Comments on: Bill aims to set up court challenge to Roe v. Wade

Bill aims to set up court challenge to Roe v. Wade

Steve_at_Linnwood — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:11:34 -0800

South Dakota House approves sweeping abortion ban Although saying they personally abhor abortion, opponents made several unsuccessful attempts to make exceptions in cases of rape and incest, and to protect pregnant women whose health may be endangered.

By: [@I][:+:][@I]

[@I][:+:][@I] — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:14:07 -0800

Nice!

By: smackfu

smackfu — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:16:33 -0800

So apparently they're trying to get a case in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but I'm unclear why it would even go that far since it's decided law.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:18:19 -0800

I'm guessing that they're overestimating the impact that the Bush appointments have had on the Supreme Court. If the Democrats had any sense of strategy left, they'd turn this into an issue for the midterms. The public overwhelmingly favors some form of legal abortion, so a ban like this looks extreme. There must be a way to paint it with the same kind of brush that the Republicans used in 2004 to portray marriage equality in Massachusetts as a threat. Maybe we need a series of "grass-roots" initiatives guaranteeing (minimal?) abortion rights?

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:21:29 -0800

Also, as it stands, is it even possible to get an abortion in South Dakota? Are there any providers?

By: wakko

wakko — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:21:49 -0800

How ridiculous. This will be struck down within seconds once it reaches court. What a waste of time and money.

By: I Love Tacos

I Love Tacos — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:24:50 -0800

That's right folks, it's election year again.

By: Gator

Gator — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:25:44 -0800

By: rocket88

rocket88 — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:25:55 -0800

PeakOil tag?

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:30:02 -0800

Blastocyst Americans, that forgotten constituency, have reason to rejoice!

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:31:41 -0800

mr_roboto: Apparently there's one provider, one day a week.

By: mrbill

mrbill — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:31:44 -0800

So they can override Roe vs. Wade at the state level?

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:32:49 -0800

Whatta shit post, Steve. Single link wire story? C'mon...

By: wakko

wakko — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:33:00 -0800

No, they can't. These super-geniuses want to foist it on the rest of the country, too.

By: longdaysjourney

longdaysjourney — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:34:10 -0800

Also, as it stands, is it even possible to get an abortion in South Dakota? Are there any providers? No providers will risk living in state. They all fly in from Minnesota. Isn't it great living in a free society where fundamentalists don't hold sway?

By: wakko

wakko — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:35:54 -0800

Isn't it great living in a free society where fundamentalists don't hold sway? Tell me where you live!

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:42:11 -0800

You got it matteo!

By: A frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter.

A frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter. — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:43:51 -0800

The state absolutely has the right to limit individuals' wants and passions, and to regulate any action that has consequences. I'm proud of my colleagues in South Dakota, and pray that many more follow their bold example.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:50:58 -0800

"at least 18 states are considering 36 bills that would "protect" and "shelter" pharmacists and other health care workers from providing care that conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. "About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and "morning-after" pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians. ...."This goes to the core of what it means to be an American," said David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. "Conscience is the most sacred of all property. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care workers should not be forced to violate their consciences." The swell of propositions is raising alarm among advocates for abortion rights, family planning, AIDS prevention, the right to die, gays and lesbians, and others who see the push as the latest manifestation of the growing political power of social conservatives. For the past few years so-called "conscience" bills have been a growing trend, introduced by religiously conservative politicians with the full support not only of the more socially acceptable faces of religious activism, but of more extreme factions such as Operation Rescue/Operation Save America that can be relied upon to take the crusade to the streets with a campaign of intimidation."

By: mikeh

mikeh — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:51:03 -0800

How come I get the impression that if there's one heavily-protected Planned Parenthood that things like Plan B and other morning-after contraceptives are also hard to get to, along with affordable care? By putting such a stigma on organizations like PP they're likely reducing access to other useful services. Great work, guys.

By: found missing

found missing — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:52:30 -0800

Isn't this all predicated on the questionable assumption that there is someone left in South Dakota of child-bearing age?

By: bshort

bshort — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:55:15 -0800

When are those plains-states going to be de-stateified?

By: graventy

graventy — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:55:50 -0800

Dammit South Dakota pisses me off. They lost all political clout when they voted against Daschle. Fuck'em, I say. Fuck'em. Former SDan.

By: Red58

Red58 — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:10:42 -0800

I recall people providing Bilbical passages as their reason for discrimating against Jews, Blacks, and poor people in general. The US courts decided that was illegal, even if it was against "the conscience" of the perpetrator.

By: scody

scody — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:15:02 -0800

I can feel all the eggs left in my ovaries doing a little dance. It tickles.

By: freedryk

freedryk — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:17:40 -0800

And does that mean that vegetarian waiters of conscience can refuse to serve meat to diners? That'd be good.

By: I Love Tacos

I Love Tacos — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:23:59 -0800

I recall people providing Bilbical passages as their reason for discrimating against Jews, Blacks, and poor people in general. Genesis 9:25-27 was commonly cited as evidence that Africans were meant to be slaves. Genesis 11:1-9 was used as an argument against racial and cultural integration. Deuteronomy 20:13-14 makes the argument that after invading a land, a good Christian should kill all of the men, and then enslave the women and children. The Bible, like so many holy books, is a dangerous and hate-filled tome, that can be used to provide an excuse for almost any egregious behaviour.

By: BuddhaInABucket

BuddhaInABucket — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:27:37 -0800

found missing wins.

By: killThisKid

killThisKid — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:42:35 -0800

I'm from South Dakota. Not all of us are nut-jobs. I'm not. I hope. I'm definately not a right-winger, anyway, and I'm definately against this bill. Fortunately, the senate side is much saner than the house side, so this bill will probably die there. I know my rep. is voting against it in all forms. They would have gotten to this bill a week sooner, but they were busy making sure that it is OK to ride a horse or bike while drunk. You wouldn't believe how bad things are here.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:01:22 -0800

As usual the moral brigades keep bothering the rest of us by imposing their moral by State laws. Fuck you, just hope I am not elected or I may decide to declare any religion illegal, persecute burn and kill because my morals don't tolerate deviations ; or choose to expose systematically the God Delusion. The medical risks associated with unsafe abortion methods are very evident and proven by years of study and experience. Also we could argue circles around the definition of life....if we consider a bunch of cells developed from egg and sperm as a potential human being worthy of protection, then we shouldn't assume medications during our life. Indeed by doing so we invariably alter the way our body works, instead of the natural way. By this way some cells are lost to medications and this may kill a potential children under the form or egg or sperm. Therefore, all people that believes egg or sperm and the combination of two are potential human being must NOT assume medications or risk killing harmless cells

By: iamck

iamck — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:15:44 -0800

Thou shall not hot tub.

By: raedyn

raedyn — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:21:37 -0800

Isn't this all predicated on the questionable assumption that there is someone left in South Dakota of child-bearing age? - found missing There will be a lot more in 13-15 years!

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:47:39 -0800

We should make sure that every child that can be concieved - is - concieved. I demand to have sex with every female I can in order to better protect the rights of the unborn to exist.

By: drstein

drstein — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:00:32 -0800

"Making abortion more accessible does not increase demand for the procedure. Hence, governments need not fear that the costs of making safe abortion more available will overburden a health care infrastructure.16 For example, Barbados, Canada, Tunisia, and Turkey all liberalized their laws to increase access to legal abortion, but they did not experience an increase in abortion rates. The Netherlands, with a non-restrictive abortion law, widely accessible contraceptives, and free abortion services, has one of the lowest annual abortion rates in the world.17" We have a lot to learn from other countries, but the stupid whacked out Jesus freaks here in the US don't want that to happen. Why can't the religious zealots just move to one state and leave the rest of us alone? I hope this gets overturned. Fetuses are not people. This shit needs to stop.

By: I Love Tacos

I Love Tacos — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:07:24 -0800

This shit needs to stop. If you're referring to meaningless election year posturing, then I agree. If you're referring to abortion actually being banned, it's never going to happen. It's just a standard bullshit talking point that gets some votes. That's why nobody bothered to insert a clause for the health of the mother, because everybody knows it's not real.

By: forrest

forrest — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:09:05 -0800

It's kind of ironic that this bill passes the day before Ben Munson died. Dr. Munson was a civil rights pioneer in South Dakota and for a long while was the only doctor in the state providing abortions pre Roe v Wade. Besides being arrested for performing abortions, he was prosecuted by none other than well-known anal leakage Bill Janklow for culpable negligence when a patient died, winning on a directed verdict when Bill failed to present an adequate case. I grew up with Dr. Munson's kids. He was not only an advocate of women's rights, but of other minorities as well. A good calibration point on South Dakota is that the family received more death threats for his outspokenness regarding the rights of blacks than for anything regarding abortion. Ya gotta be a WMP to get along in SD. (Yes, the Protestant part is important - the KKK operated in the Black Hills in the 1920s to deter the threat of Roman Catholicism.)

By: I Love Tacos

I Love Tacos — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:13:01 -0800

We should make sure that every child that can be concieved - is - concieved. I demand to have sex with every female I can in order to better protect the rights of the unborn to exist. You're right, Genesis 1:28 clearly directs Christians to "Be fruitful, and multiply". It doesn't say anything about wasting time by waiting for Mr. Right. As such, it should clearly be legal to have sex with any unmarried Christian woman who isn't currently pregnant, whether she likes you or not. Sure it seems cruel, but it's all to ensure her eternal salvation.

By: TheGoldenOne

TheGoldenOne — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:05:35 -0800

Ummm... Supremacy Clause? Eh? No?

By: beth

beth — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:11:25 -0800

I like to think of another side of the "conscience" stuff that they're trying to pass - I worked as a nurse aide in a nursing home, and it would have been great to not be able to be fired for refusing to prolong the life of people that I thought should have been left to peacefully exit. I'm talking the several people with alzheimer's I dealt with who experienced nothing but anguish, never smiled, never really even opened their eyes anymore. Such a sad end. But as a society we keep it going as long as the Medicaid checks keep rolling in... Anyway it would be cool to start a church whose main tenet is that anyone past infancy has to change their own diaper. Then I can enroll thousands of nurse aids as members. That would be fun!

By: beth

beth — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:12:21 -0800

Oops. Nurse aides.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:31:00 -0800

I'm sure all the social conservatives who pushed this bill will be lining up to pay for the expenses related to the rearing of all the new children that will be born because of it. Ah, sometimes I crack me up.

By: Dillenger69

Dillenger69 — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:51:33 -0800

Remember, it's not a child ... it's a punishment for having dirty dirty sex. Now, shut up and have that baby so we can execute him in 20 years when he's convicted of murder.

By: JMOZ

JMOZ — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:56:20 -0800

Why can't the religious zealots just move to one state and leave the rest of us alone? Y'know, funny you should mention that.

By: redteam

redteam — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:26:53 -0800

Now you must sweep until you are absolutely finished.

By: fshgrl

fshgrl — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:42:24 -0800

Beth you should totally do that. In the meantime me and some of my friends are starting a group to outlaw divorce. That'll show 'em.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:05:16 -0800

JMOZ - I guess - if Christrian Exodus is successful - they'll be stoning people to death, in the "new, improved" S.C., for eating shellfish and wearing clothes made from mixed fibers ( both proscribed against in the Old Testament of the Bible - on pain of death ) . "The Authority and Inerrancy of Scripture The Holy Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, existing as His perfect revelation of absolute truth in all matters in the original manuscripts penned by the biblical authors under the superintending guidance of the Holy Spirit. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; 2 Peter 1:20, 21)"

By: Meridian

Meridian — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:20:27 -0800

This makes me worry on a larger level that the entire world is slowly descending into a hell of religious fundamentalism. I hate to think how bad it could get if the economic and societal effects of peak oil are as bad as predicted. I fear The Age of Enlightenment is slowly coming to an end.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 06:16:34 -0800

troutfishing: the 66-book Bible was not compiled until AFTER those verses were written, obviously.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:01:57 -0800

I don't know the state reresentatives involved, but I'll take a guess that they are a bunch of old men who wouldn't think twice about hopping into the sack with a sexy young thing if they thought they could get away with it. Because the sexual drive is a fundamental force. Perfect justice would be every one of those dicks who vote to outlaw abortion would suddenly have to deal with a pregnant mistress and a pregnant, unmarried daughter or two.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:26:22 -0800

No, perfect justice would be for every one of those dicks to be captured by Special Circumstances, re-engineered to women, and impregnated.

By: Gator

Gator — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:37:39 -0800

Fortunately, the senate side is much saner than the house side, so this bill will probably die there. Eeep.