"Forced-birthers" ? Really? Human reproduction will be entirely voluntary very soon. Birth-control will finally begin to replace "conception control",
I'll just pass this on for those who are interested in the realities. WHEN ABORTION WAS A CRIME: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/05/abortion-in-american-history/376851/
Reproduction is involuntary ALREADY after the fetus lives, with exceptions. Currently living in America is an exception allowing killing of fetuses not yet "viable" outside the female. The earth has generally realized this. America will as well very soon. American abortion-mills reject the humanity of a fetus. Congress will protect the human fetus at 20-weeks by the end of 2016. Congress will pass a law and then do this again as an amendment to the Constitution. If this is required; The Constitution will be altered to keep 9 elderly lawyers from becoming an oligarchy and requiring Senate confirmation every ten years. This will immediately be required of every elderly judge on the bench with over ten years on SCOTUS.
And especially after your done harvesting all the parts ! "In abortion, the person who is massacred, physically and morally, is the woman." Italo Calvino
From the quoted article follows and makes the OPINION piece goal obvious. {PROPAGANDA} Almost half of American women have terminated at least one pregnancy. {PROPAGANDA} This is not sourced and is wildly incorrect. This is a method the abortion-mill uses to encourage, "everybody does it", types of propaganda. REALITY....? It was an "abortion" promotion piece. KILLING A FETUS AFTER 12-WEEKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED BY 2016 OR EARLY 2017. Allowing for exceptions.
As you've stated before, the only reason to look at gestation at all is to protect the dignity of unborn babies. Fortunately, states are not allowed to protect the rights of some at the expense of the rights of others. They must protect everyone's dignity, including women's dignity. Protecting unborn baby's from abortion at any stage of gestation constitutes a direct affront to the dignity and autonomy of women. Let's suppose you win and Act 301 becomes law. It'll do nothing to validate your morally fallacious opinions. And those who disagree with it will continue to challenge it until it's repealed. In the mean time, Arkansas will witness the greatest mass exodus of sexually active women from any state ever. The only women left will be single and either abstinent or extremely ugly.
Why do people think abortion is bad? Should a the child be born in house holds that are not ready? Then what? The child grows up impoverished and the parents further and further into debt? Then what? Child grows up in the life of crime, ruining other lives in the process? Do you think EVERYONE who has kids, accidentally or not has the ability to support it? Many people who have kids and abort it do it because they can't support it. Its like blaming a gun when a person pulled the triger. Abortion is not at fault. It the people who have kids when they can't even support themselves. Most of it comes from peoples bad decision making, which is the product of culture. Sex is everywhere and sex sells. When you have Miley Circus and other, it easy to see. There are many real cases for abortion. Sometimes there's compilations. The baby will die anyway and if it doesn't get aborted, it will also kill the mother. You still want to BAN abortions? Because of what? Your religious views? Should we ban medicine because some Jahovas Witness think it "immortal" What about in the case of rape? I think the laws right now are just fine. If anything should be done, is that there should be a law that would prohibit people from making babies if they can't support themselves and their child. Don't know how they will enforce it though. Maybe take tips from china? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xdqmEpHCU8U WATCH THIS. It's like Southpark. Disney sells sex to kids! Has anyone seen kids award with Miley Cirus? Wonder what 80% of little girls who idolized Hanna Montana thought
Yes, I agree! Act 301 will only forbid abortions of gestation after the 12th week of gestation begins. The exceptions were intentionally made broad enough to allow abortions for almost any reason at all. The gestational age does not need to be double-checked to allow an abortion of gestation. Act 301 accidentally created a fundamental right to abort gestation for 11-weeks and will result in "free" abortions of gestation prior to 12-weeks for the poor and allowance of abortaficients almost over the counter. Jesus Christ told of a coming time when barren women would be called blessed as well as the breasts that never nursed. This issue combined with the Citizens United dishonor of SCOTUS now may motivate the last amendment. This has occurred already twice in history but it will soon again be true world-wide and not just in Jerusalem.
Not exactly true but close enough for some. The State can take away rights in order to protect the rights of the anonymous public and does this EXTREMELY often. Every state in the United federation of States forbids driving after consuming alcohol enough to cause a blood alcohol ratio of .08. Thirty-seven states and Washington D.C. have laws prohibiting the passengers of a vehicle from possessing an open container of alcoholic beverage even in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. This is ONLY one example you can see in most States or all States besides Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Source. 1. I do not care what happens with this law now at SCOTUS (I have obeyed, as led to do). Act 301 already passed in AR. 2. Those who disagree with anything assaulting their dignity, including SCOTUS, will continue to fight against any opposing ideal. Arkansas can enforce Act 301 and ignore SCOTUS and is a State very willing to do this if challenged. (SCOTUS will ALWAYS remember this) This was a dishonorable minority but Act 301 invalidation would bring a majority of angry, honorable fetus protectors no federal force would risk confronting. 3. ? based on a wet dream, fantasy, or ...? 4. Abstinent and "unattractive" single women are not likely to move here in the first place. I am married but do not see unattractive people in AR very often. The women of Arkansas voted for Act 301 and then overrode a man vetoing Act 301. Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General, sought certiorari. Most people on Earth support Act 301. Your State will soon adopt its own Act 301. Where will you go?
Thank you..., I hope. I think that was a very polite way to describe my unique perspective. . . .Repetition herein of the term “viability” emphasized refers to the term after elevated to Constitutional power by judicial choice. This was honorable in 1973 and for many decades thereafter...? The “viability” fiat is clearly dishonorable today just as the prohibition of homosexual marriage was dishonorable in 2015, or as dishonorable as Congress using “STATE exchanges” etymology to try invalidating the Affordable Care Act (ACA). . . .Limiting the “House of Representatives” to 435 Representatives by statutory fiat was dishonorable in 1929 and warrants remedy now because this degradation of democracy and the one-person one-vote doctrine lead to the current dishonorable Citizens United mistake of this Court. . . . Citizens United, the “Apportionment Act of 1929”, and illegal immigration worked together and invalidated democracy and harmed each American's individual human dignity. Campaign spending was never individual speech needing protection and was always a bribe or other coercive force but was called protected speech mistakenly by this Court. This disaster is much more obvious to people without wealth who were comparatively silenced decades ago and see no reason to vote (for those still bothering to vote), since choosing the lesser of two evils is NOT voting and has not been for many decades. . . .Times like these were when democracy needed a group with the task and power to overrule democratic mistakes violating individual human dignity. Mistaken choices made collectively by a majority almost ninety years ago negatively impacting individual human dignity protected in the Constitution, by its absence, should be remedied by this Court sua sponte. Yes; This Court did acceptably with etymology regarding “marriage” and abuse of the text “STATE exchanges” to create controversy because the United States is an individual sovereign State made of fifty individual sovereign States. < 9 > HTML < 9 > PDF
Strange you dismiss it even though you cannot refute it .. where as your Act 301 has been torn to pieces numerous times.
I do not need to refute ("self-defense from a fetal attacker") as an idea because this tripe self-identifies as ludicrous. The District Court and the Appellate Court followed precedent as required but suggested it seems to be time to re-examine viability outside the uterus. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. v. Louis Jerry Edwards, et. al., (15-7059) This petition will not be ignored and explains the future holding. The petition is very direct and is incontrovertible.
Ergo you cannot refute - even though you have tried to before, where as your "case" has been torn to shreds here in these very forums by a non-lawyer, nothing you use for "so called" evidence stands the test of examination.
Act 301 was NOT "torn to shreds" and will never be. human-dignity-us.org/#2 Human DIGNITY is not just here presented in a forum but before the Supreme Court of the United States. The entire UDHR is as well.
Act 301 was aborted - first by a federal district judge, then by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. It's dead. As in, morning-after-pill-flushed-down-the-toilet DEAD. SCOTUS isn't going to hear the case. From the 8th Circuit's ruling: By banning abortions after 12 weeks gestation, the Act prohibits women from making the ultimate decision to terminate a pregnancy at a point before viability." Viability was, is, and will remain the reason 301 was aborted. It is the reason SCOTUS ain't gonna touch this. And as far as your petition goes, you can petition all you want, but you have exactly zero standing when it comes to this case. Deal with it.
Again... all of this discussion of legalities is merely a means to deflect from the reality, that IF a LAW were to be set into place which provided that those advocating here for the murder of the pre-born human, were to be killed... the same individuals would NOT be running to turn themselves in for termination. Where they could, they'd argue that the American Charter of Principles provides that they are entitled to their lives... and thus the law is invalid and should be overturned. Thus we can readily see that their equation does not work in the negative, thus their equation is invalid, therefore it is disqualified from consideration, by reasonable people.
The dishonorable "viability rule" will be replaced by a human dignity rule very soon. SCOTUS has NOT yet scheduled (15-448) for a conference though the response requested from the abortionist interests was filed. Free PDF. SCOTUS scheduled (15-7059) for conference on Jan 8, 2016. This scheduling of a conference was actually a summary grant leaving doubt enough for only some here but not most. The entire ruling was attached and cited and quoted liberally in my brief. (HTML, PDF, ODT) "Viability" was, and is why killing a fetal human was allowed from 1973-2016. The abortionist interests and some here hope "viability" will be why killing a fetal human continues. IT WON'T. I have unquestionable standing in this case to intervene as an Arkansas voter. This should be obvious after just reading. This was certainly obvious to SCOTUS already. 9-0 is the ONLY honorable result! BTW. It is/was NOT easy to comply with SCOTUS rules to allow a pro se party to file an "amicus in support" since these are NOT ALLOWED. This cost me MUCH greater than the $50 you volunteered to donate after (15-7059) is granted summarily yet AGAIN.
Person and human being are synonymous. An embryo is undeniably a human being. Scott Peterson was charged with murder for killing his child in utero (embryo), and the UVVA is a federal law that recognizes the human being status of "children in utero at any stage of development"
