| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2660
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 5:19 pm: | 
|
What people will see at the MOL get together? |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Somme toute, as the French say, if GWB is going to heaven, I would much rather go to hell. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4547
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 6:58 pm: |
|
what are those things? Rolls of cookie dough?
By the way, just a point of definition...an egg/ sperm collaboration is an embryo til the end of the 3rd month. Then it becomes a fetus with placenta and organ development. Most abortions are of the embryonic kind. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5317
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Having an abortion is like dealing with the consequences? Having an abortion is an exit for both the woman and child concerned, except one doesn't get another on-ramp and didn't have a choice in being road kill.
At least if you have one too many and have an auto accident there are consequences, especially if you kill someone. Not so in an abortion. Even if it's your 2nd, 3rd, 4th.......
But wait -- there's mental anquish. Next time I have vehicular homicide I'll tell them at sentencing that I felt really, really bad every time I did it.
Life is so cheap. |
wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2037
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 7:55 pm: |
|
And most women who've had abortions even of the embryonic kinds - as I did - are quite conscious of the fact we stopped a POTENTIAL for life. That was our choice. What is truly appalling is that some poor person didn't have the luxury of going to Puerto Rico (Woman's Hospital of Santurce) to have that abortion before it was legal in NY. I did and had understanding parents to boot.
I will not tolerate old men or young men for that matter legislating or judging these laws.
Alleygater is right, brave and oh so perceptive (thought he was a she because of that  ) as well as all the others who are trying to get across the difference between a PARTY PLATFORM and individual choices.
Signing off to enjoy my chosen child who I love with my life. My choice, gentlemen.
Wendy Lauter |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5319
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 8:15 pm: |
|
Yeah sure. And if you don't pay income taxes, you shouldn't have a say in tax policy.  |
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 55
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 8:18 pm: |
|
Didn't NY pass the most liberal abortion statute in the country in 1970? Created quite the cottage industry. All before Roe. Women don't want men telling them what to do. But didn't 5 men legislate that abortion was constitutional. And what about the millions of women who feel abortion is morally wrong. |
wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2039
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 8:19 pm: |
|
On some level that's true, cjc. Haven't you seen the email going around about making members of congress be subject to social security benefits as opposed to the wonderful full pension they get before they start cutting and whittling away at an amazing social safey net? |
wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 8:20 pm: |
|
Ken, try to focus on some of the other things I wrote not one sentence of it. It might make you a better lawyer or at least more empathetic. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4548
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:01 pm: |
|
"And what about the millions of women who feel abortion is morally wrong"
Let's see, i can think of two things. One, no one is forcing them to have an abortion. And two, maybe they could feed, cloth and raise all the unwanted children. |
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 56
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Wendy:
I'll put up my legal skills against whatever you do any day. Being a good lawyer has nothing to do with empathy. It has to do with being intellectually honest. Regardless of what you or I feel, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a woman the right to suck an embryo out of her uterus. If you happen to live in a state that allows it, great. If not, vote for a change. But don't give me a load of •••••••• that you're guaranteed the right just because you're a woman.
Ffof:
No one is forcing easy women to have sex. Why should morally upstanding women be forced to care for other women's mistakes. Oh wait, they do anyway. Another great innovation from your ilk: The Great Welfare State. |
wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2041
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:31 pm: |
|
There's as much right in the constitution for me to have an abortion as there is is for someone not in the militia to bear arms.
(I'm a better lawyer; I know it and you will too eventually.) |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5164
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Maybe it's me, but I find it hard to believe that a person who touts his intellect and legal skill would expect to be taken seriously if his best arguments are statements like "No one is forcing easy women to have sex" or "Why should morally upstanding women be forced to care for other women's mistakes". |
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 57
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Then we're in agreement--you have no Consitutional right to an abortion. (BTW, regarding the Second Amendment, you may want to read Akhil Reed Amar's recent analysis on the structure of the Bill of Rights--based on his research, we may indeed have a right to bear arms). |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1665
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:42 pm: |
|
"Why should morally upstanding women be forced to care for other women's mistakes".
while i think it is poorly worded, i agree with the point. i feel that abortion should be legal and a womans choice. i do not feel that it should be paid for with tax dollars. you want an abortion, pay for it.
if abortion is made illegal then everyone who voted to make it illegal should have to raise all of the unwanted children. |
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 58
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
Nohero:
I agree with you 100% It just seems that these discussions devolve into rants, and I want to be included. My best arguments were not the quotes you cite. I had many other earlier posts, but, again, to get people involved, I spiced it up a little. Anyway, no need to be taken tooseriously. Nobody reading this is in need of my particular
expertise. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5165
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:49 pm: |
|
Quote:... to get people involved, I spiced it up a little.
Somehow, I don't think this is a topic that needs to be "spiced up". |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1666
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:52 pm: |
|
its already caliente'!! |
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 59
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:53 pm: |
|
You're probably right. As I just said to my wife, if we got rid of Roe, I wonder whether abortion would the polarizing issue it is now. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 10:02 pm: |
|
WRT the oft posted opinion that men shouldn't make decisions pertaining to reproductive matters; I'm wondering?
Why do we predominantly elect males to the legislatures which write our laws?
Why do we predominantly elect males as chief executives, who in turn, predominantly appoint males to judicial office?
Why, when given the opportunity, do we predominantly elect males to judicial office?
And for anybody who has a better grasp of the answers to the foregoing questions than I, why do you think that males shouldn't make the decisions regarding reproductive matters?
Didn't we elect these guys, or the ones who appointed them, to make decisions in our names?
Can't we get rid of them in the next election if we decide that they're out of touch with our sense of propriety and the societal good?
Just wondering.
TomR |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 10:03 pm: |
|
Oh! I almost forgot.
Why do we in New Jersey get so twisted up about what they do in South Dakota?
Like, does anybody here really think that this is going to change anything in South Dakota? In New Jersey? Elsewhere?
Again, just wondering.
TomR |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5167
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Quote:You're probably right. As I just said to my wife, if we got rid of Roe, I wonder whether abortion would the polarizing issue it is now.
It probably would be a more polarizing issue. |
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 60
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Perhaps--but there is the possibility that letting each state make its own decision will quiet down the extremists on both sides. On that note, good night, and thanks for the mental exercise. I don't get a chance to do this with my wife--she mistakes debate for hostility and ends up crying. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12839
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 11:53 pm: |
|
Ken Zeidner, the constitution? The constitution does not list all of our rights. The absense of mention of a right in the constitution does not mean the non-existence of a right. It is not an exhaustive list.
And Roe v Wade says there is a right. Until it's overturned.
Who here believes the constitution is a complete list of our rights? Has anyone among that group graduated 8th grade?
|
Ace789nj
Citizen
Username: Ace789nj
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 1:38 am: |
|
I think there's something in there about me saying •••• and ••• and dick without getting "red dotted" |
Ace789nj
Citizen
Username: Ace789nj
Post Number: 301
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 1:40 am: |
|
ooh, dick got through! how 'bout ••••••••?
nope, maybe dick-cranium
nice |
threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 80
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 6:59 am: |
|
This article is well worth a look:
http://www.slate.com/id/2137775/
Cheers |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4550
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 8:14 am: |
|
"No one is forcing easy women to have sex." But what about the easy men? Or the hard women?!! Ooh, so complicated and so many combinations come to mind!
Hard men force easy women. Easy men force easy women. Hard men force hard women. Easy men force hard women. Hard women force easy men. Easy women force easy men. Hard women force hard men. Easy women force hard men. That's an awful lot of sex going on. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4551
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 8:20 am: |
|
Here's a funny line from that article.
"Liberals treat judgment the way conservatives treat sex: forbid it, except when you're doing it." |
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 213
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 8:22 am: |
|
'And what about the millions of women who feel abortion is morally wrong.'
They shouldn't have them. End problem. |
The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 8:36 am: |
|
"if abortion is made illegal then everyone who voted to make it illegal should have to raise all of the unwanted children."
Can someone please tell me what exactly pro-choicers are doing to assist the unwanted children that currently exist?
-SLK |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4554
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 8:50 am: |
|
First of all, Dems believe in family planning and women's health, but the repubs have stripped away funding if these planning groups mention the word abortion. This is especially egregious in poor countries around the world and refugee areas. |
The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 8:54 am: |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html
finally, finally finally!!!!
ffof-was that an answer to my question? Nice try... |
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 61
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 8:54 am: |
|
Tom:
I always thought you were one of the few that didn't resort to name calling. I did graduate the 8th grade. Any time you want to debate the Constitution, let me know. I was merely pointing out the fact that Roe is a judicial piece of law making better left to the States. It has no basis in the Constitution. Even many pro-choice scholars agree with that. As for "rights", if you want to live in your little Maplewoodian utopia where you think you can do whatever you want without interference from the Government, fine. As for me, I understand that whatever "rights" I have I procure from the Government. I just prefer mine to come from my local bodies, rather than the Washington nine. You seem to think that abortion is an inalienable right, yet you admit it exists only because of Roe. Without Roe, the right will exist only because a majority of your state's citizens believe it to be so, as it should be. With that said, I doubt New Jersey will turn back the clock if and when that day comes. |
The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1070
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:06 am: |
|
Ken for Prez.....!
Finally, someone local who understands how our beloved constitutional process works...
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I'lll say it yet again:
How the SC found privacy/abortion right protections I will never truly understand. They could of made there case much better with other amendments (9th).
But here is another point that dawned on me last night. While I am only going from the top of my head here, I believe this is the first decision indirectly based on the equal protection clause that incorporated only one segment of the population (women).
Now how is that equal protection?
-SLK |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4556
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:16 am: |
|
You guys like this fatherhood case? I thought you were into the rights of the child. Or is that only the unborn child? |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5172
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:17 am: |
|
The right to privacy extends to both women and men.
That's "equal protection".
It does have different effects on women and men; that's due to "plumbing". |
The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1072
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:20 am: |
|
ffof-
I am happy that this fatherhood case is sparking necessary discussions...
Sorry, abortion isn't justa female thing anymore...
nohero-and where is the right to privacy in the 14th amendment? |
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 62
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:25 am: |
|
SLK:
Thanks for the props. I'm glad you recognize genius when you see it. As for the Ninth Amendment, Roe did rely on it! Roe is a direct descendent of Griswold v. Connecticut, the famous "penumbra" case (a woman's fundamental right to use contraception is grounded in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments). As the dissent noted, the law may be silly, but it's not the job of the Court to say so. As Justice Stewart stated in dissent:
"The Ninth Amendment, like its companion the Tenth, which this Court held "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered," United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 , was framed by James Madison and adopted by the States simply to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that [381 U.S. 479, 530] the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal court could ever use the Ninth Amendment to annual a law passed by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Connecticut would have caused James Madison no little wonder."
Any fundamental right that needs no less than 5 provisions to support can't really be considered a fundamental right, can it. As Hugo Black said:
"I like my privacy as much as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has the right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."
|
The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:30 am: |
|
Ken-
Thanks for reminder, I was aware of this. I spoke the same language on may boards in the past but it just fall on deaf ears....
The pro-choicers are just selfishly happy they got they wanted no matter how much it compromised our constitutional process. So the next time you hear one of these creeps whining about heir civil liberties slap em....
-SLK |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12840
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:43 am: |
|
Ken Zeidner, sorry about insulting you. It comes from the frustration that results from noticing people -- not just you -- who seem to think the constitution is an exhaustive list. I'm still frustrated, because if I'm reading you right (and am I?), you do seem to hold that belief.
I'm not commenting on the merit of Roe v Wade. I am not qualified to. But until something else overturns it, it is the law, and it is the current interpretation of the constitution. That's why I believe there is a right to an abortion and a right to privacy. I disagree with that Hugo Black quote.
I also disagree that rights come from the government. They exist naturally, though the government sometimes recognizes them explicitly and lists them. Again, it doesn't have to be listed for it to exist. Yet privacy and abortion are currently listed in Roe v Wade, so how can they not be rights?
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 907
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
Tom Reingold thanks for articulating that.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12845
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:59 am: |
|
Thank you, too, hoops.
Another thought: I therefore think it's meaningless to argue whether these rights exist. We may want to argue over whether they OUGHT TO exist, but for the time being, they do. To me, saying they don't is like saying the sky isn't blue.
|
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 63
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 10:04 am: |
|
Tom:
Apology accepted. Thanks. If you disagree with the Black quote, then we'll never see eye to eye. And that's fine. It's what makes this land so great (regardless of what the left would have us believe-ha). Your a natural rights sort of guy. I believe that when we decided to live in a society, natural right necessarily went out the window. Who defines what rights come naturally. If I want to kill you, and it feels natural, is that a natural right? If you tell me it's not a natural right because society deems it so, then my point exactly. To me abortion is not a fundamental right. It is a right because, as you say, Roe makes it so, but Roe is wrong. If Roe had decided in 1972 that their was no fundamental right, what then? Would it be a fundamental right. And that fact that Roe is continually narrowed? Are natural rights subject to expansion and contraction? Let's face it--the Government is free to interfere in our lives as much as we, the people, say they can. That's why we have voting, juries, etc. If we want "privacy", we need to do something about it. Don't just whine to the Supreme Court, who answers to no one. Just remember, one day, they may close all discussion on a topic you think they got wrong. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12846
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
The fact that we disagree with some of their rulings is one example about how life sucks. What can we do?
Murdering me is not a right because society (through the mouthpiece of the government) may state what things are not rights. The concept of natural rights does not mean that all behaviors are rights.
Let's face it--the Government is free to interfere in our lives as much as we, the people, say they can.
That's because we want to live in a society of laws. Neither you nor I would have it any other way.
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5177
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 10:09 am: |
|
Ken, your last post covers two issues.
One is the question: "Should abortion be a right?"
The second is the question: "Should abortion be a right under the Constitution as it is now written?"
I gather your answer to the second question is "No". If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with you, the first question will still be with us.
At that point, the question "Should abortion be a right?" will have to be answered legislatively. |
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 64
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 10:29 am: |
|
Nohero:
Exactly!
Tom:
To me, the fact that we disagree doesn't suck. It makes life more interesting. In fact, I get bored if people agree with me too easily. At least there's no chance of that happening here. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12847
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 10:32 am: |
|
No, I wasn't talking about a disagreement between you and me. I was saying that the SC will rule on something I disagree with sometimes and on something else you disagree with at other times. Sometimes, those times will intersect. We can't always agree with the SC.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2572
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
|
I love this from the article Threeringale posted:
Quote:Toward the end of the meeting, a Planned Parenthood executive announced with delight that Wal-Mart had just agreed to stock morning-after pills. "Of course, we don't want anyone to shop at Wal-Mart," cracked a woman to her right. Everyone laughed.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2573
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Ken, in Black's comment of "government has the right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision" did he indicate where a government obtains this right?
Also, you wrote: "As for me, I understand that whatever 'rights' I have I procure from the Government." How do you reconcile that with the 9th amendment
Quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the tenth?
Quote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Unless you mean that because the government hold power over you (in the form of criminal prosecution), it doesn't matter if you actually have the right, when the government can deny it from you if they so choose? |
Ken Zeidner
Citizen
Username: Blackflag
Post Number: 65
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Rastro:
I don't think Black discussed where the power comes from. Just to clarify, when I say the "Government" I mean (usually) state and local government. If we want the benefits government provides (e.g., police protection, education, etc.), we have to put up with their intrusions (unless they violate a specific constitutional provision) or change it (i.e., vote). As for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, see my post above. To repeat, here's what Justice Stewart wrote:
"The Ninth Amendment, like its companion the Tenth, which this Court held "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered," United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 , was framed by James Madison and adopted by the States simply to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that [381 U.S. 479, 530] the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal court could ever use the Ninth Amendment to annual a law passed by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Connecticut would have caused James Madison no little wonder."
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2576
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Ken, my point is that you seem to indicate that the government (fed, state, local) is the source of your rights. I don't question it in the specific context of abortion (or more generally, privacy), but in the context of inalienable vs delegated rights. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8967
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Quote:South Dakota's abortion law
Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji) 3/20/2006
© 2006 Native American Journalists Foundation, Inc.
When Governor Mike Rounds signed HB 1215 into law it effectively banned all abortions in the state with the exception that it did allow saving the mother's life. There were, however, no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. His actions, and the comments of State Senators like Bill Napoli of Rapid City, SD, set of a maelstrom of protests within the state.
Napoli suggested that if it was a case of "simple rape," there should be no thoughts of ending a pregnancy. Letters by the hundreds appeared in local newspapers, mostly written by women, challenging Napoli's description of rape as "simple." He has yet to explain satisfactorily what he meant by "simple rape."
The President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, was incensed. A former nurse and healthcare giver she was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women.
"To me, it is now a question of sovereignty," she said to me last week. "I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction."
Strong words from a very strong lady. I hope Ms. Fire Thunder challenges Gov. Rounds and the state legislators on this law that is an affront to all independent women.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1809859.php |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11034
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:32 am: |
|
The new South Dakota law banning abortion doesn't make exceptions for rape and incest nor the health of the woman as Dave explains. This is pretty much what we can expect if Roe is overturned.
Heck, everyone knows that if a woman gets raped it is her own damn fault.
I think the the South Dakota law is banking on Justice Stevens either croaking or having to retire before it gets to the Supreme Court.
|
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4587
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 8:24 am: |
|
I see a loophole with the definition of "health". I foresee that in cases where "the health of the woman" is under question, the "health" that is spoken of could encompass mental health. Anyone who is forced to not have an abortion, would/could have serious mental health consequences (I know I would) thereby putting the "health of the woman" in jeopardy.
Also, in cases where there is a poor teen who is forced to not have an abortion, are there going to be provisions that help her with pre-natal care? How about post-natal care? Maybe that's asking for too much. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3148
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:04 am: |
|
ffof--it is asking exactly the next logical question. As some wag has said recently, the radical right cares for human life right up until the moment of birth.
I also think this is an area where the pro-choice people should step up. Abortion, where it remains legal, should be minimized anyhow. One way to do this is to offer pre and post natal care, health care for children, and decent affordable child care. This is not inconsistent with supporting access to abortion, but many pro-choicers don't go there because they fear it opens the door to anti-abortion arguments. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1917
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 9:37 pm: |
|
That's pretty hard to believe. Can you show some evidence? Or is it just something you heard on some wackjob talk show? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page