Jackson Jambalaya

This gives me faith in Mississippi.

The stupid Bible thumpers arent pro-life they're simply pro birth. They could give a rat's scaly ass about a child once it's born. Way to go you're succeeding in keeping Mississippi dead last.

Thank goodness they have their priorities straight. I was concerned they would be distracted and pass something related to a new state flag, or statewide mandatory ACT testing, or taking over the airport or fixing our bridges!

I'm so glad that all of the other problems that this state suffers have been solved, Thus providing the state legislature time to pass laws that will be overturned by the US Supreme Court.

I'm sure this is increasing for Evangelical Electorate credentials for Dough Boy, and Jesus Points for the drunk drivers and charlatans in the state legislature.

If abortions weren't cheaply available to urban single mothers, crime and government dependencies would probably be 20x what they are today. It is a political accelerant that the right uses to inflame their base and motivate them to vote. Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.

Everyone knows rich white evangelical mothers take their daughters to their private OB-GYN to take care of "mistakes" that happen.

"Instead of a teacher pay raise, let's spend $50 Million litigating a policy more far-reaching than a case currently pending in federal court."

If the bronze age Abrahamic diety cared so much about abortions, then why is it his will that children suffer and die of cancer?

Abortion is barbaric and has been advocated for by eugenicists and autocrats throughout history. When Roe was decided, the technology did not exist to assess an unborn child's health (yes, it is a child, with unique DNA, cellular activity, and a heartbeat...not a blob of cells). I'm so glad y'all are advocating for what's tantamount to genocide...

Wow, this has touched a nerve with the 'progressives'.

Sorry freaks, but I have confidence the Great State of Miss'sippy will outlaw infant murder.

Troll on !

Sorry . . . but your angst will not change this Senate Bill.

Life matters and is entitled to protection. Those who justify the taking of it via abortion never squarely address how we can acknowledge the protection of life in the wrongful death context and yet casually promote abortion of life when convenient or simply desired by the mother. There are two interests in the abortion question --mother and child-- and not just the mother's. And this is so no matter how you slice and dice it for political reasons. Life is precious and is deserving of legal protection. Some day we will see the carnage of abortion for what it is. Amazing how we got to where we are now, actually having to advocate for a child's life, even after birth (see Virginia governor's comments last week). God have mercy on us and give us grace to see what we are doing. And yes we are obligated to care for and hold life of both the child and the mother precious after a mother gives birth, to the extent that issue is presented as a distraction.

Way to go 6:03. Himmler would be proud of your big lies. Ignore the facts and demonize.

The hatred spewed by the pro-abortion crowd is terrifying.

Hey 6:03 you are sick!

I never realized how much the left based everything upon the ability to kill babies, even past viability. I admire the senators for trying to protect the unborn. I am personally not as stringent as they are, but I respect their courage.

FYI men have no say in a woman's right to choose! If currently have a penis then you need to just sit down and shut up! You will never experience having a literal parasite in your womb or the challenges of birth.

Seriously, shut up!

You realize nobody is forced to get an abortion.

You have the right to say no.

If you do not want an abortion...do not get one.

It’s pretty simple.

It doesn't matter if you worship Moloch or Yahweh, they both demand blood sacrifice.

Supposedly we are a society based on Law not personal conviction. That does not mean that personal conviction isn't important to descent human beings. But the Law must establish reasonable boundaries for everybody no matter your personal conviction. Some people actually believe that a human life is present and must be protected from the moment of conception. That's their belief conviction and God bless them. But most people can see where that might be extremely problematic when determining when a murder has actually taken place if that were the Law. But we also know that a living child will be present inside a woman that some point and it cannot be seen as just a piece of meat. So with due respect the Law must do the best it can to put a reasonable time limit on life/murder so that it can be applied with consistency and fairness no matter the personal convictions of other people who might not agree. Roe vs Wade tried to do that. It ain't perfect but it never will be. Since we are not God, we can only try to be fair and reasonable with the limited knowledge that we have.

8:48 appears in a XXLarge, yellow, print moo-moo to say: "If you currently have a penis"....Spoken like a true, radical feminist who no doubt advocates sex reassignment and routine removal of male sex organs.

I'm amazed at the crazies whose defense of abortion is nothing more than, "Oh Yeah? Well...how you gonna take care of them after they're born?"

Wow, I am staying out of this debate.

I have a number of friends who were adopted after their birth mothers gave them up, and the world would be a much worse place without them. Obviously, the easiest thing for their birth mother to end the pregnancy would have been an abortion, but God bless them for not choosing that option. As a male, it would be interesting to see the long-term effect (mental/physical/etc.) on the women that chose an abortion for "convenience", and if they could make a different decision, would they.

Where is the ACLU when you need them?

Just like Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah, Mississippi will be spared God's wrath against this sinful nation. Abortionist Dwmocrat Baby killers will be rewarded with hell.

9:48 pm, You are sadly misinformed. God (Yahweh) does not require a blood sacrifice. The shed blood of Jesus is all that is required for salvation. If you will repent of your sinful ways and trust in him he will even save you. I know he will because he saved me. I will pray for you.

According to John Locke, a person’s body is their property—not the property of the government. That’s all I’m going to say.

This bill is inconsistent with Roe and, therefore, unconstitutional. Reeves is just pandering to his evangelical base.

@6:47AM
You are misinformed. When Al-Aqsa mosque is destroyed and the Holy Temple is rebuilt, sacrifices will resume in the new Temple in Jerusalem.

Are you an anti-semite?

7:35, how is it inconsistent with Roe, specifically? This bill does not make abortion illegal, and limits it within reasonable (to most folks) constraints. And while we're at it, where in the constitution is abortion listed as a right? Roe simply decided that abortion could not be made illegal or unreasonably restricted. Since it has been 46 years since the case was decided, it could use a fresh look considering the new technology available.

I'm moving to Virginia where a woman can deliver her baby, make it comfortable, then kill it. This is what we, as Democrats, stand for.

That and ignoring a Democrat governor's blackface shenanigans while calling Mary Poppins and a photo of miners with coal dust on their faces racist.

The Democrats Party - We have more standards than anyone. In fact, we have double standards!

4:38 - right on! Two of my very best friends are adopted, and they are the best folks you'd ever want to know. It would be a shame if they were never born, and I can't imagine my life without them in it.

Anyone who takes an honest look at Roe v Wade, whether pro-abortion or anti-abortion, has to come to the conclusion that it is simply bad law. Roe v. Wade effectively says that aborting an unborn baby is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. How in the hell do you get there from a reading of the United States Constitution? I am open to anyone illuminating me on this point.

At worst, the Supreme Court should have left the legality of abortion up to the states, which would have kept the federal govt out of it altogether.

That said, the issue of abortion hinges on one thing - is an unborn baby a life or not? If it is a life, then it's preservation is absolutely guaranteed by the Constitution. Pro-abortionists refuse to address this point and refuse to look at the scientific evidence that clearly points to the fact that an unborn child (call it a fetus if you are more comfortable with that) exhibits substantially all of the traits of a human life actually pretty early in its formation.

The argument that "it's my body, and you can't tell me what to do with it" is BS. The law can tell you not to take your arm and swing it so that it hits someone else in the face. The law can tell you not to use your foot to kick someone else. The law can tell you not to use your hands to push someone off of a balcony. Using your body to do harm to someone else is a violation of the law. If an unborn baby/fetus is a "someone else", then using your body (actually using sharp instruments and vacuum equipment) to terminate that "someone else" is against the law - i.e. it is murder.

9:48 is a has problems with analysis. Yes, Moloch and Yahweh asked for sacrifice. Moloch asked for child sacrifice as part of efforts to manipulate the forces of the world for personal gain. Yahweh asked for animal sacrifice as atonement for moral failure. There are enormous differences on multiple levels between the two.

However, there are similarities in the abortion camp and the Moloch camp in they both favor the death of children.

However 9:48 is correct in the sense that if you are building an amoral narrative, truth and reason are inconvenient obstacles. Hence 9:48's argument avoids both truth and reason.

Ignorant people can't help but show it.

This mitzvah is thus compared to offering a korban, sacrifice to G-d - the word korban from the root korov, "to draw close". Taking this comparison further, Rabbeinu Bachya observes how the atonement from the blood on the altar corresponds to the blood draw from the wound at a bris.

I'm opposed to abortion but am sick and tired of the sanctimonious pro-lifers who happily abort fetuses which are a product of rape but deny abortion to women whose pregnancies may just as traumatic as a rape victim's. If pro-lifers are really trying to protect the sanctity of life, then they should oppose abortions for rape victims. They hypocritically pick and choose which babies are okay with them to abort.

I also invite the Bible-thumpers to actually read the Bible. The only specific mention of a woman losing a fetus says that if a man causes a woman to lose her baby, then he should pay a monetary fine. The Bible does not say that it is murder and treats it as a property right.

10:37, please set your hatred of "Bible-thumpers" aside for a few moments and use your head. It is not about hypocritically picking and choosing which babies are okay. I have heard many interviews of adults who are products of rap, and I would never say to them "you should have been aborted." Stunningly, these people hear such comments regularly. Simply put, stopping abortion from rape is not a politically feasible objective.

What many people miss is that if Roe v Wade is overturned, then abortion will roll merrily along. If Roe v Wade is overturned it simply means that abortion becomes a matter for the individual states to forbid or allow. Look at he hue and cry over Roe v Wade, given this acrimony, for "Bible-thumpers" to engage the rape argument is to end any chance of Roe v Wade being overturned.

There is no hypocrisy here, only lies from the left.

@ 10:37 why can’t a woman who has not been the victim of forcible rape take the necessary step to avoid becoming pregnant instead of resorting to abortion after the fact...especially if the idea of pregnancy is “just as traumatic as a rape? If pregnancy really has the potential to be SOOO traumatic as to justify killing a living human being, then said snowflake should go IMMEDIATELY to the closest OB-GYN and demand a hysterectomy. Problem solved....without having to kill a baby.

February 6, 2019 at 11:55 AM wrote, "I have heard many interviews of adults who are products of rap, and I would never say to them 'you should have been aborted.'"

Ya know, I too have heard such interviews and for the life of me, I can rarely understand a single word they utter. And when they fire up with the rap, my ears bleed. But I do agree that saying to them they should have been aborted is unreasonably harsh, at least in most cases.

Sorry, just trying to inject a little levity and that sentence just jumped out at me.

@8:05 and 8:44, you either have not read Roe or did not understand it, neither of which come as a surprise. At its essence, Roe was about the mother’s Constitutional right to privacy, not a “right to get an abortion.” Also, the Supreme Court has addressed this and similar issues at least 13 times, most recently in 2000. Roe is settled law and even now Justice Kavanagh took that position during his confirmation hearing. To suggest the Supreme Court has sanctioned murder or that Democrats favor murdering babies is imbecilic. Again, no surprise.

Where does Jay Hughes stand on this bill??

Can you be a pro-lifer who does not believe that it is none of your business what decision a woman makes with respect to abortion? I do not agree with abortion, but I do not believe I have the right to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion.

10:37, the largest Christian Church on earth makes no distinction for rape, nor does it support euthanasia or execution. You paint with a broad, incorrect brush.

@12.29 PM

Nevertheless, none of the cases from Roe forward address the science or define "life."

If abortion is not murder, then tell me exactly when "life" begins and the tissue becomes a human entitled to the rights and protections of the US Constitution. And please provide a reasoned and scientific basis for your argument.

12:29 said, "To suggest the Supreme Court has sanctioned murder or that Democrats favor murdering babies is imbecilic."

So because the government says the destruction of life is okay then that makes it okay. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot certainly agree with you.

Given the "pro-choice" sentiment that a mom must want the child or the child can be eliminated, then these people can solve the homeless problem in America the same way. Eliminate the person and you eliminate the problem.

At what point does a fetus----earn the right to life? Yes, EARN.

Is it a heartbeat? Is after a certain time period? Or is it after a baby takes its first breath? Fact is, the closer and closer a baby 'to term' the the baby gets, the more weight we give the idea the it is life and therefore deserves protection.
This is known as gradualism. A baby gradually gains the right to life. The problem?

There is no one school of thought that agrees at exactly what point the baby GAINS the right to life. Some even go so far as to say that using contraceptives is killing babies.

So what we have here is a range of time---and different opinions, as to WHEN a fetus gains the right to life. Of course a glob of cells in a woman's baby is 'alive' hearbeat or not, but at what point does it gain a constitutionally protected right to life?

This has always been the problem. It's not an issue of weather the thing is alive or not, but at what point does it gain rights?

Sure it's alive, but at what point is it's life protected? No one can seem to agree, save for when it's birth certificate is issued. Just because the state of Mississippi says 'heartbeat' doesn't mean another body agrees. One body may state that it needs to have conciousness and breathe oxygen because THAT is what is called birth.

3:25, no, you cannot be a pro-lifer who doesn’t think he or she can tell a woman she shouldn’t get an abortion. The “I would never do it but can’t tell anyone else they shouldn’t” position is, at its very core, acceptance of abortion. I mean you no ill will, just answering your question. I assume you would never murder a born person yet would have no issue telling someone else he shouldn’t murder someone. In fact, you may even feel morally obligated to dissuade someone contemplating killing someone. Abortion is murder of an unborn person, premeditation and all. Women who have had abortions deserve mercy and forgiveness if they choose to seek it. The mothers are not the enemy. The enemy is Satan, the father of lies, and it is encumbant upon us to fight in any way we can that is pleasing to God the evil he is perpetrating. That evil includes convincing people of good faith, like yourself, that you should just demure and not take a strong stance in defense of the unborn just because you yourself would never commit the act of murder. Wrong is wrong. I implore you to take that to heart. Be a kind, loving, merciful, courageous defender of life.

@4:11, I do not know and it does not matter. The mother has rights, so there must be a balance. That balance is reflected by the decision in Roe,

Abortionists, women who have abortions. Mother's who get abortions for their teenaged daughters, and the politicians who support it, will all be damned to eternal hell by God Almighty. Only the mudered babies will see the sanctuary of the afterlife in heaven.

6:18 needs to take a philosophy class. That is a really poor post.

@6:03 PM...um, would you explain just how you know that a rat's ass is "scaly"? Personal experience? Up close examination? SIGNED: A Bible Thumper

Nearly every long winded JJ commenter considers themaelf to be Marcus Tullius Cicero.

In reality their illiterate tracts seem more fit to be scrawled in excrement on a bathroom stall at the State Hospital.

@5:31, where will Trump end up? He is a liar, a cheat, and a serial philanderer. Will he get to Heaven just by pandering to folks like you on the abortion issue? Wake up. He does not care about you, the babies, or the Christian religion.

Having a baby is no picnic. It's hard as hell. I've known women who died during childbirth. The right to an abortion should have been in the Bill of Rights.

I am working against this bill. The MISSISSIPPI Supreme Court will deem it unconstitutional. Ccntact me if you wish to help.