Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - Legislators to debate abortion ban

Legislators to debate abortion ban

Jan 20, 2007 - 14:14:51 CST

By JONATHAN RIVOLI
Bismarck Tribune

Four state legislators are pushing a bill to ban abortion here, a move that could potentially thrust North Dakota into the national abortion debate.

The bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. James Kerzman, D-Mott, said his proposed ban would make abortion a crime in all cases except to save the mother’s life.

It would establish the ban as law in North Dakota, but only if the 1973 Roe V. Wade Supreme Court decision ever gets overturned.

In seeking a strict ban that does not allow for exceptions for rape or incest, the measure mimics last year’s abortion ban in South Dakota, which passed that state’s Legislature but was overturned by voters there last fall. The widely publicized measure brought national attention to South Dakota as interest groups from across the country poured money and resources into the fight.

Kerzman said he’s not taking a strict approach in his bill to seek publicity, but because he believes abortion in any circumstance is still the taking of a human life.

“My parents raised me to accept all life, and I have never questioned that,” he said.

His co-sponsors on the bipartisan bill are Rep. Ralph Metcalf, D-Valley City, Sen. Randel Christmann, R-Hazen, and Sen. Robert Erbele, R-Lehr. Kerzman said he looked for additional co-sponsors, but wasn’t able to find any due to the controversial nature of his bill.

Based on the Legislature’s response to past abortion ban proposals, Kerzman may be facing an uphill fight.

In 2005, the House defeated an abortion ban by a vote of 69-19. In 2003, it defeated that exact same bill 79-13. An identical copy of that bill is up again this year as well.

Christopher Dodson, executive director of the anti-abortion North Dakota Catholic Conference, said his organization is more optimistic about the chances of passing an abortion ban this year because Kerzman’s bill differs from the measures that were defeated in past years.

The big difference: past bills punished the woman having an abortion, while this year’s bill punishes those that pro-vide and aid in abortions.

Dodson said his organization is supporting that version of the ban, while it opposed the past bans because the punishment was aimed at the woman.

“The woman is second victim in the abortion tragedy,” Dodson said.

Kerzman, too, is optimistic.

“I think the mood out there is changing a bit,” he said.

Seven other states are currently considering an abortion ban.

In North Dakota, 9 percent of pregnancies end in abortion, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit sexual and reproductive health organization. North Dakotans account for one out of 1,000 abortions in the U.S., according to the institute.

Still, the prospect of an abortion ban here has some supporters of abortion rights concerned.

“Anytime a state considers an abortion ban it’s the cause of great concern, not just for that one state but for the other 49 as well,” said Ted Miller, communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice America in Washington, D.C.

NARAL Pro-Choice America considers abortion to be a woman’s personal, private medical decision. It gives North Dakota, along with 18 other states, an F for guaranteeing and protecting women’s right to an abortion.

Under current North Dakota law, women are required to wait 24 hours and undergo counseling before receiving an abortion. Minors require the consent of both parents.

Kerzman’s bill, HB1466, is scheduled for a hearing at 8 a.m. Monday before the House Judiciary Committee in the Prairie Room.

(Reach reporter Jonathan Rivoli at 223-8482 or jonathan.rivoli@bismarcktribune.com.)

News > Update

Printer friendly version Legislators to debate abortion ban

Comments

Ken wrote on Feb 15, 2007 7:58 AM:

" It is clear, We must legislatively define humanity. I am in favor of from the moment of fertilization. That will codify any willful destruction of a preborn person as murder. The science is clear the growing embryo is a human being, alive and individual. These helpless ones must be granted the same rights as post born persons. "

Western Woman wrote on Feb 12, 2007 12:04 AM:

" The choice of having an abortion should be left as it is--- a choice. Giving the power of decision over a women's body to the government is morally wrong. Women are not slaves. We have the legal choice. Not them. Us. Plus, fetal tissue is not a living being. It does not having feeling, a mind, or complete functioning parts. Killing the fetus is not remotely like killing a baby. "

Peggy Loonan wrote on Jan 23, 2007 6:57 PM:

" The problem anti-abortion supporters have is the consequence of decades of claiming abortion is murder. If abortion is murder it is so under any and all circumstances INCLUDING to save the life of the woman. There can be no exceptions and they compromise their position when bow to public opinion to include the life of the woman especially when most refuse to consider an exception of rape and incest. Second, if abortion is murder we must not just punish abortion doctors as murderers but women and teens as the solicitors of murder. There is no way around that consequence to labeling abortion as murder. That means women and teen girls must face life in prison or in states like Texas execution. That means well over 1 million women and teens a year will have to be placed in prison or executed. There is absolutely no way around that result of labeling abortion as murder. Finally, making abortion illegal has NEVER stopped abortion only made it more dangerous to women. Our own history with illegal abortion is crystal clear about that and what is currently happening in other countries in the world also makes that perfectly clear. 56% of all abortions worldwide occur where abortion is legal and 44% of all abortions worldwide occur where abortion is ILLEGAL. About 26 million women worldwide have legal abortions each year and another 20 million have abortions in countries where abortion is restricted or prohibited by law. Abortion mortality rates are hundred time higher in developing countries where abortion is often illegal or highly restricted than in developed countries. The World Health Organization estimates that unsafe abortions account for 13% of all maternal mortality worldwide and they estimate that 68,000 of the more than 520,000 pregnancy-related deaths that occur each year result from unsafe abortions. (Alan Guttmacher Institute) It's curious that anti-abortion legislators make exceptions for a woman's life in their abortion bans which is at odds with their belief that abortion is murder and on the other hand are prepared to place those same women and teens lives at risk by criminalizing abortion. That fact is there's a better way. We can reduce the number of abortions in this country by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. We do that with abstinence-based comprehensive sex education (NOT abstinence-only) - more birth control research - the female condom, Norplant and Depo Provera were all developed outside of this country because of pressure from anti-abortion groups - better birth control availability, how about insurance companies not covering viagra but all female birth control and expanding family planning for poor women and teenagers - and finally men and condoms, condoms are 98% effective when used consistently and correctly so if every man correctly wore a condom every time he had sex and didn't want to become a father, married or not, guess how many unintended pregnancies and thereby abortions we wouldn't have. If every "pro-life" man spent several hours a week demonstrating - operative word demonstrative - condom use to the young men in their community they could be responsible for preventing thousands upon thousands of abortions. Now that would be putting their money where their mouth is wouldn't it?! And that solution wouldn't place a woman's life and health at risk like illegal abortion will. Peggy Loonan, founder and executive director, Life and Liberty for Women http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org peggy@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org "

SCates wrote on Jan 23, 2007 1:05 PM:

" From a strictly scientific viewpoint will you please define when is that exact moment that a "fetus" changes from being some organism (not by the way rejected by the immune system like ALL other foreign organisms) to being a human. Medical science is getting ever closer to the point that an unborn child can be kept alive closer and closer to the time of conception. To be honest in this discussion you must be able to honestly and scientifically state without reservation who is human and when they acquire their humanity. Otherwise all of your arguments are vacuous and of suspect merit. "

To Linda wrote on Jan 23, 2007 2:11 AM:

" "abortion is nothing less than forcefully asserting male domination over women" That is a good one Linda..Ha ha ha ha ha ha...some people believe anything. LOL "

Minnesotan wrote on Jan 22, 2007 3:21 PM:

" You'd think that North Dakota would learn the lesson from the south last year. People don't like government involvement here. Outlawing abortion won't make it go away, it will make it less safe. Those truly interested in combating abortion would work to prevent unintended pregnancy in the first place. North Dakota is in severe need of basic family planning services and facts-based comprehensive sex ed that equip people to avoid unintended pregnancy. Until these politicians work on the prevention side in a real way, I'll be convinced their real motivation is to dictate other people's lifestyles. It's simply a dangerous, moralistic crusade. "

Haineko wrote on Jan 22, 2007 12:05 AM:

" 'Chopping up a little baby?' Huh. Never knew a baby looked like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blastocyst.jpg Remember, when and how an fetus becomes a human life is a product of your religious upbringing. This is America, you cannot force your own religious views as law upon other people. "

LF wrote on Jan 21, 2007 11:56 PM:

" Fetuses are not babies. "

Linda wrote on Jan 21, 2007 11:50 PM:

" Hey, uh ... "Life" (cheap trick there): fetuses are developing forms of life that are not fully formed babies. They are not babies. And how exactly do they get "chopped up"? We live in a real world, not a make-believe one, which means we must deal with reality, not your make-believes. I encourage all on this thread to read "The Morality of the Right to Abortion...And the Immorality of Those Who Oppose It": http://rwor.org/a/038/morality-right-to-abortion.htm One of its central arguments is that outlawing abortion is nothing less than forcefully asserting male domination over women -- and what kind of twisted morality considers that good? "

Mouth from the South wrote on Jan 21, 2007 11:06 AM:

" So it is alright for the girls and women to die too, just because your morals forbid you to have an abortion? What hypocrisy. Just because you are perfect doesn't mean that everybody else is or can be. "

To mouth for the south wrote on Jan 20, 2007 10:23 PM:

" So why should I have to pay for that clean enviroment when I don't believe in abortion and I happen to have morals that these women could care less about. Sorry...hope it passes "

Mouth from the South wrote on Jan 20, 2007 6:30 PM:

" Do you people really think that a ban on abortion is going to stop women from having them? If you do, then please step into the real world. Women were having abortions long before Roe vs. Wade and they will still be having them even if they are banned. The only difference will be this; instead of being able to go to a clean environment with good medical attention, they will be doing what they did in the past. Finding a Doctor or medical person? who will charge an exhorbitant fee, in a place that may or may not be clean and the 'innocent' baby will still be aborted. The women may even end up sick or dead. The law that we have now is enough. I believe that abortion is wrong (along with a few other things) but I still believe that it is a personal choice and we do not need more laws to regulate it. "

student wrote on Jan 20, 2007 5:55 PM:

" I don't know many women that would want to keep a baby that is the product of a rape. It is better to terminate a pregnancy early than to bring a child into this world that cannot be properly cared for or loved. That would be the true act of barbarism. This bill is being proposed only to generate media attention. "

Life wrote on Jan 20, 2007 3:56 PM:

" It's all about life. That little baby did nothing to deserve to be chopped into pieces and sucked into a pan and flushed. It doesn't matter if it was a product of rape or whatever... it's still an innocent life. "

DoctorsBWare wrote on Jan 20, 2007 3:34 PM:

" What this article doesn't say is that a doctor who performs an abortion to save the life of the mother is still charged with a Class AA felony, loses his license, but "gets" to present an affirmative defense to a jury of 12 people the argument that he/she did it to save the mother's life. What doctor will risk a class AA felony charge with opportunity to let a jury decide whether the doctor's professional life is over??? Short answer: none. And this bill also forces the victim of a rape to carry to term the product of the rape. Be afraid of this bill. Be very afraid. "

alottabull wrote on Jan 20, 2007 2:48 PM:

" this is a personal choice and should be an option no matter what to those that have been through rape or incest.Keep the government and churches out of the decision completely. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.