Abortion Bill Passes The South Dakota Senate, 23-12

[LisaM]

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS/60222020

It will go straight to court, of course.

I cannot believe this is my country.

[LiberalinNC]

1. Why can't you believe it's your country? I mean we have * as our pres.

ugh!

[Judi Lynn]

2. Abortion bill passes the South Dakota Senate, 23 to 12

DU'er LisaM contributed this article:

Abortion bill passes the South Dakota Senate, 23 to 12

By TERRY WOSTER and MEGAN MYERS
Argus Leader

Article Published: 02/22/06, 4:43 pm

PIERRE - A contentious abortion bill passed the South Dakota Senate late this afternoon. The vote was 23 to 12.

Lawmakers spent much of this afternoon debating the bill, which has thrust South Dakota into the national spotlight.

House Bill 1215 would ban most abortions in South Dakota. It now goes to Gov. Mike Rounds.

Republican Sen. Bill Napoli of Rapid City said, "This bill is as straight
forward and as honest as it can be. It just says no more abortions unless the life of the mother is threatened."

Republican Sen. Tom Dempster of Sioux Falls said, "This bill ends up being cold, indifferent and as hostile as any great prairie blizzard that this state has ever seen.''
(snip/...)

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS/60222020

[Larkspur]

4. Does it ban it in all trimesters?

[Don Claybrook]

10. yes it does

It makes abortion a felony except when the mother's life is in danger. They defeated amendments that would have allowed abortion if the mother's health (not life) was in danger, and another amendment to make abortion permissible for rape victims.

[mom cat]

15. So to hell with 14 year old rape victims with get pregnant!

[Beaverhausen]

16. or incest victims.

:mad:

[mom cat]

45. Exactly ... father knows best. Can't abort his insestuous zygote!

[iverglas]

19. please can we not talk like Republicans?

I know you don't mean to -- but it's important never to let them frame the discourse, even inadvertently.

It makes abortion a felony except when the mother's life is in danger. They defeated amendments that would have allowed abortion if the mother's health (not life) was in danger ...

We're talking about women. Being pregnant does not make a woman a mother. Some pregnant women may be mothers, some may not. Their status as mother or non-mother isn't relevant.

This language is insidious. It both defines the woman out of the equation, assigning her meaning only as the carrier of a fetus, and elevates the fetus to a status fetuses don't have (since what mothers have is children).

It can take practice (I know, having been snagged by the linguistic deceit myself): life of the woman, health of the woman. Just think "rights of women" whenever you hear talk about abortion, and that should do it. ;)

[Turn CO Blue]

24. Excellent points

Thank you for taking the time to offer the counterpoint language.

[Megahurtz]

41. Good Point!

Because the Republicans are changing the wording on this.
It should be woman or girl, not mother.

[beltanefauve]

46. That's right!

Abortion is a civil right. Women get pregnant. Men don't.

Thats the problem, unfortunately, with Roe v Wade. It was framed as covered in the Constitution under right-to-privacy. (Choice between a woman and her doctor) which is true, but the issue of civil rights goes ignored.

[iverglas]

51. righty oh

Thats the problem, unfortunately, with Roe v Wade. It was framed as covered in the Constitution under right-to-privacy.

I'm absolutely with you on that.

In Canada, the right was framed as the right not to be deprived of life, liberty and security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. And that's exactly what it is: the right not to be forced to assume risks to life and accept limitations on liberty and submit to physical and mental and emotional harm, without someone having demonstrated a damned good reason and proved it through due process.

We don't do those things to criminals without a trial; I'm sure as hell not going to tolerate them being done to women without one.

Let's have abortion courts, where judges make formal rulings that a woman seeking an abortion must continue her pregnancy -- and when one woman dies of complications of pregnancy, or even suffers a non-fatal stroke, or even loses her employment, then let's see who gets charged with the homicide or assault, or sued for support.

Just a wee terminological disagreement. The right to live and liberty and security of the person isn't a civil right, it's a fundamental human right.

[beltanefauve]

54. Fundamental human right

Yes!:yourock:

[Don Claybrook]

53. ok

Thanks for the constructive criticism; never much fun, but always potentially useful. Yes, it was inadvertant. Without looking back at the article to verify, I think the article mentioned "mother's life". I was responding to a question about the contents of the article and the bill that was passed, and I think I used the article's wording, not thinking much about it.

Anyway, thanks for bringing something to my attention that I had never really considered. I didn't mean to push anyone's hot buttons, and I'll make sure and be more cognizant of the language used to frame this debate.

[iverglas]

76. nonono!

It wasn't meant as criticism, actually, constructive or otherwise. I let my longtime irritation at the language itself (and the people who do very deliberately use it) spill over into the situation in which it was used here (and not just by you). Yes, I know -- it was used in the article, and it's used in the legislation too. And like I said, I've done it myself and will probably do it again. It's a phrase that gets stuck in one's head: "life of the mother". Just like they want it to.

I suspected it might even have been used in the section of the Cdn Criminal Code that still sits there in the statutes gathering dust, even though it was struck down nearly 20 years ago -- no fed govt has actually had the guts to just introduce a bill to repeal it -- but it says "female person".

That section says:

... the therapeutic abortion committee for that accredited or approved hospital, by a majority of the members of the committee and at a meeting of the committee at which the case of the female person has been reviewed,

(c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of the female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health, ...

and it was in fact the complete absence of due process (actually, the Cdn guarantee of "the fundamental principles of justice" is a bit broader) that got that struck down. A prohibition on abortion is a violation of the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the violation by the Cdn law was not in compliance with requirements like a fair hearing.

And essentially, it is impossible for there ever to be due process when it comes to denying abortion. Denying an abortion amounts to compelling someone to assume a risk to her life, among other things: every pregnant woman's life is at risk in a pregnancy, low though the risk may be and glad as many women may be to assume it. And if the law, or a court, is going to compel someone to assume that kind of risk against her will, it's just gonna have to have some better reason for that than anyone has come up with yet.

Now I'll go say it 50 times to try to immunize myself: life of the woman, health of the woman, rights of the woman ...

[LisaM]

5. Thanks!

I figured it out (how to post with headline).

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spotbird]

6. South Dakota bill would ban most abortions

South Dakota state senators are debating a bill that would give the state the most stringent ban on abortion in the country.
The bill, which passed on a 47-22 vote in the House, would make abortion a felony, the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader reports.

*skip
Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, said he doesn't know whether he'll sign the bill or veto it.
Citizens and organizations on both sides of the issue have been lobbying the legislators. Many want the decision to be left up to voters in a referendum instead of being decided by lawmakers.


http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20060222-014140-3277r.htm

The article is short so it was difficult to edit.

NPR reported that the debate in the senate may center on whether exceptions should be made for the woman's health, incest and rape. The bill includes and exception if the mother's life is endangered. This legislation defines fertilization as the beginning of human life and prohibits termination at any time after that point. The consequence would be a ban on morning after contraception, although not mentioned it should ban the IUD also. Logically it would make IVF illegal, but there is no way the right-wing would touch a sacred cow for "pro-family" upper middle class white folks.

[northzax]

88. ok then, bring it on

there is conclusive scientific evidence that smoking or drinking alcohol during pregnancy is harmful to the child. In fact, it is illegal in South Dakota to provide a minor with alcohol or tobacco. Ergo, any pregnant woman who smokes or has even one drink is providing alcohol to a minor, which is certainly a crime. Let's being on the prosecutions!

What? you're not taking your folic acid? well, that there is child abuse.

[CottonBear]

7. I wish South Dakota would ban all Republicans. n/t

[Bill McBlueState]

79. but it's not just Republicans!

Democrat Sen. Julie Bartling of Burke said the time is right for the ban on abortion.

“In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children,” she said during the Senate's debate. “There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children.”

So there are even female Democrats voting to restrict their own rights. Is there a phrase equivalent to "Uncle Tom" for the abortion debate?

[phrenzy]

8. Oh, but just remember..

"They" don't "REALLY" want to overturn Row... You know.. /sarcasm

[preciousdove]

9. Until the 60's SD shipped all their unwanted pregnancies to MN

I now see why my grandmother was not real fond of the poeople in her birth state. The can't learn.

[laylah]

14. I was neighbors

with a woman for many years when I lived in Ft. Collins, who hailed from SD. I had written a "Soapbox" for the local paper regarding the International Rights of a Child Treaty, proselytizing how (at that time) the US was among only Iraq, Iran, and Libya who refused to sign this general treaty. She called me to task, asking why such a treaty was needed. I won't EVEN tell you her stand on abortion :scared:

Some people are such fools. I never can understand how others want to dominate a woman's body, or interfere in personal decisions, for that matter (Terry Shaivo comes to mind). I, personally, could never have an abortion and would hope my daughters wouldn't; HOWEVER, I certainly am not the judge and jury. Such a personal decision is between the woman, her dr, and her Higher Power.

Jenn

[CornField]

11. The truth of what the legislators wanted is in the failed amendments

An exception for rape victims -- no.

An exception for health of mother -- no.

The last one seems especially cruel. The legislators would have a woman, regardless of cost to her own health, carry a child to term (whether or not that child was viable post-birth). It wouldn't matter if carrying the child would prevent her from future (possibly healthy) pregnancies. It wouldn't matter if carrying to term would result in the loss of a kidney or other bodily damage.

Maybe next week the legislators can take up the fight for husbands who beat the holy shit out of their wives. Surely the women were just asking for that too when they agreed to a relationship with the man.

[Danmel]

18. They are unspeakably cruel

I have a friend who had 6 or 7 miscarriages and then, through a 2nd or 3rd cycle of in vitro fertilization, conceived a baby. She carried the pregnancy to the 16th week, when a routine sonogram revealed that the baby had fetal hydops, a condition inconsistent with life. At 18 weeks, she terminated this desperately wanted pregnancy, the longest she had been able to carry through all of her failed pregnancies.

About 6 months later, she got pregnant again, carried to term and gave birth to a beautiful healthy baby boy who turned one last week. The delivery was not without complications though and her uterus ruptured.

If these creeps had had their way, she would have had to carry the other pregnancy to term, only to have a dead or dying baby. Had her uterus ruptured, which doctors say was likely, she would not have been able to have the wonderful little boy she has now.

I have no words to express what I feel about these sanctimonious pricks who think they know everything about other people's lives and have no compassion for anyone or anything except a fetus. There is a special corner of hell for them.

[LisaL]

87. How sick.

[Vincardog]

12. It is unconstitutional

The Senate also defeated a proposed amendment to insert an exception to allow an abortion to protect the health of a pregnant woman. That was offered by Republican Sen. David Knudson. It failed on a 13-22 vote.

[Betty]

34. that's the point

they want to force this to go all the way to the Supreme Court in hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade. They don't just want to make it illegal in SD. They want it illegal everywhere. Is there any way to boycott everything that has to do with South Dakota? I hope someone comes up with a website that lists all companies and products that come from there.

[Vincardog]

44. They beat you to that by making everything in CHINA.

[StuckinBFE]

78. Unfortunately I don't think SD has a booming economy except

Harley Davidson Motorcycles.

I don't understand how people who can't have babies can make laws for people that do.

[against all enemies]

36. The Supreme Court will define what is constitutional. It USED to

be Unconstitutional.

[Maine-ah]

13. K & R

[spotbird]

17. It defines human life as beginning at fertilization

which would make the morning after pill, the IUD and presumably IVF illegal. In it's current form there are no exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother. According to NPR an anonymous donor has fronted the state $1mil for defense of the law.

[HockeyMom]

27. Plain Old BIRTH CONTROL Pills too

which MIGHT prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. Even if that chance is only 1%. We have already seen this. Pharmacists refusing to dispense, not just the Morning After Pill, but plain old birth control pills. The first suit brought against CVS was by a married woman of 2 kids. This was not for Morning After But, her regular, doctor prescribed, birth control pills. I read this on the Planned Parenthood site. The husband, subsequently, went to that pharmacist and threatened to sue HIM for child support if his wife got pg because her pills were denied to her. Incidentally, they WON the suit.

Are these people aware of WHY scientists define pregnancy from implantation, and not fertilization. Because anywhere from 40% to 60% of fertilized eggs NEVER IMPLANT due to natural causes. It is not because they are PRO ABORTION. It means that more than HALF will NOT result in a full term pregnancy. That is WHY. Ask any woman of childbearing age if she has EVER had a late period of even a few days and see what the answer is.

Sorry, but as a woman and a mother, MY LIFE and the LIVES of the children I have, and others already HERE, take far more precious than a fertilized EGG, especially one that only has a 50/50 of ever implanting.

[truth2power]

39. Can someone clarify please?

I thought I heard that the anonymous donor had given the money for the court fight to OVERTURN the law. I could be wrong... :shrug:

[phylny]

72. Oh, goodie. Human life begins at fertilization.

So, every woman in South Dakota, the day you become pregnant, take out a $1 million life insurance policy out on the life inside of you. That's right, if it's life, get a policy for it. I'm sure the insurance industry will have to comply with S.D. law.

Due to the two miscarriages I have had in my life, I'd be $3 million richer. That's right, my first miscarriage was a single, and my second was twins. Doesn't matter that they were all "blighted ovums" and nothing was really developing past the first few weeks. It's LIFE! How can anyone deny you a policy on the unborn life?

Oh, and you can start taking that tax deduction two weeks after your missed period.

They want to play the game? Then play it to the extreme. Can't have it both ways.

[Megahurtz]

92. Lol!

:D

[iamthebandfanman]

20. Please tell The DINO JULIE BARTLING how u feel(email inside)

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2005/mbrdt349.htm

There ya go guys
let her have it

let her know how the base of her party feels abuot this and thank her for selling not only womens rights but all of our rights down the river.
also thank her for letting the government decide whats right for anyones body.

[cali]

21. I don't get this

It isn't even smart posturing, and it's incredibly stupid tactically. It will be appealed immediately. It will be slapped down in its entirety. The SC won't grant it cert. What do they think they're accomplishing?

[neverevergivein]

28. do you really belive the current Supreme Court will slap this down?

Where have you been?

[iamthebandfanman]

29. i was just tellin a friend

that here we go!
its starting.
this will be the first to go to the supreme questioning a womans choice.

im scared to even wonder about the results.

[CityDem]

30. This is posturing

South Dakota is setting up the challenge to Roe in future years when the court may be even more conservative than it is today. It will take 3-5 years for this to make it through the state and federal court system. In 5 years, it is conceivable that Stevens or Ginsburg are no longer on the SCOTUS. If AWOL picks 2 more justices like Alito, this could be the case that overrules Roe.

[iamthebandfanman]

33. well

hopefully we will have done everything we can around here to have a democrat picking the next two to leave.
the way things have gone the past few years that might not be so, but a person can dream cant they ?

the actions of the country and other americans will decide whether i continue to stay in the states in the next 5 years.
assuming the world doesnt colapse on itself before then.

[PlanetBev]

22. Hard to believe that this is the state that George McGovern is from

When did these people turn so mean?

[stepnw1f]

23. Fundis Hate Freedom

there you have it. I spit on every one of these pathetic control freaks.

[KamaAina]

25. Boycott South Dakota! From now on, no more... um... er...

what comes from South Dakota again? I mean, besides these ignorant Talibornagain medieval misogynistic legislators. :grr: :banghead:

[CityDem]

31. Nothing to boycott

Except backward thinking farmers.

[High Plains]

32. Corn, wheat, rednecks, and refugees

Spoken as a registered South Dakota voter.

The enlightened ones run screaming from the state as soon as they graduate college, if not sooner.

[Megahurtz]

43. Don't forget Psychotic Fundamentalist Control-Freaks!

(Not including yourself, of course;))

This is just insane!
There is no way I would allow some abusive male wingnut control-freak
to have control over my body!

There are other ways.

A person could move out of this lame-State, or go on vacation!!!

Seriously think about it, how are they ever going to prove someone is pregnant
in the first several weeks before they're showing? Are they going to monitor women like cattle?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

35. Boycott Mt. Rushmore...a travel boycott, maybe.

Not that I was planning on the family vacation to the Black Hills/Mt. Rushmore this year....but this will definitely rule out any future trips to that state.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

70. -------> ------> ------> They're changing the name to MOUNT BUSHMOORE

gonna recarve it in honor of Bush and Michael Moore

[Hand]

90. Mt. Rushmore...

...is a big fat erect middle finger at the Native peoples (primarily Lakota Sioux) of the Black Hills area, anyway. It was jackhammered out of part of their most sacred ground. When you see it, it's utterly out of place in a region of otherwise breathtaking natural beauty.

[VegasWolf]

26. What kind of fucked up religious crazy thinking would force a 14 year

old girl to carry to term a baby of some animal that raped her? Do these figgin clowns have any sense?

[against all enemies]

37. Doctor's in handcuffs, I can't wait. Will any Doctor that respects the

health of the women in their care continue to practice in these States? I can't believe there is a glut of OB/GYNs in these areas anyway. Won't most Dr's move to a State where they can protect a women's health. Until of course next year when the Supreme Court outlaws late term abortions on a Federal level. Doctor's revolt.

[superconnected]

38. It's nice some of the republican senators voted against it

and fought to at least keep rape abortions legal. Too bad they lost.And Yes, it shows the republican party and it's supporters put it here.

It's sick the woman democrat senator is for it. She's an insult to the female gender and dems.

It says it came up through party lines but the state senate is not as divided on party lines.

It also says they hope to get the US Supreme court to rethink roe vs. wade.

Scary. The mentality of these people.

[high density]

40. I think there should be a new question on our tax forms

Do you support a woman's right to choose? Yes or No

Those who answer no will pay an extra $1000 in taxes that year to help provide welfare services for the unwanted babies.

[strategery blunder]

42. Then nobody would admit to it

You see, when fundies aren't around other fundies, they only care about their pocketbook, because they worship Money.:puke:

[HuffleClaw]

47. "Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried...

... to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape. The amendment lost 14-21." and "Democrat Sen. Julie Bartling of Burke said the time is right for the ban on abortion."

is it something in the water? this is a disgrace, but clearly its part of a larger plan, one that will culminate in bushco.'s new supreme court dealing with it.

[iamthebandfanman]

48. i take it that nobody

is gonna look at my other post in this thread and actually email this DINO and tell her shes an idiot.

THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE.
all the democrats in SD who supported this MUST know how the base feels about their actions.

PLEASE, take some time and send her some comments about her betrayal.

[Lars39]

49. I emailed her.

I think concerned people in that state ought to find out where she lives and picket her damned house.

[iamthebandfanman]

50. thank you for doing so!

im glad atleast one other person did!
this is unacceptable.
frankly im suprised that everyone hasnt emailed her that are pro-choice.

maybe someone should make a thread devoted to telling her contact info.
im afraid to make another post with the same content.
i dont wanna be a repeater, but i want people to act on this! its important!
we also need to get on the ball finding out about SD elections and the chances of her being challanged in a primary.

[semillama]

52. perhaps those DLC folks in DC can take a look at this DINO

who voted for this horrifying bill, and find some actual democrat to run against her in the next election.

I think that would be more productive than say, screwing around in SW Ohio.

It's also time for a boycott of South Dakota, i think. I guess it would have to be a tourist boycott, though. not much else you can do - I don't think it's even a major convention destination.

[TankLV]

67. The DLC? Thanks for the best laugh of the day.

[semillama]

75. You're welcome! n/t

[Charlie Brown]

55. I was perousing the SD Bill of Rights

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=0N-6

and I noticed about a dozen different clauses and protections that this bill violates. If there's not even an exemption for rape, I would think the SD judges would overturn this without going to Federal Court.

[dooner]

56. South Dakota Passes Abortion Ban

Reuters/Yahoo News
1 hour ago


South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.

The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.


http://tinyurl.com/l9cyl

[efhmc]

57. So it starts. Wow, that was fast. Sometimes I'm glad to be old.

[still_one]

59. I feel the same way

for all those people who didn't bother to vote in 2000 and 2004 because it didn't really make a difference...

[TOhioLiberal]

58. Didn't waste any time did they?

Shit...x(

[Kelvin Mace]

60. Many thanks to all the Vichy Democrats

who made the destruction of Roe v. Wade possible.

[Erika]

61. So the woman or girl is forced to bear a child of her rapist

Incestually or otherwise.

I wonder what this dimwit female democrat would think if she had been forced to bear a child for her rapist father.

I have already gone on record in saying I will not pay taxes if women's rights are overturned. If they wish to turn this into a Taliban country, the men can pay the taxes.

In the interim, we need to arm our young girls and show them how to kill rapists, even if they are family members.

[Erika]

62. A way to contact South Dakota

at www.state.sd.us

[Lucky Luciano]

64. If u r not paying, then I am not paying!

[Megahurtz]

91. You're Damn Right!

It's either revolt, or grab a fucking burka and take a seat in the back.:grr:

[jugmun]

69. So what? Who cares!!!

I get sick and tired of people implying that overturning Roe would somehow make abortion illegal across America. All it would do is allow the states to decide whether it should be legal. Since I live in New York, overturning Roe would never mean abortion would be illegal in my state. So what if Utah wants to have different laws than Massachusetts! I'm pro-choice, but I really don't see how this should be a federal issue, and I certainly don't think there's a right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution. Surely the government can say "thou shall not smoke crack" or "thou shall not work a street corner, engaging in sex for money" despite our "right to privacy". The point is if I want abortion to remain legal, I need to ensure that my state legislators understand this. I can deal without all the hype.

[phylny]

73. So what?

If I come across a 14-year-old girl in South Dakota who was raped by her father, I'll tell her that you said, "So what?"

And you're pro-choice. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[Bill McBlueState]

80. you're not pro-choice.

I'm pro-choice

No you're not.

You think the government should be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term. It's completely immaterial whether a state or federal government is denying freedom of choice.

[Bridget Burke]

81. So, Sir, you don't care about women outside your state.

If women in other states are forced to bear unwanted children or die from illegal abortions, it's not your problem.

States' Rights Forever! "I can deal without all the hype."

[CottonBear]

82. There is a right to privacy, personal freedom and pursuit of happiness

in the constitution.

I've had an abortion. Have you?

edit: What if New York proposed mandatory chemical castration for all men past puberty. That way no women would get pregant unless they wanted too by taking you off the chemicals or using sperm that you previouly banked. Think about it. Sex and procreation completely out of your personal control

[silvermachine]

89. Very interesting...

...that you would equate a woman's right to choose with smoking crack and prostitution. Creep. Take it to Freepland where your sorry ass belongs.
Shithead.

[lovuian]

63. A woman doesn't have the right to choose her life on her own

body...so very sad ....we can't even give health insurance to our children now ... They could vote for it cause its going to go to the courts...

[Divine Discontent]

65. well, I still hate the thought of anyone getting an abortion

however, how can anyone say, well, by law you can't do it! how can you stop it? you can't, and then you have a police state where gov't dictates something about your body... sheesh, what a mess.




http://www.cafepress.com/ARABPORTCONTROL

[CottonBear]

83. Why not work to abortions rare by promoting sex ed and family planning? nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

66. How Does This Really Affect Roe V. Wade?

What new evidence or legal elements does this legislation bring that could actually fundamentally challenge Roe V. Wade other than one state basically "giving the finger" to the US Supreme Court's ruling in Roe V. Wade? Is there some new scientific evidence that calls the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade into question or does this legislation just have more "faith-based" nonsense ("Life begins at fertilization") that has zero basis in scientific or medical evidence(as is usually the case with much fundie-inspired legislation)? Unless Alito, Roberts, et al are already fully and passionately committed to overturning Roe V. Wade the minute somebody brings a "test case" before them, I don't see how they could/would simply overturn Roe V. Wade absent some COMPELLING new evidence or reasons why they should. This is not to say that I necessarily trust them (since they ARE Bush appointees and especially given how little we actually know about them) but I would think that it would be hard even for them to make a nakedly partisan ruling in a case like this (I hope I'm right about this!). Also, in striking down Roe V. Wade, wouldn't the US Supreme Court have to essentially revisit and undo the previous "Griswold" case, which laid the foundation for Roe V. Wade by establishing the constitutional right to privacy implicit in the 9th amendment? I imagine that the fundies are probably not thinking clearly nor thinking ahead about the possible legal implications of overturning Roe V. Wade either but I imagine that even some of their own "flock" just might not necessarily be thrilled about the idea of losing THEIR "right to privacy" and I also have a feeling even some pro-lifers are not going to be very happy about facing the possibility of losing access to birth control and control of other "private" aspects of their lives. Fortunately, I truly believe that despite the fervent attempts (also seen in their concurrent "crusade" against homosexuality) by fundies/GOP to "turn back the clock" on American social progress, I do not see how they will EVER be able to convince the majority of Americans to totally renounce their own right to privacy and the right of all people, especially women, to control their own bodies, families, and lives. They will surely take notice when what the fundies are doing really starts to impact THEM!

[AndyTiedye]

68. What is NEW is the Composition of the Supreme Court

This will go to the Supreme Court, probably getting fast-tracked there so they can use it to motivate the Fundies.
The Court will use the case to at least weaken Roe, more likely overturn it altogether,
especially if the rumors of another retirement are true :scared:

[booksenkatz]

77. No, the SC never makes nakedly partisan rulings, thank God!

Like Bush v. Gore:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

So we're safe, ladies... they'll never overturn Roe v. Wade because a nakedly partisan ruling like that would just be too batshit! We're safe.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

94. Mea Culpa

I humbly apologize for forgetting the "nakedly partisan ruling" in Bush v. Gore(which I consider to be a national travesty). I still believe that overturning Roe V. Wade is probably going to be little more difficult than some fundies think it is even with the new composition of the SC. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic and maybe even naive but I think that(moderate/rational) pro-lifers might not have considered all of the possible implications of overturning Roe V. Wade and how overturning Roe V. Wade could impact THEIR lives in a lot of negative ways. If we can bring some of these possible negative consequences (i.e. possibly losing access to birth control and other "privacy rights") to their attention, we MIGHT be able to make them think twice about pushing for more laws challenging Roe V. Wade and/or criminalizing abortion. Just a thought.

[booksenkatz]

95. Didn't mean to be so harsh

But I have not felt safe since December 12, 2000, the day my country expired. I no longer trust anyone beyond my own family and friends. Many of the things that I believed would be forever are now gone, destroyed by this administration. Therefore, I cannot trust the SC to do the right thing, just as I cannot trust the president, nor Congress, not even my own Dem representatives, to do the right thing.

Just look at South Dakota today and tell me to feel safe on this issue. I cannot. These people are on a warpath for their god and they will let nothing stand in their way. It is up to us as individuals to do everything we possibly can to stop them, because I've come to understand that those who purport to represent us will not do so.

I knew in December 2000, when the protests were like fly farts at a rock concert, that it will be a long time, and it will take much suffering, before average Americans are ready for a revolution. But all is not lost; the revolution will come, and I am absolutely optimistic about that. Thank you for your optimism, because we're going to need it in the days ahead!

[DanCa]

71. When teen rape victims start throwing themselves off stairs...

In an attempt to kill the fetus and/or themselves I wonder if Jesus would hold the cosigners of the bill responsible?

[MountainLaurel]

85. A good question

Because it's already happening: Illegal abortions are steadily increasing in states where access to abortion is restricted through parental notification laws, a death of providers, etc.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/31199

"Most commonly, they ingest a whole bottle of quinine pills, with castor oil…we try to get them to the ER before their cardiac rhythm is interrupted…Sometimes they douche with very caustic products like bleach. We had a patient, a teen, who burned herself so badly with bleach that we couldn't even examine her, her vaginal tissue was so painful…."

"Our local hospital tells me they see 12-20 patients per year, who have already self-induced or had illegal abortions. Some make it, some don't. They are underage or poor women mostly, and a few daughters of pro-life families…"

If you assume the quotes above come from a veteran of the abortion rights movement, talking about the "bad old days" before Roe v. Wade, when desperate women suffered death and injuries because abortion was illegal, you'd be partly right. The speaker is a longtime worker in reproductive health, whose involvement with abortion started before Roe. But the situations she describes are occurring now.

Jen (not her real name) is administrator of a women's health clinic in the South that provides abortions. She has noted with alarm the recent rise in illegal abortion in her community. For some of the women she sees -- after their initial attempts at abortion fail -- whether Roe v. Wade is technically still the law of the land is beside the point. The combination of the procedure's cost, the numerous regulations that her state imposes and the stigma surrounding abortion is leading a growing number of women to choose self-abortion or an untrained practitioner over legal abortion. Finding accurate data about the number of cases is almost impossible.

However, Jen's abortion-providing colleagues in other parts of the country, who communicate their experiences through a listserv, share her observation of a recent perceptible rise in illegal abortion in their clinics as well. Indeed, in another eerie echo from the pre-Roe era, the increase in illegal abortion in Jen's area is so significant that a doctor from the hospital mentioned above contacted her. He asked for her help in setting up a special ward for the treatment of illegal abortions when Roe is overturned, because he knows the caseload will mushroom then. "He didn't say 'if' -- he said 'when,'" Jen said. "Chills ran down my spine."

[Megahurtz]

93. And it WILL continue.

No one is going to stop to allow Religious Zealots to peer into their underwear!:grr:

And I love the part of the article that says:

>>>In Michigan, the young man, with his girlfriend's approval, hit her abdomen repeatedly with a baseball bat until she miscarried; in Texas, again with the girlfriend's consent, the male stomped on his girlfriend's belly, producing a stillbirth of twins. Both young men were arrested, and the Texan, Geraldo Flores, is now serving a life sentence for fetal homicide.<<<
Life in prison for FETAL HOMICIDE???:wtf:
What a bunch of sick perverted and obsessed intrusive Fundamentalist Freaks!:freak::freak::freak::freak:

[Triana]

74. The American Taliban

strikes again. :mad:

Time to donate $ to Planned Parenthood again.

[coalition_unwilling]

84. Boycott South Dakota

Start organizing underground women's health collectives.

[LisaL]

86. Sickos.