Prp 39 defeated in Miss-

[Salty]

there are movements alive to get on the ballot in Florida, Ohio, California, and Montana --

Those who have something to - Find a way
Others find an excuse
- Bobby Tutton

 

[Matt Black]

Shame it was defeated.

 

[menageriekeeper]

No it isn't.

Despite the idea that this bill wouldn't by its definition birth control, eventually some over zealous govt official would use it to ban birth control in all forms. There was no allowance in the bill for life of the mother, no assurances that an embryo lodged in the fallopian tube of a woman wouldn't have more rights than the woman even though both would surely die when the tube burst, no allowances of this type at all.

I despise abortion, but I can see all sorts of dangers with this bill the way it was written.

Not a shame at all.

 

[mandym]

It is a real shame.

 

[freeatlast]

Hopefully this will be re-written and brought up again. I think if there was a clause to protect those who have a ectopic pregnancy it would go a log way in getting it passed.

 

[Matt Black]

No it isn't.

Despite the idea that this bill wouldn't by its definition birth control, eventually some over zealous govt official would use it to ban birth control in all forms. There was no allowance in the bill for life of the mother, no assurances that an embryo lodged in the fallopian tube of a woman wouldn't have more rights than the woman even though both would surely die when the tube burst, no allowances of this type at all.

Surely such instances would be covered by the general common law defence of self-defence, so why would the bill need to specifically mention (I agree it would have been best practice if it had, but it didn't need to).

 

[Salty]

... There was no allowance in the bill for life of the mother, no assurances that an embryo lodged in the fallopian tube ...

I am not a medical pro, but if the soon-to-be-born child was lodged in the fallopian tube, would he not die naturally?

I despise abortion, but I can see all sorts of dangers with this bill the way it was written.

So, how would you write the bill?

Keep in mind, if you make exceptions, say for incest, ect would you not then be saying that would not be murder.
I contend the child should not be punished for the crime of her father.

 

[freeatlast]

Surely such instances would be covered by the general common law defence of self-defence, so why would the bill need to specifically mention (I agree it would have been best practice if it had, but it didn't need to).

Because of the corrupt courts. Adding the wording does not change the law it only strengthens it.

 

[freeatlast]

I am not a medical pro, but if the soon-to-be-born child was lodged in the fallopian tube, would he not die naturally?




So, how would you write the bill?

Keep in mind, if you make exceptions, say for incest, ect would you not then be saying that would not be murder.
I contend the child should not be punished for the crime of her father.

Yes, both child and mother would die. Perhaps one day we will be able to transplant the embryo to the womb but that technology is not yet perfected.

 

[Matt Black]

So the law would in those circumstances permit an abortion based on self-defence of the life of the mother ie: one death instead of two.

 

[billwald]

In most jurisdictions deaths that are not signed off by an MD must be investigated by the medical examiner for evidence of a crime. More than half of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted. Under this law, ever female who had an unexpected issue of blood would be required to send the bloody sheets and clothes to the ME?

 

[Eric B]

So the law would in those circumstances permit an abortion based on self-defence of the life of the mother ie: one death instead of two.

The way the media was trumping this, it wouldn't.