Arkansas on the wrong side of history... Who'da thunk it?

It seems that Arkansas Republicans have decided to spend a bunch of taxpayer money by passing a law that will certainly result in a lengthy legal battle and eventually be overturned (knock on wood).

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3

But can someone explain this to me? It's a little unclear in the article. At first it says that the new law bans abortion for any pregnancies that have gone beyond twelve weeks. But then it says:

Quote:

---

Abortions would be banned if the fetus has a detected heartbeat "and is under 12 weeks or greater gestation."

---

As far as I know, a fetus can have a detectable heartbeat as early as three weeks into a pregnancy, often before a woman even knows she is pregnant. So this law essentially bans all abortions in the great state of Arkansas. Or am I misreading this? Or was that just a typo in the article and it should read "and is over twelve weeks or greater gestation"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, vetoed the bill Monday, saying it "blatantly contradicts the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court."

---

It must have taken a lot of imagination to come up with that sort of conclusion from reading the Constitution.

I'd not be surprised if the writers of the constitution would consider this whole abortion debate a waste of government time.

Count back 12 weeks in months and it's just about the same as it is everywhere, it's harder in the Netherlands to have an abortion really. If you are longer than 12 weeks pregnant you can't unless you have a really good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Count back 12 weeks in months and it's just about the same as it is everywhere, it's harder in the Netherlands to have an abortion really. If you are longer than 12 weeks pregnant you can't unless you have a really good reason.

---

Why do I get the impression you didn't read the OP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

It must have taken a lot of imagination to come up with that sort of conclusion from reading the Constitution.

---

You apparently didn't even read the line you quoted (or didn't understand it, at least). He wasn't saying that he had read the Constitution and this was his interpretation. He was saying, quite correctly, that SCOTUS has already made a ruling on this type of law, and based on SCOTUS' interepretation of the constitution, the law is unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

You apparently didn't even read the line you quoted (or didn't understand it, at least). He wasn't saying that he had read the Constitution and this was his interpretation. He was saying, quite correctly, that SCOTUS has already made a ruling on this type of law, and based on SCOTUS' interepretation of the constitution, the law is unconstitutional.

---

I know that. :shrug:

Why should the horribly outdated opinions of a random collection of men who died 200 years ago matter today?

Because the random collection of men 200 years ago are infinitely more competent than the random collection of men we got now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Count back 12 weeks in months and it's just about the same as it is everywhere, it's harder in the Netherlands to have an abortion really. If you are longer than 12 weeks pregnant you can't unless you have a really good reason.

---

interesting. if i'm reading this right the netherlands is more conservative on this issue than the state the OP is perhaps ridiculing?

Quote:

---

Why should the horribly outdated opinions of a random collection of men who died 200 years ago matter today?

---

here I thought the usual complaint was that they were exceedingly vague and said very little regarding specific rules and regulations? They created the framework for a government. wait...was I trolled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

As far as I know, a fetus can have a detectable heartbeat as early as three weeks into a pregnancy, often before a woman even knows she is pregnant. So this law essentially bans all abortions in the great state of Arkansas. Or am I misreading this? Or was that just a typo in the article and it should read "and is over twelve weeks or greater gestation"?

---

I think that both conditions have to be met before the abortion is forbidden. Meaning: if the fetus is 12 weeks or older, no abortion for you, unless the baby has no heartbeat. In that case I imagine (allthough I really know very little about this) that the fetus is probably not viable.

Anyway...

I don't think that it's unreasonable to put some time limit on abortions. What the limit should be is of course a matter of debate. I think 12 weeks is pretty restrictive, but if it's the most restrictive law of all US states...it doesn't sound that bad, to be honest.

@ Frags:
I had to look it up myself, but the limit here is 22-24 weeks. It's a little vague because apparently the legal criterium is wether the fetus would be viable outside the womb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Because the random collection of men 200 years ago are infinitely more competent than the random collection of men we got now

---

That collection of men believed it was a bad thing for women to get involved in society, and should not be allowed to vote.

Your argument is invalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That collection of men believed it was a bad thing for women to get involved in society, and should not be allowed to vote.

Your argument is invalid.

---

Your sarcasm detector appears to be out of order. Your argument is invalidated, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That collection of men believed it was a bad thing for women to get involved in society, and should not be allowed to vote.

Your argument is invalid.

---

Backwards opinions on womens suffrage still do not make them less competent than the current crop, especially as that probably hasn't changed much in the current collection of men beyond outward appearances.

You declaration of invalidity is invalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Backwards opinions on womens suffrage still do not make them less competent than the current crop, especially as that probably hasn't changed much in the current collection of men beyond outward appearances.

You declaration of invalidity is invalid.

---

As much as I approve of cynicism, I must cynically add that your cynicism here is slightly naive.

In another recent thread some members already pointed out that the whole sentiment of "everything used to better" is generally bogus. In that line, the Founding Fathers were probably as petty, as indecisive and at the same level of general competence as modern day politicians. And I doubt corruption was significantly lower - if we realize that many things wich are nowadays considered "corrupt" were not legislated back then.

If you were being sarcastic, ignore this post and have a beer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Because the random collection of men 200 years ago are infinitely more competent than the random collection of men we got now

---

If that was true the Consitution would be perfect.
Therefore it would never need modification ie Amendments.

...Guys I'm saying the current bunch of men in congress are idiots not that the ones 200 years ago were geniuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

...Guys I'm saying the current bunch of men in congress are idiots not that the ones 200 years ago were geniuses.

---

Yes - one wonders what would happen today if the British Empire invaded. I'm inclined to think that the Reps and Dems would continue to argue that failing to fund the US military properly was the other side's fault while the Royal Engineers set the explosives around Congress and touched them off. You could probably march them out by files, have them shot, and people would complain you were unfairly skewing the vote by starting from the left and working around to the right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I think that both conditions have to be met before the abortion is forbidden. Meaning: if the fetus is 12 weeks or older, no abortion for you, unless the baby has no heartbeat. In that case I imagine (allthough I really know very little about this) that the fetus is probably not viable.

Anyway...

I don't think that it's unreasonable to put some time limit on abortions. What the limit should be is of course a matter of debate. I think 12 weeks is pretty restrictive, but if it's the most restrictive law of all US states...it doesn't sound that bad, to be honest.

---

It also has exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother or for inviable pregnancies.

Honestly, who has a problem with this? Basically it says, get an abortion for any reason you like during the first trimester- after that, you need to have a damned good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

...Guys I'm saying the current bunch of men in congress are idiots not that the ones 200 years ago were geniuses.

---

So we can blame the electoral colleges for this or the voters directly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It also has exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother or for inviable pregnancies.

Honestly, who has a problem with this? Basically it says, get an abortion for any reason you like during the first trimester- after that, you need to have a damned good reason.

---

I am of the belief that abortion should be allowed in any case, but I'm still in favour of the 12/16-week limits. Why? Because the longer you wait, the bigger the procedure gets. Before 12 weeks, you can take a simple pill, and that's that. After 20 or so, it becomes an operation.

With a time limit, the vast majority of abortions will be performed quickly, which greatly benefits the mothers health. I have no objections to later abortions though, and there should be access to those when the mothers health(not just life) is at risk.

Papewaio, After the galactic frak-ton of stupidity bigotry and general retardation the Republicans showed they still got over 10% of the vote, that speaks for itself, the whole system is screwed up royal.
The only reason I dont say the same for Britain and it's right wing party is because Boris Johnson's holding up the conservative party on his own.

I think abortions should be limited to no more than 5 years after conception. This allows for a reasonable evaluation and could allow for the subjects genome to thoroughly "vetted" for favorable characteristics worth preserving.

Post natal abortion via drone strikes is lawful. Why not pre-emptively strike and save all that education costs too. The crime reduction certainly helped New York... ~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It also has exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother or for inviable pregnancies.

Honestly, who has a problem with this? Basically it says, get an abortion for any reason you like during the first trimester- after that, you need to have a damned good reason.

---

In Ireland, abortion is supposed to be legal in cases where the mother's life is threatened (and illegal otherwise). It's however something of a grey area, and last year a woman befell an obviously preventable death - her fetus was obviously not going to make it till birth and was in fact threatening the mothers life, but the doctors didn't want to perform the procedure for fear of legal prosecution.

So...kudos to Arkansas for being so progressive. Or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The only reason they seem crazy is because all the rational positions have already been taken by Pragmatic Democrats during the (uncharacteristically idealistic) Bush administration.

---

So why dont the republicans take the same positions? Just because the democrats are already working on them the republicans dont take the same position regardless of sanity of doing so? That seems like a weak reason for the republicans to intentionally disadvantage themselves over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

So why dont the republicans take the same positions? Just because the democrats are already working on them the republicans dont take the same position regardless of sanity of doing so? That seems like a weak reason for the republicans to intentionally disadvantage themselves over.

---

They have already smeared those Democrats as pinkie commie liberals, thereby painting themselves into a corner. One of the disadvantages of hyper-partisan politics.