S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe' & blog posts Abortion Manual as response

No, the anti-choicers are trying to turn a medical issue into a political one.

 

Sorry, but I will repeat this one until the day I die.

If men got pregnant, there would be an abortion clinic on every streetcorner in every municipality in the United States.

Except in South Dakota!

 

In our system, five lawyers in robes carry more weight, though it's still an exceeding stupid decision.

 

The government is constantly regulating "medical" issues thereby making them political issues.

 

I don't have any problem with regulation. However, prohibition is NOT regulation.

 

Shhhhh... There are no such things as black markets, silly. Prohibition and the industrial prison complex cures all.

 

It goes from zygote to embryo to fetus to natal

 

Yep... This is one of those things where there will never be a feel-good ending.

 

Feminist rhetoric
I suppose it sounds good

Rocket River

 

Right wing response
I suppose it sounds typical to me

 

wink wink...

Alito thanks Christian right leader for supporting nomination; Says he will 'keep in mind' trust on court

The letter was posted by Progress Action Now. The group has also posted audio of Dobson reading the letter during his radio broadcast. The letter follows.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Alito_thanks_Christian_right_leader_for_0301.html

 

Not "the country," but the same minority that seeks to impose their idea of morality and religion on the country, whether it is wanted or not. The same minority that has it's grip on the Republican Party. There is no compromise with these people. They are fervently convinced that their religious convictions trump the rights of the majority of Americans.

We have come to a sad state of affairs in this country, when men seek to impose their will on the women of America. Equality for all? Are they just empty words? Compromise on a disturbing issue for all Americans? Not from these people. They will call those who oppose a ban like that attempted in South Dakota extremists, but if they really wish to see an extremist, they need only look in the mirror.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Okay, men won't be allowed to have abortions either. Happy?

In all seriousness, I am glad that moves are being made quickly on this. Hopefully this will get to the SCOTUS quickly so we can see where the numbers are now. If we do not have the support necessary, then we need to start looking at upcoming retirements and who will be appointing the next justices. I am a little disappointed in the tactics here. They are not protecting the babies so much as going after mass abortion providers. What we need is a bill defining the pre-born as human beings, accorded the same protections as the already born, thus making abortion -legally- murder. I don't think many people are so interested in having an abortion/providing someone with an abortion that they are willing to go to prison for the rest of their life.

 

Which is why the do-it-yourself blog cropped up so quick. I'm sympathetic to your take on this. My problem with getting the laws involved in this is, here come the coat hangers. Again.

 

Yeah, because turning back the clock thirty years is exactly what we should be doing.

Because we don't already have enough unenforceable laws yet.

As evidenced by historical fact, right? Oh, that's right, history shows that no matter the sanction, people will seek out abortions. And since they can do it with a pill these days, it is even easier than ever.

This procedure should only be carried out in a regulated facility by licensed medical personnel. The legislation you are pushing for will put ACTUAL lives in jeopardy.

 

Thirty years ago we had the Internet? George Bush was president of the United States? Hybrid gas/electric cars were a common sight on our highways? No one is moving the country back thirty years, we are just trying to rectify a 30 year old mistake. Surely you are not suggesting that mistakes should never be corrected if a certain amount of time has passed, especially considering you want to turn back the clock on drug prohibition.

People still commit murder in America, and some get away with it. According to your logic, we should not have a law against murder, as it is unenforceable. We have laws to prohibit unacceptable behaviors, and we punish those transgressors that we can. Just because it is hard to prosecute, doesn't mean we scrap it, or even that we should.

Show me the time in history when abortion was punishable by life in prison with no possibility of parole and abortion rates were the same as they are now and this point will have merit. Otherwise, I submit that my conjecture is as valid as yours.

This procedure should be carried out never and the legislation I am pushing for will remove ACTUAL lives from jeopardy. Women can choose not to have back alley abortions. Unborn children cannot choose not to be aborted. I am trying to save the latter, the former can save themselves.

 

I am suggesting that Roe, while unpopular, was not a "mistake" in the first place.

Drug policy is a bit different given that drug laws were passed based on lies.

No, murder is an enforceable law. When a person is murdered, there is a clear victim (the dead person) and there is virtually always physical evidence as to the perpetrator.

As far as "unacceptable behavior," I would assert that abortion only qualifies as such to a minority of people in this country and as such, should not be criminalized. In fact, I personally believe that we should not criminalize ANY behavior unless criminalization is supported by 90% of the populace.

The fact that you would put a woman in prison for life w/o parole for having an abortion clearly shows how little merit your conjecture has.

And if you were talking about putting the "doctor" (since most of the abortion providers in a criminalized system are unlikely to be actual doctors) in jail for life, I would refer you to our War on Drugs and how much criminal sanctions up to and including life in prison has reduced that behavior.

As long as there are people who want abortions, others will step up to the plate to provide them. That is doubly true these days since one can provide an abortion by selling a pill.

In your opinion. Your opinion holds no weight with me, nor does it sway the majority of Americans who believe that there should be some level of access to abortion.

In your opinion. Your opinion holds no weight with me, nor does it sway the majority of Americans who believe that there should be some level of access to abortion.

If you are truly trying to save unborn children, why don't you concentrate your efforts on things that actually work like reducing unwanted pregnancies and advocating for adoption? Criminalizing abortion will be no more effective in this day and age than the drug war. All a ban would do is ensure that RDU-486 becomes the single most valuable substance on Earth and also one of the most widely circulated pills in this country.

WAKE UP!!!

 

Actually, I talked to one of the lawyers who argued in favor of Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court 30 years ago.

She made an interesting point. Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe, that would literally flip the electorate. Roe v. Wade has become such an issue because Americans and legislators never had a say. As a result, Conservatives and opponents are able to continuously make this and issue. It's never going to die unless our attitudes change substantially or the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

Overturning the decision would dramatically change the political landscape. Most people forget a majority of the public support Roe v. Wade and even more so, it would create a wave of moderate and independent support for the Democratic Party.

Either way, it seems extremely unlikely that the court will ever overturn Roe v. Wade. Actually, Roe v. Wade isn't even relevant anymore. The real case is Planned Parenthood v. Casey in which the court ruled that abortion is legal, not exclusively on shaky privacy grounds, but instead on due process grounds. Roe v. Wade was a mootness clause case that today isn't even relevant other than the fact that it is a symbol for the creation of abortion.

Should it go to the Supreme Court, it will be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision. Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Jones, and Kennedy will definitely vote in favor of abortion and potentially I could see Roberts doing the same. Roe v. Wade as a case set extremely broad standards for legal abortions that were rolled back significantly by Planned Parenthood v. Casey so I would doubt that the court would add anymore substantial new restrictions.

 

Andy,
Your opinion on abortion means about as much to me as mine means to you, so I guess this discussion is over between us. On the other hand, I might as well give you the courtesy of responding to the points you did choose to make.

Given that I feel it was a mistake, my original point stands. It is not setting the country back 30 years to address the issue, any more than it is setting the country back to legalize mar1juana.

Abortion policy was passed based on the appeal of a women who later realized her mistake and now argues against legal abortion. At least those who wanted the drug laws to begin with probably still feel that way. In both cases the wrong path was taken, and both should be rectified, whatever the initial justification.

When a person is aborted there is a clear victim (the dead baby) and there is also no question as to who the guilty party was (the mother). In fact, laws against abortion should be easier to enforce than laws against murder, because you don't have to figure out whodunnit.

I feel that we should elect representatives to be our voice in government. Those representatives should then meet and confer to determine what should be the law of the land, by a simple majority. The constitution of the United States agrees with me.

It does so only in your opinion. My personal views cannot determine the validity of my statements. That is pretty basic stuff.

We will punish the ones we can catch and the ones we can't will get away with it. I redirect you to my example of laws against murder.

As long as there are people who want to have other people killed, others will step up to the plate to provide that service. This has been true for thousands of years and isn't likely to change soon. In my home town it happend famously and the guy has continued to avoid prosecution despite the assassin giving him up. That does not mean that we don't make murder for hire illegal.

Since you provide no argument here, we have nothing to discuss.

I certainly am an advocate of both an increase in sex education and adoption. I don't see what either has to do with my stance on abortion though, as they are not in opposition. In fact, I see adoption as a viable alternative to abortion, one that doesn't involve murdering a human being. As for abortifacients: I am aware of there existance and realize that they would help many women to escape justice in a world of criminalized abortion. The ability of some to get away with a crime is not enough reason in my opinion to scrap a law.