South Dakota House Approves Abortion Ban

[Big Dick McGee]

[WORDIN]*sniff* I thought it was a bit obvious, that joke. And quite crude. A-ha-ha.[/WORDIN]

 

[NeonMercuryASH]

Did L'il Dagmar throw in her two cents as well? When I left South Dakota, she was busy knitting booties for all the foetii she wanted to take home.
Basically, South Dakota is a very Catholic State, which means birth control isn't exactly advertised, except on the Reservation. They have a population of 500,000, ten percent of which, is Lakota Sioux. No one's breaking their necks to move there, so they're trying to increase their paltry base, anyway they can. Specifically, with white bodies, the blonder the better.

 

[RobL]

^ What's their stance on Gun Control?

 

[TJHairball]

Unsurprising.

 

[NeonMercuryASH]

^ What's their stance on Gun Control?

10% of their population is Sioux. Figure it out.

 

[Caitriona]

Here's an update on this....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060223...PZLxEMb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

South Dakota passes abortion ban
Wed Feb 22, 10:06 PM ET

South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.

The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

"My understanding is we are the first state to truly defy Roe v. Wade," the 1973 high court ruling that granted a constitutional right to abortion, said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood's South Dakota chapter.

State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky also have introduced similar measures this year, but South Dakota's legislative calendar means its law is likely to be enacted first.

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

"If he chooses to sign it, we will be filing a lawsuit in short order to block it," she said after attending the afternoon debate at the state capital in Pierre.

Proponents have said the law was designed for just such a court challenge.

The timing is right, supporters say, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. The two conservatives could pave the way to a decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The high court said on Tuesday it will rule on whether the federal government can ban some abortion procedures, a case that could reveal whether the court reshaped by President George W. Bush will restrict abortion rights.

In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the last direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades.

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.

Planned Parenthood operates the sole clinic in South Dakota where roughly 800 abortions are performed each year by doctors from neighboring Minnesota, Looby said.

Two years ago, Rounds vetoed a similar bill, saying it would wipe out existing restrictions on abortion while it was fought in the courts. A rewritten bill lost narrowly in the state Senate.

Some legislators opposed to abortion rights questioned whether it was premature to challenge Roe v. Wade, and said litigation would prove expensive for the sparsely populated state. An anonymous donor has offered $1 million to the state to defray the costs of litigation.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades.

Makes sense to me. Given the amazing medical breakthroughs that have occurred in the last five years, I would think pro-abortionists would at least be willing to re-examine this part of the issue.

 

[Friday]

Sigh.

Seriously, if there's one thing that will bring back out the placard carrying, protesting Friday it's this.

This is not a good time for a woman's right to choose, and I can't not do something. The article out and out states that the two newest Supreme Court justices will help overturn R v W, something I was saying all during the confirmation hearings. But would anyone listen? No. They were all entangled in their "enlightened" attitudes to pay attention to reality.

Fuck.

 

[Caitriona]

I would think pro-abortionists would at least be willing to re-examine this part of the issue.

Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion are not necessarily the same thing. I do wish people could *get* that straight. It makes for a nice talking point and divides people into two armed camps, but it's not the same thing.

Pro-Choice is a position that claims that the *choice* over reproduction should be the woman's not the State's. It's not a pro-abortion stance necessarily.

I am against abortion for my own personal reasons. I'd imagine all of the Pro-life reasons would be mine as well. BUT, I don't believe in letting the state legislate this. I don't want the state interfering with my choices.

You can lump all the Pro-choicers into the Pro-abortion category, but you'd be missing a BIG point. It's not about abortion to many of us, it's about how far we let the state go in legislating our lives.

We already have enough state interference, and for any self-professed conservative to support more government intervention is appalling in my opinion.

Be a damn Conservative for crying out loud. Less government not MORE.

 

[Friday]

Cait, you make good points.

And God help the poor woman who suffers a pregnancy in South Dakota because of a rape.

I don't give a shit what people say about the"victim mentality". This new state law, if passed, will turn women into victims, and will serve to turn a woman's body into state property.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion are not necessarily the same thing. I do wish people could *get* that straight. It makes for a nice talking point and divides people into two armed camps, but it's not the same thing.

Pro-Choice is a position that claims that the *choice* over reproduction should be the woman's not the State's. It's not a pro-abortion stance necessarily.

I fail to see how repeal of abortion laws impacts a woman's choice to reproduce.

I am against abortion for my own personal reasons. I'd imagine all of the Pro-life reasons would be mine as well. BUT, I don't believe in letting the state legislate this. I don't want the state interfering with my choices.

They wouldn't be legislating away your choice. You are still perfectly free to be in complete control of your own reproduction.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

And God help the poor woman who suffers a pregnancy in South Dakota because of a rape.

Please, just stop with the bullshit already. Tell you what, I'll stop pushing your buttons by labeling you a pro-abortionist if you stop trotting out the bullshit argument about rape as it pertains to abortion, k? K.

 

[Friday]

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down.

I'm not going to stop bringing up an issue that is included in the legislation, making it a valid and relevant talking point.

 

[TJHairball]

You are still perfectly free to be in complete control of your own reproduction.

stop trotting out the bullshit argument about rape as it pertains to abortion

So you're saying women only get raped when they choose to get raped?

FFS, BDM... what part of rape being nonconsensual don't you get?

 

[Big Dick McGee]

I'm not going to stop bringing up an issue that is included in the legislation, making it a valid and relevant talking point.

Abortion as it relates to rape is a bullshit statistic, designed to tilt the argument in favor of pro-abortionists. The vast, ovewhelming majority of abortions in the United States are performed as a convenience to the woman. I'm quite certain that the number of abortions performed on rape victims who conceive is statistically insignificant. I've been trying to unbiased data, but the laws are such that abortion is still extremely confidential.

 

[Caitriona]

I fail to see how repeal of abortion laws impacts a woman's choice to reproduce.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just sarcastic?

The repeal of abortion laws impact the entire process of reproduction from a woman's POV. It affects the choice of "when" to reproduce and under what circumstances. Abortion is one choice that is available to women who become pregnant and for whatever reason choose not to carry a fetus to term.

And please spare me the women should be more careful and responsible and on and on and on.... I know it is true, and this is exactly why I have never been faced with the necessity to have to make such a choice. But, I'd pretty much insist on being allowed to make the choice. I don't want the state telling me what I can and can't do with my body.

What other women do with their bodies is quite frankly none of your business [or mine], nor is it the state's business, and that's the way it should be.

I can go along with no federal funds being used for abortions. Taxpayers have a right to not be supporting something like this, but you have no right to sanctimoniously sit there in your chair and legislate what other women do with their bodies.

Like I said, I want less government intrusion into my life. You say you're a Conservative, act like one.

They wouldn't be legislating away your choice. You are still perfectly free to be in complete control of your own reproduction.

Not the way this law is written, but then again, it was written with flaws so it could be challenged. So, I'm not going to argue this point with you.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

So you're saying women only get raped when they choose to get raped?

FFS, BDM... what part of rape being nonconsensual don't you get?

No. I'm saying that the number of abortions performed on rape victims is statistically insignificant when compared to the number of abortions performed as a whole. It's an emotionally-weighted argument designed to make the pro-abortionists argument more favorable and palatable.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just sarcastic?

I'm not being obtuse, merely stating a fact: If abortion laws were repealed, a woman would still be in control of her own reproduction.

The repeal of abortion laws impact the entire process of reproduction from a woman's POV. It affects the choice of "when" to reproduce and under what circumstances. Abortion is one choice that is available to women who become pregnant and for whatever reason choose not to carry a fetus to term.

So, you mean it might actually make people think before they engage in an activity that has consequences that affect not only themselves, but at the very least two other people? I don't see how that's a bad thing.

And please spare me the women should be more careful and responsible and on and on and on.... I know it is true, and this is exactly why I have never been faced with the necessity to have to make such a choice. But, I'd pretty much insist on being allowed to make the choice. I don't want the state telling me what I can and can't do with my body.

What other women do with their bodies is quite frankly none of your business [or mine], nor is it the state's business, and that's the way it should be.

It becomes my business, and the states business, when another human life is involved. It's illegal to knowingly engage in intercourse with someone when you are HIV+. It's illegal to drive your car under the influence of alcohol, even if you're on a deserted road. It's illegal to prostitute your body for money. Aren't they all forms of State control over one's body? I mean, it's illegal to attempt to kill yourself, that's State control over your body and no one else is even involved.

 

[TJHairball]

No. I'm saying that the number of abortions performed on rape victims is statistically insignificant when compared to the number of abortions performed as a whole. It's an emotionally-weighted argument designed to make the pro-abortionists argument more favorable and palatable.

And compared to the number of rape victims who get pregnant as a result of rape?

So why not make the amendment, if it's insignificant and a fundamentally nonconsensual use of a woman's reproductive system, which you're willing to at least pay lip service?

 

[Caitriona]

I'm not being obtuse, merely stating a fact: If abortion laws were repealed, a woman would still be in control of her own reproduction.

Besides the fact that women can still engage in sex and become pregnant, how is repealing the abortion laws going to keep reproduction a woman's choice [or the choice of a man and a woman for that matter]?

So, you mean it might actually make people think before they engage in an activity that has consequences that affect not only themselves, but at the very least two other people? I don't see how that's a bad thing.

So now you think the government should be all about making people think before they engage in activities that are biologically and instinctively driven? You think that is the government's job?

It's not a bad thing for adults to grow up and think for themselves, but we don't need the state dictating to us how to conduct our private lives.

It becomes my business, and the states business, when another human life is involved.

And you and your ilk would disregard the life of the woman said fetus is incubating in, her life is meaningless. Look everyone agrees that this is a contentious topic. One best left to a woman and her husband, clergyman, and her God--NOT the state.

It's illegal to knowingly engage in intercourse with someone when you are HIV+.

Cite states please... I think that as long as partners are informed of the HIV status no law forbids it. This is for public health and safety.

It's illegal to drive your car under the influence of alcohol, even if you're on a deserted road.

Those laws are for public safety, Abortion has nothing to do with public safety.

It's illegal to prostitute your body for money.

Not in Nevada. And whether or not the state should legislate that beyond public safety and health is another debate.

Aren't they all forms of State control over one's body? I mean, it's illegal to attempt to kill yourself, that's State control over your body and no one else is even involved.

No these are not all forms of merely legislating what one can do to one's own body. They have public safety and public health issues that underpin them. That is the distinguishing characteristic of what should be governed by the legislature and what should be private. Does it have public safety or public health issues at the foundation. If it does, then the public [and the state is the authority of the people] has a right to govern. Otherwise stay the fuck our of our lives.

We'll all have to suffer the consequences of our own choices. Women who get abortions will live with that decision, just a women who have children will. What I won't support is the state telling me what I have to live with, when it is none of the state's business.

BTW, the laws on suicide don't stop suicides, and show me one person who has ever been put in jail for killing themselves. [which shows just how retarded our lawmakers can sometimes be]