US Minnesota governor signs broad abortion rights bill into law - Third trimester abortions a-ok. Can I sacrifice babies to Baal now?

1675250425857.png
ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Gov. Tim Walz enshrined the right to abortion and other reproductive health care into Minnesota statutes Tuesday, signing a bill meant to ensure that the state's existing protections remain in place no matter who sits on future courts.

Democratic leaders took advantage of their new control of both houses of the Legislature to rush the bill through in the first month of the 2023 legislative session. They credit the backlash against the U.S. Supreme Court decision last summer to reverse Roe v. Wade for their takeover of the state Senate and for keeping their House majority in a year when Republicans expected to make gains.

“After last year's landmark election across this country, we're the first state to take legislative action to put these protections in place,” Walz said at a signing ceremony flanked by over 100 lawmakers, providers and other advocates who worked to pass the bill.

Abortion rights were already protected under a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision known as Doe v. Gomez, which held that the state Constitution protects abortion rights. And a district court judge last summer declared unconstitutional several restrictions that previous Legislatures had put in place, including a 24-hour waiting period and a parental notification requirement for minors.

Opponents decried the bill as “extreme,” saying that it and other fast-tracked legislation will leave Minnesota with essentially no restrictions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

The leaders of the Senate and House GOP minorities, Sen. Mark Johnson, of East Grand Forks, and Rep. Lisa Demuth, of Cold Spring, urged Walz in a letter Monday to veto the bill, saying the Democratic majorities rejected dozens of amendments that Republican lawmakers proposed as guardrails, including prohibitions on third-trimester abortions except to save the patient's life.

But the White House welcomed Walz's signature on the bill, noting that Minnesota is the first state Legislature to codify protections into law this year. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre noted that voters also turned out for ballot initiatives to defend access to abortion in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and Vermont.

“While Congressional Republicans continue their support for extreme policies including a national abortion ban, the President and Vice President are calling on Congress to restore the protections of Roe in federal law," Jean-Pierre said in a statement. "Until then, the Biden-Harris Administration will continue its work to protect access to abortion and support state leaders in defending women’s reproductive rights.”

While the new law will have little immediate further impact on access to abortion in Minnesota, the governor, legislative leaders and sponsors of the bill said it provides a critical new layer of protection in case the composition of the state courts someday changes, as it did on the U.S. Supreme Court before it struck down Roe v. Wade.

“To Minnesotans, know that your access to reproductive health, and your right to make your own health care decisions, are preserved and protected,” Walz said. “And because of this law, that won't change with the political winds and the makeup of the Supreme Court.”

The House passed the bill 69-65 less than two weeks ago, and party discipline held firm during a 15-hour debate in the Senate that ended in a 34-33 vote early Saturday.

“Fundamentally this legislation is about who decides,” said House Speaker Melissa Hortman, of Brooklyn Park. “Who should be legally entitled to make reproductive health care decisions for an individual. ... It can't be decided by politicians. It can't be decided by judges.”

Abortion is currently considered illegal at all stages of pregnancy, with various exceptions, in 13 states, including neighboring Wisconsin and South Dakota. Bans in several states, including neighboring North Dakota, remain on hold for the moment pending court challenges. Because of restrictions elsewhere, Minnesota has seen a surge of pregnant patients coming to the state for abortions.

Minnesota's new law is named the “PRO Act,” short for “Protect Reproductive Actions.” It establishes that “every individual has a fundamental right to make autonomous decisions about the individual’s own reproductive health” including abortion and contraception.

There are other bills to protect abortion rights in the Legislature's pipeline as well, including one to delete the statutory restrictions that the district court declared unconstitutional last summer. It's meant to safeguard against those limits being reinstated if that ruling is overturned on appeal. Hortman said she expected House floor votes to approve them as early as next week.

(+)
 
Fuck this state. Third trimester abortions? Are these people insane? The answer is of course yes. I hope god smites the taste out of these faggots mouths. Walz is a faggot who dodged war as an E9 and cried like a bitch at Saint Floyds funeral for globohomo bullshit. fuck that nigger.
 
Fuck this state. Third trimester abortions? Are these people insane? The answer is of course yes. I hope god smites the taste out of these faggots mouths. Walz is a faggot who dodged war as an E9 and cried like a bitch at Saint Floyds funeral for globohomo bullshit. fuck that nigger.

Calm your tits down. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare and when they do happen it's because mother's health or life is in danger . Even in countries that have no restrictions on abortion there is normally only a handful of doctors that can perform them, because at this stage its a complex procedure, and I guarantee you women who want to terminate their pregnancy do it as soon as they find out they are pregnant, they don't wait until third trimester to put themselves through a literal nightmare.
 
Calm your tits down. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare and when they do happen it's because mother's health or life is in danger . Even in countries that have no restrictions on abortion there is normally only a handful of doctors that can perform them, because at this stage its a complex procedure, and I guarantee you women who want to terminate their pregnancy do it as soon as they find out they are pregnant, they don't wait until third trimester to put themselves through a literal nightmare.
'Health or life' are a pair (or trio?) of bs words used to justify abortion legalisation measures.
 
Calm your tits down. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare and when they do happen it's because mother's health or life is in danger . Even in countries that have no restrictions on abortion there is normally only a handful of doctors that can perform them, because at this stage its a complex procedure, and I guarantee you women who want to terminate their pregnancy do it as soon as they find out they are pregnant, they don't wait until third trimester to put themselves through a literal nightmare.
Cmon dude, you know as well as I do at least one tik tok ewhore will get a third term abortion for literally no other reason than attention/controversy

We live in a satanic society.
 
'Health or life' are a pair (or trio?) of bs words used to justify abortion legalisation measures.

I know you're a sick puppy and probably fantasize about women being forced to die because of pregnancy, or forced to deliver a baby with extrame fetal anomalies, but luckily most people don't think this way.

Enancephaly (when a big portion of the brain, skull and scalp are missing and the baby will die very shortly after birth), placental abruption (which carries a very high risk of a stroke and sepsis to a mother) are a thing. Many others amongst them and they do happen.

But please stay outraged like a tribal nigger from a bush that thinks albinos have to hunted and killed because witchcraft.
 
Calm your tits down. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare and when they do happen it's because mother's health or life is in danger . Even in countries that have no restrictions on abortion there is normally only a handful of doctors that can perform them, because at this stage its a complex procedure, and I guarantee you women who want to terminate their pregnancy do it as soon as they find out they are pregnant, they don't wait until third trimester to put themselves through a literal nightmare.
No, there is never a time where an abortion in the third trimester would save the mother, unless her complaint is giving birth will cause her to have suicidal depression and that extends to knowing a child of her blood lives in the world even if it's immediately put into foster care. That's completely unreasonable and you should just shoot the bitch to put her out of the world's misery after a c-section to spare the one redeemable person in the equation.

An abortion that late would be a much more drawn out process that a c-section. If time is of the essence a c-section is going to be faster, safer and even less invasive at that point. You can't tear apart a full term baby in the womb faster than you can take it out in one piece. It's also fully sentient, and can get by adequately if removed alived. I mean, evicting it early is a little rude, but the killing is completely unnecessary.

The argument that a child might have some physical impairment is also invalid. Yes, it might die not long after birth, but it's still far less cruel to make it comfortable for its few ours instead of gouging it to pieces. You still aren't saving any pain to it or the mother that far along. It's still easier, faster and safer to take it out in one piece.

An abortion that late along is a multi-day procedure compared to the 15 minutes of a c-section.
 
No, there is never a time where an abortion in the third trimester would save the mother, unless her complaint is giving birth will cause her to have suicidal depression and that extends to knowing a child of her blood lives in the world even if it's immediately put into foster care. That's completely unreasonable and you should just shoot the bitch to put her out of the world's misery after a c-section to spare the one redeemable person in the equation.

An abortion that late would be a much more drawn out process that a c-section. If time is of the essence a c-section is going to be faster, safer and even less invasive at that point. You can't tear apart a full term baby in the womb faster than you can take it out in one piece. It's also fully sentient, and can get by adequately if removed alived. I mean, evicting it early is a little rude, but the killing is completely unnecessary.

The argument that a child might have some physical impairment is also invalid. Yes, it might die not long after birth, but it's still far less cruel to make it comfortable for its few ours instead of gouging it to pieces. You still aren't saving any pain to it or the mother that far along. It's still easier, faster and safer to take it out in one piece.

An abortion that late along is a multi-day procedure compared to the 15 minutes of a c-section.

Null needs to start demanding elementary school diploma as a basic requirement to join the farms, otherwise this is just tiresome.
 
Calm your tits down. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare and when they do happen it's because mother's health or life is in danger .
I have never seen a late term abortion that was justified because of "le mathers helf", late term abortions have always been done because the baby is so fucked up it's gonna die anyway in intense agony shortly after birth like those harlequin babies. "le mathers helf" shit always result in a C-section or induced labor.

Most late term "abortions" however are scared women who take a bunch of over the counter drugs to try induce a miscarriage instead inducing labor who then toss the poor sucker into a dumpster or into the sewer.
 
Last edited:
Back