Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Missouri governor lets abortion law take effect

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 02:03 PM
Original message
Missouri governor lets abortion law take effect
JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri - Missouri abortion clinics will face new mandates to offer women ultrasound images and heartbeats of their fetuses as a result of legislation allowed to become law Wednesday by Gov. Jay Nixon.

The Democratic governor, facing his first decision on an abortion bill, sidestepped a direct endorsement of the new requirements by citing a Missouri constitutional provision allowing bills to become law without the governor's signature.

The legislation is part of a national trend among abortion opponents to encourage women to reconsider their decisions through the use of modern medical technology.

A Planned Parenthood official said legal challenges to other states' laws offering ultrasounds generally have been unsuccessful, and its Missouri clinics are preparing to comply with the law when it takes effect Aug. 28.

But "there are various aspects of this law that are troubling, difficult and are really just intended to make it harder for women to get safe legal abortions," said Paula Gianino, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region.

Missouri law already requires a woman to be told of the physical and psychological risks at least 24 hours before undergoing an abortion. The new law will require consultation in person instead of over the phone and mandate that women receive a description of the "anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child."

More: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/national/Copy_of_USAbortionMissouri_87422709
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OZark Dem Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. I can't believe women voters are letting them get away with this type action
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_in_LA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Me either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Churches in the South tell women that god will love them if they stfu and do as they're told...
...and then they vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marlana Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. What are we supposed to do?
I am a woman, in Missouri, so what do I do? We can vote and volunteer for Dems and send them all the money we have but they don't get elected. In the state Senate we have 11 Dems vs. 23 Repubs. In the state house we have 74 Dems vs. 89 Repubs. In my local district all you have to do to get elected is win the Republican primary and the winner of the primary is whoever runs furthest to the right, they just spend the whole primary season out-wingnutting each other.

Yes, the governor is a Democrat but he seems to be pretty spineless lately and he's pretty conservative anyway. And we have Claire McCaskill, who is also Dem, also fairly conservative. Our other senate seat is open and it's a neck and neck race between Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Blunt wins. The latest poll shows them 47% Blunt/ 45% Carnahan. Blunt is my current rep in the US House and he will definitely win in this part of the state. I don't even know if there is a Democrat running for his House seat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. And who will inform the woman of the "physical risks" inherent in
nine months of gestation and childbirth, and the "psychological risks" of trying to raise a child for whom one has neither the emotional nor financial wherewithal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Oh, haven't you heard? They are supposed to give the babies away to
infertile white "yuppies" to raise to be good little Republicans and koolaid drinkers and do as they are told by the church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Do you suppose
it ever occurs to the yuppies to wonder why God made them infertile?

It appears He may be a bit of a eugenicist, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Those fucking idiots really think that's going to dissuade
a woman who is trying to protect her health, job, finances, social support system and LIFE from an unwanted pregnancy?

Fetus fetishists are weird.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. They ignore the judges that stayed the implementation of this law.
Legislators now think they can make ANYTHING illegal, and don't realize or don't want to realize the courts have the final word whether they like it or not.

Like when they tried to pass laws prohibiting wearing your pants so low your underwear band was hanging out. Void for vagueness, that is called.

:banghead:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. Legalized Harrassment of those exercising a Legal Right
Unless I'm wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. Who has to pay for the additional costs?
Edited on Thu Jul-15-10 02:38 PM by SoCalDem
If it's the woman, this is just a crass way to make abortion even more unaffordable.

Except for the women/girls who are either too young or mentally unable to understand, women KNOW that there is a "potential baby" in there. They know that if they do nothing, it will eventually be born, and become their responsibility for the duration of their lifetime.

Being forced to watch an ultrasound to prove what they already know (they are pregnant), will not change many minds,,unless they can no longer afford the procedure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC