According to a report by Dan Carden, writing for the Times of Northwest Indiana, Representative Curt Nisly wants to introduce unconstitutional legislation because he hopes to have the U.S. Supreme Court announce a changed view of the Constitution. In particular, he believes that the General Assembly should have the power to criminalize abortion, prosecute women and doctors involved in the abortion process, and (presumably – the bill is not, to my knowledge, currently available) have women and doctors jailed.
State Rep. Curt Nisly, R-Goshen, said Tuesday he plans to file a “Protection at Conception” proposal when the Republican-controlled General Assembly convenes in January.
If enacted into law, it would prohibit all abortion in Indiana in all circumstances and authorize the criminal prosecution of any doctor or woman who participates in an abortion.
“It’s time to bring the Roe v. Wade era to its logical conclusion,” Nisly said. “My goal is to deregulate abortion right out of existence in Indiana.”
He is quoted as saying “deregulate,” but, of course, legislating a prohibition on abortion would be significant government regulation. The article suggests that women who have abortions would be prosecuted for murder. There is no particular indication that this legislation will go anywhere when the session starts. Last year, Rep. Nisly introduced HB 1122 which had some fairly onerous abortion regulations and died in committee without a hearing.
Comments for or against this measure? Contact information for Rep. Curt Nisly (R-Goshen): 1-800-382-9841.
I am not pro-abortion by any means.
Criminalizing a medical decision between a physician and an individual is BIG GOVERNMENT!
I thought the plan was to get government out of our lives not create our own version of the Taiban’s old Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
First the insurance companies pushed their way in and now the government wants in the room with the patient and their doctor?
It is time to draw a line. This is where we need to build a wall!
The Doctor patient relationship should be as protected as a person’s choice of religion.
The Taliban don’t seem to understand the concept either.
They like to pretend that their concern is for the fetus. In reality, they want to send women back to the days when they couldn’t hold a job, leave an abusive marriage or have control over their own lives and the size of their families, which made them, in essence, prisoners. The same people who want to criminalize abortion want birth control to be illegal as well. Making abortion illegal just makes women die from trying to end pregnancies on their own.
Absolutely. It is about oppressing women. They don’t care about children or fetuses.
Or die of the pregnancy itself (guess what the fetus dies too)
I totally agree!! Keep BIG GOVERNMENT out of our uteri!!!
This bill is all about pushing the view that you shouldn’t have sex before marriage, and if you do, you deserve the consequences.
If these guys were truly out to end abortion, they’d be pushing IUD’s and giving women the choice to use other forms of birth control. They’d do a pilot program in Indiana based off what Warren Buffett’s money did in Colorado, here in Indiana.
if they truly wanted to stop abortion, they’d make sure that our kids were properly educated about sex. According to Get Real Indiana, “Indiana law does state that when sexuality education is taught, abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage must be stressed. Instruction must teach that abstinence outside of marriage and a mutually monogamous relationship inside of marriage are the best ways to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems. (IC 20-10.1-4-11)” We may as well teach our kids to drive by advising them to never get behind the wheel in the first place.
If they truly wanted to stop abortion, they’d start a Planned Parenthood alternative that offers all those women’s health services… save abortion. Instead, they redirect our tax dollars to groups that advise women to not have an abortion.
If they ever did any of that, think about it. You could break the cycle of teen pregnancy that so often leads to kids being raised in broken homes, leaving school early, and criminal behavior.
But they’re not. They want kids to not be educated about sex, they want them to not have any protection if they do have sex, and they want them to suffer the consequences for not following the commands of the Bible for the rest of their lives.
Grace is in short supplies these days among a lot of religious conservatives. Funny how a lot of New Testament Christians sure want a God who delivers justice like the God they read about in the Old Testament.
At the very least, if they don’t want to do any of that, they should include the father of the child in the criminal prosecution. That baby, after all, didn’t get there all by itself.
I love that both of these excellent comments are from men.
Yes!!
Coat hangers and sepsis. Straight back to 50’s.
Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It will stop safe, sterile abortion.
Take government out of our lives like you promised.
Joe – excellent response!!
Keep religious beliefs out of governing and law-making!! Don’t force your beliefs on ALL women, regardless of their religion, or lack thereof. Ever hear of separation of church and state?? There should be NO religious oppression in this country…NO LAWS BASED ON A PERSON’S FAITH!!!
I propose we implant an unwanted fetus into any man who is anti-abortion. The mesentary blood supply would be a perfect site for the placental attachment. Let them gestate and care for these potential humans that they are so concerned about.
Killing human beings at any point in our lives is a crime, This Indiana legislator is simply trying to protect human beings in the unborn stage the same as those of us who enjoy legal protection in the born stage.
Most of you who have commented are abortionists. Why do you care what happens to anyone anyway, when you would have allowed every one of us to be destroyed in the unborn stage?
So, therefore you must be anti death penalty also?
In this country, people love the idea of prohibition. If enough people don’t like something and it’s a pain to deal with, let’s prohibit it through some law or Constitutional Amendment. But they forget that in prohibiting some behavior that many people choose becomes a bigger problem than the problem they want to stop. How did prohibiting alcohol work out? How about the “war on drugs”? Another blazing success, especially marijuana. So in the most extreme circumstances, if abortion were prohibited, how do do you think that would work out? Only the people with money to go to “aunt Jane’s” in another state or country would get them, and the others would die in a back alley.
If you look at abortion statistics, you will see that countries where abortion is prohibited have very prevalence (actual incidence is anyone’s guess). Countries where they have excellent sex education and access to birth control have very low prevalence rates. Meanwhile, people think repression and restriction is such a great idea when the data show it’s a mess. Sometimes it’s better to make peace with the devil.
I actually wrote the above while sitting in the lobby of the church I attend where we teach kids to wait until marriage.
Believe it or not, like you, I’d like to see less abortion too. But I would rather offer the carrot of contraception and better education than the stick of proposed laws like this one. Because, going back thousands of years, hormones are what they are. You’re not going to legislate those away.
If you truly want less abortion, why not invest in contraception and better education? If the response is “people shouldn’t have sex outside marriage”, just be clear about it. You’re not just pro-life, you’re pro-telling-people-how-to-live-their-lives. Which, it should be pointed out, isn’t a particularly Republican policy standpoint.
And it’s just insulting that two people came together to form this child, and the women has to deal with all the legal ramifications. The man is just as liable and should also face the same threat of criminal prosecution.
Joe, really good points. There are numerous behaviors that I personally disagree with that destroy people and their families, but enough people want to do them that prohibition would be folly. The problem with prohibited behavior is that when nobody can do it, everyone can do it because the behavior cannot be regulated. For example, I personally don’t approve of gambling, and I believe that all religions prohibit usury because it is destructive to society, and I know that gambling and credit cards that charge usurious amounts both destroy families and persons. But I know that lots of people love to gamble, losing more money they can afford, maxing out credit cards, making only minimal payments and courting bankruptcy. I’m sure that the readers of this blog can mention a host of behaviors that people love to do that will ruin them, but prohibiting those behaviors would be impossible, so they are simply regulated.
People interested in motivating people to engage in behaviors that are in their best interest may be interested in reading “Nudge” by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.
As I saw, maybe in this blog, it’s significant that the party that advocates for small government and lack of regulations wants to control people who are “not them”. We got that shirt in Indiana.
I would like a Constitutional amendment introduced in Indiana allowing women only to vote on laws regulating.women’s rights to contraception and abortion.
Yes please!