• 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!

Alabama Senate approves near-total ban on abortion; sends bill to the governor

SmartCat said:
Brian Lyman, Montgomery Advertiser Published 10:08 p.m. ET May 14, 2019 | Updated 10:08 p.m. ET May 14, 2019

MONTGOMERY, Ala. The Alabama Senate on Tuesday passed a bill criminalizing abortion in nearly all cases, approving the most sweeping restrictions on the procedure in the United States and almost certainly guaranteeing a legal challenge.

The measure passed the Senate 25-6 after more than four hours of often emotional debate that at one point led to the introduction of spectators who had abortions after being raped. The chamber rejected putting exceptions in for rape and incest on a 21-11 vote.

The bill now goes to Gov. Kay Ivey, who has not indicated whether she would sign it.

Sponsored by Republican Rep. Terri Collins, the bill would make it a felony punishable by life or 10 to 99 years in prison to perform an abortion in the state of Alabama. Attempting to perform an abortion would be a felony, punishable by one to 10 years in prison.

Alabama abortion bill approved in state Senate; bill goes to governor

----------

This will certainly go to the Supreme Court. I will be interested in seeing how the largely Republican Supreme Court votes on this.

I do not believe that the leaders of the Republican Party really want the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court Decision of 1973 to be overturned. The Roe decision led to the creation of the religious right. This is a mass movement of largely lower middle class whites who rarely have much enthusiasm for Republican tax cuts for the rich. Most evangelical whites voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Because President Carter avoided the abortion issue, anti abortion evangelicals and Roman Catholics became disenchanted with him.

In 1979 Jerry Falwell formed the Moral Majority. This persuaded Evangelicals to abandon a sincere, born again Christian president to vote for a man who had signed a law legalizing abortion as governor of California, who had divorced his first wife, and who rarely attended church.

Since then the Republican Party has been dancing an awkward pirouette around the abortion issue. Every four years the Republican Party platform condemns abortion. Nevertheless, when Republican presidents have Republican Senates they somehow manage to avoid advancing justices to the Supreme Court who overturn the Roe decision when they have the opportunity to do so.

As long as abortion is off the table democratically, pro abortion people who vote Republican because of economic issues feel that it is safe for them to do so. Anti abortion people who lack enthusiasm for Republican economic policies vote Republican because for them social issues are more important than economic issues.

Donald Trump has promised Evangelicals that he will appoint anti abortion justices to the Supreme Court. Therefore most Evangelicals support Trump even though his piety is even more dubious than Reagan's.

Speaking for myself, I am in favor of legal abortion, but I dislike the Roe vs Wade decision. I think it was a flimsy piece of legal reasoning. I also believe that the Democrat Party will benefit if Roe is overturned.
Click to expand...

You have just seen the identification of the crucial election issue for 2020, whether all American women who do not know that they are pregnant should be allowed to have abortions and whether 100% of all doctors who perform abortions should be jailed for the rest of their natural lives.

Right now around 39.5 (+/-3.5)% of all Americans are completely on board with the potential presidential candidate who supports that 100%.
 
Trump said:
yep ...point being its a judges decision and therefore times change and judges decisions can change. Law makers are being forced to debate.
Click to expand...

Roe has already been revisited 10 times.

Roe is based on the right to privacy and body autonomy.

The Supreme Court Justice’s not only looked at the Constitution before deciding Roe they looked at the many precedents regarding privacy before Roe was decided.

In fact it would be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including cases regarding child rearing.[/B]

The following Surpreme Court decisions most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that just is not going to happen.


Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Roe has already been revisited 10 times.

Roe is based on the right to privacy and body autonomy.

The Supreme Court Justice’s not only looked at the Constitution before deciding Roe they looked at the many precedents regarding privacy before Roe was decided.

In fact it would be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including cases regarding child rearing.[/B]

The following Surpreme Court decisions most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that just is not going to happen.


Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
Click to expand...

Not a problem.

Getting rid of all abortions is not going to be so hard.

Uh huh, yeah, right, sure.
 
cabse5 said:
Could...There is no legal precedent for abortion at viability.
Click to expand...

And yet no elective abortions take place past the age of viability in the United States.

(The fetus is either non viable and can not survive or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued or her very life is at risk.)

There are only 4 clinic doctors and 3 clinics in the US who perform abortions past 21 weeks.

From Romper:


In 2013, there were four doctors in the country who performed abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to Slate. (Current numbers could be even lower.)
Click to expand...

Which States Offer Late-Term Abortions? They Are Very Difficult To Access
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
You're seeking a SCOTUS ruling of the viability of fetuses after 21 weeks? I don't think that's their expertise.
Click to expand...

You are right that is not a legislator’s or a Justices expertise.

That’s why it needs to be left up to doctors to decide if the fetus is viable.

I am saying elective abortions do not happen past viability.

A fetus is not viable at 21 weeks. Very few may be viable at 22 weeks.

But even so doctors will check for viability at or past 22 weeks.

In 2008 Kansas used to have one of 4 late term clinics.

The doctors recorded all abortions that took place at or past 22 weeks.

There were 323 abortions at or past 22 weeks that year.

131 were because the fetus was non viable.

192 were because irreparable damage to a major bodily function of the woman would occur if the pregnancy had continued.

See pages 8 and 9

http://www.kdheks.gov/phi/abortion_sum/2008itopcmbnd.pdf
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
You are right that is not a legislator’s or a Justices expertise.

That’s why it needs to be left up to doctors to decide if the fetus is viable.

I am saying elective abortions do not happen past viability.

A fetus is not viable at 21 weeks. Very few may be viable at 22 weeks.

But even so doctors will check for viability at or past 22 weeks.

In 2008 Kansas used to have one of 4 late term clinics.

The doctors recorded all abortions that took place at or past 22 weeks.

There were 323 abortions at or past 22 weeks that year.

131 were because the fetus was non viable.

192 were because irreparable damage to a major bodily function of the woman would occur if the pregnancy had continued.
Click to expand...

That seems about right.
 
cabse5 said:
You wish to find more ways to have abortions.

The data shows that abortions needed because the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother are quite rare....If you wish to control your bodies, why don't you control your body?
Click to expand...

The data only shows the stats of abortions at or after 22 weeks gestation.

I don’t wish to find ways to have more abortions.

I wish to find ways to prevent unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

Women do not electively abort a wanted pregnancy.
.......
As for me personally, all my pregnancies were wanted pregnancies.

My husband and I have 4 children ( all are adults now ) 3 are married with families of their own and I am past child bearing years.
 
minnie616 said:
The data only shows the stats of abortions at or after 22 weeks gestation.

I don’t wish to find ways to have more abortions.

I wish to find ways to prevent unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

Women do not electively abort a wanted pregnancy.
.......
As for me personally, all my pregnancies were wanted pregnancies.

My husband and I have 4 children ( all are adults now ) 3 are married with families of their own and I am past child bearing years.
Click to expand...
Good that you want less unplanned pregnancies. To have less unplanned pregnancies:
cabse5 said:
SNIP. If you wish to control your bodies, why don't you control your body?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Good that you want less unplanned pregnancies. To have less unplanned pregnancies:
Click to expand...

67 percent of all women of child bearing years in the United States use artificial birth control consistently.
9 percent are pregnant ( so currently not using birth control )
14 percent either cannot become pregnant because of a medical condition or procedure or are not sexually active.

That leaves 10 percent who are high risk. ( some may be using the rhythm method or another natural birth control method.)

All artificial methods of birth control have a failure rate.

Long term methods have the lowest fail rate but the cost ( if not insured and many poor have no insurance) is between $800 to $1,000. Also there medical reasons some women can’t use any of the long term methods.
 
bfast.jpg
 
cabse5 said:
Why should I read on? It shows that abortions due the health of the mother are quite rare.

I know you wish to have further reasons to have abortions...If you wish to control your body, why don't you control your body?
Click to expand...

The necessity for ANY abortions could be COMPLETELY eliminated by doing one very simple thing - requiring all males, upon reaching the age at which they begin to produce viable sperm to deposit their sperm in a sperm bank and then have their testicles removed.

That way there would be no such thing as an "unwanted pregnancy" and that would, accordingly, completely remove any necessity for abortions - wouldn't it?

Now, try and get THAT legislation passed in "The Bible Belt" (or anywhere else where males are permitted to vote for that matter).
 
Crystal said:
For rape, incest and severe deformities, no for convenience and not as birth control.
Click to expand...

If it's a person, or if 'there's no difference between born and unborn,' why would you be able to kill the unborn in those circumstances?

Can you explain that?
 
cabse5 said:
I guess the founders were liars, entirely, when the Declaration of Independence mentioned LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT of HAPPINESS...
Click to expand...
And none of those are prioritized. Who says the right to life is pre-eminent?

The country was founded on personal, individual freedom. In America, people choose to give up their right to life all the time: for their family, their country, their religion, their principles, etc.

Who are you to 'assume' what people would or should choose? Why would you demand the govt presume and then use force to act on others? Surprising even to me, there have been at least 5 people who have posted in the Abortion sub-forum that they DO wish they had been aborted. That is a very significant number considering the small representational sample of the forum.

You cannot...and the govt wisely does not...presume to 'know' that individuals 'want.' And certainly not the unborn who cannot even form a thought.
 
cabse5 said:
Ya know, if you want control of your bodies, why don't you abstain from the act that could get you pregnant? Stop using the pull out at the last minute method...or no birth control prevention method...Use some condoms every once in a while, for example?
Click to expand...

The data is clear...here's reality:

Not sure how out of touch with the human race you have to be to believe that people will start choosing to have less sex...one of the most enjoyable, satisfying, and bonding activities on the planet.*

*All thru history...and prehistory...people have had sex when it meant a high risk of death, disease, and social consequences for both men and women. STDs, death during childbirth, being disowned, publicly flogged or otherwise punished, exiled, no chance at decent jobs, etc etc etc...alot of those affected men too.

People are never going to stop enjoying sex and today, with safer, legal options to choose for accidental pregnancies, it's ludicrous to believe they will.


Actually , 68 percent of women of childbearing years in the US use artificial birth control consistently.

Another 22 percent:

-- Cannot become become pregnant due to a medical condition or procedure. (infertile or have been diagnosed as such)
-- Or are currently pregnant and thus are not currently using birth control
--post-menopausal

That leaves 10 percent who do not use artificial birth control for whatever reason( some may be using the so called rhythm method. Or similar natural methods)*


And now for the math:

--80-90% of American couples use birth control/have sex responsibly

--non-surgical birth control is only ~98% effective

--millions of Americans have sex millions and millions of times every day

--this means that there will still be 10s of thousands of accidental pregnancies every day.​
 
bicycleman said:
Backward laws, or saving lives of the unborn? Alabama is merely moving away from barbarism into protection of the innocent.
Click to expand...

Why do you value the 'innocence' of the unborn? They cannot act or even form intent. It's an 'innocence' of emptiness, a vacuum, it's the same 'innocence' of a flower or a couch.'

Why do you value that emptiness over the entirety of the life of women? Their lives, their health, their responsibilities to their families (current kids, elderly, etc), their commitments and obligations to their employers, church, community, society, etc?

Cue: mischaracterizations that I just compared the unborn to flowers and couches :roll:
 
Crystal said:
Difference is our religious nuts are fighting for life, the taliban left is fighting for the right to kill.
Click to expand...

Why is the life of the unborn of more value than that of women? Why do you value physiological functions like a heartbeat and breathing? All higher animals do those things...is it wrong to kill them?

If it's not just bodily functions, then why is the unborn more entitled to the entirety of a life and all that it entails over a woman's right to the exact same thing? Why should the woman's entire life be sacrificed so the unborn can have the exact same thing? Please explain that to me.

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more.

(Please dont divert to % dying. I clearly am discussing ALL that's in a person's life, not just the physiological functions...that is dehumanizing. I'm discussing quality of life, not quantity.)
 
Crystal said:
I have already said she should not be forced to give birth and the man should lose his penis! What are you arguing about?
Click to expand...

But that's not the law. The law would use govt force to make her have the baby. (And includes no such punishment for the man who impregnated her...but which you seem to endorse)
 
ElChupacabra said:
The moral inconsistency I find with the pro-life argument is it fiercely defends the rights of the unborn but then takes a harsh approach to supporting the safety nets in place to help single mothers/parents raise those children. I'm of the opinion that if you save a life, you also support the means to help that life prosper.
Click to expand...

And the moral inconsistency extends to encouraging women to have kids unnecessarily when there are already more than 100,000 kids in the US waiting to be adopted now (Not in foster care, that number's around 400,000). All these kids are waiting...hoping...for homes and yet there are people that would just force women, if they had the choice, to have more unaffordable and unwanted kids. And this kids waiting for families are the ones that are harmed...for each one aware and hoping...their chances become less for each new infant added to that pool. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom