Quote:
Originally posted by MereMere21
http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews...ion.c3978.html
This bill does not include a clause to allow it only when the woman's health is at risk - Clinton vetoed previous attempts at this bill because there was no allowance for the mother's health. What does everyone think about this? (these types of abortions are performed after the 3rd month of pregnancy)
EDITED to say - please don't turn this into a bashing thread, we all know who is pro choice and pro life - this was mainly to see even if the pro choicer's agreed with this ban or not.
|
I believe that this will be challenged. I believe that this ban (I hope) will be found to be unconstitutional.
It makes no sense to pass such a bill that wouldn't have a clause that allows the procedure if the mother's life is at risk. It's like saying the mother has to give her life in order to save the life of the fetus/baby and I think that this is very hypocritical.
People are already calling it a "historical vote" or a "historical day" but there is much a battle to still be had.
Hybrid Mode
