The Blog of the Coalition for Secular Government

Monday, April 13, 2009 Good News / Bad News from North Dakota By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM The good news is that North Dakota's anti-abortion "personhood" bill -- a mirror of Colorado's own Amendment 48 -- failed to pass its state senate. The bad news is that various other unjust controls on abortion did pass. Here's the report from the anti-abortion LifeSiteNews: BISMARCK, North Dakota, April 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Friday the North Dakota Senate voted down a bill that would have granted personhood status to human beings from the moment of conception, but passed two informed consent bills with strong support. Senate lawmakers voted down the personhood bill by a 29-16 margin after it had passed the state House in mid-February. House Bill 1572 would have defined a "person" in law as including "a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens," and thus afforded unborn children full legal protection. Four days before the Senate hearing on the bill, North Dakota's two Catholic Bishops, Paul Zipfel of Bismarck and Samuel Aquila of Fargo, called a news conference to announce that they would not support the current form of the bill. According to reports, the amendments offered by the bishops were sweeping - striking every word of the original bill - and the bishops had not contacted the bill's sponsor, Rep. Dan Ruby, prior to the press conference. Personhood legislation has been introduced in a handful of states around the country, including Maryland, South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia. Other states, such as Oregon and Mississippi, aim to introduce personhood language through a constitutional amendment. The same day North Dakota senators turned down the state's personhood bid, the Senate voted in favor of two other pro-life bills that had passed the House. A bill requiring abortion providers to inform a patient that "the abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique living human being," passed 34-11. Another bill, requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound and give mothers the option to view the ultrasound image of their unborn child, passed by a 44-1 margin. In addition, the Senate passed a resolution urging U.S. Congress to strike down the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would nullify all state and federal abortion regulations, according to the Christian Post. That's odious. Women have the right to undergo any medical procedure of their choosing, so long as the doctor is a willing provider thereof. Legislators violate the rights of those women and their doctors by demanding more, namely that the women hear certain dogmas and see certain body parts beforehand. Nonetheless, I suppose that I should be glad, as the "personhood" measure would have been far, far worse. Labels: Abortion E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink ()    Comments

Comments on "Good News / Bad News from North Dakota"

Thursday, April 23, 2009 at 14:31:14 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Jean "Women have the right to undergo any medical procedure of their choosing, so long as the doctor is a willing provider thereof." The issue isn't about women's rights to medical procedures, it's about whether or not the right to life of another (the unborn child)can be terminated. Even non-religious people have qualms about snuffing out a human life, and the fathers of these children have had their rights completely stripped away, as they have no say in the matter though they have contributed to that life coming into existence. Why would you be opposed to a woman receivng more information? Don't you trust that she can make up her own mind? Why does it bother you if she has more information? And of such information causes her to not have an abortion, why would that be a bad thing? I would also argue against the validity of that statement for other reasons: If I go into a hospital and demand that they amputate my perfectly good leg, they are not obligated to agree to my "right". If I indeed possessed the right to any medical procedure, then doctors would lose their right to refuse any such request of mine -- they would become providers, willing or not. The Obama administration is currently considering dropping the "conscience clause" for health care workers, so that doctors who don't want to perform abortions will be forced to provide them.

Saturday, September 12, 2009 at 9:29:59 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: BUGSIE E-mail: CHLOS78230(at)gmail.com As an american expatriate having lived in several countries (Europe, Austalia) now in Paris I cannot understand the attitude of pro-lifers, especially in relatively backward, red-necked states such as ND. These people live in the middle-ages, and are relatively close in their views to Islamic fundementalist countries, where women have little rights. Here in France, abortion is conrolled, but gives a great deal of freedom to women. And abortion is included and medical expenses are reimbursed in the National Health System. Could someone tell whether this option is feasible or envisaged in the States

Saturday, September 12, 2009 at 9:40:39 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: BUGSIE E-mail: CHLOS78230(at)gmail.com NO problems about women receiving more information! On the contrary, I want women make up their own mind and not have someone else make it for them, especially a legislature composed of a majority of men. I do not believe that a bunch of cells constitute a human being, otherwise stem-cell research would be impossible as many would like in the States. I think your analogy with a doctor removing a good leg is preposterous!

Post Your Comment on "Good News / Bad News from North Dakota"

Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Personal attacks are not welcome. To prevent spam comments: 5 plus 4 equals 7619163683851891836