I've been waiting for somebody else to start this thread... Is it seriously not that much of a concern to anyone that South Dakota's Legislature just passed an abortion ban that does not include any exception for women impregnated through incest or rape???

The Governor's justification:

“I believe the taking of the life does not take care of the harm that’s been done by the crime.”

But apparently forcing the woman to carry and give birth does.  I hope Rapid City's back alleys are at least well-lit.

Keep your eye on the doughnut, not on the hole -- DL

There will be a lot of argument about this.  It's possible that it will even go to the Supreme Court. 

It's sad that the mother's well being isn't even considered.  I knew a girl in high school who was molested by her uncle and had to carry the baby to tern and raise the baby.  Not only was she violated by her uncle when he did this, she was reminded of the horror for the 9 months when she carried the child.  I don't know what happened to her...I do know that she was pretty messed up in high school because of this.

It's just horrible when you think about it. 

Well, being someone who thinks it's the right of the states to decide abortion (not a federal court), even if it was up to the states, I think abortion should be legal in the first trimester and early second trimester for pregnancies resulting in rape or incest. The problem is - how do we know that it's rape/incest unless it's reported to authorities? That's the problem with allowing that exception because you know that no legal papers or anything else will be needed for any woman who says that she was raped in order to have the abortion (because NOW and others would be screaming about forcing the requirement of papers).

Even with the new makeup of the Federal Court, I think this particular law would be refused by teh Court because of this one thing. If it had an exception clause for rape/incest and mother's physical health, then this might be a different story. People seem to still forget that the previous Supreme Court cases are not nullified when there's a new makeup in the Supreme Court - they still have to be taken into account. HOWEVER, there are still plenty of other laws that one judge could use to overturn abortion and put it back to the states to decide (which is where it actually belongs IMO).

But let's also not forget that even the Court is wrong sometimes, and sometimes decisions they make should be overturned later on. Example - The Dred Scott Decision where he Supreme Court essentially ruled that black people are nothing more than property like your TV or computer. Same Constitution, all laws up to that date all told the Court then that AFrican Americans were property. Using that 1856 ruling, someone could've sued the White House for passing the Emancipation Proclomation and it's quite possible that the Supreme Court would've kept the 1856 ruling and overturned that proclomation - esp currently with all our activist courts who don't seem to see a seperation of powers but see everything else in the Constitution.

Jordan .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there was a physical health exception in the SD law.  I thought I saw on tv that they would allow abortioin in the case of the health of the mother being threatened but not for rape and incest.

WCCO could have lied, wouldn't be the first time. 

I had six paragraphs typed up.  All anchored by this part of your entry.  Thankfully, I went back and read the rest of what you wrote before hitting the POST button.

But seriously, that sort of thing is pretty much one of NOW's jobs, no?  It's not like South Dakota's lawmakers are doing any screaming about women's rights...

Anyway, I'm aware that this bill is a wedge attack, designed to crack the topic open again, and that even the proponents of the bill don't necessarily expect it to be effective soon or in it's entirety.  If I was a South Dakotan woman I would be outraged that my rights were being used as local kindling to start a national bonfire.  But I suppose if I was pro-life I'd be proud that the spark had started in my community.  Just more evidence that there isn't a lot of common ground for any actual debate on the issue.

And that's where my conservative streak comes in.  To me, when there's an issue as contentious as this one, with substantial numbers of proponents and at least a respectable semblance of an argument on each side, it's generally best to err on the side of freedom.  That's why my opinions on gun control have substantially changed over the past decade, and it's also why my views on abortion haven't.  I'm not trying to open up the entire debate here -- there's little point, since each activist side knows by heart exactly what the other activist side is going to say and is entirely resistant to being convinced, while most real people are somewhere in the middle -- but it seems to me that if this bill is the best strategy that pro-life forces can muster to win public opinion over to their side, they're as bereft of ideas and as out of touch with the public mood as the Democratic Party establishment.

Way off, but I just realized something. Jamie, do you use widdie bittie blue letters like a stage whisper? To force a reader to work extra hard to read what you have to say thereby avoiding the "quick scan?"

I was remembering back to the green-on-black days. I think I'm onto you! Am I right or am I right? Or is it just a simple case of my eyesight deficits?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Are they really that small on your screen? On mine, they're about the same size as your text, except the font is different... If it's that bad, I'm sure the color isn't helping at all...

Does this work any better?

On the old board, I used green on black just becasue I found it a little more soothing on the eyes than white on black.  Come to think of it, a couple of people mentioned back then that it was hard to read as well.

I'm just such a demure personality, that I try to understate my typographical presentation.  But not to the point where it interferes with communication (at least not deliberately).

Anyway, if this doesn't help, red Impact is next, so let me know how it looks...

Gosh, I feel like I've had toilet paper on the back of my shoe all this time, and nobody told me...

Yeah, so as I was saying, Grrrr! I'm angry and smarter than everyone! Grrrr! 

Doesn't this just create a ridiculous situation where desperate women have to cross the stateline (or even US border) to get the medical treatment they need? Will victims of rape and incest have to get a flight to another state to get an abortion? How is this policy equitable if its allowed in another part of the US?

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

In SD, there's only one clinic in the ENTIRE state that does abortions. If there was ever a lawsuit about that I don't know but it sure seems odd. So women are more than likely already having to run over Montana or Wyoming or N Dakota or somewhere else to have an abortion if they are too far from the single one (I saw that in one article).

And to answer a question above - this law DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT the woman's physical health.

Here's the thing that Susan keeps talking about in other posts - even if the Supreme court rejects abortion in a few years, the majority of states will continue to allow abortion anyway. For the most part, I avoid abortion debate because I've been there done that, but some of us Conservatives have always argued the Constitutional portion of the abortion debate rather than life vs choice. There's a big enough debate even among law types that suggest the Supreme Court in 1973 overstepped their bounds (as did some Courts before that) when it comes to the privacy clause in the Constitution.  

Jordan .

Ah, sweet demure Jamie, I hope I didn't embarrass you by pointing out that sticky toilet paper. I thought it was a sign of your individuality and your belief in personal freedom to have your own special "I'm smarter than you are" font and color. Then for a moment I thought you were one of those evil 20-something restaurant menu designers with a predilection for 8-font peach colored scipt on gray textured paper that looks so nifty by candlelight. And has the over-40 crowd catching the menus aflame as they attempt to read it before finally surrendering with an "I'll take today's special, please."

You know I've always shown enormous respect for you (and your Maple Leaf kind) in countless ways, so I do appreciate "new look." My vision is hampered by so many vagaries of age, you don't even wanna know, and I'm grateful for any help I can get.

Now, Dick Morris put it so well some years back. Dick Morris was formerly presidential advisor to Bill Clinton but has since come over to the "dark side." There is a value in listening to such a pragmatist because he offers insight into techniques of wily politicians meant to arouse the red-hot passions of the rabble. Meaning all of you. All of US.

Anyway, Dick Morris put it something like this. There are issues that neither Dems nor Reps want to be laid to rest because it is more useful to maintain them as a campaign constant. Abortion is one of them. Gun Control is another. Racial politics is yet another.

If any of those issues were finally laid to rest, one side loses their momentum with working up their constituency into a lather of "MY BODY BELONGS TO ME!" or "YOU'LL TAKE MY GUN OVER MY COLD DEAD BODY!" or "IT'S JIM CROW ALL OVER AGAIN!"

Get it? So obviously the arguments about daddies raping daughters and pregnancy by violent rape are the EXTREME of one side while aborting 9-month late term almost-born babies by brain piercing is the other EXTREME. So what do we do with those two extremes ends of each respective argument? Count up how many are affected and whichever group is largest gets the law to fall down on their side for each state in the union?

I don't know about youse, but I'm not willing to get wrapped up in the politics of abortion to an high-pitched level. It's diversionary. And there are far more pressing issues.  Someone will have a sorry set of circumstances if abortion remains as it is AND if abortion legislation is returned to the states. I think the states deciding would be better than each state would fine tune that which they already have established. Then each state's highest court could deal with the extreme case of an 12 year old raped at knifepoint by her dad who is 8 1/2 months pregnant. And she's mentally retarded too.  

The good thing that will happen if Roe V Wade is overturned, after the hair wringing, worries about Joan Crawford's dreaded wire hangers, and wildly flung about charges of FASCISM settle down, is that the Supreme Court nominee process will not be AS divisive and the court can get back to drier issues for which most of America is not overly concerned. Like Same Sex Marriage and deciding too-close-to-call presidential elections.

Party on kids. Get those protest signs ready for the opposite sides of the street marches. Women bound and gagged on one side. Bloody dismembered fetuses on the other side. Bloody coat hangers on one side. Abortion 21st century = Slavery 19th century messages on the other. I'll be watching on CSPAN but won't carry a banner for either side.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin