North Dakota Does the Right Thing

Good news on the prolife front!

“Gov. Jack Dalrymple today signed HB 1305, HB 1456 and SB 2305 and provided the following statements to the Legislature:

North Dakota House and Senate presiding officers:

I have signed HB 1305 which would ban abortions performed solely for the purpose of gender selection and genetic abnormalities.

I have signed HB 1456 which would ban abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed state restrictions on the performing of abortions and because the Supreme Court has never considered this precise restriction in HB 1456, the constitutionality of this measure is an open question. The Legislative Assembly before it adjourns should appropriate dollars for a litigation fund available to the Attorney General.

I have signed SB 2305 which requires admitting and staff privileges at a nearby hospital for any physician who performs abortions in North Dakota. The added requirement that the hospital privileges must include allowing abortions to take place in their facility greatly increases the chances that this measure will face a court challenge. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate and new question for the courts regarding a precise restriction on doctors who perform abortions.”

A small gaggle of people who make money off this filthy, bloody industry of murder held a little rally at the one butchery clinic left in in NoDak, in Fargo, demanding the “right” to go on profiting from the slaughter. There will undoubtedly be court challenges and the bloody injustice of Roe will again have to be faced by SCOTUS. God defend the right.

  • Debra

    They’ve also passed an amendment proposition granting legal recognition of personhood from conception, which of course, must go now to a popular vote.

    • Benjamin

      Personhood, eh? So can pregnant women drive in the HOV lane then? How about claiming fetuses as dependents on their tax returns so they can get a child tax credit? Do they tell Census takers to mark them on their forms? Should all miscarriages be investigated as potential homicides as well?

      • ivan_the_mad

        Can’t tell if poe or troll … *image of Fry*

        • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

          Attempted troll, I think. Ah, to be able to post images like the Fry meme in these comments….

      • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

        “Should all miscarriages be investigated as potential homicides as well?”

        Which would totally be a valid argument if we treated all accidental and natural deaths as potential homicides.

        “So can pregnant women drive in the HOV lane then?”

        And of all the arguments to be made against personhood amendments, this would be the stupidest.

      • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

        “How about claiming fetuses as dependents on their tax returns so they can get a child tax credit?”
        That’s a fantastic idea. Prenatal care is expensive! Relatedly, my life would have had a lot less paperwork in it if I could have claimed my unborn daughter as a dependent when I was filling out my student loan repayment paperwork just after graduation, instead of having to wait until she was born to add her as a dependent.

      • Psy

        I would assume yes to the HOV lane and their state income tax but the federal government doesn’t recognize a personhood until birth so no to federal income tax and federal census.

        • Cinlef

          Why HOV lanes? Surely what is at issue there is that the car be fully or almost fully occupied? That a pregnant woman and her unborn baby are distinct people doesn’t mean that they take up more than one seat in a car. (I mean it would depend on the wording of the HOV bylaws)

          • Andy, Bad Person

            I’ve lived in several states, and 2 people were all that were ever necessary for the HOV lane.

      • Roberto

        What would a post on abortion be without the traditional remarks by someone who wants to show us all the wrong arguments used to defend the killing on inconvenient children? And the irony of the name: the one brother who tried to avoid the killing of innocent and inconvenient Joseph.
        Lord forgive them, as they don’t know what they are saying or doing.

        • Psy

          Whining and dismissing a point doesn’t make it invalid, this personhood law would cause problems in other aspects that will have to be addressed. Will a pregnant woman be allowed to continue working in an establishment that prohibits minors for example.

          • Theodore Seeber

            Too bad. Personhood for the Native Americans did too. Personhood for women did too.

            Why would we want a pregnant woman to have easy access to alcohol, given FAS?

            • Psy

              Who said she would be drinking on the job and what does she or the courts care what you want?
              This is another one of those laws with great ideals but no thought put into it that may establish more precedents that could create more road blocks to your goal.
              It’s like the supreme court case today on gay marriage where they should have let the 9th district decision stand instead of taking it to the Supreme Court who has already stated 14 times in the past that marriage is a fundamental right implying a decision could lead to immediate national legalization of gay marriage.

              • Theodore Seeber

                “what does she or the courts care what you want?”

                Doesn’t matter if she is drinking on the job or not- being in that environment is bad. And it isn’t about what we or the courts want- it is *entirely* about how to create good citizens for the next generation.

                “This is another one of those laws with great ideals but no thought put into it that may establish more precedents that could create more road blocks to your goal.”

                What do you think my “goal” is? My goal is *respect for human life* from conception until natural death, and if that means we need to completely destroy liberty and the pursuit of happiness to do so, then so be it.

                The Truth doesn’t wait for government or change because somebody claims that it should.

            • Roberto

              Oops, I meant to reply to Psy, not to Theodore. Sorry.

          • Roberto

            I agree that Benjamin is whining and dismissing a point without seeing its validity.
            But as for your question, do you make it a habit of rejecting a good idea because it creates problems? So, what if legal problems will be created? They will be addressed and resolved individually. See what I mean by wrong arguments?

            • Psy

              Its not up to me to accept or reject it as I’m not a North Dakota voter, they are the ones you have to convince. These issues will come up and obviously by the responses here no-one is prepared to deal with them. But hey, go ahead and beat me down instead of offer solutions or have your early victory celebration.

      • Theodore Seeber

        Isn’t a miscarriage more like an accidental death?

      • Barbara

        Benjamin,
        Sure, fine, OK, and please check your local listings for court cases in the works for fetal deaths ruled as homicide. They are out there.

      • B.E. Ward

        I think North Dakota would need to get some HOV lanes first…

        • sue

          I am proud to be from North Dakota and so proud of our governor!
          I have never heard of a HOV lane…

      • vytas

        and don’t forget about the funerals for the miscarriages and other unborn. How come we have not seen any of those?

      • So You’re Saying…

        Except for the miscarriage bit – which is ridiculous, um… yeah — the rest of it sounds fine.

    • Benjamin

      Oh yeah: and how many persons is a chimera?

      • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

        Great question! A tetragametic chimera is one person, just like any other human being. As you probably know, a tetragametic chimera is formed by the fusion of two zygotes; it’s sort of like twinning in reverse. On a modern (in which life begins at conception) Thomist (in which the soul is the “form” of an organism) account, each zygote is ensouled at conception. When the zygotes fuse, only one organism remains, and thus only one “form” can remain: in short, one of the souls dies when the zygotes fuse. This is a natural evil, just like dying as a miscarried fetus or dying of cancer as an adult. Thus, the argument against Catholicism (at least as defended by Thomist apologetics) from the existence of chimeras is just a subset of the Problem of Evil, rather than an independent objection.
        More here:
        http://thirdmillennialtemplar.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/tetragametic-chimeras-and-the-human-soul/

        • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

          Irenist, I love how cheerfully informative you’ve been in response!

          • Beccolina

            Sometimes I just what to hug him. I needed some good political news today, after listening to way too many talking heads debating prop. 8.

  • http://yardsaleofthemind.wordpress.com/ Joseph Moore

    Ya know, before this moment, I’d never thought I’d want to move to North Dakota. This is good, but I imagine the court cases will draw lawyers and money from every corner of America to challenge this, and possibly attempt to simply overwhelm ND’s ability to fight. Hope I’m wrong, and that North Dakota is up to the challenge.

  • Psy

    It sounds like this law crosses the right to privacy part of roe v wade by demanding to know why they want an abortion.

    • Theodore Seeber

      Can you find me the word “privacy” in the constitution?

      • Benjamin

        Can you find me the words “Air Force”? How about the words “spaceflight program”? Should we assume the phrase “free press” doesn’t include TV or the internet?

        • Dustin

          Argh. Beat me to the punch.

        • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

          Originalism can lead to absurdities, true. However, it should be noted that Roe is often considered to be an embarrassingly bad bit of constitutional law even by those pro-choice legal scholars who are happy with how it came out.

          • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

            Exactly. Many lawyers, regardless of how they feel about abortion, recognize Roe v. Wade as a poorly reasoned, poorly written decision — because of the unworkable “viability” standard, because it was a matter best left to states, and because of the dependence on the implicit right to privacy from Griswold v. Connecticut (which, again, many lawyers on either side of the issue believe to be a mistake, and far too vague).

        • Theodore Seeber

          I don’t see anybody arguing that the air force is a constitutional right. And there’s a bill in Congress *right now* to clamp down on the freedom of expression on the Internet.

          So back to the beginning, where do you see privacy as a constitutional right?

          • Psy

            The Court found that the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of personal liberty and previous decisions protecting privacy in family matters included a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.
            You should take this up with the Supreme Court.

            • Theodore Seeber

              The Court isn’t allowed to add words to the law. And yes, I’m fully aware that Roe V. Wade makes the Constitution an invalid document that needs to be replaced.

          • Dustin

            Not all our protections are codified, and not all our laws and judgments need have an explicitly textual basis. Otherwise, as has been argued here, no one would have any rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and the government couldn’t perform any action not explicitly authorized in the text, like for instance, creating an Air Force. Privacy is a fundamental human right that doesn’t need any textual warrant for a court to recognize it. You can’t seriously claim that it doesn’t exist if the constitution doesn’t recognize it.

            • Theodore Seeber

              The claim in Roe V. Wade is that the right to privacy *does* have a textual basis. The problem is that it doesn’t, which makes the Supreme Court into a bunch of dictators no different than any other genocidal dictator.

          • Dustin

            My last sentence should read: “if the constitution doesn’t mention it.”

          • Bob

            Ted, the Constitutions basic job is to describe the form of our government and to clarify the limits on ITS rights over us, not the other way around. People who make this claim about the “word privacy” not appearing n the constitution fundamentally misunderstand the constitution. I could go on at length about the amendments that do, at the their heart, indicate the framers fully understood and supported the right to privacy that is fundamental to human dignity and liberty. The right to prevent the government from housing soldiers in your home without your permission, the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. To name two.
            Instead I’ll just say this: the words “hot poker” and “rectum” are likewise absent from the constitution. This omission does not authorize the government to stick one in yours.

            • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

              Bob, you are correct that a word (e.g., “privacy,” or “Air Force”) needn’t be in the constitutional text. It’s the U.S. Constitution, not the U.S. Code or the Federal Register. Nevertheless, the specific arguments used in Roe to find a constitutional guarantee of a specific right to abortion are just laughable. So, while happily conceding your general principle about the constitutional text, I remain unconvinced that you can persuasively defend Roe.

            • Theodore Seeber

              When your words create a genocide of 55 million people, damn straight that the government is infringing on the rights of the unborn.

              And needs to be disposed of because of it. If your constitution demands that, then the constitution needs to be either amended or burnt.

      • Dustin
        • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

          I think Roe is terrible law, but that Duffelblog article is actually the best satire of originalism I’ve ever read. Thanks for posting it!

          • vox borealis

            I actually wouldn’t have a major problem with the air force being declared unconstitutional. Really, anything that can detooth the leviathon that is the modern nation state is A-OK in my book.

    • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com Robert King

      My guess is that these laws were specifically designed to challenge Roe v. Wade. Since I think Roe is bad law, to say nothing of horrifically immoral, I’m all in favor of this approach.

    • Barbara

      If the fetal heartbeat rule holds, that render the mental disability and gender questions [mostly] moot, I think.

  • ctd

    Bishop David D. Kagan, Bishop of Bismarck, has issued the following statement:

    Bishop David D. Kagan has issued the following statement:

    The protection of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death is the primary purpose of government. All persons, including our elected officials, are obligated to unceasingly seek protection of this basic human right. I applaud the members of the North Dakota legislature who bravely supported measures to extend protections to unborn human life and to advance the health of women.

    I also applaud Governor Jack Dalrymple for signing SB 2305, HB 1305, and HB 1456. His signature affirms our state’s commitment to the protection of all human life.

    Finally, I ask that all Catholics of the state join me this Holy Week in praying for our all of our elected leaders. May the Author of Life grant them wisdom in all their endeavors.

  • Harry Piper

    Excellent stuff!

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    You always find reason to point out the Republican’s failures, and taking uncharitable shots when they do. How about a kudos when they do the right thing and acknowledging that there is a difference between the parties?

    • Mark Shea

      I thought this *was* a kudos.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Hmm, I don’t see any mention of a political party in either the excerpt you chose to cite or in your framing context. But I guess it is what it is.

  • Mike

    Great news! Babies, even very little ones, are human are developing, are learning and deserve, at the very least, to be born. After that they can put up for adoption or go on to foster care, but let’s at least give them a chance.

  • Brindleheim

    The group convened in front of the Wausau Family Planning Health Services (FPHS) Wednesday afternoon. It is an odd place to go to renounce abortion, since FPHS in Wausau not only doesn’t perform them, its workers are forbidden by the terms of their state grants to so much as make a call to help a woman find a clinic where she might exercise that legal option. But in the Lifers defense, it is 100 miles from Wausau to the nearest actual abortion provider. I would imagine it’s hard to persuade many of the elderly participants, prone to prostate trouble and bladder issues, to travel two hours in order to confront the genuine article, especially when there are so many local sexually active women they can shame and still be home for an early supper. So, even though it’s a little like marching to reinstate Glass-Steagall in front of a sperm bank, this group of Catholics from the 40 Days for Life campaign, has chosen to make their stand, twice a year, on the sidewalk in front of a place pregnant women of modest means come, not to end their pregnancies, but to get prenatal care, and nutritious food through the WIC program, because they want healthy babies. I think this is known in Catholic theology as the transitive property of interchangeable vaginas.

    Yep. Something to be proud about.

    • http://irenist.blogspot.com/ Irenist

      You’re trolling this article about a pro-life law in North Dakota by lazily copying and pasting a much-reprinted crass critique of a pro-life protest in Wisconsin? Wow. Nothing to be proud of at all!

      FYI: The Wausau FPHS offers “Plan B” type emergency contraceptives; while those contraceptives have as their primary mechanism of action the inhibition of ovulation to prevent conception, there is concern that they may secondarily inhibit embryonic implantation, thereby acting as an abortifacient.

      TL;DR: You fail at trolling.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X