Arkansas is still a state? I thought they seceded and then privatized themselves to a Renaissance Festival to earn money rather than taking it from Blue States.

Are you telling me, it's best just to get rid of them than to attempt to raise them? Are you suggesting they are better off dead?

I agree. These same Republican legislators will be complaining next year how they don't want to pay out on all the new welfare claims to these poor, new single mothers.

No More? This bill was nothing more than a pinhead Rep and his wife pushing it through to make their even more pinhead constituents happy. What you don't know about the bill is IF a fetus has an incurable issue that would cause immense pain to the child with no hope for survival, the baby MUST be born anyway. This actually happened with a child born with the brain outside the body. It was aborted, but had this bill been in effect, the poor child would have suffered a terrible death just to make a conservative right to lifer happy.

This bill will also be taken up in court costing our state millions of dollars that could be spent for sex education, etc to help prevent more unwanted births.

As for Never Stop... get a life.... Our state has had a balanced budget for decades, didn't lay off a single person during the recession and has cut taxes every session for the past four years. Can YOUR state say the same????? Oh yeah.. and we always have a SURPLUS........

I'm embarrassed to be from (and still in) Arkansas. I'm also pretty damned pissed, because this is going to cost me, as a taxpayer, yet again when the state has to defend itself in lawsuits that it will absolutely lose.

I think every single legislator who signed onto this stupid-ass law (and any others that are blatantly unconstitutional) should have to reimburse the state from their own campaign funds (in full, before they can spend even a single penny on reelection) for any and all legal fees associated with the state's being sued over such laws.

We elected them to uphold the law, not to break it. We elected them to represent us not just within state government, but on the national stage, since we are, after all, a part of the United States. Yet, here they are, clearly declaring their contempt for federal law and federal government, taking it upon themselves to explicitly and intentionally flout the federal constitution, etc.

They're not legislators. They're thugs and criminals.

Arkinsaw...dumb as a bag of door knobs and determined to stay that way.

You are assuming that Arkansas actually provides adequate services in the first place. Arkansas is always at the bottom in these rankings.

The Taliban are just like moles, beat-em in down one place and they pop-up somewhere else. When are people going to realize republicans, more than democrats want more government involvement in private lives ? Next they will be fighting for forced Christian prayer in schools,

The only difference between Afghanistan Taliban and the American Taliban is geography.

Ryan..not all children are unwanted!. I wanted my child, but wife didn't..hard to stop her from not having it! This was back in early 1970's.

See those skyscrapers in NYC..you be amazed what they can do in them. My wife had an abortion on the 16th floor of one near Fifth Ave in Manhattan.

Carryingconcealed, since you brought it up, you seem to be yet another person who completely ignored the first part of the Second Amendment. You know, the part that says the federal government has a right to regulate the right to bear arms. It can't blanketly take away our right to keep and bear them, but it CAN say what kinds, how many, and what types of people can.

The first part of that amendment gives the government the right to regulate arms, which means this trumps the people's right to keep and bear them. If they wanted to, they could say we're only allowed to own slingshots, and they absolutely would be within the confines of the Constitution.

“It’s a power grab by politicians. They are just looking to intrude on and take away a decision that is really for a woman and her family and her doctor, and that is true as a constitutional matter. It’s also true as a moral matter and as a matter of public health and just what’s right,” she said. “This is not a decision for politicians to make.”

Hm, Arkansas? Yup that fits appropriately for that BS state.

In more civilized countries, such as the Netherlands and Scandinavian nations, they have thorough, comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education and easy access to low-cost contraception. Not surprisingly they also have lower rates of women and girls seeking abortions. And people still get married and have families.

Hugo Chavez died, recently. Arkansas is upset at having lost one of their greatest role models.

Arkinsaw...dumb as a bag of door knobs and determined to stay that way

Arkinsaw? Really? Whoosh. See, phonetics do work for non-Arkansans.

no worries it will be fought in the courts and overturned at the expense of the tax-payer's of Arkansas.......what a bunch of morons!!!

LJ - It also says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

We could argue interpretations all day long. What's not up for debate, however, is the fact that a woman's alleged right to murder a baby every time she forgets her birth control is NOT protected in the Constitution - period.

All it will take is for both houses, the POTUS and the SCOTUS to be owned by Republicans and Roe v. Wade is nothing but a bad memory.

Personally I believe abortion has a place in our society, and I'm not religious so that doesn't even come into play for me with this issue, but I have a philosophical and moral opposition to women using abortion as a means of birth control to rectify their refusal to take responsibility for having sex and not getting pregnant.

With that said, though, I admit that I have no solution to dealing with all of the children who would be born and put up for adoption if abortion were illegal, so it's a quandary for sure.

Carryingconcealed don't like abortions than don't have one...see how easy it is:)

Anyone who thinks a woman enters into the decision to have an abortion lightly, or thinks to herself, "No biggie I'll just go have an abortion" doesn't spend enough time with ACTUAL women, as opposed to the blow up kind. If you get my drift.

Men, if you're THAT concerned about "murdering" babies, then instead of trying to control what we do with OUR bodies, go do something with YOURS. I hear vasectomies are simple out patient procedures and can be reversed. You go do YOUR part. Snip, snip, gentlemen.

Finally, I know a lot of people have pretty simple conceptions of the Constitution, so I'll save you the time, you're RIGHT, abortion is listed no where in that document. But you want to know something, THAT DOESN'T MEAN JACK...

Of course abortion isn't in the Constitution, a LOT of things that we are legally allowed to do aren't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't govern citizen behavior, it LIMITS and enumerates the powers of the government. The only time the Constitution addressed citizen behavior and not government behavior was prohibition, and that didn't work out too well. So, what IS in the Constitution are limits to government infringement of our privacy, and incorporation through the 14th Amendment of the 4th and 9th Amendments, where the implied right to privacy has been repetitively interpreted to exist.

May 25, 1891, Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford: The Supreme Court rejected the right of a defendant in a civil action to compel the plaintiff to submit to physical examination, writing that "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others …."

June 4, 1928, Olmstead v. United States: In a wiretapping case, Justice Brandeis, dissenting, wrote broadly of the right to be "let alone":

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. … They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

June 1, 1942, Skinner v. Oklahoma: In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held (per Justice Douglas) that, by forcing a prisoner to undergo sterilization, the State of Oklahoma violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court wrote that such an action treads on "one of the basic civil rights of man," and that "[m]arriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

June 7, 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut: The Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to privacy, derived from the "penumbras and emanations" of the Bill of Rights, encompasses the right of married persons to use contraceptives. Justice Goldberg, in concurrence, relied extensively on the Ninth Amendment, which states that the specific rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not exhaustive.

April 21, 1971, United States v. Vuitch: By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia statute criminalizing abortion unless:

"necessary for the preservation of the mother's life or health" was not unconstitutionally vague. However, the Court interpreted the term "health" to include "psychological as well as physical well-being."

March 22, 1972, Eisenstadt v. Baird: The Supreme Court held that a statute that allowed the provision of contraceptives to married adults, while prohibiting it for unmarried adults, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the course of its decision, the Court recognized that the right to privacy protects access to contraceptives for the married and unmarried alike. The opinion states, "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Chief Justice Burger dissented. Neither Justice Powell nor Justice Rehnquist participated in this decision, presumably because they had only been recently appointed and were not present for oral argument.

January 22, 1973: Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were both decided by the Supreme Court with a 7-2 vote. Roe established that: 1) abortion is encompassed within the right to privacy; 2) restrictions on abortion must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interest; 3) before viability, the state's interest in fetal life is not compelling; 4) even after viability, when the state's interest in fetal life becomes compelling, the state must allow abortions necessary to protect a woman's life or health 5) the state's interest in maternal health becomes compelling at the end of the first trimester of pregnancy; and 6) a fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment, nor may the state justify restrictions on abortion based on one theory of when life begins.

Flush twice.... Its a long way to Arkansas.

Carryingconcealed,

Since you fancy yourself within your rights to place 100% of the responsibility for getting pregnant (or not) on women, then I fancy myself within my rights to insist that you be sterilized, so that you can never impregnate a woman.

If women have to abstain from the pleasures of sex because of the risks of getting pregnant (and, indeed, having to endure ALL of the physical pain and discomfort, as well as the risks to her health and even life), then men who make such demands must submit to sterilization, or face criminal penalties for engaging in sex themselves.

This is the ONLY fair way to handle this...though, even this isn't fair, since women still have to bear all the pain, discomfort and risk of child-bearing. But, hey, as you said (in a roundabout way), no system's perfect. This is at least a start.

If you think this is an unreasonable proposition, then you hold absolutely no valid ground in arguing against women's right to choose, because your opposition to their rights is even more unreasonable...by far.

Oh, and regulating arms (including which kinds and how many) keeping and bearing is NOT infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. Again, the second amendment doesn't specify which ones you have the right to keep and bear. What it does specify is that the government gets to specify that. So, again, even telling you you can only possess a single slingshot isn't a violation of the second amendment. You're lucky the government allows you to own any sort of gun at all.

Sarah: BRAVO (from a retired attorney) !!! your arguments are well-thought out, well-written . . . more patient than I could ever be . . . and (sadly) above the reading ability of many of the people (mostly men) on here who think we have no right to control our own bodies.

Carrying Concealed - thankfully, the ReThuglicans are nearly extinct, as only ~20% of Americans believe in the science-denying/fear-mongering/arithmetic-reinventing bubble your kind lives in.

and, bad new for you, but lucky for the rest of us, & true none-the-less: NONE of your Constitutional rights are unrestricted: eg, hate speech is not protected by your 1st A right; and your Constitutional right to worship as many gods as you want does not make it legal for you to sacrifice virgins anymore.

Read what Sarah has written very carefully - you might learn something! :-)

We will not go back to the coat-hangers and back-alley abortions! we are moving . . .

.

FORWARD! :-)

My home state used to be really strict on abortion. Many a young woman "fell down the stairs" in those days!! (if they weren't born in a toilet and left for dead)

When are people going to realize you cannot change core human behavior with laws and that it is futile to do so?!? People will do these things regardless!

Laws only make them take a more crude path.

Scary red-necked closed minded state.

"hate speech is not protected by your 1st A right"...Who told you that? One might get beat up for it, and the attacker might get a mere slap on the wrist if that much...but you cannot be prosecuted for it, at least not beyond a misdemeaonor charge of disturbing the peace or creating a public nuisance, which is a class-C misdemeanor. THere are no "hate speech" laws in the US, at least not yet. If the First Amendment does not protect us from legal prosecution from what others may consider "obnoxious" behavior, then there is no point to having the First Amendment at all. This principle pertaining to "obnoxious behavior" was established by the Supreme Court ruling in the famous flag-burning case during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. Nobody ever said that the First Amendment protects one's obnoxious behavior from earning a bloody nose, however. It just cannot be delivered directly from the government.

Sorry, LJ, but your response is nothing more than your own incorrect interpretation of something you obviously believe you know something about, but clearly do not.

Nowhere does it state that the government can control what type and how many, though I understand that you liberals are so blinded by the rampant hypocrisy that defines every facet of your platform, that you fervently wish this were true even though you'd self-immolate if rights under the Constitution that you hold dear were infringed upon.

Actually scratch the self-immolation part . . . most liberals are far too cowardly to ever consider something like that.

"Shall not be infringed!"

As for that nonsensical pablum you're spewing about men being sterilized, I'm not even sure what the hell you're talking about. No one said that all the responsibility is on the woman, but if she's stupid enough to trust some douche-bag she met at a club to wear a condom, or dumb enough to trust the condom, then she shouldn't be surprised when the rabbit dies. If she's going to be sexually active and she's afraid of becoming pregnant, then take the damn pill.

I find it ironic that so many women embrace the party of faux tolerance and compassion (that's you), yet so readily embrace infanticide as a means of cleaning up a mess they've made with some guy whose last name they don't even know. I guess it's true that you don't need a gun to commit mass murder, just a weak conscience.

Oh and, KC NC, why don't you pull your head out of msnbc's ass-crack, stop gargling that liberal Kool-Aid, and read what I wrote? I doubt you'll learn anything as you don't appear to be all that bright, but at least you won't be able to say that you were never presented with the truth.

Arkansas, Where there is a Church on one corner and a Bank on the other and that is every corner! I lived there until 1984 and I never went back and never will, It is backward thinking like this that will put the state back into the dark ages! It is another state that kisses the asses of the rich and kicks the poor to the curb! The one who posted I will never spend another dime in Arkansas better stop shopping at WalMart*, Dillards, Tyson Chicken, Murphy Oil, and if I forgot one please add to the post!

It's amazing how many misguided fools get so upset about a baby's life being sacred and important, especially when the little child is simply trying to live. Sorry, libs, but baby murder is STILL wrong, no matter how you may choose to phrase it.

Sorry, kraussk, but it isn't a baby until after it's born, and it isn't your body, so shut up.

It's a shame so many people are judgemental about a state they've likely never visited. Like any state, there are good things and bad things about it. It seems people just LOVE to pick on Arkansas, because of its history and mistaken reputation.

Arkansas is so much nicer than many other places I've lived, including Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, New York, New Jersey, and even rural Indiana. Yes, living in the beautiful Ozarks in the NW corner of the state is a complete delight--both because of the people and the physical beauty of the place.

Too bad so many people speak (write) before they know what they're talking about.

Ahh Carryingconcealed no worries for you Im sure on getting any women pregnant, the fact your name is carryingconcealed tells us all we need to know about you. No balls. See how easy it is to generalize.

Can anyone of your right wing, smaller govt except for women's vajayjays, lunatics, explain to us how someone who is not born can be protected by the constitution, that is for all American Citizens, but you need to be born in America before becoming a citizen??? Anyone? The fact is the fetus has no rights under the law, since it has in fact not been born yet.

Of course not. Watch how fast these religious freaks back off when we make it mandatory to have a colonoscopy before you can get viagra just to make sure its not cancer causing your limpness. Whats that you say, that is a private matter between you and your doctor, not anymore...

This is all because a bunch of fanatics believe that God has a parcel of souls to pass out the moment sperm and egg join. Well, that is a religious opinion not shared by everyone who happens to be American. Person-hood takes a long time to develop, certainly well after viability, and that judgement belongs to the mother and her doctor, there is no bright line for it. A heartbeat does not equal persona, it does mean that a woman is pregnant if she didn't know about it before. It's sorta like a great big gotcha... too bad lady, now you will be saddled with an unwanted baby because a bunch of zealots are clever at manipulating republican state legislatures.

baby murder is STILL wrong,

Well good thing no one is murdering babies then, right?

How many of those righteous people were around when women were found dead in alleys or were brought into ERs following coat-hanger abortions? I never had to have one, but I can remember when they happened. I hope the "fine" people of Arkansas are prepared for the return of those things. Are the law personnel going to watch the alleys for such things?

Attention to males:: NEUTERING!

Show me, how is abortion a sign of intelligence?

Passing a law that will n

"The Supreme Court has said viability of a fetus has to be left up to doctors, Camp said, adding that it was unconstitutional for state legislatures to set a number of weeks for when abortion could be banned."

Passing an unconstitutional law that will cost the state money to defend and that they will lose when it is challenged is unintelligent, no more filbert.

I thought they wanted the "Gubmint" outa they bidnis. Oh, I see just THEIR bidnis, but in everyone else's as far as possible.

Just think how many more one blue-eyed, one green-eyed babies will be born to the sisters of these Arkansas representatives now!

I assume there is an exception for pregnant mistresses of right-wing legislators, correct?

All from the "south" as well.

SR: don't forget the legislators wives and daughters. Their unwanted pregnancies will be "different" and they will be given a private jet to go to another state for their "procedure".

I would love for someone to show me one place in the constitution when it says anyone has a right to murder an innocent child or any place in the constitution where abortion is even mentioned.

Show me where the Constitution says that women don't have the right to abortion? But, more to the point, the Supreme Court says that they do. That trumps your interpretation, and that of the backward Arkansas legislators, of the Constitution.

Show me where in the constitution that the goverment has the ability to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

A fetus isn't a child.

wryview -"A fetus isn't a child." True. But, it is human. It is unique. DNA Combinations are not duplicated. Sex is the easiest way to create a fetus. Apparently many women are unable to grasp that concept.

Johannes and Reya,

It does not say either of those things. Which is why the Supreme Court overstepped its authority in Roe v. Wade. This issue should be left to a legislature.

another texan...you f'ing idiot....apparently many men are unable to grasp that concept too. jacka$$

A fetus isn't a child.

Thought s someone isn't human is exactly the problem with the world. Slave owners did not consider African Americans humans, WWII the Nazi's did not consider Jews human, in Rwanda Genocide Hutus actually thought their neighbors with whom they had lived peacefully all their lives descended from cock roaches and many died. There is a danger in in someone being able to classify a person as human or not. It allows hate to grow and allows people to do inhuman things to others. Abortion is murder you have ended a life of an innocent child and even if some Supreme Court ruling says its ok there is no where in the the constitution that allows for one person to murder another.

A fetus isn't a child - when exactly does it become a child? When the mother feels it kicking? When an ultrasound can determine gender? When it's born?

The difference is that Africans, African Americans & Jews all were living outside the womb and not solely reliant on their mother/host like a fetus. The answer to when life begins has not been scientifically established yet.

Actually it is in the Constitution. The implied right to privacy in the 9th and 4th Amendments. Check out the Griswold, SCOTUS case if you don't believe me.

http://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/inconsistancy-in-the-life-begins-at-conception-argument/

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/25/opinion/zygotes-and-people-aren-t-quite-the-same.html

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml

From earliest times the relationship between a woman and her developing embryo or fetus has been the subject of philosophic, religious, and legal wrangling. This is one of the most important questions in the abortion debate because how this relationship is envisioned will result in both legislation and social attitudes based on that vision. With this in mind I'd like to examine the paradigms we currently use and look at the implications. I want, furthermore to examine how those paradigms fit into what we know biologically about the relationship and discuss whether we are basing our paradigms on this biological reality or on a concept that fits a political agenda.

This work will essentially throw some light on the flaws inherent in the current trend to sometimes view an embryo/fetus (which for simplicity I will refer to as fetus from here on) as a separate entity residing in the body of the woman.

The "Integrated Single Unit" Paradigm.

With this concept the woman and her fetus are represented as a single organism which could be referred to as the "Pregnancy Unit" as the textbook Williams Obstetrics does; or the "organism of the pregnant woman" as it is referred to on this site .

Viewing a pregnancy in this way certainly is in line with what we know about the nature of the relationship being described.British Medical researcher and Scientist, Sir Peter Medawar, as part of the study of the immune system he was conducting in 1953, drew attention to a paradox with respect to that fetal relationship. He described the fetus as a graft on the body of the woman and as such wondered why, without drug intervention, rejection does not always take place.

As background, grafts can be of several types.

They may be:

• Autologous: referring to naturally occurring cells, tissues, organs in which the donor and recipient are the same individual and antigenically identical. Words associated with this are autogenous, autograft, or autotransfusion isograft, a self-to-self graft.
• Allogeneic: referring to naturally occurring cells, tissues, organs in which the donor and recipient are not genetically identical yet are within the same species. Words associated are allogenic, allogeneic, allograft, and homograft.
• Syngeneic: referring to naturally occurring cells, tissues, organs in which the donor has an identical genotype with the recipient. Words associated syngraft, isogeneic, or isogenic.
• Xenogeneic: referring to naturally occurring cells, tissues, organs in which the donor and recipient belong to different (or widely separated) species. Words associated xenogenic, xenogenous, heterogeneic or heterologous.

(The above are taken From Stedman and Dorland definitions).

There are others types of graft also but these are sufficient for our purpose. Now since the contribution to the genetic structure of the fetus is half from the woman it is not a true autograft but a semi autograft, and since it is the same species as the host it is it is therefore properly described as an allograft but it is more like the host than most allografts because of the 50% identical genetic component. So semiallogenic is the term frequently used to describe the fetal/host graft relationship. Medawar noted that despite the semiallogenic nature of the fetus that rejection did not take place automatically and postulated a number of reasons for this. Without going into unnecessary detail here, let me simply say that further research has shown the maintenance of the graft relationship (and thus the pregnancy) depends on the production of hormones that will reduce the normal rejection mechanism of the immune system, and cause the host body to recognize the graft as a part of itself.

Thus the relationship between the woman and her fetus is a graft to host one and the graft is integrated into the body of the host making the combination, as in all such relationships, a single unit.

The "Dual Organism" Paradigm.

A competing vision of what the pregnant woman consists of, is that what is actually present are two separate and independent entities and that they should always be treated as such. For this reason, using this paradigm, we find fetal specialists and medical ethicists insisting that the pregnant woman is actually two patients. This view then makes the further claim that a separate organism is produced at conception, which is "when life begins" and that organism, because it has a different DNA from the woman in whose body it resides, is not a part of her. The human reproductive cycle is thus viewed as an instantaneous point in time rather than the prolonged approximately 40 week developmental process it actually is. Let me point out some of the flaws in this 'dual organism' position.

Organisms come in many forms, including single celled, but since we are talking about humans at this point, we are referring to mammals, and mammals are not single celled organisms. What we need to do is look at the markers that are necessary and sufficient to classify an entity as a mammalian organism. These markers are identified in many biological textbooks and but for simplicity I will use the definitions found in the Oxford English Dictionary, and Websters, here.

Organism: An organized body, consisting of mutually connected and dependent parts constituted to share a common life; the material structure of an individual animal or plant. OED

And from this the biological definition of Individual is needed also:

Individual: "Biol. An organism regarded as having a separate existence...an organism detached from other organisms, composed of coherent parts, and capable of independent life." OED

Then from Webster's Medical Dictionary Online we have:

Organism: "An individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being." (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary on line)

So what is required to describe an entity as a mammalian organism is individuality, and the capacity for independent life. Some of the requirements for maintaining independent life in a mammalian organism would be the ability to detoxify and reoxygenate blood; to maintain homeostasis - temperature, blood pressure and blood pH, etc., using it's own internal regulatory systems that respond to the external environment; to ingest, digest, and excrete in order to produce and convert energy to maintain systems; and more.

All of these functions are performed for the fetus by the host organism of which it is a part, and the fetus is incapable of performing them independently as long as it remains integrated into the body of the woman. We can safely draw the conclusion that the fetus does not have the markers of, or perform the self regulated life sustaining functions of, independent organism in itself but it is a part of a larger organism (even though the fetus gains an increasing capacity for independent performance of those functions as the pregnancy progresses - which is the purpose of gestation).

I can already hear the clamor at this point to grab dictionaries or textbooks that refer to the fetus as an organism and I'm quite aware that this is frequently done for reasons of convenience and ease in description. It is even more frequent since the "dual organism" and "pregnant woman as two patients" has been adopted by some in both the medical and political arena. (Factoids also play a role in the dissemination of this view. The word factoid was apparently coined by Norman Mailer in 1973 in the sense 'something fictitious or unsubstantiated presented as a fact, that is accepted as true because of its constant repetition in the media'.) Nonetheless this paradigm is incorrect because the fetus fails to meet the biological definition of an independent organism, and calling it an organism in a textbook or newspaper won't make it one.

A fetus is, indeed, a semiallogenic graft and as such it is a part of the host/woman into whose body the graft is integrated.

What are the implications of these paradigms?

From a legal, social, and ethical viewpoint, whichever of these paradigms become the dominant one - regardless of their accuracy or lack thereof - has enormous implications on the society accepting it. The effects on women's rights are especially dependent on the acceptance of one over the other.

If the "integrated single unit" paradigm, which is in fact the older of the two and the more accurate, is accepted as correct, then it means that legislation concerning abortion, particularly prior to the time when the fetus has the possibility of an independent self sustaining life, is essentially legislation designed to control a part of a woman's body It might very well be argued that until successful parturition, when indeed there is a separate organism "capable of carrying on the activities of life", any such legislation would be unconstitutional since it would be giving a part of a woman rights that can restrict or abridge rights she currently has. Canada, with no abortion legislation on the books, may have gotten it right.

If the "dual organism" paradigm prevails, despite its inherent flaws both in biological fact and its treatment of the pregnant woman, then regulation of the separate organism certainly has a basis to work with. Proscribing the activities and freedoms of one person for the protection of the developing organism may be both possible legally, and socially seen as acceptable. All of the dangers warned about in Katha Pollits Fetal Rights - Women's Wrongs are possible only if the "dual organism" paradigm is accepted.

http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/infrmdC/Paradigms.html

What is it that differentiates us, from everything else in this world, that we deserve rights. Here's the problem, you CAN'T really define it. That's part of why abortion is legal. You can break down the stages of development all you want, but until you can scientifically define and apply humanity, in a universal, factual manner which is as accepted by everyone as one plus one is, there is NO answer to this question. And hence no scientific link, ergo no evidence compelling enough to infringe upon the rights of those we ACTUALLY can define as human beings with rights. Because if we can't even universally, factually define something, we sure as hell can't PROVE in what stage it develops.

Yes, Webster's gives us a technical definition of humanity. The quality and state of being human. And "human" includes sentience. That's where the court draws the line. It has to compromise, because to take it back to before sentience occurs, you run into a slew of issues, such as the fertilized egg that doesn't implant.

Then you have to marry that to law, and the standards of evidence we hold our government to. If the best scientific agreement we have that distinguishes humans from everything else is sentience, than in order to infringe on the privacy rights of those who we KNOW for SURE are sentient human beings to protect the rights of those who we can not legally or scientifically define as fully human because of their lack of sentience, is ASININE. In that scenario you're not using the term HUMAN anymore because they aren't sentient, you're relying on HUMANITY. That ambiguous, voodoo, something, which again, we can't define. You're basically disregarding the rights of those who you know for a fact are fully endowed with sentience for those who you believe to be owning some sort of undefinable humanity.

You CAN'T. You can't really define it. And you sure as hell can't define it and apply it. That's the answer to this mess. That's why everyone can post over and over on Newsvine, but NOT A SINGLE PERSON has found a study or link that proves "humanity" is EVER endowed in us, let alone WHEN we receive it. Until that happens, to disregard the rights of those we know to be a human being in order to protect something we believe to be, but can not even define, is WRONG.

That's why it's a choice, because it's a BELIEF.

Johannes

I would love for someone to show me one place in the dictonary when it says a collection of cells/a fetus is a "child" or a "baby" or explain how you can murder cells.

Show me where the Constitution says that women don't have the right to abortion? But, more to the point, the Supreme Court says that they do. That trumps your interpretation, and that of the backward Arkansas legislators, of the Constitution.

The point is Reproductive Freedom Project, said it was an “unconstitutional" many people claim something is unconstitutional but the Constitution does not mention it therefore it is not unconstitutional. Furthermore each State is allowed to create its own laws which is addressed in the Constitution. Arkansas did just that and I applaud them and wish them much success on this topic.

Johannes,

Your understanding of the Constitution is, AT BEST, elementary.

Of course abortion isn't in the Constitution, a LOT of things that we are legally allowed to do aren't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't govern citizen behavior, it LIMITS and enumerates the powers of the government. The only time the Constitution addressed citizen behavior and not government behavior was prohibition, and that didn't work out too well. So, what IS in the Constitution are limits to government infringement of our privacy, and incorporation through the 14th Amendment of the 4th and 9th Amendments, where the implied right to privacy has been repetitively interpreted to exist.

May 25, 1891, Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford: The Supreme Court rejected the right of a defendant in a civil action to compel the plaintiff to submit to physical examination, writing that "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others …."

June 4, 1928, Olmstead v. United States: In a wiretapping case, Justice Brandeis, dissenting, wrote broadly of the right to be "let alone":

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. … They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

June 1, 1942, Skinner v. Oklahoma: In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held (per Justice Douglas) that, by forcing a prisoner to undergo sterilization, the State of Oklahoma violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court wrote that such an action treads on "one of the basic civil rights of man," and that "[m]arriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

June 7, 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut: The Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to privacy, derived from the "penumbras and emanations" of the Bill of Rights, encompasses the right of married persons to use contraceptives. Justice Goldberg, in concurrence, relied extensively on the Ninth Amendment, which states that the specific rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not exhaustive.

April 21, 1971, United States v. Vuitch: By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia statute criminalizing abortion unless:

"necessary for the preservation of the mother's life or health" was not unconstitutionally vague. However, the Court interpreted the term "health" to include "psychological as well as physical well-being."

March 22, 1972, Eisenstadt v. Baird: The Supreme Court held that a statute that allowed the provision of contraceptives to married adults, while prohibiting it for unmarried adults, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the course of its decision, the Court recognized that the right to privacy protects access to contraceptives for the married and unmarried alike. The opinion states, "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Chief Justice Burger dissented. Neither Justice Powell nor Justice Rehnquist participated in this decision, presumably because they had only been recently appointed and were not present for oral argument.

January 22, 1973: Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were both decided by the Supreme Court with a 7-2 vote. Roe established that: 1) abortion is encompassed within the right to privacy; 2) restrictions on abortion must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interest; 3) before viability, the state's interest in fetal life is not compelling; 4) even after viability, when the state's interest in fetal life becomes compelling, the state must allow abortions necessary to protect a woman's life or health 5) the state's interest in maternal health becomes compelling at the end of the first trimester of pregnancy; and 6) a fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment, nor may the state justify restrictions on abortion based on one theory of when life begins.

Sam4ever

It's a life...have you ever seen anything dead grow? If you abort the fetus you kill it, its dead, get the point. This clump of cells as you put it forms a human being a living human being with a soul until some one decides it is not human and does not have a right to live and murders it.

It always amazes me, when people think they've proven the ABSOLUTELY unprovable, spiritual nature of this question via Newsvine. "With a soul", really??? You've proven the existence of the human soul and this HASN'T shown up on the cover of Time Magazine?

may be you should have been an abortion...

But what about his/her "soul"???? Or do you only care about zygotes, and those who agree with you?

Reya

Its not your body its not a woman's body that is the issue its the one living inside her that is the issue. And that body living inside her she had a part in creating. Its 2013 we all know now sex is the number one cause for pregnancy. If you get pregnant both the man and woman have an obligation to preserve and protect that life not kill it

If is a possible human being. It is still a choice that is better made by the pregnant woman, not politicians that say that they want smaller government but then try to force their moral code on us. You can't murder what isn't yet alive.

Johannes -

It's a life...have you ever seen anything dead grow?

I've seen crystals grow. Those are not alive. Thanks for playing but brush up on your science next time.

Was this the same bill drafted by that ignoramus who declared a fetus "the largest organ in the female body"? (Ahem, actually your skin is your largest organ. Sorry, guys.) That rather contradicts the nutjob Pro-Liar movement's aims, does it not? After all, one does not expel an organ naturally (birth), but one can have it removed!

It's a life...have you ever seen anything dead grow?

Not to mention that "alive" doesn't equal "human being".

Vandel,

When it is born. That is what the law states. Fetuses are not technically "people" until live birth. However most accept the fact that a fetus can be considered a baby after the 22 week of gestation because at that point the chance of live birth exceeds 50%.

@Johannes. The 9th amendent of the Constitution The 9th Amendment is simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated. It is my contention that women have the right to have abortions and the Constitution guarentees that

At the time the Constitution was written, abortion was legal and openly advertised up to the time of "quickening". It wasn't until the mid-19th century that laws restricting abortion were passed. Herbal remedies, such as pennyroyal, were in common use long after that.

Severely deformed fetuses--including those without heads at all--do grow.

To all posters who say that "A fetus is not a child", cannot argue that.

However, everyone posting in here was a fetus at one time.

However, everyone posting in here was a fetus at one time.

But not at the same time that we were children. That's kind of the point.

I like Harry's point.... ingeniously said, a fetus has the potential to be a child. Being pro-choice bears the responsibility of being responsible, as do all freedoms.

I don't believe in eliminating legal abortion or choice, but let it be a choice that recognizes the loss of a potential individual. To keep us all sober and thoughtful in all of our choices.

It really amuses me when people use the "it's a human because it is GROWING" argument. Well, so is that clump of CANCER CELLS (which, BTW, sometimes have a distinct and separate DNA so there goes THAT argument) yet you're not out there advocating for cancer cells to be given a right to "life". I also am unaware of people advocating for the right for tapeworms, Norovirus and other arguably "living things" that grow and have their own DNA that are parasitic in and on a human body.

"DNA Combinations are not duplicated."

So that means plants are subject to the same rights as humans, too?

I'd like to know what Johannes thinks of sex education.

Are you for or against it?

How about contraceptives? Do you believe they should be allowed?

Or how about, people on welfare(of which Ark. has one of the highest participants)?

The rich will always have abortions, the poor will have to take their chances.

I hope you'll feel the same when your taxes go up to feed and care for all the children who are born and need to be taken care of by the state

Expenses for these children? Oh no! They don't want to pay! Those lazy babies need to get jobs! (rolling my eyes!)

Abort early, abort often, and we will solve this economic crisis in America. The new rally cry of the left.

I hope you'll feel the same when your taxes go up to feed and care for all the children who are born and need to be taken care of by the state

I can not speak for others, but I would gladly take in any child of any race or religion who was in need and give them a safe home.

Johannes, you DON"T speak for others as we have thousands of unwanted children in foster care that NOBODY WILL ADOPT...... You guys LOVE to say you will find homes, but ultimately, they end up living their childhood in Foster Care.. gee wonder how they turn out??? You THINK they go on to have unwanted children as well??

too Johannes - and have you and if so how many?

Johannes - I recommend you contact your state's child protective services. They can refer hundreds of children in need of adoptive homes to you.

Don't get your hopes up, Johannes. All Ala-BANGY did was push the issue elsewhere, to other states. And we know about Pro-Liars, don't we:

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Johannes,

Our troops are coming home and the Taliban will be back in control of Afghanistan soon, maybe you could be happier there where religious moral theology is forced upon the women.

Never in America...........

Abortion prevents crime. All of those unwanted babies end up being raised poorly and end up criminals. It's a statistical fact that abortion helps reduce crime through preventing such a vector.

John

Maybe after you personally have a baby you can enter the discussion. Otherwise you should probably leave the discussion to the female members of our Country.

Most abortions are performed by a private doctor. It is only lacking a clean environment when the provider is not licensed which is what happens when abortions are unavailable legally. The laws liberals push would be for free and very available birth control methods.

Abortion would be more rare when women have access to birth control -- but that's right--you Conservatives don't want that either. SMH!

Enma,

All woman have access to birth control. Just don't make me, or my taxes, or my insurance premiums pay for it.

J70141 in Colorado: What was the liberal mantra? "We want abortion to be safe, and rare." .....Yet they have done nothing to neither make it safe, nor rare.

They're working on it; after that conservative fiasco sex ed program of "just say NO" and keep your pants on and knees together program (abstinence), it's going to take a while to erase all that harm. Four plus years after Bush, there are positive signs that teenage pregnancy rates may be taking a nosedive:

Teen Pregnancy Rate Hits 40-Year Low
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46316336/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/teen-pregnancy-rate-hits--year-low/

Teen pregnancy rates dip, but vary by state
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39761335/ns/health-childrens_health/t/teen-pregnancy-rates-dip-vary-widely-state/

And I had to add this one in:

Teen birth rates highest in most religious states
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32884806/ns/health-childrens_health/t/teen-birth-rates-highest-most-religious-states/

ctviking - well then I don't want my taxes or insurance premiums to pay for your viagra, vasectomy or heart surgery either. If you want to have control over what medical services women get then we want control of what medical services you get. Methods of contraception that women can control and depend on are delivered by medication or medical devices - some of which are expensive but no where near as expensive for the woman or your tax burden as a pregnancy and raising a child for 18 years.

Physicians won't talk about this, but they will not even tie the tubes of any woman who is not at least 35 years old and had two or three kids.

Amused muse- Complete hogwash. Doctors will tie the tubes of anyone who asks. I know several women who have had it done at young ages and/or without kids.

Doctors most certainly will tie tubes before 35 or 3 kids...you just have to ask ALOT. I had to ask my doctor every appointment for 4 years before she would refer me to have mine tied. I finally did though, at 26, after one kid.

Doctors will tie the tubes of anyone who asks.

Not necessarily. Many doctors will refuse to do that surgery as an elective, especially if a woman is younger, as the docs think the woman might "change her mind" and fear being sued later for doing so because she did change her mind. But it seems a man will have little difficulty having a vasectomy if he chooses. Snip on a Friday, back to work on a Monday.

I know. You read it on Fox didn't you or some other truth absent media.

How much are you willing to pay in taxes for social programs you enjoy? I'm betting none. Who are you to assume that people don't adopt. Aren't we civilized enough of a society to allow all children to be born, and also expect people to be responsible to raise their child as well? "I don't want me no baby, no sir, how I supposed to text, girl, while holding my baby. Damn, someone better pay for me car, me house, and me nails if they want me to keep THIS baby". You are anti choice, as you are not allowing children to be born, as you think it's better to just get rid of them before you have to decide to take care of them.

Liberal mantra - abort early, abort often, more money for you.

Don't forget, they are often anti contraception also.

You're betting how much, filbert?

The liberal party is akin to the nazi party - killing off those they deem aren't eligible to live. I don't understand how wanting a child to at least have a chance at living makes some "self righteous, religious wingnuts".

Tell me how this is so, oh enlightened one.

Godwin Law violation! Have you conservatives no imagination? (Don't answer that. I already know.)

You can bury them next to the over 60,000,000 aborted fetuses and children over the years.

and this number is coming straight out of your ass????

And "children," filbert? You are delusional.

Filbert, a cancerous tumor is a group of human cells that grow. They will eventually kill the host organism. We remove that growing clump of human cells before they can do their damage. However, you would have a clump of cells called a zygote that might potentially kill a woman or damage her life left there to see what will happen. Before 12 weeks it is a clump of cells much like a tumor. How do you feel about the removal of tumors filbert. I'll bet you have strong feelings about that medical procedure also. Should we stop murdering tumors, it is comprised of living cells Filbert.

I don't know why we don't tell our daughters to "just say no"......it's worked with the war on drugs, right?

The liberal mantra

Abort early, abort often.

The conservative mantra - have a quiet abortion so you don't lose your job in the Pro-Liar profit making lobby. Have quiet abortions often, because we really don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade - we would lose our convenient Great Satan. We don't care about babies - we just want to punish women for sex.

filbert you are under informed at best. You are a misogynist at worst.

Filbert writes ".....Are you telling me, it's best just to get rid of them than to attempt to raise them? Are you suggesting they are better off dead....? " Perhaps, sometimes - it depends.

Why don't you ask those PARTICULAR children born - the ones who really wish they were dead? The ones who go through immense internal agony - commit suicide - or use drugs - to escape THEIR reality?

Get a clue....

Ask the children who are unwanted, unwelcome, cast off - who are starved for affection - or worse, actually abused - at the hands of their very own parents. Many of those children would answer you - in the affirmative. Many do wish they were dead - or never born.

America's English heritage begat cruelty in our society. America had ANIMAL protective statutes - before child protections - do the research. Today, animals are even "loved" - before humans - it's quite a tragedy - in our modern society and American culture......

Sorry for the loss of your beloved son, Janablessed. It is more desirable to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and give the baby up for adoption. Those girls and women who chose to do that are to be admired, not vilified by their families and society.

If life were perfect, there would not be a need for a medical procedure like abortion. However, there are reasons for keeping abortion readily available for those who need them - failure of birth control, rape victims, victims of incest, and mothers whose lives are in danger from an unhealthy pregnancy - to name some.

CN J mom, abortions due to rape, incest and risk to life to either child/mother are less than 8%. A study in 2001 found that 92% completed an abortion due to social other other reasons beyond what you just mentioned.

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2005/NRL10/NewStudy.html

Ant that is STILL their choice, not yours filbert!

My heart goes out to you. My heart also goes out to anyone in an impossible situation where abortion appears to be the only reasonable choice . It is not for anyone but the people involved to judge what those situations are. Abortion should not be legislated pro or con. It is just another medical procedure that should be decided about by the persons involved. and Filbert is an idiot.

I'm surprised that you think pregnancies from rape or incest happen at all, filbert.

Amused,

I'm surprised that you think pregnancies from rape or incest happen at all, filbert.

Only if they're legitimate rapes.

Filbert, as long as these other conditions still exist, in spite of "social" terminations, safe and accessible abortion will be available to those who need them.

And Sarah - you are my hero! I don't have the time to do the research you do on your responses, but they are the best!

If you feel that men should also have a 50% say in whether to keep or abort that child too.

filbert, why are you so excited about a procedure you, as a male, will never have to make a decision about. It is a heartwrenching, the emotional pain or making the decision is blinding. Trust me it is not the decision anyone wants to make but sometimes it is the only reasonable option for a highly personal situation that no one but the people involved could potentially comprehend. Absolutely pray they aren't done. Absolutely educate that it is not really ever the best choice. Let your money hit the road in providing contraceptived to prevent the necessity but never never never legislate what someone elses life choices should be. You are no one elses judge, remember that.

If you feel that men should also have a 50% say in whether to keep or abort that child too.

Sure, if the man gets pregnant with 50% opf the fetus.

Going to the next state (or the state after that) is a big deal for many people because not everyone has a car. That is what is known as poverty.

The science says that a fetus is a separate living being apart from the mother. As John Adams said "Our constitution was written for a moral and religious people"

fetus is a separate living being

a fetus living being....don't think so....and John Adams wanted us to be a theocracy as well. So you are going to take the high road in telling us are are moral and we are not, he who is without sin cast the first stone.

filbert- as a scientist, I can tell you that science does NOT say that a fetus is in any way equal to a child. A zygote has more in common with a wart than a human. An early fetus lacks arms, legs, and functional organs. It is less of a sentient being than a worm, and is a parasite, not an independent living thing. People like to talk about "a beating heart". Well, you can get heart cells to beat in a petri dish. and appropriate scaffolding will allow them to grow into a heart-like structure. Is that a human being? As the fetus grows, it slowly develops more human-like characteristics. Eventually, it develops consciousness- unless it is an anencephalic fetus. Elective abortions should be performed as early as possible, preferably within the first 12 weeks, but there are plenty of situations where a later abortion is justified. And it shouldn't be up to the government to determine that.

As John Adams said "Our constitution was written for a moral and religious people"

Is this the same John Adams who said: “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”

BTW, your quote of John Adams was addressed to the officers of the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Division of the militia of Massachusetts. Mr. Adams meant that our form of government is meant for a self governed people, and not specifically to whom is considered "moral" or religious. If you're going to take the words of the Founding Fathers out of context, you'll have to do a better job than that.

Anyone trying to talk sense to Filbert the dildo, is wasting their time! He is one of those, "do as I say, not as I do" ones who think they have all the answers and don't need to be told anything, especially if your argument is based on science and logic! Ignore him, because he's lacking attention and this is the only way he can acknowledge that he is alive.

What about the choice of the unborn to live or not? That is what it's about, not controlling women, but rather not killing the unborn.

unborn to live or not

did not know fetuses could make that kind of decision.

The voters of Arkansas elected these yahoos. If enough citizens of Arkansas are not happy with what they are getting, recall them or vote them out next election and then have the next legislature fix what they broke. You might also want to consider changing your consititution to require a 2/3 or 3/4 majority of your legislative houses to override a governor's veto. I never heard of an override by a simple majority. If that is the case, it hardly makes sense for the governor to bother signing or vetoing anything.

What about the choice of the unborn to live or not? That is what it's about, not controlling women, but rather not killing the unborn.

I'd say restricting a women's choice falls into the category of "controlling women".

What about the choice of the unborn to live or not?

I wasn't aware the unborn had a choice. Minors usually parental consent for things. As for being gestated, I'd say that falls under parental consent, specifically the monther.

That is what it's about, not controlling women, but rather not killing the unborn.

Let's see: you would tell women they can't have abortions or have laws to prohibit that choice from them. Yup, sounds like control to me.

They always did. They flew out of country for theirs.

I'm sorry Michael, but studies have shown that republicans/conservatives donate twice the amount on average to charities than democrats/liberals. Liberals want to tax, and keep it all public, conservatives just silently give.

but studies have shown that republicans/conservatives donate twice the amount on average

please give source, I would like to see it.

Were these the same studies that had Romney winning the presidency by a landslide? Just wondering.

Statistically there are more abortions performed when republicans are in charge because people feel less able to provide for the child. THere are fewer abortions, and fewer teenage pregnancies overall when democratic leadership is in power.

I don't think conservative silently give. If I have to listen once more to Ann Romney describe how caring and generous she is I think I'm going to throw up. No matter what you say, you and Mitt can never get out from under the "47%" speech. In a moment of incredible honesty and candor, he said what he really thinks of almost half the country. Your "generosity" is self serving.

Exactly, Keep your religious beliefs OUT of MY body...

Because it's assumed she intended to follow through with her pregnancy?

They aren't charged for two murders until the fetus is viable.

It only counts as double murder if the fetus would have been viable outside of the mother's body. That is the differance. A clump of cells removed before the 12th week is not viable, in other words it dies without the support of the mother's body. Some babies developing well after the 12th week have problems that would leave them non viable even at full term, they will not survive without the mother's systems to support it. This legislation sentences women to carry non viable fetuses to term because the mothers body allows the heart to continue beating even if development has stopped. That is torture.

Then none of you are familiar with "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" of 2004. It says that any unborn not a fetus or other wise. Do you not remember Scott Peterson?

TEE HEE...exactly

Ark says it all about the type of thinking(not) from that state.