• Syndicate content
  • Comment

House overrides Beebe on abortion bill

Posted: February 27, 2013 - 9:51am

UPDATE:

 The Arkansas House voted 53-28 Tuesday to override Gov. Mike Beebe's veto of a bill that would outlaw most abortions starting in the 20th week of pregnancy, hours after a state Senate committee approved a package of even tighter abortion restrictions.

The Republican-controlled state Senate, which overwhelmingly backed the 20-week near-ban on abortions before Beebe, a Democrat, vetoed it, was expected to discuss whether to vote to override the veto Thursday. Like the GOP-led House, only a simple majority in the Senate is needed to override a veto.

The House-sponsored measure is based on the disputed argument that a fetus can feel pain by the 20th week of pregnancy, and thus deserves protection from abortion. Beebe vetoed the bill Tuesday, saying it contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court's 1976 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion until a fetus can viably survive outside of the womb, which is typically at 22 to 24 weeks.

"This is not just any regular bill. It's one that has an eternal impact on each of us and to those children," Republican Rep. Andy Mayberry told House members as he urged them to override.

Two of the House's 48 Democrats joined with all 51 GOP members to support overriding Beebe's veto. Eighteen Democrats and the chamber's only Green Party member did not vote on the override, which has the same effect as voting against it. Republicans hold 21 of the 35 seats in the Senate, which approved Mayberry's bill on a 25-7 vote last week.

Prior to the House vote, the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee voted 5-2 to advance a bill that would ban most abortions starting in the 12th week of pregnancy, sending it to the full Senate. The Senate passed an earlier version of the bill that would have outlawed abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, but amended it to push back the restriction and to add more exemptions.

Beebe declined to say Wednesday whether he would also veto the Senate's proposed 12-week ban, but he said he thinks it's on even shakier legal ground than the House's 20-week version.

"I'm pretty sure I know what I'm going to do on a bill that's even more problematic than the one I already vetoed, but I won't tell you officially until that time," Beebe said Tuesday.

Seven states have enacted similar 20-week restrictions based on the fetal pain argument, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks laws affecting women's health. A similar law in Arizona has been blocked while a federal appeals court reviews a lawsuit challenging it.

John DiPippa, dean emeritus of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's law school, said he agrees with Beebe that the ban is unconstitutional and will likely be decided by the courts. He said he thinks the fetal pain argument will lose in the lower courts but that it's unclear how it might fare if it were to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The core holding of Roe is that a state cannot place an obstacle in the way of a woman who wants to abort before viability," DiPippa said. "If you apply that standard, then these bills that draw the line at 20 weeks — which by all medical estimates is prior to viability — would clearly set up a substantial obstacle to a woman's ability to before that age."

GOP Sen. Jason Rapert said he hopes Beebe lets it stand but said he was confident the 12-week ban would have enough support to override a veto.

"The governor has his own conscience," Rapert, R-Conway, told reporters. "I think probably the best route would be that he just simply not sign the bill and let it become law, if that's what he decides to do. If he doesn't, then we'll override the veto and it'll become law in the state of Arkansas."

###

A Senate panel is taking up a proposal to ban most abortions in Arkansas 12 weeks into a pregnancy, a day after Gov. Mike Beebe vetoed a less stringent ban on the procedure.

The Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee on Wednesday is expected to consider the revised version of Republican Sen. Jason Rapert's 12-week ban. Rapert's bill would ban abortions at 12 weeks if a heartbeat is detected using an abdominal ultrasound.

The Senate approved an earlier version of Rapert's bill that would have banned abortions as early as six weeks. It passed the House after Rapert made several changes.

Beebe on Tuesday vetoed a bill that would have banned most abortions 20 weeks into a pregnancy. He cited concerns about that measure's constitutionality.

  • Comment

Comments (24)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
BuzzBy
17777
Points
BuzzBy 02/27/13 - 10:58 am
9
1

STOP ALREADY!!!!

Unpublished

If Gov. Mike Beebe vetoed a less stringent ban why in HOLY HADES woul dhe let pass another more restrictive bill.

JASON PLEASE OH PLEASE move on to something more constructive and less divisive.
And stop wasting time and money on this issue.

Battlecat
1020
Points
Battlecat 02/27/13 - 01:28 pm
3
3

I'm confrused

Didn't they just have to pass it again with a simple majority after the veto? If that is the case why would they go back to drawing board?

Is it because they want to see if the more stringent ban can get passed, then vetoed, then passed again? It seems like the last was was rational and it gave concessions for circumstances.

reader
12588
Points
reader 02/27/13 - 02:14 pm
9
1

Do something about Jobs Senator Rapert

and leave women's health decisions to them and their doctors. So far this session seems to have been sewn up into two issues, Guns and Abortion. What one thing have you done to improve the business climate in Arkansas? What about you, Rep. Meeks?

Reaganesque
4125
Points
Reaganesque 02/27/13 - 02:19 pm
0
0

Well...............

It won't affect males such as you, read...........Killing babies is not a woman's health issue.

DanCDaves
1437
Points
DanCDaves 02/27/13 - 07:18 pm
9
1

He's Playing to his Audience

The mainstream political narrative in the public, liberal or conservative, is about guns and abortions. They're catering to their audience. What about the high costs of higher education, low teacher salaries, gas prices, housing, etc, etc, etc? People would rather argue about their rights and privileges not what actually matters.

Battlecat
1020
Points
Battlecat 02/28/13 - 09:10 am
1
5

Gas prices?

Really? Aside from taxes and barriers to business that is mostly set by the voters, us, what can the Arkansas Legislature do for gas prices? I thought that was Obama's fault.

DanCDaves
1437
Points
DanCDaves 02/28/13 - 12:13 pm
3
3

Voters are Always to Blame

Forgot that gas prices are set by markets which ours or any other government has no part in. I guess abortions and guns are what matters most.

Battlecat
1020
Points
Battlecat 02/28/13 - 12:23 pm
2
0

Not bait

I could care less about abortion or guns nor larger government. But, we can't always pass the buck to being the "dumb politicians" fault. Excises taxes, voted on by the people. We had that discussion months back. The taxes and barriers to business are not solely on the pols, people have influence. They sit on boards as well as elect those that make the policy. So yeah, it is the fault of you, me, and everyone else. I'm not saying you're wrong in absolute terms. I'm saying that the blame belongs to us and our ineptitude as a whole. I lend this to this left/right hole we've gotten ourselves into and can't get out of.

You and I both know that markets set prices even though government regulation does indeed affect it. However, government alone is not entirely to blame.

We set that government up and then complain about it.

DanCDaves
1437
Points
DanCDaves 02/28/13 - 06:18 pm
1
0

No argument here

I completely agree with that.

PEARList
2008
Points
PEARList 02/27/13 - 06:51 pm
5
1

Interesting

I guess I've never heard of an executive veto requiring only a simple majority to be overridden. If that's the case, why even have veto powers in the first place?

Maybe I'm missing something (and that's not rhetorical, I very well may be), but doesn't it have to get a simple majority to get to the Governor's desk in the first place? If so, then what sense does it make to allow a veto that only requires the same voting margin to be overridden that it took to get it to the veto?

Politics: made confusing by legislators so only legislators will be able to do the job (even if poorly).

Back to Top