Texan state legislature considering bill that would make abortion punishable by death Watch

Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#81
Report 3 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by QE2)
The law.


But just because they have killed once doesn't mean that they will kill again.
Likewise just because someone hasn't killed doesn't mean that they won't. Every murderer was once not a murderer.


Some of the safest countries in the world do not have the death penalty, while some of the most dangerous do. Your argument makes no sense.


I might if I knew what point you were trying to make.


So if your argument isn't based on saving lives, what is it based on?
The law aims to be based on morality but it can only work with what it knows, or err on the side of caution when that information is unavailable.

The rate of recidivism is generally between 40 and 70% depending on the country. The rate of criminality in the general population are in the fraction of a percentage.

Some of those safe countries have little to no crime, and therefore do not require a death sentence. The question is simply do you believe a society with less or more violent offenders is more safe? I believe one with less, is safer.

It means don't go down the tunnel until you know what's in there. Not sure how I can more accurately simplify the concept for you.

I don't believe laws should be watered down for those who refuse to follow them. If they have been told abortion is illegal and have done it anyway, they should be published like anyone else, enough to deter.
Last edited by Jebedee; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#82
Report 3 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by Jebedee)
Life imprisonment is an unnecessary expense, so I support the death penalty. I don't see it as revenge, but keeping society safe.
Do you have evidence for that? All the stats I’ve seen show that the whole death penalty process is actually much more expensive than non-death penalty processes.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#83
Report 3 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Do you have evidence for that? All the stats I’ve seen show that the whole death penalty process is actually much more expensive than non-death penalty processes.
In the US it is indeed. Most countries with the death penalty have a far cheaper way of dealing with the issue.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#84
Report 3 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by Jebedee)
In the US it is indeed. Most countries with the death penalty have a far cheaper way of dealing with the issue.
You mean, like beheading and stoning to death? Is that really what you're advocating?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#85
Report 3 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by Jebedee)
Maybe it's pedant word play but they are not the same thing ,as they are in different stages of development. Saying they are not the same is useless unless you qualify which characterise are different.

Who can say what qualifies as alive?
Er, you apparently? Again, you said "I just said they are both alive". You believe that a fetus and embryo are both alive and I am asking you to clarify what you mean by that.
0
reply
adamseddon
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#86
Report 3 weeks ago
#86
yep
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#87
Report 3 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
You mean, like beheading and stoning to death? Is that really what you're advocating?
Gunshot to the back of the head. The Bali nine conviction for example would have cost an absolute fortune if they were convicted in the US or Aus. It cost very little in Indonesia.
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Er, you apparently? Again, you said "I just said they are both alive". You believe that a fetus and embryo are both alive and I am asking you to clarify what you mean by that.
They are both people of different ages. That's what I mean.
0
reply
snugglebear
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#88
Report 3 weeks ago
#88
(Original post by Jebedee)
Because it doesn't involve the murdering of a child.
what sentence should the woman and doctors get, if it is murder?
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#89
Report 3 weeks ago
#89
'murica
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#90
Report 3 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by ChickenMadness)
'murica
Casual racism because it's trendy. Got to love it.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#91
Report 3 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by Jebedee)
They are both people of different ages. That's what I mean.
What makes someone, or something, a "person"?

We're going in circles here. You're applying vague definitions to something in an attempt to equate it to what we see in our day to day life.
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#92
Report 3 weeks ago
#92
(Original post by Trinculo)
I don't think you understand the significance of Roe v Wade, nor the background to it, nor why it is so controversial.
(Original post by Trinculo)
You don't understand what it is you are talking about.

Making an amdendment to the Constitution of the United States is significantly more difficult than reversing a case. There is currently no appetite to reverse Roe v Wade, and it is going further away from such action. The idea that there would be a Constitutional Amendment is utterly absurd.

The whole point of Roe is that the states are powerless to do anything about it. No-one wants to challenge it either, because there is so much to lose for all sides. Abortion is the EU of American politics. It divides the US just as deeply and totally as the EU divides UK politics. A challenge to Roe would be the equivalent of the EU referendum. No matter what happens, everyone is going to end up angry at some point.
(Original post by Notoriety)
Trinculo knows an awful lot about law. They're right.
you two are actually ridiculous. Who cares if it's absurd, to you? They're doing it. Several states have had hearings, are having hearings and will continue to have hearings approaching a decision on whether they will continue with the ban!! You two don't know what you're talking about. You're speaking about it generally, but unfortunately you underestimate the power of the pen, the power of Congressional votes, the power of gubernatorial and presidential/federal mandates, the power of US referendums. They are literally going forward with it even it gets denied, whether you two find it "absurd" or not :ciao:
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#93
Report 3 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
you two are actually ridiculous. Who cares if it's absurd, to you? They're doing it. Several states have had hearings, are having hearings and will continue to have hearings approaching a decision on whether they will continue with the ban!! You two don't know what you're talking about. You're speaking about it generally, but unfortunately you underestimate the power of the pen, the power of Congressional votes, the power of gubernatorial and presidential/federal mandates, the power of US referendums. They are literally going forward with it even it gets denied, whether you two find it "absurd" or not :ciao:
Federal constitutional law constrains what states can do.
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#94
Report 3 weeks ago
#94
Notoriety Trinculo again, instead of being obtuse just to spite me and making utter fools of yourselves, just google it! it takes two seconds :lol:

""Trigger laws" date back to the year Roe was decided, and one or two conservative states have historically introduced them every legislative session. But those measures failed. This year has been different.

"There's been so much more this year," Elizabeth Nash, a senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, said. "And these are getting attention. They're not just getting introduced and fizzling out like they used to."

Liberal states are also preparing for a post-Roe v Wade world, passing laws that would maintain or expand access to abortion. In New York, lawmakers passed the "Reproductive Health Act" in January, which protects access to abortions after 24 weeks if the fetus is not viable or if there is risk to the mother's health. Similar proactive laws in New Mexico, Virginia, Vermont have been introduced and gained traction.

The following is a list of every state that has enacted or proposed a "trigger law" or a full ban on abortion.

States that have enacted "abortion ban" laws
Arkansas
Name of law: Act 180, "An Act to Create the Arkansas Human Life Protection Act; to Abolish Abortion in Arkansas and Protect the Lives of Unborn Children; and for Other Purposes."

Date passed: February 19, 2019

In February, Arkansas become the fifth state to have a "trigger law" on its books. It states "abortion in Arkansas is abolished" in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned and does not make exceptions for rape or incest.

The legislation also implores the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade. Act 180 likens abortion access rights to that of racial segregation laws, stating "a crime against humanity occurs when a government withdraws legal protection from a class of human beings resulting in severe deprivation of their rights."

"The State of Arkansas urgently pleads with the United States Supreme Court to do the right thing, as they did in one of their greatest cases, Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned a fifty-eight year-old precedent of the United States, and reverse, cancel, overturn, and annul Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey," Act 180 reads.

Kentucky
Name of law: House Bill 148, "AN ACT related to abortion"

Date passed: March 26, 2019

Kentucky's abortion ban is a traditional "trigger law," and the sixth one passed in the United States. The legislation reads that no person may "administer to, prescribe for, procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being." The law also specifies that doctors may not "use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being."

The law would make performing an abortion a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison for a health provider. It does not make exceptions in cases of rape or incest, but does make an exception if the woman's life is in danger.

Kentucky's law also acknowledges that a full repeal of Roe v. Wade may not be necessary for its law to take effect. In the legislation, lawmakers write that the law would also become active if an amendment to the "United States Constitution which, in whole or in part, restores to the Commonwealth of Kentucky the authority to prohibit abortion."

Louisiana
Name of law: "Human Life Protection Act"

Year passed: 2006

Louisiana already has some of the most restrictive abortion access laws in the country, but in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, the procedure will automatically be illegal. The "Human Life Protection Act" reads that the law would "become effective immediately" in the event a decision by the Supreme Court "reverses, in whole or in part... thereby, restoring to the state of Louisiana the authority to prohibit abortion." The law does not give exceptions in the case of rape or incest.

A more recent abortion restriction proposed in Louisiana, which would have required abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, was temporarily blocked by the Supreme Court in February. It was the first abortion-related case that Justice Kavanaugh decided on since joining the court last year.

Even though Kavanaugh wrote the dissenting opinion, abortion rights activists didn't get a clear look into how the new justice may view abortion issues in the future, said Travis Tu, lead counsel on the case for the Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion rights legal advocacy group.

"Justice Kavanaugh plays his cards very close to the vest in this ruling," Tu said in a telephone interview with CBS News. "This is just one step in a long game."

Mississippi
Year enacted: 2007

In the event that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Mississippi's state attorney general would first have to certify the decision and that "it is reasonably probable that [an abortion ban] would be upheld by the Court as constitutional." The state's abortion ban makes exceptions in the event that the mother's life is at risk and in cases of rape "if a formal charge of rape has been filed with an appropriate law enforcement official."

Physicians who administer abortions could face between one and ten years in prison, according to the law. Mississippi only has only operational abortion provider.

South Dakota
Year enacted: 2005

South Dakota has had a trigger law in its books for nearly 15 years. The law dictates that physicians are prohibited from administering any kind of abortion -- medicinal or surgical -- except if the mother's life is at risk. The law does not make exceptions for rape and incest.

Physicians who perform an abortion would be guilty of committing a Class 6 felony in the state if the law is in effect.

The law notes that the act is only "effective on the date that the states are recognized by the United State Supreme Court to have the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy," meaning that as long as Roe v. Wade is in effect, South Dakota's law isn't.

North Dakota
Year enacted: 2007

In the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, administering an abortion would be considered a felony for the provider under North Dakota's "trigger law." The law provides exceptions if the women's life is in danger or if the abortion "was to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, sexual abuse of a ward, or incest."

North Dakota has only one operating abortion clinic.

During this legislative session, state politicians amended their trigger law. Now, abortion will be automatically illegal 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe. Before this year's amendment, North Dakota's attorney general and legislative council were required to review and affirm the change in federal law prior to enacting the prohibition in the state.

States with proposed "abortion ban" laws
Georgia
Name of law: House Bill 546

Date proposed: February 28, 2019

Status: It was read a second time in the state's House of Representatives on March 1, 2019 and assigned to the Health & Human Services committee.

Unlike other "trigger laws," Georgia's legislation is a simple ban on abortion. The proposed law calls for up to 10 years in prison and a fine of as much as $100,000 for physicians who perform one.

Because the bill doesn't explicitly say this law only goes into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it can't be considered a true "trigger law," said Nash. The bill includes exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies.

When it was proposed in February, Democrats and pro-abortion rights advocates criticized the legislation. In response to it and another restrictive bill on reproductive rights, one Georgia lawmaker said she plans to introduce a "Testicular Bill of Rights." It was inspired by "what the reaction would be from some males and male legislators if the tables were turned and we started to talk about their reproductive rights and organs," said Democratic Rep. Dar'shun Kendrick, who plans to introduce the legislation.

In the meantime, the state has been criticized by abortion rights advocates as well as members of Hollywood for its controversial six-week abortion ban, a piece of legislation that would outlaw abortion before most women know that they're pregnant. The bill passed Georgia's house and senate and awaits the signature of the governor, who has been vocal in his support for the law.

Tennessee
Name of law: House Bill 1029, "Human Life Protection Act"

Date proposed: House Bill - February 6, 2019

Status: House Bill - passed the House and is pending on the Senate floor

Lawmakers in Tennessee introduced matching bills in the House and Senate with the same objective: outlawing abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Both bills say, "a person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion commits the offense of criminal abortion. Criminal abortion is a Class C felony."

The legislation gives exception to when the woman's life is in danger, and specifically notes that mental health concerns would not qualify for exceptions.

The bill also notes that a full repeal of Roe v. Wade isn't necessary for the law to go into effect. Many abortion rights scholars believe a full, clean overturn of the landmark Supreme Court case is unlikely and anticipate a slow chipping away at the decision that would eventually render it ineffective. In Tennessee, lawmakers have considered this possibility and included it in their bill.

Oklahoma
Name of law: Senate Bill 195, "Personhood Act"

Date proposed: February 4, 2019

Status: Passed in the Senate on March 14, 2019. Referred to the House Rules committee on March 25, 2019.

The original language of Senate Bill 195 was that of a traditional "trigger law," outlawing abortions in the state in the event that Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. However, the bill was updated to instead put that to voters, proposing a state ballot measure that would amend Oklahoma's constitution to say that the state didn't secure or protect the right to perform or receive an abortion. The bill clarifies that it "concerns only the rights guaranteed by the Oklahoma Constitution" and "would not alter any rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution."

The bill makes exceptions for when the woman's health or life is at risk, the fetus has died, or in the events of criminal assault on the mother.

This bill is one of a handful of pieces of anti-abortion legislation that lawmakers in Oklahoma have introduced this session, each with slightly different nuances and success rates. One proposal, Senate Bill 13, would reclassify abortion as murder, but it was killed in committee by Republican state Senator Jason Smalley.

South Carolina
Name of law: "The Personhood Act of South Carolina" House Bill 3289, Senate Bill 485

Date proposed: House Bill - January 8, 2019; Senate Bill - February 6, 2019

Status: House Bill was referred to the Committee on Judiciary on January 8, 2019; Senate Bill referred to the Committee on Judiciary on February 6, 2019. If the bill is successfully voted out of committee, each respective chamber will vote on the bill.

Unlike other bills, South Carolina's proposed abortion ban legislations in the House and Senate aren't true "trigger laws" because they don't clarify that they only take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Instead, these bills seek to "establish that the right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization."

By defining the beginning of life at fertilization, the proposals would effectively prohibit abortion, granting that the unborn can't be "deprived of life without due process of law nor denied the equal protection of the laws."

The House bill makes exceptions for when the mother's life is at risk, and specifically clarifies that the bill would not impact access to birth control methods. The Senate's legislation has similar exceptions, but it also proposes that having or performing an abortion be deemed a felony, referring to abortion as "the shedding of innocent blood."

South Carolina lawmakers, including the lawmaker who proposed the Senate bill, have introduced several "personhood" measures in the statehouse in previous sessions, but all have failed to pass.

Missouri
Name of law: House Bill No. 126, "Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act"

Date proposed: Missouri's House passed the bill on February 27. It's now in the state's Senate awaiting review.

Status: The state's House of Representatives passed the bill on February 27, 2019. The bill was referred to the Senate Health and Pensions committee on March 26, 2019 and a public hearing is scheduled for April 3, 2019.

Missouri's abortion ban is part of House Bill 126, a wide-reaching piece of legislation that aims to restrict abortion access in the state. As it relates to Roe v Wade, its intention is clear: "This bill specifies that if there is in any change in federal law or court decisions that allow it, it is the intent of the state of Missouri that abortion shall not be permitted in the state under any circumstances," the bill reads.

The bill makes exceptions for "medical emergency," but not for rape or incest. Doctors who continue to perform abortions would be subject to a felony charge.

Even if Roe v Wade remains the law of the land, other pieces of House Bill 126 would further reduce abortion access in Missouri. The bill includes a ban on abortion based on race, sex or genetic abnormality as well as a requirement that both parents be notified if a minor receives the procedure.

The state already has some of the most restrictive abortion access laws in the country. Missourians seeking an abortion are subject to a 72-hour waiting period and only one abortion clinic exist in the state.

Indiana
Name of law: House Bill No. 1430, "Protection of Life"

Date proposed: January 15, 2019

Status: Referred to the Committee on Public Policy on February 15, 2019. If the bill is successfully out of committee, it'll go to the full House for a vote.

Indiana's proposed legislation goes several steps past other states' "trigger law." The "Protection of Life" bill refines that life begins "when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm" and "any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation for the United States government that fails to protect a person's inalienable right to life in null, void, and unenforceable in Indiana." In other words, the bill proposes that Indiana not recognize Roe v Wade.

The bill would also augments the definition of "child" to also include "an unborn child," which effectively redefines abortion as murder in the state. There are no exceptions given for medical emergency, rape or incest.

Texas
Name of law: House Bill 896, "Abolition of Abortion" Act

Date proposed: January 17, 2019

Status: Referred to Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee on February 25, 2019. After a public hearing on April 8, 2019, the bill has been left pending in committee.

Similar to Indiana's proposed legislation, Texas House Bill 896 aims to outlaw all abortions "regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision." The bill's strategy is to redefine the beginning of life as the "moment of fertilization," thereby making abortion akin to murder. The bills text specifies that both the mother and the doctor could be held liable.

According to Nash, because the bill has been left pending in committee with no vote scheduled, it's safe to assume the bill is "dead."

House Bill 896's sponsor, Representative Tony Tinderholt, introduced identical legislation in 2017, but that bill failed to pass.

Washington
Name of law: House Bill 2154, "The abolition of abortion in Washington act"

Date proposed: March 21, 2019

Status: Referred to Health Care and Wellness Committee on March 21, 2019.

House Bill 2154 as introduced would make abortion a felony crime and would grants no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. However, the law does provide an exception in the event that a fetus endures an unintentional death while a doctor is attempting to save the life of the mother. If the law is passed, both the doctor and the mother could face murder charges for abortion.

Washington's legislation isn't quite a "trigger law;" it's a total abortion ban regardless of federal law. The bill's text reads that they state's attorney general will enforce the law "regardless of any contrary of conflicting federal acts, laws, treaties, decision, orders, or regulations."

Alabama
Name of law: "The Alabama Human Life Protection Act," House Bill 314; Senate Bill 211

Date proposed: Both House Bill 314 and Senate Bill 211 were introduced on April 2, 2019

Status: House Bill 314 was referred to the Health committee on April 3, 2019; Senate Bill 211 was referred to the Judiciary committee on April 2, 2019. Both are pending any committee actions.

Both bills are total abortion bans except in cases where the procedure would be necessary to "avoid a serious health risk." While the bill recognizes and refers to Roe v. Wade in several instances in the text, the legislation says that "judges and legal scholars have disagreed and dissented with its finding."

Under the proposed law, physicians who perform abortions would be subject to at least ten years in prison.

The bill follows a state ballot measure from November 2018 which amended Alabama's constitution to include that its policy was to protect "the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life" and its official stance on abortion was to "ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate." At the time, abortion rights advocates said that the vote was a way for the state to begin enacting laws to prepare themselves for when Roe v. Wade may be overturned."



:tea:
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#95
Report 3 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
Notoriety Trinculo again, instead of being obtuse just to spite me and making utter fools of yourselves, just google it! it takes two seconds :lol:

""Trigger laws" date back to the year Roe was decided, and one or two conservative states have historically introduced them every legislative session. But those measures failed. This year has been different.

"There's been so much more this year," Elizabeth Nash, a senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, said. "And these are getting attention. They're not just getting introduced and fizzling out like they used to."

Liberal states are also preparing for a post-Roe v Wade world, passing laws that would maintain or expand access to abortion. In New York, lawmakers passed the "Reproductive Health Act" in January, which protects access to abortions after 24 weeks if the fetus is not viable or if there is risk to the mother's health. Similar proactive laws in New Mexico, Virginia, Vermont have been introduced and gained traction.

The following is a list of every state that has enacted or proposed a "trigger law" or a full ban on abortion.

States that have enacted "abortion ban" laws
Arkansas
Name of law: Act 180, "An Act to Create the Arkansas Human Life Protection Act; to Abolish Abortion in Arkansas and Protect the Lives of Unborn Children; and for Other Purposes."

Date passed: February 19, 2019

In February, Arkansas become the fifth state to have a "trigger law" on its books. It states "abortion in Arkansas is abolished" in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned and does not make exceptions for rape or incest.

The legislation also implores the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade. Act 180 likens abortion access rights to that of racial segregation laws, stating "a crime against humanity occurs when a government withdraws legal protection from a class of human beings resulting in severe deprivation of their rights."

"The State of Arkansas urgently pleads with the United States Supreme Court to do the right thing, as they did in one of their greatest cases, Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned a fifty-eight year-old precedent of the United States, and reverse, cancel, overturn, and annul Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey," Act 180 reads.

Kentucky
Name of law: House Bill 148, "AN ACT related to abortion"

Date passed: March 26, 2019

Kentucky's abortion ban is a traditional "trigger law," and the sixth one passed in the United States. The legislation reads that no person may "administer to, prescribe for, procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being." The law also specifies that doctors may not "use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being."

The law would make performing an abortion a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison for a health provider. It does not make exceptions in cases of rape or incest, but does make an exception if the woman's life is in danger.

Kentucky's law also acknowledges that a full repeal of Roe v. Wade may not be necessary for its law to take effect. In the legislation, lawmakers write that the law would also become active if an amendment to the "United States Constitution which, in whole or in part, restores to the Commonwealth of Kentucky the authority to prohibit abortion."

Louisiana
Name of law: "Human Life Protection Act"

Year passed: 2006

Louisiana already has some of the most restrictive abortion access laws in the country, but in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, the procedure will automatically be illegal. The "Human Life Protection Act" reads that the law would "become effective immediately" in the event a decision by the Supreme Court "reverses, in whole or in part... thereby, restoring to the state of Louisiana the authority to prohibit abortion." The law does not give exceptions in the case of rape or incest.

A more recent abortion restriction proposed in Louisiana, which would have required abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, was temporarily blocked by the Supreme Court in February. It was the first abortion-related case that Justice Kavanaugh decided on since joining the court last year.

Even though Kavanaugh wrote the dissenting opinion, abortion rights activists didn't get a clear look into how the new justice may view abortion issues in the future, said Travis Tu, lead counsel on the case for the Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion rights legal advocacy group.

"Justice Kavanaugh plays his cards very close to the vest in this ruling," Tu said in a telephone interview with CBS News. "This is just one step in a long game."

Mississippi
Year enacted: 2007

In the event that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Mississippi's state attorney general would first have to certify the decision and that "it is reasonably probable that [an abortion ban] would be upheld by the Court as constitutional." The state's abortion ban makes exceptions in the event that the mother's life is at risk and in cases of rape "if a formal charge of rape has been filed with an appropriate law enforcement official."

Physicians who administer abortions could face between one and ten years in prison, according to the law. Mississippi only has only operational abortion provider.

South Dakota
Year enacted: 2005

South Dakota has had a trigger law in its books for nearly 15 years. The law dictates that physicians are prohibited from administering any kind of abortion -- medicinal or surgical -- except if the mother's life is at risk. The law does not make exceptions for rape and incest.

Physicians who perform an abortion would be guilty of committing a Class 6 felony in the state if the law is in effect.

The law notes that the act is only "effective on the date that the states are recognized by the United State Supreme Court to have the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy," meaning that as long as Roe v. Wade is in effect, South Dakota's law isn't.

North Dakota
Year enacted: 2007

In the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, administering an abortion would be considered a felony for the provider under North Dakota's "trigger law." The law provides exceptions if the women's life is in danger or if the abortion "was to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, sexual abuse of a ward, or incest."

North Dakota has only one operating abortion clinic.

During this legislative session, state politicians amended their trigger law. Now, abortion will be automatically illegal 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe. Before this year's amendment, North Dakota's attorney general and legislative council were required to review and affirm the change in federal law prior to enacting the prohibition in the state.

States with proposed "abortion ban" laws
Georgia
Name of law: House Bill 546

Date proposed: February 28, 2019

Status: It was read a second time in the state's House of Representatives on March 1, 2019 and assigned to the Health & Human Services committee.

Unlike other "trigger laws," Georgia's legislation is a simple ban on abortion. The proposed law calls for up to 10 years in prison and a fine of as much as $100,000 for physicians who perform one.

Because the bill doesn't explicitly say this law only goes into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it can't be considered a true "trigger law," said Nash. The bill includes exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies.

When it was proposed in February, Democrats and pro-abortion rights advocates criticized the legislation. In response to it and another restrictive bill on reproductive rights, one Georgia lawmaker said she plans to introduce a "Testicular Bill of Rights." It was inspired by "what the reaction would be from some males and male legislators if the tables were turned and we started to talk about their reproductive rights and organs," said Democratic Rep. Dar'shun Kendrick, who plans to introduce the legislation.

In the meantime, the state has been criticized by abortion rights advocates as well as members of Hollywood for its controversial six-week abortion ban, a piece of legislation that would outlaw abortion before most women know that they're pregnant. The bill passed Georgia's house and senate and awaits the signature of the governor, who has been vocal in his support for the law.

Tennessee
Name of law: House Bill 1029, "Human Life Protection Act"

Date proposed: House Bill - February 6, 2019

Status: House Bill - passed the House and is pending on the Senate floor

Lawmakers in Tennessee introduced matching bills in the House and Senate with the same objective: outlawing abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Both bills say, "a person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion commits the offense of criminal abortion. Criminal abortion is a Class C felony."

The legislation gives exception to when the woman's life is in danger, and specifically notes that mental health concerns would not qualify for exceptions.

The bill also notes that a full repeal of Roe v. Wade isn't necessary for the law to go into effect. Many abortion rights scholars believe a full, clean overturn of the landmark Supreme Court case is unlikely and anticipate a slow chipping away at the decision that would eventually render it ineffective. In Tennessee, lawmakers have considered this possibility and included it in their bill.

Oklahoma
Name of law: Senate Bill 195, "Personhood Act"

Date proposed: February 4, 2019

Status: Passed in the Senate on March 14, 2019. Referred to the House Rules committee on March 25, 2019.

The original language of Senate Bill 195 was that of a traditional "trigger law," outlawing abortions in the state in the event that Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. However, the bill was updated to instead put that to voters, proposing a state ballot measure that would amend Oklahoma's constitution to say that the state didn't secure or protect the right to perform or receive an abortion. The bill clarifies that it "concerns only the rights guaranteed by the Oklahoma Constitution" and "would not alter any rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution."

The bill makes exceptions for when the woman's health or life is at risk, the fetus has died, or in the events of criminal assault on the mother.

This bill is one of a handful of pieces of anti-abortion legislation that lawmakers in Oklahoma have introduced this session, each with slightly different nuances and success rates. One proposal, Senate Bill 13, would reclassify abortion as murder, but it was killed in committee by Republican state Senator Jason Smalley.

South Carolina
Name of law: "The Personhood Act of South Carolina" House Bill 3289, Senate Bill 485

Date proposed: House Bill - January 8, 2019; Senate Bill - February 6, 2019

Status: House Bill was referred to the Committee on Judiciary on January 8, 2019; Senate Bill referred to the Committee on Judiciary on February 6, 2019. If the bill is successfully voted out of committee, each respective chamber will vote on the bill.

Unlike other bills, South Carolina's proposed abortion ban legislations in the House and Senate aren't true "trigger laws" because they don't clarify that they only take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Instead, these bills seek to "establish that the right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization."

By defining the beginning of life at fertilization, the proposals would effectively prohibit abortion, granting that the unborn can't be "deprived of life without due process of law nor denied the equal protection of the laws."

The House bill makes exceptions for when the mother's life is at risk, and specifically clarifies that the bill would not impact access to birth control methods. The Senate's legislation has similar exceptions, but it also proposes that having or performing an abortion be deemed a felony, referring to abortion as "the shedding of innocent blood."

South Carolina lawmakers, including the lawmaker who proposed the Senate bill, have introduced several "personhood" measures in the statehouse in previous sessions, but all have failed to pass.

Missouri
Name of law: House Bill No. 126, "Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act"

Date proposed: Missouri's House passed the bill on February 27. It's now in the state's Senate awaiting review.

Status: The state's House of Representatives passed the bill on February 27, 2019. The bill was referred to the Senate Health and Pensions committee on March 26, 2019 and a public hearing is scheduled for April 3, 2019.

Missouri's abortion ban is part of House Bill 126, a wide-reaching piece of legislation that aims to restrict abortion access in the state. As it relates to Roe v Wade, its intention is clear: "This bill specifies that if there is in any change in federal law or court decisions that allow it, it is the intent of the state of Missouri that abortion shall not be permitted in the state under any circumstances," the bill reads.

The bill makes exceptions for "medical emergency," but not for rape or incest. Doctors who continue to perform abortions would be subject to a felony charge.

Even if Roe v Wade remains the law of the land, other pieces of House Bill 126 would further reduce abortion access in Missouri. The bill includes a ban on abortion based on race, sex or genetic abnormality as well as a requirement that both parents be notified if a minor receives the procedure.

The state already has some of the most restrictive abortion access laws in the country. Missourians seeking an abortion are subject to a 72-hour waiting period and only one abortion clinic exist in the state.

Indiana
Name of law: House Bill No. 1430, "Protection of Life"

Date proposed: January 15, 2019

Status: Referred to the Committee on Public Policy on February 15, 2019. If the bill is successfully out of committee, it'll go to the full House for a vote.

Indiana's proposed legislation goes several steps past other states' "trigger law." The "Protection of Life" bill refines that life begins "when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm" and "any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation for the United States government that fails to protect a person's inalienable right to life in null, void, and unenforceable in Indiana." In other words, the bill proposes that Indiana not recognize Roe v Wade.

The bill would also augments the definition of "child" to also include "an unborn child," which effectively redefines abortion as murder in the state. There are no exceptions given for medical emergency, rape or incest.

Texas
Name of law: House Bill 896, "Abolition of Abortion" Act

Date proposed: January 17, 2019

Status: Referred to Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee on February 25, 2019. After a public hearing on April 8, 2019, the bill has been left pending in committee.

Similar to Indiana's proposed legislation, Texas House Bill 896 aims to outlaw all abortions "regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision." The bill's strategy is to redefine the beginning of life as the "moment of fertilization," thereby making abortion akin to murder. The bills text specifies that both the mother and the doctor could be held liable.

According to Nash, because the bill has been left pending in committee with no vote scheduled, it's safe to assume the bill is "dead."

House Bill 896's sponsor, Representative Tony Tinderholt, introduced identical legislation in 2017, but that bill failed to pass.

Washington
Name of law: House Bill 2154, "The abolition of abortion in Washington act"

Date proposed: March 21, 2019

Status: Referred to Health Care and Wellness Committee on March 21, 2019.

House Bill 2154 as introduced would make abortion a felony crime and would grants no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. However, the law does provide an exception in the event that a fetus endures an unintentional death while a doctor is attempting to save the life of the mother. If the law is passed, both the doctor and the mother could face murder charges for abortion.

Washington's legislation isn't quite a "trigger law;" it's a total abortion ban regardless of federal law. The bill's text reads that they state's attorney general will enforce the law "regardless of any contrary of conflicting federal acts, laws, treaties, decision, orders, or regulations."

Alabama
Name of law: "The Alabama Human Life Protection Act," House Bill 314; Senate Bill 211

Date proposed: Both House Bill 314 and Senate Bill 211 were introduced on April 2, 2019

Status: House Bill 314 was referred to the Health committee on April 3, 2019; Senate Bill 211 was referred to the Judiciary committee on April 2, 2019. Both are pending any committee actions.

Both bills are total abortion bans except in cases where the procedure would be necessary to "avoid a serious health risk." While the bill recognizes and refers to Roe v. Wade in several instances in the text, the legislation says that "judges and legal scholars have disagreed and dissented with its finding."

Under the proposed law, physicians who perform abortions would be subject to at least ten years in prison.

The bill follows a state ballot measure from November 2018 which amended Alabama's constitution to include that its policy was to protect "the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life" and its official stance on abortion was to "ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate." At the time, abortion rights advocates said that the vote was a way for the state to begin enacting laws to prepare themselves for when Roe v. Wade may be overturned."



:tea:
Federal constitutional law constrains what states can do.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#96
Report 3 weeks ago
#96
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
Notoriety Trinculo again, instead of being obtuse just to spite me and making utter fools of yourselves, just google it! it takes two seconds :lol:

""Trigger laws" date back to the year Roe was decided, and one or two conservative states have historically introduced them every legislative session. But those measures failed. This year has been different.

"There's been so much more this year," Elizabeth Nash, a senior state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, said. "And these are getting attention. They're not just getting introduced and fizzling out like they used to."

Liberal states are also preparing for a post-Roe v Wade world, passing laws that would maintain or expand access to abortion. In New York, lawmakers passed the "Reproductive Health Act" in January, which protects access to abortions after 24 weeks if the fetus is not viable or if there is risk to the mother's health. Similar proactive laws in New Mexico, Virginia, Vermont have been introduced and gained traction.

The following is a list of every state that has enacted or proposed a "trigger law" or a full ban on abortion.

States that have enacted "abortion ban" laws
Arkansas
Name of law: Act 180, "An Act to Create the Arkansas Human Life Protection Act; to Abolish Abortion in Arkansas and Protect the Lives of Unborn Children; and for Other Purposes."

Date passed: February 19, 2019

In February, Arkansas become the fifth state to have a "trigger law" on its books. It states "abortion in Arkansas is abolished" in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned and does not make exceptions for rape or incest.

The legislation also implores the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade. Act 180 likens abortion access rights to that of racial segregation laws, stating "a crime against humanity occurs when a government withdraws legal protection from a class of human beings resulting in severe deprivation of their rights."

"The State of Arkansas urgently pleads with the United States Supreme Court to do the right thing, as they did in one of their greatest cases, Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned a fifty-eight year-old precedent of the United States, and reverse, cancel, overturn, and annul Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey," Act 180 reads.

Kentucky
Name of law: House Bill 148, "AN ACT related to abortion"

Date passed: March 26, 2019

Kentucky's abortion ban is a traditional "trigger law," and the sixth one passed in the United States. The legislation reads that no person may "administer to, prescribe for, procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being." The law also specifies that doctors may not "use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being."

The law would make performing an abortion a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison for a health provider. It does not make exceptions in cases of rape or incest, but does make an exception if the woman's life is in danger.

Kentucky's law also acknowledges that a full repeal of Roe v. Wade may not be necessary for its law to take effect. In the legislation, lawmakers write that the law would also become active if an amendment to the "United States Constitution which, in whole or in part, restores to the Commonwealth of Kentucky the authority to prohibit abortion."

Louisiana
Name of law: "Human Life Protection Act"

Year passed: 2006

Louisiana already has some of the most restrictive abortion access laws in the country, but in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, the procedure will automatically be illegal. The "Human Life Protection Act" reads that the law would "become effective immediately" in the event a decision by the Supreme Court "reverses, in whole or in part... thereby, restoring to the state of Louisiana the authority to prohibit abortion." The law does not give exceptions in the case of rape or incest.

A more recent abortion restriction proposed in Louisiana, which would have required abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, was temporarily blocked by the Supreme Court in February. It was the first abortion-related case that Justice Kavanaugh decided on since joining the court last year.

Even though Kavanaugh wrote the dissenting opinion, abortion rights activists didn't get a clear look into how the new justice may view abortion issues in the future, said Travis Tu, lead counsel on the case for the Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion rights legal advocacy group.

"Justice Kavanaugh plays his cards very close to the vest in this ruling," Tu said in a telephone interview with CBS News. "This is just one step in a long game."

Mississippi
Year enacted: 2007

In the event that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Mississippi's state attorney general would first have to certify the decision and that "it is reasonably probable that [an abortion ban] would be upheld by the Court as constitutional." The state's abortion ban makes exceptions in the event that the mother's life is at risk and in cases of rape "if a formal charge of rape has been filed with an appropriate law enforcement official."

Physicians who administer abortions could face between one and ten years in prison, according to the law. Mississippi only has only operational abortion provider.

South Dakota
Year enacted: 2005

South Dakota has had a trigger law in its books for nearly 15 years. The law dictates that physicians are prohibited from administering any kind of abortion -- medicinal or surgical -- except if the mother's life is at risk. The law does not make exceptions for rape and incest.

Physicians who perform an abortion would be guilty of committing a Class 6 felony in the state if the law is in effect.

The law notes that the act is only "effective on the date that the states are recognized by the United State Supreme Court to have the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy," meaning that as long as Roe v. Wade is in effect, South Dakota's law isn't.

North Dakota
Year enacted: 2007

In the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, administering an abortion would be considered a felony for the provider under North Dakota's "trigger law." The law provides exceptions if the women's life is in danger or if the abortion "was to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, sexual abuse of a ward, or incest."

North Dakota has only one operating abortion clinic.

During this legislative session, state politicians amended their trigger law. Now, abortion will be automatically illegal 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe. Before this year's amendment, North Dakota's attorney general and legislative council were required to review and affirm the change in federal law prior to enacting the prohibition in the state.

States with proposed "abortion ban" laws
Georgia
Name of law: House Bill 546

Date proposed: February 28, 2019

Status: It was read a second time in the state's House of Representatives on March 1, 2019 and assigned to the Health & Human Services committee.

Unlike other "trigger laws," Georgia's legislation is a simple ban on abortion. The proposed law calls for up to 10 years in prison and a fine of as much as $100,000 for physicians who perform one.

Because the bill doesn't explicitly say this law only goes into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it can't be considered a true "trigger law," said Nash. The bill includes exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies.

When it was proposed in February, Democrats and pro-abortion rights advocates criticized the legislation. In response to it and another restrictive bill on reproductive rights, one Georgia lawmaker said she plans to introduce a "Testicular Bill of Rights." It was inspired by "what the reaction would be from some males and male legislators if the tables were turned and we started to talk about their reproductive rights and organs," said Democratic Rep. Dar'shun Kendrick, who plans to introduce the legislation.

In the meantime, the state has been criticized by abortion rights advocates as well as members of Hollywood for its controversial six-week abortion ban, a piece of legislation that would outlaw abortion before most women know that they're pregnant. The bill passed Georgia's house and senate and awaits the signature of the governor, who has been vocal in his support for the law.

Tennessee
Name of law: House Bill 1029, "Human Life Protection Act"

Date proposed: House Bill - February 6, 2019

Status: House Bill - passed the House and is pending on the Senate floor

Lawmakers in Tennessee introduced matching bills in the House and Senate with the same objective: outlawing abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Both bills say, "a person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion commits the offense of criminal abortion. Criminal abortion is a Class C felony."

The legislation gives exception to when the woman's life is in danger, and specifically notes that mental health concerns would not qualify for exceptions.

The bill also notes that a full repeal of Roe v. Wade isn't necessary for the law to go into effect. Many abortion rights scholars believe a full, clean overturn of the landmark Supreme Court case is unlikely and anticipate a slow chipping away at the decision that would eventually render it ineffective. In Tennessee, lawmakers have considered this possibility and included it in their bill.

Oklahoma
Name of law: Senate Bill 195, "Personhood Act"

Date proposed: February 4, 2019

Status: Passed in the Senate on March 14, 2019. Referred to the House Rules committee on March 25, 2019.

The original language of Senate Bill 195 was that of a traditional "trigger law," outlawing abortions in the state in the event that Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. However, the bill was updated to instead put that to voters, proposing a state ballot measure that would amend Oklahoma's constitution to say that the state didn't secure or protect the right to perform or receive an abortion. The bill clarifies that it "concerns only the rights guaranteed by the Oklahoma Constitution" and "would not alter any rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution."

The bill makes exceptions for when the woman's health or life is at risk, the fetus has died, or in the events of criminal assault on the mother.

This bill is one of a handful of pieces of anti-abortion legislation that lawmakers in Oklahoma have introduced this session, each with slightly different nuances and success rates. One proposal, Senate Bill 13, would reclassify abortion as murder, but it was killed in committee by Republican state Senator Jason Smalley.

South Carolina
Name of law: "The Personhood Act of South Carolina" House Bill 3289, Senate Bill 485

Date proposed: House Bill - January 8, 2019; Senate Bill - February 6, 2019

Status: House Bill was referred to the Committee on Judiciary on January 8, 2019; Senate Bill referred to the Committee on Judiciary on February 6, 2019. If the bill is successfully voted out of committee, each respective chamber will vote on the bill.

Unlike other bills, South Carolina's proposed abortion ban legislations in the House and Senate aren't true "trigger laws" because they don't clarify that they only take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Instead, these bills seek to "establish that the right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization."

By defining the beginning of life at fertilization, the proposals would effectively prohibit abortion, granting that the unborn can't be "deprived of life without due process of law nor denied the equal protection of the laws."

The House bill makes exceptions for when the mother's life is at risk, and specifically clarifies that the bill would not impact access to birth control methods. The Senate's legislation has similar exceptions, but it also proposes that having or performing an abortion be deemed a felony, referring to abortion as "the shedding of innocent blood."

South Carolina lawmakers, including the lawmaker who proposed the Senate bill, have introduced several "personhood" measures in the statehouse in previous sessions, but all have failed to pass.

Missouri
Name of law: House Bill No. 126, "Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act"

Date proposed: Missouri's House passed the bill on February 27. It's now in the state's Senate awaiting review.

Status: The state's House of Representatives passed the bill on February 27, 2019. The bill was referred to the Senate Health and Pensions committee on March 26, 2019 and a public hearing is scheduled for April 3, 2019.

Missouri's abortion ban is part of House Bill 126, a wide-reaching piece of legislation that aims to restrict abortion access in the state. As it relates to Roe v Wade, its intention is clear: "This bill specifies that if there is in any change in federal law or court decisions that allow it, it is the intent of the state of Missouri that abortion shall not be permitted in the state under any circumstances," the bill reads.

The bill makes exceptions for "medical emergency," but not for rape or incest. Doctors who continue to perform abortions would be subject to a felony charge.

Even if Roe v Wade remains the law of the land, other pieces of House Bill 126 would further reduce abortion access in Missouri. The bill includes a ban on abortion based on race, sex or genetic abnormality as well as a requirement that both parents be notified if a minor receives the procedure.

The state already has some of the most restrictive abortion access laws in the country. Missourians seeking an abortion are subject to a 72-hour waiting period and only one abortion clinic exist in the state.

Indiana
Name of law: House Bill No. 1430, "Protection of Life"

Date proposed: January 15, 2019

Status: Referred to the Committee on Public Policy on February 15, 2019. If the bill is successfully out of committee, it'll go to the full House for a vote.

Indiana's proposed legislation goes several steps past other states' "trigger law." The "Protection of Life" bill refines that life begins "when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm" and "any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation for the United States government that fails to protect a person's inalienable right to life in null, void, and unenforceable in Indiana." In other words, the bill proposes that Indiana not recognize Roe v Wade.

The bill would also augments the definition of "child" to also include "an unborn child," which effectively redefines abortion as murder in the state. There are no exceptions given for medical emergency, rape or incest.

Texas
Name of law: House Bill 896, "Abolition of Abortion" Act

Date proposed: January 17, 2019

Status: Referred to Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee on February 25, 2019. After a public hearing on April 8, 2019, the bill has been left pending in committee.

Similar to Indiana's proposed legislation, Texas House Bill 896 aims to outlaw all abortions "regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision." The bill's strategy is to redefine the beginning of life as the "moment of fertilization," thereby making abortion akin to murder. The bills text specifies that both the mother and the doctor could be held liable.

According to Nash, because the bill has been left pending in committee with no vote scheduled, it's safe to assume the bill is "dead."

House Bill 896's sponsor, Representative Tony Tinderholt, introduced identical legislation in 2017, but that bill failed to pass.

Washington
Name of law: House Bill 2154, "The abolition of abortion in Washington act"

Date proposed: March 21, 2019

Status: Referred to Health Care and Wellness Committee on March 21, 2019.

House Bill 2154 as introduced would make abortion a felony crime and would grants no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. However, the law does provide an exception in the event that a fetus endures an unintentional death while a doctor is attempting to save the life of the mother. If the law is passed, both the doctor and the mother could face murder charges for abortion.

Washington's legislation isn't quite a "trigger law;" it's a total abortion ban regardless of federal law. The bill's text reads that they state's attorney general will enforce the law "regardless of any contrary of conflicting federal acts, laws, treaties, decision, orders, or regulations."

Alabama
Name of law: "The Alabama Human Life Protection Act," House Bill 314; Senate Bill 211

Date proposed: Both House Bill 314 and Senate Bill 211 were introduced on April 2, 2019

Status: House Bill 314 was referred to the Health committee on April 3, 2019; Senate Bill 211 was referred to the Judiciary committee on April 2, 2019. Both are pending any committee actions.

Both bills are total abortion bans except in cases where the procedure would be necessary to "avoid a serious health risk." While the bill recognizes and refers to Roe v. Wade in several instances in the text, the legislation says that "judges and legal scholars have disagreed and dissented with its finding."

Under the proposed law, physicians who perform abortions would be subject to at least ten years in prison.

The bill follows a state ballot measure from November 2018 which amended Alabama's constitution to include that its policy was to protect "the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life" and its official stance on abortion was to "ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate." At the time, abortion rights advocates said that the vote was a way for the state to begin enacting laws to prepare themselves for when Roe v. Wade may be overturned."



:tea:
The irony of posting something that you have no idea about, and then saying that anyone else is being foolish.

Decide what it is that you are trying to say, for a start. Either you think Roe is so robust that it's easier to change the US Constitution, or you believe that Roe is so weak that it was necessary to post half the internet of trigger bills to show what might happen in the event of the overturning of Roe.

Bottom line is - you don't know what you're talking about. Roe is "good" law in the US. Abortion is constitutionally protected and it doesn't matter what individual states do.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has 2019 been so far?

Amazing!!! (38)
5.76%
Fairly positive (216)
32.73%
Just another year... (260)
39.39%
Is it 2020 yet? (146)
22.12%

Watched Threads

View All