![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
fizzyland.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsRecently conservatives and others were upset at the restrictions of liberty in NYC, which banned drink sizes over a certain amount, most arguing that just because government can do a thing, does not mean they should do a thing.
Last week the North Dakota House passed their stringent "fetal personhood" amendment with a 57-35 vote, which, when proposed to voters in 2014, will ban all abortion with no exceptions for rape, incest, or when the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy.
Is there a particular expertise within the North Dakota legislature on the civil and legal issues of Personhood? Do we really want basic human rights put to referendum?
Mind you, this is following on the heels of the nation's most restrictive abortion law, making abortions illegal after 6 weeks. Is abortion really that big an issue in a State with only one abortion clinic? Hold that - turns out that a tricksy Senate bill within the State is going to force that clinic to close so make that zero clinics.
Since abortion is a federally protected right I would say that this is just a cynical exercise in attempting to push a court case to SCOTUS in the hope that Justice Scalia would make some ruling that since women weren't voting citizens when the Constitution was penned, then they aren't Persons anyway. The Bill's sponsor has admitted that the purpose of it is to raise a Roe V. Wade challenge.
Fetal personhood. Forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term regardless of their situation or risks to their health. Is this an idea whose time has come?
Last week the North Dakota House passed their stringent "fetal personhood" amendment with a 57-35 vote, which, when proposed to voters in 2014, will ban all abortion with no exceptions for rape, incest, or when the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy.
Is there a particular expertise within the North Dakota legislature on the civil and legal issues of Personhood? Do we really want basic human rights put to referendum?
Mind you, this is following on the heels of the nation's most restrictive abortion law, making abortions illegal after 6 weeks. Is abortion really that big an issue in a State with only one abortion clinic? Hold that - turns out that a tricksy Senate bill within the State is going to force that clinic to close so make that zero clinics.
Since abortion is a federally protected right I would say that this is just a cynical exercise in attempting to push a court case to SCOTUS in the hope that Justice Scalia would make some ruling that since women weren't voting citizens when the Constitution was penned, then they aren't Persons anyway. The Bill's sponsor has admitted that the purpose of it is to raise a Roe V. Wade challenge.
Fetal personhood. Forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term regardless of their situation or risks to their health. Is this an idea whose time has come?
