Skip to main content

I give them 8 more years and they will overturn RvW all together
_____________________

South Dakota governor signs abortion ban
Nearly all operations outlawed in direct challenge to Roe v. Wade


Gov. Mike Rounds signs a bill on Monday that bans all abortions in South Dakota unless a woman's life is endangered.

PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

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
_______________________ "Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart but they can restrain the heartless." Martin Luther King.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by MidLifeMan:
I give them 8 more years and they will overturn RvW all together

I share your concern MidLifeMan. But in all fairness, state governments don't have this kind of power.

What the S.D. politicians have done is signed legislation that goes into effect if/when Rowe vs. Wade is overturned. These bills don't have any power until then. If Rowe vs. Wade is overturned, then the decision of whether or not abortion is legal immediately goes to the state level. Every state won't follow S.D.'s example. It will go right back to the way it was before Rowe vs. Wade, where in some states it's legal and in others it's not. All that means is that is someone living in S.D. wants an abortion they have to go somewhere else to do it, like California. These politicians haven't really done anything except make a useless statement to their conservative base.

Every day I pray that the masses will wake up and realize that it is impossible to legislate morality.
I think what is happening is that now that the Supreme Court has a more favorable split on the abortion issue (after Bush appointed the last two justices) anti-choice folks are trying to force the issue by creating these (currently) unconstitutional laws. They want the laws brought before the Supreme Court so that Roe v. Wade can be reconsidered.
I give them 8 more years and they will overturn RvW all together---MidLifeMan

I share your concern MidLifeMan. But in all fairness, state governments don't have this kind of power.---Black viking

Ironically, the issue before the Supreme Court was State law.

I don't think there is a federal law on abortion, but rather (only) the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of a State law.

Therefore...clearly...States do indeed have that kind of power.

State jurisdictlon is in fact the proper place for such authority and not the federal government.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
I don't think there is a federal law on abortion, but rather (only) the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of a State law.

Therefore...clearly...States do indeed have that kind of power.

I did not intend to imply that Rowe vs. Wade was a federal law. But, no JWC, states do not have the power to overturn the Supreme Court. The states can write any kind of ass backward law that they want. If the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional, then that's it. And the same ruling applies all across the nation.
I'm so glad I've been shot, took shrapnel, and been dropped in any and every god forsaken hellhole on the planet so that the social conservative asswipes can have thier way. Oh, yes, I'm very proud to serve. Roll Eyes

God, I wish these so called "pro-lifers" *and theres an oxymoron if ever there was one* would find a deep pit and fall into it....
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
O
MY
GOD



Wow, those Neocons are hell-bent on taking us back to the 1950's kicking and screaming. I wonder how many women will vote Republican after this. This is going to become a big issue very soon.

If not, that just shows how far our country's collective head is up it's collective asshole.


I agree with your sentiment, but I must correct you. This is not the result of the neocon agenda. Neocon are only concerned with empire building, not domestic affairs. This is clearly the work of Bush's christian fundamentalist base.

Which is equally as scary; equally as destructive.
quote:
Originally posted by xxGAMBITxx:
I'm so glad I've been shot, took shrapnel, and been dropped in any and every god forsaken hellhole on the planet so that the social conservative asswipes can have thier way. Oh, yes, I'm very proud to serve. Roll Eyes

God, I wish these so called "pro-lifers" *and theres an oxymoron if ever there was one* would find a deep pit and fall into it....


I have YET to see ANYONE who is truly "Pro-Life" in the truest sense of the word.

A "Pro-Lifer" would be someone who is anti-Abortion, anti-Death Penalty and anti-War.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
O
MY
GOD



Wow, those Neocons are hell-bent on taking us back to the 1950's kicking and screaming. I wonder how many women will vote Republican after this. This is going to become a big issue very soon.

If not, that just shows how far our country's collective head is up it's collective asshole.


I agree with your sentiment, but I must correct you. This is not the result of the neocon agenda. Neocon are only concerned with empire building, not domestic affairs. This is clearly the work of Bush's christian fundamentalist base.

Which is equally as scary; equally as destructive.


You're right (no pun intended, lol) it's the Neocons AND the Religious Right (mostly a Religious Right agenda piece being used as a ploy by the Sub-Fascists..er...um Neocons).

Not only this, but Bush has also recently proposed a line-term veto which is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by xxGAMBITxx:
I'm so glad I've been shot, took shrapnel, and been dropped in any and every god forsaken hellhole on the planet so that the social conservative asswipes can have thier way. Oh, yes, I'm very proud to serve. Roll Eyes

God, I wish these so called "pro-lifers" *and theres an oxymoron if ever there was one* would find a deep pit and fall into it....


I have YET to see ANYONE who is truly "Pro-Life" in the truest sense of the word.

A "Pro-Lifer" would be someone who is anti-Abortion, anti-Death Penalty and anti-War.


Pope John Paul II
quote:
I did not intend to imply that Rowe vs. Wade was a federal law. But, no JWC, states do not have the power to overturn the Supreme Court. The states can write any kind of ass backward law that they want. If the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional, then that's it. And the same ruling applies all across the nation.
---Black Viking


We are agreed. States cannot overturn a decision of the Supreme Court, but rather must write new (State) law, of whatever quality.

Rowe v. Wade is not the 'law of the land'.

Abortion law is the law that is applicable in the respective States.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
We are agreed. States cannot overturn a decision of the Supreme Court, but rather must write new (State) law, of whatever quality.

Rowe v. Wade is not the 'law of the land'.

Abortion law is the law that is applicable in the respective States.

But, if a new State law is written that immediately bumps up against a previous Supreme Court decision, then it falls flat. The State has to make a case that the new law somehow does not apply to the previous decision in order for it to be reviewed. In this case in particular, I don't see that happening. The State would have to prove that the abortion they are legislating on is somehow not the abortion addressed in Rowe vs. Wade.
quote:
Originally posted by MidLifeMan:
I give them 8 more years and they will overturn RvW all together
_____________________

South Dakota governor signs abortion ban
Nearly all operations outlawed in direct challenge to Roe v. Wade


Gov. Mike Rounds signs a bill on Monday that bans all abortions in South Dakota unless a woman's life is endangered..

PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

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 loophole is obvious "bans all abortions unless the life of the mother is endangered". So if you'll die as a result of being pregnant you can get an abortion, so I guess that it would be constitutional. It seems as if they are not banning abortions, they are applying conditions to qualify you to have an abortion. I'm not sure that it the Roe vs Wade case covered any conditions about having an abortion and didn't GW sign a bill a few years ago banning partial birth abortions? Could someone clarify this issue about setting conditions on who qualifies to get an abortion and if it was indeed covered in the Roe v Wade case?? Thanks
quote:
Originally posted by Dizzy_Daniella:
I think that its unfair to tell anyone what they are able and unable to do...i dont agree with abortions in everycase but it is every womens right to be able to choose this. It isnt any suprise to me that a state in america has let this become enforced..all it means is that women will have them done illegally or cross the boreder.


Isn't it unfair to kill a baby(or fetus) without it's permission. Why does the mother have the right to kill.
I think making abortions illegal will be a big mistake. As it was stated earlier, the abortions will not stop and it will make it more difficult to have access to proper medical care. Which I think is one issue left out of this discussion, a very important issue. Another problem with banning abortions would be the increased burden on the foster care system, which in many states is already at the max. Another problem that I find perplexing is the issue of only allowing women who have been molested or raped to have abortions. How can this be proved? It seems the standards that are set to prove this in a criminal case seem to be pretty high. Just imagine how high they would be set if the woman or girl was pregnant.
Either way, I think that there would be a shift in the system and it would burden various social systems to an even greater extent than they are currently. And if someone didn't have an abortion that was not your relative, would you or I be willing to take that child in?? That's a thought I offer up to people who are anti-abortion just to see how dedicated they are to their cause of pro-life....
Has any one heard the following comment from South Dakota state senator Bill Napoli on who might be exempted from the law?:

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."
Last edited {1}
quote:

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged.

The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married.

I always chuckle to myself when right-wingers say things like this. It's one of the rare moments when there is no bullshit to sift through. No spin to decode. It so clearly illustrates who they think is worthy of compassion and who is not.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×