North Dakota Governor Signs Strict Abortion Law

corruptrelic
corruptrelic
Gov. Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota approved the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions on Tuesday, signing into law a measure that would ban most abortions and inviting a legal showdown over just how much states can limit access to the procedure.

Mr. Dalrymple, a Republican, signed into law three bills passed by the Republican-controlled State Legislature. The most far-reaching law forbids abortion once a fetal heartbeat is “detectable,” which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Fetal heartbeats are detectable at that stage of pregnancy using a transvaginal ultrasound.

Most legal scholars have said the law would violate the Supreme Court’s finding in Roe v. Wade that abortions were permitted until the fetus was viable outside the womb, generally around 24 weeks into pregnancy. Even some leaders of the anti-abortion movement nationally have predicted that laws banning abortion so early in pregnancy are virtually certain to be declared unconstitutional by federal courts.

“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,” Mr. Dalrymple said in a statement.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/north-dakota-governor-signs-strict-abortion-limits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Have to love it when government steps in telling you what you can or can't do with your own body.

Comments

  • Knightshade_Dragon
    Knightshade_Dragon
    GT Manager
    Love it when our elected officials act responsible and approve bills such as this banning crimes like... murder.

    Please don't bother Hep or AA, definitely not worth either of our time.

    Ron Burke
    Editor in Chief
    GAMING TREND

    Xbox Gamertag: Gaming Trend
    PS4 Tag: GamingTrend

  • Isgrimnur
    Isgrimnur
    GT Member
    hyperbolapsf.png
  • corruptrelic
    corruptrelic
    GT Member
    I don't 'like' abortion either, but it's not my place as a man to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body, especially if I'm in a position of power to force those views on others.
    That's the issue I have with laws like this.


  • ATB
    ATB
    GT Member
    on 1364586132:

    hyperbolapsf.png


    I'ma need an explanation on this one, Grim.
  • Isgrimnur
    Isgrimnur
    GT Member
    It's a graphical representation of a hyperbola.
  • kratz
    kratz
    Guest
    The word you actually want is hyperbole.
  • Isgrimnur
    Isgrimnur
    GT Member
    I know the difference, and both have the same root. It's a joke, see.
  • pr0ner
    pr0ner
    GT Member
    Yeah, that doesn't work as a joke.
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    on 1364585936:

    Love it when our elected officials act responsible and approve bills such as this banning crimes like... murder.

    Please don't bother Hep or AA, definitely not worth either of our time.


    Correction: the topic is worth our time. You aren't.

    As for the topic, I love hypocrites like this that are probably for corporal punishment but then cry out that murder is wrong. Thankfully, more and more of this nation is calling them on crap like this.
  • Gratch
    Gratch
    GT Member
    on 1364737091:


    As for the topic, I love hypocrites like this that are probably for corporal punishment but then cry out that murder is wrong. Thankfully, more and more of this nation is calling them on crap like this.


    I love these politicians who will fight like hell to ensure that a baby be born regardless of the circumstances surrounding it (i.e. pregnancy via rape, the health of the mother, incest or sexual assault, etc.). They will then turn around and fight like hell to ensure that any social programs that will actually assist said mother and child to survive are absolutely slashed to the bone.

    We must protect that baby under any circumstance! But once it comes out, those damn mothers are nothing but welfare queens mooching off society.

    (Edit: Yes, I'm fully aware of the scarecrow-y nature of this post.)
  • ATB
    ATB
    GT Member
    on 1364737091:

    on 1364585936:

    Love it when our elected officials act responsible and approve bills such as this banning crimes like... murder.

    Please don't bother Hep or AA, definitely not worth either of our time.


    Correction: the topic is worth our time. You aren't.

    As for the topic, I love hypocrites like this that are probably for corporal punishment but then cry out that murder is wrong. Thankfully, more and more of this nation is calling them on crap like this.


    Or people who say it's okay to kill an innocent unborn baby but not put to death a murderer who committed a crime that is punishable by death?
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    on 1364821702:

    on 1364737091:

    on 1364585936:

    Love it when our elected officials act responsible and approve bills such as this banning crimes like... murder.

    Please don't bother Hep or AA, definitely not worth either of our time.


    Correction: the topic is worth our time. You aren't.

    As for the topic, I love hypocrites like this that are probably for corporal punishment but then cry out that murder is wrong. Thankfully, more and more of this nation is calling them on crap like this.


    Or people who say it's okay to kill an innocent unborn baby but not put to death a murderer who committed a crime that is punishable by death?


    I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.

    (sorry to have to burst your bubble there if the intent was to call me a hypocrite ;) Love the emotional wording though. It's a standard tactic but I'm guessing it's still effective with some folks.)
  • ATB
    ATB
    GT Member
    Fostering dialogue. Not calling names.
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    ....okay
  • Moliere
    Moliere
    Guest
    on 1364825345:

    I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.


    You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    on 1364834242:

    on 1364825345:

    I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.


    You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?


    Nope. But then again, I don't expect infallibility from humans in anything.

    Just because I believe that a guy who raped and murdered a child and has irrefutable evidence supporting that accusation should be put to death, that doesn't mean I automatically believe everyone who commits a crime should be.

    In other words, it's not a black and white issue...no matter how much folks would love to think it is.
  • Moliere
    Moliere
    Guest
    on 1364835804:

    on 1364834242:

    on 1364825345:

    I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.


    You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?


    Nope. But then again, I don't expect infallibility from humans in anything.

    Just because I believe that a guy who raped and murdered a child and has irrefutable evidence supporting that accusation should be put to death, that doesn't mean I automatically believe everyone who commits a crime should be.

    In other words, it's not a black and white issue...no matter how much folks would love to think it is.


    I don't see how you can pick and choose who gets the death penalty. Irrefutable evidence gets thrown out 20 years later as technology improves or witnesses recant their testimony. To make exceptions in certain cases (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer) is to open the door for innocent people being put to death.
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    You apparently have a different definition of irrefutable than most.
  • ATB
    ATB
    GT Member
    on 1364852886:

    on 1364835804:

    on 1364834242:

    on 1364825345:

    I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.


    You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?


    Nope. But then again, I don't expect infallibility from humans in anything.

    Just because I believe that a guy who raped and murdered a child and has irrefutable evidence supporting that accusation should be put to death, that doesn't mean I automatically believe everyone who commits a crime should be.

    In other words, it's not a black and white issue...no matter how much folks would love to think it is.


    I don't see how you can pick and choose who gets the death penalty. Irrefutable evidence gets thrown out 20 years later as technology improves or witnesses recant their testimony. To make exceptions in certain cases (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer) is to open the door for innocent people being put to death.


    So no crimes should be prosecuted?
  • uxFOOL
    uxFOOL
    GT Manager
    on 1364906240:

    on 1364852886:

    on 1364835804:

    on 1364834242:

    on 1364825345:

    I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.


    You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?


    Nope. But then again, I don't expect infallibility from humans in anything.

    Just because I believe that a guy who raped and murdered a child and has irrefutable evidence supporting that accusation should be put to death, that doesn't mean I automatically believe everyone who commits a crime should be.

    In other words, it's not a black and white issue...no matter how much folks would love to think it is.


    I don't see how you can pick and choose who gets the death penalty. Irrefutable evidence gets thrown out 20 years later as technology improves or witnesses recant their testimony. To make exceptions in certain cases (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer) is to open the door for innocent people being put to death.


    So no crimes should be prosecuted?


    leap3.jpg

    Mike Dunn
    Executive Producer & Editor-at-Large
    GAMING TREND

  • Moliere
    Moliere
    Guest
    on 1364906240:

    So no crimes should be prosecuted?


    Being opposed to the state sanctioned murder doesn't mean I am opposed to people being put in prison. If mistakes are made people can be released from prison and hopefully compensated for their lost time. That is not an option with the death penalty.

    I am curious what hepcat considers irrefutable that doesn't risk bad test data, fraud by a crime lab, misconduct by the police, etc.
  • ATB
    ATB
    GT Member
    on 1364911678:

    on 1364906240:

    So no crimes should be prosecuted?


    Being opposed to the state sanctioned murder doesn't mean I am opposed to people being put in prison. If mistakes are made people can be released from prison and hopefully compensated for their lost time. That is not an option with the death penalty.

    I am curious what hepcat considers irrefutable that doesn't risk bad test data, fraud by a crime lab, misconduct by the police, etc.


    Moliere I don't mean to needle- as I agree the justice system has many many problems- but doesn't the multiple appeals process limit the number of people who can possibly be executed falsely? ANd I understand the 'even if it happens once it's too much' argument, but lets dispense with that.
  • Moliere
    Moliere
    Guest
    on 1364911933:

    ANd I understand the 'even if it happens once it's too much' argument, but lets dispense with that.


    How about 305 times?
  • ATB
    ATB
    GT Member
    on 1364913519:

    on 1364911933:

    ANd I understand the 'even if it happens once it's too much' argument, but lets dispense with that.


    How about 305 times?


    Out of how many?
  • hepcat
    hepcat
    GT Member
    on 1364911678:

    I am curious what hepcat considers irrefutable that doesn't risk bad test data, fraud by a crime lab, misconduct by the police, etc.


    I would point to such things as the Aurora, Colorado shooting. Not all heinous crimes are committed by masterminds attempting to frame their neighbor.
  • Moliere
    Moliere
    Guest
    on 1364913841:

    on 1364913519:

    on 1364911933:

    ANd I understand the 'even if it happens once it's too much' argument, but lets dispense with that.


    How about 305 times?


    Out of how many?


    Really? Do you have some per capita figure that makes it acceptable? Don't forget, these are only the cases where DNA evidence was preserved and in states where the case could be reevaluated. How many hundreds of more people are still in jail because of these limitations?
  • ATB
    ATB
    GT Member
    Right. This is the trail I didn't want to go down. Any time the system gets it wrong it's terrible etc...



    So...

    " but doesn't the multiple appeals process limit the number of people who can possibly be executed falsely?"

  • Moliere
    Moliere
    Guest
    on 1364922997:

    " but doesn't the multiple appeals process limit the number of people who can possibly be executed falsely?"

    Yes. But it doesn't eliminate the possibility. What is so wrong with keeping people in prison without the possibility of parole instead of committing state sanctioned murder? According to most sources it is less expensive. We can undo the wrong if they are still alive and in prison. My atheism extends towards my lack of faith in the government being competent enough to never make a mistake when it comes to the death penalty, regardless of how irrefutable the evidence appears.
  • Harpua3
    Harpua3
    GT Member
    on 1364906648:

    on 1364906240:

    on 1364852886:

    on 1364835804:

    on 1364834242:

    on 1364825345:

    I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.


    You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?


    Nope. But then again, I don't expect infallibility from humans in anything.

    Just because I believe that a guy who raped and murdered a child and has irrefutable evidence supporting that accusation should be put to death, that doesn't mean I automatically believe everyone who commits a crime should be.

    In other words, it's not a black and white issue...no matter how much folks would love to think it is.


    I don't see how you can pick and choose who gets the death penalty. Irrefutable evidence gets thrown out 20 years later as technology improves or witnesses recant their testimony. To make exceptions in certain cases (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer) is to open the door for innocent people being put to death.


    So no crimes should be prosecuted?


    leap3.jpg


    Cheers to that last post!
Sign In or Register to comment.