Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 9
Posted: 2/24/2006 7:08:16 PM EDT
.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

By CHET BROKAW

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on nearly all abortions Friday, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the bench. Lawmakers said growing support among South Dakotans for abortion restrictions added momentum to the bill.

``I think the stars are aligned,'' said House Speaker Matthew Michels, a Republican. ``Simply put, now is the time.''

Friday, Feb. 24

Supreme Court's Evolving Rulings on Abortion [NPR]


Abortion in the Courts [CRLP]


Court Hands Down a Poser On Abortion [The New York Sun]


Timeline of Important Reproductive Freedom Cases [ACLU]


Abortion Battles Waged Mostly at the Edges [USA Today]




Justices To Review Abortion [Netscape Community]


Abortion Ban Moves Forward [Netscape Community]




Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, has pledged to sue over the measure. About 800 abortions a year are performed in South Dakota.


Some opponents of the bill said abortion should at least be allowed in cases of rape or incest, or where the woman's health is threatened.


If a rape victim becomes pregnant and bears a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.


``The idea the rapist could be in the child's life ... makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice,'' Heeren-Graber said.


Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion. The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday, and the Senate approved it 23-12 earlier this week. If signed, it would become law July 1.


Money for the anticipated legal fight is already pouring in. Lawmakers were told during the debate that an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature is setting up a special account to accept donations.


``We've had people stopping in our office trying to drop off checks to promote the defense of this legislation already,'' Rounds said.


Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center, a Sioux Falls pregnancy counseling agency that tries to steer women away from abortion, said most of the abortions performed in South Dakota do not stem from rape or even failed contraception, but are simply ``conveniences.''


Unruh said she believes most South Dakota women want the state to ban abortion, and many who have had abortions ``wish someone would have stopped them.''


The governor said he believes it would be better to eliminate abortion in steps rather than all at once. Rounds indicated he does not share the view that Alito and Roberts will usher in sudden, dramatic changes in how the court views abortion. He said it could be a drawn-out legal battle, and noted that it is not even assured that the high court will hear the case.


The bill ``may satisfy a lot of individuals out there who would like to see if there is one slim chance the court may entertain three years from now a direct assault on Roe v. Wade,'' Rounds said.


He added, however: ``I've indicated I'm pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong and that we should do everything we can to save lives. If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.''


Rounds said his staff will review the bill for technical defects. He noted that he vetoed a similar measure two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was challenged in court.


Some advocates said an abortion ban would hurt poor women the most by forcing them to travel long distances to other states where the procedure is legal.


``It's a sad state of affairs that we have only one choice right now'' in South Dakoa, said Charon Asetoyer of the Native American Women's Health Care Education Resource Center. ``But if you have to go out of state, the cost of making that trip will be prohibitive.''


Kate Looby, Planned Parenthood director in Sioux Falls, said women who cannot afford to travel to a clinic might be forced to turn to unsafe methods of abortion.


``We've seen it in the past in this country, we've seen it all over the world and there's no reason to believe it would not happen in South Dakota,'' Looby said.


According to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, similar abortion proposals are in the works in seven other states: Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Georgia and Tennessee.



02/24/06 16:38

Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:33:09 PM EDT
I would guess liberals are about to shit themselves right about now.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:43:21 PM EDT

Yeay for South Dakota!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



+1
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:46:14 PM EDT
no exception for rape and abortion...what a joke

My wife gets raped, and she's getting a damn abortion. It will die because those fucktards put that in there....IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:48:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cetme1:
I would guess liberals are about to shit themselves right about now.



+1

Good for south dakota

brass balls man... brass balls...
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:52:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:54:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cetme1:
I would guess liberals are about to shit themselves right about now.



So your shorts are brown right now, correct?
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:01:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2006 11:03:46 PM EDT by Mattl]
Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! all the wemon in that state have too travel to get an abortion now and the people who should not be reproducing will multiply exponentially. Yeay!!!!!!!



ETA: More welfare dependents too, YEAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:08:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=soviet+flag/v=2/SID=e/l=IVS/;_ylt=A9gnMiONDABENewApAajzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMjIzNjZkBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDWVM2NF84M­Q--/SIG=12250i7ja/EXP=1140940301/*-http%3A//www.slivafamily.com/soviet_flag_big.gif



here we go!!!!

You understand that there is no constitutional right to kill your child, doesnt matter if its in the womb or out?

You understand that our country is founded upon the idea of a right to Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness?

You understand that if you keep it in your pants you wont get pregnant, and that there are always consiquinces for every action?

Is it a crappy situation when the g/f gets preggo and all of the sudden you cant kill the child because its not convienient?

Shure...

Is this new legislation in anyway opposed to individual liberty? Not a chance...

it protects the individual liberty of the unborn.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:11:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=soviet+flag/v=2/SID=e/l=IVS/;_ylt=A9gnMiONDABENewApAajzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMjIzNjZkBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDWVM2NF84M­Q--/SIG=12250i7ja/EXP=1140940301/*-http%3A//www.slivafamily.com/soviet_flag_big.gif



here we go!!!!

You understand that there is no constitutional right to kill your child, doesnt matter if its in the womb or out?

You understand that our country is founded upon the idea of a right to Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness?

You understand that if you keep it in your pants you wont get pregnant, and that there are always consiquinces for every action?

Is it a crappy situation when the g/f gets preggo and all of the sudden you cant kill the child because its not convienient?

Shure...

Is this new legislation in anyway opposed to individual liberty? Not a chance...

it protects the individual liberty of the unborn.




I think Zippy is off the mark here the Russians and Chinese encouraged any form of birth control. I dont think thier is precedent for not allowing it, yet.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 3:43:18 AM EDT
Well, That makes SD second in my list of states I'll never move to...
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 3:55:32 AM EDT
Doesn’t this boil down to ones religious beliefs? If religious beliefs can run this country I guess it legitimizes the Muslim religion running a country. “Death to the infidels” must be okay.
Gerry
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:05:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Well, That makes SD second in my list of states I'll never move to...



Funny, South Dakota just went to the top of my list of places to move to.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:08:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 4:16:59 AM EDT by USMC88-93]
What a bunch of ignorant self absorbed ass holes, not everyone shares their opinion. And forcing their beliefs based on their religious practices is unacceptable.

Reproductive rights and decisions to reproduce should be absolutely up to the potential parent.

And my primary fault with this decision is that it was not put up to a vote of the people. If the majority of the people in the state vote for it fine (majority rules in a Democracy) but just the legislature imposing this on the state is bad.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:12:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ger42:
Doesn’t this boil down to ones religious beliefs? If religious beliefs can run this country I guess it legitimizes the Muslim religion running a country. “Death to the infidels” must be okay.
Gerry



Religious beliefs have run this country for 200+ years. This is the second post already in this thread that compares those who want to take and destroy life, to those that want to defend life..

Don't the people of S. Dak. have the right to vote on this? I think so.
If your wife wants an abortion, she can still get one, she will just have to drive a little farther. They will always be legal in IL.

Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:15:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USMC88-93:
What a bunch of ignorant self absorbed ass holes, not everyone shares their opinion. And forcing their beliefs based on their religious practices is unacceptable.

Reproductive rights should be absolutely up to the potential parent.



"REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS" ?
It's MURDER Hillary!
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:25:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 6:04:46 AM EDT by Wobblin-Goblin]

Originally Posted By USMC88-93:
What a bunch of ignorant self absorbed ass holes, not everyone shares their opinion. And forcing their beliefs based on their religious practices is unacceptable.


So, not wanting to kill unborn babies is strictly a religious decision? That's exactly what liberals want everybody to think.

Reproductive rights and decisions to reproduce should be absolutely up to the potential parent.

And at the very least should include the father, too. After all, it's his body, too.

And my primary fault with this decision is that it was not put up to a vote of the people. If the majority of the people in the state vote for it fine (majority rules in a Democracy) but just the legislature imposing this on the state is bad.

And every other decision made by duly elected representatives in a legislature is bad, too? Should ALL decisions be put on a ballot? Or just the ones you deem important? What the hell do we have elected representatives for in the first place?
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:38:51 AM EDT
BTW, the people of SD definitely WOULD vote to ban abortion if it was on a ballot. It is a very conservative state, and our elected officials did what we wanted them to do. (which is how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy).

Another thing that I love about the bill is that it will keep the libs from moving here.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:42:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By postpostban:
Religious beliefs have run this country for 200+ years. This is the second post already in this thread that compares those who want to take and destroy life, to those that want to defend life..

Don't the people of S. Dak. have the right to vote on this? I think so.
If your wife wants an abortion, she can still get one, she will just have to drive a little farther. They will always be legal in IL.



We are a secular nation. A persons personal religious beliefs should have no bearing when it comes to the nations secular laws. It is too much like imposing your own religious and moral beliefs on those who believe otherwise.
Do the people of S Dakota have the right ? No, I think it should remain a national issue and determined at the national level.And it should remain as a persons choice, as it is now.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:44:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By prairiedogger:
BTW, the people of SD definitely WOULD vote to ban abortion if it was on a ballot. It is a very conservative state, and our elected officials did what we wanted them to do. (which is how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy).

Another thing that I love about the bill is that it will keep the libs from moving here.




What are your plans if your wife becomes pregnant from a rapist?
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:48:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 4:57:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 4:58:21 AM EDT by TrijiCog]

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! all the wemon in that state have too travel to get an abortion now and the people who should not be reproducing will multiply exponentially. Yeay!!!!!!!



ETA: More welfare dependents too, YEAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Well said,except for the spelling.If everyone that is so dead set against abortion would personally adopt unwanted babies,I would understand their opinion.

Sterilize the world!!!!
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:13:38 AM EDT
I've just never understood the religious argument here. Murder is not a religious decision. This should not, contrary to Alito, be a States Rights issue.

Murder is covered under the Constitution.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:16:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 80FL:
I've just never understood the religious argument here. Murder is not a religious decision. This should not, contrary to Alito, be a States Rights issue.

Murder is covered under the Constitution.



Thank you.I'm not what one would call a religious person,but abortion= murder.

Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:39:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 5:39:34 AM EDT by TheOtherDave]

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By prairiedogger:
BTW, the people of SD definitely WOULD vote to ban abortion if it was on a ballot. It is a very conservative state, and our elected officials did what we wanted them to do. (which is how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy).

Another thing that I love about the bill is that it will keep the libs from moving here.




What are your plans if your wife becomes pregnant from a rapist?



+1

I'd be interested to see how many ARFCOMers would take their 19 year old daughter to an out of state abortion clinic after she got raped at a rest stop driving home for thanksgiving..
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:43:10 AM EDT
not to mention the fact that the rapist would have parental rights....
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:44:32 AM EDT
i have a problem with having no exception for rape and incest.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:54:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Well, That makes SD second in my list of states I'll never move to...



Over abortion?

What a stupid issue to use when deciding where to live. There are a lot more important issues out there we should be fighting about. I never did understand why the measure of freedom is based off of an action that the Constitution does not protect or even mentoin. (10th Amendment anyone?)
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:56:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USMC88-93:
What a bunch of ignorant self absorbed ass holes, not everyone shares their opinion. And forcing their beliefs based on their religious practices is unacceptable.

Reproductive rights and decisions to reproduce should be absolutely up to the potential parent.

And my primary fault with this decision is that it was not put up to a vote of the people. If the majority of the people in the state vote for it fine (majority rules in a Democracy) but just the legislature imposing this on the state is bad.



Religious beliefs being forced on people? Please, get a new arguement.

I haven't been to a church in over 15 years, and I am against abortion. It's clear from the reading of the Constitution that abortion is not a protected right, and is not a power reserved to the Federal Government, which means the State has the power to restrict abortion as it chooses.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:58:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By prairiedogger:
BTW, the people of SD definitely WOULD vote to ban abortion if it was on a ballot. It is a very conservative state, and our elected officials did what we wanted them to do. (which is how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy).

Another thing that I love about the bill is that it will keep the libs from moving here.




What are your plans if your wife becomes pregnant from a rapist?



+1

I'd be interested to see how many ARFCOMers would take their 19 year old daughter to an out of state abortion clinic after she got raped at a rest stop driving home for thanksgiving..



Thanks for the emotional arguement. Now how about a logical one?

Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:58:39 AM EDT
"Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple.... Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."

[Randall Terry, Head of Operation Rescue, from The News Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Aug 15, 1993]
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:59:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mytwocents:
"Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple.... Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."

[Randall Terry, Head of Operation Rescue, from The News Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Aug 15, 1993]



What does this have to do with anything?
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:02:02 AM EDT


The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.


That is crap! What a bad law.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:02:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 6:03:57 AM EDT by mytwocents]
I forgot its not a religous issue.
Randall Terry is/was head of operation rescue. The Pro life movement that pretty much started it all. At least the theatrcal part anyways


ETA another quote

"I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like and if you have babies, you have babies."

[Randall Terry, one of the people behind the current campaign to blockade health clinics and publicly harass and humiliate women]
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:05:40 AM EDT
I think the law is excellent, except one part, they fact that rape and incest still fall under it. That's just doesn't fly well with most people. Those are two acts in which abortion SHOULD be legal, because it's downright just not right. Nobody want's the child of a rapist as a constant reminder, and nobody wants a child of incest as a constant reminder.

If you disagree, that's fine, but get your head out of your ass, wake up, and welcome to the real world.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:06:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Well, That makes SD second in my list of states I'll never move to...



They just called are are real broken up about that.
Gee who have thought that murdering an unborn baby would be so popular.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:10:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
not to mention the fact that the rapist would have parental rights....



Until the father deprived the rapist (rightfully so) of his right to breath.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:14:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By mytwocents:
"Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple.... Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."

[Randall Terry, Head of Operation Rescue, from The News Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Aug 15, 1993]



What does this have to do with anything?


Because thats essentially what the anti-abortion crowd is espousing. Even people in this thread have made the comment about being a Christian nation.

If the religious zealots win on the abortion issue and push the idea based on this being a "Christian nation", just wait til they start pushing passing new blue laws and persecuting people with religious faiths different than their own. Its not only possible, its probable.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:14:49 AM EDT
So far in this thread we've had posters:

1. Claim South Dakota was like Communist Soviet Union.

2. Claim this is a religious issue.

3. Claim elected representatives have no right to pass laws without statewide referendums.

4. Claim elected representatives in any state have no right to pass any laws regarding abortions.

5. Claim people who are against abortion are intolerant haters.
_______________

Twenty-five pages and a lock. Maybe one banning as well.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:15:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By prairiedogger:
BTW, the people of SD definitely WOULD vote to ban abortion if it was on a ballot. It is a very conservative state, and our elected officials did what we wanted them to do. (which is how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy).

Another thing that I love about the bill is that it will keep the libs from moving here.




What are your plans if your wife becomes pregnant from a rapist?



+1

I'd be interested to see how many ARFCOMers would take their 19 year old daughter to an out of state abortion clinic after she got raped at a rest stop driving home for thanksgiving..



Thanks for the emotional arguement. Now how about a logical one?




It wasn't an argument. If it was an arguement, i'd be ramming MY belief that the Government-State or Federal-has no business between myself and my wife, girlfriend, hooker, concubine, down YOUR throat. Obviously I don't have any hard facts, but I'll bet that a lot of Good Christian parents will take their pregnant teens to a clinic knowing they can pray their sins away at a later date..

I'll ask you to play along: If it was your little girl that got raped, impregnated and squirted out an HIV+ half Ghetto-Goblin, would you warm up to it as the Father Figure?
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:16:06 AM EDT
"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed... If we're going to have true reformation in America, it is because men once again, if I may use a worn out expression, have righteous testoserone flowing through their veins. They are not afraid of contempt for their contemporaries. They are not even here to get along. They are here to take over... Somebody like Susan Smith should be dead. She should be dead now. Some people will go, "Well how do you know God doesn't have a wonderful plan for her life?" He does, it's listed in the Bible. His plan for her is that she should be dead."

[Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, at the Aug 8, 1995 U.S. Taxpayers Alliance Banquet in Washington DC, talking about doctors who perform abortions and volunteer escorts]
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:20:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 6:21:05 AM EDT by enigma2y0u]
well, i will chime in here. What do i get out of it. I think it is a big joke. A bunch of catholics that pretend they are such good people (like everyone who goes to church) decided to pass a law with not much thought into it; to save us from hell.

I fucking hate organized religion.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:20:42 AM EDT
My PERSONAL beliefs are that abortion is wrong, THEREFORE I would never pay for one, nor would I ever put a woman in a position to have to get one. I've had sex in the past, but I'll not have sex again till after I'm married.

Having said that I'm not sure that I want abortion to become illegal.

I'm TOTALLY against ANY government funds going to pay for abortion. If you want an abortion PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.

I'm totally against abortion for birth control although I have no idea how to fix that problem without impacting somebody's "rights". One abortion because of a youthful mistake is one thing but 3, 4, 5, 8 abortions is just criminal. Get on the pill or use a rubber.....

Making abortion illegal will just make thousands maybe millions of welfare cases that I don't want to pay for. That may sound mean and decidedely un-Christian, but that's how I feel. When I want to pay for babies I'll get a wife and get her knocked up.

I'm on the fence on this issue because of that, if I had to make a decision I would vote to make it illegal provided there were some stipulations.

Whatever happens it's going to be a bitter, long, hard fight and it's GOING TO GET REALLY UGLY before it's over.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:26:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
So far in this thread we've had posters:

1. Claim South Dakota was like Communist Soviet Union.

2. Claim this is a religious issue.

3. Claim elected representatives have no right to pass laws without statewide referendums.

4. Claim elected representatives in any state have no right to pass any laws regarding abortions.

5. Claim people who are against abortion are intolerant haters.
_______________

Twenty-five pages and a lock. Maybe one banning as well.



Yeah man, I get ya. I'm not even going to participate in the argument this time as I've seen I aint going to be changing anybody's mind on the subject.

Last time I voiced my opinion I was warned by a nobody to make more 'civil' posts or not post at all.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:26:18 AM EDT
Its an agenda driven bill. Same issue was vetoed two years ago. Gov will sign it and the state will be in federal court in a heartbeat. We can't seem to fund education adequately and take care of the children in our public schools but we'll have millions of dollars available to fight this in federal court. Every agenda-driven activist from both sides of the issue will be wailing and gnashing their teeth and the talking heads will prowl the airwaves looking for their 15 seconds of fame. OBTW this is the same legislature that passed a provision that makes riding a bike or a horse while intoxicated legal. Saddle up, get a buzz on and ride on into South Dakota we'll meet you at the state line and give you a parade
Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Gov Rounds will fiddle with abortion while our public schools crumble from neglect.
O tempore, O mores.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:30:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By zer04evr:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
So far in this thread we've had posters:

1. Claim South Dakota was like Communist Soviet Union.

2. Claim this is a religious issue.

3. Claim elected representatives have no right to pass laws without statewide referendums.

4. Claim elected representatives in any state have no right to pass any laws regarding abortions.

5. Claim people who are against abortion are intolerant haters.


Yeah man, I get ya. I'm not even going to participate in the argument this time as I've seen I aint going to be changing anybody's mind on the subject.


What's the comical part is virtually every single one of those arguments is incompatible with all the others.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:35:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mytwocents:
"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed... If we're going to have true reformation in America, it is because men once again, if I may use a worn out expression, have righteous testoserone flowing through their veins. They are not afraid of contempt for their contemporaries. They are not even here to get along. They are here to take over... Somebody like Susan Smith should be dead. She should be dead now. Some people will go, "Well how do you know God doesn't have a wonderful plan for her life?" He does, it's listed in the Bible. His plan for her is that she should be dead."

[Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, at the Aug 8, 1995 U.S. Taxpayers Alliance Banquet in Washington DC, talking about doctors who perform abortions and volunteer escorts]



There are extremists on every side of every issue. I am against abortion, and I have never heard of Randall Terry, nor does he speak for me.

I am not religious. I just view abortion as murder. I also view that the Constitution does not give people a fundemental right to abortion, because it doesn't. It clearly states that anything not reserved for the Federal government is the domain of the States. South Dakota should (and in a perfect world would) have the right to legislate abortion.

Again, it is not a religious issue. True, a lot of people of faith do side against abortion, but it's not the only people who do.

Do you doubt that if this issue went for a popular vote amongst the people of South Dakota that they would ban abortion? This bill has a huge amount of support with the people of South Dakota, and they are not all card carrying members of the Religious Right (which really doesn't exist anyways)
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:40:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:42:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 6:56:46 AM EDT by guardian855]

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

It wasn't an argument. If it was an arguement, i'd be ramming MY belief that the Government-State or Federal-has no business between myself and my wife, girlfriend, hooker, concubine, down YOUR throat.



Sure the government does. It's murder.
When does it stop? What if your wife, girlfriend, hooker, concubine gave birth to a baby and the baby sufferred from Down's Syndrome? Would killing the baby not be the State's business? I mean, it's not like you wanted the kid.


Obviously I don't have any hard facts, but I'll bet that a lot of Good Christian parents will take their pregnant teens to a clinic knowing they can pray their sins away at a later date..


That's right, you don't have any hard facts. What does "Good Christian" parents have to do with me? I haven't stepped into a church in years. My pregnant teen wouldn't be getting an abortion.


I'll ask you to play along: If it was your little girl that got raped, impregnated and squirted out an HIV+ half Ghetto-Goblin, would you warm up to it as the Father Figure?



No, I wouldn't. How about you? What if your daughter had a baby, and then 6 months after she confesses to you that she was raped and scared to tell anyone, and that her child is really a "HIV+ half Ghetto-Goblin" (your words)? Would you suddenly have the right to abort the 6 month old baby?

But this is always the emotional argument, as this is almost never the reason why women have abortions (nice how you added the lower-class/racist component in there, makes it easier to play on the emotions) For every 100 babies aborted, I doubt if 1 was the result of rape or incest. For every 1000 babies, maybe 1 might be in that sample. The other 999 babies are because the people who had sex didn't protect themselves, or think ahead.

Edited my comments to reflect my belief that both the man and the woman should be concerned about pregnancy prevention when having sex.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:43:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:
It clearly states that anything not reserved for the Federal government is the domain of the States. S

or the people
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:44:08 AM EDT

There are extremists on every side of every issue. I am against abortion, and I have never heard of Randall Terry, nor does he speak for me.


Sure you have. He was the spokesman for the Shindlers in the Terry Shiavo debacle.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 9
Top Top