Wednesday, February 18, 2009

North Dakota attempts to define fetus as a person  

5 comments
Yep. Slammed my fist incredibly hard on my desk when I read this one. The House in North Dakota has approved a measure that will give a tiny cell growing inside a woman more rights than the woman herself. Let me repeat that. The thing growing inside me now has a "life" that takes precedent over mine. Once more with feeling:



Now, if the measure passes in the (anti-choice) Senate, a fetus will have full rights in North Dakota, essentially banning abortion in the state. Do Supreme Court rulings hold no validity? What about the landmark case Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania vs. Casey? The Supreme Court ruled that state restrictions on abortion cannot place an "undue burden" on women, meaning that if a proposed restriction puts a significant obstacle in the way of obtaining an abortion, it is not allowed. Since that ruling, over 200 restrictions have been placed on abortion rights. Parental consent laws, waiting periods, mandatory sonograms - how are any of these not placing an undue burden on women seeking reproductive services? How is defining a fetus as a person not enough of a burden? Does that case mean nothing at all?

It infuriates me.

What next?

You can also bookmark this post using your favorite bookmarking service:

Related Posts by Categories



5 comments: to “ North Dakota attempts to define fetus as a person


  • February 26, 2009 at 8:18 PM  

    At 7 weeks the fetus is sucking its thumb, kicking, wiggling its toes. Your rant is morbid and selfish. North Dakota a ONE abortion clinic in the state. Fargo, ND, is just a border line away from abortion mill Snuff-Surgeon mecca. I am sure the confused non informed teens and women of ND can drive an extra 6 miles across the border.

    See Pix: http://www.DefendersOfChildLife.com

    Dare to be informed.


  • February 26, 2009 at 11:00 PM  

    Selfish because I believe I should have control over what is growing inside me. Interesting.

    Women shouldn't have to drive across the border. What about the women who aren't 6 miles away? What about the ones who have to drive 100 miles to obtain an abortion? What if the state they go to has a mandatory 24-hour waiting period? The woman then has to take off from work for a day, get a motel room, and that's assuming that she can afford all of this.

    Undue burden? Indisputably.


  • February 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM  

    The women have to drive to Fargo ANYWAY... so a 5 minute drive over the border is not a burden.
    Amazing ... how snuffing a human from its mother's womb brings out the Hag in people. The manner in which some people find "meaning" in life is pathetic.
    Why don't you go and promote animal litter abortions... your passion of murder mentality (20,000 abortions worldwide EVERY DAY) doesn't satisfy your thirst?


  • February 28, 2009 at 3:57 AM  

    Not one bit of that comment made sense.

    We're not going to see eye-to-eye. Our main difference is that you think you can tell a woman what she can do with the life growing inside of her. I think that I cannot. Choice or no choice. That's what it boils down to.


  • May 13, 2009 at 10:54 PM  

    Apparently some people still don't know where babies come from - that's where you had your *choice*.