Life Wins in North Dakota

12 Comments50 Million+

North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed bills Tuesday making the state’s abortion laws the nation’s most restrictive and setting the stage for what he called a U.S. Supreme Court challenge of “the boundaries of Roe v. Wade.”

The bills bar abortions if a fetal heartbeat is heard, which can be six weeks into a pregnancy; ban abortions prompted by genetic defects; and require abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges. They become law Aug. 1 unless a court blocks them.

heartbeat-99424076937

North Dakota residents will vote in 2014 on a ballot measure that defines life as starting at conception.

Paul Maloney of North Dakota Right to Life calls Tuesday “a landmark day.” Sarah Stoesz of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota and the Dakotas says Dalrymple, “with one swipe of his pen … severely compromised” women’s health. Read the rest here.

Comments (12)

  1. rufustfirefly

    Reply

    Again, if men got pregnant, the right to choose would not be an issue.

      • Richard Chavarria

        I think, the argument the Rufus is trying to put forth seems to assert that abortion is a women’s issue only.

      • Nohm

        Goodness no, that is not the point he’s trying to make. :-O

        He’s not claiming that men can get pregnant, or that abortion is a woman’s issue only. Yeesh.

        He’s trying to point out the misogyny that he sees within the pro-life crowd. That if this was an issue that dealt with men only, we wouldn’t even be discussing it (I can think up a couple of examples, but I’d like to keep my comment family-friendly).

        Please tell me that you guys (Steve and Richard) were just joking and where’s my sense of humor, because otherwise… yow.

      • Steve Sanchez

        I was just joking and where’s your sense of humor?

        I answered the same way last time Rufus wrote this. It’s a moot point. Men can’t get pregnant. Women can and they choose at times to murder their own.

    • S.S.

      Reply

      rufus;

      Greetings. Interesting comment. I imagine seven of the nine supreme court justices (all men) who voted in the majority for Roe back in 1973 would probably agree with you on that.

      Have a pleasant day!

      S.S.

  2. RyanS

    Reply

    Why do pro baby killers always attempt to make up some dumb analogy trying to justify child murder?

    What have we heard?

    1. Streets will be filled with homeless kids that were not aborted..( oh yes I tripped over millions of homeless kids pre-1973 on the streets)

    2. Children will suffer (really? do kids want to kill themselves at age 5? because they ” suffer”?

    3 Women who are raped should not be forced to carry a child ( so you’re saying we have had over 50,000,000 raped women???)

    4. If you were a woman.. ( If I was a woman I would have abstained from sex other then with my husband .. and with this type of argument are you pro baby killers saying that women are forced to have sex against their will?? then that would be rape but the statistics show that less then 1% of abortions are because of rape. So now whats the excuse?

    America did very well before 1973 before Roe Vs Wade so explain please
    Pro baby killers how did we as society function without abortion on demand?

    • vintango2k

      Reply

      Eh even though I’m not really passionate about this issue, I’ll post a link to an article discussing pre-1970’s American policy on abortion.

      “America did very well before 1973 before Roe Vs Wade so explain please
      Pro baby killers how did we as society function without abortion on demand?”

      America did so well that a third of the states pre-1973 passed laws to decriminalize abortion due to the fact that women in desperate situations were seeking out life threatening back alley abortions and ending up dead?

      http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html

      • RyanS

        What desperate situation were they in? they made a choice to have sex…. and the consequences of that choice can sometimes lead to pregnancy.

        Once the door was opened to abortion, it now becomes a means of birth control , no longer the realm of this mythical desperate situation that was claimed.

        I have known at least two women , who both had generous financial means they both opted to have at least 2 abortions each.

        That is murder under any definition , one time can be said to be a mistake , the second time lacks any excuse at all, but premeditated murder sanctioned by the state which is suppose to protect the weak and the helpless.

      • vintango2k

        Coerced into having sex by insistent men? Intoxication? Rape? Their own health? Their future? Or the most important one… financial. Look we’ve been down this road before as far as discussion goes. Unless the state is willing to take on these babies and provide health care for women who are financially unable to support themselves or a child, you won’t be able to outlaw abortion. We’ve made some steps towards universal coverage but we’re not on a single payer system yet. Ryan would you be in favor of a full ride for pregnant mothers when it comes to health care… get the baby’s born… pay for hospital care and adoption for mother and baby if in turn abortion was outlawed? And if it were outlawed would you prosecute mothers who miscarry? (Something which could occur if prosecutors are able to indite if they suspect the miscarriage was artificially induced) Would you allow their medical records to be opened in such investigations? Would you force them to submit to humiliating medical examinations? Have you really even thought about any of that?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *