The North Dakota Senate on Thursday passed two bills
concerning abortion and the matter of personhood. Lawmakers passed a Personhood Constitutional Amendment initiative that would amend the state’s constitution
to designate personhood to human embryos, thus giving them legal rights and
protections. The second bill passed requires abortion doctors to have
hospital-admitting privileges, a tedious and unnecessary process that will
likely prevent abortion doctors from practice. This could, in effect, shut down
the only abortion clinic, Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, in North Dakota.
State senator Margaret Sitte (R), the sponsor of the
personhood initiative, bluntly stated that she and her supporters “are
intending that [the legislation] be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, since
Scalia said that the Supreme Court is waiting for states to raise a case.”
Sitte gives off the tone that she would win that possible case.
While Sarah Stoez, CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota, calls (end of news article) these initiatives “legislative attacks on
woman’s health,” Sitte states the “intention of the [bill requiring abortion
doctors to have hospital-admitting privileges] is to ensure that women have
adequate health care and the follow-up care that they need.” Both sides of the
abortion debate are using woman’s health in their rhetoric; however, Sitte uses
woman’s “health care” as a way to justify (wrongly, in my opinion) this legislative measure that will only
effectively shut down the abortion clinic, making it harder for woman to get
abortions, at least in North Dakota.
A similar bill passed last year in Mississippi was able to
close down its last abortion facility.
Sitte is confident that North Dakotans will pass the
personhood measure in 2014, which states “the inalienable right to life of
every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and
protected.”
If a case is brought to the Supreme Court to challenge Roe
v. Wade, do you think it will be successful? Are other states likely to follow
suit after North Dakota and Mississippi in their battle against pro-abortion?
3 comments:
It makes me so upset that people will rally against the right to an abortion citing the right to life for all people, but will fight to the death over keeping gun control and healthcare at a minimum. This is a very sensitive topic and I hope that no one feels personally attacked by my saying this, but really? It seems like the majority of politicians who support pro-life stances only fully support the right to life prior to birth, and after that it isn't as important.
Additionally, 4th period addressed this in class the other day and I am just putting some of thoughts that came out of our group discussion here, but I'd like to reiterate that eliminating the already sparse resources available to women in need of abortions is really only making things more difficult for those who can't afford to take off time at work and/or travel to get one. Abortions will continue to happen, they will just happen in a more dangerous setting for the pregnant woman.
I'd like to take aim at “the inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.”
Great, so there is never any mention in the actual text of the amendment that this is meant to specifically apply to prenatal "human beings." So how do you define "human being?"
Hm, so the Oxford dictionary defines "human being" as "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."
Wait a second, can an embryo articulate? Can it stand upright? Hell, it doesn't even have "superior mental development" yet now does it?
Thefreedictionary.com's fourth definition of "human being" is "Having the form of a human."
Wait but, how many of these guys look like humans to you?
So that leaves "human being" up to interpretation. Now let's take a look at development.
Okay, so it's pretty clear that after birth, we are humans and we are developing therefore North Dakota would like to protect our right to life. But where do you draw the line? Or is there a line to be drawn in the first place? Does this law act under the assumption that human life begins at conception? Or is it 2/3 through pregnancy? Or at birth? If it's at conception, then does this law make emergency birth control (morning after pills, etc) illegal? Man...that's a lot of questions arising from one simple sentence.
Long story short, regardless of my views on abortion, I would primarily like to object to the horrendously vague wording of the amendment. Rant over.
I definitely agree with Eavan and Andrew and am equally appalled by this new amendment in North Dakota. I feel like it is imposing morals upon the citizens because it defines life at a certain stage, and not everyone has this viewpoint. Although some could use that argument against the legality of abortions, I honestly don't think that providing abortions imposes morals on anyone. Just because a clinic offers abortions doesn't mean you have to get one, nor does it hinder any opposing beliefs. Of course this is just my opinion and I don't mean to offend anyone.
Also, it's important to remember that many of the women's clinics and Planned Parenthood clinics do not just provide abortions. They also provide mammograms, other cancer screenings, and other women's crucial heath services. It appalls me that some people are so driven to stop abortion that they would even consider denying women adequate health care by closing down these clinics.
Post a Comment