Extreme Abortion Bills Posted for Hearing (corrected) Committee Vote as New Scientific Poll Confirms 77% of RI Voters Oppose

One aspect of the abortion debate with which one really must contend is the deception of those who advocate for abortion as a right, starting with the idea that legislation to preserve women's ability to kill their unborn children in the womb is about "reproductive health care."  Reproductive of what?

Yesterday, on a Friday afternoon at 5:27 pm (weasels), the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee posted a notice for a hearing committee vote only; no testimony to be heard this Tuesday of the two extreme abortion bills pending on Smith Hill: the one that passed the House (H5125 Sub A) and the other that had been held for study (S0152 Sub A) in the same Senate committee.

Don’t be fooled that there are two abortion bills under consideration, as though one would be better than the other. Both bills are referred to euphemistically as the “Reproductive Privacy Act”. And on the critical point of substance, both bills include an identical loophole that would change Rhode Island law to legalize abortion at any point during the pregnancy, including third trimester. This is the wording in each bill that would create this huge, new loophole:

(d) The termination of an individual’s pregnancy after fetal viability is expressly prohibited except when necessary, in the medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the life or health of that individual.

To preserve the “life or health” of the woman. Under these bills, health is carefully included as a permitted reason for a woman to have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy – right through the entire third trimester. A case for a loophole of health is easily made to the physician in a few words. A baby is a bundle of joy but s/he also is a major responsibility and naturally, comes with many needs, some of which are monetary in nature. A major new responsibility + money pressure = Stress. Studies have repeatedly shown that health is directly, negatively impacted by stress.

In an important related development earlier this week, the results of a scientific poll, which has gotten little publicity, were released this week. It confirmed that 77% of Rhode Island voters oppose allowing abortions up until birth. It is indisputable: that’s what these bills would do. They would legalize abortion in Rhode Island up until birth. So this poll has revealed that these extreme abortion bills present a major will-of-the-people issue. It should also be noted, more pragmatically from legislators’ perspective, that voting for these bills would pose a major political liability at re-election time.

My initial thought was that the hearing and presumably soon-to-follow Senate floor vote on these bills had been suddenly thrown into overdrive before the dismaying (from the perspective of pro-choice extremists) results of this poll came to be widely circulated. Then it occurred to me that the furor surrounding the sudden legislative action on these reprehensible and controversial bills would also provide perfect cover for Governor Gina Raimondo to do her dirty work in accelerating the state’s financial tailspin by signing the evergreen and OT bills – reprehensible and controversial in their own different but equally troubling way.



  • ShannonEntropy

    Since when do Rhodent politicians worry about what polls of random non-voters show ??

  • Rhett Hardwick

    I notice that many Southern states are enacting more restrictive “heartbeat” abortion laws.

    • ShannonEntropy

      … all of which will likely be struck down by SCOTUS

      A fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks. At this point a lot of women donut even know they’re pregnant

      So these laws would def not pass the “Undue Burden Test”… in fact they would impose an Impossible Burden

      The question is how SCOTUS’s swing voter — Roberts — would vote. Don’t read too much into his decision upholding Obamacare: that case boiled down to whether or not the ACA’s Mandate was a tax or not

      Right-wingers who were aghast at his vote never read the decision. Roberts basically said, You know what, guys… we’re here to solve Constitutional issues, not settle political disputes. If you donut like the ACA, go to Congress and get them to fix it. To me that shows more integrity than anyone on the Left Wing of the Court has ever demonstrated

      I’m no mind reader but based on his other recent writings I donut think Roberts is ready or willing to completely overturn the precedents established by Planned Parenthood v Casey

      • Rhett Hardwick

        I can’t say that this establishes a trend, but I think it means that people are beginning to ask the question “where are we going?”.

  • Monique Chartier

    The name of this bill, “Reproductive Privacy Act”, is quite the study in obfuscating public relations. Presumably the sponsors and supporters of this bill did not feel that a more accurate title – say, for example, the “Kill a Third Trimester Baby in Private Act” – would sell very well.

    • ShannonEntropy

      This prablem of bills’ names causing confusion is a lot more common than folks think

      Take The Voting Rights Act. In a SCOTUS case that overturned a part of that one, Justice Scalia wrote:

      ” This is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress… lawmakers are going to lose votes if they do not re-enact the Voting Rights Act…Even the name of it is wonderful ‘The Voting Rights Act’. Who is going to vote against that? ”

  • Monique Chartier

    … for the record, this is not my bailiwick. I would much prefer that we focus on policy reform to improve Rhode Island’s high taxes, cost of living and biz climate to bring good paying jobs here. And, as I said in the post, I think this was scheduled now to cover for Gina Raimondo’s impending, highly anti-taxpayer dirty work in signing the OT and evergreen bills.

    At the same time, I won’t look away from a really bad bill that they are attempting to pass under a heavy layer of lies and verbal sleights-of-hand; e.g.:

    Supporter: “This bill would not legalize third trimester abortion!”

    Observer: “Yes, it would; new exemption for health of the woman enables that.”

    Supporter: “… homana, homana, that procedure is very rare.”

    —–

    Supporter: “This bill would only codify Roe v Wade.”

    Observer: “Really? Then why didn’t you simply use that wording for this bill?”

    Supporter: “… homana, homana – the patriarchy!”

    • Carey

      Thanks Monique-you nailed the supporters’ non-arguments. Still waiting for one of them to justify killing an innocent baby. That’s not a moral question, it’s a humanitarian one!

      • Monique Chartier

        Minimally, by the third trimester, it is a baby (and some would say much sooner), Carey. The blatant dishonesty that has swirled around these bills would seem to confirm that the supporters of these bills understand that most people believe this – and know, therefore, that they cannot tell the truth about what these bills would do.

    • Rhett Hardwick

      Roe v. Wade, any fair reading will show that SCOTUS invented the “right to privacy”, they did not find it in the Constitution.

      • ShannonEntropy

        The Constitution duzn’t limit Rights to those enumerated therein

        See: IX th Amendment

        p.s. The one part of Roe I like is their citation of my fave Amendment — The Third — in supporting their decision

        Prior to Roe, it had *never* been cited in any other SCOTUS case

  • Rhett Hardwick

    While listening to the news (920AM) coverage of the defeat of this bill, I noticed reference to abortion “advocates” and anti-abortion “demonstrators”. Am I alone in detecting a positive and a negative here?

    • ShannonEntropy

      One man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter”

      The best radio coverage was Tara Granahan on 630AM [ I was listening this morning while on an excursion to the AG’s Offices at the Pastore Center. Don’t ask ]

      Listen, if these “heartbeat” bills and now the new Alabama law get to the SCOTUS, I would bet my house they will sustain Roe

      If so all the yelling & screaming by the “choicers” will have been a huge waste of breath & time: we will just stick with the Roe status quo like we have for the past 46 yrs

      So why all this energy expenditure on the Left ??

      I think Monique got it right: The Left won’t be happy until abortion is legal up to age 18

      • Rhett Hardwick

        As with all law “created” by judges (the legislatures aren’t that much better) the reasoning in Roe has certain weaknesses and omissions. Stare Decisis took another hit to the jaw this week. We shall see, but I wouldn’t expect a lot of change.

        • ShannonEntropy

          By definition Legislatures “create” Law

          If the rest of your post meant that in reviewing all these recent new abortion laws that SCOTUS will likely adhere to Stare Decisis and sustain Roe… yep I agree

          • Rhett Hardwick

            I think that many would agree that the legislatures have abdicated and left it to the judges. No legislature legalized abortion, although they had many chances, and one could say that was the will of the people. It was legalized by the court. So, you could say they “made law”. What legislature created affirmative action?

          • ShannonEntropy

            It’s not so much that they “abdicated” as it is that the Left couldn’t get what they want from legislatures so they turn to the courts

            See: abortion; affirmative action; gay marriage

            And yer right about A/A… it was created by several executive orders but those were intended to enforce The Civil Rights Act of 1964

          • Rhett Hardwick

            “If this bill ever leads to quotas, I will eat the paper it is written on” H. Humphry 1964

      • Mike678

        “The Left won’t be happy until abortion is legal up to age 18″

        It would make it easier for them to cull all the ‘evil conservatives’. Not that totalitarians kill millions: see Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot… Our “educators” should go back to teaching history.

  • Joe Smith

    that voting for these bills would pose a major political liability at re-election time… this was the comic relief in your post, right?

    Now, maybe a real issue the voters might actually consider voting out a (D)
    (except maybe in Providence) – like forcing the GA to vote on tolling cars..

    Oh..but the GOP has to spend its time focusing on Dan McKee’s travel goofs..

Quantcast