I don't understand not making an exception for the health of the mother. If the mother dies so does the fetus!!

Once you have sex (even if you don't consent to it) I guess you really just lose the right to life.
Pro-lifers -isn't it ironic - don't ya think.

fuck.

chem-fem, the only thing I can figure is that they've heard the "making an exception for x, y, or z is inconsistant" argument, and realized "yeah, it is."

Unfortunately, they've gone the wrong way, and are now consistantly against women's rights.

"fuck" indeed.

Pro-lifers can shove their holier-than-thou asses to El Salvador or Nicaragua.

I live in N.Z., so can someone Stateside tell me which is the more "conservative" state, North or South Dakota?

I guess what I'm asking is, is this bill more likely to pass there than it was in North Dakota?

Here in N.Z., if you want an abortion, you have to see two different doctors who are willing to certify that carrying the preganacy to term will have harmful physical, emotional or psychological consequences for the mother or potential child.

This is, in my opinion, a good methodology, as it allows the woman time to reflect, and helps vet women who are being pressured into an abortion.

Abortions, like all prenatal services, are free once you have been approved.

In reality, no woman who honestly wants an abortion will be denied one, unless she is more than (I think) 24 weeks pregnant.
Doctors prefer to do abortions much earlier though, if possible.

It is not a perfect system, but as someone who has been through the procedure, I think it is handled as well as can be expected.

I realise this information isn't that helpful for women in the U.S., but I am interested in abortion law globally, and I assume some of ya'll would be interested to know how we handle abortion in N.Z, for a bit of compare-and-contrast.

Before anyone thinks I'm bragging, N.Z. has terrible rates of spousal and child murder and abuse, and very high teen pregnancy rates.

We've still got a long way to go...

"I guess what I'm asking is, is this bill more likely to pass there than it was in North Dakota?"

I mean South Dakota!

and didn't they just pass the ERA last week? if women and men are considered equal by the legislature, then apparently a fetus > woman = man. strange equation.

just to be clear...PP covers all three states that way because the SD and ND affiliates folded. MN has their act together...and has done the best under trying circumstances, flying doctors in, etc...

/i've got good friends who work there...

Anorak, I don't know that there is any significant difference politically between ND and SD (so hopefully ND will reject too):

Both voted for Bush roughly 60/40 in the 2004 election. Both have Republican governors (who must sign bills into law). They both have strong Republican majorities in both houses of their state legislatures.

For what it's worth, both states are sparsely populated by U.S. standards, around 700,000 people live in each state, meaning that the NY borough of Brooklyn by itself has more people than ND and SD combined.

Bloody hell. Another state referendum.

Thanks ccall.

I guess I'll just keep my fingers and toes crossed for the women of North Dakota.

Now this is scary!

I live in ND and have been actively following the various legislation introduced this session to limit reproductive rights. HB 1466 is the bill remaining. HB 1466 does not have exceptions for rape/incest and the reason it passed the House is because it's being marketed as a trigger bill. It contains language that only makes it go into effect upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Regarding ND...the Senate is the more "deliberative" side so it does have a chance of defeat. I've been trying to keep folks updated on all the repro bills at:
http://www.bismarckdems.com/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=110&func=view&id=542&catid=407

What's difficult is that there are dem sponsors on the bill (as well as on other repro rights bills introduced this session). These are mainly Catholic democrats who support overtuning of Roe.

Also...as far as ND & SD. In my opinion, SD's Right to Life group is much, much more active and extreme than the one in ND. However, like SD, the state is very conservative. (Only this session was the repeal on cohabitation finally passed after several tries.) ND & SD could be better politically divided by the Missouri River which cuts through the middle of both states. Eastern ND & SD have had large population growths and are seen as much more liberal as a result. Eastern ND & SD have the largest populations as well as many univerities. There are also many more minorities and much stronger advocacy for equal rights for all. Both states sole abortion clinics are located in the eastern parts of the states (Fargo, ND & Sioux Falls, SD). In contrast, western ND & SD are much more rural and more conservative (similar to Wyoming and eastern Montana).

I love my state but the legislature is very conservative. Dems did pick up quite a few seats in the Senate in 2006 but overall it's still a strong Republican majority.

Also, today's Bismarck Tribune story on tomorrow's hearing:
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/03/12/news/topnews/130212.txt

In the immortal words of our president, "Bring it on..."

If it passes, PP will file suit, and, as with the rest of these laws, it'll be put on hold until it winds its way through the courts. Kennedy and Souter aren't going to go for a law that doesn't protect the woman's health (though it is in the bill that it can be done to save her life), so it'll get slapped back.

Plus this bill is only enforced if Roe is overturned. (Hilarious: "This Act becomes effective... [if]it is reasonably probable that this Act
would be upheld as constitutional.") They're admitting the bill isn't even constitutional. If Roe gets overturned we're all in trouble anyhow.

Man, I'm even cynical about being cynical these days.

Maryn: Not hilarious at all. When the death penalty was "unconstitutional," there were states ready to permit it should the Supreme Court reverse its decision.

Even pro-choicers think that Roe is poorly reasoned and that abortion is not an explicit constitutional right. It will be overturned, someday - and certainly if a Republican wins in 2008, because Stevens won't make it until 2013.

PP lacks standing to file suit on a trigger law.

Here's a press update on the hearing yesterday:
Bismarck Tribune, March 14, 2007: Abortion deliberations begin
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/03/14/news/local/130304.txt

Fargo Forum, March 14, 2007: Panel delays abortion bill deliberations
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=159507&legislative_tag=1

Minot Daily News, March 14, 2007: Activists push abortion ban
http://www.minotdailynews.com/News/articles.asp?articleID=9605

Dickinson Press, March 14, 2007: ND panel hears debate on abortion restrictions
http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D8NRKH7G2

And on another bill not specific to abortion but related to reproductive issues:
Fargo Forum, March 14, 2007: Pregnancy care for minors bill sparks debate
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=159506&legislative_tag=1

You can also go to DakotaWomen blog on this: http://dakotawomen.blogspot.com/2007/03/abortion-bill-heads-to-nd-senate.html

or the Bismarck Dems legislative forum on the topic at: http://www.bismarckdems.com/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=110&func=view&id=542&catid=407

Oh what a world.

Roe vs Wade is "poorly reasoned"?

How about this?
Unless reasoning for limiting or repealing Roe v. Wade isn't just all based on sexism (which it is)then:
If you want to force women to have children you should put men in jail for not wearing condoms and getting women pregnant.
Are you prepared for that? Somehow I think not.
Women are economically not of equal status in this country as of yet and there are very little protections for pregnant women in the workplace, so if you want to force women to carry your fucking seed then men should be forced to lose 9 months of their lives to morning sickness, back pains, etc. and then raise them, feed them, and care for them for the next 20 yrs.

Pro-lifers are so dumb.

The biggest thing that Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers can not agree upon, is when Life begins.

When a mother can “choose� to terminate the pregnancy after 9 months, just a few seconds before a normal delivery could occur; it is called partial birth abortion. Otherwise it is called normal child birth. Partial birth abortion is horrific, so where does one draw the fine line between human life and just a “piece of tissue�.

Both science and medicine define the beginning of “life� at “conception� As women are researching abortion and what it does, many are leaving the “pro-choice� community. The new 4D ultrasounds and pictures http://www.mccl.org/stages1.htm are not helping the pro choice community either…
Just a thought, where would you be if your mother “choose� abortion? ;-)

I think these are some of the reasons that legislation is being pushed.