On Tuesday, the Alabama state legislature passed what is probably the most sweeping pro-life (or, as the media will insist on calling it, “anti-abortion”) law in the United States. In effect, abortion could be outlawed in Alabama unless the mother’s health is at risk.
The bill will make the punishment for performing abortions up to 99 years or life in prison, although the woman who received one will not be subject to a felony charge.”
The vote is expected to reignite a debate over Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision from 1973 that legalized abortion across the nation, and push Supreme Court justices to re-evaluate the laws.”
“The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in a womb is not a person,” Republican state Rep. Terri Collins said in April.”
Although the Alabama State House voted to pass the bill last month, 74-3, Democratic lawmakers pressed Tuesday, unsuccessfully, for amendments that would create exceptions in instances of rape and incest.”
Obviously, if Governor Ivey signs the bill into law, there will be immediate legal challenges. I’m pretty sure that was the intent all along. The idea is to get some kind of “test case” to the Supreme Court, where it will be the Roe v. Wade ruling versus the Tenth Amendement. Can each state have its own restrictions on abortion without the federal government getting involved? That is what this law, and the other ones being passed, are clearly setting the table to do.
Through the course of this debate, we’ve gotten such charming soundbites from the pro-abortion crowd in the Alabama legislature.
And now that representative, John Rogers, is planning on challenging Senator Doug Jones in the primary for United States Senate. Well, he’s certainly got name recognition now.
However, while people are busy reacting to the law and what it proposes…
So was slavery. Legal doesn’t equal moral.
— Abby Johnson (@AbbyJohnson) May 15, 2019
… it hasn’t actually been signed into law yet. That rests with Governor Ivey. Newsflash, everyone – the governor of Alabama is a WOMAN.
HB 314 was written by and will be signed by a woman soooo…. https://t.co/AGFoR9NYo1
— Zack Butler (@ZackButler973) May 15, 2019
Will Governor Ivey sign it, despite the furor? The strong odds point to yes.
Abortion rights advocates Wednesday morning urged Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey to reject the bill and vowed swift legal action if it is enacted.”
“We are laser-focused on urging Gov. Kay Ivey to veto this dangerous bill. If she chooses not to, then we will take this to court and ensure that abortion remains safe and legal and accessible in the state of Alabama,” said Staci Fox, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast.”
Ivey has not commented on the bill but the Republican fixture in Alabama has long identified as anti-abortion and the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Terri Collins, said she expects her to sign the legislation.”
While I am not confident that Roe v. Wade can be overturned with our current Supreme Court makeup (I think Roberts or Kavanaugh is likely to play spoiler on that one), could a narrow ruling be issued that allows for states to exercise their Tenth Amendment rights to decide for themselves on abortion? Who knows, but I’m not hopeful on that either. One thing is certain, though – between science and law, the pro-life movement is gaining more ground than it has in years.
Featured image via Pixabay, Pixabay license free for commercial use
GWB says: exceptions in instances of rape and incest
Can we work on correcting this phrase? “Incest” is not justification for abortion, anymore than sex after a night at the club* is – except where it’s with a minor which is already rape.
The reason the pro-abortion lobby loves that phrase is the word “incest” doubles the “ick factor”, helping to cement their emotional appeal. It also aids in a perception that we’re talking about twice as many things. But it’s redundant, and we need to stop helping them use language to prevaricate.
(* While incest carries for me a high “ick factor”, I’m ok with consenting adults doing whatever they choose, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, and they don’t try to make the rest of us think it’s ok.)
I also think we should stop speaking of the handful of medical interventions where the child dies as “abortion”. Because the intent of those interventions is not to kill the child, but to save the mother. If the doctor could save the child in those cases, he would. To me, this makes it not abortion. (I could be wrong, and welcome correction from anyone who can speak to medical language in, say, 1950.) Changing the language on that one will help us isolate the actual act of killing a child for convenience or ‘compassion’ as the point under discussion.
Given our current state of jurisprudence, I would be ok with a law that excepts rape and life of the mother. But I wouldn’t stop working toward a total ban (again, I don’t consider a necessary medical intervention where otherwise both mother and child will die to be an “abortion”).
David Byler says: Yaaaaaaay!!!!!
Bobby Ahr says: Stupid law. Waste of time. Should be a 9-0 SCOTUS rejection.
Scott says: You’re right Bobby, murder shouldn’t be illegal, just because the baby hasn’t been born yet… Hell, just like buying a car, there should be a five day window after delivery where if the baby isn’t what you wanted you can just kill it and try again…
But seriously, you’re proving yourself to be a poster child for abortion.. that or your mom should have swallowed…
4 Comments