home

South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bill

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:04:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

S.D. Governor Mike Rounds has signed the bill banning abortions passed last week by the state legislature.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

The bill carries a five year prison sentence for doctors performing illegal abortions.

Planned Parenthood will fight the ban, which likely will be tied up in the courts for years. As to the Governor,

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.

The Denver Post has more on abortions in South Dakota, with reactions from women and a look forwards towards the legal fight ahead.

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]

< Abramoff to 'Name Names' at Sentencing | Embedded Torture >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bill | 78 comments (78 topical)
    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    So now all the desperate pregnant daughters, granddaughters, and nieces of these legislators will be flown to other places where their abortions will be performed because they have the wealth and the resources, and all the poor desperate pregnant women of South Dakota will either deliver unwanted babies or die from shoving coat hangers into their wombs.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#2)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:01:54 PM EST
    Give back the Black Hills.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#3)
    by glanton on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:06:17 PM EST
    That's a perfect graphic.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:07:47 PM EST
    Good to see that Umerilka is catching up with Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Yemen, The UAE, et al. Another 388,525 uteruses that are now state owned.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:10:45 PM EST
    Barr Labs, the manufacturer of the "Plan B" morning after pill, might be a good buy right about now...

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#6)
    by aw on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    In the last abortion threads, I was trying to drag the guys away from the endless rounds of "when life begins" and get in their faces (so to speak) with my own abortion. I guess I was trying to see if I could get somebody to assert that they had the right to interfere in and make major changes to my life. Nobody did. Now that push is actually about to come to shove, some of you have decided to end the debate and take sides. It's been good to hear it.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:24:46 PM EST
    "One anonymous source," reports the Disassociated Press, "says that Vice-President Dick Cheney shot a NARAL lawyer to celebrate."

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#8)
    by Punchy on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    Sar-- They'll figure out a way to ban that, too. However, we're guarenteed to see a very sharp increase in S.D. doctors diagnosing "stomach ulcers" in pregnant women and thus prescribing Cytotec (misoprostol) in large quanities for it (and what a gruesome way to get it done, I might add). I think Pfizer's stock is the one to watch as well.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#9)
    by Johnny on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:57:43 PM EST
    Just FYI everybody, there are no doctors claiming SD residence that have been performing the procedure. On a second note, whatta bunch of a$$holes running my state. "Unless the mothers life is in danger." That is such a load of bullsh!t. Making terms, are they? Why can't they make up their minds? Why are conservatives such a bunch of pandering dweezils? Who determines if their life is danger? Frist? Well, let's hope the soopreme court recognizes the unconstitutionality of this stupid law. But I ain't holding my breath. Yes Jondee, give back the Black Hills.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:27:38 PM EST
    Or you could simply start a fund which can be used to transport South Dakotans (?) to other states to have the procedure. Thus, their burden would be equal to that of the wealthier women.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#11)
    by roy on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    Does this even count as a law so long as Roe stands? It seems to me that if the state passes a law outside its authority, it's not really a law. It's like me standing on a soap box and shouting (with a straight face) "eating Frosted Flakes is now illegal". Sure, somebody said it's illegal, but it didn't count. If it's sufficiently obvious as in this scenario then the police shouldn't even be allowed to enforce the "law". A cop arresting somebody for an act he knows is not a crime, like performing a first-trimester abortion on an adult, is himself guilty of a crime. It's not law enforcement at that point, it's kidnapping.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:33:28 PM EST
    "Or you could simply start a fund which can be used to transport South Dakotans (?) to other states to have the procedure.Thus, their burden would be equal to that of the wealthier women." Or they could add and adendum to their new law that all wealthy women who go to other states for the procedure will get beheadded upon return to South Dakota.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    roy, isn't the whole idea that this "law" gets put in front of the Supremes with the hope that Roe gets overturned?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    Does this even count as a law so long as Roe stands?
    That's the point, roy. It's a challenge to the law as it stands. A challenge offered up vermin, it's true, but a challenge that stands to succeed nevertheless.
    Or you could simply start a fund which can be used to transport South Dakotans (?) to other states to have the procedure.
    That's about the only solution I have been able to think of, bocajeff, short of armed violence (bad), backalley recourse (worse), or both. Get women into free states, equipped with enough cash to circumvent whatever restrictions they may face there. But then, in places like Pennsylvania, we might be faced with "free states" technically, but ones perfectly willing to accept the responsibility for extradicting women back to their original owners, be those owners parents, boyfriends, rapists, or congressmen. Today is a great day to begin national flag spitting month.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#15)
    by HK on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 02:09:15 PM EST
    When I heard that this was in the pipeline, I thought that surely it wouldn't go through... I believe that a woman has a right to choose and that no woman makes the decision to have an abortion lightly. But there is a part of this that bothers me particularly.
    The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life.
    I have had three much-wanted children who were the result of three hellish pregnancies. In one, I developed pre-eclampsia and was lucky to survive the delivery, which occured following a 38 hour labour during which an obstetrician told me, 'With hindsight, we probably should have done a Caesarian, but if we did one now, you would bleed to death'. Nice. I suffered from post traumatic stress for a while afterwards. Although I have a degree of predisposition to this condition, I am still more likely to not get it than to get it in subsequent pregnancies. Therefore my life is not necessarily endangered in pregnancy (it is a condition which is only detected at the end of pregnancy) So according to this legislation, someone in my position would not be entitled to an abortion. In another pregnancy, I suffered from a dibilitating and painful condition which left me unable to walk for the last tremister and needing physiotherapy afterwards for a year. It is not life-threatening, but it is extremely painful, left me ill-equipt to care for my children for a long time and would be likely to recur. But again, I would not be entitled to an abortion in South Dakota on these grounds. This bill is one which has not fully adressed the ramifications of this issue. Just for the record, I've learnt my lesson and called it a day - childbearing is clearly not my forte...

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    Yeah, viewers of HBO's "Deadwood" know that Swearingen and Bullock should have gone with Helena and told Jarry and those Yankton CSers what they could do with their offer. Those guys have more ethics and honor than the crew runnin' the show in DC or Pierre now, that's for sure. Did anyone else catch that Napoli nut job on the PBS News Hour Friday with his proposed "brutally raped and sodomized virgin" as the only possible health of the mother exception he could see for the SD Abortion Ban. He then went on to offer his heart-felt hope and longing for the good ol' days of it-takes-a village shotgun weddings with the whole town training their guns on the happy 15 year-old, zit-faced groom with no clue, money, education, hope or prospects and they all lived happily ever after. Too bad Swearingen can't get Dan and Tolliver to take care of the SD loons who voted for this nonsense. Woo's pigs could use a good meal. One expects such psychotic nonsense under the guise of faith and values from these lunatics and this guy certainly didn't disappoint. Still, I don't see the majority of Americans buy into this nonsense. They may want to see some tightened restrictions on abortion but they don't want this. Of course, if they ever got the true picture instead of the faux news/falwell fantasy world spin, they might just want to leave well enough alone.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    Apparently anti-abortion legislature is "progessive": "most progressive state in the nation". Always wondered what "progressive" meant. Now I know. Glad I'm a liberal.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    so much for womans rights and next say goodbye! to human rights and civil rights its a bush plan like the port deal and the deal with CFIUS See Lou Dobbs, save a nation remove bush at once before he removes you!

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#19)
    by Aaron on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 05:02:45 PM EST
    South Dakotans are sure to burn in hell for this one. Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#20)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 05:11:49 PM EST
    They'll figure out a way to ban that, too. However, we're guarenteed to see a very sharp increase in S.D. doctors diagnosing "stomach ulcers" in pregnant women and thus prescribing Cytotec (misoprostol) in large quanities for it (and what a gruesome way to get it done, I might add).
    They'll figure out a way to ban that, too. The High Uterus Inquisitor cometh...

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#21)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 05:13:24 PM EST
    Does this even count as a law so long as Roe stands? It seems to me that if the state passes a law outside its authority, it's not really a law. It's like me standing on a soap box and shouting (with a straight face) "eating Frosted Flakes is now illegal". Sure, somebody said it's illegal, but it didn't count. If it's sufficiently obvious as in this scenario then the police shouldn't even be allowed to enforce the "law". A cop arresting somebody for an act he knows is not a crime, like performing a first-trimester abortion on an adult, is himself guilty of a crime. It's not law enforcement at that point, it's kidnapping.
    Shorter Roy: "What forest? All I see are trees!"

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 05:21:21 PM EST
    How will the first rape pregnancy story play out on this one? What happens when a prostitute gets pregnant and sells her baby for crack? I am all for state's rights on this issue as I believe there is a lot of bs posturing on both sides of the fence here. I think it would suck if a woman had to go to North dakota to get an abortion but I have not seen or heard about the voters in SD vowing to throw out their politicians over the issue. I say the long term risk in having thousands of unwanted babies is a sharp increase in crime and with the way we are incarcerating people, there will be plenty of room to let out older prisoners to make room for the new crops. Or is the prison system destined to become an even bigger business?????

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 05:41:11 PM EST
    We could develop a fellowship program for SD women--nothing fancy, just bus tickets to someplace else and an invitation to crash on someone's couch until they find a job and a place of their own. Maybe they could bring a friend or sister or mother for moral support. Or their kids. It wouldn't take much. A little over 754,000 million people live in SD. If we could find places for a few thousand women a year in their teens and 20s, the effect on the state demographics would be pretty dramatic. You know those places where they've been aborting XX fetuses for a few decades and now there's a big male/female imbalance? We could make South Dakota like that.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 05:41:16 PM EST
    We should be very careful to keep any prolifers away from any of the five supremes who still think women have a right to privacy.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 07:37:17 PM EST
    I think Digby is on to something (via Firedoglake): Digby, via email: I just realized that those nuts in South Dakota might be having an unanticipated effect. I am working today and this guy said to me over lunch, "I can't believe that these people are really serious." He's a bit of a putz and he admitted that he'd believed women were exaggerating the threat. I said "I hope you're ready to be daddies, boys. Last time abortion was illegal they didn't have DNA testing" and they all looked stunned.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#26)
    by phat on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 08:21:58 PM EST
    I would think that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and a few other organizations will be filing for a injunction soon. they will likely get it. That, then, would be the beginning of the long, drawn-out battle. And by the time that battle hits the supreme court, there will possibly be a pro-life majority on the court, unless something truly miraculous happens. This is just awful. phat

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#27)
    by BigTex on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 08:25:59 PM EST
    Does this even count as a law so long as Roe stands?
    Roy, it counts as a law until a court issues a temporary restraining order against enforcement, which will likely be the first challenge. But as far as practical effect, no it will not count because any attorney who was defending someone charged under this statute would be able to have the TRO granted based on Roe.
    I guess I was trying to see if I could get somebody to assert that they had the right to interfere in and make major changes to my life.
    Okay I'll bite, but since I wasn't around (I don't think so anyway) during the last round can you kindly recap what the exact situation was if it would have bearing on the reasoning below? As long as the preggers doesn't endanger the female's health, then the father should be able to veto an abortion, provided that he is willing to accept sole responsibility for the child. This means that the mother has no obligations after giving birth, other than to turn possession over to the vetoing father. Treat the mother like a surrogate mother, who happens to be the genetic mother also. She has no rights or duties if she wants the abortion and is vetoed. She becomes a legal stranger. If the mother's life is threatened by the preggers, or if the father is unwilling to become a single parent with no hope of support from the mother, he is not allowed to veto.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#28)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 10:58:51 PM EST
    As long as the preggers doesn't endanger the female's health, then the father should be able to veto an abortion, provided that he is willing to accept sole responsibility for the child.
    Ya know, Tex, that's perfectly reasonable. It's also something that no Republican will agree to. The guy is an innocent bystander; the hellbound slut took advantage of him and his hapless sperm.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#29)
    by Johnny on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:33:01 PM EST
    BigTex, the only problem with your scenario is you reduce a woman to an incubator for a baby she doesn't want. You take 9 months of her life for a baby she doesn't want, because you are willing to give a man veto power over her body. Like it or not, a lot of women would probably think your reasoning is a little medieval. And I agree. To think that a man this day and age would even use the term "veto" in regards to a womans choise is frightening... But it is exactly that sort of thinking that the wrong-wingers are pandering to here-it really is about power over women, and you proved it.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#30)
    by Johnny on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 11:35:42 PM EST
    Not to mention, suppose a man rapes a woman, impregnates her, then invokes his "veto" power... It could happen, especially under new SD law. You have now reduced her to a simple breeding machine for a rapist. I suggest you go back and re-think your theory. In a very related thought, under your proposal, it is no small stretch to believe that a man may have veto power over what, if any, birth control a woman may choose to use.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 12:03:43 AM EST
    Treat the mother like a surrogate mother, who happens to be the genetic mother also. She has no rights or duties if she wants the abortion and is vetoed. She becomes a legal stranger. If the mother's life is threatened by the preggers, or if the father is unwilling to become a single parent with no hope of support from the mother, he is not allowed to veto.
    OK, I'll bite. Now that we've established that under the thinking of such High, Holy Men as you and SD's Rep Napoli, that, under the circumstances, the woman is little more than a microwave oven, is the young man in question still obligated to take said microwave even though, hypothetically, she has surrendered all future rights and obligations to the child in question beyond birth, leaving, presumably, the young man in question as father free to pursue any and all relationships with any suitable, potential microwave he deems fit and in the best interest of himself and the child in question?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#32)
    by phat on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 01:26:46 AM EST
    Again, I will have to say, that this is just awful. I tried to get my friends to vote and they refused, claiming that there is no difference between a democrat and a republican. I tried desperately to point out that Kerry was not Bush. Kerry didn't help me out, I have to say. Of course I live in Nebraska. How am I to point out that Nelson is not Hagel? Oh wait, Nelson has better numbers than Hagel. Nuff said. phat

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 01:33:44 AM EST
    Personally, I think that it is a ploy, to get the Supreme Court to consider a Roe V Wade case, to "energize" the base, for 2006 or 2008. South Dakota is 46th in population, about .2 percent of the population of the United States. I say screw'em. Let them have their state law unchallenged until 2009. Let's see how they like it.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#34)
    by aw on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 07:18:56 AM EST
    Tex: Sorry I didn't give you a chance to call me a slut (or a cow or heifer, other comparisons of which you are fond).
    can you kindly recap what the exact situation was if it would have bearing on the reasoning below?
    Why do you only want a recap if it fits with your canned solution?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 07:36:29 AM EST
    Tex, I see a short set of flaws in your idea. Fix them and I'd be more willing to listen. Flaw one: if the pregnancy is due to rape, you are rewarding the rapist and punishing the victim. The blast is the result of a crime. I do not want to reward crime. Flaw two: If the pregnancy is due to incest, you are rewarding the commission of a crime - see flaw one. You are additionally increasing your tax burden as the odds are significantly higher for the offspring of incest to have various physical problems. I do not want to reward crime, and I don't want to be forced to further burden myself and my nation. Flaw three: You are offering no compensation for the surrogate mother - you're requiring the service be provided for free. If the father (ignoring rape and incest) vetoes the abortion option then he must be required to pay for the service. That includes all the necessary medical services - not just delivery but pre- and post-natal medical examinations and treatment -- and don't forget the psych counseling for being forced to carry to term unwillingly but then being forced to divest of the child. If the father is unwilling or unable to pay or provide these, then he's trying to get something for nothing. TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.) Personally, I think the only person that has any right to have a say-so in the abortion decision is the pregnant woman. But if you're going to offer "compromises", at least prepare some that acknowledge the inequitable burdens borne by the woman and attempt to compensate for those burdens Kirk.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#36)
    by HK on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 07:51:30 AM EST
    Further to the above, another flaw with Tex's plan for rent-a-womb-without-consent (and I by no means imagine that this completes the list) is that as my experience has shown (see above) sometimes you do not know if the pregnancy is going to endanger the mother's health until an extremely late stage. Most recent figures state that 8 women die every year in my country (the UK) from the condition I developed and it effects almost exclusively first pregnancies. There is, therefore, no way of telling in advance that the woman's life is at risk from this particular condition. What if the woman died giving birth to a child she didn't want? Would the man compensate her family since he put her in that position? The simple solution is that everyone should have control over what happens to their own body. Knowing the risks and consequences, a woman should be able to choose whether or not to put herself through a pregnancy. Let's not forget that a man makes his choice when he chooses to have sex without contraception.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    Its' amazing, despite all the evidence that you are, you people truly cannot accept that you are in a small minority in this country. Oh well, it ought to be a real hoot watching you get slapped in the face over and over again with this fact in the next 10 to 20 years.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#38)
    by HK on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    In the minority in what way? As people with a good grasp of grammar and punctuation?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    Posted by Variable March 7, 2006 12:54 PM Its' amazing, despite all the evidence that you are, you people truly cannot accept that you are in a small minority in this country. Oh well, it ought to be a real hoot watching you get slapped in the face over and over again with this fact in the next 10 to 20 years.
    Feel free to produce that evidence. That's what I thought. Always a pleasure.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#40)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    Well Variable We'd LIKE to be like you but can't afford the lobotomy. My HMO won't cover a Republican Conversion Procedure.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 01:00:01 PM EST
    Tex, I see a short set of flaws in your idea.
    I once visited a friend of mine at his family's summer home in rural Minnesota. He showed me this short trickle of a stream. It was really nothin' special. It also turned into the Mississippi. So do the short set of flaws in Tex's "idea".

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 03:14:53 PM EST
    Embrace local prejudices and send the jobs poor Americans need most overseas. Let the poor huddled masses living in "red-state" trailers reap the consequences of their own collective stupidity.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 03:32:59 PM EST
    They're too stupid to know it.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 04:50:45 PM EST
    Its' amazing, despite all the evidence that you are, you people truly cannot accept that you are in a small minority in this country.
    Some of us have accepted it.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    Havnt and wont. Why should brutish stupidity and the most glaring hypocrisy be acceptable?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    Stay with Fox. The dumb-down is just getting started.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#47)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 09:56:44 PM EST
    Hey, Variable. Maybe you can answer this question, since the people in this video can't. If a woman gets an illegal abortion, should she go to jail? The tiny, tiny, tiny minority wants to know. (More like a considerable majority, but hey, who's counting?)

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#48)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 09:59:58 PM EST
    Oops. The video is more like here.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 10:15:33 PM EST
    Thank you for the link scar. Thanks for helping me further detest my fellow "umerrrikkans". God bless you, peace be with you. Thanks be to God.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 10:18:02 PM EST
    /sarcasm off

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:13:32 AM EST
    I guess the answer to your question Scar, leads to nothing but more questions. How much lawlessness are you willing to allow in order to further your political agenda? Do the damned conservatives in SD have the right to self governance? Does anyone have the right to challenge the severly flawed Roe v Wade? Will liberals ever stop complaining? Where does this debate belong, in legislative or judicial hands? On this issue, are the democrats serving the peoples interest or attempting to preserve their pipeline to PAC money? And finally, and most importantly, are you a serious and politically concerned person who can answer these questions with the soul searching honesty that the questions demand?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#52)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 07:01:09 AM EST
    Variable, pot callin the kettle black here. Imagine a rong-winger complaining about liberals complaining. And still not offering anything but his un-informed opinion! And Variable, there is a reason this law in SD did not go to a vote. It had a strong likelyhood of not passing. The "your daddy can beat you and rape you but you still have to bear the child" clause would knock it down. Self-governance my aching a$$, have lived here my entire life, and let me tell you something... Until Bushie decided to make boys kissing a national issue, no-one gave a crap here. Until Bushie decided to make abortion a national issue, no-one gave a crap here. It is a huge non-issue in this state, until the social-engineering neo-cons like you start making rhetorical noises about it, while offering nothing in the way of valuable insight. Just beat your chest, drag your knuckles and holler at the top of your lungs "It's wrong you idiots" and walk away with a sh!teating grin on your face. Here is how much of a minority "we" are in, and how liberal the press is... In Sioux Falls, over 700 people showed uf for a pro-choice rally. Not a mention in the news, the papers, or gods forbid, the MSM. Not a mention, and this following the passing of the proposed law. Variable, tell us... What do you really think? Or are you more comfortable just insulting liberals and dodging the real issue (men controlling women)?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 08:36:06 AM EST
    I guess the answer to your question Scar, leads to nothing but more questions. How much lawlessness are you willing to allow in order to further your political agenda? Do the damned conservatives in SD have the right to self governance? Does anyone have the right to challenge the severly flawed Roe v Wade? Will liberals ever stop complaining? Where does this debate belong, in legislative or judicial hands? On this issue, are the democrats serving the peoples interest or attempting to preserve their pipeline to PAC money? And finally, and most importantly, are you a serious and politically concerned person who can answer these questions with the soul searching honesty that the questions demand?
    It's rare that you see Mullah Omar's stuff translated to English like this. Bogus legislation passed by psychotic legislatures whose members rant on National TV about "brutally raped and sodomized virgins possibly meeting health exceptions for abortion" and "it takes a village" shotgun weddings just may end up in the Courts. I don't give a damn if 70,000 anti-choicers showed up at a rally any more than if they were there to bring back slavery, they're subject to the US Constitution like everyone else. They were never in danger of being forced into having an abortion in the first place. Ah, but that's not the issue, is it? They wanna be free to impose their values on everyone else. You can search all you want, people like that not only don't have a soul, they don't even cast a reflection.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#55)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    Variable, did you just call me a "twit"? And call my postings "idiotic"? Did you personally attack me? Without offering anything of any substance, again? Come on Var, do more than just drag your knuckles and say "you are a twit". If you try really, really, really hard, you can do that much. Maybe. Then again, resorting to 2nd grade insults is more your forte anyway. So why don't you write something about what you feel about the friggen issue, not what you feel about liberals. Come on, give it a try. Twit.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#56)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 08:48:48 AM EST
    BTW, I have done my "soul-searching" on this subject, and landed solidly in the pro-choice camp. Sorry. My respect for women leads me to believe I can respect their choices. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with "PACS", "damned conservatives", or even "the people". It has nothing to do with legislating morality. Also, you mentioned the "severely flawed" Roe v. Wade. Care to expound, or are you happier calling people "twit"? Var, the role of debate moderator belongs to our host. You are attempting to tailor a debate around your terms, while not contributing anything to the debate. not even a personal opnion on the topic. Just some "idiotic" ramblings. You won't even post a poll showing what a "minority" we are. Try again.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    [personal insult to commenter deleted, Variable, you're on warning and stick to your four a day limit please.] Charlie, it is not relevant that you consider the SD legislature "psychotic," it is only relevant that they were duly elected and perfectly within their rights to govern SD. Roe has always been a bogus misplacement of power from the people to the judiciary. Never has their been a more suited issue to be left to the individual states. Furthermore, doesn't it stand to reason that if the liberal left is in the majority in the US, wouldn't you want this decision to be made by the people instead of the courts. Face it, you want this issue decided by the courts because you know the masses will legislate it down in a heartbeat.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:31:32 AM EST
    deleted for insults, commenter warned

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    It's not relevant what you think of Rowe. I don't give a damn if 99 percent of them feel this way any more than I did that Trent Lott and the majority of the State of Mississippi was for Jim Crow in 1964. That's too damned bad. You're part of the United States. Deal with it. The US Constitution trumps the State Constitution. End of story.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#59)
    by aw on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:19:15 AM EST
    Do the damned conservatives in SD have the right to self governance?
    So, let them govern their own damn selves and leave everybody else alone.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    Sorry Charlie, You seem to be forgetting that the Constitution states that every single power and authority that is not specifically called out for the feds is expressly reserved for the states. So unless you want to quote the abortion clause from the constitution, the Constitution does not trump the states. Those are the facts, Charlie, and it seems you are the one who needs to deal with them.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:40:11 AM EST
    Come on now Jeralyn, admit it, that last "twidiot" comment was funny!

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#62)
    by BigTex on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:08:48 AM EST
    Tex: Sorry I didn't give you a chance to call me a slut (or a cow or heifer, other comparisons of which you are fond).
    Aw, as far as I recall I have not called anyone on this board, or in general a slut. Re: the bovine commentary, that was when I was speaking in a psuedo faux venacular, which has been stopped for ~ 1 year now, and which, you know full well, wasn't a reference to women as cows, but rather was keeping in character.
    Why do you only want a recap if it fits with your canned solution?
    Wanted a recap if there were pertinate facts that would bear on the solution, such as if your health was endangered, was via rape, was the result of failed birth control methods. Basically if it threw a wrinkle into the proposed solution. kspencer - you make an excellent point regarding rape. A rapist shouldn't be allowed to force someone to bear a child begotten by his act. I disregarded incest because it should be treated as either a subcategory of rape, or the end results as medical problems that have arisen. But to the extent it is rape, we are in agreement. As far as point three, and Jhonny's corresponding point of an incubator, that is more troubling. Assuming this was consentual sex, there is an element of personal responsibility that comes into play. She chose to have sex. She should have to bear the physical burden the preggers entails, so long as it is not life threatening. It's a risk she knew about when she had sex. As far as payment for prenatal care and birth, absloutly the man would have to pay for it (though not the psych, that falls under personal responsibility category.) Johnny, it's not about power over wonen, it's about father's rights.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#63)
    by BigTex on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:11:57 AM EST
    Forgot to add, postnatal care as well as prenatal care. TL - is there anyway to add a short lived edit option to go in and correct such mistakes w/o having to add another post?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#64)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    Johnny, it's not about power over wonen, it's about father's rights.
    What a crock. You and the other droolers will do anything to assert your "voice" in what women can and cannot do with their bodies. Tex, I know you don't believe what you say anymore than you used to believe the "states' rights" cry you used to uphold. Remember when I busted you on that? You will take whatever mitigation of abortion rights you can get; whether it has language to do with fathers, or the states, or some sort of "morality clause" makes no difference to you. In short, Big Tex, you have zero credibility with those of us who post here that value civil liberties (which by the way is a true value, as opposed to the faux value of Uhmerrikahn public prejudice). In any case we know you well. Please, for the sake of your own embarrassment, stop pretending to be "reasonable," stop trying to humanize yourself and your inhuman position with people you cannot fool because we know how you vote and what you support and most importantly for the purposes of this thread, we know the contempt in which you hold women. But really, this shouldn't bother you too much. Clearly there's an ample Uhmmerikkahn mass populace out there who stays alert and stays with Fox. Talk to them about how right you are.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:54:19 AM EST
    My wife believes human life begins at conception or soon thereafter, despite my belief that human life begins at the point of viability, and she is against abortion in almost all cases. Is it her true agenda to have power over woman's bodies as well?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#66)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    There were women before and during WWI that opposed women getting the vote, too. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    Good one. So what's your point, if you have one?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#68)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 01:14:27 PM EST
    The point is self-evident. Explaining it is like explaining that the sun exists and the Earth rottates about it. Oh, wait, there are two sides to that argument now, too. Fair and balanced. We report you decide. Some people in Colorado City and Mithcell County North Carolina, etc., are claiming the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Isn't their "viewpoint" as valid as that of Science? Anyway. To continue. Just because there are women like your wife who support groups and systems that strive to maintain dominance over women (among other groups), this does not mean that it isn't a women's rights issue. When the women protestors were imprisoned and force-fed and denied attorneys for "picking at the President" during WWI, guess what? Therir prison matron/guards were women. This does not change the fact that it was the prisoners, and not the matrons, fighting for women's rights. Some call it brainwash disease. I'll be kinder and invoke some academese for ya: acculturation.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 01:23:30 PM EST
    Is it her [my wife's] true agenda to have power over woman's bodies as well?
    I wonder if you could answer my yes or no question with a yes or no?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    On second thought, forget it. It'll make no difference.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#71)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    I answered your question, sarcastic. This is not the O'Reilly Factor. This blog is not framed for simple yes/no questions which Rethugs get to frame in the first place. Obviously, your wife is not thinking to herself, while rubbing her hands together, of the shackling of women's bodies. Do you think the women who opposed women's votes said to themselves, we're doing this to keep women down? No, even most of the men didn't go that far on a conscious level. Instead there was lots of rhetoric about the cult of domesticity blah blah blah blah. A better question is: do you and your wife through your actions, regardless of whatever the programmed reason is, support the shackling of women's bodies? And the answer is an unqualified yes. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 02:38:51 PM EST
    g, what if someone said to you "Yup, I recognize that there are big women's rights issues involved here, but to me, defending the taking of human life trumps them." iow, is it the lack of recognition of a women's right to control her body that bothers you so, or that some people feel there is something that trumps that right?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 04:06:23 PM EST
    Who cares what they feel. I'm interested in what they know. Obviously, not much. Just 'cause they think life begins at conception doesn't make it so. Still, I'll proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with them and defend their right not to have an abortion, practice contraception or have premarital sex. And of course, they'd respect the rights of anyone who felt differently.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#74)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 04:17:09 PM EST
    charlie, Why, of course they would! What do you think they are, hypocrites? Theocrats? All they want is the "right to govern themselves," dontcha know? Blech. I spit on three flags last week just to get the taste out of my mouth. Funny how, even as this and other assaults on civil liberties objectively wins the day, we've got holier-than-thous on other threads talking about duty to country, about hanging deserters from unjust wars, etc. Orwell, anyone?

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#75)
    by BigTex on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 05:35:08 PM EST
    Glanton, if you believe what you said about me, then you don't know me at all. I do believe what I say. Now, someone can point out logical flaws or reasoning flaws and I will take that into account and possibly modify my viewpoint as a result, but if I plunk it down here, I believe it. I don't know what you have against reasonableness and compromise, but you, and charlie, seem to not understand that while there is a moral element to my argumentation, there is also a legal element. You say I am arguing morally, but then again so are you. I'll concede that I have no right to force my version of morality upon you. Will you concede the same? If so, then we are down to what does the law allow, and what does it not allow.
    the contempt in which you hold women.
    Nice use of ad hominum. No bearing on reality, but nice gratituos unsupported attack. Now, I have no doubt you believe that statement to be true. However, you are so blinded by your own version of morality you can't see the truth.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 08:09:22 PM EST
    Glanton, That's just been my experience with them. They're arrogant frauds. I just find them the most selfish, dishonest, immoral, narrow minded, intolerant, inflexible, inane and insane. These sanctimonious sacks have no respect for anyone else's beliefs and are intent upon forcing theirs on everyone because, according to them, theirs are the only ones that matter.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#77)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 08:51:35 PM EST
    Charlie: Word. Big Tex: Okay, yes, I used an ad hominem attack. But we both know how I got there, and indeed, how I came to the inevitable conclusion that you are being disingenuous whenever you invoke "states' rights" or "father's rights" when it comes to abortion. But I will try to explain how I got there, since you clearly feel slighted. Long ago you talked about "states' rights" endlessly re abortion. You even said at one point something to the effect of, "outlawing abortion isn't my battle cry, states' rights is" Then I invited you to produce a mock bill if it were transferred to the legislative bodies. At which point you promptly came back with a bill outlawing abortion in all cases absent rape, incest, or health of the mother. And shortly thereafter you admitted that this means your battle cry is indeed outlawing abortion. If it were really "states' rights," then you would be just as eager, for example, to see states empowered to straight up legalize drugs, prescription as well as things like marijuana and heroine. You would be an advocate against federal bans and control. Instead, when the pharmacists right to refuse to sell the morning after pill came up, and when I repeatedly brought up the fact that its a kind of monopoly and that I would have no problem with these "pharmacists" taking their stand if the market were opened up to convenience stores, Supermarkets, Planned Parenthood outlets, etcetera. You did not secondsay this however. You, like everyone else I have ever read or spoken to or listened to, invoke states' rights only when it comes to certain things that are thematically aligned, such as segregation back in the day, and such as abortion restrictions now. "Freedom" for the "states' rights" people always, always, always means the freedom to restrict, exclude, or punish some group. It is never real freedom. It is the kind of "freedom" the Puritans talked about when they got here and talk about today. You can take that brand of freedom and.... well, you get the idea. As for "father's rights": please, don't insult us. Everyone knows you're in favor of banning abortion in just about every case. So when you pretend to be speaking out of concern for father's rights, what do you expect us to do except say "hey, he's just using this rhetoric because he thinks it will make him appear more reasonable." Just admit that your desire is to see reproductive rights eliminated, end of story. Stop pretending and then you might have a leg to stand on when you start upholding yourself as having some sort of rhetorical honor. Because contrary to what the Right Media would have you believe, lying is not a point of rhetorical honor.

    Re: South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bi (none / 0) (#78)
    by BigTex on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:21:26 PM EST
    I vaguely remember that conversation glanton.
    You, like everyone else I have ever read or spoken to or listened to, invoke states' rights only when it comes to certain things that are thematically aligned, such as segregation back in the day, and such as abortion restrictions now.
    IIRC in that conversation I also said that although I would not like it, the states have a right to make abortion available upon demand. That is their right as well as to restrict abortion. If it wasn't that thread, it was in one of the abortion threads here. So long as they don't run afoul of the 1st Amendment (or the Constitution more generally) they (staes) are free to do what they please. Now, in compairson to pharmacist and emergency contraception, I kept pushing for equal treatment of pharmacists and doctors. Just like with abortion, the states should have the right to choose what path they will take, up to the point of violating the 1st Amendment. Once again, if the outcome is you must fill, that is the state's rights, so long as it doesn't run afoul of the 1st Amendment. As far as not responding to the planned parenthood etc bit, it is because planned parenthood already does sell plan B. This is a difference in our two versions of morality. Your side claims I don't have the right to force my morality on your side. I conceded that point. However, the argument is parallel, neither side has the rights to force their morality on the other. That's where the law and state's rights come in. The states have the rights to pass any law they want so long as it doesn't run contrary to the Constitution. Now, I may not like the laws, but they are the perogative of the states. I respect the laws, even if I argue against them. That's why I come up with arguments that can be applied to change the law to something that is more favorable to my point of view. But this isn't something where I'm being disingenous with my beliefs. I'm not talking about father's rights because it is an avenue to change the law. I'm talking about father's rights because they should have rights. Does it happen to coincide with my overall view of abortion, yes. But just because they coincide doesn't mean that the one is a result of the other. They are separate and distinct concepts.

    South Dakota Bans Most Abortion, Gov. Signs Bill | 78 comments (78 topical)