South Dakota bans most abortions
 

So the news came down today across the newswire that South Dakota's governor signed a bill that would make most abortions illegal in that state save for abortions in which the woman's life/health is in perile.
Typically I'm not one to step up to the political plate but when it comes to a woman's choice over what she does I feel that it is her own decision to consider and not that of the government. If she does not wish to carry out a pregnancy then that is on her... and visa versa.

So at which point does a state have authority over the Supreme Court in regards to issues such as abortion? This is obviously going to go back to the US Supreme Court for review... but even at that point why is the government, whether at a state level or federal level telling a woman what she can or cannot do? Where do personal freedoms get voided out in the name of government control?

Just curious... I know this is a hot topic and is sure to get some folks fired up... then again, I am known as the topic killer to where no one will even reply. ^_^

My thoughts are that this is exactly the goal of the people who lobbied for this. The point of the law is to force the issue back to the Supreme Court, since its fairly obvious that's where its going to go.

Why would it matter? You could just go out of state to get your baby killed. It's not like your baby would come back to life if you travelled back into South Dakota, lol.

Maybe it's not so easy for someone to travel outside of the state if they wished to have this procedure done... why force them to go to another state or go to some back alley doctor?

Well, my first question is. Who regulates things like aboration or things related to children? The state or federal?

Cause certainaly if it's a state thing, they'll have to lobby to the states, not to the feds. Much like marriage(Marriage is based on states decision[Actually the votes of the people who reside in the states.].)

It's also my understanding that the bill doesn't make an exception to rape and incest either, which is fucking ludicrous.

I'll be glad when this gets brought up in the Supreme Court. However, I am concerned that since Bush has nominated a few conservative judges, things may not go so well for the rights to a medical treatment for half the population. :(

I don't know what kinds of info abortion clinics in the surrounding states require before hand, but I imagine that many women may be forced to change their addresses.

I'm just glad that this happened to a sparsely populated state filled with farms, so that way not many women will be affected by this.

Federal. It was already decided on a national level that a woman should have the right to an abortion in a case called Roe vs. Wade, back in 1973 I believe.

South Dakota's conservative voters and government are doing this because they hope that abortion will be made illegal on a national level. Which is just what this country needs. Babies being born to mothers that aren't ready, resulting in increased levels of poverty and everything else that follows from that, such as increased levels of crime. -__-

Yeah, the United States is a democracy, not a theocracy like Iran.

If this ever gets passed in the United States, I cannot see the law lasting a long time.

Just another case of the Religious Right screwing up what the country was founded on. At this rate, soon this country will be more restrictive than the middle east.

Dear South Dakota:
The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopian novel, not a how-to manual.

Truer words never spoken.

Interestingly enough, the United States wasn't founded on abortions. Abortions were highly frowned upon in the late 1700's. Know your own countries history, for god's sake.


The government should not have a say on abortions until the day it is comprised entirely of females.

This could be scary... there are at LEAST 11 states with legislation similar to this pending, which will pass the SECOND that this gets upheld (assuming it does). And I doubt that anybody can just leave the state for an abortion. If that were true, then terminally ill would flock to Oregon for euthanasia (keep in mind that you a) have to actually BE a citizen of Oregon to qualify, and b) you have to wait 6 months before getting the meds).

I also love how people who ban abortion think "It's illegal now, it won't happen!"

Bullshit. All that banning abortion does is pushing abortions into the hands of the back-alley quack.

I think you have said what I was thinking earlier... why have men making the rules over which they dictate what a woman can or cannot do? Allow the women to make the rules themselves... ^_^

That's actually one of the arguments against it. Poor women without a means of transportation or in abusive relationships might not be able to get away to an out of state clinic.

And Murdercrow, I don't believe most states require you to have permanent residence in the state to get an abortion. Otherwise it would make it awfully difficult for those rich out-of-state college girls that are supposedly getting these things done weekly.

I couldn't have said it any better. A man doesn't know what it is like to be a women, so he shoudn't have a say on anything pertaining to what she does with her body.

So if I said I was here to serve mankind, does that mean that you'd ask for fries with that? You know, what with that statement you quoted being able to be taken both ways and all that.

The quote is "To Serve Man", you dork. =(

I'm not particluarly fond of this legislation; children that the mother is willing to abort don't seem to be high on the priority list for her. The last thing we need is more unwanted children.

The US was founded on Freedoms, Freedom of Religion being one. The Religious Right feel it is their right to force everyone to follow their beliefs. Freedom of speech is going down the toilet, because of these religious idiots, and they want everyone who has sex to have a baby even if they don't want one, because they feel sex should only be for procreation, not fun. There is no reason for someone how doesn't want to have a baby, to have one. The freedoms of this country are slowly being destroyed by people who feel that everyone needs to follow their beliefs only. Hence, things this country was founded on being screwed up.

No one should have a say about it, not even females. You should have say for YOUR BODY. I don't care if a female president rallies and as well gets a bill going for pro-life, no aborations bill.

NO ONE, REGARDLESS OF GENDER, has any say on what ANYONE should do with thier body.

Stop bashing religeon. Thier beliefs are just as valid as yours.

Second, this country is a democracy, thus being if you don't like it then lobby for it and fix it. Everyone has a say if they actually TRY to have a say.

They aren't forcing thier beliefs on anyone by expressing them and saying hey, we think aboration is bad and we want to prove it and have a vote on it.

You call that forcing? If thier forcing thier beliefs on you, then you are techincally forcing your morals and beliefs by saying FUCK YOU, I'm right, your wrong and your a fucktard.

That is how I see your arguement EUN.

I second.

Your right ends where my nose begins, dude. Just by saying that has no physical ramifications on you, but to pass a law and regulate has very real ramification's on the body of those who are being regulated, its not merely forcing a view on another person.

Dude, I am not saying they should or not but they have a right IN THIS COUNTRY, to try to get a law passed. Rather it's a good or bad law.

All I am saying is why should they be forced to shut up? That is forcing your views onto them, IMO.

Man, I remember when I was a kid and I first heard this, the first thing I thought was "I'd rather be alive and unwanted then dead and unwanted." Also, hasn't that line "Help prevent unwanted children by supporting abortion" kind of been debunked?

I think we're missing the point here. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about passing laws that majorly affect people, in this case women who aren't ready for a child.

With that being said, I couldn't disagree with you more.

The religious right has been expressing their disapproval of abortion since Roe vs. Wade. That's all fine and good, but in South Dakota, they've crossed the line by going beyond expressing their views and passing a law that forces their beliefs on the public body.

Yes, I said it. It forces the belief of the religious right that one "sin" doesn't make another "sin" right onto women who aren't ready- emotionally, financially, whatever, to have a child.

I follow what you're saying here, and in the context of free speech and debate, that makes sense. However, when it comes to the current situation, it doesn't work like that.

See, right now in every other state in the US, Canada and probably most of Europe, people who believe in pro-life have the choice not to get an abortion. And those that need an abortion also have have the choice to get an abortion. Everyone has a choice and almost everybody's happy, except the pro-lifers that complain about the people that get abortions.

But in South Dakota, there is no longer the freedom of choice to have an abortion. The pro-lifers, the people who wouldn't have gotten an abortion in the first place, are happy because they've made it so everybody else in the state can't get an abortion. The people that need an abortion, such as victims of rape, incest and poverty, are screwed unless they can get an abortion in a surrounding state.

Basically, the law that a woman has the right to a medical procedure worked fine because it gave women the right to choose. But now in South Dakota, those that would have chose to have an abortion can't.

If you can't see that that's forcing one's belief on the entire public body, then I'm not sure what is.

True, but I wouldn't be surprised if it became the case if this is upheld.

So you are saying that youre ok with pro-lifers to privately believe whatever they want, but they cant ACT as if their view is true?

That doesnt sound like freedom to me.

Is it really forcing abortions on them if they're not going to use the procedure anyway?

To me it's kinda like with prohibition. I can't figure for the life of me figure out how those temperists would have their rights taken away by the drunken hordes when, you know, they don't drink alcohol and aren't being forced to.