Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Dec. 30, 2010 | 2:17 p.m.
CARSON CITY – The Nevada Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a group seeking a constitutional amendment to ban abortions.
The court rejected the arguments of Personhood Nevada, which wanted a question on the election ballot this past November.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice James Hardesty, the court said the issue was moot because Personhood Nevada failed to gather the 97,000 signatures required to put the question on the ballot.
The organization already has served notice it will try to bring the abortion ban to a vote in the 2012 election.
Personhood Nevada filed an initiative petition with the Secretary of State to change the wording in the Nevada Constitution from “person” to “human being” and argued that would give the individual the protection of life, liberty and property from time of conception.
But opponents filed suit saying the initiative was defective because it contained more than one subject and its language was vague as to the consequences. Carson City District Judge Todd Russell agreed and Personhood brought an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Hardesty wrote the appeal was moot because the advocates of the petition failed to present the required signatures to the state by the June 15 deadline. Regardless of its decision, the court said it could not grant the appeal because the 2010 election is over.
“This court’s duty is not to render advisory opinions but, rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment,” the court said Thursday. It said since the advocates intend to bring an initiative petition in 2012, any decision by the court now would be speculative “and lead to an advisory opinion.”
50+ Million abortions in this country since 1970's. That easily could have been the next Newton, Einstein, Mozart, Tom Brady, or the person who invents a new power source.
Too bad we will never know.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not in the USA.
Tom Brady? I'm surprised you did not add Santa Claus to your list.
You know...there is such a debate on when an abortion is murder and when it is not. In all the discussions...arguments...suits....panels....there has never been something concidered to end this debate....
When a person is pronounced dead at a hospital, it is a fact that they are completely dead when there is no longer any brain activity. Clergy consider this as when the "Spirit" or "Soul" leaves the body and there is nothing left but a "Shell".
So my opinion is this....reverse the idea....A fetus is not a human being yet until there is brain or other electrical activity within its body. Once that occurs, the child is now a human being. Now of course this means that any abortion would have to happen quickly, because it doesn't take long for the fetus to exert electrical impulses...but once that happens, it should then be protected like any human. Simple solution...but why no one has ever addressed it as a standard is unknown to me. Such a simple approach.
In reply to SerfAttack: Given the obvious lack of interest in child rearing of the putative mothers, it even more easily could have been the next Manson, Bundy or Dahmer. We may all be extremely fortunate that we will never know.
I said this would happen from the get go, end of life, beginning of life = two issues. Ziser should get over it.
TheSerfAttack
You must be a male.
And yes - Meursault is right. Also, there may have been hundreds of children born to mothers that have no means, ie financially, mentally, physically, to support these children. Some would be born as drug addicts, some born with AIDS, some would be born totally unwanted, and others would end up either in abusive homes or just pawns in teh system with no one.
And - it is a WOMAN'S CHOICE on what she does with her body. In this case, a choice that is heartwrenching and difficult. And NO MAN (or woman for that matter) has any right whatsoever to intrude on that woman's decision or dictate to her on what she can and cannot do. Her choice and decision is between her and God.