It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iowa Legislators Consider Hideous Shariaesque Law

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

I don't know, there's seems to be quite about said about the heartbeat being detected, which is much earlier than 20 weeks...




posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I read the link as a ban on abortion after 20 weeks.


That's what I found




Iowa GOP Bill Would Give Parents Right To Stop Single Adult Daughters From Having Abortions

crooksandliars.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
What the law should say, is that the father gets a say in the abortion, and that should happen irrespective of age or marital status. The feminist Swedish government just passed that law, and it's fair if you're expected to pay child support.

This particular law is ridiculous as it stands.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Twenty weeks is too late. The fetus would be 5 mths old. The only purpose in waiting that long would be to harvest fetus' for tissue, whatever organs are harvestable. It should be 2 mths no later. It's nothing short of vile.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66

Really, we need one more abortion law? Since they voted for anyone but Hillary because of the economy, I figure there must be big business in controlling the inner workings of vaginas and uteruses. Just like pimps.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You should post the whole section that you quoted from the bill.

You only show four lines of a paragraph that started on the previous page.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: WhateverYouSay



What the law should say, is that the father gets a say in the abortion
What "say" does the father get, exactly?



and it's fair if you're expected to pay child support.
That makes no sense. Are you saying the father can demand an abortion so he won't have to pay child support?
edit on 3/29/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: RisenMessiah


I wasn't trying to make a judgment, I'm only pointing out what the bill says.
I wouldn't want an abortion that late myself but my opinion has nothing to do with the current laws.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




The law expands the legal rights of a woman's parents — an adult woman's parents — to petition the court for an injunction only in the case that the daughter is under the age of eighteen or unmarried. Don't believe it? Here's the text (page 11 at link above):


You're missing the rest of the paragraph in your photo. Why is that I wonder?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Because taking things out of context is more fun...



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

this is the link to the law...
iowahouse.org...(2)87.pdf" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">SF471

that part I am looking at starts at the last sentence on page 7 and goes on into page 8...
unless this is just a draft of the law...
it seems to say that abortion is not allow (except for a few exceptions) once the heartbeat is detected OR after the 20th week, which ever comes first. the heartbeat is usually detected around the 7th or 8th week, which is a heck of alot sooner that the 20th week.
maybe this is just a draft, and they couldn't decide if they wanted a heartbeat bill or a 20 week ban, otherwise, I'd say they are trying to pass a heartbeat bill off as a 20 week ban in hopes that they will confuse people.

edit on 29-3-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)


okay, I tried to fix the link, it's not working, so well, the link to the bill is in the op!
edit on 29-3-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WhateverYouSay



What the law should say, is that the father gets a say in the abortion
What "say" does the father get, exactly?



and it's fair if you're expected to pay child support.
That makes no sense. Are you saying the father can demand an abortion so he won't have to pay child support?


Pardon me, it was a proposal and it's a legal abortion whereby you wouldn't have to pay full child support. If you're expected to raise the child, then you should both have the choice whether or not to bring it into the world and what role you will play in its life. I don't see anything controversial about that.

"Are you saying the father can demand an abortion so he won't have to pay child support" If you look at it as flippantly as that, do you also apply that cynicism towards women wanting an abortion? It's a difficult decision and some may decide they won't be able to provide the kind of life for the child at the time they want to.

Of course it would have to be a legal abortion whereby if one partner wanted an abortion and the other didn't that would absolve the one wanting the abortion of responsibility raising the child but they could not terminate.
edit on 29-3-2017 by WhateverYouSay because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2017 by WhateverYouSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

this is the link to the law...

iowahouse.org...(2)87.pdf

that part I am looking at starts at the last sentence on page 7 and goes on into page 8...
unless this is just a draft of the law...
it seems to say that abortion is not allow (except for a few exceptions) once the heartbeat is detected OR after the 20th week, which ever comes first. the heartbeat is usually detected around the 7th or 8th week, which is a heck of alot sooner that the 20th week.
maybe this is just a draft, and they couldn't decide if they wanted a heartbeat bill or a 20 week ban, otherwise, I'd say they are trying to pass a heartbeat bill off as a 20 week ban in hopes that they will confuse people.


Thanks.

What I'm getting out of it is - - the parents can't actually stop the adult daughter - - - but, they will have the right to stop the doctor.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I haven't gotten past the when the heartbeat is detected, or 20 weeks, which ever comes first bit...

but, after reading the bill again, I have to admit, you might be right about the parents, spouse, whatever...
but, it might be only if they think that it wouldn't be legal under this law???

have no idea, can't believe that this bill was "amended, passed, and reprinted" like this... it doesn't make sense...
or... I am just tired and reading words that aren't there???


edit on 29-3-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

I haven't gotten past the when the heartbeat is detected, or 20 weeks, which ever comes first bit...

but, after reading the bill again, I have to admit, you might be right about the parents, spouse, whatever...
but, it might be only if they think that it wouldn't be legal under this law???

have no idea, can't believe that this bill was "amended, passed, and reprinted" like this... it doesn't make sense...
or... I am just tired and reading words that aren't there???



I'm not sure either, that's just where it seems to lean in what I've been reading.

Insanity for sure.

There seems to be a bunch of these bills. Do they just keep trying to push them through until one sticks?

edit on 29-3-2017 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

alot of them I think would be found unconstitutional because they neglect to consider the health and life of the mother.
this one should be shot out simply because it's too confusing the way it's written.
sometimes I think they write these laws, knowing danged well that they won't go far, but hey, it makes the pro-life crowd happy, thinking that they are doing something..



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   



Here is the actual bill if anyone cares to ignore the Liberal hate-the-Repubs fake news reporters

It focuses on punishment for doctors who give abortions after 20 weeks,(excluding medical reasons)
They will be issued a class C felony

-That is ALL it covers
linky






Senate File 471 - Reprinted SENATE FILE 471 BY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES (SUCCESSOR TO SF 53) (As Amended and Passed by the Senate March 14, 2017 ) A BILL FOR An Act relating to feticide, making penalties applicable, and 1 including effective date provisions. 2 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA: 3 SF 471 (7) 87 pf/nh/jh S.F. 471 Section 1. Section 707.7, Code 2017, is amended to read as 1 follows: 2 707.7 Feticide. 3 1. Any person who intentionally terminates a human 4 pregnancy, with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the 5 pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester of the 6 pregnancy reaches twenty weeks postfertilization or the fetus 7 achieves viability, whichever occurs earlier , where death of 8 the fetus results , commits feticide. Feticide is a class “C” 9 felony. 10 2. Any person who attempts to intentionally terminate a 11 human pregnancy, with the knowledge and voluntary consent of 12 the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester 13 of the pregnancy reaches twenty weeks postfertilization or 14 the fetus achieves viability, whichever occurs earlier , where 15 death of the fetus does not result , commits attempted feticide. 16 Attempted feticide is a class “D” felony. 17 3. Any person who terminates a human pregnancy, with the 18 knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, who 19 is not a person licensed to practice medicine and surgery 20 or osteopathic medicine and surgery under the provisions of 21 chapter 148 , commits a class “C” felony. 22 4. a. This section shall not apply to the termination of 23 a human pregnancy performed by a physician licensed in this 24 state to practice medicine or surgery or osteopathic medicine 25 or surgery when in the best clinical judgment of the physician 26 the termination is performed to preserve the life or health of 27 the pregnant person or of the fetus or to avert a serious risk 28 to the pregnant person of substantial and irreversible physical 29 impairment of a major bodily function, and every reasonable 30 medical effort not inconsistent with preserving the life of the 31 pregnant person is made to preserve the life of a viable fetus. 32 b. This section shall not apply to the termination of 33 a human pregnancy between twenty and twenty-four weeks 34 postfertilization performed by a physician licensed in this 35 -1- SF 471 (7) 87 pf/nh/jh 1/ 2 S.F. 471 state to practice medicine or surgery or osteopathic medicine 1 or surgery, when in the best clinical judgment of the physician 2 the human pregnancy has a fetal anomaly incompatible with 3 life. For the purposes of this paragraph “b” , “fetal anomaly 4 incompatible with life” means a fetal condition diagnosed in 5 utero that, if the pregnancy results in a live birth, will with 6 reasonable certainty result in the death of the child or will 7 result in requiring the provision of life-sustaining procedures 8 as defined in section 144A.2 to the child after the child’s 9 birth and for the duration of the child’s life. 10 Sec. 2. EFFECTIVE UPON ENACTMENT. This Act, being deemed of 11 immediate importance, takes effect upon enactment

edit on 3 by Mandroid7 because: correction

edit on 3 by Mandroid7 because: added2

edit on 3 by Mandroid7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
This is sad... so sad.

Don't get me wrong: I'm firmly against abortion as a matter of principle. I make no apologies for that, and will not debate it with anyone who even tries to insinuate the unborn child is not a person. But this bill is so full of inaccuracies and ridiculous expectations on society, it scares me to think it was written by anyone in a leadership position.

The wording in question should be "under 18 and unmarried," obviously to me. But that's the danger in writing laws: one cannot just decide later what it was supposed to say. As it is, that one slip right there is sufficient to make the whole thing a big, fat "NO!" But there's more... in the definitions it establishes abortion, illegal under this act, as any intentional termination from the moment of conception to birth (or miscarriage). That means it effectively outlaws contraceptive pills, since they do not prevent fertilization... they prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, thus preventing it from surviving. Thus, any doctor who prescribes birth control pills is guilty of violating this bill.

The heartbeat thing just reinforces to me that these writers must be bachelors who have never been able to even talk to a woman. Legally, it is just superfluous.

The whole thing is a fiasco and a joke that should have been kept under someone's mattress... but even if it did pass, the courts would strike it down so hard the ink would let go of the paper.

As I said, I really, really wish there were never another abortion performed... any abortion is the taking of an innocent life. But we live in a society that contains many who disagree with me. A single mother is typically scared and unprepared for the consequences of reproduction, and it is cruel to both her and the child to force the birth and then abandon them both to their own means. It is crueler to force her into doing the unthinkable out of desperation and try to perform the procedure on herself. If a woman wishes to take that life, under the present societal structure, I cannot bring myself to speak out against her. I can only speak out in my own mind and hope the procedure is harmless to her, and mercifully quick for the child. This bill will result in neither, only in oppression and misery, and I oppose it in its entirety.

Good thread antediluvian. 'Bout time, but good thread. This time, you caught a live one.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TheTory

Because taking things out of context is more fun...


Saying that I took it out context is implying that I sought to be deceptive about the meaning of what was excerpted and that's not the case. I just wanted people to consider it without the first being exposed to the fact that it's part of an anti-abortion law. I did provide links and a page number. Hell, I didn't even crop out the last line with "abortion" when I cropped the image.

Beyond that, I was mocking the absurdity of "creeping Sharia" fearmongering and as I'm sure you noticed, making a somewhat exaggerated comparison between fundamentalist of the world's two largest religons. Though how much of a stretch is that comparison really?

How do you think the most die hard fundamentalists would live without secular rule of law? Do you think the Kevin Swansons of the world (linked that too — Iowa seems to be a hotbed of regression from secularism) would stop at just talking about "biblical punishment" or would they mete out their own interpretation of what they claimed the Bible demanded?
edit on 2017-3-29 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Some laws were meant to be broken.




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join