South Dakota house passes ban on abortion

This is a bold move . The bill does allow a loophole for women who are at risk of dying or have been raped and such.

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45916

Actually, it doesn't exempt rape victims. Or incest victims. Or the health of the mother, except in cases of near-death.

Congrats to S. Dakota! Welcome to the 1950s.

Congratz S Dakota

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhallg2k

Congrats to S. Dakota! Welcome to the 1950s.

---

QFE....That is really sad they're doing that. The main point of it is to have a court declare it unconstitutional b/c of Roe V. Wade and then theyd try to appeal it to the Supreme Court, which would probably uphold the law, effectively ending abortion in any conservative state and eventually ending it when Congress passes a law.

But, even if this law passes, I doubt an appeal would make it to the Supreme Court. It would get shot down too far before the Supreme Court that it would be an embarassment to Roberts and Alit if they upheld it.

In my non-expert opinion, I think that another law or lawsuit will be more controversial and not flat-out banning aborting, and that's when they'd overturn wade. Ie. a state would pass a law requiring a husband's permission and then the Supreme Court would declare abortion not protected under the constitution.

But I really hope that doesnt happen. Hey Alito/Roberts, want to pretend to be a liberal for a few years?

From the same state that brought us Bill Janklow and gave the murdering drunk back his law license. Now he and Ted Kennedy can be best buds and still have something to argue about. Oh yeah, and the corn palace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awill3449

QFE....That is really sad they're doing that. The main point of it is to have a court declare it unconstitutional b/c of Roe V. Wade and then theyd try to appeal it to the Supreme Court, which would probably uphold the law, effectively ending abortion in any conservative state and eventually ending it when Congress passes a law.

But, even if this law passes, I doubt an appeal would make it to the Supreme Court. It would get shot down too far before the Supreme Court that it would be an embarassment to Roberts and Alit if they upheld it.

In my non-expert opinion, I think that another law or lawsuit will be more controversial and not flat-out banning aborting, and that's when they'd overturn wade. Ie. a state would pass a law requiring a husband's permission and then the Supreme Court would declare abortion not protected under the constitution.

But I really hope that doesnt happen. Hey Alito/Roberts, want to pretend to be a liberal for a few years?

---

There's no guarantee that the supreme court would uphold such a decision. We've already seen Alito drive the radical righties nuts with his first decision. It would appear he is more even keeled than they had hoped for. Which by the way really pisses off the lefties too. So much entertainment to be had in the world of politics. I am one of those crazy bastards that thinks that the government should keep out of medical decisions and reproductive issues at all costs. This was more than evidenced by the whole Terri Schiavo fiasco as well as the case that preceded Roe v Wade that involved a state (Connecticut maybe?) trying to outlaw birth control even for married folks. A truly outrageous crock of shit that never should have happened. Politicians are so arrogant.
That being said, I don't believe abortion should be used for anything but the most extreme cases such as the very rare occasion when the mothers life is in jeopardy, along with rape, incest, molestation, etc. since we don't need that kind of sickness in the gene pool. There is little or no excuse for accidental pregnancies in the 21st century. Then again, I also lean in the direction of mandatory birth control for welfare moms and hard core enforcement of child support laws.

AMERICA
FUCK YEAH
COMING AGAIN TO SAVE THE MOTHER FUCKING DAY, YEAH

(or in this case, unborn fetuses)

Rediculous, just like the rest of the non-sense this country tries to push.

Thank You South Dakota! Maybe abortion will be outlawed in most cases...I can always hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bonsaiguy

There's no guarantee that the supreme court would uphold such a decision. We've already seen Alito drive the radical righties nuts with his first decision. It would appear he is more even keeled than they had hoped for. Which by the way really pisses off the lefties too. So much entertainment to be had in the world of politics. I am one of those crazy bastards that thinks that the government should keep out of medical decisions and reproductive issues at all costs. This was more than evidenced by the whole Terri Schiavo fiasco as well as the case that preceded Roe v Wade that involved a state (Connecticut maybe?) trying to outlaw birth control even for married folks. A truly outrageous crock of shit that never should have happened. Politicians are so arrogant.
That being said, I don't believe abortion should be used for anything but the most extreme cases such as the very rare occasion when the mothers life is in jeopardy, along with rape, incest, molestation, etc. since we don't need that kind of sickness in the gene pool. There is little or no excuse for accidental pregnancies in the 21st century. Then again, I also lean in the direction of mandatory birth control for welfare moms and hard core enforcement of child support laws.

---

Hmm...interesting. So you think people shouldn't have abortions (for the most part), but they should still be legal? If that's what you're saying, then I'd have to agree.

As for Alito, I'm pretty sure I said it wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court IMO. But, I hope he comes around and sides with the liberals on abortion, but if I had to guess I'd say he's one of the conservatives who "protects life" at all stages...(anti-death penalty, pro-life) -- except they dont so much during the actual life..but that's another debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awill3449

Hmm...interesting. So you think people shouldn't have abortions (for the most part), but they should still be legal? If that's what you're saying, then I'd have to agree.

As for Alito, I'm pretty sure I said it wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court IMO. But, I hope he comes around and sides with the liberals on abortion, but if I had to guess I'd say he's one of the conservatives who "protects life" at all stages...(anti-death penalty, pro-life) -- except they dont so much during the actual life..but that's another debate

---

Alito and the Supreme Court arent gonna make abortion fully illegal. They should however give the choice back to the states where it belongs. The states should then regulate abortion at all costs. It's a barbaric practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awill3449

Hmm...interesting. So you think people shouldn't have abortions (for the most part), but they should still be legal? If that's what you're saying, then I'd have to agree.

As for Alito, I'm pretty sure I said it wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court IMO. But, I hope he comes around and sides with the liberals on abortion, but if I had to guess I'd say he's one of the conservatives who "protects life" at all stages...(anti-death penalty, pro-life) -- except they dont so much during the actual life..but that's another debate

---

Yes, that's what I am saying. And make no mistake about it, in one form or another it will be sent to the supreme court again and again. Neither the federal nor the state government should be involved in the regulation of peoples reproductive and/or medical choices. However, in the case of abortion, both the states and feds have gone too far in making it as easy as picking up a bottle of aspirin. For example, there is no reason in hell for having late term abortions as those are truly a barbaric practice, (maybe and I mean maybe, 1 in 100000 cases would justify that procedure to save the mom and even that is iffy at best) nor is there any thing wrong with a 24 or 48 hour waiting period. And I "pity the fool" who says my minor daughter/children can have any medical procedure without my consent. Emergency contraception should be available for anyone over 18, regardless of whether the pharmacist likes it or not. If the looney lefties and the rabid righties would step back and look at themselves and what they have degraded in to, (multi-billion dollar business ventures) they would realize that they could virtually eliminate abortion by working together to educate folks, help women and girls who are "in trouble", and prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. There are far too many absolutists on either side of the debate who refuse to budge an inch on the issue. In the meantime, far too many babies (not wads of protoplasm, babies) are lost and far too many unwanted children are born in to a cycle of poverty, abuse and eventual failure and far too many girls/women are left in shambles because of these left and right absolutist assholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bonsaiguy

Yes, that's what I am saying. And make no mistake about it, in one form or another it will be sent to the supreme court again and again. Neither the federal nor the state government should be involved in the regulation of peoples reproductive and/or medical choices. However, in the case of abortion, both the states and feds have gone too far in making it as easy as picking up a bottle of aspirin. For example, there is no reason in hell for having late term abortions as those are truly a barbaric practice, (maybe and I mean maybe, 1 in 100000 cases would justify that procedure to save the mom and even that is iffy at best) nor is there any thing wrong with a 24 or 48 hour waiting period. And I "pity the fool" who says my minor daughter/children can have any medical procedure without my consent. Emergency contraception should be available for anyone over 18, regardless of whether the pharmacist likes it or not. If the looney lefties and the rabid righties would step back and look at themselves and what they have degraded in to, (multi-billion dollar business ventures) they would realize that they could virtually eliminate abortion by working together to educate folks, help women and girls who are "in trouble", and prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. There are far too many absolutists on either side of the debate who refuse to budge an inch on the issue. In the meantime, far too many babies (not wads of protoplasm, babies) are lost and far too many unwanted children are born in to a cycle of poverty, abuse and eventual failure and far too many girls/women are left in shambles because of these left and right absolutist assholes.

---

You described word for word exactly how I feel about abortion. Its nice to hear someone else that feels that way.:thumbsup:

Nice to know I'm not the only one who can see the "big picture", as I like to call it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bonsaiguy

And make no mistake about it, in one form or another it will be sent to the supreme court again and again. Neither the federal nor the state government should be involved in the regulation of peoples reproductive and/or medical choices.

---

In the case of medical marijuana the feds say that federal law over rules state law....now why wouldn't that same ruling pertain towards the issue of abortion?:stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bonsaiguy

Yes, that's what I am saying. And make no mistake about it, in one form or another it will be sent to the supreme court again and again. Neither the federal nor the state government should be involved in the regulation of peoples reproductive and/or medical choices. However, in the case of abortion, both the states and feds have gone too far in making it as easy as picking up a bottle of aspirin. For example, there is no reason in hell for having late term abortions as those are truly a barbaric practice, (maybe and I mean maybe, 1 in 100000 cases would justify that procedure to save the mom and even that is iffy at best) nor is there any thing wrong with a 24 or 48 hour waiting period. And I "pity the fool" who says my minor daughter/children can have any medical procedure without my consent. Emergency contraception should be available for anyone over 18, regardless of whether the pharmacist likes it or not. If the looney lefties and the rabid righties would step back and look at themselves and what they have degraded in to, (multi-billion dollar business ventures) they would realize that they could virtually eliminate abortion by working together to educate folks, help women and girls who are "in trouble", and prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. There are far too many absolutists on either side of the debate who refuse to budge an inch on the issue. In the meantime, far too many babies (not wads of protoplasm, babies) are lost and far too many unwanted children are born in to a cycle of poverty, abuse and eventual failure and far too many girls/women are left in shambles because of these left and right absolutist assholes.

---

I agree mostly, except for the parental consent on abortions and the late-term abortions. As for the late term abortions, didn't you said gov't has no bussiness in medical practices of the people? Maybe it's "gruesome" but they account for ONE PERCENT of all abortions!! (http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1104b-1.html) How does outlawing ONE PERCENT of all abortions change anything?

As for parental consent, shouldn't a 17 year-old girl be responsible for her own body. Yes, I understand she is my daughter, and I don't think she is ready to have sex, but if she does get pregnant, shouldn't she be allowed to have an abortion? Should I be able to FORCE my daughter to have a baby? What if I believe it is murder, and she believes it to be a right? Is her child now my possesion?

But, I agree that both sides need to come together. We can probably prevent many, many abortions if we focus on sex-ed (NOT abstinence only). Actual SEX ed, as in talking about how to use condoms. Let's face it, kids are going to have sex. Let's teach them how to do it safely so they never need abortions in their entire life.

As to the emergency contraception, I agree 100% (except for the age restriction). Why don't conservatives agree? Any women who had unprotected sex should have access. Besides, most unprotected sex does not lead to babies, and most times the egg is fertilized, it doesn't implant (don't know the stat there). Having more condoms available and emergency contraception (for EMERGENCIES not INSTEAD of Condoms) could prevent many abortions.

Thats my 2 cents! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awill3449

Besides, most unprotected sex does not lead to babies

---

LOL...same thing that I used to say to my boy's mother when she was 16. Guess times have changed!!!:stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

LOL...same thing that I used to say to my boy's mother when she was 16. Guess times have changed!!!:stoned:

---

LOL, just because statistically it doesnt often lead to pregancy, it is possible it does, ie women getting pregnant. I was just making the point that taking emergency contraception is not necessarily "ending a life."

But kids...USE CONDOMS. Playing the odds sucks, you're bound to lose eventually.(Quote that one!)

Just noticed....LOL...this thread kind of fits with my signature!:dance:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awill3449

As for the late term abortions, didn't you said gov't has no bussiness in medical practices of the people? Maybe it's "gruesome" but they account for ONE PERCENT of all abortions!!

Yes I did say that but there is really no practical need for this particular procedure since abortions are perfectly legal in the first trimester and no where near as barbaric as this particular practice. It is a completely unnecessary procedure in 99.9% of the cases, most of which are reserved for women who are old enough and well off enough to deal with the issue long before is becomes a threat to the mothers health.

(http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1104b-1.html) How does outlawing ONE PERCENT of all abortions change anything?

It doesn't change anything. If it did, there might be a justifiable reason for permitting this prodedure. But a large majority of doctors as well as the AMA agree that there is no medical reason for performing this procedure that outweighs simply performing a c-section and allowing the baby to live.

As for parental consent, shouldn't a 17 year-old girl be responsible for her own body.

To some degree I can see your point but tell me, would you allow any other medical procedure on your daughter without your input and/or permission?You and I are responsible for those daughters and can be held accountable for their actions and choices as minor children. Currently, the cutoff is 18 so where would you place this cutoff if your daughter wanter a sex change or just decided that her hand was possessed by a demon and wanted it removed? As for it being her body, that's true but once the sperm hits the egg and it implants, it is now a growing lifeform whether you call it an embryo, a baby or Steve, it's still a growing lifeform and it is a genetically distinct lifeform from the mother and father (who should also have a say in the matter). I'll admit that there are cases where a young girl simply cannot tell her parents (if you can call them that) she is pregnant without fear of serious reprisal including physical abuse and in such cases, there should be (and in most of the proposed legislation there is) an exception to the rule of parental consent.

Yes, I understand she is my daughter, and I don't think she is ready to have sex, but if she does get pregnant, shouldn't she be allowed to have an abortion?

Yes, she should but not without her parents consent if she is a minor child. This is a risky surgical procedure that can lead to all kinds of complications, especially in a developing teen or adolescent.

Should I be able to FORCE my daughter to have a baby?

Tough question...not sure I have a good answer for that one.

What if I believe it is murder, and she believes it to be a right? Is her child now my possesion?

Children are not posessions. Adoption is always an option.


But, I agree that both sides need to come together. We can probably prevent many, many abortions if we focus on sex-ed (NOT abstinence only). Actual SEX ed, as in talking about how to use condoms. Let's face it, kids are going to have sex. Let's teach them how to do it safely so they never need abortions in their entire life.

I agree 100% on that one...abstinence only does not work...never has never will (remember the Just Say No campaign and how well that worked)....It should, however be included in comprehensive sex ed programs but ultimately, it is (or should be...it's called parenting) up to the parents to relay that information to their kids. Many do not which makes it essential for it to be available through schools and health services and doctors should be required to relay that information as well.

As to the emergency contraception, I agree 100% (except for the age restriction).

See above reference to parental rights and responsibilities...and exceptions.


Why don't conservatives agree?

Because they are blinded by faith and/or politics as well as ignorance and the fact that sometimes, emergency contraception can and does eliminate a fertilized egg which to them, is a baby. Another tough call on that one.


Any women who had unprotected sex should have access. Besides, most unprotected sex does not lead to babies, and most times the egg is fertilized, it doesn't implant (don't know the stat there). Having more condoms available and emergency contraception (for EMERGENCIES not INSTEAD of Condoms) could prevent many abortions.

This is the 21st century, there is simply no excuse for unprotected sex...barring rape that is. Your reference to sex ed needs to also emphasize to young men that women are not just a receptacle for their sperm or walking blowjobs designed for their needs alleviation...that's what the powers that be gave them hands for.

Thats my 2 cents! :thumbsup:

---

Your 2 cents is always appreciated and welcome. With inflation is comes to
$7.95