LITTLE ROCK, Ark (Reuters) - Arkansas was set to enact the nation's most restrictive law on abortion, banning most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, after the state's Republican-controlled House on Wednesday voted to override the governor's veto of the bill.
Representatives voted 56-33 to override the veto by Democratic Governor Mike Beebe, which followed the state Senate's override on Tuesday. In Arkansas, lawmakers can override a veto with a simple majority vote.
The Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act will go into effect 90 days after the formal adjournment of the legislative session. The session was set to adjourn May 17, though it could be extended.
Arkansas will have the earliest abortion ban in the country, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.
The measure bans most abortions at about 12 weeks of pregnancy, once a fetal heartbeat can be detected by a standard ultrasound. It includes exemptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother and major fetal conditions. Doctors who violate the prohibition would have their licenses revoked by the state medical board.
The fetal heartbeat bill was one of one of several bills introduced by Arkansas Republicans this year seeking to restrict abortion. This is the first time the party has controlled both chambers since the Reconstruction era following the Civil War.
Beebe said in his veto letter the heartbeat bill "blatantly contradicts" the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and he questioned the potential cost to taxpayers of defending it against legal challenges.
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 410 U. S. 147-164.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 410 U. S. 163, 410 U. S. 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 410 U. S. 163, 410 U. S. 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 410 U. S. 163-164; 410 U. S. 164-165.
This simply means lots of women travelling to the next state for an abortion or worse still - back room abortions if they are not allowed to travel.
I think the government shouldn't be involved in abortion. I don't think bureaucrats should be able to legislate on something that can be complex. It is something between the patient and doctor....politicians should be out of this.
I support a 12 week line.
No apologies - I am pro-choice with limits . . . 20 weeks is just too damn long. If you haven't made a decision by then what he hell have you been doing?
No involvement? You mean anyone should be able to open an abortion clinic from their home, and perform abortions without any medical training?
I support a 12 week line.
No apologies - I am pro-choice with limits . . . 20 weeks is just too damn long. If you haven't made a decision by then what he hell have you been doing?
Of course they can have standards like all medical facilities. My argument is against them making dates of when it can or cannot happen...saying whether or not it can happen...that isn't something for a bureaucrat to decide.
It all depends on when the fetus becomes a human. Most would argue that that does in fact happen before birth. Is the location the only thing that matters? Should the government have no regulations on abortion at nine months?
It all depends on when the fetus becomes a human. Most would argue that that does in fact happen before birth. Is the location the only thing that matters? Should the government have no regulations on abortion at nine months?
IMO location isnt the only thing that matters BUT its the most important factor obviously because that makes it an unique situation not comparable to anything else.
I pro-life with restricitions but not at 12 weeks thats way to early since there have been many woman that didnt even know they were pregnant until that time
i dont think so simply because of the fact many woman haven't found out until 12 weeks or longer they were pregnant that are on a BC that failed.
What about them? Secondly for most its not an easy decision why rush it and force it, im good with it up to 22weeks since thats viability anyway, then after that it still wouldnt be a flat ban it would be case by case
The government shouldn't be involved to the extent they are....it isn't an issue for bureaucrats. They have to make broad and generalized legislation...these issues have complexities that cannot all be legislated.
I don't think any reputable doctor would abort at Nine Months..
i dont think so simply because of the fact many woman haven't found out until 12 weeks or longer they were pregnant that are on a BC that failed.
IMO location isnt the only thing that matters BUT its the most important factor obviously because that makes it an unique situation not comparable to anything else.
I pro-life with restricitions but not at 12 weeks thats way to early since there have been many woman that didnt even know they were pregnant until that time
If "No reputable doctor would do..." is enough, why have any medical regulations?
My point is that regardless of our opinions on when is too early or late, most would agree that at some point there should be government regulation.
You make sure they run a good practice...the standards that can be broadly defined. Abortion cannot be broadly legislated.
The government shouldn't be involved to the extent they are....it isn't an issue for bureaucrats. They have to make broad and generalized legislation...these issues have complexities that cannot all be legislated.
I don't think any reputable doctor would abort at Nine Months..
You have got to be kidding LMAO!
I support a 12 week line.
No apologies - I am pro-choice with limits . . . 20 weeks is just too damn long. If you haven't made a decision by then what he hell have you been doing?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?