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.

(+)
 
I am for abortion, but I cannot understand why someone would need an abortion so late in the pregnancy. We need abortion for women who were raped, women who are in danger of dying if they give birth, children who are confirmed to have debillitating illnesses and disfigurements. Third trimester is just too far and you really are just killing a developed baby. Not a fetus, a real fuckin baby. Basically a premie. This is why we can't have nice things.

At that point, just birth the child and put them up for adoption or get in contact with a surrogate family. We can't allow people to just decide to kill off their babies because the child became inconvenient.
 
I am for abortion, but I cannot understand why someone would need an abortion so late in the pregnancy. We need abortion for women who were raped, women who are in danger of dying if they give birth, children who are confirmed to have debillitating illnesses and disfigurements. Third trimester is just too far and you really are just killing a developed baby. Not a fetus, a real fuckin baby. Basically a premie. This is why we can't have nice things.

At that point, just birth the child and put them up for adoption or get in contact with a surrogate family. We can't allow people to just decide to kill off their babies because the child became inconvenient.
Dems and leftists have given into complete insanity because they think it'll own the chuds.
 
What if it has a "debilitating illness" or "disfigurement"?
Then the fetus would have been removed sooner than third trimester. It is immensely cruel to allow it to continue growing and live in a state of pain.

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.
I going need to see some references. Not at one point in the Bible have I ever seen a reference to abortion. And i'm not just going by word, the act is also never mentioned. The closest thing to abortion in the Bible is in Exodus. I fucking hate you Christian larpers. Begone with your pagan-assed, madeup bullshit.
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
 
The women who advocate for abortion based on nonsense like "bodily autonomy." Are ultimately, no different than the ones who murder their children and than kill themselves when their husbands leave them. Pro-abortion advocacy has nothing to do with the supposed horrors of pregnancy or birth.

Abortion is an out for these women and a punishment towards the other party. Its an act of spite and a refusal to accept any responsibility for the state of their lives.
 
We mustn’t allow our citizens to have any semblance of personal responsibility
Personally I'm one to mind my own business, but it's baffling how a certain generation seems to have a fixation on dodging the consequences of its actions.

What I want to know is who keeps getting the pro-choice protestors pregnant. Because there are almost no attractive people with left wing beliefs in the world.
 
Why? Somalians may mutilate their daughters' genitals in their homeland (and maybe here, as well?), but they're not stupid enough to actively champion self-extermination like "white" and black Americans.

Frankly, nobody else in the world is. Even the Japanese and South Koreans are only not having sex, which is different than taking a Dyson to your uterus.
They do. Most Moslem communities appear to do so, and marry their first cousins, well South Asian Ind-Pak and Arab Moslem. High quality people spreading their quality culture everywhere. The future might well be theirs tho.
 
Then the fetus would have been removed sooner than third trimester.
The body doesn't autonomously expel babies with congenital disorders, so don't dodge the question.

If it's okay to abort a child on account of some disfigurement, then it doesn't matter when you do. Wouldn't even matter if you did it after it was born, by your """logic""".

It is immensely cruel to allow it to continue growing and live in a state of pain.
People are in pain, all the time-- you don't see us mowing hobos down to "spare them" from discomfort.

I going need to see some references.
Didache said:
And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, [Exodus 20:13-14] you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, [Exodus 20:15] you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.
It's the earliest known Christian catechism, and it cites Scripture in support of its teachings. It (ultimately, despite some notable figures considering it canon) wasn't included in the Scriptural canon because "canon" refers to what's eligible for reading as Scripture during the Liturgy of the Word, and there's no sense in reading a catechism that itself cites Scripture during that time.

Not at one point in the Bible have I ever seen a reference to abortion.
It's the murder of clearly alive yet unborn children. Murder is explciitly condemned. And on the flip side, it doesn't say anything about "mercy" killing your children because they have a disorder or disease.

You're being willfully autistic.

I fucking hate you Christian larpers. Begone with your pagan-assed--
Drop your echolalia and start treating language as a tool to convey meaning, holy shit. You keep talking like you wouldn't have gotten aborted by your own standards.
 
Last edited:
At this point I am willing to entertain the notion that the American continents are actually filled with demons that demand constant human sacrifice. Are European women, with their stricter abortion laws than some parts of America, some how less stunning and brave than American women for their lack of bloodlust? Are they somehow more oppressed by the Patriarchy of limp wristed European men? Why do American women, and almost entirely American women, insist they must have the right to kill their children until the head crowns? I get that our culture is more comfortable with violence, but this is an extreme almost no other culture on earth insists on.
 
When are the skinnies going to realize they've been brought to live among demons?
Ah, I don't know who I'm kidding. It'll just be impetus for them to move to other states.
 
At this point I am willing to entertain the notion that the American continents are actually filled with demons that demand constant human sacrifice. Are European women, with their stricter abortion laws than some parts of America, some how less stunning and brave than American women for their lack of bloodlust? Are they somehow more oppressed by the Patriarchy of limp wristed European men? Why do American women, and almost entirely American women, insist they must have the right to kill their children until the head crowns? I get that our culture is more comfortable with violence, but this is an extreme almost no other culture on earth insists on.
I have a theory-- bear with me.

1675378261500.png
 
Nobody stops you from bringing it up, sister.
I just did? Regardless, I don't believe either the father or the mother should kill the child just because 'wah I don't like it'. These people should stop and ask themselves a very basic question: If having a baby is so impossible, how do all these other people who usually are supposedly are my lessers, manage it and not kill the kids and even raise decent ones despite circumstances?

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
 
I just did? Regardless, I don't believe either the father or the mother should kill the child just because 'wah I don't like it'. These people should stop and ask themselves a very basic question: If having a baby is so impossible, how do all these other people who usually are supposedly are my lessers, manage it and not kill the kids and even raise decent ones despite circumstances?

It's not about circumstances, it's about the choice. Some women simply don't want to have kids. Even if they have all the resources in the world. Not everyone wants to spend 9 months pregnant and give birth. And whether you agree or not, pregnancy is an assault on woman's body.

If you're such a fan of giving up your bodily autonomy in order to save a life then put your actions where your mouth is and go and donate a kidney.
 
It's not about circumstances, it's about the choice. Some women simply don't want to have kids. Even if they have all the resources in the world. Not everyone wants to spend 9 months pregnant and give birth. And whether you agree or not, pregnancy is an assault on woman's body.

If you're such a fan of giving up your bodily autonomy in order to save a life then put your actions where your mouth is and go and donate a kidney.
I would donate a kidney to a match I knew and am an organ donor, what is your point?

At the third trimester, you have already spent at least half a year pregnant. What is another 3 months? Pregnancy is not an assault on a woman's body anymore than being on the rag is. It is an intrinsic part of being a woman. Don't like it, scream to god or the universe or satan or whatever you believe in, but the simple fact doesn't change that we are the vessels. Killing your child because you find it inconvenient is no more morally acceptable to me than someone just randomly strangling kittens on the street because why not?
 
I would donate a kidney to a match I knew and am an organ donor, what is your point?

At the third trimester, you have already spent at least half a year pregnant. What is another 3 months? Pregnancy is not an assault on a woman's body anymore than being on the rag is. It is an intrinsic part of being a woman. Don't like it, scream to god or the universe or satan or whatever you believe in, but the simple fact doesn't change that we are the vessels. Killing your child because you find it inconvenient is no more morally acceptable to me than someone just randomly strangling kittens on the street because why not?

I'm not talking about third trimester but abortion and pregnancy in general.

Stop with the bullshit of willing to donate a kidney to a match when there are entire charities and databases out there matching donors to those who need kidney transplants.

And if you claim that being pregnant equals to being on your period then I already know you're not a woman but a deluded troon.
 
I said I would be a living donor to someone I knew, not some rando. When I die, my organs are open season. Are yours?

Menstruating and being pregnant are part and parcel of being a woman. Don't like it? Cry harder. Men have their own shitty issues to deal with if you'd pay attention, such as being forced into wars they wanted nothing to do with, having a shorter lifespan on average, more likely to die early and violent deaths, the expendable sex by default.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'm one to mind my own business, but it's baffling how a certain generation seems to have a fixation on dodging the consequences of its actions.
You know, that gave me a realization about the current state of clown world. People seem not only to be desperately fighting to avoid consequences, but they seem to be actively putting themselves into scenarios that they know should have consequences, and then fighting them. They're like adrenaline junkies, except instead of getting a thrill from almost dying, they get a thrill from avoiding personal responsibility.

Think about it. They're raw-dogging strangers. They're handing their kids over to fetishists. They're inviting third world rapists into the country. They're abolishing laws and freeing violent felons. Everything they do seems to be based around trying to make the world a worse place solely so they can then cry to daddy government to make it all better for them.

It's almost like some fucked up parallel to the adult baby fetish. You know, the guys who shit themselves on purpose so "mommy" will have to change them. Actually, that's exactly what it's like. It's almost uncanny how similar the two are.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Duke Nukem
What if it has a "debilitating illness" or "disfigurement"?
Most people with disfigurements still live full lives. You can't really miss what you never had and humans are profoundly resilient and able to adapt to a variety of unideal circumstances. You have no right to decide if someone else's life is worth living. They can in a few years, I suppose, especially if they are Canadian, but no human should have the right to make the decision for another. Honestly, I've still felt it's immoral on some level to make that for my own pets when they were terminally ill, let alone a human who will be able to make their wishes known.

I had an aunt who was born without most of her fingers on one hand, but she still viewed her life as fullfilling, had her own business, did normal life things. I've known deaf and blind people who seem to very much still enjoy their lives despite missing some of the fullness of it.

Even people with debilitating illnesses still appreciate the time they have. I have known people with cystic fibrosis who still enjoyed their lives despite the handicap. We have a cadre of successful downies in the offices who do secretary work. Honestly, they might be better off than I am, since I've had the misfortune of being intelligent enough to realize how terrible everything actually is. Ignorance is bliss.

Hell, there was also one guy who was a Harlequin baby that lived. His life was difficult, to say the least, but he kept pushing forward and didn't just throw himself off a bridge because there's an infinite expanse of oblivion waiting for us. Might as well tough out the handful of years you get to experience.
 
Last edited:
Back