Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb said Friday on Twitter that he expects the General Assembly to take up abortion law during a special session next month that he called for earlier this week to address refunds for state taxpayers.
Holcomb’s tweet came shortly after news broke that the U.S. Supreme Court had voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 court ruling that protected a woman’s decision to have an abortion.
“The Supreme Court’s decision is clear, and it is now up to the states to address this important issue,” Holcomb’s tweet said. “We’ll do that in short order in Indiana. I’ve already called the General Assembly back on July 6, and I expect members to take up this matter as well.”
Friday’s high court decision is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states. Indiana law currently allows abortions in most cases within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, but the state’s Republican-dominated legislature has a history of trying to limit abortion access.
“I have been clear in stating I am pro-life,” Holcomb tweeted. “We have an opportunity to make progress in protecting the sanctity of life, and that’s exactly what we will do.”
Holcomb on Wednesday said he was calling lawmakers back to the Indiana Statehouse on July 6 to consider his plan to send $1 billion in refunds to Indiana taxpayers.
If lawmakers agree to the governor’s plan, individual taxpayers would receive a tax refund of $225—on top of the $125 each is receiving through the state’s automatic taxpayer refund program.
Only the governor can call the Legislature into special session—something the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed earlier this year. But once lawmakers are at the Statehouse, their work is not limited by time or scope.
Many Republicans called on Holcomb earlier this year to call a special session if the Supreme Court issued a ruling that strikes down Roe v. Wade or otherwise opens the door for states to ban abortion.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Welcome to the theocracy.
— “I have been clear in stating I am pro-life,” Holcomb tweeted. —
.
So this means he’s against the death penalty?
No, Phillip; it does not…nor should he be. Abortion is the intentional destruction of an innocent life; not guilty of having done anything wrong. The death penalty, properly administered, is a power given to the government (and Biblically ordained, if you are so inclined to reference the Bible) to remove from society persons who have intentionally and willfully proven themselves to be so disrespectful of another person’s life so as to take it at will.
I’ll be damned if Holcomb and a bunch of backwards country bumpkins will dictate that my wife or daughters are barred from getting an abortion in the case of rape. Of course, we have the funds to go to IL or some other sane state, but not all people can do that.
Wait until they make illegal for your wife to get an IUD.
‘Nice to know you would be pleased to be damned as a result of your beliefs, Randy, for you surely will be if you don’t repent of them.
They aren’t all backwards country bumpkins. The worst of them are fundamentalist fanatics who believe that their perverted religion should dictate societal norms. They are dangerous.
Wait until they force your daughter or wife to risk death with an ectopic pregnancy because some kook will tell our legislators “oh, you can just transplant that to the uterus and it will live!”
(Spoiler alert: doesn’t work. But such pregnancies, which are 0.0% viable, are the leading cause of death of mothers in the first trimester.)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/29/ohio-extreme-abortion-bill-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancy
True that
“All life is sacred” so the right says- special exceptions for prisoners-
I recall when Obama was president and democrats held majorities in both houses of Congress and they did nothing at the time to attempt to codify abortion. Why all of the fuss now?
Maybe because no one foresaw the legal gymnastics and bad arguments that would be used to get rid of the right to abortion.
With Altio’s logic, anything that wasn’t legal when the 14th amendment was passed is fair game to be tossed by this court, as they’re rights not explicitly mentioned or “deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition”.
Thomas touches on this when he says that the right to contraception and same sex relationships/marriages should also be revisited. Put another way, he’s already indicated he’d vote to make all those illegal too. He’s begging someone to send along a case so he can vote those away too.
Oddly enough, Thomas glosses over the ability for interracial couples to be married, something that was both illegal at the time of the passing of the 14th amendment and was only legalized at roughly the same time as abortion. That right, when he enjoys, is based on the same Due Process clause.
And Alito can go on about oh no, those rights are fine because abortion has to do with “potential life”, but who is coming up with that definition? I missed the “potential life” clause in the constitution. Why are states allowed to prioritize this potential life, as defined by Alito, over the actual life of the mother over? And besides, you’re going to trust a Court that just turned in this legal screamer to not do it again with the first state that bans same sex relationships?
I’m against abortion but call this what it is – a group of conservatives inflicting their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Talk about judicial activism.