AP/ March 7, 2013, 6:23 AM

Arkansas adopts toughest abortion limits in U.S.

Ark. State Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, sponsored tough anti-abortion rights law just adopted by state's lawmakers over governor's veto.

Ark. State Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, sponsored tough anti-abortion rights law just adopted by state's lawmakers over governor's veto. / AP

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. Arkansas soon will have the nation's most restrictive abortion law -- a near-ban on the procedure from the 12th week of pregnancy onward -- unless a lawsuit or court action intervenes.

Lawmakers in the Republican-dominated Legislature defied Gov. Mike Beebe, overriding the Democrat's veto. The House voted 56-33 on Wednesday to override Beebe's veto, a day after the Senate voted to do the same.

The votes come less than a week after the legislature overrode a veto of a separate bill banning most abortions starting in the 20th week of pregnancy. That bill took effect immediately after the final override vote, whereas the 12-week ban won't take effect until this summer.

Abortion rights proponents already have said they'll sue to block the 12-week ban from taking effect. Beebe warned lawmakers that both measures would end up wasting taxpayers' money with the state defending them in court where, he said, they are likely to fail.

The measures' supporters, who expected court challenges, were undaunted.

"Not the governor, nor anyone else other than the courts, can determine if something is constitutional or unconstitutional," Rep. Bruce Westerman, a Republican from Hot Springs, said in urging his colleagues to override Beebe.

Bill sponsor Sen. Jason Rapert, a Republican from Conway, watched the vote from the House gallery and said a number of law firms have offered to help the state defend the laws in court, if it comes to that.

"I'm just grateful that this body has continued to stand up for the bills that have passed. The eyes of the entire nation were on the Arkansas House of Representatives today," he said.

Beebe rejected both measures for the same reasons, saying they are unconstitutional and contradict the U.S. Supreme Court 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion until a fetus could viably survive outside the womb. A fetus is generally considered viable at 22 to 24 weeks.

"The Arkansas Legislature has once again disregarded women's health care and passed the most extreme anti-women's health bill in the country," said Jill June, the CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. "With this bill, the Arkansas Legislature will force many women to seek unsafe care."

The 12-week ban would prohibit abortions from the point when a fetus' heartbeat can typically be detected using an abdominal ultrasound. It includes exemptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother and highly lethal fetal disorders. The 20-week prohibition, which is based on the disputed claim that a fetus can feel pain by the 20th week and therefore deserves protection from abortion, includes all of the same exemptions except for fetal disorders.

Six Democrats joined with Republicans in voting to override the veto of the 12-week ban. Last week, only two Democrats voted to override the veto of the 20-week ban.

"I think a lot of people felt some pressure after the last vote," said House Minority Leader Greg Leding, a Democrat from Fayetteville.

The measure is among several abortion restrictions lawmakers have backed since Republicans won control of the House and Senate in the November election. Republicans hold 21 of the 35 Senate seats, and 51 of the 100 seats in the House. It takes a simple majority in both chambers to override.

Beebe has signed into law one of those measures, a prohibition on most abortion coverage by insurers participating in the exchange created under the health care law.

Rep. Ann Clemmer, a Republican of Benton serving her third term in the House, asked her colleagues to support the override attempt, saying her votes on anti-abortion bills this year were the first time she could fully express her view on issue at the Capitol. When Democrats held control, such bills never made it this far.

"If I say that I'm pro-life, at some point I have to do something about what I say I believe," said Clemmer, the bill's sponsor in the House.

Unlike the 20-week ban, which took effect immediately, the 12-week restriction won't take effect until 90 days after the House and Senate adjourn. Lawmakers aren't expected to wrap up this year's session until later this month or April.

In vetoing both measures, Beebe has cited the costs to the state if it has to defend either ban in court. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas has vowed to sue if the state enacts the 12-week ban and said it is considering legal action over the 20-week restriction as well.

"I think today, for whatever reason, the Arkansas House turned its back on the women of Arkansas and said, we don't think you're capable of making your own decisions," said Rita Sklar, ACLU of Arkansas' executive director. Sklar said the group planned to file suit in federal court in the next couple weeks.

Beebe noted that the state paid nearly $148,000 to attorneys for plaintiffs who successfully challenged a 1997 late-term abortion ban.

The original version of Rapert's bill would have banned abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, but he changed the measure after facing resistance from some lawmakers worried that it would require the use of a vaginal probe.

Women who have abortions would not face prosecution under Rapert's bill, but doctors who perform abortions in violation of the 12-week ban could have their medical licenses revoked.

© 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
24 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Chastain1172 says:
So let me understand your logic, Ben, "many" women would die of back alley abortions. How many is many? Because right now millions of male and female babies are being slaughtered. And according to Jesus, He knit them together in their mothers womb, so I think when they are torn limb from limb, it doesn't sit well with him.

2nd non sensical point of yours would be that since there is rape their should be free abortion to all for any reason, like wrong eye color. So 1% of abortions are for rape, therefore 99% have to die. Wait, I hear a slogan in there "we are the 99%, let us live".

Please take your points out to their logical conclusions, they are absurd, and compare apples to apples. Educate yourself on the number of women that have aborted the only child they would ever be able to conceive, or the number of woman who are emotionally killed that day with their baby, or even physically killed, or the link between abortion and breast cancer and mental illness or cervical cancer, or premature birth.

And Roll, you honestly didn't know murder was condemned in the Bible? Again, I am going to invoke logic here, "the Bible doesn't say anywhere that you can't suffocate someone with a pillow even though it is well known that people had pillows"
Please,
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
cookiepress says:
I have known too many young women who have had abortions who are sorry afterwards and have a hard time living with the CHOICE they have made especially after they have a living child. I don't believe religion should dictate civil law. We talk about a woman's right to choose. Only in the case of rape do we have no choice. If a woman chooses to have unprotected sex there is the possibility that she will become pregnant. I grew up in the age of women's lib and rights. I got pregnant out of wedlock and could not imagine having an abortion even though I had the choice in 1975. But for the most part it is our choice to have sex or not. I now have a beautiful daughter, son and 9 wonderful grandchildren that I would not trade for anything in this world.
For you women who want choice, it is yours. To have unprotected sex or not (except in the case of rape).
In my day we were taught sex between the unwed was wrong. I had a friend who would not use birth control because she thought it would be a deterrent to having unmarried sex. She had 3 out of wedlock children by 3 different men.
It's a matter of conscience and not government's concern. In the end we must do what we believe is the right thing, but we must remember that we must live with our decisions.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
w_roos says:
Taliban insurgents at it again...
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
wolfmagic2012 says:
Arkansas is a microcosm of the GOP: Intractibility to the point of stupidity. Harming their constituents and their party legally and financially, and insisting on policies which are either indefensible legally, or so out of touch with the mainstream of America that they only hasten the demise of the moribund GOP.
reply
Non-Political replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
wolf,

Intractibility?!!!! Do you have a clue as to just who is? Put it this way: this week marks the first time obama has actually done what he supposedly won the peace prize for and that is try to provide an atmosphere for compromise.
In more then four years he has never once REALLY TRIED TO COMTACT the GOP Congressional members to talk over the issues. Four years! I would call him Mr. Intractible not Mr. Compromise.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
romans826 says:
Protecting human life should not be a partisan issue but modern Democrats can't help themselves.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Auslander22 says:
.

Decisions like this will help to maintain Republicans as the party for the draconian minority.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Filmguy870 says:
The Tealiban strikes again. (Where are the Drones when you need them???)
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
hopemckay says:
If we lived in a perfect world this would be easier to accept. However, has anyone ever thought that perhaps a very sincere Christian might have faith that when discovering the new life inside her is in such a critical stage of development it is more unselfish and more compassionate to allow that new little soul to go where little spirits go than to bring it into the world, only to suffer pain and misery just to stay "alive". There are real live examples of seriously serious situations i.e. anencephaly, congenital twins, conditions that are horrible mistakes in nature and to deprive the family who will be responsible for the care to make their own personal decision is playing "God", not the other way around. How about natural miscarriages where the fetus is whisked away in a hospital and discarded with the hospital waste? When you can begin to show this stage of life with the same respect and dignity that is shown to other deaths, I might be more apt to believe that you really do love your pro-life stance. Decisions for an abortion should not be up to a branch of government who wipe their hands of any after care except perhaps a few entitlements for which the Christian Right begrudges. As I said, "If only this were a perfect world"!
reply
romans826 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
"Seriously serious situations" do not warrant killing innocent human beings. None of your points justify on-demand abortion throughout the country. We will never approach a better world when people can discard others because of their inconvenience.
hopemckay replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Romans 8-26..Is this verse of the N.T. suppose to parallel your belief? I did not catch the revelence to my post with all that "spirit translation talk". Nowhere did I equate killing infants because of inconvenience. In fact I am not sure you understood a thing I did say in my post, because your mind is so made up and locked up on vague Bible verses that you will not even think beyond what you have been taught in your religious scholarship. Honestly, the Bible is too difficult for any of us to understand about a lot of things, and I frankly do not see a thing wrong with admitting that and at least know enough to know what we do not know. Too many people believe they do understand every word of it, and think their particular branch of Christianity are the only ones who understand it. Surely, God would never create mankind, only to send us to a burning hell unless we magically come across a book written by men, lost for centuries, translated numerous times, and not until King James (chosen by the Church of England, by the way) version in 1611 was it thought to be the most accurate account of the Christian movement. Then you were required to attend a school of theology and become indoctrinated, so that you could indoctrinate others to believe what you believe and so on. My God is a totally different source of comfort to me and I think I would go mad if I believed as many (?)Christians do. As Ghandi so beautifully said, "I like your Jesus Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ".
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Lindag20 says:
After forcing women to have children they can't support and the father of the child is no where to be found, they will whine and complain about these "precious, innocent babies" when they turn into hungry needy children that are on welfare.
reply
romans826 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
We don't kill people because they are hungry.
Lindag20 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Romans: But you sure spend a LOT of time complaining about feeding and caring for (via welfare) these children that you want brought into the world.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
john92021 says:
are they going to amend it once they get a gay fetus test?
reply
See all 24 Comments