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.

(+)
 
pregnant patients

Pregnant women. W-O-M-E-N. Women. :biggrin:

Anyway, there are cases where late term abortion is applicable. Just take a look at Tard Baby General.
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.

You're not gonna get anywhere in A&N. Don't even bother. Just make a joke and go on to the next thread. Believe me. It saves gallons of sanity.
 
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.
It’s induced or partial birth at that stage - you actually have to give birth. The baby will be born alive of labour is induced. What then? We killing live infants that could survive if given care? That’s a very shaky moral ground. Well, it’s murder
. I find this ruling very odd and unpleasant - almost everywhere already has a provision for those very very rare cases where something goes horribly wrong and the only chance for the mothers life is to abort (and those cases do happen. They’re not common, but there needs to be clear guidelines and doctors need to be able to act without fear of prosecution .)
There are already rules for the tragic cases where you find there’s no chance of life, or the baby dies in utero and needs to be removed. No women in the states are dying from this.
The ruling is a political statement that killing babies for convenience at that stage is morally right. I don’t think it is, not for simple choice. Yes there are very rare cases like late septic miscarriage, but there’s already rules covering that.
 
Null needs to start demanding elementary school diploma as a basic requirement to join the farms, otherwise this is just tiresome.
Name a circumstance when a multiday long procedure to remove a near term baby in chunks is going to better protect the health of the mother than a 15 minute c-section with it alive. You can make a case for this before viability for when the mother is going to die and the baby is too small to live outside, but afterwards, there's nothing gained but vindictiveness.

Pre-eclamspia, the treatment is delivery, and if you waited that long she clearly wanted that child and is going to have induced labor or a c-section. Maybe it won't make it, but most third trimester babies do.

Cancer? Induced labor or c-section again. She still gets to keep the baby she wanted, and gets her chemo. Since this might be her only chance to have a baby, she probably wants to keep that.

Some sort of disfiguring car crash? Well, maybe the baby dies while you are treating the mom. That's also not an abortion, that's just triage. They will remove the baby in one piece and list it as a still birth, which is actually what mothers of stillborns want anyhow, because it helps with the grieving process.
Removing a stillbirth that is past the point of viability is also not an abortion. Hell, when its near term it very well might be a life saving process for a wanted, unborn baby anyhow. Maybe it's not all the way dead, but merely dying due to something going wrong. Quick c-section gives you the option of stopping any internal bleeding in the mom and potentially saving the baby if it was still hanging on. Waiting days to dilate and cut apart the baby only increases time for Mom to bleed out and guarantees a dead baby. It's just too slow.

If you had a broken head baby, you would know before the third trimester. Lack of a skull is pretty obvious. If for some reason you decided you wanted to keep your deformed baby, you are still doing less harm to yourself by just c-section removal intact. It will probably die in a few days or years, or maybe you can just abandon it if it's too scary. You really should have dealt with that earlier when it would have been less invasive and messy for everyone.
The only case that far along is someone with a murder fetish preying on the easiest quarry they can find, a terrible break up late in pregnancy and wanting to kill your child together to make the other party suffer, or again, a person claiming depression that can only be appeased by knowing their child will never draw their first breath. The solution for this is to be less of an asshole. You can evict the child early and abandon it to the state, but that's as far as in reasonable with that motive. No one's forcing you to raise it, but you should at least be bright enough to plan B if you want to live your life as a degenerate cum dumpster to deal with the issue long before its able to survive outside of you. That's the least possible harm you can do if you don't want to be a parent.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure why third trimester would ever be eligible for an abortion. It has reached viability outside the womb easily. If it can survive, it is murder, not abortion. You do a c-section and try to save both lives. It isn't an either or thing at that point at all.
Viability outside the womb is highly variable depending on location, technological level and wealth level.

You're not less of a human because you were born in a poorer area or in the past and you're not more of a person because you were born in a wealthier area or in the future.
 
It’s induced or partial birth at that stage - you actually have to give birth. The baby will be born alive of labour is induced. What then? We killing live infants that could survive if given care? That’s a very shaky moral ground. Well, it’s murder
. I find this ruling very odd and unpleasant - almost everywhere already has a provision for those very very rare cases where something goes horribly wrong and the only chance for the mothers life is to abort (and those cases do happen. They’re not common, but there needs to be clear guidelines and doctors need to be able to act without fear of prosecution .)
There are already rules for the tragic cases where you find there’s no chance of life, or the baby dies in utero and needs to be removed. No women in the states are dying from this.
The ruling is a political statement that killing babies for convenience at that stage is morally right. I don’t think it is, not for simple choice. Yes there are very rare cases like late septic miscarriage, but there’s already rules covering that.

This is absolute nonsense taken from some pro life website I'm guessing. Third term abortions are performed using dilation and extraction techniques (or dilation and evacuation). Evacuation is the removal of the contents of the uterus. The evacuation procedure is performed with a combination of suction aspiration and surgical instruments. Two-Day and/or Late Second Trimester procedures are performed on two consecutive days. You don't have to give birth.

This really ain't some secret medical knowledge so I don't know why people here make up some crazy shit.
 
Gross.Just gross. Even in Sweden, after the 18 week, abortion is forbidden, unless the life of the mother is in danger.

As I have stated somewhere on the farms, we are stuck with: 1. Capital punishment +abortion ban or 2. Abortion orgy + no capital punishment.

I 'd like 3: no abortion, no capital punishment, no MAID. The basic right to life as a new amendment. A cowboy can dream, can't he?
 
Just look at that photo, who in that photo is in any danger of getting pregnant thus even needing an abortion?

And why are there two young children in there? They are not much older than the beings who will now be permitted to be aborted under this new "law".
 
Just look at that photo, who in that photo is in any danger of getting pregnant thus even needing an abortion?

And why are there two young children in there?
They are the ones that their parents wished they had third trimester aborted, but damn society and its ethics and rules. They stand as a reminder as to what can be avoided.

If you don't want the kid, you don't have to kill it. Just give it up, no one cares. Dump it at the hospital or fire station, there are lines miles long to adopt newborns, even ones with special needs. But there is no excuse for intentionally killing a viable fetus in the third trimester period. At that point, you just have to deal with the fact you fucked up. Deal with it or give it up, but killing it because your Reddit issued fedora was wrapped too tight around yours and (often) the baby's father's head is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
Anybody in Minnesota who has a sentence for causing the death of a fetus or unborn baby needs to appeal NOW as the state has made it clear that even up to the point of birth it's not a human, and you can't face charges for killing it.
There needs to be some logical consistency. It is either is a person or it isn't and it should not hinge on whether or not the parents wanted the pregnancy or not.
 
Anybody in Minnesota who has a sentence for causing the death of a fetus or unborn baby needs to appeal NOW as the state has made it clear that even up to the point of birth it's not a human, and you can't face charges for killing it.
There needs to be some logical consistency. It is either is a person or it isn't and it should not hinge on whether or not the parents wanted the pregnancy or not.
You know damn well it's not going to work that way.
 
Gross.Just gross. Even in Sweden, after the 18 week, abortion is forbidden, unless the life of the mother is in danger.

That's not true, why are you lying? In Sweden abortion past the 18th week is allowed if mother's life or health is in danger OR if the fetus is unhealthy or likely to die shortly after birth. Swedish National Board of Health issues late term abortion permits.

In Netherlands elective abortion is allowed up to 24th week, after the 24th week they have specific guidelines relating to Euthanasia and newborn infants.

I'm sorry pro birthers but if you think a woman should be forced to spend hours in pain delivering a child with some horrid fetal genetic issue and then watch it die half an hour later the problem is with YOU.
 
I'm sorry pro birthers but if you think a woman should be forced to spend hours in pain delivering a child with some horrid fetal genetic issue and then watch it die half an hour later the problem is with YOU.
Well there are things called epidurals. If the child dies it dies, but that's not your call to make any more than if you see a severely disabled person and you decide for them their life is not worth living and slit their throats. This makes you a good person as you saved them further suffering and the law agrees with you...oh wait.
 
Back