UPDATED: ND Senate Passes Pro Life Bills

babybaby

This post is updated with the votes of each Senator on each bill.

What also remains to be resolved is the impact of Sen Mathern’s amendment on SB 2303 ensuring medical coverage for mother and child. This amendment was obviously not offered by Mathern out of sincere concern for the mother and child, but rather as an attempt to throw a procedural wrench into the works in the hopes of tripping up this bill further down the road.

The ND Senate passed in their floor session today three of four pro-life bills. Bills that passed were:

SB 2305, which will require any doctor performing an abortion in the state to be licensed in North Dakota, to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion facility, and staff privileges to replace hospital on-staff physicians at that hospital. Two floor amendments were offered by Sen. Nelson and Sen. Triplett, both of which failed. Nelson’s amendment would have removed the requirement for Doctor privileges, and Triplett’s amendment would have required the establishment of a legal defense fund to cover costs incurred by any challenges to the law if passed.

This bill passed 30-17

YEAS: Andrist; Armstrong; Berry; Bowman; Burckhard; Campbell; Carlisle; Cook; Dever; Erbele; Flakoll; Grindberg; Hogue; Kilzer; Klein; Laffen; Larsen; Lee, G.; Luick; Mathern; Miller; O’Connell; Poolman; Robinson; Schaible; Sitte; Sorvaag; Unruh; Wanzek; Wardner

NAYS: Anderson; Axness; Dotzenrod; Grabinger; Heckaman; Holmberg; Krebsbach; Lee, J.; Lyson; Marcellais; Murphy; Nelson; Oehlke; Schneider; Sinner; Triplett; Warner

SCR 4009 is a constitutional measure which states “The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected”.

This SCR passed 26-21

YEAS: Andrist; Armstrong; Berry; Bowman; Burckhard; Campbell; Carlisle; Cook; Dever; Erbele; Hogue; Kilzer; Klein; Laffen; Larsen; Lee, G.; Luick; Miller; Oehlke; Poolman; Schaible; Sitte; Sorvaag; Unruh; Wanzek; Wardner

NAYS: Anderson; Axness; Dotzenrod; Flakoll; Grabinger; Grindberg; Heckaman; Holmberg; Krebsbach; Lee, J.; Lyson; Marcellais; Mathern; Murphy; Nelson; O’Connell; Robinson; Schneider; Sinner; Triplett; Warner

SB 2303 defines, in criminal code, that a human being “means an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development”. One amendment offered by Sen. Mathern passed 32-15, which will ensure the health care needs of the mother and unborn child will be covered during labor and recovery; either through the extension of Medicaid eligibility, private insurance, or by the state if those programs did not fully cover the needs of the mother and child.

This bill passed 25-22. It was immediately referred to Appropriations due to the passage of the bill with Sen. Mathern’s amendment.

YEAS: Berry; Burckhard; Campbell; Carlisle; Cook; Dever; Erbele; Hogue; Kilzer; Klein; Laffen; Larsen; Lee, G.; Luick; Marcellais; Mathern; Miller; O’Connell; Robinson; Schaible; Sitte; Sorvaag; Unruh; Wanzek; Wardner

NAYS: Anderson; Andrist; Armstrong; Axness; Bowman; Dotzenrod; Flakoll; Grabinger; Grindberg; Heckaman; Holmberg; Krebsbach; Lee, J.; Lyson; Murphy; Nelson; Oehlke; Poolman; Schneider; Sinner; Triplett; Warner

SB 2302 failed 18-29. This bill concerned the ethical treatment of embryos, and would have also prevented the sale of eggs or sperm. Donated eggs and sperm would still have been allowed under this act.

YEAS: Berry; Burckhard; Campbell; Carlisle; Dever; Erbele; Hogue; Kilzer; Klein; Laffen; Larsen; Lee, G.; Luick; Miller; Sitte; Unruh; Wanzek; Wardner

NAYS: Anderson; Andrist; Armstrong; Axness; Bowman; Cook; Dotzenrod; Flakoll; Grabinger; Grindberg; Heckaman; Holmberg; Krebsbach; Lee, J.; Lyson; Marcellais; Mathern; Murphy; Nelson; O’Connell; Oehlke; Poolman; Robinson; Schaible; Schneider; Sinner; Sorvaag; Triplett; Warner

Like yesterday, a petition under Rule 320 was filed requiring a recorded vote for each bill and associated amendment.

While one bill did not pass, overall this was a very great day for the Pro Life movement in the state. The Senate is considered the tougher of the two houses to get through with such legislation, so a major challenge was successfully overcome with the passage of the three bills.

LegitSlater

LegitSlater is a SayAnythingBlog.com contributor who focuses on features primarily pertaining to state and local government as well as political parties, but has been known to dabble in other areas. LegitSlater has also been known to pinch hit for Rob when he is out and about in his worldly travels, or attending the occasional Yankees-Twins series. LegitSlater's numerous awards include the personal satisfaction received from informing the vast readership of SAB, spurring respectful debate, and hunting the trophy sacred cows which have been otherwise deemed off limits by the traditional media, elected officials, and the political parties.

Related posts

  • Lianne

    Senator Sittee deserves a huge thank you and kudos for all the diligent work she does.

    • Lianne

      correction Senator Sitte,

      • whowon

        She is SO good.

        • Lianne

          I suppose you get to vote for her, huh? I wish I could!

          • whowon

            and in almost daily contact!

          • Lianne

            I envy you!

      • Guest

        Yes she does. Thank you!

  • Cynthia

    Yayyy!!!

  • Greg

    What exactly is wrong with allowing the sale of sperm and eggs?

    • ec99

      The state hasn’t figured out a way yet to tax it.

  • Daniel Mickelson

    Where can we see how everyone voted?

  • Camburn

    The passage of these bills is pro death. The bills all had financial notes that showed they expect court challenges. Oklahoma had similar legislation that was taken to the US Supreme Court and the court rejected the challenge.

    Now, we have North Dakota actively adding more legal precedent to assure that Roe/Wade will never be overturned.

    What in the world are these folks thinking?

    Why do they want to cement Roe/Wade.

    That is exactly what has now happened……..again.

    Despicable. And now some of my tax dollars will go to make sure Roe/Wade has more legal precedent.

    I am not thankful today. I am very very sad.

    • SusanBeehler

      Why do you say pro death?

      • Camburn

        These Senators are suppose to be statesmen/women. They are suppose to understand legal items.
        When you vote, knowing that the bill will be challenged, (as the fiscal notes show), you are voting for another layer of legal precedent that affirms Roe/Wade.
        That is how our legal system works. Oklahoma just did this exercise and the Supreme Court refused to hear the challenge based on legal precedent.

        So, now, our tax dollars are being used to affirm Roe/Wade.

        I am 100% pro life. I am very disappointed that our Senate has become Pro-death by its actions. And what is even more upsetting is my tax dollars will be used to cement Roe/Wade.

        Despicable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • SusanBeehler

          So you are saying this was political posturing and it will not stand up to legal scrutiny. It was for “show”, is this what you are saying? It was a poor legal choice?

          • Camburn

            Susan: This was an extremely poor legal choice. Legal scholars from Pro-life groups are against any more challenges at this time. They understand the precedent, and what it does to law.

            I am ashamed that our Legislature is now part of the pro-death camp. A lot of this activity is funded by pro-abortion groups. They understand the legal ramifications.

            I am disappointed…….very very disappointed. Saddened that death has prevailed.

          • SusanBeehler

            Did you testify? or did anyone point out these legal challenges?

          • sanne

            What are the pro-life groups and lawyers who disagree with the strategy supposed to do? If they testify against the bills they look like they are undermining the pro-life cause.

            What should have got attention was that, although some supported some of the bills later, neither ND Right to Life, ND Family Alliance, ND Catholic Conference, or Concerned Women of America testified in favor of SCR 4009, SB 2302, or SB 2303. That was probably because they did not agree with the strategy, timing, or what the bills would actually do.

          • SusanBeehler

            So than there absence of testimony did exactly what they wanted to avoid looking like they were “undermining the pro-life cause”. They did “undermine the pro-life cause” if they did not say what they knew.

          • SusanBeehler

            Or is there a “national” scheme for something else like a “revolution”? Another party rumbling?

          • Camburn

            I don’t think that explains it. It is curious that NDRTL, NDFA, NDCC and CWA
            lobbyists were gung ho for personhood legislation in 2011. This begs the
            question as to why they weren’t in 2013. Could it be that their support of the
            2011 bill came to the attention of their national organizations, which don’t
            support or promote personhood legislation? Rogue lobbyists who think they know
            more than their national experts set the stage for the passage of these bills.
            These bills WILL be challenged, they WILL be struck down, and a lot of taxpayers
            money WILL be wasted on an exercise in futility. There is a very good reason
            why no other pro-life state has passed this legislation

          • Janne Myrdal

            you are so clueless. and you DO NOT speak for CWA or any of these other org. You have false info as does your neighbor. Seems the two of you need more tissue boxes as you seem to still be going waah waah waah over elections. CWA supported several of these bills just as in the past. They passed due to merit and oh maybe elections do hv consequences??

          • Camburn

            Janne: To support these bills is to support the continuation of death. It is mind boggling that anyone familiar with the US system of justice has the ability to support the continuation of death. These bills are pro-death.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/oklahoma-personhood-supreme-court_n_2040290.html

            Anyone familiar with the wholesale killing of babies understands that another layer of precedence will make it much more difficult to ever overturn Roe/Wade.

            Why would any organization that considers itself pro-life become so pro-death?

            Knowledge is power. It is apparent that supporters of these bills lack knowledge, and by that lack, make it very difficult for those of us who ARE pro-life to eventually get Roe/Wade overturned.

            Anyone who supported this effort, or voted for it, should be very ashamed of themselves.

            I am sorry to see that you must have supported this. Please seek the advice of scholars next time so that an informed decision and credible plan will be achieved.

          • Daniel

            Camburn, the North Dakota Supreme Court is about to create a state constitutional right to abortion involving a RU-486 case. the personhood amendment will be the only way to remove that state right to abortion. so you’re pro-abortion if you oppose the personhood amendment.

          • toomuchguvmint

            Camburn – You remind me of our former deficit hawk Kent Conrad – all talk no action.

          • Camburn

            splined:
            Abortion is a war on children. As in any war, to win, you have to choose the battlefield etc to win. You do not sent a squad to defeat a battalion. North Dakota is sending a squad at this time, knowing it is a suicide mission. Nothing accomplished, but less troops to have when the conditions are in your favor.

          • Janne Myrdal

            and what exactly are you doing to overturn Roe??

          • Camburn

            Janne: Right now I am starting the move to have these bills defeated in the ND House. Another layer of legal precedent only cements Roe/Wade at this time.

            I am 100% against establishing legal precedent, making the dike harder to get over, in regards to getting Roe/Wade overturned.

            What is the official position of CWA in regards to personhood bills?

            I checked their web site and did not see any.

          • Camburn

            Underlining the split among anti-abortion
            groups, Mason’s former employer, Operation Rescue, said personhood
            campaigners have occasionally disparaged and undermined other efforts.

            “Their
            mind-set is their way is the only moral, ethical way. Everyone else is a
            dirty compromiser,” said Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, which
            focuses on shutting down abortion clinics by pointing out health code
            violations.

            Mason was a paid staff
            member for Operation Rescue for three years before leaving in 2008 —
            Sullenger said he was let go — to launch Personhood USA.

            Sullenger
            said “Personhood campaigners would rather see the public inflamed by
            continued abortions than try to cut the number of procedures, a stance
            she called immoral.”

            Supporters of this legislation are immoral.

          • Camburn

            Janne:

            Care to share the position statement of the National CWA?

            I have not read where they support personhood at all.

            Even the state position does not seem to support this.

            Are you using CWA as an excuse to pursue your personal agenda? Even tho it appears to diff from the National Agenda?

            Which neighbor has false info?

            There are so many that feel the same way I do, that you must have meant neighbors?

          • Janne Myrdal

            since when did you know anything about what cwa stands for?? #clueless

          • Camburn

            http://prolifeprofiles.com/concerned-women-for-america

            Janne: You may want to think of what you do.

          • sanne

            Only one of the bills is like the legislation from 2011. And this year there was 2302, which might have looked like a better vehicle for doing the same thing.

          • Camburn

            Paul Linton is a legal scholar. His advise, and many more like him, needs to be heeded.

            https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/about/the-attorneys/

          • dlao

            the Mississippi Supreme Court seems to disagree with Mr. Linton. But he is your expert so only his opinion counts, right.

            http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-rising

          • Camburn

            dlao:

            The Mississippi Supreme Court rules that the Personhood Amendment could be on the state ballot.

            The people of Mississippi, a very pro life state, refused to be duped and did NOT want more legal precedent, so they voted it down.

            http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-11-09/politics/35283367_1_personhood-mississippi-amendment

            Seems the people of Mississippi are smarter than the ND Senate.

          • dlao

            you completely missed the point. Mr. Linton has said over and over that these bills are unconstitutional and the Mississippi Supreme court proved him wrong, and they at least gave their citizens the opprotunity to vote on the issue. Something you wish to deny the citizens of North Dakota. In a 7-2 decision they said Mr. Linton was wrong, But you bet the farm on what he thinks “might happen” because he is the smartets man in the room. Obviously the Mississippi Supreme Court says he is not. And you Never read the article did you.

          • sanne

            The article from PersonhoodUSA mischaracterizes Linton’s position and the Mississippi Supreme Court decision.

          • sanne

            Actually, the Mississippi Supreme Court did not disagree with Mr. Linton. Linton and many other pro-life attorneys contend that as a way to ban abortion or challenge Roe, personhood will not work. The Mississippi decision was not about a ban on abortion or Roe, it was about whether the state can declare an unborn child a person in other contexts, which is something that Linton said they could do.

      • Camburn

        Also, I am an organ donor. IF something happens to me, I want my worthless shell and body parts to be used by someone else to sustain life.
        SCR 4009 will dictate that my living will be illegal. After all, even if I am brain dead, my body must be “protected”.

        And if I refuse treatment for cancer let’s say. Now, because I exercise my right to refuse treatment, I would be considered a criminal as I did not protect my life.

        Such a can of worms.

  • ec99

    I hope they’re putting oil money into a defense fund. These will all be going to court.

    • Camburn

      Yes, they will. And they will add another layer of legal precedent so that Roe/Wade will not be overturned…..ever.

      HOW dumb……how ruthless these panders of death are.

  • Daniel

    the North Dakota Supreme Court is about to create a state constitutional right to abortion involving an RU-486 case. this personhood at conception amendment will overturn that state constitutional right to abortion. if nothing else, that’s why pro-lifers should support this amendment.

  • Yacht7

    Has it passed the house yet? If it is, when does Dalrymple sign?

    • Lianne

      Cross over of the bills occurs March 1st. So there is another hurdle to cross before Dalrymple signs it.

  • Lianne

    Today, I watched as the House voted on various bills. Several spoke against the passage of 1305 and 1456. One woman in particular spoke against the 1305, but said we should remember her words for each of the other abortion bills, compared the booster seat bill to the abortion bill. Opponents of the booster seat bill I guess spoke of choice. This member of the House believes that if a mother should have a choice about booster seats, she should have the choice about whether she carries the fetus to term. I would say to her, yes, choice was discussed, but the absolute outcome of abortion is the end of that baby’s life, death for all eternity. The outcome of the booster seat is not. We must look at the outcome of the choice, not if there is a choice in and of itself.

    I guess the new meaning of pro-life has replaced pro-choice. We must be very careful now because pro-life for them is NOT being against abortion. She clearly stated she is pro-life which is different than pro-birth. See how the RINO’s twist words and meanings? Yes, this woman is on the Republican ticket, but is truly a RINO.

    I have had several discuusions of late with democrats who berate me for being anti-abortion, and ‘mean spirited’ about not providing for all needs for all living humans.

    After listening to Dr. Carson today, I now have an even better response for those comments than just my personal belief that humans have an incredible strength, spirit, and will to be free. Left to their own devices, lift themselves to higher plains.

  • Hal414

    Isn’t it fitting that Sinner voted against protecting innocent life?

  • spud

    Roe v Wade will not be overturned so all of you are clueless. Mrs. Clinton will get huge victory in 2016 further packing the court to leftward tilt it is heading to.

Top