'Extremely extreme': NC bill would authorize deadly force against women seeking abortions
Concerns also extend to families who use in vitro fertilization and women with IUDs.
www.wcnc.com
North Carolina bill would authorize deadly force against women seeking an abortion
- Thread starter PabloNole
- Start date
www.wcnc.com
Republicans can’t get out of their own way on this issue. I really wish they would take a position of codifying what 90%++ of people agree with at the federal level. It would clean up some of the state nonsense and strengthen the party’s position on the issue.
— Federal protection for contraception
— Federal protection for IVF
— Federal protection for cases involving rape, incest and health of the mother
— Federal ban on late-term abortions
— Expand access to contraception
Those are wildly popular positions. That just leaves voluntary abortions within X weeks to be determined by the states. I’d like some guardrails there too, but it’s not something as easily agreed upon.
— Federal protection for contraception
— Federal protection for IVF
— Federal protection for cases involving rape, incest and health of the mother
— Federal ban on late-term abortions
— Expand access to contraception
Those are wildly popular positions. That just leaves voluntary abortions within X weeks to be determined by the states. I’d like some guardrails there too, but it’s not something as easily agreed upon.
seems like we are going from extreme to extreme...
You can't ban late-term abortions. Those account for fewer than 7% of all abortions and are often done to protect the life or health of the mother. What should my little sister have done when they found out at 16 weeks that her baby was dead? Force her to carry it to term - or until it killed her?
The preceding bullet addresses that. And reasonable language would allow for removing nonviable fetuses.
He said “health of the mother”. Seems reasonable to me.
So you're not banning late-term abortions. Who decides what constitutes the health of the mother? Georgia allows them for health issues and Amber Thurman still died of sepsis after her treatment was delayed for 20 hours while the medical professionals dicked around with the lawyers. We'll never know how many women suffer like this because TX's Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee - packed with anti-abortion advocates - refused to investigate maternal deaths they believed were related to the state abortion ban.
Here's a thought... leave it up to the woman and her doctor.
So if you kill the pregnant chick, the fetus is gonna die too, isn't it?
The party of life isn’t really concerned about the mom and only concerned about the fetus, not the child.
It’s not even necessary. Women aren’t walking into clinics 7 months pregnant saying, “I changed my mind.” It’s not a thing. It’s another made up lie by radical evangelicals who want to take away women’s rights.
Doctors in TX put a braindead woman named Marlise Muñoz on a ventilator to gestate a 14-week-old fetus. Her husband and parents watched her body deteriorate for over two months before they finally won a lawsuit forcing doctors to detach the ventilator from Muñoz’s body. There are more than 30 cases like this around the country.
They have proven this time and time again. They are locking up brown people in these camps, taking them from their American kids, many are dying and women in there are having miscarriages. Soooooo pro-life. Jesus wouldn’t agree with ANY of what they do.
Sure, so it’s also not a big deal to legislate it away in a negotiation with those on the right is it.
Practically speaking his points are what the vast majority of Americans actually want from abortion policy. Seems pretty logical and even-handed to me.
I get the moral issue and the desire to prohibit things (even if I think that in a putatively liberty driven society it probably shouldn’t be a government substituted decision). But what I really don’t get is the unwillingness, with or without a prohibition, to put a ****-ton of money into adoption support and new mom support.
......yeah, it's a real mystery.
Excellent propaganda piece.
Anyone got a link to a legit article about this bill, written with journalistic standards that journalists are supposed to use?
Anyone got a link to a legit article about this bill, written with journalistic standards that journalists are supposed to use?
How do you feel that article is mischaracterizing the bill? I think it's pretty significant that one of the co-sponsors has now dropped it. Apparently the bill is fine, though?
What's wrong with the source?
WCNC Charlotte is a highly reliable and trusted local news source for the Charlotte, North Carolina region. As the NBC affiliate owned by TEGNA, it maintains strict journalistic standards for fact-checking and transparency.
Key details about WCNC's reliability include:
- Award-Winning Journalism: The station is a recognized news organization, having won prestigious awards including a Peabody Award for its investigative reporting.
- Strict Fact-Checking: WCNC participates in TEGNA's "VERIFY" program, a dedicated brand that debunks misinformation and clarifies public claims.
- Community Endorsement: The station is widely respected by Charlotte locals. In particular, their chief meteorologist, Brad Panovich, is considered one of the top and most accurate weather sources in the region.
- Investigative Focus: WCNC utilizes dedicated content pillars like "Where's the Money?" and "Seeking Solutions" to provide in-depth, consumer-focused, and solution-oriented reporting.
Source facts
About WCNC in Charlotte, North Carolina | wcnc.com
Local News and Information for Charlotte, North Carolina and surrounding areas.
www.wcnc.com
"
Numbers can’t tell you because he doesn’t know. He Is good at talking, but very rarely at answering questions.
The article has a link to the actual bill, dumbas.s
"Any person who willfully seeks to destroy the life of another person, by any means, at any stage of life, or succeeds in doing so, shall be held accountable for attempted murder or for first degree murder, respectively. Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person."
Interestingly, as a statement of the law of defense of others, it’s not “that” far from the horn book - use of deadly force to protect imminent death of another has long been permissible. 14-51.3
now of course where it goes sideways is in the application of the basic doctrine to the “when does life begin” question in a new and very unconventional way. Note how it lacks the “imminence” qualifier for example.
Well...that...and abortion is legal in NC. Hard to justify murdering someone for contemplating doing something that's legal.
Sounds like it's saying the unborn baby has a right to self defense if the mother decides to get an abortion. An irrelevant point.
So you can't read? Let me try to clear it up...
"Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person."
Any person has the right to defend... the life of an unborn child, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by the mother.
So you could defend the life of a fetus if mom is trying to get an abortion by killing the mother. And - yes - that is absolutely as f'n stupid as it sounds.
It’s bullcrap. Legislating a woman’s body is bullcrap. Basically you are agreeing that women are second class to men. I still can’t believe men think like this. Pathetic.
Soooo, Helga wants to get an abortion. Billy shoots Helga to stop her, he just killed Helga and the baby…
You and I both know women are not aborting babies past the point of viability without some very extenuating medical situation. So if that is the case then legislating that away does not affect any woman’s body.
But thanks for the holier than thou lecture and wild illogical leap.
Amber Thurman had an extenuating medical situation... and she was in a state where the health of the mother is supposed to be protected. That didn't stop doctors from delaying her treatment for 20 hours while they worried about liability. She died of sepsis.
If "you and I both know women are not aborting babies past the point of viability without some very extenuating medical situation" then what's the point of a useless ban other than to sow the exact kind of over-cautious stupidity that killed Amber Thurman?
That’s a fair point to debate and I don’t know the circumstances of that case beyond what you wrote. Tom was being over the top using an emotional argument that was illogical.
What you bring up is an issue of an unintended consequence that would have to be addressed in any legislation. Why couldn’t it be easily addressed with something as simple as “the doctor shall be the one to make the decision on what constitutes a medical emergency or “two doctors need to agree”? I was not suggesting we accept the rules as are being written today in southern states. My personal belief is you put a term limit in, but allow the doctor to make the determination without any lawyers involved.
Since we are discussing unintended consequences - keep in mind the unintended consequence of holding the line at “any abortion is legal”. It provides ample ammo to the right wing, causes reactionary legal positions on their side and makes abortion access harder in red states. There are issues for which reasonable people can agree to a compromise and this is one that I would easily agree to.
But that still doesn't answer the question. If the law is of no consequence to women seeking a late term abortion, why have it anyway? And if you want ammo - doctors will be targeted under that law if they choose to perform abortions. What does "protect the health of the mother" mean? How serious a danger does it have to be? Does protecting her reproductive health - her ability to have children in the future - qualify?
What about mental health? What do you do if the mother discovers at 16 weeks that her child is going to be profoundly disabled? Maybe the folks supporting such laws should have to put their names in a hat. When a baby is born that the mother is incapable of caring for, a name is drawn and that person gets the baby with no right to refuse.
Too radical? Their other option would be to fully fund prenatal health care for ALL pregnant women. Period. If they care so much about the unborn, that really should be at the very top of their list. Their other programs should be compulsory, comprehensive, and appropriate sex education beginning in elementary school along with free access to contraceptives beginning in middle school. We KNOW those ideas prevent abortions because they dramatically cut unplanned pregnancies in the first place.
Isn't it odd that they don't push those ideas and, in fact, strongly oppose them. It's almost like they don't really care about those fetuses at all.
The only reason to have a late term abortion ban in law is optics. And while I agree with you that should not matter, I would be a fool to think it does not matter. Social conservatives win FAR more than they should because they can spin the optics.
I wish we lived in a world where the average voter could see the optics for what they are, but we don’t live in that world. So y’all can clutch your pearls over pragmatic measures that would remove those optics without actually harming any woman, or you can cling to a position that is honestly unpopular and gets nothing done.
There is not one thing "pragmatic" about it. They won't look at that as a "win"...they'll look at it as a weapon. You think it would matter? Fine... pair it with those measures I outlined in my last paragraph - programs that will actually reduce the number of abortions - and put it to them. We'll see how pragmatic they are.
That’s not holier than thou nor illogical. The point still stands. You’re still ok, as a concession, to legislate a woman’s body. This shouldn’t be something women have to negotiate. If men were forced into losing bodily autonomy we’d lose our collective minds.
This is sad. You’re right, but women having to conede to people who have to force their beliefs onto others is again, bullcrap.
Forced birth people will NEVER EVER stop trying to end ALL abortions. They are relentless and will never give up. Totally agree with you.
This thread is a perfect example of why progressives fail. Your heart is in the right place but you prefer to die on a hill rather than actually get something accomplished.
Keep tilting at windmills y’all. You might sleep well, but the right is running roughshod on the optics and on actual policy.
Keep tilting at windmills y’all. You might sleep well, but the right is running roughshod on the optics and on actual policy.