« Defending the right to be a clod | Main | Uniting American Families Act »

April 27, 2008

Missouri abortion bill

Missouri Right to Life applauds the Missouri House for voting to expand the informed consent laws on abortion. HB 1831, sponsored by Rep. Bob Onder, requires that a mother be offered an ultrasound, be informed about her child’s ability to feel pain and be protected from coercion.

It’s difficult to understand how anyone could oppose legislation that allows a pregnant woman to see her baby’s heartbeat or to learn about her unborn child’s development. And certainly no one supports the outrage of coerced abortions.

Missouri citizens would be well served if the Missouri Senate, who will now take up this bill, supports informed choices and protection for women by passing this legislation.

Pam Fichter
President, Missouri Right to Life
St. Louis

Comments

Dan Beyer

Even though my main point is Planned Parenthood Inc. and their ilk need to stop allowing pedophiles into their facilities and using their services to eliminate the evidence of their crimes, I'll answer your other question. I believe as my Creator does that life is precious. The baby didn't commit the crime, the child's father did. If the little girl is physically too young to have the child, than unfortunately two people dead is not the answer. But if she's able, than let her family raise the child or let the baby be adopted. Even though less than 1% of all abortions are because of rape and or incest, this pedophile protection that's happening across the country for years has got to stop! When pedophiles know they can go to the local abortionists to hide their crime the more their going to do it. One father in Baltimore if I remember correctly did it over and over again to his daughters just because of that fact. I have to go to work but I would love to continue this discussion later.
In summation, ask any child who was the product of rape if they wish they had been aborted. I'll bet you that all of them are glad to be alive.

JUNGLEJACK

If an abortion is just another medical procedure (which is what its supporters would have us believe) then how can too much information be provided to the patient? Shouldn't the doctor be required to inform the patient fully on the procedure? What's wrong with seeing an ultrasound of a lump of cells moving, and its heart beating?

"If these people really cared about life, they would try helping those who are already here and in need..."

Please! What makes you think they don't? Have you ever TRIED to adopt a child being rescued from a bad home life? It's nearly impossible. I know of many pro-lifers who are also active foster parents and have adopted as well - so unless you have something to prove your biased, off-based ignorant "point" please keep it to yourself.

Casady

OK, fair enough. So now answer my question. Once the crime is reported and the pedophile rightfully goes to jail, what do you suggest the little girl do with the baby? Continue the gene pool?

Dan Beyer

Cute try Casady, but that's not at all what I meant and you know that.
If the laws would be enforced AND Planned Parenthood Inc. and their ilk would follow the laws and care enough about those little girls they would report the horrible abuse instead of cashing the pedophile's check, covering up the crime and then pushing the little girl back out the door.

Kansasdog

Thanks for the information DB. I guess that you forgot the initial question, or we need to beefen up the existing laws to account for those "quite a few" coerced abortions.

Casady

So if you had your way Dan, you would require girls who are the victims of pedophiles to give birth to their children? Just curious.

Dan Beyer

Quite a few Dog! It's been happening across the country for years! I guess if the Star is your only source of information on the world around you you're not going to know about it.
See, there are these monsters called pedophiles and they've been using the voracious greed of abortionists to hide their crimes against little girls. You'll never read about it in the 2006 Planned Parenthood Inc. Top Award Winner, the Star though.
If truth matters to you, you'll have to search out truth. It usually doesn't get delivered to your door for a subscription fee.

Kansasdog

How many of these 'coerced abortions' are going on?

Mark Robertson

Jeff H,
Please give a specific example of when Mo. Right to Life used false information or lied.
Please don't try again to tell us that Amendment 2 didn't enshrine human cloning into the Mo. Constitution.
Embryonic stem cell research has been a total failure. The totally ethical adult stem cell research has been a hugh success. And scientists can now virtually replicate embryonic stem cells without destroying life. So why are there those who are still fighting for govt. funding for embryonic stem cell research? Agenda and cash are the answers. For many, it's not about helping people.
And speaking of truth Jeff H., I can understand why you oppose pro-life groups showing pictures of aborted children bloodied and torn from limb to limb. Thankyou.

Mark Robertson
Independence

jack

Nah. None of these women are in hard or horrible times in their life. They just don't care.

Mark Robertson

Pam,
Your question would seem logical, but since when did logic ever enter the pro-abort mindset. It's all about agenda. You are talking about bringing truth to expectant mothers, truth is the greatest enemy of the pro-aborts. Thankyou.

Mark Robertson
Independence

Don S

This isn't about the 'Right to Life' at all. This is all about the 'Right to Interfere with Someone Else's Life'. Why aren't these people, who advocate turning women into brood mares, adopting all of the 'precious children' that abound in this country? If these people really cared about life, they would try helping those who are already here and in need, not forcing their own beliefs onto a woman that has made one of the hardest decisions of her life!

Marctnts

If Jeff's comments are to be taken seriously, should we not also have a law against killing animals for any purpose. If, as his letter implies, there is no difference between animals and fetus', wouldn't this type of law be the only logical way to go. No matter which side of the issue you fall on, surely you see a difference between a developing human being and the steak you had for dinner.

As to the abortion images debate, the real argument here seems to be how far we are willing to restrict free speech in the context of political protest. Is it distasteful to expose children to such images, most likely. The question, however, seems to be whether we should allow the "but what about the children" argument be used to encroach on our constitutional protections. Once you open the door, it's awfully hard to close.


GCYL

That would make RTL no better than you or me.

jack

This appears to be a great example that coercive techniques are okay as long as they are intended to produce the results that RTL wants.

Jeff H

I know that sounds harsh, but it's no more harsh than the arguments in favor of the disgusting fetus pictures that are thrown in our faces on a regular basis by RTL, a group that is notorious for using false information and non-scientific, medically incorrect claims and statements, and at times flat out lies to convince people to their viewpoint.

Jeff H

I know that sounds harsh, but it's no more harsh than the arguments in favor of the disgusting fetus pictures that are thrown in our faces on a regular basis by RTL, a group that is notorious for using false information and non-scientific, medically incorrect claims and statements, and at times flat out lies to convince people to their viewpoitn.

Jeff H

I guess that's fine, as long as that bill is extended to require that every time someone orders chicken, beef, or pork at any restaurant or purchases any meat product, they are also required to watch a video detailing how the animals were raised and then slaughtered, then the butchering process--including the skinning and/or defeathering process, before they area allowed to decide whether they will purchase the meat.

Oh, and they should be required to have their children there with them to watch the video, to "educate" the children. After all, the RTL group thinks it's fine to show pictures of aborted fetuses to children.

The sole purpose of such a bill that Ms. Fichter supports in this letter is to shock and scare young women who are already in the terrible and unenviable position of making a extremely difficult choice, to try to guilt them into choosing what Ms. Fichter--who won't be there for the child once it is born, but still wants to have a say in whether or not it gets born--wants rather than making a decision based on their own lives.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright