• Syndicate content
  • Comment

Ark. lawmakers to discuss 20-week abortion ban

Posted: January 24, 2014 - 8:59am
AP Photo/Danny Johnston, File
FILE - In this Feb. 28, 2013 file photo Julie Mayberry, right, wife of Rep. Andy Mayberry, R-Hensley, center, and Rose Mimms, executive director of Arkansas Right to Life, left, sit in a gallery after the Senate voted to override the governor's veto of Mayberry's bill banning most abortions in the 20th week at the State Capitol in Little Rock, Ark. Arkansas also passed a law banning abortions from the 12th week, turning heads among abortion opponents eager to go further. But anti-abortion leaders and lawmakers in Arkansas and places where they’ve been most successful, still uncertain about how the U.S. Supreme Court and their state’s own courts would rule, are facing a dilemma: Do they continue with that approach or seek more dramatic policies that risk court rulings that could undo previous gains?

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas lawmakers are reviewing the rules for enforcing a law approved last year banning most abortions at 20 weeks into a woman's pregnancy.

Members of the House and Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee on Friday are scheduled to discuss changes in the rules for abortion facilities that will incorporate language from the 20-week ban. The Republican-led Legislature enacted the restriction last year, overriding a veto by Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe.

The bill was one of two abortion restrictions that lawmakers approved by overriding Beebe's veto. A federal judge in May blocked enforcement of a law banning most abortions at 12 weeks while she considers a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

  • Comment

Comments (21)

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.
lachowsj
3886
Points
lachowsj 01/24/14 - 09:30 am
3
2

Waste of time

The law is unconstitutional because it restricts abortion before the time of viability outside the womb. Passing this law and trying to enforce it is all a waste of time and money, which Republicans would be much wiser spending on prevention programs. In the real world the question is simple: Which is more offensive, making birth control available now or having abortions later?

mikeng1994
8288
Points
mikeng1994 01/24/14 - 12:59 pm
4
3

the lack of viability does

the lack of viability does not mean the baby doesn't feel or have a desire to live.

lachowsj
3886
Points
lachowsj 01/24/14 - 02:29 pm
3
1

Desire vs. realism

That point can certainly be argued and I have some sympathy for it. What can't be argued is that the point of viability has been the line drawn by the Supreme Court in a whole series of cases. You have to either believe or hope they are suddenly going to reverse themselves on all of those decisions or you are going to pass laws within the established guidelines. That's why I said that passing laws like this hurts rather than helps the cause of abortion opponents. Rallying the core may feel good but of itself doesn't accomplish anything.

InsGuru
4292
Points
InsGuru 01/24/14 - 03:56 pm
1
1

Agreed.

Everyone has their opnion on when / what a "person" / "fetus" may or may not "feel", but the fact of the matter is the surpeme court has ruled on it (many times) and that's that. It's a two way street, SC has ruled on abortion, so quit passing laws that go against it, just like they've ruled on fire arms, so quit trying to pass laws that go against that.

One thing that puzzles me is it seems conservatives want less people on welfare and/or state benefits right? So why not let the single 18 yr old get the abortion she wants, because that's 2 less people that are going to be on benefits....

conwaygerl
3583
Points
conwaygerl 01/25/14 - 02:15 pm
2
3

Why not

Just kill everyone on welfare then...born or unborn. It would reduce benefit expense by 100%

Abortion...saving taxpayer money one murder at a time.

Lets talk about death row now, shall we?

InsGuru
4292
Points
InsGuru 01/28/14 - 12:09 pm
1
1

INYO

"Abortion...saving taxpayer money one murder at a time."

Yes in your opinion. The surpreme court has ruled that it isn't, and that it is legal, so why pass a law going against it? All I'm saying is, no matter what political party, focus on something that isn't unconstitutional, and look at the other aspects of it (IE the welfare one).

faulknerwatchdog
580
Points
faulknerwatchdog 01/25/14 - 07:54 am
3
3

The answer is in your question

"So why not let the single 18 yr old get the abortion she wants, because that's 2 less people that are going to be on benefits..."

2 less people on benefits = 1 less person on Earth. This isn't a war on women or restrictions on the right to choose your own life. This is about preserving the most basic and precious of rights...the right to Life.

fdsjfsdjfsda543543543
2357
Points
fdsjfsdjfsda543543543 01/25/14 - 04:29 pm
3
1

Because someone else's

Because someone else's abortion is not yours or anyone else's privilage to have any say in whatsoever. Mind your own business and STFU.

faulknerwatchdog
580
Points
faulknerwatchdog 01/25/14 - 06:51 pm
3
5

I refuse to "STFU" as long as

I refuse to "STFU" as long as people are being killed for the sake of convenience. It is my business to speak out against evil and murder, I don't care one bit how offended you get. These guns you are so strongly opposed only sometimes kill people, while abortion kills at least one person per instance, to the tune of more than all of our wars combined. So get off your liberal high horse and start caring more about people and less about "choice." In nearly every abortion, there are at least 3 people directly affected: the child, the mother, and the father, and yet only person gets a vote. Tell me how that's fair.

fdsjfsdjfsda543543543
2357
Points
fdsjfsdjfsda543543543 01/28/14 - 01:36 am
4
2

Typical repug. You want to

Typical repug. You want to be all up in people's personal business while not giving a care about society in general.

It's a private medical decision, it's NOT YOUR BUSINESS. Go volunteer at the animal shelter or something else useful. Maybe caring for something besides your nascent Fox News talking points will engender a little compassion for other people.

Back to Top