S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley signs 20-week abortion ban


#1

COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has signed legislation outlawing most abortions at 20 weeks beyond fertilization.

The law took effect Wednesday with the Republican governor’s signature. The only exceptions are if the mother’s life is in jeopardy or a doctor determines the fetus can’t survive outside the womb.

These bans are now in effect in 13 states and blocked by court challenges in three other. South Dakota’s ban takes effect July 1.

cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-governor-nikki-haley-signs-20-week-abortion-ban/


#2

:thumbsup:


#3

This is indeed good news, but:

The only exceptions are if the mother’s life is in jeopardy or a doctor determines the fetus can’t survive outside the womb.

This bugs me to no end. I know it’s a popular exception, but it’s a short trip from 20 weeks pregnant to viability. If a woman’s life is in jeopardy, induction of labor should be possible, and my understanding was that late-term abortions involve induction anyway.

I realize that without the exceptions the ban probably wouldn’t have gone as far as it did, but IMO this kind of language is more evidence of how little abortion politics have anything to do with the reality of pregnancy and fetal development.


#4

:thumbsup:


#5

This is an effective strategy in the war against the holocaust against the unborn.

It is something that virtually everyone is able to agree with at this time, and it nevertheless does set a principle that something more than just biological waste product is involved in abortion.

Laws that would allow women to sign on to having their own unborn recognized as people, if they so choose, would also be a positive development. It would allow for husbands or criminals who abuse them and thereby cause a spontaneous abortion be indictable for manslaughter.

Baby steps.


#6

:gopray:


#7

Actually neither of the Democrat Party candidates for president agrees with this nor do many Democrats who hold national office . We do see occasional profiles in courage like the Democrat governor of Louisiana but for the most part the Democrat Party fights any and all restrictions on the killing of the unborn


#8

The text of the bill is much more encouraging than the article in the OP indicates. You can see the full text of the bill here:

scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/3114.htm

Notably:
Section 44-41-450. (A) No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion upon a woman when it has been determined, by the physician performing or inducing or attempting to perform or induce the abortion or by another physician upon whose determination that physician relies, that the probable post-fertilization age of the woman’s unborn child is twenty or more weeks, except in the case of fetal anomaly, or in reasonable medical judgment, she has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions. No such greater risk must be considered to exist if it is based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.

(B) When an abortion upon a woman whose unborn child has been determined to have a probable post-fertilization age of twenty or more weeks is not prohibited by subsection (A), the physician shall terminate the pregnancy in the manner which, in reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in reasonable medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would pose a greater risk either of the death of the pregnant woman or of the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions, of the woman than would other available methods. No such greater risk must be considered to exist if it is based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.
The mental health exception is greatly curtailed in section (A), closing that loophole from abuse ("… not including psychological or emotional conditions.") Further, after 20 weeks, section (B) requires that “… the physician shall terminate the pregnancy in the manner which, in reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive…” In other words, a D&C is much less likely.

Further, the reporting requirements are quite detailed. It will be a lot harder for abortionists to silently continue to butcher children without any review.


#9

One other note.

Notice that the guilty party here is the doctor, not the woman. The usual rhetoric that abortion laws want to put women into prison has no sway here.

Unfortunately, the punishment is quite tame. It’s only a misdemeanor, and only subject to up to 3 years and/or a fine. And on the third offense, mandatory imprisonment.

So, the murder of a child in the womb is only a misdemeanor. Sigh.


#10

The new pro-abortion rhetoric in CAF is unless you support imprisioning women who have abortions you are a hypocrite who is not really pro-life


#11

The main point is that the Democratic leaders, the architects of the current holocaust among the unborn, are out of step with the mainstream of American society on this.

There appeal is still to the hardcore abortion rights movement, who are in effect single-issue voters when it comes to ‘women’s rights’ aka unlimited access to abortion.

But in terms of the culture itself, and people’s sensibilities, these kinds of policies reflect where the majority of people are at at this point in time.

The Democratic architects of the unborn holocaust understand well enough the precedents being set by humanizing and personalizing the unborn through this moderate laws, and of course will harden their hearts against this. They are the same as they always were.
For everyone else, post Gosnell, these are the kinds of laws that ordinary people can relate to,whether or not they are religious.


#12

Thanks for this. :thumbsup:


#13

I know. Such a straw man. Isn’t it annoying?

After all, on a moment’s reflection, isn’t it evident that many (I hesitate to say most) women who have an abortion are directly or indirectly coerced into it - by early and ongoing traumas, failed relationships, lack of material and spiritual support, and poisonous “pro-choice” ideologies? More than these women, it is the medical professionals (who, until 1964, took an oath to protect life from conception) and the political and social ideologues who need to be punished. :frowning:


closed #14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.