- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Cameron Brown (R) on January 29, 2009, to prohibit “partial birth abortions” as defined in the bill, unless in a physician's reasonable medical judgment a partial-birth abortion is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury. The bill does not specify a "health of the mother" exception. Violation would be subject the abortion provider (but not the mother) to up to two years in prison and a $50,000 fine; the father could sue the physician for damages (but could not sue the mother).
- Referred to the Senate Health Policy Committee on January 29, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion ) by FreeSpeaker on May 31, 2009
[quote
user="mytwocents"]
Well said Freespeaker,
You have articulately
stated the bottom line.[/quote]
Thank you.
But for clarification:
The bottom line on this
bill being introduced in the Michigan Legislature is that it serves no useful
purpose, for reasons stated above.
I.e., federal law already bans the performance of so-called partial birth abortions in a statute upheld by the US Supreme Court. The only thing introducing such a bill
in Michigan accomplishes is to create divisiveness and foster hatred. It is propaganda.
The bottom line on abortion
in general is that it is legal in the United States, and has been so in accord
with US Supreme Court decisions for 36 years. It is time for the anti-women’s-rights (anti-abortion) faction
to accept this fact and work toward keeping abortion safe and making it rare
by promoting and striving for social rather than legislative change.
As for propaganda …
It certainly does seem to
work. Today’s news carries
accounts of the murder of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas, as he entered
his church to attend religious worship services. Tiller was well known as a doctor who performs late-term
abortions, which anti-abortion factions aggressively characterize as “murder”
in their propaganda campaigns.
They have characterized Tiller as a “mass murderer.”
News accounts of Tiller’s
murder describe Dr. Tiller as “a favored target of anti-abortion
protesters.” His Wichita clinic
has been the site of anti-abortion demonstrations, the clinic was bombed in
1985, he was shot in both arms by an anti-abortion terrorist in 1993.
Tiller’s slaying is
unquestionably murder, the deliberate slaying of a viable, adult human
being. It can be said, with more
than fair certainty, that he is a victim of propaganda that turned him into a
despicable subhuman object in the eyes of his slayer.
Reply
Well said Freespeaker,
You have articulately stated the bottom line.
However, for me personally, partial birth abortion has become an issue for the reason that so many people support abortion promoters (and yes, not only are there people who are simply pro-choice, but people that take a step further to make some more money in their own ludicrous and lucritive business), unwittingly. My co-workers and neighbors are so ignorant of the procedures and motives behind the agenda. When they hear of it, they deny that partial birth abortions really take place. It is such a horrific thing, that they would not support it, and do not want to believe it actually happens. When these same people are presented with the facts, they shrug their shoulders, seeming not to be able to figure it out. They continue supporting "pro-choice" activists and keep their stance, turning a knowing and blind eye. I find it dispiccable. How can their opinion even be respected? They continue to support the very thing that they themselves find horrific. Why? Because if it is legal than it must be o.k? good? right? I am hoping that people will look deeper into this issue and be able to take a stance based on their own thoughts, and not what they heard someone say on TV.
Partial Birth abortion is one procedure that when exposed to enough people, hopefully, some of them may start thinking on their own. I am afraid that these people are fed lines from pro-choice activists, and embrace them, not knowing how far this agenda has gone. I hope that hey will see how far, and be able to say for themselves... STOP! At least to this one act.
Yes, there are other gruesome procedures. In the future, politically speaking, there may be a specific gestation time established that when reached, must allow the baby to grow until term. The mother could be provided with support and helped with finding parents who would adopt.
To me, getting people to THINK, is hopeful. Propaganda is so powerful. There is so so much of it out there. "The poor poor women need to be able to kill their baby in order to have a life" "they need that choice"...it is bologna, but it is believed by the masses.
Reply
Fact is, this bill is unneeded in Michigan, because federal
law, upheld by a US Supreme Court decision already bans the performance of
so-called partial birth abortions.
The federal law will not save the life of any late term
fetus that becomes a candidate for abortion, however. (Nor would any Michigan law that could pass Constitutional muster.) That is because equally gruesome procedures in which the
fetus is killed in the womb, then dismembered and removed piece-by-piece remain
perfectly legal. All the ban has done is limit women’s choices of medical
procedures that may be used to best serve their needs and interests.
Which really does make partial birth abortion a non-issue,
if you think about it rationally at all.
It is just a political wedge that serves only to create divisiveness.
There are several rants above in this thread, aimed less
against partial birth abortion than they are against abortion in general. A recurring premise – both articulated
and unstated – is that a fetus, or even a fertilized egg, zygote or embryo is a
“person” entitled to all the rights of a real person as traditionally
recognized in our society. Upon
this hinges the argument that abortion is murder, and so cannot be legal at any
stage of pregnancy.
The problem, and the controversy over abortion actually
whirls around that premise, which is far from universally accepted as true. It is a fact that considerable diversity
of opinion or philosophical-religious view exists within our society as to when
“personhood,” and thus the protection of ordinary human rights begins.
Further, there is no existing way to test or prove
conclusively and objectively when personhood truly begins in the course of a
pregnancy. In the end, that
determination becomes a matter of personal opinion. That is what makes abortion such an intractable issue to
deal with politically.
Reply
View Full Conversation
