Email
North Dakota voters will be asked in 2014 to decide whether life begins at the moment of conception, after state legislators passed two abortion bills that pro-choice supporters said could “regulate abortion out of existence.”
As the bills head to Gov. Jack Dalrymple for his approval, protests are being planned around the oil-rich state for Monday.
The North Dakota Coalition for Privacy in Health Care has planned “Stand Up for Women” rallies in Bismarck, Fargo and Minot to protest the package of bills that received final approval from legislators on Friday.
One of the measures that passed was a so-called personhood resolution that says a fertilized egg has the same right to life as a person. With the approval by the House, the decision on whether to add the wording to the state’s constitution will be put before North Dakota voters in November 2014.
Along with the personhood resolution that will be put to a public vote next year, legislators agreed to ban abortion at 20 weeks except in the case of a medical emergency and will require all doctors who perform abortions to have admitting rights to a local hospital.
“This deals with the health and safety of women having abortions,” state Rep. Vernon Laning, R-Bismarck said, according to the Bismarck Tribune.
In a state with only one abortion clinic — the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo — the mandate would effectively “regulate abortion out of existence,” according to the clinic’s website.
“Admitting privileges are not easily come by under any circumstances, but more importantly, such a requirement gives hospitals the power to decide whether abortion is even available in the state,” the clinic said in a statement.
Dalrymple, a Republican, has not indicated his stance on the bills, but it is possible that even if he vetoed them, there could be enough support in the legislature to override his decision.
The Arkansas Legislature passed a law banning almost all abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy earlier this month, over the veto of a Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, who called it “unconstitutional.”
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
So to “regulate abortion out of existence” is bad, but to end the existence of an unborn child is okay? Is that the argument?
Posted by: The Baron | March 23, 2013, 9:55 pm 9:55 pm
THE BARON: “So to “regulate abortion out of existence” is bad, but to end the existence of an unborn child is okay? Is that the argument?” – - – How stupid does someone have to be to not understand that taking away a woman’s rights to liberty, self-determination, and to control her own body to turn her into the equivilent of a baby making slave is very bad? How stupid does someone have to be not understand that allowing one group of people to FORCE their religious beliefs onto other people through the force of law is very very bad?
Posted by: B-K KnightRider | March 23, 2013, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
So now, husbands & wives, consider this: When the wife has a miscarriage (quite typical and very common), the wife could be thrown in jail for murder. Do you see where this is headed, folks? It is not BIG government’s decision. Abortion is a legal right.
Posted by: cici amicci | March 24, 2013, 12:08 am 12:08 am
And to you shriekers about ending an unborn life is horrible……..how about if you bring your wives and daughters to the clinics so the embryos can be transplanted into them?
Problem solved. Now, why are you not doing this?
Posted by: marc bauder md | March 24, 2013, 12:16 am 12:16 am
Good. It’s time for this double standard to end. Let women live with their mistakes.
Posted by: Maria Palaria | March 24, 2013, 12:35 am 12:35 am
This is not about unborn children. Everyone has a different opinion on when a human life begins and just because your opinion differs on this matter from someone else’s is not a reason to be disrespectful. If getting an abortion, regardless of the situation, is not the choice you would make that’s fine. But you do not have the right to tell another human being what to do with their body and the government should not have that right either. Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one. However, the option to get an abortion should be available to those who make the difficult decision to get one.
Posted by: Diana | March 24, 2013, 12:43 am 12:43 am
First, banning something that is legal will only be overturned once you actually try to enforce your will on someone else. Second, Abortion is not going away. There are many docs that will do them and make lots of money. RU 486 will become available by mail order and the morning after pill will be on sale every where in the state.
Posted by: The Doc | March 24, 2013, 12:44 am 12:44 am
Does this mean that a pregnant woman who has a beer should be arrested for giving alcohol to a minor? If she has a cigarette wouldn’t that be endangerment of a minor? It will be if the local law officers don’t like her or her family!
Posted by: Mkell | March 24, 2013, 12:52 am 12:52 am
Consider this scenario as well: Knowing this law is on the books, a young woman does her research and commits a minor crime. She is say four weeks pregnant and can prove with an ept test. She admits her guilt and does her time quietly without any fuss and is released two weeks before giving birth. Can a 1-800 family lawyer now sue the state for millions on behalf of then personhood now child for incarceration without due process? Would the first crime also be considered a separate crime of personhood abuse? Or could the personhood be accused of being an accomplice? The lookout! Sounds crazy but ya never know.
Posted by: Kit Marquis | March 24, 2013, 12:57 am 12:57 am
Republicans have now made government small enough that it fits in a women’s vagina. Women this is your own fault. Good luck if you have a miscarriage in ND. Also if you take BC you could also go yo jail under the new law not just miscarriage. Thats a person in there and if you were driving and hit someone and had a miscarriage you are going to jail. Men guess what you hit a womans car while she is pregnant and she miscarriages YOU would be charged with murder. Good luck.
Posted by: michael | March 24, 2013, 1:00 am 1:00 am
First off there is so many different contriceptions out there to prevent a pregnancy there should be no need for abortions. If a woman chooses to have sex without protection then she should have to accept responsibility if she becomes pregnant. She doesnt have to keep the baby there are plenty of poeple who cant have children that would love to adopt one. By 8 weeks a baby has all their body parts a beating heart, brain wave activity, and can feel pain. At 20 weeks a baby can survive outside the womb with assistance. He/she is not a blob of tissue. I always hear of a womans right but what about the babys rights. That child didnt ask to be conceived. The woman chose that for the child when she had unprotected sex.
Posted by: sheila mayberry | March 24, 2013, 1:05 am 1:05 am
Doesn’t really matter what the voters of ND decide. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and if, and when, this gets there, again, it will be tossed as well. Remember, this is America, and your rights only extend as far as the next person’s rights. This one oversteps and will be put down like the mad dog it is. Forcing the government to adopt your religious views constitutes establishment of religion, in violation of the 1st Amendment. Say goodnight, Gracie.
Posted by: Old Salt | March 24, 2013, 1:07 am 1:07 am
when it comes to a woman’s right to abort or not is up to her, not the government, the church or the next door neighbor if she is 18 or older, she is guaranteed certain rights per the constitution and the declaration of INDEPEDENCE! get out of the dark ages and look at it emotionally, medically and yes, economically. as for teens having babies, i have two granddaughters living with me because mom and dad as 16 year olds, had them. now i get to raise them. mom is gone where no one knows and the dad is still a mystery.
Posted by: stanley | March 24, 2013, 1:10 am 1:10 am
abortions have been performed in back alleys and under life threatening conditions for years and when we finally put it in a safe hospital enviroment, the government and the churches want to put it right back where it was, undergound. there is a reason for seperation of church and state and this is one of them. if you don’t want an abortion, there are dozens of products for preventing pregnancy. we also need to put some of this on the men as well. it is a simple procedure to make them sterile compared to what a woman has to go through. and the procedure for males can be easily reversed. come on boys, what do you say, step up, be a man and drop your drawers.
Posted by: patricia ellis | March 24, 2013, 1:21 am 1:21 am
It is illegal to murder someone in cold blood, right? Why is it right to kill an innocent unborn person? Did they ask to be conceive? If a woman does not want kids, either don’t have sex or use birth control that doesn’t kill the unborn. Life does start at conception.
Posted by: appalo | March 24, 2013, 1:33 am 1:33 am
The human baby is the most helpless newborn of any species so don’t talk to me about viability.
Why not take the concept of the origin of life back to when the egg is still in the ovary?
Posted by: Gary | March 24, 2013, 1:37 am 1:37 am
The personhood amendment doesn’t just ban abortion. It also severely restricts the option for infertile couples to do IVF. It also bans the most effective forms of contraception, which are sometimes medically indicated. I personally have to use the Depo Shot, becuase if I didn’t, I would have to file for disability due to horrible gynecological problems.
This is why Mississippi and voters in other states have voted down personhood amendments.
Posted by: Ally | March 24, 2013, 1:55 am 1:55 am
“POSTED BY: MICHAEL | MARCH 24, 2013, 1:00 AM 1:00 AM
First off there is so many different contriceptions out there to prevent a pregnancy there should be no need for abortions.”
Michael, the personhood amendment passed bans the most effective forms of contraception. Also, no form of contraception is 100% effective, not even getting a woman’s tubes tied or a man getting snipped is 100% effective.
Posted by: Ally | March 24, 2013, 1:58 am 1:58 am
Abotion has no place in a civilized society. We need to value human life not kill it because it is in the way.
Posted by: Clifford | March 24, 2013, 2:11 am 2:11 am
Want to open Pandoras box then you will get what you deserve…I can’t wait for this to get really interesting….It is going to cost ND millions of dollars….go for it you religious right wing _____fill in the blank profanity….
Posted by: asiaman | March 24, 2013, 4:19 am 4:19 am
ally, the personhood ban does NOT ban the most effective forms of contraception. That statement is a typical scare tactic that is so common among your masters on the left. Read the bill….and please let me know which part of it bans any, much less the “most effective” form of birth control. And please, don’t come back with the ‘pill prevents the attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterus’. That is nowhere in this bill.. The left political party has got women so enslaved as to think that the only way to be recognized is to have uninhibited and unrestricted sex. The left WANTS you to become pregnant to make you more dependent on the government. They WANT to give you free stuff so you think that you “deserve” free stuff…that it is a right. Men on the left WANT you to promiscuous and think that your promiscuity is your own idea. Heck, as a teenager many many years ago, the idea of a nation of slutty women, hooking up with any man anywhere was a pipe dream of many horny young men. The land of candy and honey. And now the government is trying to provide that….sex, drugs, bad decisions…all with no consequences….just to keep you voting democratic………..and you continue to suck it up!
Posted by: ncpilot22 | March 24, 2013, 5:03 am 5:03 am
Being a slave to a healthy baby and the true joys that come with it is way better than being a slave to the democrat party.
Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2013, 5:23 am 5:23 am
Here’s a great answer to the abortion issue: STOP SCREWING AROUND! If people would teach MORALS to their children we wouldn’t even have this issue. ANY WOMAN who aborts a child at 16 weeks should be forced to have her tubes tied. At 20 weeks she should be locked up for premeditated MURDER.
Posted by: Anita | March 24, 2013, 8:01 am 8:01 am
North Dakota, remember to add them to your Welfare Rolls.
Posted by: paofpa | March 24, 2013, 11:29 am 11:29 am
North Dakota, not only to your Welfare Rolls but add them to your census. Also, unhealthy and end-raped have the same rights. Also, who has priority, mother or child?
Posted by: paofpa | March 24, 2013, 11:36 am 11:36 am
Also, I forget, it then must be considered murder.
Posted by: paofpa | March 24, 2013, 11:53 am 11:53 am
This would ban all abortions, even in instances of rape, incest, extreme defects of the fetus or danger to the wellbeing of the woman. Even if the woman has an ectopic pregnancy, or any other serious condition that could endanger her life she cannot abort the pregnancy. The people who support this law would rather the woman die a traumatic and painful death instead of allowing her to abort her pregnancy. How is that civilized? How is that Constitutional?
Posted by: Katelyn | March 24, 2013, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
I want to ask the liberals why do we have preventive care if it surely not working?
300.000 a year abortions?
Free Birth control and condoms?
why is this happening liberals?
seem to me men and women are not taken responsibilty for their own actions?
Why are you men not covering your selves and why are you women not taken the free BC offered?
Why do you find it right to kill the baby instead?
you want to say women should have a right to her body …well then why being told how much soda we allowed ..How came we get more premiums if we were a smoker a drinker ?
all this falls under the right to our bodys…dont say its cause we effect health care ..Abortions also cost the tax payers along with all the free birth control..So am I getting this right guys..I cannot do other things to my body under health issues ..But I can kill my unwanted child if I dont want it?
REALLY? Thats the only right you will grant me free of charge to kill my baby..Anything else I choose will cost me? Did I get that right?
Posted by: jackie | March 24, 2013, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
Right to my body mean I should be able to smoke..drink whatever and eat whatever I want..
Right to body means if I want to drink and be merry I should be able to..
Right to my body means having sex with whom I please..
Right to my body means protect it from unwanted preganancy
Right to my body does not grant me a right to a person I created out of irrisponsibility to take their right to life away..
To democrats its out of sight out of mind mentality when it comes to killing an unborn child.
If that embreo is to grow what does it turn into liberals? its a human cell from the start day one..at two weeks it has form into a child with nerves ..so tell me it does not feel each body part sucked from them..what God has created let know man tear apart…How do any of you who claim to know GOD agree with this?
Posted by: jackie | March 24, 2013, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
From the very beginning these kind of “lawmakers” should have been charged with conspiring to violate the civil right of the US Constitution The very Constitution they most likely swore to protect- most likely invoking “so help me god (note to Dog, they either used your name in vain and/or flat lot lied.)
Posted by: donald hartnett | March 24, 2013, 11:51 pm 11:51 pm
Please do read the bill (North Dakota senate bill 2303) There is an exemption for the life of the mother, contraception would not be banned, and it would penalize those who provide abortions, not the women who procure them. Lets not exagerate. Women who find themselves in difficult pregnancies need to be supported. And the lives of their unborn babies need to be protected. Its both-and. Not either-or.
Posted by: Matt | March 25, 2013, 4:16 am 4:16 am