Legislators' secretive abortion bill fuels #vaginamotorcycles
July 11th, 2013
11:02 AM ET
9 months ago

Legislators' secretive abortion bill fuels #vaginamotorcycles

(CNN) - If at first you don't succeed, ride in on a motorcycle.

Conservative legislators in North Carolina trying to get a new restrictive abortion bill passed have done just that.

House committee members refashioned a bill on motorcycle safety into one principally about abortion after the state's governor threatened on Wednesday to veto the anti-abortion measures.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Abortion • North Carolina
soundoff (23 Responses)
  1. Data Driven

    I've enjoyed both over the years, but not together in a stupid bill that restricts reproductive freedom for women.

    It's gettin real wingnutty down in Carolina these days.

    July 11, 2013 11:21 am at 11:21 am |
  2. Steveo

    This is a major problem with politics. Too many riders are stuffed into bills that have nothing to do with the the primary bill. This is a tactic that is gleefully employed by the left and the right and on the local and national levels. It really needs to stop.

    July 11, 2013 11:27 am at 11:27 am |
  3. Mike Wallace

    More attacks on freedom by the Socialist Republicans.

    July 11, 2013 11:28 am at 11:28 am |
  4. Lynda/Minnesota

    Once the anti-women fanatics get their way, what is next? Do we then prosecute the women who are once again forced to use back room alleys? You mothers? Your sisters? Your aunts? Your cousins? Your daughters? Yes, I know. In a perfect world, only women who want to love and nurture their offspring will have offspring to love and nurture. Unfortunately, and until such time as birth control IS being used as a method of preventing pregnancy by ALL men and women, there will be abortions. "Just not in MY state" isn't going to stop abortions any more that "just say no" stopped unwanted pregnancies.

    July 11, 2013 11:36 am at 11:36 am |
  5. Thomas

    North Carolina ,

    isn't there Governor making a plea deal with the feds ?
    The Anal prob guy who looks like a TV evangelist
    Bob McDonnell , sorry , he is from the great state of Virginia .

    July 11, 2013 11:45 am at 11:45 am |
  6. Bill from GA

    " A doctor must be present when an abortion is being performed. "

    I'll admit to near total ignorance on abortion procedures, but out of ignorance, I think I would want a doctor present if a wife or girlfriend of mine were to get an abortion.

    The stinking part is the legislative process used. Why can't we have laws made by intelligent, common-sense people in an intelligent, common-sense fashion? I know the answer: WE ELECT idiot, low-life politicians.

    And of course, the lefties are not willing to budge an inch on abortions. Just like the righties on guns.

    July 11, 2013 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  7. Boo

    I wish the entire SOUTH would just secede already...ALL OF THEM.

    July 11, 2013 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  8. Bill from GA

    Boo
    "I wish the entire SOUTH would just secede already...ALL OF THEM."

    It's been tried.

    It would never work now; we couldn't secure our borders to keep the Northerners out.

    July 11, 2013 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  9. Sniffit

    "And of course, the lefties are not willing to budge an inch on abortions. Just like the righties on guns."

    Invalid false equivalence argument. Analogy fail. In both situations, the SCOTUS precedent is on the side of those who support the right to choose and those who support common sense regulation of gun ownership, including universal background checks, an ownership/transaction registration system and bans on certain types of firearms (not absolute total bans, mind you).

    As for the doctor being present issue, the medical community deems it medically unnecessary and the legislature should be deferring to the experts and overwhelming evidence upon which the experts rely in forming their professional consensus. The only reason they're enacting things like that is to increase the expense for the providers and the costs for the patients in hopes it deters or makes abortions financially prohibitive to provide or obtain.

    July 11, 2013 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  10. Robert Jay

    Why do peopel constantly challenge laws that are in effect / have been in effect and provide the necessry guidance need (IE ROE V Eade?) Don't Republicans and conserv Dems have anything better to waste their time on than crap like this that the majority of Americans don't want changed? If your minority position isn't what you wanted – get over it and get on with a life (if you even have one)

    July 11, 2013 11:56 am at 11:56 am |
  11. Vince

    If it's what the people want...why do it in secret?

    July 11, 2013 11:59 am at 11:59 am |
  12. Malory Archer

    Lynda/Minnesota

    Once the anti-women fanatics get their way, what is next?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Next they'll come for a woman's right to vote. Then her right to an education. Then her right to leave home without a male relative accompanying her at all times.

    July 11, 2013 12:02 pm at 12:02 pm |
  13. Sniffit

    "It would never work now; we couldn't secure our borders to keep the Northerners out."

    It wouldn't work because all the red states would go belly up within months without the blue states supplying them with the federal aid they need in order to function. Your problem would be people flocking north. The "south" would become nothing but North Mexico.

    July 11, 2013 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm |
  14. tom l.

    I think the repubs are wrong on this. I don't know why they are pressing so hard on this issue but I don't think it's unreasonable that a woman should be able to know after 20 weeks whether to keep the baby or not. Since you guys on the left love science so much, there is a strong evidence that says a baby feels pain at 20-24 weeks so it seems reasonable to have that stance. But, again, I don't care. At the same time, I don't know why dems feel so strong that a woman should be able to abort at that stage. It really does seem like there could be a logical compromise here.
    You on the left want compromise and "common sense" legislation (whatever that means) with restrictions on guns so why shouldn't there be some "common sense" restrictions on abortion. Or, I guess IOIYAD, right?

    July 11, 2013 12:20 pm at 12:20 pm |
  15. Lynda/Minnesota

    "Next they'll come for a woman's right to vote. Then her right to an education. Then her right to leave home without a male relative accompanying her at all times."

    I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry at your comment, Malory. Indeed. "They" are already coming after our right to vote. They are already making it harder and harder to qualify for a higher education. If nothing else, higher education has become a sin in their bigoted world. And, yes. Many a Christian-Right Pastor (I use that term loosely) have advocated male dominance from their "pulpits". I am old enough to say I've "be there, done that" (to a point). I don't relish my granddaughters being forced to go there, do that.

    July 11, 2013 12:22 pm at 12:22 pm |
  16. Sniffit

    "At the same time, I don't know why dems feel so strong that a woman should be able to abort at that stage."

    Because Roe v. Wade and the Constitution and professional consensus of the medical community all say so. That's all that is needed.

    July 11, 2013 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm |
  17. Sniffit

    "You on the left want compromise and "common sense" legislation (whatever that means) with restrictions on guns so why shouldn't there be some "common sense" restrictions on abortion"

    1. There already are common sense restrictions on abortion and the limits thereof are set forth and defined in Roe v. Wade and the Constitution. The problem you're having is that the limits on those restriction don't allow the restrictions you'd rather have.

    2. The Constitution allows common sense restrictions on gun ownership and transactions and you can find a wonderful little discussion of the SCOTUS precedent setting froth and defining the limits of said restrictions in Section III on page 54 of the Heller decision, written by conservative hero Scalia. The problem you're having is that you just don't like that the limits on those restrictions would still allow universal background checks, a national registry system for ownership and transactions and bans on certain types of weaponry.

    The analogy fails, so stop trying.

    July 11, 2013 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm |
  18. Rosslaw

    I understand Iran, Somalia and Yemen are looking very closely at the republicans penchant for sharia law to see if they can pick up any new ideas on how to treat women like cattle. The republican party-the cutting edge of the 7th century.

    July 11, 2013 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm |
  19. Sniffit

    "You on the left want compromise and "common sense" legislation (whatever that means) with restrictions on guns"

    Read Section III on page 54 of the Heller decision. SCOTUS precedent would allow a universal background check system, a national ownership and transactions registry and bans on certain types of weaponry.

    "so why shouldn't there be some "common sense" restrictions on abortion."

    Roe v. Wade sets the limits on abortion restrictions. What you call common sense would run afoul of those limits.

    The whole attempt to manufacture a "hypocrisy gotchs" by drawing a failed analogy with gun rights is absurd, silly and a total failure.

    July 11, 2013 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm |
  20. Tony

    So, can Republicans explain what is the connection between motorcycle safety and abortions?

    July 11, 2013 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm |
  21. tom l.

    Also, I think it's cool that the president can pick and choose which parts of a law he wants to enforce. You know, let's postpone the mandate for businesses for a year but make individuals still have the mandate.

    But hey, IOIYAD, right?

    July 11, 2013 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  22. Fair is Fair

    @ Bill from GA -

    See what happens when you stand behind 95% of the left's platform? 95% of the left crucify you for the 5% you don't.

    July 11, 2013 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm |
  23. Sniffit

    "Also, I think it's cool that the president can pick and choose which parts of a law he wants to enforce. You know, let's postpone the mandate for businesses for a year but make individuals still have the mandate.

    But hey, IOIYAD, right?"

    No. This is another blatant failure of a "hypocrisy gotcha" based on existing, long-standing precedent. Go check the Federal Register instead of checking Faux News and Red State.

    July 11, 2013 12:48 pm at 12:48 pm |