Michigan Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Great Lake State.
Welcome to Michigan Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 11-11-2009 10:45 AM by gypsy. 7 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (8 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    • admin
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 11-22-2008

    2009 Senate Joint Resolution M (Place right to life amendment in Constitution )

    Introduced in the Senate on October 27, 2009

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 11-05-2009 11:12 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Joint Resolution M (Place right to life amendment in Constitution )

    admin:
    Introduced in the Senate on October 27, 2009

    Click here to view bill details.

    "irrespective of ... method of reproduction, from the beginning of their biological development, including fertilization"

    So it sounds like this saying that a fertilized egg in a fertility clinic is protected?  If it does then what does this right to life for that fertilized egg practically mean?  Does it mean that the egg must be brought to term or is it just saying you can not dispose of the egg?  Anyone know?

    Filed under:
  • 11-06-2009 10:01 PM In reply to

    • tkp
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 11-22-2008

    Re: 2009 Senate Joint Resolution M (Place right to life amendment in Constitution )

    This sounds like another underhanded bill from the religious right. If you click on the link to show the bills details, it says "not found"...?

  • 11-07-2009 10:01 AM In reply to

    • gypsy
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-19-2009

    Re: 2009 Senate Joint Resolution M (Place right to life amendment in Constitution )

    I agree, it does sound like an attempt to circumvent the law of the land, that is a woman has the right to privacy in matters of her own body, (Roe v Wade). The right to life is already enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. If so-called pro-life advocates feel abortion is wrong, they do not have to have one. The Supreme Court has said all women have a right, with certain limitations, to make that decision for themselves.

    I too tried to find the details to this resolution, without success.

  • 11-07-2009 10:06 AM In reply to

    • gypsy
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-19-2009

    Re: 2009 Senate Joint Resolution M (Place right to life amendment in Constitution )

    After doing an advanced serach, I found the resolution, and it is as suspected an attempt to define a person from the time of fertilization, thus making abortion illegal. The description of the resolution is as follows:

    Introduced by Sen. Cameron Brown (R) on October 27, 2009, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment declaring that “every human person has a right to life,” and defining "person" as “all human beings, irrespective of age, race, gender, health, function, condition of dependency, including physical or mental dependency, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of their biological development, including fertilization”.

  • 11-08-2009 3:51 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Joint Resolution M (Place right to life amendment in Constitution )

     I am not a lawyer but why is this even being discussed?  Remember Roe vs. Wade?  Come on folks, get to the heart of the matter in this state and give the people a balanced budget with a combination or revenue and reforms.  This feels a lot like getting reelected by the religous right than good legislation.    Very backwards.

  • 11-09-2009 5:11 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Joint Resolution M (Place right to life amendment in Constitution )

     I could be wrong here, feel free to do the research and tell me so, but from my understanding the legal opinions written by the justices in Roe v. Wade stated that their decision was based upon the fact that the beginning of life was not defined.  It's been a while since I read it, but I thought In the decision that it stated that if a legal definition of life was ever adopted, it would by definition, define when life was began, which would mean it would define when life was protected.  The decision for Roe v. Wade didn't say that life didn't begin at conception so abortion was ok, it stated that since there was no legal definition of when life DID begin, that it couldn't make that decision.  Again, it's been a while, so I could be wrong.  Check it out.  I will be re-reading it myself to make a determination.  Either way, let's debate it with the facts.  Also, Roe v. Wade was a decision based on law at the time, if the law changes - especially at the Constitutional level - that would change the situation.  Would love to hear debates on this issue.  Remember, laws change all the time, so it's never a dead issue. 

  • 11-11-2009 10:45 AM In reply to

    • gypsy
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-19-2009

    Re: 2009 Senate Joint Resolution M (Place right to life amendment in Constitution )

    From Justice Blackmun's opinion of the court on Roe v Wade, Jan. 22, 1973:

    "To summarize and to repeat:

    1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

    (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

    (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

    2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined."

     This proposed constitutional amendment would be a violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in my view of Justice Blackburn's opinion.

Page 1 of 1 (8 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems