issue for bureaucrats. They have to make broad and generalized legislation...these issues have complexities that cannot all be legislated.

I don't think any reputable doctor would abort at Nine Months..

If "No reputable doctor would do..." is enough, why have any medical regulations?
 
i dont think so simply because of the fact many woman haven't found out until 12 weeks or longer they were pregnant that are on a BC that failed.

What about women who don't know until they go into labor? I mean, should they be forced to care for a baby they knew nothing about?
 
IMO location isnt the only thing that matters BUT its the most important factor obviously because that makes it an unique situation not comparable to anything else.

I pro-life with restricitions but not at 12 weeks thats way to early since there have been many woman that didnt even know they were pregnant until that time

Don't you mean pro-choice with very light restrictions?
 
If "No reputable doctor would do..." is enough, why have any medical regulations?


You make sure they run a good practice...the standards that can be broadly defined. Abortion cannot be broadly legislated.
 
My point is that regardless of our opinions on when is too early or late, most would agree that at some point there should be government regulation.

this i agree with, its the only way to try and respect BOTH lives
 
You make sure they run a good practice...the standards that can be broadly defined. Abortion cannot be broadly legislated.

Sure they can, in fact you already broadly defined one:

The government shouldn't be involved to the extent they are....it isn't an issue for bureaucrats. They have to make broad and generalized legislation...these issues have complexities that cannot all be legislated.

I don't think any reputable doctor would abort at Nine Months..
 
I support a 12 week line.

No apologies - I am pro-choice with limits . . . 20 weeks is just too damn long. If you haven't made a decision by then what he hell have you been doing?

Prices of abortion providers may be a factor in when a person decides to have an abortion.
 
Back
Top Bottom