0

Iowa’s Republican-controlled legislature on Tuesday passed a bill banning most abortions after about six weeks.

The legislation was passed during a rare one-day special session called by Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) for the “sole purpose” of enacting new restrictions on abortion. Iowa’s House and Senate passed the legislation along partisan lines late Tuesday after hours of hearings and sometimes heated protests. It is expected to face legal challenges. Abortion is currently legal in Iowa up to 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Hundreds of protesters on both sides of the issue packed the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines, some shouting “Bans off our bodies” while others yelled “Abortion is murder.” According to the Des Moines Register, at one point protesters had to be separated by a state trooper.

After the legislation cleared House and Senate committees Tuesday afternoon, lawmakers began floor debates that sometimes became contentious. “If they are not ready to have a baby, they shouldn’t have sex. A lot of people need to review their birds and bees,” Republican Rep. Brad Sherman said at point, while Democrats called the bill “disrespectful” and “obscene.”

Once it is signed into law by Reynolds, the bill, which passed 56-34 in the House and 32-17 in the Senate, will add Iowa to the wave of conservative-leaning states — including North Dakota and South Dakota — that have put in place abortion restrictions since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion last summer. The Iowa restrictions further limit access to the procedure in the Midwest.

“I believe the pro-life movement is the most important human rights cause of our time,” Reynolds said last week as she ordered the special session and promised to sign the bill.

After the Supreme Court ruling last year, Reynolds asked a district court to allow a roughly six-week abortion ban that had passed in 2018 but was challenged in court to take effect. After the court declined to do so, she then took the request to the Iowa Supreme Court, which deadlocked on the matter earlier this year. After the deadline, Reynolds called for the special session.

During Tuesday’s House debate, some Democrats quoted one of the justices, Thomas Waterman, who called the state’s attempt to revive the 2018 six-week abortion ban “an unprecedented effort to judicially revive a statute that was declared unconstitutional.”

The current legislation bans most abortions after fetal cardiac activity has been detected, often around six weeks into a pregnancy. The bill says a provider must perform an abdominal ultrasound on a patient, and if “a fetal heartbeat” is detected, an abortion is prohibited.

The measure includes a few exceptions, such as for rape and incest, provided that the cases are reported to law enforcement. It also includes exceptions for fetal abnormalities that are “incompatible with life” and for medical emergencies in which a pregnant person faces death or serious harm to their health.

Democrats said the legislation would put someone experiencing a miscarriage at risk by forcing doctors to take extra time determining whether they qualify for an abortion. It also sets unrealistic time constraints for someone to report rape or incest to qualify for an abortion exception under the bill, they said.

Prior to the bill passing, Democratic state Sen. Janice Weiner said it shouldn’t go into effect immediately. The rushed process shows “incredible disrespect” to Iowa doctors who would need time to understand the new rules, she said.

Committee hearings sometimes became tense with the sound of protesters outside the room pouring in.

Francesca Turner, a Des Moines gynecologist, said the bill doesn’t make clear when doctors can step in during pregnancy complications. “At what point when your wife or your daughter or your sister is having a medical emergency during a pregnancy do I get to save her life?” Turner asked.

Katie Buck, a West Des Moines resident, testified alongside her son, who was born with trisomy 18, a genetic complication caused by an extra chromosome. Under the legislation, she said, her son’s condition would qualify as a fetal abnormality that would allow an abortion.

“Alex is 7 years old. How can he be incompatible with life?” she said. “You have no idea how hard we had to fight against this ‘fatal fetal anomaly’ label to get him the medical care he needed to survive.”

Abortion rights advocates are pledging to fight the measure. In a statement released before it passed, Planned Parenthood North Central States said it will challenge the law in court and refer patients out of state if they need an abortion during the next few weeks.

“We intend to show that in numbers on Tuesday at the Capitol, reminding those politicians really of the fact that they will be held accountable for every vote that they take to strip Iowans of their rights,” said Mazie Stilwell, the director of public affairs at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] n3kr0@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Murder is bad. Just saying.

[-] LaVacaMariposa@mander.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

And bodily autonomy is good! No one can take your blood or a kidney without your consent, even if someone else is guaranteed to die without it. Why should an embryo take over your uterus without your consent?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I'm doubting they have a uterus.

[-] n3kr0@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Did you just assume my gender? How dare you sir,ma'am, or other!

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

No, if I was assuming, I wouldn't be doubting, I would be declaring.

Nice try though, sorry you didn't get the liberal tears you were hoping for.

[-] n3kr0@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I do declare. Not a fan of anyone's tears. It's a little too salty for me.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

politics

19089 readers
1435 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS