Five States Vote on Abortion, Montana Deciding if It’s Okay for Doctors to Save Babies Who Survive Botched Abortions
Folks, we still have work to do to end abortion.
***** SO SORRY. I wrote Kentucky, and I meant Montana. My apologies. I looked at the wrong tab and mixed them up. I’m sorry. Still grosses me out that these states (Montana is not official yet) voted the way they did.
California, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and Vermont voted on abortion on Tuesday.
Officials are still counting votes in Montana.
Kentucky‘s Amendment 2: “To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.”
As a state, Kentucky currently prohibits abortion with exceptions for saving a woman’s life or preventing serious risk to her physical health.
Montana‘s Legislative Referendum 131: “An act adopting the born-alive infant protection act; providing that infants born alive, including infants born alive after an abortion, are legal persons; requiring health care providers to take necessary actions to preserve the life of a born-alive infant; providing a penalty; providing that the proposed act be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana; and providing an effective date.”
SBA Pro-Life America’s Katie Glenn nailed it concerning Montana (emphasis mine): “I think that one’s different than the other four, which are all very much time-gestational bans, in that this is not a pro-life/pro-choice issue. This is about providing lifesaving care to a child who’s already been born.”
California‘s Proposition 1 states: “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”
California allows abortion until viability, which is accepted at 24 weeks, even though there are many cases of babies born before that surviving birth. After 24 weeks, it has to be to save the mom.
Michigan‘s Proposal 3 applies to the state’s constitution: “proposal to amend the state constitution to establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make all decisions about pregnancy and abortion; allow state to regulate abortion in some cases; and forbid prosecution of individuals exercising established right.”
Like California, Michigan allows abortion up to viability or after to save the mom.
Vermont allows abortion up until birth. Article 11/Proposal 5 promotes abortion and amplifies the state’s acceptance of abortion: “That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
Folks, we still have work to do. We need to change their hearts and minds. I cannot stress enough the importance of helping and promoting pregnancy centers, whether donating items or volunteering.
As Mother Angelica once said: “Woe to us if we keep voting for murder.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
What in God’s Green Earth has happened to people? A baby lives through the pain of abortion (YES, they feel pain just as you and I do!) and they are wanting to kill him or her for the *crime* of surviving?
How could anyone call themselves human that thinks this is all right? Is there a Kermit Gosnell type of genetic defect that has spread like the Plague?
These Abortion Amendments never mention abortion. They mention something called Reproductive Rights. What that means will have to be litigated for years.
Do rapists have protected Reproductive Rights?
I meant it was never mentioned in Vermont. Sorry.
It will settle out to whatever point the fetus can be portrayed as cute via sonograms or whatever. That gets maximum votes on both sides and there it will finish. As it has in Europe.
The inclination to protect what is cute is worth preserving.
If you think a fertilized egg has to be protected or a born baby doesn’t, you have a case but it’s in some other discussion.
Keep Congress and the Federal government out of the issue. The Dobbs decision put the issue back where it belongs; in the hands of the voters of each State. Federalism is the solution to a large number of political issues. Let Mississippi be Mississippi and let Massachusetts be Massachusetts.
In the meantime we should all be willing to support the folks at crisis pregnancy centers.
Dobbs didn’t put in the hands of the states, let alone their voters. All it did was take it out of the hands of the federal courts. That leaves it in the hands of the state and federal legislatures, as well as the state courts. There is not one word in Dobbs that would prevent Congress from adopting a national regulatory scheme for abortion, that would preempt all state laws that contradict it.
Dobbs restored the pre Roe statue quo ante in which the States were in control. As they should be. A commitment to Federalism stops over reach and acquisition of power by the Federal govt.
McCarthy proposed that a r majority would impose federal legislation on abortion. Stupid IMO. Probably cost some votes.
You are correct that nothing in Dobbs would prevent Congress from enacting legislation but I didn’t make any argument that Congress could not. I stated that we should keep Congress out of the issue. IOW that they should not v the can not you are mistakenly ascribing to me.
There is this thing called the 10th amendment, unless you would like to point out in the federal constitution where that right is enshrined.
Under which of its enumerated powers do you believe Congress could regulate abortion? Trying to do so under the commerce power would be a real stretch, and unlikely to be allowed by current Supreme Court. I suppose Congress could try to forbid abortion under power to raise an army (ensuring more potential recruits and draftees) but this doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Pretty disgusting people, I’m thinking the second coming can’t be far.
As a nurse I can’t even fathom
There is no such thing as “born alive after a botched abortion.”
There certainly is. How can you deny something that happens regularly? (An abortion that results in a living child is by definition botched.)
There are many, these women included, that prove you to be a liar.
^^Follower of the Science™️
Yes there are. Fairly rare but there are cases. Which is why the cult of death aka abortionists oppose laws that mandate immediately medical care for the born human being. You may recall that the d/prog Gov of VA Northam a Physician when asked about his position on the matter stated that ‘it should be made comfortable’ while the decision was made about its future. IOW he was ok with killing a human baby post failed abortion.
Here’s a flashback post on the subject: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/clarifying-obamas-vote-born-alive-peter-kirsanow/
Huh? No, it wouldn’t. Your linked source doesn’t claim it would. And you cite the proposition’s language, which says nothing about survivors of abortion. I don’t see how its adoption could possibly have affected the law about such babies.
I agree. The author is misunderstanding the amendment proposed. The amendment is a zero-cause amendment against abortion.
It’s a stupid absolutist proposal. If the life of the mother is actually in jeopardy, then it shouldn’t be against the law to save her life.
I think you’re misunderstanding it too. The amendment would not affect existing law at all. It would simply say that there is no “right” to abortion lurking somewhere in the state constitution, and thus prevent any future court from “discovering” one there.
The same thing they tried in Kansas in August, that one failed too because the baby murderers successfully spread enough propaganda about it.
I fixed it. Mixed up Kentucky and Montana.
Hate to say it but this post seriously misinforms readers. “Like California, Michigan allows abortion up to viability or after to save the mom” Really? I recommend reading the state proposals. The exception for “mental health” is wide enough to allow abortion on demand up to birth, and the proposal’s perverse new definition of “fetal viability” is broad enough to allow care to be denied to a new born born alive after a failed abortion. In a nutshell, unregulated abortion on demand up to birth. Oh and no parental notification anymore. Add to that some trans garbage and possibly requiring state subsidy of abortion. A truly obscene proposal, drafted by Planned Parenthood and funded by Soros.
A truly obscene proposal, drafted by Planned Parenthood and funded by Soros.
No, funded by your taxdollars
Both capital (i.e. retained earnings) and redistributive change (e.g. slavery) contra Constitutional letter.
First, they came for slavery (i.e. affirmative, redistributive) and people protested, then for diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism. sexism, ageism) and people chanted. then for elective abortion of viable human lives performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes, and people… persons said never again, and again, and again.
That baby is everything it will be at conception.