Guest Post: North Dakota’s Heart Beat Bill Is Constitutional

roe-v-wade-is-it-going-anywhere

I apologize up front for the length of this piece. I have had many requests to lay out the constitutional framework for HB1456 also known as the Heartbeat Bill, but, as I said in my earlier piece on life there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation about the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions. Pro-abortion groups have done a very good job of “education” to the point that very few of us understand the legal framework involved.

The Heartbeat Bill is very simple. Everyone understands what a beating heart means. It means life. The Heartbeat Bill prohibits an abortion when the baby’s heartbeat is present, except to protect the life or health of the mother. A heartbeat is accepted by everyone as a sign of life and a baby’s heartbeat gives compelling testimony from the womb.

Constitutionality

The Heartbeat Bill does not state that life begins at the detection of a heartbeat or at any specific time during pregnancy. The Heartbeat Bill is not intended to overthrow Roe v Wade as many opponents claim. The Heartbeat Bill is drafted to fit within the legal framework established by the US Supreme Court. However, it recognizes the 40 years of advancements in medicine, science and technology. Information that the Supreme Court acknowledged it was lacking in 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided. The Court’s opinion was based on human knowledge as it had developed up to 1973. This Heartbeat Bill merely assumes that our knowledge of the development in the womb did not stop advancing in 1973.

First, we should dispel the notion that this Bill should be defeated because of the cost of litigation. Whether this Bill is challenged in court is entirely up to the abortion industry. Given the lucrative nature of abortion it is likely that any statute that reduces the number of customers will be challenged by the industry. But, I simply cannot accept the idea that we will not fight for the truth just because the opposition has deep pockets. Not when it comes to life.

Roe v Wade

Most understand that this US Supreme Court opinion found a constitutionally protected right to privacy that includes the ability for women to abort her baby. But, there is much more to this opinion than that. The Court also acknowledged two other legitimate rights or duties. One is the right of the state to protect the life and health of the mother and the other is the duty of the state to protect the life, or potential life, of the unborn baby. The Court ruled that a state has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.

Despite what you may have heard, the Court clearly stated that the right to privacy is not absolute. In fact, the right to privacy must be balanced against the two important state interests. The Court said “it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of the health of the mother or that of potential human life becomes significantly involved.”

The woman’s right to privacy was a key finding in Roe, but we have ignored the interest of the state, especially regarding the unborn. What has been lost for the past 40 years is the question – At what point does the state’s legitimate and compelling interest in protecting the life of the child become stronger than the women’s right to privacy?

Viability

The Roe opinion is 30+ pages long and the Court only gave a couple paragraphs to the issue of viability. When considering the question of when life begins the Court stated “… the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

The Court noted that the beliefs as to when life begins “…have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or at the interim point at which a fetus becomes ‘viable’”.

In 1973 the Court determined that the point during a pregnancy when the state’s important and legitimate interest in potential life becomes compelling was viability. A lot has changed since 1973 and with advancements in technology we now see the development of the baby and hear the heartbeat.

Viability as the compelling point has not been accepted by pro-abortion groups who have worked in the years since Roe to extend the practice of abortion past viability to birth. With the Heartbeat Bill we acknowledge the Court’s belief that man’s knowledge and understanding of human development continues to advance.

Potential Life

The Court’s use of the term potential life is key. The Court was very clear throughout the Roe opinion that a state has an important and legitimate interest – in fact a duty – to protect potential life. The Court stated, “Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on the acceptance or belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State’s interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant women alone.” (emphasis US Supreme Court)

When discussing the legitimate interests of the state the Court said, “At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of factors that govern the abortion decision.”

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

The Supreme Court narrowly upheld certain aspects of the Roe decision in the 1992 Casey decision. But, the Court also eliminated the trimester standard from Roe showing that Roe may be modified as science and medicine advance showing that Roe can and will be changed as new understanding develops.

The Court obviously struggled with the question of viability and when discussing the legitimate state interest in protecting potential life the Court said “The weight to be given this state interest, not the strength of the women’s interest, was the difficult question faced in Roe.” Despite that statement the Court majority did not specifically review viability in light of scientific advancements as of 1992, but instead relied on the legal precedent of the Roe opinion.

When discussing Roe the Casey Court said “Even on the assumption that the central holding of Roe was in error, that error would go only to the strength of the state interest in fetal protection, not to the recognition afforded by the Constitution to the women’s liberty.”

In other words, the Court acknowledged that the strength of a state’s interest in protecting potential life is the key factor in the abortion debate. But the viability standard developed in 1973 has not been reviewed despite 40 years of scientific knowledge.

Today

Under Roe and subsequent decisions there is no question that North Dakota has a legitimate interest, even a duty, to protect potential life. The key question today is how much weight do we give to that state duty? Our understanding of potential life today is much greater than it was in 1973, the impact of 40 years of advancements in medicine and technology cannot be ignored. The images and the heartbeat from the womb provide strong and overwhelming evidence of, at the very least, potential life.

Related posts

  • ec99

    It’s pretty clear your desire is to eliminate abortion from North Dakota. So let’s hypothesize you succeed: What your next crusade?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      That seems like a silly question. What does Rep. Grande’s “next crusade” have to do with the one at hand?

      • ec99

        It means that once people like her are done with one project, they feel the need to move on to the next. You know: tobacco, fats, salt, pop… Ms. Grande seems like that sort of person, pushed to find another cause to “improve” the state, whether people want it or not.

        • Lianne

          ec99, I don’t believe that reverence and respect for life is a liberal crusade. But, I am happy to hear that you believe Grande will be successful. ;-)

          • ec99

            I think she will win the battle…the war may have another result.

          • Lianne

            Isn’t life worth the fight? I find it a bit ironic that society will spend millions and billions to save premature infants, many with profound defects; but raise alleged concern about expense in possible litigation.
            If there is a war, it is my hope that the life prevails. Of course, you were right in the earlier case where I placed deep hope.

          • mkap

            “Isn’t life worth the fight?” asks Lianne.

            I’d phrase it differently: “isn’t a six week, barely developed fetus with no brain worth trampling on the privacy and constitutionally protected rights of others who do not share my personal religious views about the personhood of fetuses? Isn’t it worth forcing women already facing a difficult choice to endure the moral judgment of complete strangers, and have a transvaginal ultrasound rammed up their vaginas against their will (an act that is normally considered rape), because YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THEY DO WHAT”S GOOD FOR THEM? And of course, because YOU KNOW WHAT GOD THINKS?”

            When we phrase the question this way, the answer is clear: NO.

          • Lianne

            I guess you are right, because the barely developed fetus could become a rock, twig, tree, dog, rat, or, as in the past, one of those brainless fetuses became you. What WAS God thinking?

          • Hal801

            At what point do you think a “barely developed fetus” becomes human and deserves protection under the law?

          • Lianne

            Guess mkap is thoroughly researching this one, too. You sure gave him some tough questions.

    • Hal801

      You should go back to Neiman’s blog of bigots where you belong.

  • spud

    This bill is a waste of time abortion is and still be legal even if this passes.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Still legal, but further limited.

      If it makes abortion harder, it’s worth it.

  • dakotacyr

    No, it is not, when you get your law degree, let me know!

    • Hal801

      Another whimper from you? At least post something of substance every once in a while.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I’m not sure I’d trust your legal analysis.

      • Bubba

        To be fair, I’m not sure I’d trust your analysis or that of Ms. Grande’s surrogate.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I’m pretty sure you decide what you want to believe without much thought at all.

    • camsaure

      What, did you get your legal opinion from little Matty, the pretend lawyer?

  • FrackinNodak

    Let’s hope Grande gets voted out at the next election. The fewer extremists we have in the legislature the better

    • Lianne

      Retro abortion comes to mind for some who think life is superfluous ,-)

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      There’s nothing extreme about standing up for life.

    • mkap

      “Standing up for life”, Rob? Is that what you call it? That’s not what I call it. Abortion of a 6 week old fetus is not murder. But forced transvaginal ultrasounds are definitely rape, Rob.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        Nobody is forcing ultrasounds.

        But hey, I’d love it if we could have a 100% effective contraception method outside of abstinence. I wish we could gestate children outside the womb.

        We can’t, so until that day comes the life of the mother and child in the womb are inextricable. And one doesn’t necessarily trump the other.

        • monsieurduncan

          “Nobody is forcing ultrasounds.”

          There are 8 states that require women to undergo ultrasound prior to termination of pregnancy. Two of them (TX and LA) require women to look at the images. These are women who are seeking a legally-permissible service.

          Perhaps you were referring only to North Dakota.

          • Lianne

            Haven’t read much about these, my question is this, if they weren’t thinking of terminating their baby, they wouldn’t be required to undergo these vaginal ultrasounds?

          • AQ

            So in your opinion, state-mandated rape is OK if the victim wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Just curious.

          • Hal801

            “state-mandated rape”

            Doesn’t the abortion process require a more intrusive procedure? Since you don’t recognize what a medical procedure is, do you consider that rape or consensual sex?

          • mkap

            Do you have trouble with the concept of “consent”, Hal? A woman chooses she wants an abortion, and gives her consent. You think this is the same as having a wand inserted into her WITHOUT her consent, a procedure with no other purpose than to interfere with her own private decision? How foolish.

          • Hal801

            How about the unborn baby girl who is aborted because she is a girl? Did she giver her consent?

          • AQ

            BZZZZT! False Equivalency, try again!

        • DW

          I wish YOU could gestate, Rob. Put your mney where your (big) mouth is. Perhaps then you’d see how heinous and reprehensible it is to force a person to carry a pregnancy they don’t want. Why, you could have all the babies since you seem to know so much about when life begins and everything…

        • DrInsula

          um.. yes. Actual person (female) trumps all.

      • Hal801

        In your opinion, when does a “fetus” become a baby?

        • Lianne

          Guess mkap is still looking for the answer!

  • Hal801

    Thank you, Bette Grande, for your consistent defense of innocent human life!

    • abbyness

      Oh, please. “Innocent” human life, to distinguish it from the human life of the women she obviously would be just as happy to see dead? Any woman who reduces the meaning of life to a fetal heartbeat obviously has a very low opinion of herself, and in this case, Bette Grande’s perverse occupation in a position of political power means she gets to foist her self-esteem problems off onto all the women of North Dakota.

      • Hal801

        If an unborn baby isn’t innocent, please tell me what he/she has done wrong?

  • Dallas

    Bette and Margaret, theocrats and pecksniffians. They give ignorance and hubris and bad name. Have either ever expressed a concern about sex abuse in theCatholic church? Doubt it.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I’m not someone who spends his free time saying horrible things about people from behind an internet alias ought to be calling anyone else ignorant.

      • mkap

        That’s just about your lamest argument yet, Rob. And that’s saying something, given the rest of your arguments. By your reasoning, no one on this blog (including you) has any right to call anyone “ignorant”…..like you just did. Aren’t you also hiding behind an internet alias, clearly implying that your opponents are “ignorant”?

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I post under my real name.

          • devilschild

            Didn’t the GFH once state that you used a fictitious name on your blog? I could swear that I read that some time ago.

          • Lianne

            You’re joking, right?

  • Don Quixote

    Each and every bill and ammendment which restricts abortion rights is aimed at ending legal abortion all together. Whether the anti-abortionists succeed or not depends upon the Supreme Court. Considering that the court is conservative, it would seem that the court will trend toward limiting or even ending legal abortion. Only time and court decisions will tell who will win this debate.
    If the anti-abortionists succeed and abortions become illegal, what then? Right now, it seems as if the anti-abortion crowd washes their hands after the birth. Who will pay for the education and upbringing of unwanted babies? Who will care and pay for the medical bills (long and short term) for babies with medical disabilities?
    Certainly not the anti-abortionists. All they want is the birth. Their defense of inocent human life ends there. It’s the parents responsibility to care for and pay for the results. After all, they didn’t have to get pregnant.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Who will pay for the education and upbringing of unwanted babies? Who will care and pay for the medical bills (long and short term) for babies with medical disabilities? Certainly not the anti-abortionists. All they want is the birth.

      Right. Better to kill the kids off before they can become a burden on society.

      Do you realize what a ghoulish argument that is?

      • mkap

        You think that argument is “ghoulish”, Rob ?

        Then how about this one: a fetus is NOT a person, at least, not yet.

        Or how about this one: what is going on inside a woman’s body is NONE of your business.

        Or how about this one: your religious views have no place in other people’s ob/gyn appointments.

        Or how about this one: anyone who thinks it is OK to mandate a transvaginal ultrasound for all women seeking their constitutionally protected right to an abortion is a woman-hating piece of garbage, no better than a rapist. Forced penetration of a woman against her will is still considered rape in most states. I don’t now about North Dakota, though.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I’m an atheist. Religion doesn’t dictate my views, science does. Life behind at conception. That is without question.

          • monsieurduncan

            “That is without question.”

            It is also almost unquestionably not the only matter to consider with respect to termination of pregnancy. The woman carrying the fetus clearly has rights; and if termination is narrowly viewed as a conflict between the rights of two parties then the rights of the independent, breathing, conscious party should prevail.

          • DrInsula

            Truly said.

          • DW

            Sorry Rob – you have no idea when “life” begins, scientist or not. While you have the right to your own opinions, you don’t have right to manufacture facts.

          • DrInsula

            well, he did claim that life “behind,” at conception…Not sure what he meant, but it seems abundantly clear that fertility should not be regulated by any state; a woman is the SOLE proprietor of her body, and should have the ultimate power over that, including in matters of pregnancy.

          • Lianne

            Absolutely. And that ultimate power not only includes post sex decisions, but also pre-sex decisions right up to and including the sex act itself. Once she agrees to having sex, she is accepting the possibility of becoming pregnant. Of course, the male species isn’t off the hook either, because with sex comes the real possibilty of creating life. It shouldn’t be cast off so lightly.

          • Emma

            1) What if she doesn’t agree to have sex? 2) The male species doesn’t actually have to CARRY the fetus to term. They can (and often do!) split. That leaves women at a disadvantage. Your argument fails.

          • Hal801

            “1) What if she doesn’t agree to have sex?”

            That would be a first for a liberal gal.

        • DrInsula

          Yes. NO ONE owns a woman’s body, except herself. She has the right to self-determination. All else is irrelevant.

          • Lianne

            And men don’t own their bodies, is that what you are trying to say?

    • AQ

      Actually, what they really want is the birth of more white people.

      • Hal801

        You need to get informed before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

        Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, “believed that lighter-skinned races were superior to darker-skinned
        races, but would not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor any refusal
        to work within interracial projects.” So she opened clinics in minority neighbors to “control their population”.

        • mystic_rhythm

          Nice try, but what you are citing was common thought among many people in that era. She was not an outlier in eugenics philosophy and citing her quotes as the sole proponent of selection is disingenuous at best. There were people who advocated outright euthanization of people considered undesirable and she was a vocal denouncer of Nazi policy in this respect. The point is that you can cite Sanger all day long but the reality is that her opinions were common in that era (and far from the extreme) and not uncommon among some people today.

          Per AQ’s comment, I’ve heard very specific statements in certain communities that are essentially handwringing about the shrinking white population due to having fewer children, and anxiety about how culture will change as whites become more and more of a minority in what is considered to be “their” country. That families have an obligation to have more children to stop the tide of “foreign” people and ideas that will “destroy the American way of life.”

          We’ve heard it all before — my Italian ancestors came to America 100 years ago and were feared and despised for the same reason. They were brown, didn’t speak English, cooked strange foods and had lots and lots and LOTS of children that didn’t look like their little white babies. They were feared as alien and laws were passed to keep them out and when here, marginalized. My people knew it was nonsense and built their own insular culture while they were here, and encouraged their children to not accept being second class citizens. Now look at what we have today. The contributions of Italians and Italian Americans to American history and culture cannot be disputed and the same can be said of every other minority who came here.

          The point of this is that a) Eugenics and fear of minorities was not isolated to Sanger and b) Yes, today people still have an irrational fear that they are losing ground to what they consider to be non-white, non-American people. And if you don’t understand that, you’re the biggest fool of all.

          • Hal801

            You don’t know what race I am, so don’t try to define me.

            So you are saying that Margaret Sanger wasn’t so bad because she was only a racist and not a Hitler supporter?

          • mystic_rhythm

            Since apparently both you and JoeMN seem to have reading comprehension deficiencies, let me restate the point:

            Margaret Sanger’s views on eugenics were NOT out of line with her era. If you’re going to denounce Sanger, you better be prepared to denounce other people in power at the time (good Christian upstanding citizens, natch) because there were specific laws passed to remove and sterilize those considered “undesirables” in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Not just those considered mentally or physically disabled, but minorities (Native Americans, African Americans), criminals, women who had children out of wedlock, etc. Oh and about 34% of the female population in Puerto Rico by 1965. All sponsored by federal or state government.

            Everyone loves to hit on Sanger but stop acting like she was the sole voice and actor for eugenics. She was not, and she certainly did not codify eugenics into law unlike others in her time. And just to make clear, she was vehemently against abortion; she was an advocate for contraception. Inconvenient truth, I know, but try not to hyperventilate.

            Oh and just to reiterate because it’s really apparent that reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I did NOT say she “wasn’t so bad.” Just to make that perfectly clear.

          • JoeMN

            The best part of that race rant is your attempt to reassign Sangers views on eugenics, which by the way are still in practice today

            http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/79-of-planned-parenthood-abortion-clinics-target-blacks-hispanics/

            BTW my ancestors were Poles.

            Many of them very dark skinned Poles

            And they are masters of “strange” foods.

            Delicious, but strange.

            However they are not exempted from targeting by the Democrat parties politics of race , so why should yours ?

          • mystic_rhythm

            Ah, LifeNews, the bastion of independent, non-political and certainly non-biased reporting. I bet you’re a voracious reader of WorldNewsDaily as well?

            Actually let me take that back because apparently your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up. I’ll try to use smaller words this time; maybe that will help.

            First, I certainly did not “reassign” Sanger’s views on eugenics. (Translation to your reading comprehension level: I did not say Sanger did NOT have or advocate eugenics.) Got that? Good, let’s continue:

            Second, I stated that her views were common in that era, and other good upstanding Christian citizens, through federal and state governments codified eugenics into sterilization law throughout the first half of the 20th century. (Translation: She advocated eugenics, but others turned it into law.) Good there? OK, let’s move on:

            Third, regarding your “Poles” comment — nobody wanted your people here either (Read the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, sponsored by two Republicans, whose purpose was “to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity” — Poles are way, way down on the desirable list). I don’t think I need to translate that one. The reality is that there was and continues to be an underlying fear of the foreign in this country and acts to overcome them. In the past, sterilization, today, one could theorize that the solution is finding creative ways to encourage more white babies to be born.

            BTW, I read the LifeNews article. Does it ever occur to anyone that these clinics are there because that’s
            a) where people are underserved medically and are therefore wanted there
            b) the aggressive targeting and closing of PP offices in primarily white communities skews the numbers and
            c) in affluent communities there’s options for abortion in private medical facilities and the means to pay for them, again skewing the numbers?

            BTW, I’ve passed many PP clinics in minority neighborhoods over the years, and somehow I never seem to find masses of people protesting against abortion there — there is, however, no shortage of protestors in safe, clean white neighborhoods. Coincidence?Just sayin’.

          • JoeMN

            First, to dismiss the study you must deny the geographical locations of PP,

            Instead you attack the source, which BTW is not the actual source of the study in question.

            http://www.protectingblacklife.org/index.html

            So I will ask, do you dispute the geographical locations of those PP clinics you “drove by” ?

            Second, the PP clinics that are closed are not the results of protests, rather it’s mostly when the government teat is jerked away

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/what-happens-when-you-defund-planned-parenthood

            BTW the “protesters” here coordinate to spend equal time at all PP locations.

            They are specifically instructed to protest where they are allowed by authorities, they are not to address individual clients, no chaining themselves to the front door, trespassing, or any other actions commonly found at Occutard protests.

            Oh, and the “protest” consists of peaceful prayer vigils. (the horrors)

            Robert H. Clancy, R

            Speaking on the Johnson Reed act

            I wish to take the liberty of informing the House that from my
            personal knowledge and observation of tens of thousands of
            Polish-Americans living in my district in Detroit that their Americanism
            and patriotism are unassailable from any fair or just standpoint.

            The
            Polish-Americans are as industrious and as frugal and as loyal to our
            institutions as any class of people who have come to the shores of this
            country in the past 300 years. They are essentially home builders, and
            they have come to this country to stay. They learn the English language
            as quickly as possible, and take pride in the rapidity with which they
            become assimilated and adopt our institutions.

            Figures available
            to all show that in Detroit in the World War the proportion of American
            volunteers of Polish blood was greater than the proportion of Americans
            of any other racial descent. . . .

            Polish-Americans do not merit
            slander nor defamation. If not granted charitable or sympathetic
            judgment, they are at least entitled to justice and to the high place
            they have won in American and European history and citizenship.

            And the vote totals from this “Republican supported” bill ?

            http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/68-1/s126

            Oh, and some of those eugenicists who carried on Sangers works ?

            The Carnegie Institution, and Rockefeller Foundation, PP’s largest contributors

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

          • JoeMN

            The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.[

          • mystic_rhythm

            Oh goody, you can read after all! OK let’s go:

            1. I do not and never did dispute the geographical locations of the PP clinics. I did not and never did dispute the study. LifeNews does a great job of posting stories that support their worldview with language designed for outrage and appeals to the emotional rather than the rational. I say the same about Mother Jones.

            2. Your MJ article shows only one side of the picture — some states defund women’s healthcare services (granted, including abortion, but I don’t see the non-contraception/abortion healthcare services being supported afterwards — apparently it’s okay to save little fetuses while women die of undetected breast and ovarian cancer). Beyond that I’ve observed over the last few decades that clinics have closed not just from state funding cuts but because of free market principles — they go up in areas where there’s opportunity for business, and down where there’s not (again, because in wealthier communities, the need for other women’s health services — 97% of PP’s business — is not there). Certain minority communities are underserved in terms of access to women’s healthcare services and therefore that’s where Planned Parenthood goes. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s business sense — clinical, but reality.

            3. Prayer vigils, how nice — What are you praying for, that the woman turns away from getting birth control pills and just says no to sex? Maybe you’re praying that she’ll turn away from getting a breast or cervical exam because it’s God’s plan to let her get cancer? What I’m sure you’re NOT praying for is that a pregnant woman offers to let you adopt those little minority children and bring them up in your nice, safe community because that woman feels unable to raise her unborn child. I’m also sure when you climb back into your bus or car and head back to your nice, safe community, you are all then first in line to vote for candidates who demand cutbacks in financial and other support for any woman you do successfully convince to “choose life”. They’re precious lives in the womb, leeches sucking away your hard-earned wages out of the womb, right?

            4. On Johnson-Reed. The bill was sponsored by Republicans and won by popular vote by both parties. Your link proves that. Per your quote, I offer another from Republican Senator Ellison DuRant Smith of South Carolina here:

            http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5080

            “I think we now have sufficient population in our country for us to shut the door and to breed up a pure, unadulterated American citizenship. I recognize that there is a dangerous lack of distinction between people of a certain nationality and the breed of the dog. Who is an American? Is he an immigrant from Italy? Is he an immigrant from Germany? If you were to go abroad and some one were to meet you and say, “I met a typical American,” what would flash into your mind as a typical American, the typical representative of that new Nation? Would it be the son of an Italian immigrant, the son of a German immigrant, the son of any of the breeds from the Orient, the son of the denizens of Africa? We must not get our ethnological distinctions mixed up with out anthropological distinctions. It is the breed of the dog in which I am interested. I would like for the Members of the Senate to read that book just recently published by Madison Grant, The Passing of a Great Race. Thank God we have in America perhaps the largest percentage of any country in the world of the pure, unadulterated Anglo-Saxon stock; certainly the greatest of any nation in the Nordic breed. It is for the preservation of that splendid stock that has characterized us that I would make this not an asylum for the oppressed of all countries, but a country to assimilate and perfect that splendid type of manhood that has made America the foremost Nation in her progress and in her power, and yet the youngest of all the nations.”

            Love the dog analogy. And remember, HE won.

            5. Please please PLEASE stop lying to yourself and everyone here that Margaret Sanger was the sole architect of eugenics policy in the United States. That is not true. It was a popular concept, widely accepted, widely adopted and widely implemented. Women couldn’t even vote at the time — you think she singlehandedly was responsible for every state and federal law implemented in the first half of the 20th century? Maybe you should actually read the articles you cite instead of searching for Sanger’s name — you may actually learn something about history.

            Thanks for playing!

          • JoeMN

            First, Planned Parenthood is not a healthcare provider

            http://townhall.com/columnists/caseymattox/2012/09/07/obama_administration_planned_parenthood_does_not_perform_mammograms/page/full/

            So funding them as such wastes money that could be otherwise spent on real healthcare.

            Second, abortion is Planned Parenthood’s bread and butter. Those subsidies DO pay for abortion, not mammograms

            http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/153699-exposing-the-planned-parenthood-business-model

            Planned Parenthood’s bottom line is numbers. And, with abortion as its
            primary money-maker, that means implementing a quota. I know this is
            true because I worked at one of their Texas clinics for 8 years, two as
            the clinic director.

            ______

            Maybe you’re praying that she’ll turn away from getting a breast or
            cervical exam because it’s God’s plan to let her get cancer?
            Pure hyperbole.
            It’s those Christian values, such as respect for life, and individual liberty which has lifted humanity from the depths of barbarism, and incidentally provided the blueprints for the greatest nation the history of the world has known, (where ironically now more babies are saved) yet more still are killed based on a misguided view of this same liberty.

            I wish you would stop comparing immigration policy to abortion.

            Immigration by way of abortion is fatal

            I have provided plenty of evidence that the actions of the eugenicists of the past are still present at the roots of today’s Liberal movement

            They may have changed their rhetoric, but their methods remain.

          • mystic_rhythm

            Aren’t you persistent…nice try, but wrong again (of course):

            http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf

            AFFILIATE MEDICAL SERVICES SUMMARY*
            STI/STD TESTING AND TREATMENT — 41.0 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2011
            STI Tests, Women and Men 3,744,949
            Genital Warts (HPV) Treatments 49,058
            HIV Tests, Women and Men 680,807
            Other Treatments 199

            CONTRACEPTION — 32.0 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2011
            Reversible Contraception Clients, Women** 2,006,691
            Emergency Contraception Kits 1,425,746
            Female sterilization procedures 801
            Vasectomy Clients 3,575

            CANCER SCREENING AND PREVENTION — 12.0 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2011

            Pap Tests 585,978
            HPV Vaccinations 38,892
            Breast Exams/ Breast Care 639,384
            Colposcopy Procedures*** 39,763
            LOOP/LEEP Procedures*** 2,469
            Cryotherapy Procedures*** 1,084
            (Per your point, they do not conduct mammograms but they do perform other exams and do give referrals)

            OTHER WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES — 11.0 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2011

            Pregnancy Tests 1,150,589
            Prenatal Services 28,674

            ABORTION SERVICES — 3.0 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2010

            Abortion Procedures 333,964

            OTHER SERVICES — 1.0 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2011
            Family Practice Services, Women and Men 55,329
            Adoption Referrals to Other Agencies 2,300
            Urinary tract infections treatments 47,812
            Other Procedures, Women and Men**** 26,595

            TOTAL SERVICES 10,864,659

            Is this not medical care? If you worked there then you’d know this. I call Bravo Sierra. IF you were the director as you claim, and your clinic spent the majority of its time and effort chasing money from aborted babies to meet quotas, rather than providing screenings and family planning counseling and services, then you were one poor excuse for a clinic director.

            P.S. If you’re “A”, I know who you are and your public story was debunked by many media outlets including FoxNews. There are no quotas and you have never been able to prove it.

            I’m not discussing liberals and their “eugenics” policy because that’s a separate conversation — I challenge your premise that liberals corner the movement on eugenics past or present, and there are volumes and volumes of evidence in the form of public policy that proves so. So stop implying that they’re the only ones with dirty hands and tainted souls. They’re not. Period.

          • JoeMN

            Mammograms ?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQ

            Planned Parenthood receives over 350 million taxpayer dollars to ostensibly pay for services other than abortions.
            So what are they doing with all that money ?
            Sex trafficking of minors

            http://www.liveaction.org/traffick/

            Medicaid fraud which a friendly DOJ refuses to prosecute

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/11/planned-parenthood-accused-of-6m-fraud/?page=all

            Over billing federal programs

            http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20121224_14_0_OKLAHO791686

            Partying with Democrats

            http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/02/Planned-Parenthood-To-Hold-Sex-Politics-and-Cocktails-Party-At-Lavish-Nightclub
            And on and on

          • mystic_rhythm

            Don’t insult my intelligence by pretending that you’re not promoting your own story. You filed the lawsuit cited in the WT article.

            (If in the extremely unlikely case there’s ANOTHER person from Texas who spent eight years at a clinic, two years as director, then joined the pro-life movement, my apologies, but this message is pretty much relevant to you too.)

            Let’s assume the lawsuit about $6 million dollars of fraudulent claims is true. The stark fact is that you were complicit in the alleged fraud and in all of the other things you claim. If it’s indeed true, then you belong in JAIL, plain and simple.

            However, rather than serve the time justly deserved for defrauding your fellow citizens and your state, you ran into the arms of the pro-life movement with wild claims and a weepy story of conversion, and here you are, free as a bird. What a clever little girl you are!

            You, by the very facts you cite and all the things you’ve said here over the last couple of days, are a media-savvy criminal who used the good intentions of people dedicated to the pro-life cause to save your tail from prison. Brilliant move but as we all know. there’s another Judge waiting for us when we depart this world. My guess is that He won’t be as easily enthralled by your tale.

          • JoeMN

            JoeMN means what it says, mystic.
            You obviously don’t bother reading links.

          • DrInsula

            But it is irrational. Also, not good.

          • mystic_rhythm

            Of course it is irrational. But it was the common attitude of the time. We evolved in thinking, just like we have on many things — civil rights, child labor, treatment of the disabled, etc. We’ve come a long way.

          • JoeMN

            Yet PP proves to us all the left has yet to evolve in the aria of eugenics.

          • AQ

            Oh? How so? Please show me how PP is racist.

          • JoeMN

            Racist ?

            Racism itself is a difficult charge to prove, because it involves human emotion

            (That is unless you are a rabid leftist determined to find racist intent everywhere)

            But there is rather strong evidence of eugenic practices still in effect from the days of Margarete Sanger

            http://www.protectingblacklife.org/index.html

          • AQ

            *BZZZZZZT!* Red Herring–answer the question.

        • AQ

          BZZZZZT! False Equivalency, try again!

        • AQ

          Also, Hal (tell me, have you killed many astronauts? Clearly your name means that you’re a murderous AI on a space ship!), when you can explain to me how Margaret Sanger having her head up her hindquarters with regards to race makes Planned Parenthood’s mission of providing reproductive healthcare services to poor women of all races/creeds/etc. evil and murderous (especially given that abortion services make up LESS THAN THREE PERCENT of what PP does), then perhaps I will listen to you and rest of your buddies who believe that pregnant women should be forced to carry an unwanted child to term.

          Until then, I’ll continue to point out the gaping holes in your twisted “logic” and fighting you like the dangerous Talibangelical clowns that you are.

        • DrInsula

          um…no

  • Simon

    Roe was a decision 40 years ago by old white men. Therefore, according to liberal theory, it can no longer be valid, just like the Constitution.

    • monsieurduncan

      So you claim that this is a theory. Let’s see your sources. A theory is an organized conceptual model for a set of empirical observations.

  • Bubba

    Ms. Grande, with whom, specifically, did you work with on this piece? Just curious, primarily because you’re tone is typically a folksy beat lacking much of the legal “substance” you’ve put out in this piece. I now see quotes, parenthesis, and the rest of it. I think for your own sake you shouldn’t take legal work under your belt, particularly when you editorialize heavily (despite what others say, despite what you might have heard, etc.). I know that you didn’t. Someone worked on this for you, and they deserve all the credit. If you are against abortion, fine, that’s fair. Do not ask others to work for you without giving credit. With that in mind, find better help, plenty of good advocates for your cause who can make a cogent constitutional argument. So who drafted your heartbeat bill? Who said it isn’t unconstitutional and why? Would you personally obligate yourself to the defense of this new law? Let’s say it fails constitutional muster, would you and the other sponsors agree to pay so that the taxpayers don’t suffer? I suspect you would, given your moral position on the matter. I don’t expect an answer.

    • Bubba

      sic your tone, sic many other spelling sics

      • Hal801

        Yes, you are just sic.

  • Anon

    I’d agree with almost everything stated about the current state of the constitutional law concerning abortion in the U.S., namely that that the state procures a compelling interest to prohibit abortion after viability.

    However, I question Rep. Grande’s application of that law to the Heartbealt bill. Heartbeats generally start beating at 6 weeks http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/earlyfetaldevelopment.htm and the earliest consensus on viability (and thus when the state can prohibit abortion) is 24 weeks. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14767050701866971

    • Hal801

      When is a baby viable, in your opinion?

      • Anon

        My opinion doesn’t matter; it’s the medical community’s view on viability that is constitutionally determinative.

        • Hal801

          Please explain how “viability” has any pertinence to the Constitution or case law?

          The real question is, when does life begin? The Constitution points out that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, among other things.

          • Anon

            Viability is the constitutional standard under Casey, even Rep. Grande acknowledges as much in her post.

          • Hal801

            Casey overturned a portion of Roe v. Wade that had prohibited states from prohibiting most abortions. In doing that, Casey broadened states authority to regulate abortion even before the end of the first trimester.

            BTW Casey never determined a time-frame for “viability”. With modern technology, a viable fertilized egg can be implanted through IVF.

          • Anon

            Casey limited the state’s ability to ban abortion until after viability. While viability may indeed change, the current medical consensus is that the fetus isn’t viable until around 26 weeks.

            You’re confused about what viable means. Viable means the fetus can survive outside the womb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability A fertilized egg isn’t viable; it will not survive if it is removed from a woman.

          • Hal801

            So you believe that abortion is unconstitutional after 26 weeks? That is when the baby gains its unalienable rights?

          • Anon

            The state cannot prohibit abortions until after viability, which is generally at 26 weeks; that is the current state of constitutional law.

          • Hal801

            I know that is current law, but laws change. Attitudes toward abortion have been shifting toward life, the court may recognize that and correct the greatest injustice in the history of our country.

            I believe that history will look at this time as a very brutal and incomprehensible period in the history of the world. Worse than all the evil brought about by the world’s worst dictators.

          • Anon

            That’s fine, my point all along was that under current constitutional jurisprudence the Heartbeat bill would probably be unconstitutional. Whether that law should change is a an entirely separate issue.

          • DrInsula

            well, it does not pertain. at that time it was understood that these rights pertained to adults; children were considered property of the parents. So if you look at the Constitution, there is nothing to inform on prenatal stuff, but it is clear that adults have constitutional rights.Why not grant them their rights??

  • dakotacyr

    Ms. Grande writes this in the first paragraph of her diatribe: “The Heartbeat Bill prohibits an abortion when the baby’s heartbeat is present, except to protect the life or health of the mother. ”

    then in the very next paragraph she writes this: “The Heartbeat Bill does not state that life begins at the detection of a heartbeat or at any specific time during pregnancy”
    so which is it, Ms. Grande? You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth trying to hoodwink the public. What a bunch of hooey! you are intentionally misleading. so sad for a legislator.

    • Lianne

      dakotacyr, I know you asked her the question, but I am going to answer it and she can correct me if I am wrong.
      There is no scientific answer to the question of when is the moment the sperm impregnates the egg. Therefore, the best scientific proof of life is the detectable heart beat. We know for sure at that time that a woman is carrying a live human being.

      Misleading? that is the democrat/rino platform.

      • AQ

        So, when the heartbeat starts, does that mean that the fetus is viable outside the womb?

        Just curious as to your justification for forcing the host of a parasitic organism to carry that parasite to term.

        • Hal801

          What does being viable outside the womb matter? Is that just your personal standard? When a baby is born it is still totally reliant on others for survival.

          AQ, what fitting initials for someone who advocates killing the innocent.

          • AQ

            BZZZZZT! False Equivalency, Reductio ad absurdum, and Hasty Generalization all in the same comment–try again!

          • DrInsula

            a person of childbearing age is CLEARLY viable outside of the womb. therefore, her discretion is paramount, and that should be the end of the debate.

        • Lianne

          A heart beat determines life in a fetus as in a young child, or an old person unconscious lying in the street or on a bed. It is when the beat is no longer detected, that death has been declared. It isn’t so difficult.

          • AQ

            BZZZZT! False Equivalency/Reductio ad absurdum, try again!

    • mkap

      Sorry, Lianne, you are thoroughly confused. Whether a fetus is “alive” or not is not the question. A skin cell is also alive, and yet we may exfoliate whenever we want to without worrying about “ending a life”. A six week fetus has a heartbeat, but almost no brain. It is not a “human being”, in my opinion.

      Note that I said “opinion”- I am a scientist, but science doesn’t answer the question of when a fetus becomes a human being. That is a philosophical question. Science can inform our thinking about that question (as, for example, when I note that a six-week old fetus with a heartbeat has no brain at all, which bears on my definition of “personhood” and “human being”. For the same reason that I would consider OK to pull the plug on me if my brain stopped functioning, it is similar to me to the case of a fetus that doesn’t yet have one.

      As for whether the bill is constitutional, well, of course not. Not even close. You have no right to impose your own particular religious views on the rest of us. Say goodbye to these ridiculous bills- they won’t pass constitutional review.

      • monsieurduncan

        “they won’t pass constitutional review”

        But not before being passed by Republican-dominated state legislatures, winding their ways through courts, appellate courts, and back to the Supreme Court. What a waste of resources. I’d like to know if Ms. Grande has any idea how many ND citizens lack health insurance. Maybe fix that first.

        • AQ

          Or, perhaps, she could work to change the law that makes it legal to rape an intellectually-disabled person, as long as you can say under oath that you had no idea your victim is intellectually-disabled.

          Then perhaps I’d be convinced that she actually cares about other people.

      • Lianne

        I know the eternal question of every woman who thinks or knows that she is pregnant is ‘what am I having– a toad, a cute kitty, a bear or a fish, the list is endless. Oh, that is right. Everyone knows that a pregnant woman is carrying a human.

        • Emma

          And the woman is forced to carry what is essentially a parasite IF the pregnancy is UNWANTED. If desired, there’s no more beautiful thing than pregnancy. But, as Margaret Sanger argued almost 100 years ago when women were dying from botched abortions and douching with lysol to prevent conception [seriously, read about it!] : “To force a woman to bear children against her will is to anger her in the most infamous manner.” What would the world look like if you, Lianne, took all your energy and instead focused it on adoption placement for all of the children in foster care that need homes? It would be a little brighter than it is now. For Shame.

          • Hal801

            You sound like a very pleasant woman. sarc

      • DrInsula

        How to consider the rights of the actual female that is pregnant? This is an intensely personal issue. If we have the right to life and liberty, then it seems that a woman has the right to do as she chooses.

        • Lianne

          Pregnancy does not occur by some random sperm blowing around in the wind or any other means except by the actions of two people. The Constitution does not say the right to life after adulthood, after the age of consent, after the onset of puberty, after one is able to forage for food for one’s self, after the birth of a health infant. It states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With life comes responsibilities and consequences for our actions. It is not easy, and killing an unborn baby should not be thought of as discarding some unwanted clutter ridding one’s self of unwanted gadgets.

        • JoeMN

          Using your example of liberty, how does this suddenly change AFTER the time frame of a legal abortion has passed. ?
          If she wishes to be “liberated” from her child, there is always the option of adoption available.
          She just looses her “right” to terminate it.
          That’s all

      • Hal801

        I’m glad to see that you don’t agree with Dakotacryer, I rarely do either. But why did you call him Lianne?

    • Hal801

      When do you think life begins? At what point, if ever, would you legally protect the life of an unborn child?

      • Lianne

        Hal801, you are just going to have to start asking easier questions so these guys can answer them. ;-)

  • OR nurse

    Ms. Grande states, “The Heartbeat Bill is very simple. Everyone understands what a beating heart means. It means life. The Heartbeat Bill prohibits an abortion when the baby’s heartbeat is present, except to protect the life or health of the mother. A heartbeat is accepted by everyone as a sign of life and a baby’s heartbeat gives compelling testimony from the womb.”

    Deciding life by heartbeat alone seems simplistic. I guess organ harvesting from individuals with neural activity whose hearts are still beating are off the table.

    • OR nurse

      correction ‘…without neural activity…’

      • DrInsula

        The mother is an actual person with constitutional rights. Whatever she produces within her body is well within her sovereign rights. She can do as she sees fit. I am sorry if this causes hurt, but the founders intended that adults have self-determination. They never specified that children (let alone collections of cells) had the same rights as adults. Case closed.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      But you can’t harvest organs without the permission of the patient.

      The child doesn’t get a choice.

      • kingkingser

        Actually, you can – it happens all the time. Familial consent.

        Children don’t get choices in a lot of things.

      • monsieurduncan

        You’re begging the question, though. by defining a very early stage fetus as a ‘child’ who has Constitutional rights.

        Furthermore, organs may be harvested from the deceased with the consent of the next of kin; not (obviously) from the deceased.

      • Noname11

        If a woman is raped, or even had unprotect sex, when exactly did she give consent for another human being to use her organs? No one can use my organs without my consent. Born person or unborn, they have the same rights with regard to my organs.

  • Logic

    I’m waiting for the anti-abortion crowd to put their money where their mouths are and introduce (and pass) bills that force people to give up “spare” organs…

    If they can do it with pregnant women, why not with everyone?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      That makes no sense. Babies are not organs.

    • Hal801

      You believe that an unborn baby is a “spare organ”, like a kidney?

    • JoeMN

      Perhaps they are too busy running clinics and hospitals, funding research to cure birth defects, organizations that provide prenatal care and counseling to expectant mothers, feeding and providing shelter for poor children around the world, then finally donating their own organs voluntarily when they die .

  • Bertha

    I find it curious that this blog post features an overtly sexual advertisement with a scantily clad woman encouraging men to take more testosterone. Not Ms. Grande’s fault but still emblematic of the gross double standard in our culture. And hypocritical and disgraceful, like Ms. Grande herself. She should be ashamed.

    • Hal801

      The ads are tailored to the types of websites that you visit based on the cookies that are sent to your computer by those sites. Have you been searching for North Korean Viagara online?

  • monsieurduncan

    Ms. Grande repeatedly makes the claim that the state has a duty to protect potential life when advancements in science yield new pertinent knowledge. Yet the only knowledge that she puts forward in this blog post and in the bill is the presence or absence of fetal heart tones.

    This is not new. Fetal heart sounds have been detectable since the beginning of auscultation. Perhaps they are detectable earlier now with electronic equipment; but that hardly seems to justify the sort of limits she and her Republican colleagues would place on women seeking legal termination of pregnancy.

    The presence or absence of a heart beat is also not by itself a sign of viability as other have pointed out.

    • Hal801

      In your opinion, when do you think a baby is viable?

      • mkap

        sometime around seven months. Definitely not 12 weeks, let alone six.

        • Hal801

          Sometime? What do you base that on? Hmm…So, whatever is convenient to you.

        • Hal801

          Hanniturd, nobody believes you are really Lianne.

  • bdevine

    The argument is a good one for where is the line to be drawn when there are two lives involved. When would it be right to tip the scales of justice towards the weaker and more vulnerable? At what point does any defense for personal privacy and yet total disregard for the other developing life demand the action of civil and responsible citizens to intervene and protect that life? I think choice is right but not when only one in the party makes that choice for the two of them. It’s so sad that this is where we are. Society has not really advanced much at all. One thing I know. For every aborted baby they have a loving Father who welcomes them into His eternal home. For some they may be in for a troubled awakening when by the grace of Jesus they too arrive in heaven and have to face up to that beautiful child. May God wipe away every tear.

  • hgoemans

    What if the Supreme Court says you’re wrong? Will you change your position about the constitutionailty?

    • Hal801

      Will you change your position if the Supreme Court says you are wrong?

  • SM

    So, if birth control fails, there is absolutely no option for a woman, except to have the child? Many women at 6 weeks do not even know that they are pregnant. Are we to just assume every sexual encounter has been a BC disaster? Oh wait, we’re never supposed to have sex, even if you’re married- unless you want a baby and are prepared for it, emotionally, physically, and financially.

    • Hal801

      At what point during the pregnancy do you think a baby should have a legal right to not be killed? How long do you think the mother should have to decide if “you want a baby and are prepared for it, emotionally, physically, and financially.”?

      • SM

        A *baby* does have a legal right not to be killed. A 6 week collection of cells does not. It cannot survive on it’s own. Since you seem to feel that a mother shouldn’t have any time to decide, does that mean that you feel that women should just never have sex unless they want a child?

        • Hal801

          If it has a heartbeat it is not just a collection of cells.

          • SM

            Even if it has a heartbeat, yes, it is a collection of cells. Even as a walking, breathing adult, we are still by definition a collection of cells. What makes us different is we are autonomous. We can survive. We have a brain. But regardless of when the distinction of legal status is made, you have not then answered the question I postured.

          • Hal801

            Your question was not a serious one. I think we are way past the point where most Americans believe that abortion should not be used as birth control.

          • SM

            The example I stated was not a woman using abortion as birth control, it was her trusting that birth control worked and therefore not knowing that she was even pregnant until after 6 weeks because why would she even suspect that she would be?

          • Hal801

            ” A *baby* does have a legal right not to be killed. A 6 week collection of cells does not. It cannot survive on it’s own.” then you say ” Even as a walking, breathing adult, we are still by definition a collection of cells.”

            When do you believe a baby can survive on its own? When does a baby become human? When does an elderly person cease to be a human?

          • SM

            So you believe that something that is not even the size of a pencil head can survive on its own? What without fully developed…anything.. it will make it?

            As for elderly persons, they don’t *cease* to be human, just as one doesn’t *become* human, we just transition through legal rights. An elderly person has a legal standing, a dead person does not. They’re still human.

          • Hal801

            I’m for life from conception to natural death. I believe we have an obligation to care for those who can’t care for themselves, whether they are very young, very old or sick. That is just human nature.

          • SM

            So, does your obligation to care for those then extend to the woman who has the child she did not want, took steps to prevent, was not prepared to have, and the $300,000 (conservatively) it will take to raise that child to age 18?

          • Hal801

            Yes. There are private and public programs designed to help mothers who are in need so they have the option to raise their child if they choose or use the adoption services available to find the child a loving home.

          • SM

            Don’t get me wrong, I believe that we should strive to care for people around us. However, to leave no room for circumstances is not the answer. Living cells and an autonomous life need definition. I don’t believe that cells that cannot stand alone can have a legal stance above and beyond someone else’s.

        • Lianne

          A new born is not a human baby under your definition because it can not survive on its own.
          Woman can have sex anytime they want to, but must understand that she can become pregnant. Killing should not be a solution for this inconvenient ‘collection of cells’ as you call it.

          • SM

            Lianne, you are mincing words entirely to serve your own purpose. A newborn has a brain, it is an autonomous being. It may need a caregiver, it may even need medical assistance, but unless you could also prove that you could take a 6 week zygote and birth it with assistance, no, it is not the same definition. That is why the 24 week cutoff exists in most states.

            Not to mention “inconvenience” is hardly the word I would use for being unprepared, either emotionally, physically, or financially. It doesn’t matter. You’re judging a woman completely without knowing her circumstances at all. Not all instances are black and white.

          • Lianne

            We all know that a 6 week zygote can become a frog, or a dog, or a cat, or giraffe, the list is endless. You are the one mincing words. If every woman aborted because she wasn’t prepared emotionally, physically or financially to become a mother, there would be no births.

          • SM

            That attitude is both hurtful and shameful. There are many people out there that are plenty and fully prepared to become parents. There are likewise many who make it work. There are also some who are not.
            I am not mincing words. I did not say nor infere that it would ever be a frog, dog, cat, or giraffe. Ever. I just said it was not autonomous. Therefore, has no legal standing under our current laws.

          • Lianne

            And it isn’t hurtful to say that many women are ” unprepared, either emotionally, physically, or financially ” You are saying that many women are not capable of growth, thinking, and maturity or caring for a child?
            What you are killing is a human? Why do you have the right to strip them of life?

          • SM

            I was not being hurtful, insulting, or using hyperbole. I did not say “many women”. I used an example of even just *one* woman that this bill may be affecting. One individual who’s life would be upending forever. Just as you are extolling when you say I want to strip them of life. However, while they are a developing human, they are not an autonomous life. They cannot survive. They have no legal standing.

          • SM

            I apologize, my original wording was vague; I did say that many women did not know that they were pregnant until they were 6 weeks along. I did not say, however, that many women were unprepared, I was stating a specific example of a married woman who may be.

          • Lianne

            Do you really regard the life of another that lowly?

          • SM

            I have a great respect for life actually, thank you for asking. As for being lowly, that assumes a hierarchy which actually there naturally is. The woman is an autonomous being. The developing human is not. The question is that of legal standing. Do you regard the woman as being so lowly? It is not as if people make decisions such as this flippantly, without thought, as a matter of course.

  • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

    Gads, I spend much of my time extolling the virtues of the Bank of North Dakota as a model for the whole country…then you guys have to ruin the image of the state for progressives and the majority of the country with this wrong-headed, unscientific male power-grab (Grande better watch out; once the male legislators finish using her as a pawn, they will work to whittle down women’s right to work, or be elected, too; this is nascent Taliban stuff).
    A heartbeat proves nothing on its own. My goldfish has a heartbeat. So?
    Don’t talk to me about what WILL be, or MAY be, 3 months, 5 months, down the road. Abortion is time-dependent/development-dependent. An aborted zygote/embryo/fetus at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or even 24 weeks (the cutoff in most states except for the most extreme cases) is NOT a baby. Check the brain, the seat of what makes us human, not the heart.
    Now, if you want to do something about abortions in the last trimester – a vanishingly small number somewhere around 1% of abortions – I’m with you; let’s try to deliver a live baby if the mother is injured or unable to carry the fetus to term for some other reason. But, if you’re going to insist on no late-term abortions, then let’s also insist on the morning-after pill being easily available, early and easy access to early term abortions, and funding for same. Otherwise, you are just being hypocritical and it is just a naked power grab by men (see my opening sentence).

    This bill is against Roe v. Wade, unconstitutional, and an affront to women and those who actually care about them everywhere. Even if it is somehow upheld by our reactionary court, that won’t make it any more right than Dred Scot was about upholding the rights of slave-owners, which, come to think of it, operated along the same lines of thought.

    • Hal801

      Does your goldfish swim around inside you and magically morph into a baby when it becomes “viable”?

      • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

        No, but if we lived in such a “magic” world, I’d feel differently. Meanwhile, I am forced, unlike so many religious types, to live in the real world. Gotta run now… My unicorn is hungry.

        • Hal801

          You, too, belong on Neiman’s blog of bigots.

          In your real world, when does a “fetus” become a baby? How do you determine that in your world? Convenience?

          • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

            Asked and answered – see my other comments on this site.
            There is nothing convenient about reality. That is for magical thinkers.

    • Lianne

      Have you read all three parts of Roe V Wade? The two that included the responsibility of each state? There is more to Roe V Wade than abortion and Rep. Grande has done well to revive those points as well.

      • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

        Grande has made a “grand” set of decisions of when life begins. For her it is at conception, but the closest she could get was 6 weeks, by counting the heartbeat as the metronome of life (a dubious position, even on its own merits, since even the heart does not spring full blown into mature operation any more than a human life does). Of course, to do what she really wanted to do and count human life from conception, she’d have had to drag out those old religious pictures showing a little person being injected into a woman by a man’s “seed” and even she doesn’t have the chutzpah to do that.

        As for State interests, the court, at least for now, has said in later decisions, “The Court later rejected Roe’s trimester framework, while affirming Roe’s central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.” Viability is considered at the earliest at 24 weeks (about 6 months) – though any doctor will tel you it is FAR preferable to carry the fetus to its full 40 week conclusion (which is actually 9 months and 1 week).
        This is when the baby can barely survive in an incubator, requires extraordinary care, and is most prone to complications that might last a lifetime. It is a far cry from an independent human being that it will be at term. That should tell you something about the completeness of any life even before 24 weeks.
        The pro-life people live in a simplistic religious world of absolutes. Nature doesn’t work that way and doesn’t care for our on/off decisions. It works in stages, and we have to make intelligent, informed decisions as to what those stages mean. To fail to do so is to surrender to dogma, nothing more.

        • Hal801

          I disagree. There are many people who have no religious affiliation who are pro-life. It’s not that complicated, an honest person knows that different DNA and blood type has to mean it is a separate person.

          • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

            It’s neither “separate” nor a “person” in the early stages (BTW, how far back are you going here – to the embryo, defined as earlier than 8 weeks, to the zygote, the fertilized egg?). I’ve already said from the beginning that I can see the case for late stage fetuses being essentially indistinguishable from newborns, and if we are going to accept newborns as people – and we should – the difference in personhood and not personhood cannot be just the short trip through the birth canal. In truth though, a very tiny percentage of abortions are performed in the last trimester, when there is viability, and even then only to save the life of the mother. It’s generous of Grande to make that life-saving exception, but many, including the Catholic Church, don’t even allow for that much.

          • Hal801

            You think there is no viability until the third trimester?

          • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

            Good question! Here is a handy chart from http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm:

            Odds of a Premature Baby’s Survival by Length of Pregnancy
            Length of Pregnancy Likelihood of Survival
            23 weeks 17%
            24 weeks 39%
            25 weeks 50%
            26 weeks 80%
            27 weeks 90%
            28-31 weeks 90-95%
            32-33 weeks 95%
            34+ weeks Almost as likely as a full-term baby
            Sources: March of Dimes, Quint Boenker Preemie Survival Foundation

            The likelihood of SURVIVAL below 25 weeks is 50% (as of 2008, when this chart was made, but I don’t expect that has changed much; we’d really need some kind of radical breakthrough in premie care to improve much on that). Of course, mere survival does not mean a life free of complications. See here: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/premature-birth/DS00137/DSECTION=complications for a long list form the Mayo clinic of the hazards of premature birth (one of the puzzling things about the so-called pro-life people is how little they support pre-natal care. Perhaps they think that is in God’s hands? Using that logic, we would all be living in caves and killing our food for dinner – well, no, actually 99% of us would never have lived at all).

            These long-term complications include:

            Cerebral palsy. Cerebral palsy is a disorder of
            movement, muscle tone or posture that is caused by injury to a preemie’s developing brain either during pregnancy or while the baby is still young and immature. Brain injury from poor circulation, insufficient oxygen supply, undernourishment or infection can all lead to cerebral palsy or other neurological problems.

            Impaired cognitive skills. Premature babies are more likely to lag behind their full-term counterparts on various developmental milestones. Upon school age, a child who was born prematurely might be more likely to have learning disabilities.

            Vision problems. Preemies born before 30 weeks may develop retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), a disease that occurs when
            blood vessels swell and overgrow in the light-sensitive layer of nerves at the back of the eye (retina). Sometimes the abnormal retinal vessels gradually scar the retina, pulling it out of position. When the retina is pulled away from the back of the eye it’s called retinal detachment, a condition that, if undetected, can impair vision and cause blindness.

            Hearing problems. Premature babies are at increased risk of some degree of hearing loss. All babies will have their hearing checked before going home.

            Dental problems. Preemies who have been critically ill are at increased risk of developing dental problems, such as delayed
            tooth eruption, tooth discoloration and improperly aligned teeth.

            Behavioral and psychological problems. Children who experienced premature birth are more likely than full-term infants to have certain behavioral and psychological problems, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression or generalized anxiety, and
            difficulties interacting with kids their own age.

            Chronic health issues. Premature babies are more likely to have chronic health issues — some of which may require hospital care — than are full-term infants. Infections, asthma and feeding problems are more likely to develop or persist. Premature infants are also at increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
            ——
            When it’s presented as a cut and dried list like this, it is almost easy to be detached from it, but remember a few things: A) many premies will have more than one of these problems, B) poor pre-natal care is associated with poverty, and poverty is associated with poor health generally, compounding these complications in childhood, C) seeming “isolated” problems can actually lead to many others, e.g. poor dental health can lead to heart disease, even Alzheimer’s (due to inflammation).
            Now, of course, every new parent hopes and expects that her baby will beat the odds. We have evolved to be optimists. But, these are the cold, hard facts. For every baby that “survives” being born at 25 weeks, even with complications, another one dies.
            Clearly, nature never intended babies to be born much before 40 weeks. As it is, humans have the longest childhood relative to their lifespan of any species, and are the most helpless mammals when born, outside of marsupials, who “gestate” further in their mother’s pouch.

          • JoeMN

            . For every baby that “survives” being born at 25 weeks, even with complications, another one dies.
            _____
            The problem here is while Mr Baker spends a lot of time outlining the complications for premature babies, remember that he is ultimately discussing babies that would (by a vast percentage) otherwise be perfectly healthy, had they been carried to term.

            It’s the abortionists scalpel that interrupts this development process

          • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

            No, it’s pre-mature delivery that interrupts this process *at 25 weeks*, not abortion. BTW, some 50%, or more, of fertilized eggs ultimately fail to come to term (are mostly reabsorbed) by natural causes. Where are all the funerals for those “babies”? The only thing lost there is potential, not actual, babies. Taking the life of a *potential* human being is not murder.

          • Lianne

            ” Taking the life of a *potential* human being is not murder.”
            That is true. Take for, example, a seed, an apple seed, or a carrot seed or any seed; look at it, and you can determine what will come from that seed once it is germinated. But, the seed is not an apple at that point. Neither is an egg or sperm a growing human being. Keeping them separated at that stage is not murder. Seeing them under a microscope, one can determine what they will become once fertilized. Fertilization is the difference or the crossing of the line, if you will, into life or the creation of a living human being.

          • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

            No, it’s not. A fertilized egg/zygote/embryo and early stage fetus is not a human being, no matter how many times you say it. You need a functioning nervous system, mostly a brain. This on/off switch stuff is really too simplistic to discuss further, but it is a religious construct having nothing to do with nature. It is unnatural.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            You sound suspiciously like conservatives who refuse to refer to homosexual unions as “marriage” because reasons.

            Ha.

          • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

            Don’t overthink “unnatural.” It just means not natural. I thought it worth pointing out because of how far from nature the on/off construct really is. That doesn’t mean we should do whatever we like, if it feels good, but it does mean that imposing some sort of either/or, on/off status to human beingness has nothing to do with how life actually begins. It might be convenient to say it does, but only at the cost of violating women’s rights.

          • JoeMN

            Yet the abortionist still is not removing some defect, rather his actions are destructive.

    • JoeMN

      (Grande better watch out; once the male legislators finish using her as a
      pawn, they will work to whittle down women’s right to work, or be
      elected, too; this is nascent Taliban stuff).

      ________

      Is it impossible for you to believe women can be pro life as well ?
      Or would she considered a slave ?

      Could it also be possible that there are men who support abortion with their own selfish personal interests in mind ?

      Quite a load of ignorance on display here.

      Also, you are loosing the support of your troops as to your arbitrary definitions of exactly which week life begins

      http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

      When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it
      makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to
      their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a
      few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they
      unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know
      women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their
      miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their
      pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend
      that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t
      selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re
      intended to be born.

      . And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every
      single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the
      fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

      ___

      At least they are finally admitting the real power is in defining when life ENDS.

      If you can still justify drowning your goldfish, in a society now steeped in moral relativism, then why not abortion ?

      • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

        The Salon article is logically inconsistent. She says “Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?” Well, yes, you are. That may be hard to accept, even if stated less prosaically that you are less of a HUMAN life if you don’t have a fully developed brain (thumb-sucking is a relatively low level reflex, though I suppose it could be called a substitute for nipple-sucking, so it is something).
        The author confuses POTENTIAL human life with what’s going on at the early stages of a pregnancy, just like the anti-choice people do. That’s why she, and they, can confuse a bunch of cells with a human being (note the “being” part – no other animal has that. We don’t talk about a Giraffe Being. It is our brain that gives us “Beingness”).
        And yes, the loss of reproductive freedom is just the beginning of the loss of women’s rights. Many of those same people would remove the right to contraception too. From there it is a short step to banning pre-marital sex, or making it so inconvenient that it rarely takes place. Then, censor the media lest we be “led into temptation.” And we might as go whole hog and just impose certain religious beliefs from early school/church (there would be no distinction in their theocratic world) age.
        That sounds like the Taliban to me. Now, about that dress code….

        • JoeMN

          That “slippery slope” argument runs off both sides of the hill.

          Why is Kermit Gosnell in the slammer ?

          Wasn’t he just providing a “woman’s right” to an abortion ?

          Why are you suggesting some arbitrary limit (brain function) if abortion is a “right” ?

          Why is the court for that matter ?

          We have a President who clearly favors late term abortions.

          He was elected.

          Shouldn’t mob rule (democracy) will out ?

          How about post birth abortion ?

          http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/declaring-war-newborns_633421.html

          Western societies approve abortion because they have reached a
          consensus that a fetus is not a person; they should acknowledge that by
          the same definition a newborn isn’t a person either. Neither fetus nor
          baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it
          would be like to be deprived of it. The kid will never know the
          difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung
          around a bit too long.

          As the authors acknowledge, this makes an “after-birth abortion” a
          tricky business. You have to get to the infant before he develops “those
          properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an
          individual.” It’s a race against time.
          _____
          So now what about those individuals who loose those properties in time ?
          And won’t the “states compelling interests” be lost as well ?

          By callously dismissing those who believe in life as “Taliban” you are suggesting that a societal shift in the opposite direction I just described would be preferable

          • Hal801

            10X

          • http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html Scott Baker

            I’m not suggesting some arbitrary limit. I am suggesting a reasonable limit. From my previous comments and sources, it’s clear that viability is somewhere around the middle of the sixth month – and that’s generous. Somewhere around there seems like a reasonable place to say, “this is a human being’s brain, capable of learning, feeling, sensing in ways that we define as human.” Now, frankly, I hope you’ll forgive me for not going into a long discursive discussion on how to define “human” not that that’s not important, but the space and format limitations of this forum don’t really permit that. I did answer some of these questions in a bit more detail in my article on Op Ed News: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Can-we-talk-about-Abortion-by-Scott-Baker-121026-573.html.
            The Gosnell case seems like more of a case of malpractice to the potential *mothers* not as regarding the fetus. No one is arguing – I hope – that pregnant women, or even children (one was 15 in the story I read), should not be treated with respect and compassion, and that their choice in terminating their pregnancy, or not, be properly considered. It sounds like Gosnell was too eager to “get on with it.”
            One does not have to predict a slippery slope to all-abortions-all-the-time in order to find some reasonable middle ground. Simply saying “human life begins at conception” or at 6 weeks, or even 12, is just too early, scientifically.

          • JoeMN

            So by your definition of “middle ground” six and a half months of abortion on demand lands squarely in the middle of the “viability” range, meaning that 30 to 50 percent of these considered viable will still be sacrificed.

            This places the US as an extreme outlier as compared to abortion laws in much of Europe
            The 12 weeks you would consider extreme actually appears closer to the norm
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#European_Union.

            I seem to recall the numbers of second trimester abortions at around 10 to 15 percent of the total.

            One would assume some percentage of these would shift to the first if the law did as well.

            But it still would likely affect Planned Parenthood’s balance sheet.

            The Gosnell case was mostly bureaucratic malpractice,with pro abortion zealots willing to allow this butchery to carry on.

            http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/21/da-regulators-ignored-reports-philadelphia-abortion-clinic/

            The day this Philadelphia third world liberal enabled barbary was exposed was the day I became convinced abortion is not in the least about “women’s health”

            BTW a little critique on your article

            Aside from the lack of a coherent argument in favor of your case for second trimester abortion, attacking your opponents using denigrating language and character assassination definitely play well in the bowels of the Huffington Post and the personnel lounge at Planned Parenthood next to Sangers diaries,

  • AQ

    Ms. Grande, thank you for showing me that I was right to flee North Dakota and its backward people after I graduated high school in 1988.

    • Hal801

      Thank you for leaving. With the initials AQ I’m guessing that you now reside in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area? Or have you branched out?

      • AQ

        And you think that I am an Islamist extremist…..why? Just curious.

        • Hal801

          I don’t know if you have been paying attention to the world around you but your initials, AQ, are used regularly as a shortened version of the name Al-Qaeda. Do you know what Al-Qaeda is?

          • AQ

            So, because I have the initials AQ, I am therefore a member of/supporter of Al Qaeda? Really?

            Thank the gods I don’t live in North DUHkota anymore.

  • mystic_rhythm

    You may blather on with your flawed and faulty interpretation of Constitutional law, but the stark reality is that you are a lover of statism, government intrusion into the private decisions of citizens and their medical professionals, and a malignant force of overreaching government and contemptuous of the right of free citizens to form families as they see fit.

    I have to believe that you and your cohorts must be secretly orgasmic at the idea of doctors raping women (via transvaginal ultrasounds) as punishment for extramarital sexual congress and/or not feeling capable of bringing a severely disabled child into an existing family, perhaps one with ongoing problems or limited means. And if you have EVER voted to cut funding for Medicaid or other family assistance, especially in a sanctimonious call for “smaller government”, that only proves that you don’t give one iota about the unborn once they exit the womb.

    This bill is not about “life” — it’s about 21st century corporal punishment for women behaving in ways you fear and despise, and you are using the government to impose your values on others without giving any thought to its consequences or providing a means of supporting children you force others to parent. Forced medical procedures and forced parenthood are not going to be a deterrent here. We have hundreds of years of history, and specifically history in the last 100 years that teaches us otherwise. How do you think your decision here will stand against time?

    I can only hope that the REAL constitutionalists in the Supreme Court will strike down this malignancy of legislation. You are truly RINO in spirit and mind and philosophy and a perversion of government stewardship.

    • Lianne

      Real constitutionalists? Where does the right to life fall under YOUR term of real Constitutionalists? Some mornings I wake up with a REAL desire for retro abortion for those who have no reverence for life ,-)

      • mystic_rhythm

        First, “real Constitutionalists” realize that incorporating laws that require forced medical procedures on women in order to meet one religion’s increasingly narrow definition of “life” (disputed by other religions, though I’m sure you’re dismissive of that fact) is certainly a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. One could also argue it falls into Thirteenth Amendment territory as well. Let’s also consider the numerous Supreme Court decisions around privacy, personal freedom, and of course Roe v. Wade, the current interpretation of privacy and freedom in relation to abortion.

        Second, it seems to me that people who claim they have “reverence for life” are usually the same people that show complete contempt for said life when it comes to supporting programs and policies that actually help people live with dignity. Cutting programs for the poor, reducing school spending, decimating healthcare programs and then lavishing entitlements on corporations (let alone personally eschewing charity in favor of big-screen TVs, new cars and vacation condos) is about as anti-life and irreverent as one can get. And if you don’t think so, you need to spend a little more time reading the Bible because it’s pretty darn explicit on what is expected from us in terms of kindness and charity to others. And funnily enough, has far, far less to say about the unborn. Again, most people seem to be dismissive of that fact too.

        Finally, your little snarky comment is a pretty good indication that like most of your kind, you take refuge in fantasies of violence when you’re unable to form an intelligent response. I guess that’s not a surprise. Hopefully you are getting therapy for your violent fantasies, or at the very least, your family has the good sense to lock the guns away from you ;-)

  • Pskip Scanlin

    I don’t know what I find more disturbing, your attempts to control the autonomy of women or your attempts to control the language of the discussion. First and foremost, a heartbeat is not universally accepted as “life,” that’s simply an unsubstantiated claim that suits your purpose. I don’t need to point out why you employed phrases such as “the lucrative nature of the abortion industry,” repeated descriptions of an unviable fetus as a “baby,” or the repeated insinuations that those who would disagree with you only do so because they are liars or have been lied to. Your use of rhetorical traps only illustrates your own lack of faith in the beliefs you’re attempting to force others to comply with.

    You’re also not in possession of the facts of the history of abortion, abortion access, or the development of techniques to observe fetal life. I find it curious that you’re uninformed about what seems to be the actual legal lynch-pin of your argument. I’m not a doctor, but it only took 10 minutes to confirm that ultrasound techniques were being used to observe fetal development as early as 1955, and had become standard by 1964. The Justices of Roe v. Wade were certainly more informed about the medical practices of their own day than you are about what’s obviously become a mythologized historical era. If it wasn’t standard practice to use an invasive and unnecessary procedure to confirm a fetal heartbeat at six weeks in 1973 it’s simply because overreaching religious fundamentalists such as yourself were still too busy being bitten by snakes in tents to organize the state by state war of attrition on reproductive rights through the courts.

    I don’t know why I’m even typing this. There’s no purpose in explaining to a liar how I perceive their lies, and you’ve gone so far over the line that there’s no way for you to reconsider your position in a way which spares you the humiliation of being so utterly and publicly incorrect, and with such destructive consequences. If you want to make the women who live under your control suffer because you’re concerned you haven’t done enough to buy your way into the favor of the clearly angry God you’re serving that’s your business. I can’t be angry at you, as with any form of lashing out and social violence the work you’ve done here only shows me that you’re a deeply wounded person. I hope you can find help for yourself, in a way that will uncouple your ego from the real lives of women.

    • Lianne

      What defines life in your area of the world if it is not the beating of a heart? When they stop running around like a chicken with it’s head cut off?

      • Pskip Scanlin

        That chicken’s heart is continuing to beat, that’s why it’s running around, that’s why the blood bursts out of the stump. Do you understand what a perfect and ridiculous comparison you’ve accidentally invoked? Please keep your fantasies about decapitated chickens and symbiotic cell clusters to yourself. This subject is strange enough without substituting such colorful imagery for rational thought.

        • Lianne

          You didn’t answer my question. What defines life vs death in your neck of the woods?

          • Pskip Scanlin

            You didn’t answer to any of the issues that I brought up, so I assumed that you were speaking purely rhetorically, and spitefully so. You aren’t looking to meet me in the middle, and I have no interest in seeing you there either. Disagree with me all you want, but I’m not interested in taking part in this cycle of disingenuous and spiteful points.

          • Lianne

            Is the answer that difficult for you?

          • Pskip Scanlin

            You’re asking me to describe a tenant of my religious faith. I hope you realize how inappropriate that is when speaking to a stranger in general, when speaking of governmental authority in particular. I have no interest in making you abide by my religious tenants, and they are irrelevant to this discussion, in the same way that the tenants that guide you and Grande are supposed to be kept separate from the laws that dictate my own behavior. If you want to live in a place where the spiritual practices of an elite few dictate the lives of the people may I suggest Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran?

            It’s not a difficult question for me to answer, but I don’t discuss my faith with those I consider heretics. Isn’t it strange to know that there are people who consider themselves holier than you? I’ll be praying for you, too. I hope you’ll find the answers that you’re looking for within your own life, through your own work. I don’t think you’ll find the answers you need through antagonizing perfect strangers, and if you actually care about these issues I’d suggest beginning with an honest conversation with your own spiritual leader.

          • Lianne

            Why enter a blog site if you don’t want to or can’t engage or provide answers? btw, I have my answers. So long

          • Pskip Scanlin

            I was replying to the post. I know, the thought of petitioning your government directly is foreign and nearly forgotten, I’m sorry I confused you with such archaic rituals. In your defense I’m sure Grande doesn’t even know people can reply directly to her here, and as I acknowledged in my original post I’m aware that it’s a fool’s errand to try to communicate with the powers that be. I’m glad you’ve found what you were looking for. I hope that next time you can get it without trying to denigrate a stranger.

  • Dick Memore

    Simple! One more CRAZY bitch republician

  • [email protected]

    Look, lady, you don’t get to impose your religion on anyone else. Period.

    • Hal801

      That is a weak argument. Thou Shall Not Kill is one of the 10 commandments. Is government outlawing murder imposing religion?

      • AQ

        False equivalency–try again.

  • charlie g

    you’re all idiots!

  • WPSay
  • falzf

    You do not know what it is like, Ms. Grande, to discover at 7 months that you are carrying a baby with no brain. Instead, you impose your self-righteous viewpoint on others. There’s an arrogance to your stance, because it reveals you do not understand the need to stay away from other people and their families when they face personal tragedy.

    • Lianne

      The sadness of losing baby in early pregnancy is traumatic, and losing a baby at birth is traumatic and deeply sorrowful. that is a sorrow that is only known to that mother. This bill prevents abortions after 6 weeks or once the heart beat is detected. A reverance for life is sacred to each of us living today. Protecting the unborn is not arrrogance, and in the specific case you mention this law would not change the outcome of the delivery. I hope you can work through the grief, you are in my thoughts and prayers.

  • DrInsula

    why is this important to you, to intrude upon the rights of others?

Top