Kansas Senate's Late Term Abortion Bill Override Fails

[ccharles000]

Kansas Senate today failed to override Governor Mark Parkinson's veto of new late term abortion reporting requirements, missing the two-thirds majority necessary by just one vote.

The House managed to override the veto earlier this week on its second attempt to do so. It is unclear whether the Senate will attempt another override before the end of the session.

It’s possible supporters of the bill could make another attempt in the Senate before lawmakers adjourn their 2010 session in the next several days.

Anti-abortion lawmakers have pushed similar bills for years. Last year’s legislation was also vetoed, and the attempt to revive the bill failed.

If they don’t try again this year, lawmakers are sure to push the bill again next year, when the state has a new governor.

“Someday I hope the unborn has a voice in these chambers,” said Sen. Ralph Ostmeyer, a Grinnell Republican. “It’s not about a woman, it’s not about a man…. I’m convinced at this point that the unborn do not have a choice... We will have a change in governor. We will get this passed. It’s just a year away.”

Governor Parkinson is not running for reelection in 2010.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/05/05/kansas-senates-late-term-abortion-bill-override-fails

[Warpy]

1. Hey, STUPID

The "unborn" don't have a choice because they're completely incapable of making one! In fact, they're not capable of much of anything but rudimentary, non purposeful movement as they parasite off Mom.

If we were aware in the womb, we'd be born completely insane.

Hey, maybe that describes the fetus fetishists like Ostmeyer!

[Tansy_Gold]

2. "It's not about a woman." Well he got THAT much right. grrrr

Tell that to the woman who's carrying the unwanted embryo.

"Oh, it's not about you, dear. We don't CARE about you, except as a vessel to nurture this precious little innocent life until it can be born. AND THEN WE WON'T CARE ABOUT EITHER ONE OF YOU."

What worthless pieces of shit.





Tansy Gold

[Dappleganger]

3. Well they sure as hell don't care about the choices of the born...

why is the choice of the unborn more important??

mofo's

[Newest Reality]

4. That's correct!

The unborn do not have a choice because they are not yet born yet. Do they suggest that a choice can be made by a fetus? With that logic, a fetus should be asked and allowed to choose if it wants to be born.

For that matter, the born, as children, have very little in the way of "choices" legally and are subject to parental consent until they reach the age of majority.

It is just as much about the potential parents, (the man and woman referred to) as they will bear the responsibility of raising, caring for, and supporting the child for eighteen years. An unwanted child is best not born, in some cases. Plus, in a time where population size is rearing its ugly head and glaring contemptuously at our reproductive instincts, the notion of giving a child up for adoption is ludicrous and liquidated as a replacement for abortion.

I am not pro abortion. I stand with those who feel strongly that birth and abortion are very personal and intimate decisions that should be left to individuals. Forcing this issue and trying to make abortion illegal will not stop abortion; it will merely relegate it to the back alley again. Yet, imagine forcing population control, (an issue which we must grapple with soon) and see what kind of response you get. The two issue are relative, and both cry out for reasonable debate, education, and consideration of rights and their impact.

I would like to add, (just to humor the rediculous, bastardized logic used by those lawmakers) that I was once a fetus. If, retroactively, I decide I didn't want to be born and excessive my fetus rights choice, does that have effect or valdiity? I mean, after all, a choice involves more than one option.