S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

[ericsp23]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

PIERRE, S.D. - South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on nearly all abortions Friday, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision. Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Enjoy your rights while they last people, because they are going fast.

[Chris]

only in the "Red States"

[RickSp]

Quote by: |Chris| only in the "Red States"

Alito and Roberts may paint all states red.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: ericsp23 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl Enjoy your rights while they last people, because they are going fast.

Show me where that right is enumerated such that it falls under federal control.

It belongs at the state level

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Show me where that right is enumerated such that it falls under federal control. It belongs at the state level

Yawn. Haven't we done this before? Rights exist only in individuals. The Constitution limits the power of the state to violate individual rights. Specifically, abortion rights are protected under the privacy rights enumerated by the Fifth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments among others. I know that you prefer to use state legislation to deny women of their right to choose. You have made that clear in the past.

Funny, when I was growing up in Texas I heard the same arguments against equal rights for black folks. It was a matter for the states, the old red neck segs used to say.

[Sandy]

South Dakota is simply opening up the clarification of the U.S. Supreme Court to discuss repealing Roe v Wade. Abortions will still be done except the doctors will not do them. Midwives know how to abort a fetus and they have been doing this for centuries.

The Religious Right has been told they are in the majority but the sad part is that the residents of South Dakota did not get to vote for or against legal abortions.

I do believe this calls for a couple of our states to drop out of the Union. That is an issue I can support!

What did we expect from our two new Justices? All Bush needs is one more pro-life judge in place and America will be turned into a Christian Nation over night.

[tman_ndsu08]

This changes nothing.

I predict that legal abortions in SD will decrease and illegal abortions in SD will increase.

The overall abortion rate will stay constant.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sandy I do believe this calls for a couple of our states to drop out of the Union. That is an issue I can support!

And that worked out so well the last time.

Quote by: Sandy What did we expect from our two new Justices? All Bush needs is one more pro-life judge in place and America will be turned into a Christian Nation over night.

And that is an issue I would fight over. I sure as hell won't sit quietly as Amercian Fundamentaists Ayotollahs take over. The Bill of Right is worth fighting for.

[gr8fuldaniel]

All Bush needs is one more pro-life judge in place and America will be turned into a Christian Nation over night.

Christian Nation? You give them too much credibility

[gr8fuldaniel]

Isnt masturbation a form of abortion?

Do you think the the fat white rich men who reign over the peasants of SD, will propose a ban against Male Masturbation? Why not? Doesnt life begin with sperm in equality with ovum?

Edit to add:
SPERM ARE ALIVE!!!!

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: ericsp23 Enjoy your rights while they last people, because they are going fast.

Sorry, there's no "right" to have an abortion.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Specifically, abortion rights are protected under the privacy rights enumerated by the Fifth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments among others.

That's quite a stretch Rick. I personally am very wary about relying on the 14th amendment as way way to ensure our rights are protected. Give me a corrupt state over a corrupt federal government any day.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman That's quite a stretch Rick. I personally am very wary about relying on the 14th amendment as way way to ensure our rights are protected. Give me a corrupt state over a corrupt federal government any day.

I have no problem with the 14th Amendment. The often convoluted arguments against it made by some haven't convinced me. The 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments were cited in Roe based on privacy rights. I have no taste for corruption on a local, state or federal level. Each can be equally bad.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Sorry, there's no "right" to have an abortion.

Everyone has the right to left alone by the state. The police have no buisness patrolling women's wombs. That is what Roe provided, at least in the first trimester, which has been long established in both English Common Law for roughly 800 years and, for that matter, Catholic teaching dating back to Augustine as a period in which abortions are allowed.

[ericsp23]

I would think that the right to control what happens to ones own body is fundamental. The 9th amendment makes room for the possiblity of other fundamental rights that are not spelled out specifically in the Constitution.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Everyone has the right to left alone by the state.

Wow, that's an awfully broad "right". I sure hope the dude who stole my car isnt "left alone" by the police.

Quote by: RickSp The police have no buisness patrolling women's wombs.

I'd like to hear your case for that, in the abortion thread.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: ericsp23 I would think that the right to control what happens to ones own body is fundamental. The 9th amendment makes room for the possiblity of other fundamental rights that are not spelled out specifically in the Constitution.

Thanks for the civics lesson, eric.

No one is going to disagree that we should all control what happens to "our own body"
The whole point is that it's another person's body we're discussing.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Wow, that's an awfully broad "right". I sure hope the dude who stole my car isnt "left alone" by the police.

Give me a break Morgan. As long as force or fraud is not involved, how is this right "broad"? Unless you are making a bad joke. Abortions might be called the right of "broads" by some. I would prefer to use other language.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman I'd like to hear your case for that, in the abortion thread.

This thread will do nicely. It is about the state claiming the right to control a woman's womb in an early term pregnancy. I don't think that they have the right, regardless of what the Ayotollahs of the religious right may claim.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Give me a break Morgan. As long as force or fraud is not involved, how is this right "broad"?

There is force involved, being directed at the unborn child.

Quote by: RickSp It is about the state claiming the right to control a woman's womb in an early term pregnancy. I don't think that they have the right, regardless of what the Ayotollahs of the religious right may claim.

Ok, but why?

[RickSp]

OK, Morgan if you really think that a first term fetus is an "unborn child" then we probably have nothing to discuss. I consider a fetus to be a potential person but not a creature with rights and certainly not one with rights that are greater than its human host.