Alabama senate delays final vote on abortion bill; rape and incest exception removed

May 10, 2019 CNA Daily News News Briefs 0 Print

Montgomery, Ala., May 10, 2019 / 07:00 pm (CNA).- The Alabama Senate has delayed a vote on a bill to outlaw abortion, following a disagreement between Republican and Democratic state senators on Thursday over whether an exception for cases of rape or incest should be included in the bill.

The Human Life Protection Act (HB314) would make attempting or performing an abortion a felony offense. Doctors who perform abortion would be charged with a Class A felony and could face between 10 years and life in prison.

The penalty would apply only to doctors, not to mothers, who, according to the bill’s sponsors, would not face criminal penalties for undergoing abortions.
 
Lt. Gov. Will Ainsworth, who presides over the Alabama Senate, removed the rape and incest exception amendment after a voice vote Thursday, meaning there is no record of how Senators voted— something the Democratic Senators wanted.

“I know this bill is going to pass. You’re going to get your way,” Democratic Sen. Vivian Davis Figures protested.

“At least treat us fairly and do it the right way. That’s all that I ask.”

If the amendment had been added, the bill would have gone back to the House for a vote, leading to a delay, according to CBS News. Still, the president pro tem of the Senate moved to delay vote on the bill until next week to allow the senators to think it over. The Senate reconvenes May 14.

The Alabama House on April 30 passed the bill by a margin of 74-3. That version included an exception that would allow abortions in the case of a “serious health risk” to the mother. The Senate added, and then removed, the exception for rape and incest.

The legislation is designed to be a direct challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v Wade, which found a constitutional right to abortion.

Unlike so-called “trigger laws” passed in other states, which would outlaw abortion in the event that the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v Wade is overturned, the Alabama measure would come into effect within a year. Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Mississippi all have “trigger laws” on the books.

Supporters of the Alabama bill have said their intention is to use the ensuing court battle to force the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v Wade. If the Human Life Protection Act becomes law, it would face an immediate challenge and likely be prevented from coming into force.

"The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in the womb is not a person," sponsor State Rep. Terri Collins (R – Decatur) was quoted as saying by CBS News.

"This bill addresses that one issue. Is that baby in the womb a person? I believe our law says it is."

Republican Gov. Kay Ivey is expected to sign the bill into law.

“Ultimately, [the bill] is going to pass, and Alabama is going to lead the nation in protecting the sanctity of life,” State Senator Clyde Chambliss told the Washington Post.

“Planned Parenthood can try to derail the bill, as they did in spending over a million dollars to unsuccessfully oppose a pro-life ballot measure last fall in Alabama. But the outcome will be the same: Alabamians will stand on the side of life.”

Several states, including most recently Georgia, have also passed so-called “heartbeat bills” which would prohibit abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which can as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The Alabama bill would prohibit performing abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

 

 

 

 

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

Related Articles

No Picture
News Briefs

Judge rules asylum seekers cannot be forced to remain in Mexico

April 9, 2019 CNA Daily News 0

San Francisco, Calif., Apr 9, 2019 / 12:30 pm (CNA).- Asylum seekers crossing the southern border may no longer have to return to Mexico while their cases are heard after a federal judge blocked the Department of Homeland Security’s Migrant Protection Protocols.

Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled April 9 that Homeland Security’s new protocols, announced in December 2018, did not adequately protect the safety of asylum applicants.

Shortly after the Migrant Protection Protocols were announced, the American Civil Liberties Union and immigration advocacy organizations filed a suit on behalf of 11 people seeking asylum in the United States from Central America.

The suit alleged that preventing the asylum seekers from staying in the United States is a violation of international law regarding humanitarian protections.

The protocols would have kept those seeking asylum in the United States in Mexico while their cases were being decided. Asylum seekers were to remain in Tijuana, near the border with the United States, and would be bussed to San Diego for court appearances.

The policy was intended to prevent asylum seekers from missing court appearances in favor of remaining in the United States illegally.

“Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in December.

“Instead, they will wait for an immigration court decision while they are in Mexico. ‘Catch and release’ will be replaced with ‘catch and return,'” she said.

Nielsen resigned from the Department of Homeland Security on April 7, but remains in post until Wednesday. Her replacement has not yet been announced. Kevin McAleenan, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, will serve as acting secretary.

Seeborg said that the policy did not properly ensure the safety of asylum applicants while their cases were being decided. The decision does not have immediate effect and the administration has until Friday afternoon to decide if they will appeal.

In November 2018, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration issued a joint statement with the presidents of Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Legal Immigration Network stating they concern at the Trump administration’s policy about asylum-seekers.

“While our teaching acknowledges the right of each nation to regulate its borders, we find this action deeply concerning,” said the statement.

“It will restrict and slow access to protection for hundreds of children and families fleeing violence in Central America, potentially leaving them in unsafe conditions in Mexico or in indefinite detention situations at the U.S./Mexico border. We reiterate that it is not a crime to seek asylum and this right to seek refuge is codified in our laws and in our values.”

The signatories said they hoped the administration would “seek other solutions” to improve the integrity of the immigration system, as well as protect children and families.

“The Catholic Church will continue to serve, accompany and assist all those who flee persecution, regardless of where they seek such protection and where they are from,” they said.

[…]

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*