As Minnesota Democrats move quickly to adopt a bill that would cement the right to an abortion in state law, Republicans have accused them of allowing late-term abortions, up until the moment of birth.
It’s an argument the DFL has painted as hyperbolic and misleading. Democrats say the Protect Reproductive Options Act — or PRO Act — only reinforces existing standards in the 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that established abortion rights and does not address time limits for the procedure.
State data also suggests late-term abortions are rare. The Minnesota Department of Health reported one abortion after 24 weeks of gestation in 2021 and 159 between 21 and 24 weeks. About 88% of the 10,136 abortions that year took place in the first trimester.
But there is a separate bill advancing at the Capitol that does strike at the center of a debate over abortions performed later in pregnancy. That legislation would lift a state ban implemented in the 1970s on abortions after a fetus is “potentially viable” unless a pregnant woman’s life or health is at risk.
A federal court ruled the law was unconstitutional in 1976. But on the campaign trail in 2022, amid confusion over Minnesota abortion law and Republican criticisms of DFLers as extreme, Gov. Tim Walz suggested the viability standard still exists. And at the time, Walz expressed support for that viability standard — real or imagined.
The governor does not appear to stand by that assessment following his re-election. Repealing the viability standard would not change current law, said spokeswoman Claire Lancaster in a written statement. But the governor believes the repeal would codify an existing status quo, where late-term abortions have been uncommon because of medical practice.
The push to eliminate the viability standard illustrates the wide scope of DFL efforts to shed barriers to abortion.
Minnesota (probably) does not have a viability standard
The viability standard passed in the early 1970s says abortions after a fetus is “potentially viable” are limited to when abortion is “necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”
In law, the word “viable” was defined as being able to live outside the womb, even with artificial aid. But the statute also says a fetus in the second half of a roughly 40-week gestation period is considered “potentially viable.”
The federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in 1976, said that definition presumed viability begins at the end of the 20th week, which was too early at the time for abortion limits under Roe v. Wade. In Hodgson v. Lawson, the law was struck down as unconstitutional.
This is where things get complicated. Last summer, in the chaotic aftermath of Roe being overturned, Minnesotans scrambled to better understand the state’s abortion laws. Some politicians, abortion groups and news outlets asserted Minnesota did have an enforceable viability standard. (In fact, the online directory Abortion Finder still says abortion is legal only until “viability.”)
And as Republicans like candidate for governor Scott Jensen argued the DFL was so extreme as to support abortion up until birth, the viability standard gave Democrats political cover. Walz told MinnPost through a campaign spokesperson in July that he supported the “timelines outlined by current law,” which he said the PRO Act would not change.
After more questions from MinnPost, Walz’s campaign said they “still share the providers’ understanding that current law sets the threshold at viability.”
But legal experts believe the law is defunct — even after Roe was struck down — unless it is revived by legal action or by state lawmakers. And when UnRestrict Minnesota successfully sued the state last year to challenge a range of abortion limits like a parental notification law, the group did not ask the court to eliminate the viability standard because attorneys believe it had already been jettisoned.
Now, as lawmakers advance a bill to repeal the viability statute, Walz spokeswoman Lancaster said the measure “would codify the legal framework that has been the status quo in Minnesota for decades” and not change any existing law or restrictions.
In other words, Walz is implying that there is no viability standard.
“The Governor firmly believes that medical decisions should be made between patients and their doctors,” Lancaster said.
Debate at the Legislature
So why would lawmakers want to repeal a defunct law anyway?
House File 91 and the similar bill Senate File 70, would eliminate many restrictions on abortion in Minnesota law, most of which were struck down by a Ramsey County District Court judge last year in a case brought by UnRestrict Minnesota.
Sen. Erin Maye Quade, an Apple Valley DFLer and chief sponsor of SF 70, told reporters last week that with Roe gone, and after the Ramsey County ruling, the legal landscape may be confusing. Repealing many of the statutes would provide clarity on what laws are in effect and what are not, she said. State Sen. Kelly Morrison, DFL-Deephaven, said Monday the bill is “cleaning up” laws to make them consistent with court rulings.
But it goes beyond that. Morrison, a doctor who practices obstetrics and gynecology, said eliminating the viability standard also makes it harder for the law to spring back to life with legal or legislative action. “I think that’s part of the double layer of protection,” she said. “We don’t know how a future court might rule. We don’t know what a future Legislature might do.”
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]State Sen. Erin Maye Quade, an Apple Valley DFLer and chief sponsor of SF 70, told reporters last week that with Roe gone, and after the Ramsey County ruling, the legal landscape may be confusing.[/image_caption]
“Physicians are having to consult with lawyers before they’re able to offer appropriate medical care to their patients,” Morrison said. “That can further delay care and that can further endanger people’s lives.”
Viability is also not the same for every fetus, she said. Some 26 weeks into a pregnancy might have no chance of surviving, Morrison said.
Providers tend to hew toward a viability standard on their own, Morrison said. Minnesota has seen an uptick in the number of people seeking abortions in the second trimester, according to Planned Parenthood. And the similarly permissive Colorado reported 60 abortions after 24 weeks in 2021. Several major hospital systems didn’t address the question directly when asked last year by MinnPost. Still, Morrison maintains it would be difficult to find a medical professional to perform a late-term abortion outside of rare circumstances.
The measure nevertheless illustrates the expansive DFL agenda on abortion. Oftentimes on the campaign trail, the party said it was defending abortion access under threat by Republicans. Now DFLers have sprung into an offensive position, clearing away hurdles to abortion, some of which were approved with bipartisan support in a different era of Minnesota politics when many Democrats in rural areas opposed abortion.
Maye Quade’s bill is not moving as fast through the Legislature as the PRO Act. It’s unclear whether that’s because of any DFL opposition or just because lawmakers are juggling many priorities early in the legislative session.
Either way, Democratic abortion plans in general have drawn frustration from Republicans and anti-abortion activists and lawyers.
Rep. Anne Neu Brindley, R-North Branch, told reporters last week the GOP has tried to ensure “reasonable guardrails” on abortion. “The Democrats in the House of Representative believe that they have a mandate in place for the most extreme abortion policy in the world,” she said. “And that’s just not the case.”
Teresa Collett, director of the Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, said allowing post-viability abortions “converts the putative right to abortion into a right to kill.”
“Unborn children at the twenty-one-week mark are increasingly surviving premature birth and able to live outside the mother’s womb,” she said in written testimony for a House hearing Tuesday on the legislation.
I have been asking DFL types for months for clarification concerning “Codifying Roe” and “my body my choice.” Of course – it seems it is now an issue but was avoided by “real journalist” before the election.
Maybe a better gauge for clarifying the DFL position on abortion is to list the GOP amendments that were offered and voted down by the DFL?
Publishing how DFL types voted on these amendments should be part of our “democracy” and for clarification of the DFL position.
From the article:
“Viability is also not the same for every fetus, she said. Some 26 weeks into a pregnancy might have no chance of surviving, Morrison said.”
Some fetuses never reach viability. How to deal with such a tragedy needs to be in the hands of doctors & their patients, not legislators or voters.
The best way to reduce abortions is to ensure people have access to sexual healthcare & contraception.
Only one abortion in 2021 after 24 weeks? Establish as the point of viability. Problem solved? Spending six or seven figures so an frail baby with unwilling mother and absent impregnator can be born, suffer, die anyway in many cases or survive in poor health to satisfy a pro-life bully who doesn’t like being taxed to support low income high need children is crazy.
Wow. That baby has a soul. Doesn’t matter that it’s maybe just 1 in a year. Our state charges drivers for the deaths of unborn fetuses, so the Dems need to make the laws consistent if they’re bent on passing updated laws for our state.
Of course, it seems that many seem to not care how horrific and inhuman later term abortion procedures are.
You diminish your credibility by bringing up the concept of souls – not everyone subscribes to the same religious dogma and it shouldn’t be grounds for policy. Also, your argument about car crash deaths is a non sequitur and diminishes your credibility further because you’re comparing apples and oranges.
No one is advocating for late-term abortions. Democrats are advocating for allowing women and their healthcare providers to make the best decision given their situation. Many of us are tired of our laws being driven by dogma and non sequiturs. Many of us would rather be given the respect to make our own decisions about our bodies.
It is not necessary to have a “concept of souls” or any other religious dogma in order to oppose abortion. Prolifers have a simple argument: 1. The fetus is alive, 2. The fetus is human, and, 3. because of 1&2, the fetus deserves legal protection. What that legal protection should be is up for debate, but the basic logic of the prolife argument is inescapable.
They are not “prolifers.” They are people opposed to abortion.
Do you consider yourself a firm believer in the concept of an all-powerful divine being, sir? To what religious dogmas do you adhere? I think this is a valid question for one purporting to oppose abortion on “logical” grounds, especially when leading anti-abortion forces are overwhelmingly affiliated with organized religion(s).
Your logic also requires a definition of “fetus”. Is a fertilized egg a “fetus”, for example? You also attach “legal protection” to the fetus and then act as though we have no idea what that legal protection should (or will) look like, when of course “protection” usually means one thing: the “life” may not be terminated. So you accord yourself immediate victory in the “debate” simply through the formulation of your propositions.
All in all, the truth of the old saying “If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament” remains operative…
Actually, you have it precisely backwards. If an argument does not rely on a religious premise, then dismissing it based on the arguer’s religious views is irrelevant. It’s called the genetic fallacy. I know, logic again!
Well, I raise religious attachments because Mr Spock would raise his eyebrow in response to your logic. And secular “prolifers” are really a small minority of the movement, compared to those motivated by religious principles.
Your 1 and 2 simply do not operate to compel the conclusion that a fetus is a “human life”. I don’t see how an unborn fetus can be anything more than potential human life. Nor does the fact that the DNA of a fetus is human mean that a fetus is a “human being”, which is what your 2 is really attempting to assert. And because of the failure of your first two premises, your 3 does not come into play.
So your logic is hardly “inescapable”, despite your attempt to enlist biological science to your cause. Indeed, all this shows is the extreme limitations of cold “logic” to address, let alone solve, issues of this kind.
But you fail at point 1. Your argument falls apart from there.
A fetus grows, metabolizes, and responds to stimuli. That’s life.
It does none of those things absent it’s host.
Whether one calls it ensoulment, the preferred religious term, or personhood, the preferred secular term, most would agree that it is important that a civilized society define the point at which a living human organism, which, based on DNA analysis, clearly occurs at conception, becomes a human person, with all the rights, including of life, this grants. To understand how really in left field, both figuratively, as well as politically, the Minnesota DFL is on abortion, everyone, but especially legislators, should read the 6 May 2022 Pew Research Center report, “America’s Abortion Quandary”.
One wonders how a society could develop such strong laws protecting the lives of lower organisms, e.g., dogs, cats, even wild animals, while treating the lives of young humans so cavalierly.
Actually most rural Red States don’t gave very strong laws protecting the lives of (born) animals, either. Nor do they have much regarding for “young humans”, at least after birth.
The well known saying of Dem Barney Frank still captures the phenomenon quite well: “conservatives” believe life begins at conception, and ends at birth.
I can’t help but notice that neither you or C. James Turner consider the autonomy of the pregnant person in your comments. Perhaps we just have different values. I believe that the person who is pregnant should be able to make that decision with their doctor, whereas you believe we should use the power of the state to coerce pregnant people to carry babies to term under threat of punishment. Also, I think you should consider that women aren’t “cavalierly” getting abortions and that these are extremely difficult decisions for some of the same reasons you outlined.
Furthermore, as interesting as that Pew study may be, what purpose is it supposed to serve? Are we supposed to rely on public opinion to determine abortion policy, as opposed to… I don’t know… medical professionals and a principle of bodily autonomy?
Indeed, I believe Mr. Blaise makes a great point on that regarding gun violence. I’m sure you must have missed it.
“You diminish your credibility by bringing up the concept of souls.”
Well, it sure makes killing your baby a lot easier if you believe she’s just a mass of cells. Democrats in 2023: have a third trimester abortion, go home and get high. It’s your brand. It’s who you are.
Just as committing genocide and other horrors upon your imagined “enemies” becomes much easier when one’s imagined “god” is on board.
Do you have a soul – prove it!
According to the Talmud, a fetus is not a person. Personhood is obtained only after birth or, according to some writings, thirteen days after birth.
Ask Rabbi Waxman, if you can find him.
Souls don’t exist. Why would you believe in such nonsense?
The vast majority of Minnesota women, and the men who love them, want very much for the DFL majority in the Legislature to clarify and firm up, women’s rights to abortion.
As we know now, a court ruling, however genuflected to as “established precedent,” can be overruled by that same court, or another. And any holes in the law about abortion will be picked at, over years, by anti-abortion groups who are not satisfied with not having an abortion personally, if they oppose it. For religious reasons, they insist on imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else. The Dobbs decision for instance, is pure Catholic dogma.
Too many men don’t understand pregnancy or abortion, or in their absolutism about controlling women’s sexuality, leave any leeway for dealing with the horrendous consequences of a pregnancy gone wrong. It’s that pregnancy-gone-wrong problem that makes women insist that there be no “viability” limits on their right to terminate a pregnancy. A woman and her doctor know what’s best, not some legislator.
Go DFL! Protect women’s rights to their own bodies against future courts and zealots.
“The Governor firmly believes that medical decisions should be made between patients and their doctors,”
If any of the anti-choice folks were to get a cancer diagnosis the first thing they are going to do is put their full faith and their lives in the hands of a Doctor to help make decisions best for them.
Trust.
But, for some reason that same Doctor cannot be trusted in their care and guidance for a pregnant woman? Warren Limmer and his legislative buddies are a better choice? If you think yes, we probably need a few new laws on vasectomies to help there too…
“I have been asking DFL types for months for clarification concerning “Codifying Roe” and “my body my choice.” Of course – it seems it is now an issue but was avoided by “real journalist” before the election.”
My own position, as a DFL type, although a very lowly one, is that decisions in this area should not be made by public officials, even elected ones.
In rhetoric, one of the tactics often used when discussing complex issues is to make you opponent be specific. When the discussion is about taxing the rich, you ask how rich, define rich. The reason people ask these questions isn’t because they add to our wisdom on the subject but to be divisive, which often weakens the other . This tactic is often used in abortion discussion. Supporters of abortion right are often asked to draw lines in various ways by people who hold absolutist views to whom lines are irrelevant. As difficult as this can be, I don’t think abortion rights supporters should be drawn into kind of discussion. I think we should say that this is a decision that shouldn’t be made by legislators, or judges, but to the people most involved in the confident hope that they will make the right decision.
Lets really define when an abortion can be performed and what/when those exceptions are. Can’t we agree on that? If you want to look at the movie Gosnell and tell me Dr.’s can make the decision. There are all kinds of rules that Dr’s have to follow, they shouldn’t be deciding when a life is a life.
“Lets really define when an abortion can be performed and what/when those exceptions are. Can’t we agree on that?” NO, unless you can create a law that covers all contingencies in all situations. Seems folks just don’t get it, or don’t want to get it, there are ~ 64,000 births a year in Minnesota, each one of these is unique and different, how can any law anticipate the 64,000 various circumstances year after year after year? What about the one in the back of a car where complications arise? How about the premature one out camping, You don’t know what you don’t know, seems a lot of folks think they know what they don’t know, and chose to think they know whats better for the patient than the doctors and the patient, especially for all women from now until the cows come home! Suspect these are the same kind of folks that had no problem burning witches at the stake or downing them.
Yes, let’s base our decision on the extreme case.
Can we make decisions on control based on watching Bowling for Columbine?
Lets really define when an abortion can be performed and what/when those exceptions are. Can’t we agree on that?
Actually no, because that doesn’t work for the people who are actually confronted with these decisions. No legislator is capable of drafting legislation that deals fairly and justly with all contingencies or with all exceptions. Meanwhile, instead of following their own standards of care, doctors who deal with these issues are forced to consult lawyers who will in all likelihood give advice which isn’t in the interest of the patients who they do not represent.
The Supreme Court for some reason, thought it was state legislators who should make these decisions. I just don’t know why. Most people don’t know who their state legislators are. If they know their names at all, it’s because they have seen the lawn signs and for some reason have read them. Why are these the people who should make these decisions for us? What is wrong with the idea that we should be able to make these decisions for ourselves?
No. We can take nothing proposed by conservatism in good faith, nor trust that ulterior objectives are not ALWAYS at play. As Mr. Tester says, that’s YOUR brand, own it.
When can the state force a woman to give birth? Why do we put this power in the hands of legislators who can’t get tax policy right?
Whether or not a fertilized egg or a fetus is a “person” is an incoherent standard. Since this organism resides INSIDE another human being, the idea of “personhood” is incoherent because it creates an irresolvable paradox… how can the person inside the person be MORE of a person than the woman carrying it? Legally, “personhood” of a fetus or a fertilized egg would create a scenario wherein every fertilized human egg immediately becomes a ward of the State, since the State is final guarantor of civil rights. Hence all women of childbearing age are subject to constant surveillance in order to ensure the wellbeing and rights of any “persons” residing their wombs. It goes without saying does it not that turning every pregnancy into a potential death sentence, or a compulsory act of incubation is hardly an ideal system of procreation.
Beyond that, I hate to say it but even if we classify fertilized eggs and fetuses as “human”, we need to recognize that there is no universally accepted social or political inviolable sanctity for human life. From battle grounds to execution chambers humans are killed quite regularly and legally. In fact, from wolves to Iraqi’s the “pro-life” among us are usually the most enthusiastic killers. Outside of someone else’s womb these “pro-life” aficionado’s have a really hard time finding a human life they’re not willing snuff out. Likewise, the “pro-life” among us are loath to care for any baby that makes it out of the womb, from health care to foods stamps it’s all just big guvmint giving away to the “takers” among us. Big giant cracks in our welfare system are best medicine for irresponsible people who deserve to suffer the consequences… says the good Christians. So you force a woman to have a child they don’t want so that you can stand your ground and shoot the kid to death while he’s walking home 7-Eleven… because you were afraid… yeah… it’s ALL about the sanctity. Whatever.
Bringing a child into this world isn’t just matter of getting pregnant, and if you don’t understand that simple fact you have no business even commenting on someone else’s pregnancy much less forcing them to bring a child into the world.
If you think you can determine some kind of universal standard of viability your simply ignorant. A embryo or fetus isn’t simply “viable” or not “viable”, no pregnancy is guaranteed to end in live birth so YOUR estimate of “viability” is worth no hoot nor hollar. A fetus can be “viable” today, and dead tomorrow. It’s a question of odds and likelihoods, and at any rate it’s not YOUR call. YOU don’t get force a woman to endure weeks or even days of anguished pregnancy simply you have questions about viability or personhood, and you certainly don’t get turn that pregnancy into a death sentence; and if you have any REAL moral sense you wouldn’t even want to try.
Late term pregnancy crises are the most horrific and anguished scenarios women and their partners can face, and that’s worse possible time for sanctimonious nincompoops to go poking around a women’s medical records and trying to make half-assed guesses about “viability”. When was the last time a cop or a prosecutor stepped into YOUR medical crises and stared making decisions for you?
The DFL is absolutely right to end all legal restrictions. So long as moral imbeciles try to insert themselves into women’s wombs and play god with other people medical decisions there is simply no room for pseudo sanctimonious interference. Slam that door closed and don’t let hit you on the way out.
Just let women and their doctors decide. It doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.
We let politicians set laws in place for every other aspect of our lives. Yet this is totally off limits? Why?
No, we don’t let politicians regulate everything in our lives. And now the guys who always want the government off our backs are all about regulating EVERYTHING? Whatever.
Given their incompetence in legislating other areas, why would we grant it in family planning? That should be reserved for the parents, don’t you think?
As I had posted some time ago: If conservatives really believe their words about being pro-life, they should be willing to TAX themselves to support their position.
From my former health care career,
Some pregnancies, quite a good percentage, have the pregnancy rejected by the carriers own body. If you have God on board here, and you believe God is always pro-life, why did God kill them in miscarriages?
Genetic abnormalities – do not usually show up until at least 20 weeks after conception. Here – here – is where things get complicated. If you feel the right to push those births to term, and a live birth with birth defects comes out of it, will YOU agree to be taxed for the lifelong support the child might need? And the fact that they are more prone to later cancer and other diseases? Pay for all of that possible lifetime of care?
Take a long look when next these commercials come on TV asking for cancer help with children. My wife and I give because it is the right thing to do. The however part is that these families who need help are financially devastated by the costs. If you are pro-life, are You willing to shoulder some of these costs via your tax dollars?
A high-risk pregnancy birth event can run up enormous costs in the first 24 hours. And that is just the first 24 hours. Who pays for this? We ALL do via insurance pooling. Expect your insurance to rise as some of these Red States who demand forced births (that won’t even give any pre-natal care unless it is federally mandated and federally paid for) refuse to cover the increased costs high risk births render.
Again: You conservatives who really believe about being pro-life, are YOU willing to TAX yourself (remembering that words without deeds are…) to support the costs of this position?
Expecting to hear crickets from the conservatives, as usual.
Thank you James. Yes, we see again how conservatives/Republicans remain trapped in a universe of stereotypes that have little resemblance to real life scenarios and human beings. The fact that they seem to think that late-term abortions are their strongest argument simply betrays a breathtaking disconnection from reality.
If only the American “conservatives” who are fighting so hard to prevent the handful of late-term abortions in America exhibited one-tenth the political energy to prevent the tens of thousands of deaths from gun violence annually…
What a wonderful world it would be, without risable hypocrisy!
Its ok for the government to regulate guns, but it is not for abortion?
Really, you are claiming guns are regulated? Need to explain that one to me, what that you can’t keep a howitzer in your garage? What does regulation of “things made to kill” have to do with regulation of peoples bodily functions? What, you saying the republicans want to tell us when we can take a pee next as part of their anti abortion crusade!
“Its ok for the government to regulate guns, but it is not for abortion?”
Its ok for the government to regulate guns, but it is not for vasectomies?
What always strikes me about this debate is that it turns on personal beliefs about the nature of human life itself–does it begin at the moment of conception? At viability? At birth? Any of these positions can be defended or picked apart ad nauseam (as they are in these comments). But the mere fact that no answer can possibly be definitive (except in one’s own head) tells me that we have no business regulating–nay, criminalizing– this crucial decision. The behaviors we criminalize–murder, robbery, fraud–are matters of general human consensus–they are bad, and we all agree that there should be laws to prevent them from occurring and render consequences for those who commit them. When we put abortion in that same box, we rupture the social contract–imposing a specific moral or religious perspective on the entire population, when that perspective is not shared by even the majority (let alone humanity in general).
Abortion opponents will likely say that deciding not to regulate abortion also imposes a moral perspective on society, one that they don’t share. But allowing each person to make their own reproductive decision does not limit or restrict the rights of any other person–it’s hard to call it an “imposition.” (And no, it doesn’t work to just call a fetus a “person”–that’s a circular argument, using the conclusion one wishes to reach as the justification for the conclusion.) The most that can be said is that those who believe abortion is wrong must live in a world where abortion occurs. That may cause them psychic pain, which is real. But I submit that it’s no different from the pain we all feel about things that happen in the world that we don’t like, but over which we have no control–and no right to control. And it certainly can’t be compared to the pain experienced by women who are forced, by the state, to give birth to a child; or the pain experienced by others who are criminally prosecuted for participating in the procedure. That’s not just psychic pain–it’s a true deprivation of basic human rights.
So, no matter how I personally feel about the status of a fetus or the ethics of abortion, I will never support laws that restrict anyone’s ability to think this through for themselves. I believe a solid majority of my fellow Minnesotans feel the same way, and am grateful that this sentiment is now represented in all three branches of our government.
You can take your thought and apply it to everything. Is Murder ok, well gee, I think it is, there shouldn’t be a law against it, it should be personal choice. We made lawn jarts illegal for goodness sakes.
I think you misunderstood my point. I did not argue that anything goes, everything is a personal choice. (Go to the libertarians for that.) I argued that laws stand on a foundation of shared norms–murder being the most obvious one. Everyone in a civilized society agrees that murder should be prohibited. And I have no idea what lawn jarts are, or if they’re illegal, but I’ll just assume they are exceedingly dangerous–and we generally agree that many things that have a potential to cause great harm should be illegal.
But abortion is different–it does not rest on shared norms. There is no consensus on the nature of the fetus, or the ethical significance of this procedure. Given the lack of general agreement about whether this procedure is good, bad, or indifferent, any law that criminalizes the procedure is illegitimate in the eyes of a large fraction of our society. And yes, you can apply this thought to everything, and many laws have proven to be just as illegitimate–criminalization of homosexuality; consumption of alcohol; segregation; just to name a few.
No you can’t! There is a difference between fetus tissue or a fetus inside and attached to a woman’s body, than folks walking the streets with machine guns. Guess that is the crux of the argument, folks like you can’t tell the difference between the 2!
“You can take your thought and apply it to everything.”
Sure… and we can take YOUR thought and use it to argue that some women should be sterilized so they can never have another abortion. It’s funny how the big “values” guys in the room always end up being the biggest moral relativists when they can’t follow their own reasoning to it’s logical conclusions.
Sterilization?? Extreme? Where did that come from?
I am saying it isn’t ethical, moral, or anything other than murder, giving birth to a living breathing baby, then plunging a scalpel into its spinal column to end its life. There is a moral difference between a fetus and a baby. We need to define that. Even all the great liberal countries in Europe have defined that. Why aren’t we capable of that?
We take everything to a bitter extreme and nobody can even think coherently anymore.
1. You aren’t actually arguing anything specific, other than that you can’t murder a delivered infant, apparently. That’s obvious.
2. There are only a tiny handful of late term abortions, whose circumstances you know literally nothing about, so it’s you who are imagining baseless counterfactuals and moral failures.
3. As far as I can tell, you don’t even know how YOU think on this subject, so lamenting the thought process of others is a bit much….
“We take everything to a bitter extreme and nobody can even think coherently anymore.”
Sure, as if turning women into second class citizens so you convert them and their bodies into involuntary incubators isn’t “extreme”? The lack of insight here is breathtaking. You guys push everything from election denial to abortion into extremes, and then when your arguments fail you stand back an plead for “reason” your no longer capable of yourselves. Republicans last in the MN legislator last night were arguing that the DFL abortion law is a travesty because it would allow someone to set up an abortion clinic in a church parking lot… seriously… you call THAT “reason”? Whatever.
We HAVE clear legal and moral definitions of fetuses and babies… you just don’t like those definitions and think you have a right to make up your own and force it upon women. Just because YOU don’t know the difference between an embryo and a baby doesn’t mean the rest of us have live with your confused dictates.
“So why would lawmakers want to repeal a defunct law anyway?”
Aside from the case laid out by the DFLers quoted, your own article makes the case. No one truly knows if the law is actually in effect! When this is the case, the courts OR the legislature can act to clarify. Seems like they also are acting to clarify a gaping hole in the law that no one can answer for sure. That’s what responsive and responsible legislatures are supposed to do.
Stare decisis, rule by precedent, does a very important thing. It establishes what the law is. If we are going to be a law abiding society and culture, there has to be laws which we can know, to abide by. We now have a Supreme Court which isn’t much interested in precedent. It has substituted doctrines like originalism, which among other problems, presents difficulties because none of us live in the 18th century.
Quite correct. The goal of the democratically-illegitimate Trump Court majority is to correct the “errors” of the Supreme Court from 1950-2000. And to manufacture phoney new rights that will create the corporatist and “conservative” paradise that no majority of the citizenry ever desired or voted for.