LITTLE ROCK — An Arkansas House panel is expected to take up a proposal to rewrite a 2009 lethal injection law that the state Supreme Court threw out last year.
The House Judiciary Committee is slated to vote Thursday on a measure that would spell out how the Arkansas Department of Correction is to carry out executions.
Republican Sen. Bart Hester of Cave Springs introduced the proposal after the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a 2009 lethal injection law in June. The high court sided with a group of death row inmates who said the lethal injection law violated part of the state's constitution that deals with separating the branches of government.
The Senate approved Hester's proposal last week.
Comments (7)
Add commentWell.................
Ha! Lefties won't like this. The only killing they support is a baby.
Well.....................
You paint with too wide a brush, as always, but at least make some sense here. I am liberal and I do support the death penalty 100%, and hope it is returned to legality as soon as possible and executions resume asap too, after all required legal appeals are exhausted, of course, according to the law. No one wants to legalize the killing of babies, women just deserve the right to decide to have one or not.
Well............
I paint the truth.
I don't pay full attention to your ilk. See below
No one wants to legalize the killing of babies? How about over 3,000 per day?
It's very simple.
Women do have the right to decide whether or not to have a baby. We all know what causes babies. If you don't want a baby, don't do what makes one.
Takes two to tango
get the cooperation of young/old men to agree not to have sex unless they want a baby and I'll support your proposition.
They don't have to agree
to not have sex. They just have to know that, if they do have sex and the woman gets pregnant, they will have a baby to raise. Of course, I would be all for putting more emphasis on making the dead beat fathers responsible for the children.
Yes it takes two to tango,
Yes it takes two to tango, but if one doesn't want to then there is no tango, even if the other still wants to.
So are you saying that the man has to agree not to have sex unless they want a baby? Would that mean that if the man and woman who had sex together, the man AND woman should get a vote in the choice of abortion? Sounds like it falls in line with your statement.
two to tango
but one to choose to abort.
equal rights and such.
"if one doesn't want to then there is no tango, even if the . .
other still wants to." Not in a lot of cases, thus we have a woman raped, pregnant and unwilling to have the child of the man who raped her. Yes, both sides should agree that if they don't want a baby don't do what it takes to have one. But I also agree, if men were stand up guys, I could see situations where he does want a child and he should have a say in that decision if he has decided to be the sole responsible party (in case of disagreement). Otherwise, yes, they should choose not to have sex, or use multiple birth control methods to prevent pregnancy, and if all else fails, live with the consequences. I do not support abortion as a birth control method, but unfortunately we do not have a plethora of men willing to stand up for their part in the equation, should the woman disagree. Otherwise, if you don't want sore feet, don't tango. Maybe we need to develop a hormone pill which will quickly end ones desire to tango, to prevent the unwanted pregnancies, before conception is attempted. But in all cases, under present circumstances, the woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy as she decides. I think consideration should be given to the father's rights, unfortunately there are few willing to start a movement for that effort. It is a sad situation, but one someone as well as all of us, have to live with.
Interesting
"No one wants to legalize the killing of babies, women just deserve the right to decide to have one or not."
In that case, aside from extreme circumstances, they should have made that decision _before_ they got pregnant.