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.

(+)
 
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.
Abortions at that stage aren't comfortable, you deluded retard. Why do you keep talking about late second trimester when everyone else is speaking of third? Third trimester starts at 28-29 weeks, there's some debate, but that's already a month later than what you are bringing up. We are mostly talking about near term even, like 36 weeks, and how absurd that is. You aren't getting a fucking 36 week near term baby out of you without any pain. If you were that scared of pain, you should have spayed yourself so you would never risk pregnancy because now you can't avoid it.

You aren't getting something that large out of a body without pain and even the second term abortions are extremely painful and birth-like, although quicker because it's still smaller. Having someone reaching up into your craw and pulling out your infant in chunks is still going to be a miserable, agonizing experience.

C-section would be less painful, and quicker too.
Even if your baby is going to die, why would you want to add hours of torture to it and yourself? The tearing it apart alive element is not a mercy. You seem like the type who euthanizes their pets feet first into a meat grinder. There's far more humane ways to handle that.

The doctors in Sweden aren't beating defective newborns to death with shovels. There whole notion is to minimize pain, so they probably use an overdose of pain numbing drugs, even though those lives are seen as unviable.
 
Last edited:
You aren't getting something that large out of a body without pain and even the second term abortions are extremely painful and birth-like, although quicker because it's still smaller. Having someone reaching up into your craw and pulling out your infant in chunks is still going to be a miserable, agonizing experience.

C-section would be less painful, and quicker too.
Even if your baby is going to die, why would you want to add hours of torture to it and yourself? The tearing it apart alive element is not a mercy. You seem like the type who euthanizes their pets feet first into a meat grinder.

Medical terminations are done in a hospital setting under general anesthesia.
 
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.
You know what it is as well as I do at this point. It's a law to appeal to their base. Much like the SNP trying to get more dicks into women's prisons it's not about what is right, wrong or backed by scientific evidence. It's an open bribe to certain parts of their voter base that they have done the maths on against whose votes they would lose and believe it's a net positive for them.

As you say, providing an additional law to make it easier when existing laws cover the necessities is not a good look. I would personally put money that in 30 years time this ruling is not looked on well. But it will be likely that long before a real challenges comes in.
 
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.

That's actually not true, in most cases a woman who miscarriages after 14th week has to go through induced abour as the C section or mechanical abortion performed on dead fetus carries a very high risk of sepsis. There are medical reasons for abortions/induced births and c sections and their intent is to first and most of all save or preserve the health and life of a woman.
 
Medical terminations are done in a hospital setting under general anesthesia.

Well here is a third trimester abortion doctor saying plainly they don't.


We had a story last year of someone having a later abortion of twins that she recorded and was clearly not under anesthesia and with Blobby's post below yours that further supports that's not the typical case. If it's a surgery that can be handled without general anesthesia, it will be avoided as it carries far more risks. Hell, a lot of dental surgeries won't even knock you out anymore because the discomfort you suffer is a fair payment for the added safety of not being under general anesthesia.
 
I have out this retard on ignore, so now he also doesnt understand what anesthesia is :story:
I mean looking at the response, I think everyone's aware you blocked me because you couldn't come up with even one example of when a mother's health would be better protected by a multi-day abortion at 36 weeks rather than just delivering a live baby via induction or Caesarian, because there is no reason. It's patently absurd and completely unjustifiable at that point. It is just offered as an appeal to the base, because it's an absurd and grotesque action that will probably come up more now because some people are just monsters at heart.

We had reasonable restrictions before, perhaps even too lenient as most progressive countries only allowed elective abortions up to 15 weeks, right around when the fetus starts responding to pain. Expecting people in the US to minimize harm to others is too much, however, so we allow it electively well past this point. However now, people like you just freakishly want the option to kill someone who can be safely separated from you for the fun of it. I'm sure we're only a few more years out from saying until a child can beg for its life it's not a living creature.

Is there? The concept of trimesters was a fiction created by the SCOTUS to create a justification for why they were preventing states from making abortion legislation up to a certain point in a pregnancy.
Well, breaking up anything into categories is kind of a human fiction, but it still makes a degree of sense to break up parts of a pregnancy, and we'd done it historically before that. After all, even in biblical times we had the concept of the quickening. You have the stage where it's a ball of undifferentiated cells, and then at the end of the first trimester is an estimation of when it starts to gain some functionality. Third trimester seems to be about the point people historically saw premies survive, even if rarely (twins were known to be born early and live normal lives through out the ages, even if it's not ideal). So they were all in order, essentially, and just getting a bit stronger to survive. Now with our technologies, we've lowered that into what was the middle point before.
 
Last edited:
Well here is a third trimester abortion doctor saying plainly they don't.


Well, apparently I wasn’t descriptive enough so I’ll clarify. Only clinics associated with hospitals offer general anesthesia. Because you need an
Anesthesiologist present. Most clinics not associated with a hospital will offer something like “twilight anesthesia” or just anxiety meds. But this is dependent on location and availability. Women are also given the option to induce labor and delivery in a normal hospital—medical terminations aren’t always D&C and sometimes not even offered.

I am not going to post any links but there are support forums for women where they discuss all of these things and where to go to get general anesthesia because why the hell would you want to be awake? Many women will even fly to go to the hospital connected clinics.
 
I mean looking at the response, I think everyone's aware you blocked me because you couldn't come up with even one example of when a mother's health would be better protected by a multi-day abortion at 36 weeks rather than just delivering a live baby via induction or Caesarian, because there is no reason. It's patently absurd and completely unjustifiable at that point. It is just offered as an appeal to the base, because it's an absurd and grotesque action that will probably come up more now because some people are just monsters at heart.

We had reasonable restrictions before, perhaps even too lenient as most progressive countries only allowed elective abortions up to 15 weeks, right around when the fetus starts responding to pain. Expecting people in the US to minimize harm to others is too much, however, so we allow it electively well past this point. However now, people like you just freakishly want the option to kill someone who can be safely separated from you for the fun of it. I'm sure we're only a few more years out from saying until a child can beg for its life it's not a living creature.
I mean at that point you can't argue at all it was just a clump of cells. All you can do is just screech that you are inconvenienced. No one is even forcing you to keep it. There is a huge demand for newborns to adopt period to very good parents. There is no easy way out physically at the third trimester. This is like troons claiming they can cut off their dick and be a woman. Giving birth physical consequence free just isn't happening.
 
I mean at that point you can't argue at all it was just a clump of cells. All you can do is just screech that you are inconvenienced. No one is even forcing you to keep it. There is a huge demand for newborns to adopt period to very good parents. There is no easy way out physically at the third trimester. This is like troons claiming they can cut off their dick and be a woman. Giving birth physical consequence free just isn't happening.
Yeah, at that point there's really no justification for killing a healthy baby in uetero. I can even buy the stupid argument of "my body, waaaah, I want to evict this violinist attached to my kidney!" Okay, so you can detach it now, we will remove it for you, but unharmed, as you would be free to unplug yourself from the violinist. You are just not free to then turn around and stab the violinist to death for someone daring to link you to them for a spell.

If they wanted an abortion for lulz, they should take care of that at the earliest point possible. If the baby can live on its own, we can take it away from you so you don't have to suffer being a parent, but if it's independently able to live now, you have no right to kill it. It's going to require some pain no matter how to get it out, or lingering pain after even with general anesthesia, quit lying to yourselves.

I have not said anything against removing a fetus that naturally died inside of you. That's really sad, and you should take a dead or dying fetus out. Maybe there's a slim chance you can still save it from dying if it's a wanted child. My boss lost her daughter at 7 months pregnant. They induced labor but she was stillborn. That's not an abortion at all. The doctors didn't intentionally kill her. Her mother wanted her and went through birth, but nothing could be done. That was less damaging than a medical procedure which could harm future pregnancies since the body still heals from it like a live birth. No one here is saying you have to keep a dead fetus inside you for the full 40 weeks or you are cheating.

Something that will die soon after birth is a dicier issue, but again, not a mother's health issue at all. Losing a child isn't going to kill you and if you aren't willing to face that risk you probably shouldn't have children. Life is full of suffering and uncertainty. Your child could also be hit by a bus at 5 and you could still face loss. Even a badly deformed child should be treated as delicately and humanely as possible because care needs to be taken not to increase its suffering. I once knew a girl who euthanized her pets with repeated blows from a shovel. Do not be this girl, she is not a role model.
 
After all, even in biblical times we had the concept of the quickening.
I recall it being a controversial concept, though. Abortion was always forbidden in Christian doctrine with no regard to whether the baby could be considered "quickened", and part of it was because there was no way to know for sure when that occurred. The simultaneous and full divinity and humanity of Christ has been reasoned to only properly manifest in the case where he's human and divine in every aspect from His conception, meaning that Him receiving a (human) soul at any later point would constitute some weird Christological error ("was He at some point not fully human? not fully divine?"). Even before we came up with the ultrasound (a device for killing abortionists like Bernard Nathanson), it was reasoned out probably in the early 20th century that when the fetus can be considered "ensouled" or "human" is irrelevant if you kill it before it's born, because you can't kill it and still end up with a newborn.

You have the stage where it's a ball of undifferentiated cells, and then at the end of the first trimester is an estimation of when it starts to gain some functionality.
It always has "functionality", just not the functionalities it has when it's ready to be born. That's fundamentally no different than a newborn not having the functionalities it'll have when it's three years old, or 15 years old.
 
Yeah, at that point there's really no justification for killing a healthy baby in uetero. I can even buy the stupid argument of "my body, waaaah, I want to evict this violinist attached to my kidney!" Okay, so you can detach it now, we will remove it for you, but unharmed, as you would be free to unplug yourself from the violinist. You are just not free to then turn around and stab the violinist to death for someone daring to link you to them for a spell.

If they wanted an abortion for lulz, they should take care of that at the earliest point possible. If the baby can live on its own, we can take it away from you so you don't have to suffer being a parent, but if it's independently able to live now, you have no right to kill it. It's going to require some pain no matter how to get it out, or lingering pain after even with general anesthesia, quit lying to yourselves.

I have not said anything against removing a fetus that naturally died inside of you. That's really sad, and you should take a dead or dying fetus out. Maybe there's a slim chance you can still save it from dying if it's a wanted child. My boss lost her daughter at 7 months pregnant. They induced labor but she was stillborn. That's not an abortion at all. The doctors didn't intentionally kill her. Her mother wanted her and went through birth, but nothing could be done. That was less damaging than a medical procedure which could harm future pregnancies since the body still heals from it like a live birth. No one here is saying you have to keep a dead fetus inside you for the full 40 weeks or you are cheating.

Something that will die soon after birth is a dicier issue, but again, not a mother's health issue at all. Losing a child isn't going to kill you and if you aren't willing to face that risk you probably shouldn't have children. Life is full of suffering and uncertainty. Your child could also be hit by a bus at 5 and you could still face loss. Even a badly deformed child should be treated as delicately and humanely as possible because care needs to be taken not to increase its suffering. I once knew a girl who euthanized her pets with repeated blows from a shovel. Do not be this girl, she is not a role model.
I think something also misunderstood is that Catholics would rather you die than terminate a tubal pregnancy. That's not the case whatsoever because there is no way to have that child survive by the means we have available and the mother will surely die without the intervention. But if the child could survive, there is a duty to try and save it and the mother.

Link Archive
 
Last edited:
I recall it being a controversial concept, though. Abortion was always forbidden in Christian doctrine with no regard to whether the baby could be considered "quickened", and part of it was because there was no way to know for sure when that occurred. The simultaneous and full divinity and humanity of Christ has been reasoned to only properly manifest in the case where he's human and divine in every aspect from His conception, meaning that Him receiving a (human) soul at any later point would constitute some weird Christological error ("was He at some point not fully human? not fully divine?"). Even before we came up with the ultrasound (a device for killing abortionists like Bernard Nathanson), it was reasoned out probably in the early 20th century that when the fetus can be considered "ensouled" or "human" is irrelevant if you kill it before it's born, because you can't kill it and still end up with a newborn.


It always has "functionality", just not the functionalities it has when it's ready to be born. That's fundamentally no different than a newborn not having the functionalities it'll have when it's three years old, or 15 years old.
Ah, again, it's like deciding about Red becomes Orange becomes Yellow. It is a spectrum and humans have decided to put markers where they thought it was convenient for understanding. There are definitely different, interesting phases a developing life goes through, and I think it makes a degree of sense where they put them were they did, especially from an atheistic standpoint.
The fertilized egg is the minimum point of interest. Genetically unique, yes, but it doesn't do much. While it continues to divide but maintain stemcells, it's growing more complex, but still lacks braincells and the center of thought and existence for those with only a material perspective. Now, around 15 weeks it has enough braincells to start practicing the actions it will need to do in life, and will respond to pain. That's why Europe had that as the abortion cut off. In the US we definitely didn't see this as meaningful, perhaps because we are willing to kill a lot of animals capable of that same level of experience for convenience? We pushed it up until our medical science could keep it alive, which ended up being a moving target.

We did long agree that those who were around 29 weeks survived with some nicu time (I also heard reports of a premie that young also surviving in just a poor family after being born at home), or even having some twin births normally around 36-37 weeks, so those had to be clearly out. They realized they were perfectly capable of living with the same amount of care as any other infant and we had gotten away from socially accepting the practice of exposing newborns.

So it's arbitrary, but also like noting the difference between red and yellow. Our concept of orange keeps shifting, and in Minnesota they declared yellow to be a shade of orange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sparkling Yuzu
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.
Liberals don't care about logical consistency, and that's not even an insult. They really just don't.

Michael Knowles had a debate with some baby killing cunt and she said baby is an inappropriate term to use around "pregnant people" because it "anthropomorphizes" the baby fetus and that isn't good because mothers may not want to kill it without the euphemisms and cognitive dissonance at play. But she went on to say it's okay if it's known that the mother wants to keep the baby.

These infanticide advocates are demons and they know exactly what they're doing.
 
Liberals don't care about logical consistency, and that's not even an insult. They really just don't.

Michael Knowles had a debate with some baby killing cunt and she said baby is an inappropriate term to use around "pregnant people" because it "anthropomorphizes" the baby fetus and that isn't good because mothers may not want to kill it without the euphemisms and cognitive dissonance at play. But she went on to say it's okay if it's known that the mother wants to keep the baby.

These infanticide advocates are demons and they know exactly what they're doing.
Lol. I literally heard the same anti logic from my flatmate. She said that it's a baby if the mom wants to keep it, but not if she doesn't. I said you can't have it both ways and she got legit annoyed and said "Why not?".
 
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.
Idk, sounds fine to me. Can junkies and homeless count as "severely disabled"?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Sparkling Yuzu
Back