Video: North Dakota Approves Three More Anti-Abortion Bills

0420_nd_capitol_1

The North Dakota House today had lengthy debate on four anti-abortion bills with originated in the Senate. This is “landmark legislation,” as Rep. Robin Weisz noted during the floor debate. “No state has made a statement like we’ve made today.”

Here’s what got votes:

SB2305 – Introduced by Senator Spencer Berry, this bill would require that any doctor performing an abortion have hospital admitting privileges. Right now the doctors that practice at the state’s only abortion clinic are all from out of state, so the intent of this law is pretty clear. It passed on a 58-34 vote.

SB2368 – Introduced by Senator Joe Miller, this bill would define personhood as beginning at conception. It was amended yesterday in the House to include a prohibition on state funding for any partnership or contract with anyone or any organization promoting abortion (that aimed at the NDSU/Planned Parenthood partnership). This bill passed with a 60-32 vote.

SCR4009 – Introduced by Senator Margaret Sitte, this constitutional amendment would add a single line to the state constitution defining human life as existing at every stage of development. This passed on a 57-35 votes.

SB2303 – Introduced by Senator Oley Larsen, this legislation would have defined human life as existing at all stages of human development in the state’s criminal code. It also would have expanded Medicaid to cover all pregnant women. It failed, though, on 43-49 vote.

I was surprised Senator Larsen’s bill failed. It was divided setting the anti-abortion portions out separate from the expansion of Medicaid for pregnant women, and both divisions passed but then the entire bill failed.

Still, a small set-back for the pro-life cause given that the state has now voted to prohibit abortions for gender selection, prohibit abortion because of defects like Downs Syndrome, prohibit abortion if a heartbeat is detected and to put before voters a constitutional definition of human life existing at all stages of development.

The question is, how many of these bills will be signed by Governor Jack Dalrymple? Pro-life legislators tell me they have assurances from the executive branch that he will sign them and that he’s merely going about it in a low-key way. I’m not sure I get the thinking in that tactic. Seems to me that prolonging the uncertainty of a veto only serves to prolong the debate.

I’ve written before that my gut feeling is that Governor Dalrymple is going to veto at least some of these pro-life bills (and, by extension, set off a civil war in the NDGOP). The political choice, it seems to me, is between signing the bills into law and costing some Red River Valley Republicans their seats in the legislature, or vetoing the bills and costing the NDGOP one or both of its majorities in the legislature.

Such is the price of governing more conservatively.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Rick Olson

    Wow. They’re sure bound and determined to get at least one of those bills through, even though they are clearly unconstitutional; and will wind up costing the state a lot of money to defend these in court, likely all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. They seem to have lots of time on their hands to debate things like this, but they’re not about to pay for kids having milk available in school. Twisted priorities or what? Please understand that I do consider myself to be pro-life…unfortunately, the bills that the Legislature has passed aren’t the right way to go about it.

    • camsaure

      You and the liberals suddenly worrying about the cost of something in govt is kind of laughable.

      • sbark

        LOL……for sure, you’d think it would stimulate the economy as much as food stamps, perpetual unemployment or welfare huh……..which the left crows as good as creating actual jobs

    • nimrod

      Its funny how a lot of abortions supporters consider themselves pro-life. I think I’ve heard Joel Heitkamp say he’s pro-life while he argues in favor of abortion.

      • Rick Olson

        Let’s be clear about something. I believe abortion should only be permissible in instances of rape or incest; or if the life of the mother (mental or physical well being of the mother) is in danger if she were to carry the baby to full term.

        • awfulorv

          Or it is conclusively shown that the baby will have gross mental, or physical, impairment, requiring expensive special care, of society at large, during it’s life.

          California has 7% special needs students, yet spends 27% of it’s school budget on these children.

          Can anyone offer a sensible reason why this practice should be exponentially increased?

          A good many of the states Liberal fatheads think it’s a great idea, and encourage the marriages, of Down Afflicted couples, as if they were breeding a new, exotic, species of Dogs.

          • Drain52

            So the value of life depends on how much one costs society? How perfectly formed the body is?

          • awfulorv

            If society is to pay dearly for the extra costs throughout the afflicted ones life, shouldn’t it expect some contribution from that life? And nowhere is perfection mentioned above, grossly malformed should have been though. And whoever said that common sense should be thrown out simply because you weeping, hand wringers, seem to hold sway for the moment.

          • Hal801

            So you want to kill all people when they become an economic burden on society or just the unborn burdens? Do you think that there should be Chinese style forced abortions since you think it will be a societal burden?

            Government blows a lot of money on feel good projects that are forced on parents. There are many states that require “school” for disabled children even though they will never be employable. Let the parents decide.

          • awfulorv

            Human beings are the only animal that doesn’t push the weak, the deformed, those deemed unable to survive, out of the nest, or the den. What do they know that we humans do not ?
            Or are these deformed children being used, as I suspect they are, as a flesh and blood reminder to their circle of acquaintances, that the parents of the child are very special persons, who deserve the highest honor from society for caring, as they do, for that unfortunate being?
            Trouble is society, though it pays dearly for the afflicted one’s upkeep, garners nothing in return.

          • Hal801

            “Human beings are the only animal that doesn’t push the weak, the
            deformed, those deemed unable to survive, out of the nest, or the den. What do they know that we humans do not ?”

            Humans know God.

            So you support killing children who are born with a defect that don’t meet societal standards?

          • awfulorv

            The point is these children need not and, IMO, should not be born.

            Or do you suppose that God would spend his time, cruelly, punishing parents, for their misdeeds, by dispensing deformed babies into the Mothers womb, and then insisting these deformed blobs be given life?

            C’mon, he may be a vengeful God but I don’t think he’s stupid, also.
            Common sense tells us to throw out the occasional defective gear on the production line.

            But you hand wringers, invoking the name of God, have decided you’ll sabotage the end product with your adherence to your faulty, implausible, reasoning.

            I’m told that within the Bible there is a passage asking why “seek the living among the dead”. Good question, indeed…

          • Hal801

            You are a disgusting person. Hitler had the same philosophy toward the handicapped as you do, thankfully your viewpoint has already been thoroughly rejected by the civilized world.

            Most of us who have close relatives who are handicapped don’t look at them as our punishment. We love them as much as anyone else, in fact, they are clearly more loveable that you.

          • JoeMN

            The point is these children need not and, IMO, should not be born.
            Common sense tells us to throw out the occasional defective gear on the production line.
            _______

            Cattle are specifically bred to enhance certain genetic traits that are favorable to the farmer/processor.

            (higher milk production, yield and quality of meat cuts, ect)

            Humans can and do preselect certain traits in animals based on subjective/superficial characteristics desirable to them alone.

            However the cow may stand a better chance of survivability on the prairie minus that oversized udder to tote around.

            But no two people are alike, which can also mean we each contain a certain amount of “defect”

            Marxists subscribe to the theory that man can be moulded by changing human nature.

            The Nazi party held certain views of the idealized (physically)German

            All humans have inherent flaws

            But only the truly perfect has authority over the imperfect

          • Yes

            On your logic, if someone has an accident and is disabled, we should just kill them off instead of making life possible through medical care, wheelchairs, etc. Your thinking sounds a lot like eugenics. Cruel!

          • Lianne

            I am glad you said that. I guess according to awfulov, anyone who becomes an alcoholic, a drug addict, or is dx with MS, etc should be thrown into pits and killed. This is the civilized society in which we live. Where does it end? Anyone who receives money from welfare, WIC, Medicaid should be killed? Awfulov, you should be ashamed of yourself. With thoughts like that someone may decide you are not a productive part of society.

          • awfulorv

            Well yes, now that you mention it, I am a bit chagrined that I left out Liberals as good subjects for euthanasia.

            Other than that oversight, though, I believe I’ve presented a thoughtful, common sense, approach to a vexing problem.

            And nothing in my missive entails pushing grandma off a cliff, stealing her crutches, or even shooting children in their heads, whilst their mother pushes their strollers.

            I’ll leave that form of population control to you Liberal hand wringers, and your vicious, ignorant, wards.

          • toomuchguvmint

            orv – discover the world of a musical savant. See http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-957718.html

          • camsaure

            If I were a liberal I would be careful what I wished for. If they think it is OK to kill because of being a burden on society….. well are not all liberals a burden on society?

          • JoeMN

            And yet we are told abortion advocates swore off eugenics long ago.

      • Lianne

        Hawken has stated that she is pro-life, which she states is different from pro-birth. She has taken the term and switched the meaning. Becareful, the libs are great at that. So when someone says they are pro-life, ask them before or after birth.

    • Zach

      What’s the over/under on how long it takes for these to be found unconstitutional?

      Mark it down – they will be found unconstitutional.

      • Rick Olson

        I suppose it depends upon which U.S. District Court that the plaintiffs will file their cases in first. If they get filed here in North Dakota — either Bismarck or Fargo — where the two U.S. District Judges from North Dakota’s chambers are located; I’d say the odds are pretty much even.

      • sbark

        so your saying the Left has stacked the guys in black robes to that extent Huh?……..Soviet commies always said we’d rot from the inside out.
        ……..and here we are.

        • Zach

          So you’re saying those on the right are all for a person’s rights as long as it doesn’t have to do with abortion?

      • Hal801

        That is how these issues get decided by the US Supreme Court. Of course there will be disagreement along the way.

    • toomuchguvmint

      Just about everyone has at one time or another said that they are pro life.

      • Dave

        Exactly. But what they really mean is only when the child is in the womb. Once the child is born, they could care less about life. I guess ‘ cause the kid’s not “innocent” enough for them anymore — and stuff. That and because the kid and mommy become part of the welfare class and suck our tax money away. At least that’s what we are led to believe, right? So once the doctor slaps you on the ass, you’re on your own, kid.

        • Hal801

          So you are a small government guy who supports welfare reform?

          • Dave

            I am very much a small government guy. But, that aside, really, I have no dog in this fight. As an observer, I find it interesting that the line of demarkation for the opposing sides is the point of birth. Before that, conservatives are all about saving the innocent. One second after that, they’ve evidently done their duty and can now wash their hands of it all (because you know, it was the mother’s choice to go out and get knocked up, and all.) Whereas on the other side, they’re all about the rights of the mother to kill her baby until the point of birth, then one second after birth, their mission shifts to life at all costs — innocent or otherwise (anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc., save euthanasia).
            Both sides dispaly hypocritical tendencies, and I just find that amusing.
            As a lifelong contrarian or devil’s advocate, I like to challenge the status quo a little, and on here, it tends to be mostly ultra-conservative. You should see me when I am challenging a bunch of pointy headed Ivory Tower libs… that can be just as fun!

          • Hal801

            “You should see me when I am challenging a bunch of pointy headed Ivory Tower libs… that can be just as fun!”

            I agree, I do the same. You actually sound a lot like jamermorrow. Are you a self described anarchist?

          • Dave

            No. I am Norwegian and Lutheran. Typical Nodaker. (;

          • Dave

            Wait…. maybe I am an anarchist. Norwegian and Lutheran is one hell of a passive-agressive combo, as in cause as much chaos as possible behind the scenes and smile to your face at the same time. LOL!

        • toomuchguvmint

          What I am talking about are those that say they are pro-life and vote pro-death. This double talk is most common with democrats, but there are plenty of republicans with the same level of hypocrisy Just about everyone knows that right to life groups make an effort of support for young mothers and their children. I have never ever heard that any pro-death group has any record of support for women that chose life. We all know that liberals have a very pathetic record of charitable giving in comparison to what conservatives contribute.

          • Lianne

            splined, unlike what Dave said, Hawken has said she is pro-life which is different than pro-birth. In other words, she and other liberals and RINO’s have twisted the meaning of what pro-life has meant for all these many years. And, unlike the libs who believe that everyone is too dumb to live independently; conservatives and many republicans believe in the capability of strength, and self reliance in each individual. Dependence on anyone weakens the person. Being on your own is not the bad thing that Dave implies. Being controlled by the welfare limitations that is stifling.

  • AuH2o

    4009 Does not outlaw abortion. At most, it is a simple value statement. Not sure how many people understand this, even legislators.

    • wj

      Certainly not the newspapers. They already have it wrong.

  • Guest

    So will ND start investigating women who have miscarriages for murder or manslaughter? Under the bills passed by the House today that’s the end result. This is what happens when you have a Fundaloon legislature that doesn’t care about the repercussions of the laws they pass.

    • Lianne

      More scare tactics. Read the entire bill before you spew nonsense.

      • Guest

        Please explain to me how this is enforceable if they’re not going to do any investigations? You’re the one advocating for this, so it’s your job to tell what the fuck is in it!

        • Lianne

          Boy, it doesn’t take you long to go to potty mouth when you are caught in ingnorance. Read the bill. Or can you not comprehend what the words are saying?

          • Guest

            It’s your policy. Please explain how the scenario above will not play out. How will the abortion bans be enforced. You need to be able to answer this question. You’re advocating for this, I’m not. Call me a potty mouth, but you’re being fucking moron.

          • Lianne

            First, I support the bills, I didn’t write them.
            Second, what are you asking about? Miscarriages or abortions and/or if ND will start to investigate women for murder?

          • Guest

            How will an amendment granting a fetus legal rights be enforced in the event of a miscarriage? Will we have to investigate women who miscarry for murder or manslaughter? Can women be prosecuted for actions that place a fetus in harms way? It seems that enforcement of the law under this amendment would create all of these situations and your side refuses to address it. Maybe you should think about the repercussions of legislation you support before it’s written into the state constitution.

          • Hal801

            Your stupidity increases by the minute.

          • Lianne

            So you didn’t read the bill. Therefore, you can make senseless arguments. I can not nor will not print the entire bill, but I will copy just a small portion that is repeated through out the bill that may calm your nerves. It reads, “2. Sections 12.1 – 17 – 01 through 12.1 – 17 – 03 apply only to the principal actor, other than the pregnant woman, with respect to criminal conduct upon a person who has not yet been born.”

            And miscarriage has never been a part of the debate in the first place. The sky is falling routine is easily assuaged through educating one’s
            self.

          • Guest

            So there is no penalty for a woman who aborts her baby? Can an oil company whose pollution leads to an increased number of miscarriages be liable for wrongful death? It’s a slippery slope when we starting granting fetus’ legal rights. The forced birth side has thought none of this through but continues to push their idiotic, nonsensical agenda.

          • Lianne

            Now you are back to abortion. Read the bill. It is crazy how you and your ilk dream up what if’s. Must be while you are smokin’ a joint. But, if a woman chooses to abort her baby, and no one knows, I guess she would not be prosecuted.
            YOU were once a fetus. the sad thing is that we cannot read the minds of fetuses and find out which one would prefer life over death nor can we implement retro-abortion. But, for some, it would be useful.

          • two_amber_lamps

            “What if’s” is all Gusty has… ask him why he posts on MN area hockey blogs while posing as Goon’s 5 year old daughter.

          • ellinas1

            Why do you post on MN area hockey blogs while posing as Goon’s 5 year old daughter?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Good morning Stockton Pederast! How are you today?

          • ellinas1

            I ask again, hoping you are woman enough to answer my question: Why do you post on MN area hockey blogs while posing as Goon’s 5 year old daughter?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh my! Mr. Happypants sure got up on the wrong side of the bed! Let me guess, your NAMBLA membership got revoked on the basis that you were “too debased?” Aw…. we know you were really looking forward to being a card-carrying member and all… so we understand if you’re a little snippy today. Hope you feel better! -TAL

          • ellinas1

            I ask again, hoping you are woman enough to answer my question: Why do
            you post on MN area hockey blogs while posing as Goon’s 5 year old
            daughter?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh po’ widdle Nasty is all kinds of wee-wee’d up today!

            Tell ya what, go down to your basement rumpus room and take it out on that 10 year old boy you keep chained up there, you detestable pederast you.

          • JoeMN

            So should this zombie be charged with three murders ?
            Or simply performing a double abortion without a license ?
            http://www.priestrivertimes.com/news/article_052db6ba-4f97-11e2-ad27-0019bb2963f4.html

          • Neiman

            A spontaneous miscarriage is not active euthanasia, it is passive and unintended and cannot be a crime. If a company does something to cause those miscarriages and they did not know it would cause them – no crime; If they knew, then those having prior knowledge are guilty of murder. If a woman deliberately, knowingly engages in conduct that has a high likelihood of causing a spontaneous abortion it is a crime of child abuse/neglect, if she did not know, it is not a crime.

            Women that take seek an abortion and all that aid her in getting that abortion are accessories to first degree murder. The degree of guilt and punishment can vary according to intent and level of participation.

          • Guest

            Who determines this whether the miscarriage was inadvertent? Seems like there would have to be some sort of investigation to determine the causes of death. Are you prepared to subject women to this?

          • Lianne

            Actually, you have spilled the horrible truth. We will herd woman through the gates every month to determine is they are pg, have aborted, or miscarried. THAT is wholly and fully sarcasm in case you didn’t know.

          • Neiman

            Yes, absolutely!

          • Hal801

            Based on your limited knowledge of basic subject matter and your substandard use of the English language, it appears that you have the aptitude to eventually work your way into a career of male prostitution.

        • Hal801

          Maybe you should look at what is in it so, eventually, you can have something intelligent to say.

          • Guest

            Maybe you should as well. You obviously can’t point me to section in it that outlines how the situations above would be handled. My guess is the functioning illiterates who wrote this piece of crap have no idea of the legal consequences. You’re the one advocating for this. It’s your job to inform the public, especially if you want this to be passed by the voters of ND.

          • Lianne

            Obviously, you don’t want to read the bill. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink, as the saying goes.

          • Hal801

            It is clear that you have spent the majority of your life sitting around waiting for someone else to inform you. Develop some personal ambition and investigate some facts on your own.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Most likely also sniffing paint thinner while posting on SAB on the 3M dime… what a doucher Gusty/Guest/Anon/imposterof5yearoldgirlwhopostsonMNareahockeyblogs is!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Can you point us out which 3M products give you the best high whilst huffing them since you seem to be such a subject matter expert? Would your huffing of said products and the brain damage incurred on your fetus make you Gusty liable to prosecution should you spontaneously abort your unborn child?

    • Neiman

      What they should do is call abortion what it is, cold blooded, premeditated murder and subject everyone involved to the laws against homicide. Miscarriages are not willful abortions, they are not murder, like it is conspiring with Planned parenthood to murder one’s own child in the womb.

  • Imleaving

    A new low for the state. Although since North Dakota is more conservative than hell, would this be a new high?

    • Hal801

      Where are you going?

  • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

    St. Jane Ahlin is going to have a conniption fit!

  • John_Wayne_American

    My wish is that they could have had legislation that would have restricted it enough say waiting periods, proof of rape like a police report… stuff like that, this will only cause the clinic to move across the bridge 2 blocks away and serve the same “customer” base. its a lot of hassle and won’t save a single baby. :(

    • Jenk

      A lot of rapes aren’t reported so there isn’t proof. As well, shouldn’t a man be convicted first of the rape, at least in certain situations? Imagine being raped and getting pregnant and then having to prove it like you the victim did something wrong. To the men reading this you may not be able to personally relate but imagine it happening to your wife or daughter. How would you feel to see your wife carrying her rapist’s baby? Would you love to feel it kick? Any thoughts?

      • John_Wayne_American

        I’m just throwing out some of the things that maybe would help cut down on the number of dead babies… if the law was refined for rape incest or life of mother.. than couldn’t law enforcement trained in that field be brought in to at least investigate the rape or incest? my point is.. an outright ban, will just move the clinic across the bridge, then ND has no say in what happens in that new location.

        • Jenk

          My point is there is no easy answer. It is very complex. Even if abortion is banned everywhere it will still happen. In fact countries with very strict abortion laws have higher abortion rates. If we want to cut down on the number of abortions it’s through education, access to birth control and reducing poverty. The abortion rate went up in the Netherlands as a result of Muslim immigrants wanting them because they were scared how their families would react. It isn’t the liberal Dutch women getting most of the abortions. You’re right about limiting the number of abortions. I think people on both sides of the issue want this. I know I do.

  • Lianne

    Kreun voted no across the board. He is the only one to do so. Becker voter no everytime except for 2368. Hawken and Headland were absent. 92 voted for Sections 4 and 5( division B) with many of those voting no for the others.

    • Hal801

      Kruen and Becker are social libs? I’m disappointed to hear that, I thought Becker could be a good one for the long run. I was wrong.

      • Lianne

        I was disappointed to see how Becker votes on life.
        I believe we should not be having this discussion in this country. Life should be treasured, revered, and honored in the greatest country in the world. It is shameful.

  • Guest

    Headland was gone due to a death in the family. Not sure why Hawken was gone.

    • Lianne

      Absence is a frequent occurance. I never really gave it much thought till Triplett pulled her stunt. I would have thought Hawken would want her vote well documented. Didn’t feel that I could call attention to her absence without listing all of them–fairness.
      My condolences to the Headland family.

  • Don Quixote

    I don’t understand why we are bothering with these bills and this argument The solution is simple. Every woman at puberty should be mandated to take birth control pills. This would render them incapable of having children until they actually want them.

  • Leroy Huizenga

    Thanks for your coverage, Rob. I — and many of my friends and associates — really appreciate it.

  • Rick Olson

    I certainly consider myself to be pro life. The question I wrestle with concerning these particular bills is does the end justify the means? Although North Dakota is awash in cash right now in the state coffers to the tune of some $3 billion; most of that surplus money is actually already spoken for and is required to be kept in various constitutionally-mandated accounts. In other words, our state only has a budget surplus on paper. You know the pro choice forces and those who run the abortion clinic here in Fargo will immediately file lawsuits against the state, intended to challenge these new pieces of legislation as being unconstitutional. This could force the state into some prolonged litigation, perhaps all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money could be at risk. It should be noted that North Dakota law already prohibits the so-called “partial birth” or late-term abortion. Where the abortionist removes a baby from the mother’s womb and literally stabs it in the back of the neck, and uses an instrument to suck its brains out, thus killing the child before it takes its first breath. That in my opinion is not health care. It’s murder. Plain and simple.

    • Hal801

      I’m sure the state could get plenty of donations to defend these laws in court. If we aren’t willing to put forward a relatively modest amount of money to defend innocent unborn babies from intentional death, what have we become as a society? How much money justifies defending innocent human beings? 0bama just gave $75 million of your money for the rebels in Syria to wage war. I think we can defend our unborn.

      • Rick Olson

        A very good idea in theory. I’m not sure if it would be legal, though. Can the state ask for donations like this?

        • Hal801

          As happened with the 0bamacare lawsuits, there are outside groups who assist with the strategy, legal paperwork and the filing of briefs. An example of this was Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation. States that wanted to join in the lawsuit could do so with a very small legal expense. That is why Mark Levin was so disappointed with Chris Christy (Gov-NJ) for not joining the lawsuit against 0bamacare.

Top