Jackson Jambalaya

This is just Little Jimmy Hood's way of saying "I'm still relevant, really." His statutory duty to defend our laws has been ignored in the past when he was not seeking a higher office.

It can be awfully painful when a man falls while trying to walk the fence like that....

Hood really has no good options on this one. I guess technically he is doing his job by wasting the taxpayers money fighting for a law the legislature passed, but it still feels wrong for the AG to be fighting the constitution.. This is really on the legislature and not Hood. I guess at this point, pissing on the constitution a little more is par for the course. If Republicans hate this country so much, they really should consider moving elsewhere.

11:25 is right about walking the fence here. On the one hand, he's saying "Hey conservative voters, vote for me because I'm trying to uphold the abortion restrictions", but on the other hand, telling others "Hey liberal voters, vote for me, I'm only doing this because I'm statutorily required to, so don't hold it against me." Which is it, Mr Hood ? You fer it or agin it ?

1:03pm....where exactly does the constitution address this subject or are you confusing a very iffy supreme court ruling with it actually being a right given in the constitution. the contortions made to get to that ruling are laughable, but i will stand corrected if you can point to it anywhere in the constitution, the writers of which would gladly shoot you in the head for killing an unborn child.

"but i will stand corrected if you can point to it anywhere in the constitution, the writers of which would gladly shoot you in the head for killing an unborn child."

Um, pardon me there Constitutional scholar, but why don't YOU point to anything to support YOUR contention re: the drafters shooting anyone in the head for "killing an unborn child," gladly or otherwise, or for that matter anything that would prove their full position on abortion.

If it has a heartbeat, it is a human, who simply cannot survive on its own yet. If we as a society do not protect it, then we are murderers. I truly don’t see how this is even debatable.

Give Mr. Hood credit for having the guts to go against his Democrat party filled with leftist’s so evil they not only want the right to rip fully developed human beings from the womb, they want the right to murder human beings outside of the womb, alive and on the table.

It’s ok Democrats tell us, because they will keep the baby comfortable while his or her parents decide whether or not to murder an innocent child.

The really weird thing is there will be plenty of people in church this morning, smiling and holding a Bible (that many if not most of them have never read), all claiming to be Christians, while at the same time planning to vote Democrat in the upcoming presidential election.

It really is amazing how easy it is to get people to sell their souls today; promises of free health care is about all it takes.

Hitler would be so very proud for the Democrat party today.

1{10 pm The heart develops at week 5 of a pregnancy, but there is no head , no brain, no lungs.

The notion that a heart is the essence of our humanity is medieval and romantic nonsense. You don't love, feel or exist only because you have a heart.

The rate of miscarriage is highest in the first trimester ( 12 weeks) because vital organs fail to form. You should also read about Trisomy and other genetic mutations so you'll understand that some pregnancies can become intensely painful and deadly for both the fetus and the mother.

Your ignorance is going to cause great suffering and worsen the tragedy for these mothers. Do you want a woman to carry a fetus for nine months that she knows cannot possibly exist outside the womb? Do you want her undergo all the stresses on her body for no reason and just wait and see if her body will finally trigger labor?

And, just who will decide when the mother's life is at risk? Will just one doctor do or will there have to be an official government body like in the late fifties and sixties? What will the qualifications be for those who decide for the woman?

This bill is a blatant political and religious attempt to make sure no woman can end a pregnancy. You are forcing your beliefs on others when maybe you should trust God more than man.

1:01 pm

I'm opposed to abortion for convenience. Most everyone I've ever met in over 7 decades is.

But , first :

1. Deny parental rights to the rapist . But, unfortunately, in many States the rapist has parental rights.

2. Eliminate all the loopholes used by fathers to avoid supporting the child.

3. Re- create homes where pregnant women can receive good care while pregnant and reform adoption laws so it's not so difficult to free a child for adoption.

4. List the medically scientific circumstances, all of them, that should allow the termination of a pregnancy because the child will not survive and the mother is at risk. No debates like in the past between physicians of unequal credentials as to whether her damaged heart can function to term or whether her cancer can still be treatable and survivable after hormones increase the growth rate.

5. If the father has a history of domestic abuse or criminality, make sure the woman has the ability to keep him away from ever being able to harm her or the child.

6. Allow abortion for any statutory rape for girls under age 15. Forcing 9 and 10 year olds ( yes puberty now starts that young in some girls) to have not just a baby, but maybe their only baby is simply child abuse. A girl is less likely to survive a pregnancy if she her body is not fully developed enough to bear a child.


Rational, informed humans can come to an agreement if we can get emotions and religious beliefs and ignorance out of the way.

2:01 Nails It! Hood thought it would be genius of him to walk both sides of the fence. Convince conservatives that he's doing the right thing by appearing to oppose abortion. Then at the same time, trying to convince liberals that he's only doing his job, although it's painful...but he has no choice.

The only problem here is that Hood is somewhat of a mental midget in his assumptions and ability to read voters.

9:00 a.m.: Your argument is specious. Emotionalism and religion aside, abortion in order to save the life of the mother or in situations where medical experts have determined that there can be no life outside the womb is entirely separate from abortion for the sake of convenience.

I read today that for every 33 live births, there are 10 abortions, worldwide. That's the alarm bell being rung, not your deflection to abortion to save a life.

Come in out of the rain.

8:30 am How old are you? And, where did you read that and why is the rest of the world relevant? China's policy certainly skewed any " world" stats.

When abortions were illegal except to save the life of the mother or if the fetus was already dead ( and where they still are), how do you think the decisions were/are made and by whom?

Illegal abortion has existed throughout the ages. There were poisons and potions and tools used. Some were more effective than others and if the women were of high enough status, their survival rate was higher. So no law has ever stopped a determined woman.

And, do you know how many illegal abortions were done prior to Roe vs Wade and how many women died from those illegal abortions? 17-18% of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortion. 50000 women die in childbirth every year now according to the CDC and that our rates are rising thanks to pro-life efforts.

But, I see you are one that doesn't believe women are capable of making a moral or religious decision and regard pregnancy as a meaningless event so the government or appointed citizens should do that for her. After all, you and government know all her reasons and circumstances better than she does.


And, God forbid you should consider in your " world view" the ability of a country or planet the planet to sustain overpopulation.

8:30 am You assume medical experts will agree and are ignorant to the biological facts particularly when it comes to existing health issues of women that result in " high risk" pregnancies.

You are ignoring also the outcomes to babies born before 24 weeks. Only 13% are without neurological impairment. That rises to 32% at 24 weeks.

Do expect health costs to rise and to make it more difficult for families with healthy children to afford health care. I do hope you aren't one of those unwilling to take care of those neurological problems if the parents can't afford the care.

Do any of you really believe any ob/gyn is going to risk that a nurse or physician who is a zealot on abortion won't challenge his medical decision?

Do you believe an ob/gyn will risk losing patients who will think he's a murderer?

And, do you believe there won't have to be ob/gyns who are willing who won't face having the same existing expensive legal requirements that are now causing existing clinics to close?

You are all ignoring reality when there is already a history of what reality was when abortions were illegal and when ob/gyns are willing.

We all would like every pregnancy to result in happy outcomes. That's unrealistic and rationalizing and denial makes the discussion to get even close to the ideal impossible.