South Dakota's legislature has just banned abortions in almost all cases, including in the instance of the mother's life being in danger, after a rape, and to end a pregnancy caused by incest. Also, the lawmakers defeated an amendment to let the voters decide by referendum. Republican governor Michael Rounds intends to sign it, Planned Parenthood will sue, it'll go through the courts, and then very likely make its way through to the US Supreme Court. The lawmakers acknowledge that their aim was to get the court to revisit and overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

In other related news, on ScAlito's first day, the high court has placed on its fall 2006 docket a revisitation of the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Law, which was overturned by a previous court. I wonder who's happiest: ScaAlito, Scalia, Roberts, or Thomas?

Huh, this should be interesting. It also sets a certain precedent for...well...activist lawmakers if you can really say that. Purposefully targeting legislature they know won't last to try and change a court ruling.

Edit: And I bet there won't be any conservatives out there chanting "let the people vote" like they did in Mass.

[ February 23, 2006, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: Illini_fan ]

Well, that sure didn't take long. I'm sure my ass-backwards home state of Indiana can't be far behind. I have an interesting proposal...why don't we start a movement to outlaw heterosexual divorce. I can't think of anything else that so undermines the security of the family. Isn't that what this is all about?

People should just pack up and leave the damn state...let them try to function without all those tax dollars...usually, it takes a hit in the pocketbook for people to realize their foolishness.

Breaking News: After it saw a large number of residents move out of the state, the South Dakota Legislature was forced to begin a state income tax of 10%. Reportedly, conservatives are none too happy.

Oh, happy day.

While an admirable effort on S.D.'s part, this is the wrong law at the wrong time.

DFW, did it ever occur to you that people are leaving the state simply because it's a barren, frozen stretch of nothing?

Perhaps, MIB...Texas is equally moronic in its laws, but at least it's warm most of the year.

Millerbeach, you're right. Both Indiana and Kentucky, as well as several other states were hoping to be the first to pass this legislation, but South Dakota got there first. It is fascinating to me that they didn't want to permit a referendum or other popular vote on the issue. Given how conservative South Dakota is, wouldn't the people have upheld it? Or do they not trust "the people"?

The thing to keep in mind is that Wisconsin authorities have already said that if the partial birth procedure ban is upheld, it would effectively stop all abortions there, because the law is so vague and doctors and women could be prosecuted. Thus, the Supreme Court, if Anthony Kennedy goes along, would be able to end the legality of abortions and take us back to the pre-1973 in a one-two punch. Don't think they aren't already considering this...

[ February 23, 2006, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Can't we go back and re-visit Griswold too? How dare people try to control their own lives? That's up to Government! Screw that whole free will thing God allowed for! This debate has been going on for my whole life time, what a waste of resources.

Meanwhile, Ohio is debating a law that would not only ban abortions, but would make it a crime for a woman to leave the state to get an abortion elsewhere and for a doctor to perform an abortion in another state.

We have a semi-humorous thread on people who should be shot. Add all the smug smirking men who will sit around cheering when women and girls too young to really be called women are forced to bear children against our will. Like the men who stood around the table cheering while they watched a woman being raped. Because I see no difference between forcing a woman to have sex against her will and forcing her to have a child against her will. None.

Right to life, that's a lie, they don't care if women die. Or children, once they are born.

Looks like we're headed for a time that is great for right-wing conservatives...and the coat hanger industry.

It is going to be interesting to see how that one is going to hold up. I can't see how they can dictate what a doctor can or can not do in antoher state, they can in their own. But states license and regulate doctors.

Other laws have been passed and struck down when a state tries to regulate one of their citizens when in another state. I remember one law that had restrictions for transporting liquor across state borders (which is legal), but their was a section that prevented citizens from their state to go drink in another state in a manner that isn't legal in their state. I.E. if liquor stores or bars where not open on Sundays, you couldn't go to another state to drink on Sunday. That section was struck down.

I noticed that the SD law said that doctors who perform abortions would be given a 5 year prison sentence. So what penalty is given to the woman having the abortion? I mean, if a fetus is a person with equal rights as right-wingers claim, then a woman having an abortion is committing per-mediated first degree murder, right? Therefore, any woman who has an abortion should be given life in prison (or if in Texas, the death penalty). I doubt many "pro-life" people have ever considered this. So go ahead and outlaw abortion and lets see the courts and prisons be completely overrun with millions of women. Then once the right-wingers have to raise taxes to pay to support all of that, they'll re-consider.

Come now, dinger. Even you realize that we do not truly control our own lives. Never mind the fact that abortion involves another human's life, the Law prohibits us from doing many things we often believe we should be free to do. A quick look at the laws involving drugs, suicide, and prostitution is enough to negate your aforementioned statement.

MIB said:
Come now, dinger. Even you realize that we do not truly control our own lives. Never mind the fact that abortion involves another human's life, the Law prohibits us from doing many things we often believe we should be free to do. A quick look at the laws involving drugs, suicide, and prostitution is enough to negate your aforementioned statement.

You know what, Dude? I would support all of things you mentioned being legal. Freedom is about self-determination. Sometimes it's hard and ugly, but I don't need my fellow man (through government) to tell me how to live.

Protecting a victim from me is one thing where I do think the Government has a role, and I know we can debate all day about when that fetus needs protection. And I can support the Government protecting that fetus at some point, while considering the mother's welfare, but not when it's some kind of dot that the morning after pill could easily eliminate. If you're going to go that far, you might as well protect sperm, and as a gay man, that just doesn't bode well for me.


The libertarian in me rears its ugly head sometimes.

Shouldn't forcing a woman to bare a child when it threatens her health be considered torture?...nevermind.

Who cares if it's bad for the mother...men run this world; women are for cooking, cleaning, and making babies, right?

Otherwise, why would all these men be worried about what a woman wants to do with her own body? It's easy to legislate things when they don't directly affect you.

Can we please stop repeating falsehoods. As I've said before, it's NOT \"her own body.\" This is a biomedical fact. Furthermore, as I also stated, there are presently several proscriptions existing that deny us the ability to do certain things with \"our own bodies.\"

The barefoot and pregnant comments are so old. I certainly do not advocate or support that. Except for women in combat (which I oppose purely for emotional and probably illogical reasons), I find nothing wrong with equal opportunity, something I strongly support.


Now you're sounding just silly.

Does the morning after pill destroy life? If so, it is not acceptable. If it prevents life from beginning, prevents conception, then it is acceptable. Your last sentence especially is ridiculous.

I often wonder why, if abortion is so good, so morally acceptable, why do the pro-abortionists refuse to tell it like it is? "Product of conception?" "The contents of the uterus were evacuated?" "Vaccuum out the contents?"

The kicker is the feel good euphemism of "pro-choice." Just watch a pro-abortionist go into a tizzy when they're referred to as being "pro-abortion." Never mind the fact that the prefix "pro" means "in favor of, supportive, an advocate of." If one favors, is supportive, or an advocate of abortion, one is "pro-abortion." I sure don't mind being referred to as "anti-abortion," just as I don't mind being anti-slavery, anti-child abuse, or any other "anti" something that is wrong.

Their euphemisms are chillingly not unlike those used by another group 60+ years ago to justify state-sanctioned killing.

[ February 24, 2006, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

are you talking about the Nazis who also outlawed abortion for German women?

At least they got SOMEthing right. eek!

Hypocrisy on their part notwithstanding.

A rather fascinating poll rundown on Survey USA concerning states and their anti-abortion and pro-abortion (they call it pro-life and pro-choice, both of which I think are ultimately misnomers) sentiments. Unsurprisingly the Blue states are highest on the "pro-choice" (Vermont is first) and the red highest on the "pro-life" side (Utah is first).

Surprising to me, several red states--Nevada, Texas, South Carolina (where the Xian fanatics want to start a "Christian homeland"), Colorado, and have a higher pro-choice percentage than pro-life. There is not a blue state, however, that has a higher "pro-life" than "pro-choice" sentiment. Pennsylvania comes the closest, and there it's 44% "pro-life" and 51% "pro-choice."

In South Dakota, which passed the law, it's 49% "pro-life" and 47% "pro-choice," which is closer than I thought it would be; in Ohio it's 42% "pro-life" and 52% "pro-choice."

Actually MIB, most of the literature I've come across list men's emotional state as the reason women can't be combatants. Apparenly, seeing a woman killed in battle in psychologically damaging to most men (PF obviously excluded).
It must have to do with how men view women and that whole protection schtick most men feel. Wonder if that has to do with the woman's ability to propogate the species...

Edit: Stupid subject-verb agreement

[ February 24, 2006, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Illini_fan ]

I'm so glad I don't live there anymore. That state is f@#$ed.

I could see all this crap coming down years ago when Bush got "elected" and put his store bought cronies in the Supreme Court. I knew some state would try this once they got the federal "backing", and that other states would attempt to follow. Bush vowed years ago to try and overturn Roe v. Wade if elected. As a lifelong feminist and pro choice advocate, it really galled me to see that SOMEONE on this thread supports South Dakota's bullshit. What the hell is happening to women's rights in this country? Ask the f**king White House.

pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. this is an ill-thought argument, unsustained by logic.

one can absolutely be pro-choice and anti-abortion. this is because choice and abortion are separate issues. choice refers to a woman's RIGHT to choose her own reproductive course. abortion refers to one outcome she might choose.

let me make an analogy. let us suppose i were an ardent anti-republican. let us suppose i found their policies immoral; i found the deaths from their war a massive, useless, and immoral taking of innocent lives; i found their reproductive rights policies in the international aid arena to be morally repugnant because of the innocent (women's) lives it costs by not funding reproductive clinics that perform abortions, even denying women birth control information; let us suppose that the blind eye turned toward darfur moves me to pray for divine intervention, since mortal intervention from those who should isn't forthcoming. let us suppose....

then, it would not be a stretch to say that a vote for a republican would leave me morally indignant, because supporting these republican policies is morally repugnant. when someone votes republican, i cannot support that choice they have made. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN I DO NOT SUPPORT THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE THIS CHOICE, THAT IS, TO VOTE.

it would absolutely disappoint me if a voter took their right to vote -- their right to choose (a government) -- and used it to vote republican. but i support that voter's right to choose, to vote.

it would absolutely disappoint me if a woman took her right to choose her reproductive course and used it to choose to have an abortion. but i support that woman's right to choose, nonetheless.

choice and abortion are separate issues. support of one does not infer support of the other.

I'm sure all these lame "choice vs. abortion" word arguments are going to be a huge comfort to South Dakota women whose right TO CHOOSE has just been taken away.

This is the type of situation that makes me glad that I'm a man and that I'm gay.In other words,never having to make "the choice."

[ February 26, 2006, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: eddiecat ]

and the drift back to "Pleasantville" continues....welcome to the 1950's

Exactly...when women were seen and not heard. Cooking in the kitchen wearing their nice ironed dresses...and doing as the man says, with no dissent allowed. Oh, are those fresh brownies I smell baking in the oven? Such a nice environment when women realize it's their place to follow the men in this world and just get used to it. I just don't understand why women want the ability to make their own medical decisions? How ridiculous of a concept, when it's the man's job.

Oh, and by the way MIB, I'm not a fan of abortion, but I undeniably defend a woman's right to have one. I always thought the freedoms in this country are for that one thing you dislike the most but would defend for someone else.

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

from CNN

Nice to know that in 2006 women have as much value as the styrofoam container your Burger King comes in.

Oh, and "moderate" Republican John McCain's spokesman has said that the Arizona Senator would have signed the bill. Uh huh. He really wants to be president very, very badly. If he wins, we'll be totally f*cked....

I wonder what republican women think of this?

Maybe you should ask South Dakota Sen. Sen. Julie Bartling--a primary sponsor of the legislation...and a Democrat.

CNN

News Hour (PBS)

How fine and dandy it is for all these politicians to worry about the unborn. It is, indeed, a noble cause. But who is going to take care of the unwanted children once they grace this planet? Did I miss the story where funds will be increased to provide proper medical care for these children? Pandora's box has been smashed open with a sledge hammer. (pardon the pun).

Hell no...that's the problem with their argument. They only care about saving the unborn, not ensuring the proper survival of those newborns. When it comes to passing a bill that restricts freedom of choice, they are all for it, but I'm almost positive they would quickly vote against a tax increase to fund the extra services needed to take care of the unwanted babies.

[ March 07, 2006, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: dfwAggie99 ]

NO, they don't care about "saving the unborn". That's a crock. They care about restrictions on women, especially women's sexuality. THAT is their focus (which also explains their hatred of gays and lesbians). It explains why they oppose everything that prevents unwanted pregnancy from sex education to rape prevention programs to birth control. Because the idea is that sex is a sin, for women at least, and women MUST be punished. Women belong under men's foot and the idea that a woman can take control of her sexuality and her reproduction is what they cannot tolerate.

Here is an interesting philosophical question; I can't take credit, it was on another site. You are in a fertility clinic and a fire breaks out. You have the choice of saving the life of a 6 month old baby OR of saving 5 petri dishes containing fertilized eggs. What do you do?

If you truly believe every fertilized egg is the equivalent of a baby, obviously the 5 petri dishes take precedence over the infant. And in fact when the question was put to one of the right wing radio clones, he blew a gasket, hemmed and hawed, and finally said he'd let the baby burn and save the petri dishes.

I've got some questions for the legislators and governor of South Dakota:

1. What is the definition of "pregnant"? Does a nonviable fetus count? What about a completely dead fetus?

2. What is the definition of "saving the mother's life"? Does the risk of death have to be imminent? Within 24 hours? Within 48 hours? Within 6 months?

3. A woman who is pregnant subsequently discovers she has cancer. Almost no drugs on the market are tested on pregnant women, and there is no way to predict the effect of the chemo on the fetus - is she allowed to treat her cancer?

4. A nine-year-old girl is raped and gets pregnant (which is physically possible for some girls, menstruation begins younger and younger in the US and no one seems to know why)? Does her age qualify her for the "save the life" exception?

5. A woman of child-bearing age comes in for health care treatment. Her physician does not do a pregnancy test, but the woman is pregnant (she does not know either). The treatment kills the embryo/fetus - is this against the law?

6. The birth control pill may still allow contraception, but not implantation of the embryo - is it abortion?

That last two questions are key - What this law has done is call into question all health care provided to women of child-bearing age. Since we do not know the effects of nearly all medications and medical procedures on embryos and fetuses (or is it feti?), it is possible that any/all medical care could end a pregnancy - therefore, doesn't all health care for women of certain ages require a pregnancy test first? And why shouldn't physicians, who have the high malpractice insurance costs, avoid any liability by refusing any/all treatments to pregnant women?

Has anyone in the legislature really considered the ramifications of this law? Why would any woman willingly travel to this state (and I am sure they have some sort of tourism), and why would any employer locate in this state, when the future health care for women is so unclear?

As I have stated many times before, my mother was denied a medically necessary abortion in 1971 because she was not "close enough to death" according to a panel of judges, all of whom were untrained in medical practice. She instead bled for 18 hours as she miscarried an already-dead fetus (but she was still legally pregnant). Is this really what we want to return to?

On the flip side, pregnancy is always a risk to the mother's life - certainly statistically riskier than abortion.

Good questions, CPT_Doom, but the law actually "answers" them.

1. Every fertilized egg is considered a pregnancy. No exceptions.
2. The "woman's life" means that she would have to die during the course of the pregnancy or birth AND that the cause must be the pregnancy itself. This is also the exception in the so-called "partial birth abortion" (an invented term) law. If the pregnancy would not kill the woman but she has another condition that could seriously injure/kill her it is not a "life of the woman" exception.
3. No, she could not get treatment if it would cause the fetus to be killed or expelled.
4. No exception for rape. No age limit.
5. No, that would not be considered an abortion provided that both woman and doctor could prove they did not know she was pregnant and/or that the procedure would kill the fetus.
6. I assume you mean the pill would allow conception but not implantation. Standard birth control pills prevent conception, but other means of birth control prevent implantation. It is understood that the morning after pill would be banned. IUD's, which prevent implantation, are uncertain.

In other words, the worst possible interpretation for women's lives are what is in the law. No wiggle room under even the most extreme circumstances.
BTW, our "friends" at Focus on the Hetero Family are now pulling out all the stops to promote how wonderful it is when women and girls give birth following rape and incest.

Thanks for the clarification Ms. de Blazer, and yes, I did mean "conception."

On the 9-year-old girl issue, it is possible the pregnancy could kill the girl, being so young, so that was what I was wondering.

I love Molly Ivins.

I am very upset and highly disappointed w/ my home state.

CPT, it is usually (assuming no underlying health issues) the delivery and not the pregnancy itself that kills a very young girl, like your 9 year old. Her body is too small to deliver a child. I would imagine in that case, since there is absolutely no rape exception, that a doctor would have to verify that a C-section would still kill her. And kill means kill; not permanent severe health damage but absolute death.
Not that pregnancy is healthy for young girls; the fetus robs from the woman (girl) who is still growing, but it is not usually in and of itself the killer.

So what, realistically, should we expect to come of this? Doesn't this fly in the face of legal precedent in place since 1973? If so, wouldn't lower courts overturn it before it ever reached the Supreme Court? (and then the Supremes--sans Diana Ross--could simply refuse to hear it)

Yes Tarheel, that would be the likely scenario. Chances are it won't reach the Supreme Court. The U.S. courts don't typically appreciate this type of 'political' move.

I want to know where Bush and his team are in this situation....

Shouldn't they be bitching about "activist judges"....

I mean, this is just as extreme as anything else brought into judgment with a potential national influence...

Funny how there is no bitching by Bush about "activist judges" when it is something he supports...

I quoth MIB against his will: "Oh, the hypocrisy"

Um, kick, the SD law was enacted by its legislature; judges have had nothing to do with it so far. When they do, maybe your other questions will be answered in their rulings, but until then the judiciary's just not involved.

Ohhhh, damn.

Well, give it a months time!

Maybe...

Sorry, MIB

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Of course. Like Dred Scott in 1857, Roe is clearly a horrible, anti-constitutional decision with no basis for its holdings. Even many pro-death folks agree it was terrible.

But even the esteemed National Review explains how this S.D. law will set back the cause of overturning Roe.