Another state legislature has joined South Dakota in asserting its right to make law, clashing with the LAW that the Supreme Court WROTE via Roe v. Wade.
JACKSON, Miss. -- A Mississippi House committee voted Tuesday to ban most abortions in the state - an unexpected move that left abortion opponents grappling to stake out a position on a proposal that could prompt a lengthy court battle.
The only abortions allowed under the bill would be if the life of the pregnant woman were in danger. There would be no abortions allowed in cases of pregnancy caused by rape or incest.
...House Public Health Chairman Steve Holland, D-Plantersville, persuaded his committee to put the abortion restrictions into a Senate bill that was originally written to require that sonograms be performed early in pregnancy so the woman could hear a fetal heartbeat.
Yeah, that heartbeat thing really bugs pro-abortion activists.
A heartbeat equals life. It requires one to acknowledge that the fetus is alive.
...Mississippi already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation, requiring a 24-hour waiting period in all cases and parental consent before a minor can have a pregnancy terminated.
Imagine.
A "strict" abortion law requires a woman to wait for 24 hours before she chooses to destroy a life. Only 24 hours. That's strict.
Libs don't complain about waiting periods to purchase guns. But when it comes to waiting to do away with a fetus possessing unique qualities -- a creation that no other individual has ever had and never will have again -- that developing baby can be quickly disposed of without a period for reflection.
Is it really asking too much to wait for just 24 hours? How many hours make up the average lifetime? You do the math.
A "strict" abortion law requires that a parent must agree to allow his or her child to undergo a major medical procedure. What seems like a completely reasonable and appropriate measure to me is deemed too restrictive by abortion proponents.
A favorite protest sign of pro-abortion activists is "Keep your hands off my uterus." The argument is always made that the government should stay out of the bedroom and the doctor's office.
In terms of privacy, shouldn't the government also stay out of the family room? Does the government have a place at the kitchen table?
I think that removing parental involvement infringes on the parents' rights.
By law, they are responsible to care for their minor children; yet abortion advocates demand that medical information about their children be withheld from parents. It's inconsistent.
Another inconsistency in terms of privacy that the pro-death brigade has failed to reconcile became glaringly evident when Terri Schiavo was being starved and dehydrated to death.
They said that the government should not have been involved in the case. It was the family's private business.
Opportunistic Dr. Howard Dean claimed President Bush and Senator Frist, etc., overstepped when they acted to give Terri's parents a chance to continue their efforts to prevent Michael Schiavo from ordering her feeding tube to be removed.
If they are to be consistent, shouldn't these pro-death people also be troubled that the government is stepping into the family's business in situations where a minor girl seeks an abortion without her parents' consent?
...Susan Hill is president of the National Women's Health Organization, which runs the only abortion clinic still operating in Mississippi. She said she wasn't surprised by lawmakers' move.
"What took them so long? I thought they'd be ahead of South Dakota," Hill said.
She said her organization will battle attempts to put more restrictions on abortion in Mississippi.
"We're realists," Hill said. "We know we're in a state where the Legislature is anti-choice."
Hill and her pro-abortion cohorts are not realists.
If Hill were a realist, she'd admit the realities of fetal development.
She wouldn't be afraid to allow girls and women to hear their little ones' heartbeats before they choose to silence them forever.
She'd acknowledge that a fetus is a GENETICALLY complete human being.
If Hill were a realist, she'd call her mission what it is -- pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
____________________________________
AP reports:
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday that he likely would sign a bill to ban most abortions in Mississippi if it's approved by lawmakers.
...Responding to questions about whether he'd sign a bill with no exceptions for rape or incest, Barbour said: "It hasn't gotten to my desk yet. When one gets there, we'll find out, and I suspect I'll sign it. But I would certainly rather it come to my desk with an exception for rape and incest. I think that's consistent with the opinion of the vast majority of Mississippians and Americans."
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Battlefield Mississippi
Posted by Mary at 3/02/2006 12:27:00 AM
Labels: Abortion
SHARE:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't agree that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. The crime was not committed by the baby. Why sentence the child to death for the crimes of it's parent?
Another point of the use of semantics: They use the word, "fetus" to dehumanize the baby, making it easier, psychologically, to kill it. If they were to admit that the fetus is indeed a baby, some expectant mother might change her mind about killing her baby. Amd the "pro-Choice" advocates can't have that.
The fact is the number of abortions performed to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape and incest is miniscule.
I certainly admire any woman that is so selfless that she can carry and deliver a baby that was conceived through a crime.
I know that it's inconsistent to say that killing a baby is acceptable in cases of rape and incest. Murder is murder. Still, pregnancy is not easy even when you planned to have a baby. I can't imagine the trauma of being pregnant with your rapist's child.
Those cases present a real moral dilemma for me.
Post a Comment