Ceceil Bledsoe Filing Strong Bills
State Senator Ceceil Bledsoe of Rogers has come out with a couple of good bills, you can tell that by how loudly the usual suspects are complaining about them.
Did you know that you are paying tax dollars for abortion in this state right now? If the life of the mother is in danger, or if they claim the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest, Medicaid pays for it in Arkansas. Bledsoe's bill would eliminate taxpayer funding in those last two instances.
The bill still would not end abortion in those instances, it would just end me having to pay for it. I have moral objections to all abortion, unless it's a one life or the other situation, and I welcome not being forced by the state to pay them. It's a difficult situation, but the bottom line is that I don't believe children should get the death penalty because their father raped someone. I don't know that the rape has to be proven in a court of law anyway. In other words, a woman could claim rape to get someone else to pay the bills.
This article on it claims that federal law would likely trump it. I am not so sure. Federal law may "allow" for funding in the cases of rape or incest, but that is not the same thing as "mandating" funding. And if the law does mandate funding, then it ought to be challenged anyway.
Did you know that you are paying tax dollars for abortion in this state right now? If the life of the mother is in danger, or if they claim the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest, Medicaid pays for it in Arkansas. Bledsoe's bill would eliminate taxpayer funding in those last two instances.
The bill still would not end abortion in those instances, it would just end me having to pay for it. I have moral objections to all abortion, unless it's a one life or the other situation, and I welcome not being forced by the state to pay them. It's a difficult situation, but the bottom line is that I don't believe children should get the death penalty because their father raped someone. I don't know that the rape has to be proven in a court of law anyway. In other words, a woman could claim rape to get someone else to pay the bills.
This article on it claims that federal law would likely trump it. I am not so sure. Federal law may "allow" for funding in the cases of rape or incest, but that is not the same thing as "mandating" funding. And if the law does mandate funding, then it ought to be challenged anyway.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Thursday, January 27, 2011
2 Comments:
Mark, For the most part I agree with you but from a moral stand how can the line be drawn regardless of the situation?
Cat
Call me cat. I don't have your cell. Your last communication was an enigma.
PS- not sure I understand the question. Every law draws lines given a particular set of circumstances regardless of other circumstances.
...and this particular law only deals with whether or not I should have to pay for it, not whether someone is allowed to use their own money to end the life.
But let's say Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky miraculously got his bill passed defining an unborn baby as a "person" under the 14th amendment. That is a measure I support btw. It would mean that before life could be taken, there would have to be a legal hearing where "the situation" would be put before a judge to determine if "the situation" warrants taking the life.
Don't you think the abortion rate would plummet, even if women who want to do that have a chance to explain their situation before what is likely to be a judge looking for a reason to give them their way?
Post a Comment
<< Home