South Dakota Senate passes anti abortion bill

[abcdefz]

from CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/22/dakota.abortion.ap/index.html)

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.

The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.

[ms.peachy]

I think this is a very dangerous strategy they are pursuing. I surely hope it backfires on them soundly.

[Ace42X]

I surely hope it backfires on them soundly.

Not knowing the ins and outs of state legislative procedure, etc., could you explain how it could backfire?

[abcdefz]

...I didn't know the abortion could be legislated state by state. That's what's surprising to me.

[ms.peachy]

Not knowing the ins and outs of state legislative procedure, etc., could you explain how it could backfire?
What they (the people who introduced these new changes) are trying to do is get the case pushed up to the Supreme Court, and to then effectively overturn Roe v Wade, now that there are two new more conservative judges on the bench. However, there is no guarantee that if they did so, that they would get the result they want, and may end up getting their own restrictions overturned in the process. So essentially they are gambling that the Supreme Court is now conservative enough to push their agenda through.

[Qdrop]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKK!

FUCKIN CHRISTIANS!

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!

[abcdefz]

What they (the people who introduced these new changes) are trying to do is get the case pushed up to the Supreme Court, and to then effectively overturn Roe v Wade, now that there are two new more conservative judges on the bench. However, there is no guarantee that if they did so, that they would get the result they want, and may end up getting their own restrictions overturned in the process. So essentially they are gambling that the Supreme Court is now conservative enough to push their agenda through.



...right, but how can that backfire? If the Supremes strike it down, things are the same as they are now.

Except that, unless South Dakaota stays the bill pending a ruling, people in S.D. will have to go to other states for abortions. In the meantime, debate will have recharged and -- who knows?

I'm just surprised that a state can do this. Can a state at any time just outlaw something which is the country's law just to re-try the case at the federal level? :confused:

[ChrisLove]

Edit: Nevermind :rolleyes:

[ms.peachy]

...right, but how can that backfire? If the Supremes strike it down, things are the same as they are now.

Except that, unless South Dakaota stays the bill pending a ruling, people in S.D. will have to go to other states for abortions. In the meantime, debate will have recharged and -- who knows?

I'm just surprised that a state can do this. Can a state at any time just outlaw something which is the country's law just to re-try the case at the federal level? :confused:

They can't just do it willy nilly; they have to get it past a their own state Supreme Court first. If it's patently ludicrous and a blatant violation of Federal provision, it likely will no t get that far. So essentially they have to look for fine points within the law to exploit that push the legality right up to that edge, where it needs to go to another court.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the South Dakota ruling then that is what I am saying would be the 'backfire' - they will not only have failed to overturn Roe v Wade, but they will have rendered their own legislation on the issue invalid.

[GetYourWarOn]

They can't just do it willy nilly; they have to get it past a their own state Supreme Court first. If it's patently ludicrous and a blatant violation of Federal provision, it likely will no t get that far. So essentially they have to look for fine points within the law to exploit that push the legality right up to that edge, where it needs to go to another court.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the South Dakota ruling then that is what I am saying would be the 'backfire' - they will not only have failed to overturn Roe v Wade, but they will have rendered their own legislation on the issue invalid.


since south dakota is an overwhelmingly conservative state, i'm gonna assume that their supreme court also has a conservative majority who are drooling at an opportunity to put more limits on abortions.

and with GW stacking the federal courts with right to lifers, well...

[ASsman]

Just what we need, more people being born in South Dakota.

[EN[i]GMA]

...I didn't know the abortion could be legislated state by state. That's what's surprising to me.

Any state can pass any law it wants, it just has to stand up in court.

Will this law? Maybe...

A sad day indeed.

[EN[i]GMA]

Just what we need, more people being born in South Dakota.

Honestly, there are only like 30 people there.

It would be more like your street banning abortion than an actual 'state' banning it.

Like, the law might not pass Old Man Wilson down the street, who judges all the big decisions like whether the Jones' tree is blocking the Johnson's view or whether Ms. Davis' cats are getting out of hand. What Old Man Wilson says goes, unless it gets taken to town council.

In fact, South Dakota's 'Supreme Court' probably is a guy named Old Man Wilson who judges nothing but disputes over foliage and animals.

[GetYourWarOn]

They can't just do it willy nilly; they have to get it past a their own state Supreme Court first. If it's patently ludicrous and a blatant violation of Federal provision, it likely will no t get that far. So essentially they have to look for fine points within the law to exploit that push the legality right up to that edge, where it needs to go to another court.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the South Dakota ruling then that is what I am saying would be the 'backfire' - they will not only have failed to overturn Roe v Wade, but they will have rendered their own legislation on the issue invalid.


i just read a little more on this, and apparently a lot of states are going to be trying similar tactics to see if they can get roe v wade overturned. basically, the states that know they can get a law like this passed will do so, and then defend it all the way to the supreme court to see if these 2 justices that bush appointed will make a difference in overturning it.

btw, there's still a pretty good chance that bush will have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next couple of years, which if the pro-life people get their way, will gurantee that RVW gets reversed.

[ASsman]

Excellent. Back to the coat hangers up the cooch then.

[zorra_chiflada]

don't forget gin in the bathtub as well

[cosmo105]

good, because lord knows this country needs more teenage prostitutes

[yeahwho]

I've never been there and have no intention of going to SD, but if I did live there, and this is what the legislation has in store (not to mention the call to import more evangelical christians) for its constituents, I'd move.

Maybe that's what this country needs...more segregation. Let's lump all the right wing, bigotted, evangelical christians in a few states, gate the borders and let them have their way for a while. See how many people actually stick around once they find their rights violated.

[valvano]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKK!

FUCKIN CHRISTIANS!

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!


not everybody who has serious doubts about abortion bases those feelings on religion.....

(!)

[abcdefz]

...did you folks know that not performing abortions is part of the Hippocratic Oath? True story.

And consider the harm of people legally deciding what other people's lives are worth. Last time we had that going on produced some darned good blues music, but that's about it.

[franscar]

...did you folks know that not performing abortions is part of the Hippocratic Oath? True story.

And consider the harm of people legally deciding what other people's lives are worth. Last time we had that going on produced some darned good blues music, but that's about it.

Well, judging by the current state of music produced by teenage girls, I can safely say that more of them making it would be a very bad thing.

[abcdefz]

...I think we should just eliminate people altogether.

[SobaViolence]

just eliminate south dakota.....perhaps north dakota as well.


for good measure.

[ASsman]

Turn it into,

Dakota Dakota.

Then destroy it.

[abcdefz]

...anyone else remember that episode of The West Wing where Donna is sent to North Dakota to hear their arguments that they'd like to drop "North" from their name to stimulate greater tourism?

Going once....

Going twice...

[GetYourWarOn]

...anyone else remember that episode of The West Wing where Donna is sent to North Dakota to hear their arguments that they'd like to drop "North" from their name to stimulate greater tourism?

Going once....

Going twice...

im gonna miss that show.

[abcdefz]

...I've only watched it through season five.

Season five was good! I was prepared for the worst. People badmouth that season a lot. It stumbles and stuff, but it's all right.

B-.

[yeahwho]

South Dakota's new slogan can use a little tweaking, but they're almost there,

If you didn't want me to own you, you shouldn't have let me stick my penis in you. Now shut up and incubate.

[Documad]

...anyone else remember that episode of The West Wing where Donna is sent to North Dakota to hear their arguments that they'd like to drop "North" from their name to stimulate greater tourism?

Going once....

Going twice...
That was true, you know.

I'm guessing that you can't get an abortion in South Dakota already -- I wonder if there's a single doctor there who will take the risk.

This is a very big deal but I'm sick of talking about it. There is a lot more at stake than what women can do with their bodies in South Dakota.

[cookiepuss]

Mississippi is on the band wagon too and has just passed a similar bill. :(



fuck these guys. the States are not going to take away my right to choose! :mad:

[yeahwho]

Mississippi is on the band wagon too and has just passed a similar bill. :(



fuck these guys. the States are not going to take away my right to choose! :mad:

When you say these guys I automatically think "males", even though I know you more than likely mean everybody (including females) involved in these anti-abortion legislation bills.

The odd thing I can't get out of my head (being a dude) is that many females also want to take part in these type of blanket laws and oppress fellow females.

Whats up with that?

[cookiepuss]

I don't know what appeals to some women about blanket laws banning abortion, my insinct would be that they have religious or spiritual reasons for beleiving it wrong and stoping everyone from doing it.

I beleive there are some poeple who abuse our rights to abortion by using it like a means of contraception, but that still doesn't mean I would want anyone to loose the right to choose.


But this is America, the land of the free...where we force women to have children that will likely end up in our welfare system. yay! :(

[Documad]

Prior to the US Supreme Court recognizing an individual's right of privacy, contraception was also illegal in many states. So were all sorts of sexual activity between consenting adults (including straight people).

I can't talk about this stuff without getting insanely angry at complacent women (mostly younger ones).

[SobaViolence]

Canada?

[cookiepuss]

I posted this in the thread started in Beastie-free, but I thought it should also be mentioned here:

For anyone who is as upset about this as I am about this, one thing you can do is join NARAL Pro-Choice America. If you choose, thier site will send you email updates on the latest abortion rights news. they also offer ways for you to volunteer, send letters to your state officals and other wise make your voice heard. http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/index.html


I don't know how much good it will do, but I certainly feel better getting involved.

[Ali]

But this is America, the land of the free...where we force women to have children that will likely end up in our welfare system. yay! :(And executes people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4781106.stm)