SHARE

Just wait…there will be more:

JACKSON, Miss. – A Mississippi House committee voted Tuesday to ban most abortions in the state – an unexpected move that left abortion opponents grappling to stake out a position on a proposal that could prompt a lengthy court battle.

The only abortions allowed under the bill would be if the life of the pregnant woman were in danger. There would be no abortions allowed in cases of pregnancy caused by rape or incest.

And I do like this provision that they put in the same bill. In short, if you’re going to have more kids in the world, make sure they’re smart and healthy.

Rep. Omeria Scott, D-Laurel, persuaded the House committee to approve an amendment that says the state would provide free education and medical services to any child born in the state, until age 19.

Scott said her proposal could extend beyond the public schools and Medicaid already offered. She said it could make a significant difference for a poor woman who’s trying to decide whether to have an abortion.

“Anyone who wants to take this language out of this bill is not for life,” Scott said.

So then…are we all really ready for this? Ready to tell a woman that she can’t get an abotion if she’s raped by a stranger or a family member? Ready to tell a woman that because of one careless night, she has to give up the right to decided whether or not she has to go through 9 months of sickness and body changes that could seriously affect her health, mood and future? Are we?

I guess it’s time for lawmakers to take action and stand for what they’ve been fighting for so long. But let’s all just take a step back and remember exactly what that means.

  • http://maverickviews.blogspot.com/ Alan Stewart Carl

    Wonder if Alito feels the pressure yet? And Kennedy too, for that matter.

    This is mainly posturing, though. It’s easy to vote for these laws when you know the courts will stop them from going into effect. This way, pro-life politicians can look like they’re sticking up for their beliefs but don’t have to face the consequences of the laws they pass.

  • Meredith

    I do like the extra provision from Rep. Scott. This is what I have been ranting about on ASC’s post, “Life After Roe Would Not Be Simple.” It’s at least a step in the right direction.

    I also do agree with ASC that none of this is going to happen quilckly. However, it seems like the strategy may be to have as many states as possible enact these laws so that the Supreme Court will feel more pressure to take on this issue faster. Remember, they will not take a case until it is ripe for review. If half the states enact the same law – ban on abortion except for threat to the life of the mother – it is more likely that this will go up faster.

    Watch out though, you social conservatives out there!! If the abortion issue becomes moot (because you get your way), what will you use to enflame the passions of your constituencies??

  • http://www.kozoru.com Justin Gardner

    Watch out though, you social conservatives out there!! If the abortion issue becomes moot (because you get your way), what will you use to enflame the passions of your constituencies??

    Yeah, somehow I don’t think those social conservatives are going to be as fond of cutting social programs that help educate and feed all those new children.

    “More people! Less money!” Yeah, doesn’t exactly seem…umm…Christian. Wait, that is the rallying cry right now. How do they get away with it? Honestly.

  • Paul Greve

    I digress… I would like to see a macroeconomic analysis of what our country would have been like if abortion had not been legal for the last 33 years. It is my bet that the social security system would not be going broke. Our schools would be better funded… Over 40 million is a large voting block. I would bet also that the democrats would have control of both houses of congress and that we would have a democratic president. Also the islamic extremists would not have been so inclined to be calling the USA the great satan and 911 may not have happened.

  • http://maverickviews.blogspot.com/ Alan Stewart Carl

    Paul, or crime could be sky high, taxes could be through the roof to pay for all the unwanted children and prisons and young mothers could be dying in back alley abortions. Both sides can play that game. Problem is, we cannot possibly know what America would have looked like. Most likely neither the scenerio you posit or the one I offer are anywhere near what the reality would have been.

    The what-if game doesn’t take us very far. We need to be playing the what-now game.

  • Meredith

    Paul,
    Please explain how in the hell you came up with such a hypothesis. I’ve heard people make similar claims before, but I would LOVE to have someone explain it to me, claim by claim.

  • Phillip J. Birmingham

    The what-if game doesn’t take us very far.

    That was driven home to me by a Paul Harvey segment that increased my respect for the man immensely, back in the 80s.

    He presented the scenario of two pregnant women who approach you, the hypothetical physician, for advice about an abortion. One is young, unwed, and unsure of the father’s location or even his occupation. The other is married to her uncle, has a history genetic disease and children who die young. Both scenarios are grim, and back then, I *thought* I knew Paul Harvey. “Okay, one’s Einstein, and one’s Beethoven,” I chuckled.

    Wrong. The paragraph that floored me:

    “For if you, as the hypothetical physician, have opted in both cases for abortion–then you have respectively denied the world the multifaceted genius of Leonardo da Vinci–and spared humanity the terror of Adolf Hitler.”

    That’s how I learned to let people finish talking before I assume I know what they said.

  • http://www.kozoru.com Justin Gardner

    The what-if game doesn’t take us very far. We need to be playing the what-now game.

    Well put, and I think your recent post tackles that subject quite well.