Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 23, 2008, to authorize sentencing guidelines for the “partial birth abortion” ban proposed by Senate Bill 776

The vote was 24 in favor, 13 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 43 at Senate Journal 14)

Click here to view bill details.

Kill The babies

Opposed. these decisions must be left to the patient and to her physician.

medical reason why a woman would NEED a partial birth abortion? what specific disease or condition threatens a mother's life so that a partial birth abortion would be a medical necessity? is there a known condition that would threaten a mother's life and require a partial birth abortion to 'cure' it? knowing this condition would end this debate once and for all. finding out that there IS no medical need for partial birth abortions would ALSO end this debate once and for all. we're waiting...

You would like to leave the decision to shoot the store owner up to the robber? You are a twisted and demented little narcissist. Even folks that think baby killing should be legal are against this sick procedure.

Sentence the woman to life in prison. You are talking about sentencing the woman, aren't you? After all, she is the one making this decision.

in a heartbeat

decided to do that to a woman's baby, he would face life, why not her?

The thought of legalizing the pre-planned murder of innocent children is abhorent. Specifically, sticking a scissors into the neck of a beautiful baby and sucking out its brains is barbaric. For thirty-five years the tables have been turned against the safety and love of our American children. Fortunately, the tide is changing, as is evidenced in responses to surveys about the presidential race, that voters are no longer on the fence. The clear cut lines drawn between the two top Democratic and Republican candidates on the issue of abortion is proof that the abortion issue will affect the way voters vote. The recent show of strength by a hundred thousand pro-life supporters from around the country at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. was proof voters are strongly united against abortion and in favor of change. As one politician reminded us, for young people under the age of 35, the lives of one-third of their generation have been snuffed out. Is this a legitimate issue of pubic interest on a state or national level? Let’s compare abortion to the other top concerns by those surveyed on the issue of the presidential election. The violence, fear and intimidation of terrorism of our nation by foreign nationals pales compared to the attack launched daily on innocent unborn lives in the womb of the nations’ mothers. Is not America as concerned about its future generations of workers, leaders, and businessmen and women as it is about economic instability and unemployment, global warming and environmental pollution, job growth and recession? There is no chance for growth and prosperity, if moral relativism runs awry and a self-focused nation of over-achievers stands idly by while we kill off the next generation of countrymen and women. The country came together for change as Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Evangelical denominations joined congressmen and other politicians to rally the crowds of older teens and college age voters chanting “P-R-O-L-I-F-E, oh, ah, oh, ah!!” Fathers pushing baby strollers, young seminarians and priests in black cassocks walked in step with Nurses for Life and sisters in habits to send the same message: The horror of abortion must end and indeed as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s 100 percent homicide track records were advertised in posters, there shown more than just a ray of hope that the next election may shape the politics of abortion in favor of change. Indeed, a rainbow appeared in the sky over the capitol just after a sprinkling of rain fell around five o’clock in the afternoon. Some took that as a sign for change. The mention by one Jewish religious leader of Pope Benedict’s upcoming April visit in New York, brought a roar from the crowd, pointing to his authority to lead the nation’s most staunch supporters of life. Fortunately in Michigan we have won another small battle with the Senate panel’s passage of a ban on partial birth abortion. The media may do well to come to grips with the fact that the country is deeply divided on this issue, much like slavery separated father and son, brother and cousin. The show of strength in numbers and unbroken spirit in Washington this week is proof that the pro-life side won’t go away until the battles lead to the final victory, and all abortion procedures and drugs are made illegal. Cecilia Tombelli

We wonder why our kids are getting into trouble more today. How about the fact that it is legal to kill them when they are small? Thats got to make them feel good about themselves.

kill a pregnant woman you are charged with 2 counts of murder as it should be. Why then can a woman kill the baby and they call it a choice? Choice is what you have for dinner or what kind of beer you like. Killing a baby is murder.

Are not people, and never were regarded as such throughout history until very recently when the nut case theocrats and idealogues bamboozled venal politicians into forcing a warped view on the populace. The only proper position for government to take in respect to abortion is hands off. In other words, if you don't approve of abortion don't have one. A (real, live) person cannot be free unless she, and she alone is the arbiter of how her body is used.

deliver a babies head, open it with scissors and vacumn out the brain you have commited murder. You can call it what ever you want in your twisted little liberal world but you will never be able to explain away the fact that another 8 or 10 inches and you are holding a beautiful newborn baby. There is an absolute right and wrong in this life and if this isn't wrong, I don't know what is. The problem with Liberals is they cannot just be content with screwing up their own lives; they have to screw up the lives of those around them as well.

The only proper position for government to take in respect to abortion is hands off. It is not government’s business to meddle in people’s personal lives. A (real, live, viable) person cannot be free unless she, and she alone is the arbiter of how her body is used. If you don't approve of abortion don't have one.

murder to be legal also. Or maybe in your sick little mind it would only be legal to murder folks that you don't think are important. Then we can call it something stupid like "a choice" and all you libs/socialists will be able to sleep good. On one hand you want government to let you kill babies because they shouldn't make rules for you but then you want the iron fist of government to take guns, money and freedom from other folks that you choose. Sick...

approve of abortion?

Of personal freedom. No person is free unless she is the sole arbiter of how her body is used and treated.

...do you feel the same way when it comes to ADULT motorcyclists who do not want the state government FORCING their will on them? Keep your laws off my body. Sound fimilar? I hope that you are smart enough to see that because Jennifer isn't! Very hypocritical she is! But abortion should be an irrelivent topic, but yet is is brought up in EVERY political debate. We all know where Bush stands on abortion, the wrong side. But in his 8th and thankfully final year in office, abortion is still legal. Why? because in January of '73 the U.S. Supreme court ruled in favor of Rowe v.s. Wade. Therefore no President, Senator, or Governor can do anything to change it. The U.S. Supreme are the only ones who can! So why does this keep coming up?

You people in favor of abortion, lets start with you. How about I tear your arms off while you scream. Tear your torse in peices and suck your brains out. Go to Division and 28th and we will start with your abortion by aborting you

if favor of abortion lets start with them first

When does 8 inches down a birth canal decide when a person becomes a person? Location makes no diference. If I tear your arms off you will still scream. It doesn't matter what side of the birth canal your on. You pro abortion people I would like to start with YOUR LIMBS.

All this arguing over abortion is really interesting, but the bottom line is God is listening. Get into a fight with God and after a person dies they join the millions boiling in lava like the T1000 in "terminator judgement day" Everyone who argues with God is NUTS, NUTS, NUTS. I don't know of anyone who was victorious over GOD. He says killing an unborn human in the womb diliberatly is a penalty equal to boiling in lava for ever. You stupid new world order idots can fight him all you want.

Because it is a perfect wedge issue for the neocon theocrat control freaks in the legislature. The fact is, Michigan's control over this is basically moot, as the federal government already has banned the medical procedure improperly called "partial birth abortion." So this bill has no purpose other than to keep the political pot boiling -- to divide us (the people) for easy conquest. Isn't it great having nincompoop (sounds like neoconpoop) politicians making our personal life decisions for us? Don't you love living in a police state?

tells you that it's wrong to kill a baby.

Tells you it is wrong to sacrifice a viable, grown human being (mother) for a baby whose survival and ultimate capacity to provide for itself is greatly in question.

tells me that there is no disease or condition known to medical science that REQUIRES a partial birth abortion to save the mother's life. if there WAS one, we wouldn't be having this discussion. so, please tell me the condition that would REQUIRE the death of the child to save the mother at full term.

you could make this issue GO AWAY once and for all if you would just tell the world what medical condition REQUIRES a partial birth abortion to cure it. no one will deny the mother the right to life if she has a condition that is ONLY CURABLE BY PERFORMING A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. now, if you would just grace us with that information, we'll leave you liberals alone on the abortion issue.

Nice State of the State address. The reason this State is in such a state is because we have a canadian for governor. What a loser. Nice job Michigan, Who are we going to elect next? Bozo?

canadian. It's because we have a socialist governor. Bozo would be an improvment

Who picks these politicians? It isn't the people!

The Gore population problem So, Mr. Gore would like, in the words of Rep. Christopher Smith, to "push violence against babies to advance a theory to cure greenhouse gas problems." The notion that the world would be a much better place if all the tacky poor people in it would simply control their reproductive urges is hardly new. It has long been accepted wisdom among social elites. And while no one could deny that Vice President Al Gore is -- by birth, upbringing and lifestyle -- a full fledged member of the American aristocracy, it was still strange to hear just how blunt Mr. Gore is prepared to be on the subject of what to do to get rid of extra people. Mr. Gore, delivering his environmental wisdom to 100 TV weathermen summoned to the White House to hear it, advanced the theory that overpopulation among the less developed nations of the world must be stamped out in order to stem global warming. He warned his audience that overpopulation is one of the chief culprits of ominous changes in the world's climate that he's been agonizing over for years. He applauded his boss, Bill Clinton (and, of course, by extension, himself) for making one of his first presidential acts in 1993 the overturning of previous policy refusing U.S. funding for family-planning groups that promote abortion in underdeveloped countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The vice president suggested that those overpopulated places take a leaf from industrialized nations like ours, where population levels have been brought below the danger point by birth control and abortion. "We're actually beginning to experience some good news around the world with the beginnings of a stabilization in world population," Mr. Gore intoned with his usual deadly earnestness. "But the momentum in the demographic system is such that we're inevitably going to go to 8 or 9 billion. The question is whether these changes [in reproductive habits] will keep us from going to 10, 12, 14 billion." So Mr. Gore would like, in the words of Rep. Christopher Smith, to "push violence against babies to advance a theory to cure greenhouse gas problems." Would it be rude to note that what with his own brood of four, Mr. Gore himself has hardly done his part for zero population growth -- especially given the norms for his age, nationality and social status? Why, one wonders, hasn't it occurred to him that the unwashed masses he's so eager to deplete have their own religious, cultural and economic reasons for making the choices they do, just as he had his reasons? And that their reasons deserve every bit as much respect from Mr. Gore as he no doubt accords himself?

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries (see endnote 2). In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts. According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs. NSSM-200 also specifically declared that the United States was to cover up its population control activities and avoid charges of imperialism by inducing the United Nations and various non-governmental organizations to do its dirty work. While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U.S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government. NSSM-200's strategies have resulted in regional population growth rates decelerating so fast that they are already causing severe economic and social problems in Europe, the former Soviet Union, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Many developing nations are now aging even more rapidly than the developed world, which foretells of even more severe problems for their relatively underdeveloped economies. Over the past 40 years there has been much disagreement over whether or not population control programs are necessary for those nations with the most rapidly growing populations. There can be no disagreement now, however, except among those organizations whose incomes depend upon such programs. From the very beginning, the "population explosion" concept was an ideologically motivated false alarm. The resulting push for population control in LDCs has borne absolutely no positive fruit in its decades of implementation. In fact, population control ideologies and programs make it even more difficult to respond to the impending grave crisis looming in the form of a disastrous worldwide "population". Therefore, on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of NSSM-200, Human Life International calls on the Bush administration to repudiate this document, which advocates violating the most precious freedoms and autonomy of the individual through coercive family planning programs, and to redirect its foreign policy and funding towards family-friendly programs. The citizens of the developed nations of the West treasure their right to privacy. It is hypocritical for these countries to routinely violate the right to privacy of the citizens of LDCs by telling families how many children they should or should not have. No nation has the right to invade the bedrooms of the citizens of another nation. NSSM-200 represents the epitome of interference in a family's most intimate decisions. NSSM-200 does not emphasize the rights or welfare of individuals or of nations, just the "right" of the United States to have unfettered access to the natural resources of developing nations. The United States and the other nations of the developed world, as well as ideologically motivated population control NGOs, should be supporting and guiding authentic economic development that allows the people of each nation to use their resources for their own benefit, thereby leading to an enhancement of human rights worldwide and healthier economies for all.

If you don't believe it, research the Georgia Guidestones. It is sort of a modern day stonehenge with a new world constitution. It says the earth's population shall never exceed 500,000,000 people written in stone! There are those who, unlike Kissinger and his co-conspirators, are not interested in profit or power, but believe fervently that human population is destroying the planet. Perhaps the most outspoken is University of Texas evolutionary scientist Dr. Eric R. Pianka, who gave a speech in March 2006 advocating the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population.

Sounds like nonsense to me.

Al Gore wants to cut the population about 80 or 90 percent. Why don't you start with yourself, Al? Be an example for others like you to follow!

your family!

No Choice No-one will ever see or know Who I might have been, Or discover my potential ~ All my talents left unseen. No one will ever understand That I'd like to have my say. I'd love to have a shot at life And try things out my way. I'd like to stay around awhile To find out what will be, Past this embryonic stage, Know what it's like being me. But I am just a little thing, I have no say or choice, I'm about to be aborted ~ A child without a voice. Author - Marian

You do have a choice, no, a duty not to get pregnant in the first place if you are just going to kill the baby. The baby is not your body. Anyway, it may be legal in this corrupt world, but you will have to answer for what you did when you face the Lord.

Yeah, then the kids are taught that we are just animals who came from monkeys and pond slime. Then we try to teach them self esteem!

to give one valid medical condition that requires a partial birth abortion to cure it. not one disease that is eradicated by partial birth abortion. no threats to the mother's life. no immenent death scenarios. nothing. if the liberals could only find ONE condition that required partial birth abortion to cure it, they would win the battle. till then... they lose.