Appeals court: Indiana abortion law signed by Mike Pence unconstitutional

A set back for Pence who stated earlier that abortion will cease to be in our lifetime.:

Indiana's ban on "selective abortions," which was signed into law in 2016 by then-Gov. Mike Pence (R), is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

The law banned women from having abortions based on the gender, race or disability of the fetus.

The law imposes an "undue burden" on a woman's right to get an abortion, said the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

“The Supreme Court has been clear: the State may inform a woman’s decision before viability, but it cannot prohibit it,” Judge William Bauer wrote.

thehill.com...

We're soon approaching 50 years since Roe V Wade in the Supreme court. Since then everything including the kitchen sink has been thrown at this ruling and yet it still stands. Nevermind the fact abortions were still happening prior and at risk of lives. Nevermind the fact abortion rates have been on the decline since Roe V. Wade.

Let's also just forget the fact that Indiana had over the years made significant cuts to support programs that single mothers and their children heavily depended on, like foodstamps. This also included drastic financial cuts by the Indiana State govermment to foster care and other childcare facilities:

Indianapolis - A coalition of 110 child care agencies is asking a court to stop the Indiana Department of Child Services from reducing reimbursements for foster and residential care agencies, saying the cuts are arbitrary and would harm children.

The Indiana Association of Residential Child Care Agencies Inc. filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop the cuts Monday in Marion Circuit Court in Indianapolis.

www.wthr.com...

More unwanted kids, more hungry mouths, more poverty. We'll just pray to God ya know and look the otherway? It *MUST* be that way according to supporters of Pence and banning abortions. So ready to shout 'baby killers' but when unwanted child are actually brought into this world, then not a damn given all of a sudden. Funny that? All lives matter right?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The idea that one is logically, or morally, inconsistent to be against abortion and against welfare abuse is not only wrong, it is a red-herring. If your world view is such that you consider abortion to be murder, you would want to prevent that murder. Hypothetically having prevented that murder, why should you be responsible for the surviving victim. When someone prevents the murder of a person other than an unborn child, or fetus, or whatever, should they first do a calculation to the cost to society that would be engendered by saving that person?

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

*shrugs*

It's really the only argument that the pro-abortionists have.

Glad to see Pence's legacy in Indiana getting screwed like it should. He put his religous beliefs before his state and we have paid the price for it while he stumbled his up to the White House with the help of the Koch bothers.

I bet you won’t see conservatives out destroying the community over it. Other than that who cares other than the hardcore religious folk. No offense to the religious folk though, they always seem to be nice people.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

The idea that one is logically, or morally, inconsistent to be against abortion and against welfare abuse is not only wrong, it is a red-herring.

Where was there any mention of welfare abuse? You understand these same 'pro-life' senators and congressman have made cuts to social programs single mothers and fathers depend on over the years? Cuts to state benefits over child care? These are general cuts.

You want to talk about red-herring? Do you also want to talk about strawman?

Hypothetically having prevented that murder, why should you be responsible for the surviving victim. When someone prevents the murder of a person other than an unborn child, or fetus, or whatever, should they first do a calculation to the cost to society that would be engendered by saving that person?

What murder? Murder in your eyes?

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's really the only argument that the pro-abortionists have.

Gosh, it's any wonder how Roe V. Wade has managed to stand the test of time despite everything anti-abortionists have thrown at it?

Any wonder right DB? It's any wonder.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Easy.

People don't consider an unborn person as an individual with any rights.

So killing it is not a problem.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Easy.

People don't consider an unborn person as an individual with any rights.

So killing it is not a problem.

Just some people do, not me

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Steven Levitt has a fairly compelling argument in 'Freakonomics'. But, ya know, ~80% of statistics are made up.

Worldwide body count approaching 1.5 Billion since 1980

🧐

originally posted by: xuenchen
Worldwide body count approaching 1.5 Billion since 1980

🧐

Damn! That's some serious underperformance -- Georgia Guide Stones prophets we should experience a global population of 500M.

Where are my 3-trimester murders when China relaxed their 'one-child' policy? Ugh.

C'mon, X, we need more 'click-bait' material -- we'll never be able to kill off enough un-borns to put 'us' in that Malthusian wheelhouse.

Good, # you Mike Pence! Your Christian Sharia laws aren't going to happen, it's 2018 and society is evolving and leaving misogynists like you behind to die.

And by the way, if anti-choicers were simply against abortion to save a life they would embrace comprehensive sex education and easy access to birth control, but they're not. This is about trying to control women's bodies. They couldn't give a # about helping a full term living, breathing baby.

a reply to: crtrvt

Well that was sure enlightening and informative !!

Now I have to re-think everything 🤤

a reply to: xuenchen

You don't support contraception or comprehensive education in sexual relations?

Some nasty strains of std's kicking around due to ignorance, and just like pregnancy it's better to be preventative than be forced to deal with your consequences.

Do people choose to have STD's?

I ask that because people are not having abortions because it's easy or cool. I highly doubt a person of profession in the medical field will sign-off on an abortion when the stability of a person's mental health is questionable. Abortion is a very serious decision.

originally posted by Southern Guardian

More unwanted kids, more hungry mouths, more poverty. We'll just pray to God ya know and look the otherway? It *MUST* be that way according to supporters of Pence and banning abortions. So ready to shout 'baby killers' but when unwanted child are actually brought into this world, then not a damn given all of a sudden. Funny that? All lives matter right?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Here's my reason I'm PRO CHOICE.

There are a lot of people who simply believe it isn't their PERSONAL BUSINESS when it comes to another woman's pregnancy. If it's legal to have an abortion, then the decision comes down to the woman, the man, and the doctor. NOT YOU and NOT PENCE.

Call it murder if you like, it doesn't bother me. Again, I will NEVER tell another woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. Not my responsibility.

VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE PRO ABORTION. Some are anti-abortion, and the rest of us are PRO CHOICE!!!!! Get it.

I wish NO WOMAN would have an abortion, but I live in the real world. I remember that it was pretty bad before Roe V. Wade. Women were dying from illegal abortions. Coat hangers WERE used. Mexican abortions botched. Women punching themselves in the stomach area. Yeah, let's go back to that.

a reply to: MiddleInsite

You're right.

It is legal to kill unborn children because they are not considered individual human beings with their own unique DNA.

a reply to: DBCowboy


What about all those tiny little people that remain frozen in vats!!!!!! Oh the humanity!

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

we're not talking about murder, we're talking about population control....
or more specifically, what is the best, most humane way to avoid having a mass of starving, homeless people, many children, on the streets begging for a slice of bread.
because if the rise in population gets that far out of control, I don't care how effective you believe that little bubble you see yourself in..... you will be effected!

the majority of abortions occur very early in the pregnancy, it's a rather large stretch to consider an abortion as being murder. surely the developing lifeform within the uterus didn't have enough awareness to know it was being "murdered"...
let's look at some of the avenues that have been used in the past to address the problems presented by overpopulation and the poverty that grows as a result.
first there's always infantcide... which was way more common back in the time before abortions were legal.
and of course, making abortion illegal didn't really stop abortions, it just made them much more dangerous.
then there was the great idea that we would set up workhouses, poor houses, orphanages, then withhold funding for them, many of the kids that went into these places never made it out, and many of those who did make it out were not able to function in any normal capacity.
then we got the bright idea that we could pick and choose who should and shouldn't have kids to begin with....
forced abortions, forced sterilizations, on selected groups of people... well, that ended when the nazis found the end up that path and started up their complex killing machines called concentration camps...

so which is better, ending the life of the deformed fetus destined to die at birth before it's born, in a rather painfree way, or bringing into the world and leaving it a cold windowsill alone in a cold dark room, which still occasionally happens... neither are really good choices, are they? it seems that the good choice would be to limit the number of deformed babies to begin with, wouldn't it.... but noooo!! to do that we need good prenatal care!! and, to have that included in our basic insurance policies might raise the cost of everybody's insurance by a few cents... we can't have that!!!
sure, a special needs baby might have a good chance to having a happy life, if given a little extra to meet it's medical and educational needs.... but noooo!!! you don't see that as being your problem to solve, do you?
when it comes to sex education, well, your preferred education is abstinance only, which is really crazy since every one of those kids are in school to learn how to be productive adults in our society.... and even married adults have the desire and need to control their family size... or do you expect them to practice abstinance throughout the biggest bulk of their marriage once they reach their preferred family size.
and of course, birth control is also a big no no to the pro-life crowd. like maternity care, they don't want that to be included in the average insurance policy....women should be paying more if they want that!!!

well... you add all of the republican policies like this together, and it seems to be, you are heading back to the first few methods of population control!!! infantcide, because mothers are pushed past their limits. risking death with an illegal abortion because they know their limits. and workhouses, poorhouses and orphanages for them to waste away in, when the mass of poor reaches the point where all society wants to do is get them out of their sight and away from their children.

there are things that could be done to reduce the number of abortions, there are things that we could do to increase the changes that every child conceived developes into a healthy baby. there are things that we could do to make having children a more affordable option, and there are things we could be doing to cause women not to want to abort their babies... we have the resources to ensure that every child receives good quality healthcare from conception to birth, and beyond, as well provide them with all their needs. and, being a good mom is the most honorable, self sacrificing thing a women will ever do, there's no reason for her to be treated like crap by employers, by society, like she is! she can spend 20 out of 24 hours devoted to her kids, and making their surroundings clean and safe for them... and yet have it be said that she hasn't worked. if she finds the family income lacking and enters the job market, no matter how qualified she is, no matter how long she sticks to the job, how much she learns, how dependable she becomes, she will never get a fair wage, because the boss will see himself as being second in line behind her kids. no, society, or at least the republican part of it, is no more willing to give the mother the honor she deserves or be generous enough to ensure that the kids have what they need than they were back in the days of workhouses...

save the kids for what exactly? so they can be tapped into for free labor like they were, die of starvation, like many did, be abused like many were? just what are you saving them for, more suffering?

out of all the options ever tried, it seems like giving the mother the right to chose, through birth control and abortion, how many kids she can take care of to begin with seems to be the best, kindest option! children born spaced apart, receiving good prenatal care produces healthier children. children raised up with good nutrition and quality education produces more productive adults.
and no, we aren't reaching those goals, but we are closer!!!