North Dakota House Passes Personhood Ballot Measure Banning ALL Abortion

Author: March 23, 2013 2:28 pm

imagesNorth Dakota Republicans have been pushing multiple anti-abortion measures this year, the most dangerous of which is a personhood measure that would ban abortion entirely. That bill has now passed the legislature.

On Friday, by a vote of 57-35, the North Dakota House passed, a measure that places personhood on the 2014 ballot in the state. The bill had previously passed the state Senate in February.

SB 2303, declares that life begins at conception and would add such language to the North Dakota Constitution if voters approve the ballot measure in November 2014. If this happens, abortions would be banned entirely in the state and the last remaining abortion clinic serving the area would be shut down. The measure also cruelly denies abortion to women who become pregnant through rape or incest and bans some forms of contraception and could end in vitro fertilization.

Opponents of the bill include the North Dakota Medical Association and 26 students from the University of North Dakota medical school. Infertility specialist Dr. Stephanie Dahl told the Bismarck Tribune earlier this week that doctors would face criminal charges because of the bill and women who become pregnant via rape would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Dr. Ted Kleiman, a Fargo pediatrician, says the bill is “abhorrent in the highest degree,” and would set medicine in North Dakota back “to the stone age.” Some pro-life Republicans even oppose the measure because of how extreme it is. North Dakota GOP Rep. Kathy Hawken called the measure “the most invasive attack on women’s health anywhere.”

North Dakota may not be the only state with a personhood measure on the ballot in 2014. Personhood USA is pushing to place yet another personhood measure on the ballot in Mississippi, where personhood failed in 2010 by a large margin. Arkansas Republicans are also considering passing a personhood measure.

Women are clearly under attack this year by Republicans and anti-abortion fanatics and 2014 is being set up as a year in which women may lose the right to choose entirely. It may be too early to talk about the 2014 Election, but the only way to protect women is if the people show up to the polls to defeat this horrible assault on women reproductive rights.


facebook comments:


  • First off, I admit it’s my opinion that, on the possibility that a fetus is a human being in the term’s fullest meaning, I would try to talk any of my granddaughters, my daughter, nieces, female cousins, etc., etc. out of having an abortion. But there’s the rub: This is my opinion and, as it’s only an opinion, I have no right to force it on anyone who holds a different opinion. One person’s opinion is no better than any other person’s opinion.

    Indeed, because it’s only an opinion, we have the reason why Roe v. Wade and the dozens (hundreds?) of other court cases have struggled constantly and needlessly with this issue. Granted there are many states which operate as though states rights mean they willy-nilly can legislate anything if they have a bigoted, racist majority with them and sometimes not even then.

    Best I can tell, NO law can be passed until it meets at least these three tests: First, no state can abrogate Federal law. Second, there must be a preponderance of objective, concrete, verifiable facts put in evidence in order to judge whether a piece of legislation can become law. Third, there must be a clear harm and/or compelling reason to even propose the legislation.

    In the first place, the Federal Constitution of the United States warrants and guarantees that all U.S. citizens have and are entitled to equal justice before the law and, by logical extension, this should be true for all the peoples of the world as well. If I remember my high school Civics class, these rights are inalienable; they can neither be given nor taken away by anyone, any group, or any government. Sadly, wrongfully in my opinion, this latter point is not universally held.

    In the second place, any evidence offered in any U.S. court of law to support a legal contention must be provably factual and irrefutable. In the case of the Roe v. Wade, there is no objective, concrete or verifiable evidence to support the opposition’s contention that a fully human life, or “natural person” as Sir Wm. Blackstone called it, begins at conception. In fact, and here is the most compelling aspect, there is absolutely no evidence to show objectively and concretely what exactly it is that constitutes a fully human life at any stage, nor can any such thing be verified to a legal standard. Take away a person’s sight and is she/he fully human? Take away a regularly beating heart to the point a person can’t walk, much less run. Is he or she fully human? A person in a coma? Fully human?

    I’m not trying to set up an argument for killing a less-than-fully human person. I’m opposed to capital punishment, though aware that many anti-choicers are in favor of it and to some degree, whether consciously or not, they consider those sentenced to die as being less than human. But in the third place, the conclusion I think I can make is, under these circumstances, it can’t be shown there is harm to any fully human person, nor is there any compelling reason for states to act as they do. When the courts, as well as state governments, lack an objective, concrete, verifiable conclusion about this issue, it clearly remains in the realm of OPINION and, as our Constitution allows, it is and should be a choice of each individual how he or she acts upon his or her opinion. As pointed out above, one person’s opinion is no better or worse than another person’s opinion.

    See also

  • What about Roe Vs. Wade?

  • I wonder how many women and children are going to suffer and or die because of this. After all, a fetus is more important than the life of the mother, her husband and her other children, the rest of her family, the economy, housing, food, education, medical care and the poor… (so long as the fetus is white and male that is.)

    So much for small government and the constitution…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.