Judge Blocks Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s Unconstitutional New Abortion Law

scott-walker-sadScore a victory for the Constitutional rights of women.  Today, a judge issued a temporary restraining order against Wisconsin’s controversial new anti-abortion bill which was signed into law by Governor Scott Walker on Friday.  The law, like many others being pushed in Republican controlled states, seeks to violate the Constitutional rights of women to control their own bodies.

What this law would do is similar to what they’re trying in Texas — setting rules and laws so strict on what clinics must comply with to perform abortions that they essentially shut down nearly every clinic because they would fail to meet the required criteria.

While Republicans claim these bills are meant to “protect the health of women,” anyone with half a brain can realize that this is some kind of loophole they’re hoping to exploit to prevent abortions from happening in their state.

And once again, whether you agree with them or not, the right to have an abortion is a Constitutionally protected right. 

I’m not quite sure what Republicans don’t understand about that.  While claiming to be advocates for our Constitution, these people constantly try to find ways to violate the rights given to us by that very same document, just because they disagree with them.

This judge’s decision to temporarily block this new anti-abortion law is extremely important.  Hopefully it begins a trend toward a domino effect throughout the country that will challenge the constitutionality of these laws, and finally put an end to the Republican attack on women.

The reason the judge decided to issue this restraining order is because Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services rightfully claimed that the law is an attack on women’s rights.  They believe the bill unconstitutionally restricts the availability of abortions in the state, violates our Constitution’s due process guarantee and unconstitutionally treats doctors who perform abortions differently from those who perform other procedures.

Scott Walker thought he was clever when he signed the bill into law on the Friday after the Fourth of July, a day when most Americans were celebrating a long weekend and not paying attention — but his attempts to attack the rights of women did not go unnoticed.  This is why we always have to pay attention to what’s going on in our states and never get complacent.

If this law is truly about the health of women, just as other Republicans in other states claim, why is it that a snake like Scott Walker felt the need to sign the bill on a day where he hoped no one would notice?

Why is it millions of women across the country, who damn sure know more about their health than most politicians (many of whom are male) oppose such measures?

Because the truth is, this has nothing to do with concern for women and everything to do with controlling them.  It’s an attempt for the “regressive party” (what I often call Republicans) to take us back decades when women were treated as second class citizens.

Thankfully for women, Scott Walker’s attempt to do that has, at least for now, been prevented.  The judge has scheduled a full hearing on the law for July 17th, when it will hopefully be struck down for good.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Shelley Caster Ross

    I am so sick of people trying to control other peoples rights! What year does it have to be before those idiots leave us alone? It’s already 2013, surely they’ll become educated enough to stop by 2015. I have an idea. If they want to tell every woman she has to have a baby then I think a law for men is in order. Make it illegal for any man to have children with more than one woman. If any man gets 2 women pregnant he must have his testicles removed. If you think that sounds stupid then you have an idea of how stupid it is to try and force women to give birth!!

    • A concerned mother

      Here goes….

      A simple question:

      What’s the difference between a woman getting an abortion from a doctor and and some random stranger that accidentally hits her with a car and causes her to lose her unborn child?

      Answer: The woman gets a pat on the back for exercising her “Constitutional rights” and the guy gets 10-20 years for manslaughter.

      Life begins in the womb. The courts have already ruled that by ruling that this man has to go to prison for killing the unborn child.
      BUT, the courts have also ruled that abortion is a legal and valid medical procedure. So, by this logic, the worst this man should ever be charged with is “Practicing Medicine Without a License”.

      I challenge any of you who apparently LOVE abortion (which is the active killing of a human being) to convince me otherwise.

      • Proud Liberal

        There is a HUGE difference in your scenarios! In one, it is the woman’s right to choose whether to have a child or not in the other the baby is taken from her without her consent. It should always be the woman’s right to choose. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one! But its not up to you to choose what is right for someone else.

      • Darkthunder

        Not to mention, the people who are against abortion, are arguing against it on religious reasons.

      • Larry

        Of Course It is God’s Choice whether the baby lives or dies, Not the mother, Doctor or anybody else.

      • Gerald Spencer

        Error! God gave the rule over all creation to man, fallen or not, He did not take that rule away from him.

      • Eileen Burns

        I don’t believe in God so why do I have to obey his rules? You don’t have to obey the rules that my invisible friend that lives in the sky puts forth so why do I have to do yours?

      • Baaly

        By that they you have to concede that, if it’s god’s choice whether a child is born or not, then it’s obviously god’s choice if an abortion is performed.

      • Cules

        LOL prove there is a god and then maybe I’ll consider it having a choice. Until then I’m good with me being the boss over my body.

      • minime13

        Well, Larry, some of us don’t believe in God. Or your God, or the God that doesn’t give free will (name one, please) for people to decide what is best for them in life.

        Then you have the instance of abortion being a 100% legal, Constitutionally protected right.

        It. Really. Is. That. Simple.

        Outside of that explanation, Larry, you really do not need to know anything else about the matter.

      • Chuck

        You completely missed his satire/sarcasm.

      • Lee Merrick

        God is PRO-CHOICE. Read Numbers 5:15-21. The priest has a woman drink a solution so that she aborts the baby.

      • A concerned mother

        But you are choosing what is right for that child. How is that any different?

      • Proud Liberal

        That “child” depends on the host mother. If it could live on its own outside of the mother’s body it would be different. It that “child” is the result of a rape, I certainly wouldn’t want to carry it. If that “child” has no hope of ever being able to care for itself after its born, why should the mother have to put herself through that? If that “child” is putting the mother’s life in danger, who’s to say the “child’s” life takes precedence over the mother’s? I don’t believe abortion should be used as birth control but there are times when I would consider it a necessary procedure. Again, if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one but without walking in another person’s shoes, you have no right to make decisions for them.

      • Mrs D

        I agree, except for one part. Even if “concerned mother” walked 2,000 miles in my shoes, I still would not allow her to make any decisions for me. Ever. I do hope she’ll let us know when and if she actually finds someone who “LOVES” abortion to answer her challenge. And I am concerned that someone with her mindset may be raising children.

      • Larry

        Again only God has that right to let that child live or die. No one else. If it is life threatening, and he wants the baby to live it will live, and if He wants the mother to live also then she will live, If her time on earth is through, then the Lord will have her die.

      • Proud Liberal

        Religion has no part in this discussion. What part of that do you NOT understand?

      • Michael ZenFerret

        “Again only God has that right to let that child live or die.”

        And thru miscarriage (acts of “god”), your deity is the most prolific abortionist in the history of mankind.

        If it was only “god’s” right to let a child live or die, he wouldn’t have invented abortion clinics.

      • Baaly

        Yes, you got it. If you believe life and death is predestined by god then it stands to reason that those fetuses were not destined to be born. Hence abortion is not only sanctioned by god, but also an act of god.

      • Karl

        Sorry, Larry. But just because you believe there is a God. That doesn’t make it so. I can believe in the Eater Bunny but that’s not going to make chocolate eggs appear. And your belief in God gives you no right to alter the laws of the United States to abide by your beliefs. This is NOT a Christian nation no matter how loud you say it is. This is a land of many beliefs. Not just yours. One of the very basic tenets our founding fathers embraced when establishing the laws of this great land was to ensure that those laws would NOT be dictated by ANY religious entity.

      • MLS

        Larry, grow a Vagina, then maybe you can talk about Abortion.

      • CitizenVictory

        Your God has killed more babies, men, women, and children than all of the abortion doctors in the world since the beginning of humanity.

      • Sandra Chung

        Sorry, Larry, but embryos and fetuses aren’t ‘lives’. You are, an ignorant one who chooses to live by a book of bronze age fables, but you’re a life.

      • Don_in_Odessa

        Not so according to the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” (UVVA).

        “Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

        (a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero…….

        One can not cause a death if there is no life.

        Apparently even the most thoughtful of us can have a momentarily discovery of ignorance lying waiting in the recesses of our genius. Unless you just don’t recognize the law as being accurate.

        Abortion is a serious and private matter that should be left between a doctor and his patient. Having said that, let me affirm here and now, from a spiritual point of view, I count abortion as murder.

        However, as a Christian man living in a country that guarantees the right of all individuals freedom, I have a difficult time understanding how, a man can be convicted of murdering an “unborn child” denying the child it’s eventual freedom and yet, a doctor is guaranteed the freedom to pull apart a “fetus” in the womb without penalty thereby denying it it’s eventual freedom.

        Living in a Country that does not impose Christian doctrine on it’s citizens, I understand that a non Christian can see abortion as not being murder. But the laws need to be consistent. Either it is murder or it is not.

        And by the way I am glad to be a Christian living in a Country that does not require me to follow Christian doctrine. I am happy to let our Creator reveal Himself to me and change me from the inside out on His time table and privately. Following laws for fear of imprisonment makes it all to easy to appear to be one thing when one is another. I am happy that Jesus fulfills God’s law, so I don’t have to. God knows a man or a woman can not be perfect. That is why he sent His son.

      • Lori

        Well Larry, lets get rid of doctors and medicine too, since it’s all up to God whether we live or die. Seriously?

      • J.R.

        Why does god allow the fetus die during an abortion? Why does god allow the mother to have an abortion? Have you asked god? Has god answered?

      • Marco Tonelli

        So it is Gods will to kill thousands of children a day with aids, cancer, and starvation in 3rd world countries because they don’t have the resources like we do in 1st world countries? Your logic is off somewhere.

      • Shari D

        When right-wing pseudo-Christians attempt to “rule” everyone else according to their own personal beliefs, logic has already left the building….

      • Don_in_Odessa

        God created perfection to trap evil into revealing itself. Read the last chapter of the Book. Perfection wins in the end.

        Until then,thousands of children a day will die with aids, cancer, starvation, and all manner of evil that lives in the heart of men.

      • Shannon

        My sister had to have an abortion to save her own life. It was one of the hardest decisions she ever had to make. By doing so the doctors were able to treat what was wrong with her and she went on to have a healthy son a few years later. If she had not done so she and her baby would of died and I wouldn’t have the nephew I have today. The Lord gave her a mind to make the right decision, even if it was a painful one, that she had to live with the rest of her life. I am sure that she never forgot what she had to do.

      • Vicki

        By that logic, Larry, it doesn’t matter if abortion is legal or illegal. If a woman goes to have one, but God wants that child to live, wouldn’t he prevent the abortion? Aren’t you belittling Gods power to assume he can’t get passed some little woman’s attempt at an abortion?

      • Sherry

        So Larry … if you develop Cancer, diabetes, High blood pressure, a brain tumor, if you’re in a severe car accident and suffer injuries, take a bad fall, if you’re shot you will refuse treatment, correct? After all, it will be up to God if you live or die. No medical intervention. After all, if he wants you to live you will live, if your time on earth is through, then the Lord will have you die.

      • Erin Green Mathews

        And if those are the values by which you wish to live YOUR life, our Constitution protects your right to do so. Do NOT, however, presume to unconstitutionally foist your beliefs onto others.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Do NOT, however, presume to unconstitutionally foist your beliefs onto others.”
        Please remember this when you try to pass or support laws that foist your beliefs on others, like the ACA, illegal drug use, gun control, or the proposed ban on drinks over 16oz in NY state etcetera.

      • Erin Green Mathews

        How absolutely arrogant that you would presume to know my thoughts about anything above and beyond the topic at hand!

      • Charles Vincent

        I made no such claim I said take your own advice should the occasion ever arise, that is wholy different.

      • Erin Green Mathews

        You have absolutely no evidence that I wouldn’t take my own advice and were just looking for a chance to plaster your own irrelevant agenda into an unrelated but important discourse.

      • Charles Vincent

        Ooh wouldn’t you now…. Do tell. I don’t have an agenda I commented. And my comment was an educated guess and considering the liberal lean here it was a good guess.

      • Erin Green Mathews

        Fair enough, Charles, fair enough. Liberal, yes. I even own a Prius. I also own guns and know how to use them. Would legalize cannabis for medicinal, recreational and industrial use across the US but a few years ago was the foreman of a jury that sent a man back to prison for 5 years for dealing in our community. Bottom line was that he broke the law as it exists and did so in a way that could have hurt lots of other people along the way. ACA – I’ll tip my hand here: I work in the field of health care for people with disabilities. Probably some good will come of it but we will very likely experience several disasters along the way. My no-nonsense Canadian friends all say they are doing well with it in their country. We shall see. Limiting serving sizes on sugary drinks is a gross insult to any being that has enough sense to draw its own breath. Abortion? Well, like most other liberals I know, most of whom value all life, I hate notion of it and it is not a choice I have or would make. Just don’t feel I can deprive others of the choice. As an agnostic I find it particularly offensive that a bunch of religious idiots want to make legal decisions for me based on what, in my opinion, is a fairy story. Thanks for your interest, even if it was feigned. Your comment was valid.

      • Charles Vincent

        I meant what I said when I said do tell, it’s always good to know where people stand. And if you read all my comments on this thread you’ll get a sense of where I stand at least on abortion.

      • dsdjkhjb

        you say “If that “child” has no hope of ever being able to care for itself after
        its born, why should the mother have to put herself through that?”… you apparently dont know of anyone who has a child with special needs …no matter what the degree of involvement is… a mothers love knows no constraints… they are humans in a different kind of body .. there are plenty of cases of special needs babies growing up to great things..

      • Katie

        That’s not what she’s referring to. There can be severe fetal abnormalities that result in the child having no hope of living more than moments after birth. Is it right to force a women to carry to term? When that fetus could endanger her health if it dies in the womb? If when allowed to terminate that pregnancy she can heal sooner and try again to have the child she wants?

      • Sherry

        But there are some birth defects so devastating that a child will live a very short time and suffer the entire time. There are some children born with birth defects so devastating that they require constant care 24/7 nursing. There are some birth defects so devastating that the child suffers through/requires dozens of surgeries just to survive. I have 2 special needs sons but they have fairly normal lives. I’ve also known special needs children that can do no more than lay in a bed suffering from pain, hooked up to machines. Their parents lost their home because the mother can no longer work. They never go anywhere as a family because they can’t. Divorce rates are high in couples with a child with severe birth defects due to the stress. Yes, there are plenty of cases of special needs children growing up to great things. There are also more cases of special needs children being born into a life of nothing but pain and suffering. Surgeries and hospital stays. Never knowing joy, only knowing pain. It’s not up to you or me, or some legislator to decide a family MUST deliver a baby with severe birth defects and then have to watch that child suffer. And why are they SO concerned with these children being born, but once they ARE born they wash their hands of them and cut every program/source of help the parents need?

      • Lee Merrick

        And if the mother wants to care for a child with special needs, great. If she knows that she is not up for that challenge, then she should have the right to make that choice, too. Unless it’s your choice, you don’t get to choose.

      • kirsten zielinski

        it is not a child until it is birthed..figure it out.. it has to actually be born and breath to be a child.. see..you get to chose for you.. not anyone except yourself. if you do not want to have a child DON’T.. if you want to have one DO!

      • Diana Baskin

        Then why is it manslaughter to kill this (what should I call it)? I hear people calling it a baby which is a human life. If you do not want to have a child take protection and stop making them. We all have a right to believe what we want even if we can’t stop people, we don’t have to support their agenda.

      • kirsten zielinski

        believe whatever YOU want.. just stop forcing YOUR beliefs on any one else… they are YOURS.. not mine.. and people take protestion but guess what.. sometimes it doesn’t work.. sometimes people are raped.. shit happens.. life isn’t all pretty and clean and perfect.. but it is a persons right to control their body…not yours, not some stupid ass man that will NEVER get pregnant.. there is not ever any other time a free person has someone try to control their body except for this. and let’s not forget how all these stupid men try to force women to have ultrasounds that are not needed just to humiliate them. i mean really. what a pile of ugly stupid asshats people are.. oh, you want an abortion so we will force you to have a probe put in your vagina..wtf? really.. bend over and let me stick it up your ass you stupid men..

      • Bruce L Arvidson II

        Diana, there is you where your thought process is stunted. You are assuming ALL abortions are because the woman got pregnant and changed her mind. You NEVER take in to account that some females get pregnant ( rape, incest, underage) when they did not want to be. So to make the statement of

        ” If you do not want to have a child take protection and stop making them.”
        is a closed minded response.

      • wecandobetter758

        Not to mention that birth control has been known to fail.

      • DebofAmber

        The zealots are calling a fetus or embryo a baby, not anyone with a grasp of biology or law.

      • Charles Vincent

        The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.
        Then why do doctors refer to the fetus as the baby?

      • Mainah

        Well at one point its a Zygote, then a fetus. Although, I would not have an abortion personally, and I was told to get one by the father at first and said no, but I would never dream of telling another woman what to do with her body.
        Then you have the “adoption option” people but what they don’t take in account is that adopted child then grows up and seeks out the birth parent. From friends, I have heard how badly that went when they found them.
        As for Larry, God gave all people the choice to believe in Him or not. You have to look at both old and new testament and stop cherry picking. Isn’t it up to the woman how she chooses to face Him during Judgement?

      • Larry

        Whether you want to believe it or not and I am assuming you don’t, God considers a child to be a living being inside the mother’s womb from the moment of Conception. While you will not find that statement word for word in the bible, you really need to read the scriptures and understand them to know this is true.

      • Ky l’Ophelia

        Because it’s not true.

      • DaltonOriginal

        Please remove god, bible and scripture from your thinking on this issue and then you may continue the discussion. Thanks and have a great day!

      • Larry

        That is why the world is in the shape that it is in, because most people do want to leave God the Bible and Scripture out of things. This topic is about abortion, and abortion of God’s creation, not man’s creation but God’s so why should we leave Him out of it.
        If you created a beautiful outstanding painting and we all were talking about it, I would not leave your name out of the discussion, why? Because you created it. Anyway things are dying out with this overall discussion now, so I am more then likely not going to say any more any way. You too have a very wonderful day, I hope all goes well for you.

      • rasslor56

        Nevertheless, this is a legal and constitutional issue, not a church one–so please take your warped Biblical views and stick it.

      • Bruce L Arvidson II

        Larry, PLEASE stop referring to that book of fiction. There is NOT one piece of proof that anything ever happened, from that book. And NO life does not begin at conception. Can that “so called” life think for itself? Can it make decisions of right or wrong? Can it recognize it’s parents? Can it differentiate between sounds, light, colors? Can any of these things be possible at conception? If so, then I will agree to life beginning at conception. But since there is NO way 2 cells can do ANY of this, I guess your argument, along with every neo-nazi republican’s thinking is wrong!

      • HoneyJoRumples

        Larry, first you assume that only women want abortion kept legal. I used to frequent a message board where people would discuss relationship issues and problems. In the space of two years, four different women posted saying they were pregnant, and so happy to be and wanted the baby, but the man in their life said he wasn’t ready to be a father, and directed her to have an abortion or else he would have no choice but to leave her. We all tried desperately to talk these women into doing what they wanted and keeping the baby, but three of the four women had an abortion to keep their man from leaving. We convinced the fourth woman to keep her baby but only because she wasn’t in love with the father. Why the so-called “pro life” movement doesn’t shame men like this, when they are the biggest part of the abortion problem as far as I can see, I’ll never know, and seems hypocritical and just downright stupid. You don’t solve any problem by only dealing with half of it. And we do NOT pass law in the country solely because of religious belief. It’s my belief that adultery is an abomination, and I mean the definition of adultery in the book of Matthew, that if a man divorces a woman he forces her to commit adultery, and if he remarries, both those parties commit adultery. I wouldn’t mind seeing adultery criminalized, but who wouldn’t be sitting in jail if it were? Would YOU pass that test? Mark Sanford sure wouldn’t, and people like you re-elected him when he should have been run out of town on a rail. You have the right to believe in your own God, and so do I. I love the Lord, but it is my right as an American to love and understand Him as I can and do. If I had children already, and got pregnant with another and that pregnancy went wrong and I would die without aborting it, your saying I have no choice but to accept God’s will and die 1)assumes that my life has no worth or value at all outside of being a vessel for the current child I’m carrying, that I am not a human being but just a baby incubator and 2) that every single American must believe your view of God. That ain’t gonna happen. I do not believe in a God that would so cruelly and callously leave my children motherless when they don’t have to be, and you can’t force me to. No wonder women everywhere are calling BS on your outdated, woman-hating beliefs.

      • kirsten zielinski

        and you really need to keep YOUR concept of the bible out of other peoples bodies. and keep your whole religion to yourself. and hey larry… how many times have YOU gotten pregnant? hmm. i bet that is a big fat ZERO.. how many times have you been raped? while possible (and just as horrific) i am betting zero again and throw in and maybe pregnant due to that..again zero… how many times have you been pregnant and had your life at risk due to some medical issue? again.. zero..

      • Mark Linde

        Larry, you have obviously spoken with God at great length about this. In my world that is called totally insane.

      • Cules

        Another zealot who speaks for his magical god. LOL

      • Shawn

        [email protected] As you said “While you will not find that statement word for word in the bible” You are giving your interpretation of the bible period. I once asked a man why he reads the bible over and over…he said he time he reads it he has a new interpretation of it.

      • SlayerOfGods

        No… It explicitly says in the bible:

        Genesis 2:7

        “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

        You’re not alive until you breathe.

      • SlayerOfGods

        “Let the day perish in which I was born. … Because it shut not up the
        doors of my mother’s womb, nor hid sorrow from my eyes. Why died I not from
        the womb? Why did I not give up the spirit when I came out of the belly? …
        Or as an untimely birth I had NOT been; as infants which never saw
        light.”

        Job 3:3, 10-11, 16

        More or less its saying here that an unborn fetus “has not been” until they are out of the womb.

      • rasslor56

        But that’s not for you nor ANY man to decide that. That’s the right of the woman–a LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEING whose rights you want to take away–and only because of a Bible–in a country that does not all follow Christianity–The Constitution does not follow the Bible either, so deal with it. Nothing will give you the right to decide what anyone can do with their bodies.

      • dsdjkhjb

        ditto kristen.. if you dont want to have a child.. dont have unprotected sex… that is choice number 1…

      • Cules

        Many women get pregnant on birth control. Are you really that simple minded? How about rape? How about incest? SSDD from you anti choicers.

      • Charles Vincent

        The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
        There are also 37 states that have adopted this law.
        Follow this logic. If a child has legal rights under the law even in utero, the law has to consider that child to be alive because you cannot murder something that isn’t alive and then under the guise of abortion the same child wouldn’t be considered alive this creates quite the conundrum and you can’t have it both ways.

      • kirsten zielinski

        that is a typical bs rape party law to stop abortions. it also was to address people who either caused in an accident or on purpose the loss of a wanted pregnancy..

      • Charles Vincent

        Wanted or unwanted is irrelevant it presumes that a child is alive in utero and that concept in legal precedent can be applied to abortion and factually argued.

      • kirsten zielinski

        no, no it can not. that is what choice and not having any one (especially men) tell women what they can and can not do with their bodies is all about. you do anything you want with your body.. it is YOURS.. do not tell any one else what to do with theirs..

      • Charles Vincent

        I am afraid you’re ignoring the value of legal case precedent in law and how it operates with in the structure of judicial law.

      • kirsten zielinski

        i’m afraid you ignore the fact that it is a womans body and not public proberty.. women will get abortions whether it is ‘legal’ or not. it is really a matter of how rich a woman is as to whether it will be safe or not.. women died from illegal ones for years.. they will do that again if needed. your ‘laws’ will stop nothing.. and they will not stand in the long run.

      • Charles Vincent

        SCOTUS also held “The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician’s right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women’s rights in general.”
        These are not my “laws” they have been federal law and have not been overturned by SCOTUS laws of this type have been around since the Roe v Wade decision, so I would say they have stood in the long run.
        You also seem to think I am arguing for a total ban on abortion which also isn’t the case.
        I am also attempting to prompt a rational discussion on the subject instead of arguing hyperbole like so many people here.

      • Vicki

        I’m not against abortion, but your statement that “it actually has to be born and breathe to be a child” just makes me assume you’re not a mother.. It most certainly is a child when you see him/ her sucking her thumb in the womb.. When you see his little fingers and toes on that. Ultrasound. An abortion is a sad and personal decision. There is nothing light hearted or “it’s not a child, no biggie” about it. It is the right of the woman (and also the father of the child) to make the decision, but that decision changes a person forever. Don’t for a second think that unborn child is not a human being that isn’t already loved more than life itself. Though its nothing anyone could fully understand unless you were a mother, and in the situation.

      • kirsten zielinski

        wrong..you know what they say about ‘assume’.. i am a mother.. but just because i am a mother doesn’t mean i am going to force someone else to be one. i never said it wasn’t a big deal.. you have no clue as to my life or decisions i have made or not made.. it is something i would only do in the most dire of circumstances but i can tell you i do not need any asshat person, male or female to tell any other person that they should have a child they do not want, can not afford, can not take care of/etc.. and to make women get medical tests prior to humiliate them makes me sick. every legislature who voted for these measures should have to go thru them.. and i can tell you where they can stick that ultra sound wand in men.. this whole thing is to control and demoralize women.. as i have said before.. they will never stop abortion. what they will do is stop safe abortions. but the death of women means nothing to these people. nothing at all. they are not pro-life.. they are pro-birth and anti-women.

      • peg2584

        Your argument is a nonstarter because that is the role of adults in all cases.

      • minime13

        The difference is it is not a child at this point. Life actually begins before conception. There is life thumping around in all the sperm and eggs that we create. So let’s cut the bs about the life beginning at conception.

        It is a choice whether or not to bring life into the world. That’s a big decision – one that should not be forced. We’ve had plenty of forced situations before, and look at where we end up. Some are adopted, and some spend their lives being swapped from home to home.You think people are being selfish by wanting a choice – well, it’s pretty damn selfish to say that you speak for every child – for every one that has been in and out of homes, or for every one that has been born into a family that does not want them. That is selfish. To fight for a right to be born – let’s be real about what this is – to be born, and then forgotten as soon as they are out of the womb.

        That’s what you are choosing to do – you could care less about the aftermath.

      • Shari D

        I think we have strayed from the conversation here a little bit. The basic concept was the taking away of CHOICE from the general populace of females of this country, based on the pseudo-RELIGIOUS beliefs of Politicians. Or of those with these Politicians in their back pockets. The problem is they want to deprive the populace of the concept of being able to make our own decisions for ourselves in matters that do not concern them in the least.
        The debate was not about when life begins, or what or who is a child at what point. That’s another argument for another day. The problem here is that they want to RULE women, to take away all our Constitutional rights that have been hard fought for, and well established, and replace them with what they CLAIM is “for our own good.” Or “in our best interest.” Which is all crap of course. It’s only in THEIR best financial interests, and there are enough of us out here that know that for a fact, which is something they get all flustered around. FACTS confuse the daylights out of them, and they simply don’t know how to respond, except in “Faux Noise” based talking points, and sound bites.
        In one way or another, that’s what it boils down to. They want to put us back into the Bronze Age, and be the BIG HE-MEN they think they need to be at home. Sorry, we are too advanced at this point to allow you to do that. So – SORRY Rethuglicans – YOU LOSE.

      • Sandra Chung

        An embryo or fetus isn’t a child. It’s a pregnancy.

      • Larry

        That is correct, who speaks for that breathing living being inside the mother, who if he could talk would probably say I do not want to be murder I want to be born. Sadly the ones that are pro abortion I guess believe that, the breathing living being inside the mother has no rights. What a shame.

      • Bruce L Arvidson II

        The unborn FETUS can NOT breathe inside a woman’s body. AGAIN, Larry, you can not understand basic science. And the ones that are standing up for women’s right are NOT pro abortion, we are PRO CHOICE. there is a big huge difference. We may not like abortions, but we will NOT take that decision away from the one that is pregnant. It is not our body, so we have NO right to tell a female what she can and can not do with her’s. Now Please get your scientific facts right before saying anything else.

      • Cules

        You zealots/anti choicers are not only brainwashed by magic you are totally ignorant with regard to biology and science. How embarrassing.

      • SlayerOfGods

        Fetal lungs can’t even function before 30 weeks.

      • minime13

        Stop asking people to justify their rights.

        It’s none of your business.

      • Andrew C Livingston

        Surely it is God who is choosing what is right for that child? You believe God is all-powerful. If a woman decides to abort a child then surely God is allowing that woman to decide to abort a child.

        Logic has a way of biting you on the behind.

      • Larry

        Sorry to say it is not the Woman’s right, but God’s right He and He alone can make that decision. Many do not want to except that, but that is the case.

      • Proud Liberal

        It is only God’s right to those that believe in God. Separation of church and state means religion should have no part in this decision.

      • xnerd

        Our constitution forbids passing laws based on religion
        if you dont like it LEAVE

      • Sandra Chung

        If it’s your imaginary Sky Daddy’s right, then why are MEN trying to force women back into the role of walking incubators? You just can’t stand the thought of women having reproductive choices.

      • Dzerres

        Many? I’d say most! Even most religious people don’t believe your god makes these kinds of decisions. Sorry, America is not (yet) a theocracy and hopefully never will be.

      • Bruce L Arvidson II

        First of all, YOU have to show irrefutable evidence there is an imaginary being before you can say it is only THAT being’s right. When my child was created I definitely did not see no imaginary being’s hand in my partner’s womb making a baby. I do know it was a combination of sperm and an egg that created a child. And the sperm came from my body and not from some imaginary being’s body. So before making that statement, that it is only an imaginary being’s right, better go over the scientific facts first.

      • SlayerOfGods

        I think most of us would except that.
        However, I do not accept that.

        English… the more you know!

      • Diana Baskin

        So it is a woman’s right to choose if she wants to kill her child? Don’t find anything wrong with this? Should we look the other way if after this life is born the mother decides she doesn’t want it and kills it. What is the difference? There are laws against murder.

      • Darkthunder

        Technically, a fetus has no rights before it is born (9 months later). Look at your precious Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution. One or both also clearly state, that there should be a “Separation of Church and State”.

        Anti-Abortion is based on a religious notion. Nothing else.

      • Baaly

        You mean ‘anti choice’ 🙂

      • Darkthunder

        In this instance, same thing 🙂

      • Larry

        There is no difference Murder is murder, the only thing that changed is man made laws and rulings. So because of them having an abortion is legal murder now, hard to go to prison over legal murder. It still does not change how God feels. I love the new saying that some have used: You can change the laws of man, but you can never change the Laws of God.

      • Foom Anchu

        Larry Amazingly well executed trolling, well done.

      • Erin Green Mathews

        Hate to break this to you Larry but man also invented religion. Men created the “Laws of God” to serve their own interests.

      • Ky l’Ophelia

        Are you intentionally being daft?
        You honestly believe that those are equal examples?

      • holly

        Go cry me a river. Can I control what you can and can’t do with your body? How about me telling you when and where you can go to the bathroom right? After all pee and poop are part of your body right?

      • baruchzed

        No one LOVES abortion. Your post is foolishness. The point is this; what makes you think you have the right to tell another person what to do with their body? You do not have that right. Abortion is a very sad thing, but it is not your place to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own body.

      • Miriam Newman

        I am personally opposed to abortion but do not believe I have the right to make that choice for another woman. She must live with what she has done and I don’t think it’s an easy decision for any woman. It would be much more practical to put all this energy wasted fighting over abortion into providing universal birth control, thereby lessening the need for abortions.

      • storie

        Interestingly, many of the same people who oppose reproductive choice also oppose universal access to birth control. They don’t like comprehensive sex education, which also helps to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Neither are they too hot on social programs that help economically distressed parents provide for their already-born children. Their enthusiasm for life seems to end north of the cervix. Once the child is breathing through lungs, feeding through a mouth and crapping through a rectum, a lot of “pro-lifers” downgrade the “precious angel” to future gang-banger or welfare queen.

      • Cules

        You nailed it. It is the compassionate conservative mantra.

      • Skeeta

        In your scenario, If it was a complete accident that the man hit the woman and her unborn child died he wouldn’t face any charges at all. There you go, I found the flaw in your logic. Feel free to troll on some other page now.

      • kirsten zielinski

        ok..what part of choice don’t you understand? choice..to chose..she did not chose to be hit by a car.. people like you are too stupid so i hope you chose not to breed..

      • Val Maylone

        Extending your analogy, Concerned Mother:

        A woman gets an abortion. A man decides to get circumcised. A woman gets a boob reduction. In each case, each person WANTED A PART OF THEIR OWN BODY REMOVED.

        THE ABOVE SCENARIOS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FOLLOWING:

        A woman who wants her viable baby loses it due to the negligence of some driver. A man loses his foreskin because someone is careless with a machete. A woman gets her breast cut off by a rapist. In each case, the person DID NOT WANT A PART OF THEIR OWN BODY REMOVED.

        Calling a zygote a “human being” when it is not viable as such is a religious belief, which should not be imposed on any person other than those who ascribe to your religion. In any event, any and all zygotes are a part of the woman who has been impregnated and like any other part of her body, she should have complete freedom to decide what to do with it.

      • Charles Vincent

        “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.[1]
        The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
        The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
        Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 36 states also recognize the fetus or “unborn child” as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]”

      • Proud Liberal

        Very interesting but abortion is legal so this doesn’t apply in this conversation.

      • Charles Vincent

        It created precedent in law giving a fetus legal rights under the law. Scotus also talked about viability in the roe v wade decision and viability is where they contend life begins. According to them viability was between 22 and 28 weeks.

      • Proud Liberal

        Even so, if the fetus endangers the life of the mother, it should still be the mother’s choice to continue the pregnancy or not. If the fetus will never be able to care for itself after birth, why should the mother be forced to go through with the birth? Women should never be forced by anyone to allow something to happen within their own bodies. And least of all, by men.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am not arguing this “if the fetus endangers the life of the mother, it should still be the mother’s choice to continue the pregnancy or not.”
        In my mind this is one of the few valid reasons for an abortion.
        SCOTUS discussed this as viability
        “If the fetus will never be able to care for itself after birth, why should the mother be forced to go through with the birth?”
        If you don’t want a child don’t get pregnant.
        The primary right preserved by Roe v wade was “The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician’s right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women’s rights in general.”

      • Proud Liberal

        Who do you think you are? This issue, in my opinion, is none of you business anyway. No form of birth control is fool-proof other than sterilization, a procedure I hope you have undergone. I’m always amazed when I hear men talk about how WE shouldn’t get pregnant. Get back to your cave, Charles.

      • Charles Vincent

        Abstinence is 100% effective. Sterilization isn’t 100% my cousin has gotten his wife pregnant twice and she had her tubes tied before they met and after the first time he got her pregnant they re clipped them and burned the ends and he got her pregnant even after that.

      • scat

        If abstinance is your preferred solution, then it would make sense to castrate males who can’t keep it in thier pants.

      • Charles Vincent

        It takes two and the irresponsibility goes both ways.

      • scat

        Yes, and so far the entire burden and responsibility has been put on women.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well it seems to me that if you didn’t treat the guy as nothing more than a sperm doner in terms of his role and his opinion on abortion of a child due to the woman’s and his intimacy and the related pregnancy, some of that burden of responsibility would likely shift to him. But by cutting the man out and saying he has no input or rights to be involved in the decision making gives him no incentive to act responsible. Furthermore after cutting him out saying he has no right, if the woman has the baby he is now on the hook for child support even though he had no input previously but now magically he need to bear the financial burden of the reponsibility. Sort of damned if you do and damned if you don’t for the guy.

      • scat

        Guys sure have it rough. He gets to choose whether to act “responsibly”. That is the way it has always been. No reason to change that as long as we can put all the responsibility and consequences on the woman.

      • Charles Vincent

        Stop being a “victim” it doesn’t suit you. Societal pressure can create the environment that gives people in general the strong incentive to act responsibly.

      • scat

        You are the one portraying men as being so victimized under the current societal norms and laws. How different it would be if they had to “pay”, in one way or another.

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s fact they are irresponsible as much as a woman in the context of this discussion. In fact I am not making excuses for either gender. But you fail to grasp the fact that doing things like I mentioned don’t give men an incentive to act responsibly nor do you grasp the concept that I am talking about something that’s is much larger in scope than the small picture of abortion in terms of people in general taking personal responsibility for their actions.

      • scat

        Now you are resorting to condescending and insulting remarks, which is not informative or productive. So, I’m outta here. What I “grasp” is that you are just interested in asserting your superiority and taking down whomever doesn’t agree with you.

      • Charles Vincent

        No not really. And you haven’t really added any thing informative to further the discussion. The only thing in term of this topic making men victims is being exclude from the decision making process.

      • Mainah

        Well to be honest, the guy doesn’t have to go through all the physical changes a woman goes through, women still die in childbirth, and he doesn’t have to go through a procedure that isn’t easy to choose in the first place. People make it sound like it’s like going to get your nails done. It isn’t. Just because a woman gets an abortion … it isn’t like leaving a spa with that wonderful feeling. So, I guess a woman has more at stake than the man. When a biological man can go through that … then I will look at it differently.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well to be honest, the guy doesn’t have to go through all the physical changes a woman goes through, women still die in childbirth, and he doesn’t have to go through a procedure that isn’t easy to choose in the first place.
        This doesn’t relieve him of his personal responsibility, in fact your position actually encourages his irresponsible actions

      • Mainah

        I guess I am not following you. I never said a man has no responsibilities but when discussing a medical procedure that is only performed on a woman than really where is your point in that?

      • Charles Vincent

        By cutting the man out of the process the woman is disenfranchising him, see my reply to your other post below.

      • Mainah

        Because a woman is depriving him? Are you kidding? Again, see my post. It isn’t his body, it isn’t his risk.

      • Charles Vincent

        She is excluding him from the decision making process. Would you feel any sense of responsibility if you were excluded from the decision making process? Let us remember without either the man or the woman there would be no pregnancy both are equally responsible for it. If your going to exclude them form the process you really cant complain the women carry most of the burden because they brought it on themselves by excluding the man from a process that he was 50% responsible for creating. Perhaps the penalty for excluding the other 50%, in this case the man should be regardless of having or not having an abortion they should lose claim to child support should the woman choose to carry the baby to term, after all your line of logic makes the male nothing more than a sperm doner who carries no legal or financial responsibility to the woman or the child.

      • Mainah

        See my post below or it might be above. We seem to be jumping about a bit. OH, and who ever said I was complaining? Even when abortion was illegal it didn’t stop men from walking away from their responsibility. So, your point is moot. As for your “penalty” argument … what are you trying to say? That sentence is not making sense. If that is what you got from my line of logic and that is what you’ve come up with than that is a non sequitur. Sorry.

      • Charles Vincent

        “OH, and who ever said I was complaining?”
        I was generalizing, not being specific.

        “Even when abortion was illegal it didn’t stop men from walking away from their responsibility.”
        This argument is irrelevant, as none of us can do anything to remedy what happened in the past. We can only attempt to effect change now and in the future, by learning from past mistakes.

        Okay new approach. I want you to think of abortion as a whole pie. There are three pieces to that pie, the woman, the father, and the doctor, each having an equal portion of the pie. In one portion of the pie is the woman, in one the father and in the last is the doctor. Under the woman’s portion is the ultimate decision making on either having or not having an abortion. Under the fathers portion is moral support and him being able to express his feelings and opinions on the topic of the abortion, for the woman to thwart this opportunity robs the father of the chance to be responsible. The last portion is that of the doctor, he is responsible for making sure the woman is given all the information available to him to the mother so she can make an informed and responsible decision in the matter. Mind you that the father isn’t telling the woman what to do either way he is expressing his opinion and feelings, the final decision is still up to her.

        So it’s clear my position on abortion is as follows. In my opinion there are a only a few valid reason to get/consider abortion as a viable option.
        1) the mothers health is in danger.
        2) the baby would be born with serious physical and or mental deformities that would severely reduce the child’s chance of living or having a good quality of living.
        3) the pregnancy is the result of a rape.
        4) the pregnancy is the result of incest.

        I can only think of one case where abortion should be actively denied. That case would be a woman using it as birth control. The thought of this situation is repugnant to me.
        I also agree that the supreme courts “viability” assertion is where we as a society should consider placing as the point where life begins.

        Again sorry for the delay and I sincerely hope this clears up my position.

      • Mainah

        Well, that was improper form when engaged in a debate then. Like when you told someone else to stop being the “victim”. Not proper debate so stop using ad hominem generalities. I have a feeling you are above such form of engagement.

        How convenient of you. First, we take control of our own bodies due to past behavior, then you claim we are “depriving” men and now my point is irrelevant? So is your argument. You can’t pick and chose what you find relevant because it was a counter point to your own argument in regards to women disenfranchising men.

        Secondly, one should not “talk” down to an opposing party for it is akin to saying “Since your too stupid, let me break it down for you.” Don’t even or there is no point in having a discussion or a reasonable debate.
        Last and finally, no man has a right to tell a woman under what conditions she is allowed to end a pregnancy. You seem to think that all men are moral support. They aren’t. A doctor has no say over a woman’s body either. I feel as if you are under the assumption that this is some easy procedure that is akin to a pedicure. A woman is under no obligation to have to tell him either unless she sees fit. You are assuming women who get pregnant and get an abortion is for birth control when you use that line of logic.
        A man has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. No more than a woman should have a right to have a man’s testicles cut off for rape, incest or abandonment. Period.
        Hope you enjoy your pie. (that was a joke)

      • Charles Vincent

        Okay get this I am not calling anyone stupid I have better things to do than act like a child.
        I want to remind you that Roe v Wade did not up hold a woman’s right, it up head the doctors right of patient privacy and his/her right to practice medicine absent a compelling state interest.

        “A man has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. No more than a woman should have a right to have a man’s testicles cut off for rape, incest or abandonment. Period.”
        If this is your stance my rebuttal is women no longer have a legal claim to any mans property should they choose to have a baby. Period.

        “Secondly, one should not “talk” down to an opposing party for it is akin to saying “Since your too stupid, let me break it down for you.” Don’t even or there is no point in having a discussion or a reasonable debate.
        Last and finally, no man has a right to tell a woman under what conditions she is allowed to end a pregnancy. You seem to think that all men are moral support. They aren’t. A doctor has no say over a woman’s body either. I feel as if you are under the assumption that this is some easy procedure that is akin to a pedicure. A woman is under no obligation to have to tell him either unless she sees fit. You are assuming women who get pregnant and get an abortion is for birth control when you use that line of logic.”
        This whole paragraph is asinine I never even came close to saying any such thing nor did I imply any such thing. So stop putting words in my mouth.

        I have not made any personal attacks in any of my replies nor have I been condescending to anyone here. As for the comment I made about someone playing the victim it was spot on and that persons candor was unworthy of the debate I was asserting.

        Always remember you reap what you sow.

      • Mainah

        Ok now you are just beyond ridiculous. Have a good day.

      • Charles Vincent

        No more ridiculous that the comments in your reply.

      • Mainah

        As if a choice of having a medical procedure equals support of a child. You have no sound argument. You just called me asinine, since I am the author of the paragraph. I will not resort to such tactics. Have a nice day.

      • Charles Vincent

        You were trying to say I said or implied something I didn’t, that’s an asinine rebuttal. I am not attacking you I am attacking your arguments, and your rebuttals there is a distinct difference. You’re the one that keeps taking it personally, and that’s something I cannot control.

      • Mainah

        And when you say to someone picture abortion as a pie … come on. I am not taking it personally. You blew up. I am countering what you are saying. Our points seem to remain the same. I am well aware of your points and have posed opposition. I find we are at a stalemate. Once again … it’s not about control. It’s a debate. You have a good day.

      • Charles Vincent

        “And when you say to someone picture abortion as a pie … come on”
        It was a visual reference and an attempt to more clearly convey my message, it was not a personal attack. Some people learn visually by watching and some only learn by doing, I was attempting to facilitate the visual image to show my point and you took it as something I never intended.

      • Mainah

        Oh so it’s my fault? Do you even read what you write? I don’t have time for games. Just stop. “I was attempting to facilitate and you took it wrong” Is what that sentence actually breaks down to. If that makes you feel better. You stick with that.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Oh so it’s my fault?”
        This isn’t about fault or blame why do you keep taking it that way?

      • Mainah

        Your words: I was attempting to facilitate the visual image to show my point and you took it as something I never intended. Again … do you read what you write?

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes I did I wrote it and it still isn’t a personal attack. I used the same thought line that people use when they use slide to give people a visual tie to the points they make during the presentation.

      • Charles Vincent

        “As if a choice of having a medical procedure equals support of a child.”
        Either way it’s a medical procedure. Your contention is that a man has no right either way, therefore a man has no obligation either way.

      • Mainah

        I could have sworn I typed a reply to this. Oh, well. Um, who said I was complaining? WE women are complaining about having our right to make the decisions when it comes to our bodies infringed upon. Get over the whole remember it takes a man and a woman … I think it is safe to say we all know how procreation works. Egg and sperm. It seems funny that for all the time abortion was illegal … it didn’t stop the guy from taking off from his responsibilities and leaving women to fend for themselves in a male dominated, shaming world. Many men, when included, still make the decision to flake. So how does that make you point valid? As for your penalty sentence … regardless of having or not having an abortion they should lose claim to child support …. What are you trying to say? Your sentence lacks clarity. Many men still skip out on their financial responsibilities, in the past and to this day. Your argument is still the same and still erroneous.

      • kerston

        Men disenfranchise themselves all the time and have all through history. Ever think women might realize that the man is not going to do his part? What came first the chicken or the egg? You add to this every time you open your mouth. You don’t even seem to realize it takes 2 to conceive. SHE should use birth control. She should not have sex. Takes 2 to tango, but only one seems to be responsible for all outcomes of the performance in your mind. Oh please . Men would do better if women didn’t disenfranchise them…are you serious? So now we create dead beat dads?

      • Mainah

        Just to be fair, he does have a post that states it takes two. This thread jumps around a bit.

      • Charles Vincent

        My assertion is founded in basic human psychology. You also seem to underestimate the power of societal pressure that a culture can generate.

      • Mainah

        Well … not in the case of rape and incest.

      • Charles Vincent

        This is true those are forced situations and as I have stated are two of the three viable reasons for an abortion.

      • Mainah

        I did not see that post. My apologies. But I don’t think that a man has the right to tell a woman what reasons she’s allowed to have. Sorry. And I posted the reasons why in earlier posts. When a guy can carry a baby, go through the physical changes a woman does, risk his life in childbirth because women still die in childbirth, and can giver birth … then sure. He can have a say. I mean that in no sarcastic or mean way, it is just my opinion.

      • Charles Vincent

        Query.. Explain how disenfranchising the male motivates him to take any sort of responsibility?

        “But I don’t think that a man has the right to tell a woman what reasons she’s allowed to have.”
        I am not advocating this, I am asserting that in the case of a man and woman being intimate and creating a new life the man should have an opinion, and input concerning any decisions. Additionally I would add that they should make an informed decision based on a physicians advice, but ultimately the final decision is the woman’s.

      • Mainah

        Why does a man need to have a legal say in a woman’s medical procedure? And you can use the word disenfranchise but call it what it is … you’re saying women are depriving men a say when it comes to her body. No matter what you say, it is the same thing. He may have an opinion but no decision in it. I am confused again by your conflicting argument. If it is the ultimate decision, then explain your stance.

      • Edward G Falcetta

        i do not believe for a second that your “cousin” got his wife pregnant twice….especially after they “re clipped them and burned the ends ” because that wouldve undoubtedly caused a “tubal” pregnancy & that would definitely endanger the mother & you are just lying if you disagree

      • Charles Vincent

        In fact both times they were tubal pregnancies. And both times they aborted exactly because it endangered her health. I don’t cre if you believe or not its. Medical fact that women with their tube tied have gotten pregnant, it is rare but it does happen.

      • CherMoe

        “Viability” with life-saving devices, feeding tubes and breathing tubes, along with antibiotics, drugs to bring about maturity of the lungs, intensive neonatal nurses & doctors, etc. for many weeks, if a child is delivered at 22 to 30 or more weeks. There really is no “viability” without a host to care for the fetus until mature enough to eat and breathe on his/her own. Even so, any fetus born this early is almost guaranteed to have many birth defects and nervous system problems.

      • Charles Vincent

        Although that’s true if you look at case law back to the 1800’s which is what scotus did and why viability is use by then to balance the right of the mother and the potentiality of life which is where viability comes in.

      • Val Maylone

        That could be pushed further Charles, inasmuch as a 22 week old infant cannot survive on it’s own, only when cared for by the application of lots of money, labour and technology. So using the word “viable” is a stretch in my books. Certainly this would not be a viable infant in any situation where lots of money, technology and labour was not available.

        I am pretty sure they can raise a child artificially without a womb if they want to, so 22 weeks is just an arbitrary figure set to enable people seeking abortions to evade being prosecuted for murder. Certainly, no woman would abort a 22 week old fetus if unless she had to save her live, and even then a lot of women would choose to save their baby.

        Still, the concept that classifies any fertilized egg or zygote as being a human being and therefore entitled to all human rights is based on a BELIEF that such a body part has a soul or a consciousness apart from the greater body of the mother. That cannot and should not be imposed as a fact until and unless science can quantify the soul and prove consciousness in these fetuses. Up until that point, it cannot really be argued that an abortion is infanticide. It can only be considered immoral under some people’s religions. You are making great posts Charles.

      • Charles Vincent

        I only made a cursory attempt at researching this but the abortion problem goes back into antiquity, that being said even in British common law they discussed viability as being the ability through what ever means that a fetus could survive outside the womb the line move quite a bit but it was generally across that 22-28 week period.

      • Val Maylone

        Abortion is not a US crime, so this law doesn’t apply to abortions, only to victims of crimes whose unborn child is damaged.

      • Charles Vincent

        I didn’t say it was I said “It created precedent in law giving a fetus legal rights under the law.”
        Once rights are given its really hard to rescind them and there is precedent going back to the 1970’s. legal precedent is what judges use to decide cases like roe v wade.

      • Charles Vincent

        What’s important about this law is it set a precedent that give unborn fetus’s legal rights in a court of law those rights apply legal precedent to argue that if they have rights under law if a crime is committed against them they have that right under the law governing abortion.

      • Galxygurl

        How many un-aborted children have you adopted? How many single mother’s have you donated time, money, food too? Did you fight for or against bills slashing cuts in early childhood education and food stamps/wefare benefits? Many used by single mothers who CHOSE to keep their babies instead of abort them. Or do you just tell them it’s their fault they got pregnant so they should take care of the baby, but how dare they ask for help!! Every man for themselves right? Except the unborn baby.

      • Val Maylone

        Hey, if you go there you might turn up some mega conservative “right to lifers” who have made a tidy business out of exploiting “entitlements” for fostering unwanted or disabled children, sometimes MORE of then than they should have. The kids are literally warehoused. If you look up how much money these people get per child, and then confront them about whether or not they would take the children under the same circumstances as the mothers who gave them up endure on a daily basis, they get really really angry.

        Unwanted children subsidize a lot of people’s lifestyles. The same people who complain about ghetto moms with multiple baby daddies can be found taking in multiple fosters and raking in some pretty hefty windfalls after accounting for overhead like Salvation Army wardrobes, second hand toys, and subsidized housing and meal co payments.

      • tamcocar

        Dear Idiot,

        That is THE dumbest, most twisted comment I have seen in a long time. Please seek psychiatric help. And learn how to play “connect the dots”. You probably failed kindergarten.

      • Allyson Harris

        I doubt very seriously if any woman LOVES abortion; but it is sometimes a choice that is made, for many reasons, the least of which usually is “convenience.”

      • Tian1976

        In that case, outlaw abortion, but then legalized first trimester C-sections and allow the baby to be fertilized in another person or raised in a test tube. It was statistically proven. Women who are forced to raise a child they do not want tend to neglect said child. Neglect of said child leads to increase in violent crime by that child due to the way they were raised. Read Freakanomics to see that data.

      • minime13

        Nobody’s mind is being changed here. We can see this. Even your own bleeding-heart scenario is faulty, but that’s neither here nor there.

        The fact is that it is a Constitutional right, and it is unConstitutional to try to block that right.

        Even outside of that, it is a personal decision that is nobody’s business.

        Done.

      • jerry

        You Right Wingers are attempting to use your Religion and Religious Beliefs to support Laws that have NO basis in religion. Separation of CHURCH and STATE.
        Abortion is a STATE matter. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself, and do as YOU believe. Don’t thrust your Religion onto others….If I was Muslim, I’m sure you would not appreciate me trying to implement Islamic beliefs on your State Law. Get a life, and do as YOU see fit…don’t try to force others to believe as you do. That’s Selfish to say the least.

      • jerry

        And I’m NOT referring to you minime ~ LOL !!!

      • minime13

        Seriously, guys. You are doing nobody any favors by picking a fight with someone that is actually ON YOUR SIDE. Why don’t you try reading my comment again and when you get to the point that I say “it is a personal decision that is nobody’s business” then you may be able to realize that I am defending the Constitutional right that women have. Jeez.

        Seriously, how in the world is my comment, in response (clearly marked) to an anti-choice comment, even vaguely construed as being anti-choice?

      • minime13

        Explain to me why women have to constantly justify the right they are given by the Constitution.

      • Val Maylone

        I thought you were done. But women constantly harp when their rights are being taken away. What if someone tried to tell you you couldn’t wank anymore? Maybe you’d go all over the internets where people were trying to outlaw wanking and raise a stink.

      • minime13

        What?

        You do see who I replied to, and understand the context, no? I asked why we have to justify our rights…

      • Ky l’Ophelia

        Because the driver’s actions made the choice FOR the woman.

      • CherMoe

        NO ONE in this country forces you to have beliefs in one certain religion, just as NO ONE in this country is forcing YOU to have an abortion or to use contraception. The Constitution DOES, however, give women the right to choose what’s best for their own body and their own life. Maybe I don’t like YOUR religious beliefs. That doesn’t mean I get to impose a certain way of life on YOU.

      • myo

        a man who hits a woman who is preg and the fetus is killed is not charged with the same crime as say killing the woman as the child has not taken a breath. there has been tv shows even showing this argument so your argument is invalid and keep your religion out of my laws

      • lasartLAUGHS_01

        You bald-face compare Constitutional RIGHTS with those you consider who “Love Abortion”?

        You obviously have NEVER had to deal with women who have agonized over such a choice and took another pass. ‘LOVE’? You are far to short-sighted to be allowed access to a computer.

        So… How many unwanted children, brought to term based upon your vitriol, have you adopted?

      • Gabby Parsons

        No one ” loves abortion” for crying out loud. That’s the most ridiculous statement and I’ll bet you know that, too,but use it to get a rise out of people.
        Whether a woman has an abortion or not is really none of your business. It’s just that simple. it’s a medical decision made by a woman with her doctor, just like millions of other medical decisions made every single day in America, none of which are any of your business either.
        Abortions are legal in America. Legal means it’s none of your business.
        If your church says abortion is wrong, fine, Don’t have an abortion,. But if your neighbor wants one, it’s none of your business. Get my drift?

      • Gerald Spencer

        No one loves abortion, it takes a psychotic person to make that accusation. People are being lied to, hand over fist, from organizations that are created specifically to make money for Republican political candidates. All the money given by people like you to anti-abortion causes is going to Republican political war chests. These people are just making money from weak minds.

      • Baaly

        You madam, are an idiot.

        No one ‘loves’ abortion. We simply love our constitutional right to be able to decide what to do with our bodies. Obviously, you are oblivious to the points of the argument. Go bury you head back in the bible, another text you likely don’t understand either.

      • CitizenVictory

        I completely reject your paltry argument on the grounds that it’s a false premise.

        You’re falsely attributing something to people who have a right to a medical procedure: love.

        You’re projecting your twisted thoughts on something that isn’t an easy choice for women to make yet you seem to think it’s all party and booze afterwards.

        You’re an ignorant human being and I feel very sorry for you.

        May your god(s) forbid that you or any of the women in your family never have to face what it is to have to terminate a fetus that have zero chance to be born alive–but if they do, don’t cry like a little bitch when their rights are taken away.

      • storie

        The problem is, most of those laws that treat an attack on a pregnant woman as an attack on a child are the work of anti-choice politicians looking for back doors to restricting abortion. Not everyone considers a microscopic blob of undifferentiated cells free-floating around a uterus to be the same thing as a child, and endowed with more rights than the sentient individual carrying it. Until the developing fetus is independently viable, it is the woman’s right to decide if she carries it to term. No one else’s.

      • Larry

        Amen, you are so right.

      • JW

        Boy, wow, you don’t have a clue. First , where in America could someone be convicted of manslaughter in the death of a fetus? Manslaughter and murder etc can only be perpetrated against a legal entity. To be a legal entity , one must be born. Feticide or unlawful termination of a pregnancy are crimes perpetrated against the WOMAN. One does not terminate a pregnancy, even a pregnancy that a woman does not intend to proceed with without her consent to either the ends OR THE MEANS because to do so would violate her person . The fourth amendment guarantees “security in one’s person “. IN SHORT, YOU DON’T TERMINATE A WOMAN’S PREGNANCY AGAINST HER WILL FOR THE SAME FREAKING REASON YOU DON’T RAPE HER
        . …as for “convincing you otherwise”, you reasoning capacities are so anemic and smug self righteousness so pronounced that no one is likely to convince you of anything. This is really just to inform you that you are impressing no one with your “challenge” .
        ,

      • Cules

        You just went full retard with that comparison but that is standard operating procedure for conservatards. Where did you hear this one Glenn Beck? Fox? No one loves or likes abortion…but no one likes or loves the government telling you what to do with your own body. Are you good with them forcing you to donate organs to a wealthier citizen? Forcing you to donate parts after your death? This is the slippery slope when one is not allowed autonomy over their own bodies. Grow up.

      • GetSomeSense

        Yes, women get a “pat on the back” after an abortion and the members of the pro-choice movement “LOVE” abortions. I’m not sure what whack-a-doodle source you get your information from but at least you’re not afraid to flaunt your complete ignorance on the issue. If anything you are showing just how unqualified you are to even be speaking on the subject. I’m sure your response to this will be something about free speech giving you a right to speak, but that would be silly because who would argue to deny a Constitutional protection and then defend themselves by invoking that very same document?

      • Marco Tonelli

        This is the most most idiotic comparison in the history of comparisons. First: The woman chose to get an abortion, she shouldn’t be forced to keep a child she doesn’t believe she has the ability to care for. Second: If this man hit her with a car and killed her baby what makes you think this woman wanted to lose the child? You are seriously a moron and completely illogical. People like you are the reason why I will one day leave this shit country.

      • musicalbitch

        Are you seriously comparing vehicular homicide to a legal abortion? Your logic is flawed. Here’s why: in cases where the loss of pregnancy has been considered a homicide (in your argument, vehicular homicide), the loss occurs at time when the fetus is viable outside of the womb – at about 24-26 weeks. Abortions are not legal after 24 weeks in the US, and that’s only in some states. Some states say abortion illegal after 14, 16, 18 – some even say 12 weeks. Thus, your argument is incorrect. Abortions are only legally performed before the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb. And for your information, no woman expects nor receives a “pat on the back” for getting an abortion. Clearly, you are ignorant of the emotion involved in such a decision, or you wouldn’t make that remark.

        What makes you think that anyone who is faced with the decision actually LOVES the idea of abortion? Have you ever been or spoken to a rape victim who has become pregnant? Or perhaps a teenager whose religion or parents prevented her from receiving education about her body, and who thus became pregnant out of ignorance? You are assuming that anyone who chooses an abortion does so without a thought. I can tell you as a former rape victim who faced that decision – as a born and raised Baptist – it’s not as simple as “Oh okay…sign me up!” Thankfully, I did not have to make that decision as I did not become pregnant from my rape.

        The point is that neither YOU, nor GOD, nor ANYONE has the right to decide or legislate what someone does with their body, even if it involves the creation of life. I could go on for pages about the ways in which humans just take life and extinguish it – war, murder in the name of religion, etc… – but the point is that we all have a choice, whether you like it or not. Just like Christians preach about each person having their own “walk with Christ”, each person has the right to live their life as they choose – without the government or religion interfering. Period.

      • Chuck

        “I challenge any of you who apparently LOVE abortion (which is the active killing of a human being) to convince me otherwise.”

        Impossible: you do not have an open mind, and therefore can be convinced of nothing.

        Also, shame on you. You create a false dichotomy using spurious argument. Apples and oranges. Further shame on you for even daring to suggest that anyone LOVES abortion. NO ONE LOVES ABORTION. NO ONE WANTS TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT.

        The issue is the right to have a choice.

      • Chloe Scheer

        You are an idiot if you think anyone “loves abortion”. Having the right to have one isn’t the same as wanting to have one or wanting everyone to have one. I like my rights, thanks. That doesn’t mean I love abortions. What I don’t love is all of the christian rhetoric being pushed down my throat constantly. I am a woman in charge of my own body, and don’t happen to be a Christian… So these laws don’t make sense to me. All they say to me is that there’s some little man with a little brain in an office trying to make decisions on my behalf without knowing anything about medicine or my body. And besides, where are all of these concerned Republicans after the child is born? “Oh sorry, you can’t have any assistance if you can’t afford to feed your baby, maybe you should have thought about that before you decided to have a child.” Hypocrites.

  • Julia Miller

    We need judges like that here in Texas! Way to go!!!!

  • PCGibbons

    Gotta love those “rouge” judges.

    • Allyson Harris

      What shade of “rouge”? Red? Pink? Oh, you mean ROGUE. Oh yes, upholding a Constitutional Right (and until and unless it is repealed by Amendment to the Constitution, it is a Constitutional Right) is ROGUE. Maybe by your definition, in just this particular instance though, right?

      • MMRussell

        I believe the lady was using “rouge” on purpose to imitate the ignorance of some commenters, otherwise she would not have used quotation marks.

  • Pat

    I am not a fan of abortions, and I don’t think anyone really is. Abortions are performed for various reasons, although I hope not as birth control, but I try not to judge, since it is not my place to judge. They will continue to happen, as they did before Roe vs. Wade, and we need to make sure that women who need/want to get one, are able to make that choice, and have the procedure in a safe, legal clinic. These right-wing politicians, like Scott Walker, have absolutely NO RIGHT to establish laws that take away this right from women. NOTE TO REPUBLICAN MEN: ALTHOUGH YOU WOULD LOVE TO SEE THINGS GO BACK THE WAY THEY WERE IN “THE GOOD OLD DAYS”, THE WOMEN I KNOW HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE TO GO BACK THERE!…………………….SO, STOP TRYING TO CONTROL WOMEN! YOU AND YOUR CRONIES HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO BE CALLING THE SHOTS FOR US!!!!!!

  • Melinda

    Today I called walkers office to get his advice. Since he’s so concerned about my uterus and I’m just a woman who doesn’t know much about important matters, I wanted to get his advice. I think I have a plantar wart on my foot. I wanted to know if I should go to the doctor or if he thought I should just wait a while. His lackey wanted to know if I wanted to express my disagreement with him on the bill and I told him no I needed medical advice because I’m a woman and I just can’t make these decisions without the governor’s advice. He transferred me and surprise, surprise. I was disconnected.

    • Ken

      No surprise here, I live in Wisconsin, and I can’t wait for the next election for governor in my state, so I can vote for a Democrat! What a schmuck that Walker has been for our state! Too bad that the recall election didn’t get rid of him.

    • D2

      Melinda, I like you!

    • Ky l’Ophelia

      Halp! I started my period! I need an elected official to tell me whether to use tampons or pads!
      Damn my delicate little lady brain for not instinctively tell me what to do!
      I NEED A GOVERNOR!

    • Baaly

      Melinda, that was an awesome move! You go girl 🙂

  • John Stark

    Scott Walker is such a Douche bag…He needs to be voted out of office and the State needs to do actual business that pertains to daily living and conduct state real time issues not reproductive rights…Total Scum bag…Same vein of Michelle Bachmann stupidity…When can they oust this focker out of office?

  • la-ouchie

    Our Constitution states: “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S.
    citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth.” Let me reiterate “BY BIRTH or AT BIRTH”.

    Any other infringement is simply one clutch of religious nut-heads trying to insert their power over another. Religion says what exactly? – I mean, as is found in that sheep-herder, star worshiping, superstition laden, hypocritical tomb called the ‘Bible’. Our founding fathers knew all too well where to slice off the cancerous fear makers in favor of the moral of truth seekers.

    Keep your bibles out of our vaginas and your preachers off of our penises.
    And if you WANT to take your ‘bible’ so literally, Mary was 12 years of age when god raped her… How does that feel (excepting all Jerry Lee Lewis fans that are okay with that crud).

    If you don’t like the Constitution, you are warmly encouraged to move to some other country which prefers religion over reality – say… Iran.

  • CherMoe

    Actually, we need a judge like this in OHIO. The Republicans SNEAKED THIS INTO A BUDGET BILL, which, by the way, also screws over WE, THE PEOPLE. They aren’t happy enough to take our money, raise our taxes and give it all to the rich … they want to force women to have babies, have the ultrasounds and defund Planned Parenthood and cut all services to all people.

  • Brenda Porter

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong on this, but it is my understanding that the laws proposed in Texas, Ohio, and my state, North Carolina, will close clinics that provide basic well-woman health care, birth control, access to mammograms, to women who cannot afford it. All the dust-up over abortion has overshadowed the fact that women are going to be denied some very basic health care, and more importantly, family planning services. The best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is a tragic end for women in desperate circumstances. No one loves it. But, it is going to happen, clinics or no clinics. Leave the decision where it belongs: with the woman, her doctor, and HER God.

  • Tori

    The word God appears way too much in this comment area. The fact that a lot of these discussions come from something like this: “Abortion should be illegal BECAUSE it is against Gods will” is complete BS. If you truly believe that then you are either ignorant or delusional. Or both. The freedom of religion is a constitutional right and “Christian value’s” have no place in our laws. I’m not running out of the house to have an abortion right now, but as an American I reserve that right to have the option.

  • Katybug

    And yet, every time you turn around, Republicans are screaming about the Constitution being violated. All the while, they are the biggest offenders.

  • wecandobetter758

    Republicans take the long view: they pass all these bills attacking women’s constitutional right to an abortion because they are hoping at least one of the laws will be challenged and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. They believe that if this happens, the Roberts court will overturn Roe v. Wade or render it moot, the way they did the Voting Rights Act.

  • BeachD1

    Once again the phrase “fear” is used to sway thoughts in the way one theology directs. Do we continue to allow those who put their fear of a god in actions to scare the populace to join them in fear ? As America we do have the power to end this state of “affears” by action in conformity with our laws as we move forward. The absolute in health care is a gender specific science. These geeks who have determined they alone can make up the rules as the way to serve their fears are the real illegals in America. No politician is allowed to use religion nor deny religions, A simple fact that is America is the law, since we began.

  • dsdjkhjb

    how can you argue against a bill that is designed to make abortions safer… this bill is not intended to shut down and stop all abortions from happening… this bill is clearly designed to protest the mothers health by insuring that a qualified person and facility perform the abortion.. so i dont get it that you argue this bill is a violation of womens health… and if the true reason for having an abortion after 20 weeks is because of the mothers health.. then a dr will already be involved and there is already a true diagnosis.. in this case.. certainly the mother would not be upset if the baby survived if they reason was purely due to her health concerns..and the baby would need immediate medical assistance…

  • Roberta Keys

    I have often said the way to stop abortion is to remove the first testicle with the first abortion, and the 2nd one with the 2nd abortion. Men need to share in the pain and suffering that women must go through for their needs.

  • M

    How about a little medical info for those who are clueless on what is a “baby.”

    An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks after the last menstrual period or LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus

    A fetus /ˈfiːtəs/, also spelled foetus, fœtus, faetus, or fætus, is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonicstage and before birth.

    In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization.

    The term infant or baby is typically applied to young children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months; however, definitions may vary between birth and 2 years of age. A newborn is an infant who is only hours, days, or up to a few weeks old. In medical contexts, newborn or neonate (from Latin, neonatus, newborn) refers to an infant in the first 28 days after birth;[1]the term applies to premature infants, postmature infants, and full term infants. Before birth, the term fetus is used.

  • Marco Tonelli

    why is abortion such a big deal? There are so many much more important issues than women being able to get abortions. I seriously hate this country.

  • Rosemary Badame

    I’m old enough to know we have been down this road before….
    And, let’s remember, there have always been abortions. Back Alley abortions where many a women died because of an incompetent people botching up the procedure. The only question is: Do we want abortion safe and legal for women???? Or are we going backward in time and back to the botched abortions in the back alleys?
    I think we have bigger problems than controlling women’s reproductive organs.

  • jawn

    Hey larry, with your dumb ass logic, everytime you masterbate your aborting babies.. your a fucking idiot man.

  • Sherry Fay Putnam

    For all you supposedly pro-lifers I have just one question…If abortion becomes illegal and say a woman has one anyway,what do you think the punishment should be?

  • Jesse Bowen

    My god requires all babies be sacrificed in his name.

    Death to babies. Make it so republibrats. Keeping babies alive is infringing on my religious freedom.

    R’amen

  • tobosbunny

    The question i have for the “right to lifers” is this. If your 12 year old daughter was raped, got pregnant from the rape and was told that she could possibly die unless the baby was aborted, would you force her to carry that baby which could kill her?

  • Linda L Tucker

    I think it’s a secondary achievement to “control” women…I think it’s part of the overall plan to obstruct and distract us in so many directions to delay ANY good work from getting done….their real goal is to make sure that the Obama Administration is scuttled as much as possible until a Republican gets elected. This is a dangerous game because they (GOP) continually underestimate women, people of color, and basically anyone who really paid attention to their education…i.e. math and science class especially…who the OLD and Older Men still think will be intimidated or are truly dumb enough to stay quiet while they run the show…
    Think again old farts…It’s what I told my dad when he would get all fussed up…literally spitting his fear and doubts while he watched O’Reilly…and don’t get me wrong I truly loved my father but he was living in an old world where survival depended upon the strength of the male to make critical decisions. So while we appreciate and respect our elders it is time to move on…equality is a safe place too…

  • Pat

    Ha-ha, Scooter!