[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

what a freakin' insane asylum

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: New Arkansas Law Lets Men Block WivesÂ’ Abortions
Source: Huffington Post
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry ... aw_us_58939063e4b09bd304ba41ff
Published: Feb 3, 2017
Author: Laura Basset
Post Date: 2017-02-03 09:02:47 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 3396
Comments: 10

Even in cases of spousal rape.

A new law in Arkansas bans most second trimester abortions and allows a woman’s husband to sue the doctor for civil damages or “injunctive relief,” which would block the woman from having the procedure.

The “Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act,” signed into law last week by Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R), bans dilation and evacuation procedures, in which the physician removes the fetus from the womb with surgical tools. D&E procedures are the safest and most common way women can end their pregnancies after 14 weeks of gestation, according to the American Medical Association.

A clause buried in the legislation states that the husband of a woman seeking an abortion, if he is the baby’s father, can file a civil lawsuit against the physician for monetary damages or injunctive relief ― a court order that would prevent the doctor from going ahead with the procedure. The woman’s parents or legal guardians can also sue, if she is a minor. The law states that the husband cannot sue the doctor for money in cases of “criminal conduct” against his wife ― namely, spousal rape ― but he could still sue to block her from having the abortion.

State Rep. Andy Mayberry (R), who co-sponsored the bill, told The Daily Beast, “We’ve tried to account for all the worst case scenarios.”

“They created a whole new right ― the right of a husband or family member to sue a doctor on behalf of an adult patient,” said Holly Dickson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas. “I cannot begin to tell you what the intent was, but we have raised concerns about that provision and the entire rest of the bill, which is unconstitutional.”

The ACLU of Arkansas plans to challenge the abortion law in court before it goes into effect this summer. Six other states have passed nearly identical laws, and in all four states where the law was challenged ― Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia ― it was struck down by the courts. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade protects a woman’s right to have an abortion up until the fetus would be viable outside the womb, around 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: cranky (#0)

If the father of the child is to held financially responsible should the woman choose to give birth, then he should have a have a say if she chooses to have an abortion.

I would take it a step further. If the mother of the child chooses to give birth but the father doesn't, then he's not financially responsible. Why should the mother alone make that decision?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-02-03   10:03:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

I would take it a step further. If the mother of the child chooses to give birth but the father doesn't, then he's not financially responsible. Why should the mother alone make that decision?

I would take it two steps back: The mother SHALL bear the child, and the mother and father SHALL be financially responsible for it. And if they cannot or will not, the child will be placed in an orphanage or foster care awaiting adoption.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-03   13:17:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

And I'll take one step into reality: The 15-year-old mother will have the baby, the child-rapist father is nowhere to be found, and the rest of us will pay through the nose to support both the mother and the baby until the baby is old enough to be sentenced to prison for crimes committed.

Then the rest of us will pay through the nose to support the inmate. Mom, meanwhile, will rinse and repeat, having babies until she can no longer attract males into her bedroom.

Note: If mom puts her crack baby up for adoption she foregoes all federal benefits. Better to have her mother raise the child while she goes shopping for another baby-daddy at the clubs.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-02-03   13:41:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#3)

Yeah, that probably will happen sometimes.

The alternative is to kill babies.

Given the choice between two bad alternatives, you take the one that doesn't involve killing.

Now, if you want to specifically earmark those individuals who give up babies for adoption and force them to pay additional taxes over the course of their lives to offset the cost of having the child, well, that seems like a good idea financially.

But in Realityville what that will do is give a tremendous incentive for illegal abortion providers to pop up everywhere.

So, in the end, you can either kill or pay. We'll never get around that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-03   14:05:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

"The alternative is to kill babies."

Or sterilization.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-02-03   16:32:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#1)

Perfectly said. With responsibility comes rights. If you are to be responsible for caring for someone financially, you either have the same rights as the Mother or you have no responsibility.

You can even get the "brotha's" voting for this one. Imagine all the NBA players and the "playa's" in "the hood" saying they weren't informed of the pregnancy, therefore they had their rights violated. If the baby is born without notice and permission, they have no financial responsibility. If they find out of course they can sign up for it, but also demand an abortion or opt out of paying. It is the next logical step for this mad mad mad mad country.

Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2017-02-03   17:26:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: misterwhite (#3)

If we are going to live in a country that subsidized giving birth to children, we should make it mandatory that those who are not married are temporarily chemically neutered. Both sexes, and all 52 genders will be stopped from having children unless in a committed relationship... sounds cool and 1984ish to me.

Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2017-02-03   17:29:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: jeremiad (#6)

"If the baby is born without notice and permission, they have no financial responsibility. If they find out of course they can sign up for it, but also demand an abortion or opt out of paying.

Exactly. Shared responsibility.

Now, to be fair, if she wants an abortion but he doesn't, he must raise the baby without her financial assistance.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-02-04   10:32:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: jeremiad (#7)

"If we are going to live in a country that subsidized giving birth to children, we should make it mandatory that those who are not married are temporarily chemically neutered."

I agree, but only after the first baby. Everyone makes mistakes. 8 children is not a mistake.

Either that or society simply stops the funding after the first child and offers free, optional sterilizations.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-02-04   10:37:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#9)

I don't want government treading on the fertility of people, but this is the end of the path we tread when Socialism is the rule. We were and would be better off when people live or die, succeed or fail on their own. If you sweet little child needs a $250,000 operation to live, and you have no way to pay it yourself, beg for help but never tell the government that it must take from others to save your child. I have run the scenario through my head before, what I would do if I had a fortune of $2,000,000 and came down with an illness that would require me to spend it all to live a few years more, or pass in a natural time, what would I do? In the world of today, people would say, hide the assets, get the government to force others to pay for it, and go on vacation for the rest of your life. In short, our lives are being lived so unnaturally. Even those who work hard and save, want govt to pay their way too.

Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2017-02-04   15:14:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com