Oklahoma to ban sex-selection abortions?
The abortion on demand crowd won't be happy about this one - if it becomes law.
The Oklahoma legislature has passed a bill banning abortions based on a child’s sex, and it only awaits the signature of the Governor Brad Henry to become law.
The law passes overwhelmingly in the Senate 35 to 9 and the House 88 to 6.
My only concern is that the law might hit a snag because of some of the other provisions - provisions with which I agree, but which might make it easier to oppose or overturn.
The law would also require the abortionist to report to the state Health Department the age, marital status and education level of the mother; the number of her prior pregnancies; the reason and method for the abortion; and the nature of the mother’s relationship with the baby’s father.
In addition, the law would require the reporting of the method of payment, the type of medical health insurance coverage, the cost of the abortion, and whether an ultrasound was given.
If signed, the law would go into effect in 2011.
Of course, there would be ways around the law. A mom's real reason for wanting to abort her baby might be because she doesn't want that boy she is carrying, but she will be able to legally justify killing the child by saying it would affect her "health" (under the loose interpretation given to the health provision, that could mean she would be bummed out, or she might be unduly worried how being pregnant might ruin that Caribbean cruise).
Still, it's a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely we could get a law banning sex selection alone passed in New York. But maybe some legislators will have the courage to at least propose such a bill - and the Church could then back it publicly. Then the discussion could begin here.
The Oklahoma legislature has passed a bill banning abortions based on a child’s sex, and it only awaits the signature of the Governor Brad Henry to become law.
The law passes overwhelmingly in the Senate 35 to 9 and the House 88 to 6.
My only concern is that the law might hit a snag because of some of the other provisions - provisions with which I agree, but which might make it easier to oppose or overturn.
The law would also require the abortionist to report to the state Health Department the age, marital status and education level of the mother; the number of her prior pregnancies; the reason and method for the abortion; and the nature of the mother’s relationship with the baby’s father.
In addition, the law would require the reporting of the method of payment, the type of medical health insurance coverage, the cost of the abortion, and whether an ultrasound was given.
If signed, the law would go into effect in 2011.
Of course, there would be ways around the law. A mom's real reason for wanting to abort her baby might be because she doesn't want that boy she is carrying, but she will be able to legally justify killing the child by saying it would affect her "health" (under the loose interpretation given to the health provision, that could mean she would be bummed out, or she might be unduly worried how being pregnant might ruin that Caribbean cruise).
Still, it's a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely we could get a law banning sex selection alone passed in New York. But maybe some legislators will have the courage to at least propose such a bill - and the Church could then back it publicly. Then the discussion could begin here.
posted by A Secular Franciscan | 6:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home