South Dakota bans most abortions
- Thread starter shesulsa
- Start date
South Dakota bans most abortions
In signing law, governor says he expects court challenges
(CNN) -- South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill Monday that bans nearly all abortions in the state, legislation in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973.
See full story
In signing law, governor says he expects court challenges
(CNN) -- South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill Monday that bans nearly all abortions in the state, legislation in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973.
See full story
beau_safken
Black Belt
Thank you jesus...Now at least those wonderful god loving folk in SD will be spared the wrath of his holy fire. For every life saved from this beastly act of abortion...we add yet another teenage mother, drug addited whore or unfortunate person of circumstance to behold the wonder of god. Thank you god for bestowing this blessing on taxpayers all over the country. Thank you....Jerk...
FYI: Im not bashing religon, simply infering that it more than likely played a MAJOR part in this decision. God doesnt pay my bills so why should a book tell people what they can and can't do when they want. Not starting a religious battle here..just throwing out my thoughts.
FYI: Im not bashing religon, simply infering that it more than likely played a MAJOR part in this decision. God doesnt pay my bills so why should a book tell people what they can and can't do when they want. Not starting a religious battle here..just throwing out my thoughts.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #4
-Moderator Note- Threads merged.
G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Senior Mod.
P.S. BEAT YA, BOB!! :2xBird2:
G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Senior Mod.
P.S. BEAT YA, BOB!! :2xBird2:
evenflow1121
2nd Black Belt
Its a touchy subject, I know CNN said that they are banning most adoption rights, so what are they leaving or allowing?
I am not a fan of abortion, I wish it did not have to happen, but you should have the choice, for me its a matter of privacy, and the government should not meddle in these matters at all, these matters are best left to the individual family if the child is a minor or the individual having carrying the fetus. For me the teenage mother or the drug addicted mother, is just as vulnerable as the un born fetus.
I am not a fan of abortion, I wish it did not have to happen, but you should have the choice, for me its a matter of privacy, and the government should not meddle in these matters at all, these matters are best left to the individual family if the child is a minor or the individual having carrying the fetus. For me the teenage mother or the drug addicted mother, is just as vulnerable as the un born fetus.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
evenflow1121 said:
Hey, I dont disagree at all. Somthing the "morons that be" who run our lives need to consider too, is that they need to be educated on "the morning after pill" and realize its not an "Abortion in a Bottle" like so many people claim... and it should be READILY availble. I bet if that were the case they could cut down on the number of abortions needed at all...
evenflow1121
2nd Black Belt
I totally agree, it has a failure of about 10% roughly and you can take it up to 72 hrs after sex, but within 24hrs has best results. I
OP
- Thread Starter
- #8
I will shout it from the mountaintops that it's downright wrong to ban abortion in a country where sex education is virtually taboo and sex is used as a weapon in advertising, business, commerce, etcetera.
The highest court in the land has stated that it is legal.
Roe vs Wade set a national legal precedent.
Federal Law trumps State Law.
This law was passed in order to force a Supreme Court action.
- If the court does nothing, they say that state law overrules federal.
- If the court rules it legit, they say state law overrules federal.
- If the court strikes it down, they make a major block against similar actions by other states.
My personal feelings aside, I find this action to be in violation of national law, and a step backwards to an age of back alley butchers and their bloody coat hangers. I hope that when the dust clears, that the fall out for Rounds, his government and the state that elected him is severe and telling.
Roe vs Wade set a national legal precedent.
Federal Law trumps State Law.
This law was passed in order to force a Supreme Court action.
- If the court does nothing, they say that state law overrules federal.
- If the court rules it legit, they say state law overrules federal.
- If the court strikes it down, they make a major block against similar actions by other states.
My personal feelings aside, I find this action to be in violation of national law, and a step backwards to an age of back alley butchers and their bloody coat hangers. I hope that when the dust clears, that the fall out for Rounds, his government and the state that elected him is severe and telling.
I did a report on this subject years ago and one thing readily that comes to mind is that wealthy people will still be free to get abortions for their teenage daughters by simply traveling to a legal destination. This ban will only apply to the poor. Hence, the scuicide rates will go up... for the poor.
Sean
Sean
bushidomartialarts
Senior Master
This is another sign of the impending apocalypse.
Sorta kidding, but not really.
Has anybody else noticed how many of the liberties we took for granted even ten years ago are getting slowly chipped away at?
Has anybody else noticed how _not_ pissed off most people appear to be?
Is anybody else feeling their sphincter get tighter every time they read an article like this?
Sorta kidding, but not really.
Has anybody else noticed how many of the liberties we took for granted even ten years ago are getting slowly chipped away at?
Has anybody else noticed how _not_ pissed off most people appear to be?
Is anybody else feeling their sphincter get tighter every time they read an article like this?
I won't be going to SD anytime soon. A movement has begun in MN that is boycotting SD because of this. My wife and I joined.
upnorthkyosa said:
no offense, but thats a bit strange... do you avoid local areas due to local politics? how about foreign countries? do you avoid products from companies whose procedures you don't like? avoid chinese products since they are still communist? Do you avoid states because they have a republican/democrat/independant governor/senate/house? For me, its difficult to avoid certain areas or products based on politics and current events. This sort of reminds me of the Hollywood nuts that threatened to leave the US if *Insert Prominant Republican Politician* gets elected
you have the right to chose your method of protest. people on both sides do it... just seems a weird method, boycotting an entire state because you don't like one of their policies. But whatever floats your boat
on the actual issue, I'm glad to see it being done through a LEGAL process, rather than trying to write laws from the bench, as much of abortion "law" has done. This is what democracy is supposed to be about... will it get overturned? likely, but at least politicians had the courage to write it into law and force the hand.
The thing that really sucks is this law is nothing more than a blatant attempt to try and get the supreme court to overturn Roe V Wade and in the mean time if it is in effect even for a short while the only people it will hurt are the poor who don't have the money or resources to go accross the state line to get it done. Sadly S.D. isn't the only state doing this. There is one other (can't remember which) that is in the process of passing a similar law to force a Supreme Court showdown.
mrhnau said:
I know it seems weird and I commented much the same when my wife brought it up. This was her reply...
"We don't shop at Wal-Mart, we don't buy products from comanies that pollute, we only buy organic food, we only buy local, and we try not to buy from places that restrict or ignore human rights. All of these places are linked to location somewhere, so in a sense, we are boycotting their business. SD survives off of tourism and agriculture dollars. If SD is going to restrict human rights, why should we given them any of our business?"
We've decided to vote with our money.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #17
I'm not upnorthkyosa, but of course I avoid local areas due to local politics, certain foreign countries and don't buy products from companies whose procedures I don't like. This is a fairly effective form of protest when lots of people jump on the bandwagon.mrhnau said:no offense, but thats a bit strange... do you avoid local areas due to local politics? how about foreign countries? do you avoid products from companies whose procedures you don't like? avoid chinese products since they are still communist? Do you avoid states because they have a republican/democrat/independant governor/senate/house? For me, its difficult to avoid certain areas or products based on politics and current events. This sort of reminds me of the Hollywood nuts that threatened to leave the US if *Insert Prominant Republican Politician* gets elected
you have the right to chose your method of protest. people on both sides do it... just seems a weird method, boycotting an entire state because you don't like one of their policies. But whatever floats your boat
If I were to follow your logic and not avoid travel to foreign countries based on current events, I might be booking my reservations to Iraq right about now.
Money talks.
upnorthkyosa said:
Then I applaud your consistency. Not many people do, and that does bother me... these days things are so twisted and complicated, its difficult to be consistent on things.. even buying American made cars does not ensure it was made here or contains American parts... its difficult...
Flatlander
Grandmaster
The really sad thing is that the timing is such so as to "test" the dynamic of the new Supreme Court, with it's new member. This has more to do with agenda than public interest.
shesulsa said:
Not following my logic, but thats quite humorous LOL. You also have to use common sense
I'm not going to head to a country engaged in a war (unless that was the purpose, ie soldier, UN peacekeeper). I however will not be avoiding a country based on their status on abortion, or gun rights (unless I'm planning on taking one), or social welfare. I suppose with regard to current events, i'm refering more to the political state. Would I not go to France if they changed presidents? Would I go to Canada now since they are more conservative? Following your Iraq example, you would not mind going to a country infested w/ some kind of plaugue, which would just be silly (unless thats your purpose, ie healthcare, but thats hardly a vacation)There are some countries I'd avoid based soley on their politics. for example, I'd not want to vacation in Cuba or in a country my wife would not be welcome/comfortable to visit (some hardline muslim countries, making her wear a burka or something). I suppose people not wanting to visit SD would be an extension of this philosophy. Perhaps there are people who think not visiting Cuba would be extreme. Just a matter of what you consider "extreme". I guess that since I didn't see pro-life people flooding out of states when abortion became legal I see it a bit odd working in the other direction. Perhaps there will be a mass migration to SD of pro-lifers? Wouldn't that seem a bit odd to you?
