Pro-Life Legislators Score a Victory in North Dakota

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

North Dakota Capitol in Bismarck. (Bobak Ha'Eri/Wikimedia Commons)

North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple signed the nation's toughest abortion legislation into law yesterday despite the presence of protesters outside. The law bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is "detectable," as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Similar bans are are under consideration in Kansas, Ohio, and elsewhere.

Bette Grande is a Republican State Representative in North Dakota, and a primary sponsor of the state's abortion bill.

Our Washington correspondent, Todd Zwillich, is filling in as host all this week. Follow Todd on Twitter for the latest from Capitol Hill.


Bette Grande

Hosted by:

Todd Zwillich

Comments [5]

julie from Brooklyn, NY

She conveniently avoids the topic of what happens to women who do not discover they are pregnant until week 6 or later. Finding oneself pregnant unplanned and without options is not dealing with the "welfare" of women. Unless this law includes financial support for time lost during pregnancy, affordable and reliable child care, equal pay policy to ensure that women don't fall far below their male counterparts, flexible work hours for working parents, psychological help for the stress of being forced to give birth against your will. If welfare of women and children is the issue - surely these things are included in this law, no?

Mar. 27 2013 03:49 PM

I don't know anyone suffering from having an abortion or suffering because they aborted/ended the life of their fetus. I only know people who are relieved afterwards, as I was. You can't stop abortions by outlawing them, if you truly care for the life of the women who choose to get an abortion for whatever reason than you would let them do so legally. When abortion is illegal women die. Of course the fact is that people like Bette Grande are not actually concerned with the women's health and think that if they were to die from getting an illegal abortion they only had what coming to them and that they will burn in hell. They are introducing legislation based on their own religious beliefs based on the fact that they think a fetus has a soul and ignorance/lack of empathy for others. They also can't comprehend the children who may be born to a woman in the future who will be far better off because she chose to have them at a time in her life when she was ready.

Mar. 27 2013 03:49 PM
Larry Fisher from Brooklyn, N.Y.

I often wonder when someone writes a comment and their name is "listener," if it is the same person.

Mar. 27 2013 02:22 PM

Hello, love the show... I was just wondering what the Republicans (who usually support less taxes) are proposing for funding to pay for what will surely be more young mothers on public assistance to aid women through unwanted pregnancies and after their children are born. As a parent myself I know how expensive a child can be and many young women who would seek abortions are doing so in a situatiuon where they cannot support a child and do not have a reliable partner to help them. In this case they will need assistance from the state and that will require funding in a time when budgets are being cut. Who will pay for this new need? Who will suffer if the funds are not there? The children of these mothers will surely suffer and that is truely sad to me. I am pro-choice but I think this issue is also about responsibility for caring for children if women are going to be forced to have a child they may not want. Thank you for your time and take care.

Mar. 27 2013 12:10 PM

So we are to put scientific advancement and knowledge over all things like faith and politics except with abortion because it runs counter to the progressive media narrative?

Speaking of that, isn't there a criminal trial gong on in Philadelphia right now that the famously unbiased media likes to avoid for some reason?

Mar. 27 2013 09:43 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.