Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.

The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

The measure's sponsor, Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, said the legislation did not automatically ban abortion. Ruby has introduced bills in previous sessions of the Legislature to prohibit abortion in North Dakota.

"This language is not as aggressive as the direct ban legislation that I've proposed in the past," Ruby said during House floor debate on Tuesday. "This is very simply defining when life begins, and giving that life some protections under our Constitution — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD96DUE3G0

as much as I loathe abortion, a woman still has a choice to make each time. Of course, as a states rights advocate, I believe each state must make their own choice as it pertains to the abortion issue. Slippery slope either way. See, I didn't get one bit emotional or irrational. I'm improving.

Interesting angle

I'd like some popcorn right about now.

Ugh. This is just really, really ridiculous. Not every fertilized egg implants. Hell, some of them don't even implant in the uterus. One of my coworker's wives had an ectopic pregnancy; the fertilized egg had implanted in the fallopian tube instead of her uterus. She ended up in the hospital and lost that tube.

What then? Does that fertilized egg still have rights that trump hers? It was really pretty touch and go there for a while.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--if men could get pregnant, there'd be no question that abortion would be legal.

And this is why there are so many ND jokes out there.

grizzaholic wrote:And this is why there are so many ND jokes out there.

Sadly, this type of bill will not be limited to just ND. There is an active movement to get this in every state.

'Unborn life' bill passes in Senate
By The Associated Press

HELENA - An effort to assert a state interest in abortion faced impassioned debate before winning support Thursday in the Montana Senate.

Senate Bill 46 was endorsed by a 29-19 vote. It would ask voters to amend the state constitution to declare that the "protection of unborn human life is a compelling state interest." The change would modify the state's privacy protection law, altering language that has thwarted past attempts to declare abortion illegal.

As a constitutional amendment, the measure requires 100 affirmative votes to pass through the Legislature. It will be voted on again in the Senate and will move to the House, where it faces a tough battle to capture the needed 71 votes. The House is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

"I think it would be a pretty big lift, a big hurdle, for them to get the votes that are needed," said Stacey Anderson of Planned Parenthood, which opposes the measure. Anderson said there are 46 solidly abortion rights representatives in the House, leaving only 54 to vote in favor of what Planned Parenthood considers to be an anti-abortion measure.

Sen. Daniel McGee, the bill's sponsor, said the issue should be placed before the voters of Montana, not decided by lawmakers or courts.

"So the question becomes then do the people of Montana have a say as per Roe v. Wade, and Webster, do they have a say in the interests of unborn life?" the Republican from Laurel asked lawmakers during the Senate hearing.

The 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade established women's right to an abortion in the United States. In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health, the court split in a ruling that affirmed the legality of Missouri laws imposing some restrictions on abortion.

Backers of McGee's bill said the new language would not immediately change abortion practices, but would give courts an opportunity to recognize restrictions on abortions in future cases.

"This is a filter through which the courts will make their determinations," McGee said.

Opponents, though, said the constitutional amendment targets women's abortion rights in the state.

"It's the first step on a slippery slope, and I don't want the government or anybody else involved in that process," said Sen. Steve Gallus, D-Butte.

The contentious topic prompted party desertions on both sides of the aisle, with four Democrats voting against the measure and two Republicans for it.

"The bottom line is we all need to take a serious look at ourselves, a serious look inwards, and have the moxie to really start addressing this issue, and until that happens I don't know that this helps," said Sen. John Brueggeman, who has voted anti-abortion in the past but voted against the bill. The Republican from Polson said he thinks sex education would be a better way to prevent abortions.

Senators veered into personal terrain as they discussed the issue, referencing religious beliefs, their own family choices and miscarriages, daughters and wives. Sen. Jesse Laslovich, D-Anaconda, announced that he and his wife are expecting a child, and said decisions made about that child are "intensely private."

The measure is one of a number dealing with abortion that lawmakers are considering this session:

• On Thursday morning, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee heard another bill that McGee is sponsoring that would give a fetus the legal status of a person. That bill would also require a constitutional amendment and faces tough odds in the closely divided Legislature. Many supporters from the Montana ProLife Coalition and other groups turned out to testify in its favor. Opposed were representatives from Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL Pro-Choice and others.

• Another bill, SB327, would allow a charge of homicide if an unborn child dies in an attack on the mother. Opponents worry that the change in criminal law would also establish a legal precedent to challenge women's abortion rights.

The last time a legislative proposal was pitched to restrict abortion in the state - in a 2007 push to amend the state constitution with a "right to life" guarantee - it failed to get even a simple majority in the House.

Keep the government out of the abortion issue. Next in line, sperm has human rights.

Purple For Life wrote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again--if men could get pregnant, there'd be no question that abortion would be legal.

I tend to disagree with your statment. I would feel the same either way.

Gil Dobie wrote:Keep the government out of the abortion issue. Next in line, sperm has human rights.

[youtube][/youtube]