South Dakota House passes ban on abortion, challenging court's Roe v. Wade decision [Archive]

Republican_Legion

02-10-2006, 11:35 AM

<TABLE class=post-top cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=smalltext noWrap>KevinJ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/donor.gif (1000+ posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/mesg.gif (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=send_mesg&u_id=116623) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/profile_small.gif (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=116623) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/mesg_add_buddy.gif (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=add_buddy&u_id=116623) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/mesg_add_ignore.gif (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=add_ignore&u_id=116623) </TD><TD class=smalltext noWrap align=right>Fri Feb-10-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #13 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2099008#2099092)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=post-subject cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>18. At least that much is happily unenforcible</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=post-message cellSpacing=10 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width="1%">http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/avatars/ghandi.gif</TD><TD width="99%">I suspect you're absolutely right that such a move is the next step for the sadistic assholes who long to see women hemorrhage to death on coathangers, but that's been tried before in other parts of the world and, as far as I'm aware, has never produced a conviction. Closing down clinics within ones own jurisdiction is one thing; attempting to enforce medieval laws outside your jursidiction is another matter.

Of course, the real problem is that not everyone can afford to travel to have an abortion and with the Bushista junta toiling away night and day to convert prosperous people into paupers, the percentage of women unable to afford trips out of state is growing daily.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=post-bottom cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=smalltext></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The Idiot obviously doesnt know that the guy in his avatar(Ghandi) was heavily PRO-LIFE.

SmellyFed

02-10-2006, 11:36 AM

LOL! Yep. Plus, any time we want to nudge those Lefties "over the edge", we can remind them that President Bush has 3 years to go, and in all likelihood he'll get to place at least one more justice on the Supreme Court bench!

Stevens is 86 - I hope he decides to retire in the next two years.

Longhorn_Platinum

02-10-2006, 11:38 AM

Republican_Legion:
...pro-abortion wackos...

:thumb:

True Grace

02-10-2006, 11:41 AM

SD House Approves Abortion Ban

Praise the Lord!!!!!!!!

Native American

02-10-2006, 11:50 AM

<TABLE class=post-top cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=smalltext noWrap>KevinJ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/donor.gif (1000+ posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/mesg.gif (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=send_mesg&u_id=116623) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/profile_small.gif (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=116623) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/mesg_add_buddy.gif (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=add_buddy&u_id=116623) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/mesg_add_ignore.gif (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=add_ignore&u_id=116623) </TD><TD class=smalltext noWrap align=right>Fri Feb-10-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #13 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2099008#2099092)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=post-subject cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>18. At least that much is happily unenforcible</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=post-message cellSpacing=10 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width="1%">http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/avatars/ghandi.gif</TD><TD width="99%">I suspect you're absolutely right that such a move is the next step for the sadistic assholes who long to see women hemorrhage to death on coathangers, but that's been tried before in other parts of the world and, as far as I'm aware, has never produced a conviction. Closing down clinics within ones own jurisdiction is one thing; attempting to enforce medieval laws outside your jursidiction is another matter.

Of course, the real problem is that not everyone can afford to travel to have an abortion and with the Bushista junta toiling away night and day to convert prosperous people into paupers, the percentage of women unable to afford trips out of state is growing daily.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Another word the Idiot Pro-Abortion Left likes to use is "medieval". They seem to think it invokes images of live human beings being cruelly tortured to death, thereby supporting their hideously immoral pro-abortion point of view.

Of course, speaking of the word "medieval", the Idiot Pro-Abortion Left also see nothing wrong with dragging a live human baby out of her mother's womb, feet first, then repeatedly ramming a pair of scissors into that live human being's skull (without any anesthetic for that live human being, needless to say), and then sucking the brains out of that live human being while it squirms.

Laughably, the Idiot Pro-Abortion Left refers to those medieval torture chambers as "clinics".

ThomasIsUnderrated

02-10-2006, 11:56 AM

What's the point of doing this when there are at least five votes in favor of Roe on the SCOTUS?

SmellyFed

02-10-2006, 12:03 PM

What's the point of doing this when there are at least five votes in favor of Roe on the SCOTUS?

A wall is built by first picking up a single stone.

Rhino

02-10-2006, 12:08 PM

Yeah, but the wall will fall on you if it isn't built right.

Native American

02-10-2006, 12:08 PM

What's the point of doing this when there are at least five votes in favor of Roe on the SCOTUS?

You won't know that until they vote on it! When they revisit the issue, they may decide to overturn the Court's earlier ruling! Remember - that was one of the things the Idiot Lefties told us they were worried would happen, which was why (they claimed) they were going to vote against President Bush's two nominees.

Rhino

02-10-2006, 12:15 PM

How long would it take for this to reach the SCOTUS? The timing concerns me with an election coming up. You know how the dems like to sensationalize things, and how our gullible populace often falls for it.

DeclinetoState

02-10-2006, 12:17 PM

Of course, the real problem is that not everyone can afford to travel to have an abortion and with the Bushista junta toiling away night and day to convert prosperous people into paupers, the percentage of women unable to afford trips out of state is growing daily.

In many parts of the country you can't get an abortion even now simply because there isn't enough demand for the--ahem--procedure to justify opening an abortion <DEL>mill</DEL> clinic. In other cases, private companies that have wanted to open abortion <DEL>mills</DEL> clinics have been undercut and put out of business by Planned Parenthood with its "non-profit" <DEL>mills</DEL> clinics.

ThomasIsUnderrated

02-10-2006, 12:25 PM

You won't know that until they vote on it! When they revisit the issue, they may decide to overturn the Court's earlier ruling! Remember - that was one of the things the Idiot Lefties told us they were worried would happen, which was why (they claimed) they were going to vote against President Bush's two nominees.

Reality check time:

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court reaffirmed the main holding of Roe by the narrowest possible margin. Ginsburg replaced one of the minority members in that case and Breyer replaced one of the majority members. Both of those justices showed their support for Roe in Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000. (A 5-4 decision that struck down a PBA ban. Kennedy, while making it clear that he still supported Roe, dissented because he felt the majority went too far.) That made a Court 6-3 in favor of Roe. George W. Bush's first nominee, John Roberts, replaced Rehnquist, an anti-Roe vote. His second, Samuel Alito, replaced O'Connor, a pro-Roe vote. Thus, even if both Roberts and Alito are votes to overrule Roe (a fact which we don't know yet), then that still leaves a Court that is 5-4 in support of the central holding of Roe v. Wade.

Republican_Legion

02-10-2006, 12:25 PM

Justice kennedy once voted against keeping Roe but changed his mind. His vote back then didnt matter since O'connor was voting to keep it. O'connor is gone and maybe Kennedy will vote with Alito.

ThomasIsUnderrated

02-10-2006, 12:26 PM

Yeah, but the wall will fall on you if it isn't built right.

Exactly

ThomasIsUnderrated

02-10-2006, 12:33 PM

Justice kennedy once voted against keeping Roe but changed his mind. His vote back then didnt matter since O'connor was voting to keep it. O'connor is gone and maybe Kennedy will vote with Alito.

The case you are referring to is Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yes, his vote DID matter in that case, as his vote created a majority to reaffirm Roe.

The composition of the SCOTUS at that time was different.

HomeschoolrsRUs

02-10-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Rhino
Yeah, but the wall will fall on you if it isn't built right.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Exactly

Well y'all, I can only speak for myself, and most of y'all know my stance on the issue. The only thing I can add, is perhaps the rush is due to years of frustration having to stand on the sidelines as millions of children are victims of slaughter. We've prayed, we've marched, we've held signs, organized gatherings, started petition drives, worked in the Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and done everything we could think of til we're blue in the face. The door is opened a crack, very tempting to storm the door and barrel in ... but you are right, it won't matter a hill of beans if the enemy's on the other side with a cannon facing the door.

DeclinetoState

02-10-2006, 12:34 PM

Justice kennedy once voted against keeping Roe but changed his mind. His vote back then didnt matter since O'connor was voting to keep it. O'connor is gone and maybe Kennedy will vote with Alito.All this means is that Kennedy is a swing vote.

Let's just hope a certain other Kennedy isn't a swing vote in the Senate.

ThomasIsUnderrated

02-10-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Rhino
Yeah, but the wall will fall on you if it isn't built right.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Well y'all, I can only speak for myself, and most of y'all know my stance on the issue. The only thing I can add, is perhaps the rush is due to years of frustration having to stand on the sidelines as millions of children are victims of slaughter. We've prayed, we've marched, we've held signs, organized gatherings, started petition drives, worked in the Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and done everything we could think of til we're blue in the face. The door is opened a crack, very tempting to storm the door and barrel in ... but you are right, it won't matter a hill of beans if the enemy's on the other side with a cannon facing the door.

Given the evil that is abortion-on-demand, I know it's hard to be patient, but it is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL if we want to win the war, not just the occasional battle.

DoctorDoom

02-10-2006, 12:39 PM

Folks, the SD vote is moot. The instant it becomes law, the Atheists, Communists and Liberals Union will file a lawsuit declaring it to be unconstitutional, and some judge with his head ensconced in his rectum will support the Without-A-CLU, ending the law.

Unfortunately, America is infested with soulless assholes whose mothers didn't make that "choice".

Native American

02-10-2006, 12:45 PM

Given the evil that is abortion-on-demand, I know it's hard to be patient, but it is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL if we want to win the war, not just the occasional battle.

Winning the war usually results from winning the battles. The vote in SD is another battle win. Every time a vote like that occurs, and the American People see, once again, just what a huge opposition (roughly 2-to-1) there is to abortion among the American People, and the Standard Mantra of the Pro-Abortion Left is undermined.

The New York Times and the Washington Post and The Nation can keep spinning away all they want, trying to convince people that they, the overwhelming majority who oppose abortion, are somehow "in the minority", but public votes like these show that it's the pro-abortion folk who are in the minority.

That's how these battle wins are being converted into a war victory - one step at a time. Slow, patient, and steady - that's us, the pro-life MAJORITY.

The pro-abortion Left is being routed, slowly but surely. :claps:

ThomasIsUnderrated

02-10-2006, 12:51 PM

Winning the war usually results from winning the battles. The vote in SD is another battle win.

The victory is premature and will tip off the enemy. It was a foolish move that could result in firming up support of Roe on the SCOTUS and in the minds of the people. It plays right into the hands of the pro-abortion lobby.

We were winning on the abortion issue because we were going step-by-step and being very clever about it. Now, here we are, so close to victory, and it's going to be ruined, because of some premature ejaculation by a pack of clueless legislators.

Rhino

02-10-2006, 12:56 PM

Given the evil that is abortion-on-demand, I know it's hard to be patient, but it is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL if we want to win the war, not just the occasional battle.That was the point I was trying to make, not a judgement on the merits or detriments of banning abortions. A defeat now could make it a very long time before we saw another hearing of a viable challenge.

.......a huge opposition (roughly 2-to-1) there is to abortion among the American People.....I keep hearing that, but I've seen polls that appear to disagree with it, usually because of the way the questions were crafted. Does anybody have links to this stuff? I'd like to look through some of it. I ask because my main concern is the timing of this coming up just before an election could cause far more harm than good if the public at large really doesn't support it. I'd rather see it in a non-election year.

Native American

02-10-2006, 01:01 PM

The victory is premature and will tip off the enemy. It was a foolish move that could result in firming up support of Roe on the SCOTUS and in the minds of the people.

Can you explain to us why you feel the majority of the legislators voting against abortion would "firm up support of Roe"??

Republican_Legion

02-10-2006, 01:06 PM

That was the point I was trying to make, not a judgement on the merits or detriments of banning abortions. A defeat now could make it a very long time before we saw another hearing of a viable challenge.

I keep hearing that, but I've seen polls that appear to disagree with it, usually because of the way the questions were crafted. Does anybody have links to this stuff? I'd like to look through some of it. I ask because my main concern is the timing of this coming up just before an election could cause far more harm than good if the public at large really doesn't support it. I'd rather see it in a non-election year.

Theres really no proof since polls these days are distorted with bias and every poll has alot of inaccuracy and randomness. The real way to find out the answer is thru elections.

The last Pro-Abortion presidential nomine to get almost 50% of the popular vote is Al Gore. Clinton never got close to 50%. Reagan got more then 50% in 1980 and 59% in 1984 and GHWB got over 50% as well. The last democrat to get over 50% was Pro-Life Jimmy carter who defeated Pro-Abortion Gerald Ford.

DeclinetoState

02-10-2006, 01:10 PM

Can you explain to us why you feel the majority of the legislators voting against abortion would "firm up support of Roe"??

Federal judges and SCOTUS members may be prone to having hissy fits if anyone challenges what they see as settled law, provoking those on the fence or even pro-life to vote to overturn a law like S.D.'s, thus discouraging any future attempts to challenge Roe.

Native American

02-10-2006, 01:11 PM

The real way to find out the answer is thru elections.

Exactly. And what the elections tell us is that the American People are rejecting the pro-abortion Democrat Party, are putting the pro-life Republicans in charge of the House and the Senate, are putting pro-life Republican candidates such as George Bush in the White House, and that those pro-life Republican presidents are putting conservative/strict constructionist judges on the Supreme Court!

The pro-abortion Democrat Party takes it on the chin, AGAIN!

Native American

02-10-2006, 01:15 PM

Federal judges and SCOTUS members may be prone to having hissy fits if anyone challenges what they see as settled law, provoking those on the fence or even pro-life to vote to overturn a law like S.D.'s, thus discouraging any future attempts to challenge Roe.

Well, I suppose they might, but then again, the SCOTUS members didn't seem to have a hissy fit when the issue of slavery came before them for revisiting, so I don't think there's any reason to be fearful of "hissy fits" by the justices when the issue of slaughtering blacks in the womb comes before them.

DeclinetoState

02-10-2006, 01:16 PM

N_A, assuming that abortion is the deciding factor in elections which get these people into office, you may be right. But pro-life people are more likely to vote for someone based on the abortion issue alone than are the <del>anti-lifers</del> pro-"choice" supporters, so it's hard to see if the support for Republicans and conservatives really represents a pro-life stance on the part of most Americans.

Rhino

02-10-2006, 01:32 PM

Rhino

02-10-2006, 01:36 PM

I know most Americans generally oppose partial birth abortions, abortions in the third trimester and mere convenience abortions to end an unwanted pregnancy, but not in almost every situation, like the SD law dictates, at least not from the polls I've seen. I fear pushing that stance now could have negative consequences in the election.

ThomasIsUnderrated

02-10-2006, 02:08 PM

I fear pushing that stance now could have negative consequences in the election.

Yes, and in the courts. We are so close to the finish line, let's not screw it up now. T

BTW, you are absolutely correct that survey results on abortion seem to vary greatly depending on how the questions are worded. Of course, that phenomenon isn't limited to the subject of abortion.

Republican_Legion

02-10-2006, 02:17 PM

Yes, and in the courts. We are so close to the finish line, let's not screw it up now. T

BTW, you are absolutely correct that survey results on abortion seem to vary greatly depending on how the questions are worded. Of course, that phenomenon isn't limited to the subject of abortion.

Do the Surveys ask all americans ? All registered voters ?
Whats the percentage of people they ask from rural vs urban areas ?
Whats the percentage of people they ask from Blue vs Red states.
Polls couldnt even tell us who was the next president in 04.
The polls thought John F-ing Kerry won.:whistle:

Rhino

02-10-2006, 02:27 PM

So you're saying we don't really know. My point exactly.

Republican_Legion

02-10-2006, 02:33 PM

So you're saying we don't really know. My point exactly.

Yes that is what I am saying. If Abortion were a Issue to be voted on then we might find out but still not everyone votes so it would still be hard to tell.

Heres a Article from 'American Conservative Union'.
Roe and Reagan Babies
by Hans Zeiger
The rising generation of Americans has been shaped profoundly by two events that had recent anniversaries. The first event was the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade 34 years ago. The second event was the inauguration of Ronald Reagan 25 years ago. Because of the first event, one fourth of our generation is no longer alive. Roe Babies, 45 million of them since 1973, are missing.

But there are some positive signs on the cultural horizon. In recent years, public opinion regarding abortion has continually shifted toward the pro-life position. The number of Americans calling themselves pro-choice has declined by 10 points since 1995, while the number of Americans calling themselves pro-life has increased 16 points. According to a Gallup poll, a decade ago, 56 percent of Americans considered themselves pro-choice and 33 percent said they were pro-life. Today, according to a Zogby poll, 49 percent of Americans say they are pro-life, compared to 46 percent who say they are pro-choice.12

The most important reason for this shift is the survivors of abortion. Reagan Babies, born between 1981 and 1989, number about 30 million. Reagan Babies are presently in high school, college, on the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan, and emerging in the workplace. A growing collection of evidence indicates that Reagan Babies are more conservative than our parents. This is especially evident in the issue of abortion.

First, Reagan Babies are the most pro-life group in the nation. Gallup found that the highest support for restrictions on abortion was held among eighteen-to-twenty-nine-year<WBR>-olds. According to a 2003 Gallup poll, 32 percent of thirteen-to-seventeen-year<WBR>-olds are in favor of a complete legal ban on abortion, compared to only 26 percent of adults. Teens who attend church were more likely than those who do not to support an abortion ban, at 40 percent compared to 26 percent. Seventy-two percent of teenagers consider abortion morally wrong.

A Pace University/Rock the Vote survey of new voters taken before the 2004 election revealed that 54 percent were pro-life (believing that "all abortions should be made illegal" or "abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases, such as to save the life of the mother, incest, or rape"), compared to only 44 percent who were pro-abortion. An amazing 61 percent of Latino and 59 percent of black first-time voters were pro-life. Among first-time voters, 52 percent of self-identified moderates were pro-life and 45 percent were pro-abortion.

And a 2004 Zogby poll shows that 60 percent of eighteen-to-twenty-nine-year<WBR>-olds support complete restriction of abortion or minimal exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, or incest.
http://acuf.org/issues/issue53/060206cul.asp

Rhino

02-10-2006, 02:42 PM

Yes that is what I am saying. If Abortion were a Issue to be voted on then we might find out but still not everyone votes so it would still be hard to tell.But abortion could be an issue to be voted on, if there's a backlash from this and it affects the election. We could indeed have a very pro-abortion crowd running Washington, and that would not be good.

....while the number of Americans calling themselves pro-life has increased 16 points. According to a Gallup poll, a decade ago, 56 percent of Americans considered themselves pro-choice and 33 percent said they were pro-life. Today, according to a Zogby poll, 49 percent of Americans say they are pro-life, compared to 46 percent who say they are pro-choice....Wonderful! Now what do they mean by pro-choice and pro-life? I highly doubt many of those professing to be pro-life would agree with the provisions of the SD law. Again you prove my point. It's obvious you seem to think all of these people feel as you do. I'm not that confident, and if they don't, and it affects the election, this law going to the SCOTUS soon could do far more harm than good.

Native American

02-10-2006, 02:54 PM

But abortion could be an issue to be voted on, if there's a backlash from this and it affects the election.

I think there is a backlash, which is why the pro-abortion Democrats have been stripped from power, replaced by the pro-life Republicans! And the issue has been voted on, most recently in SD, and the pro-abortion crowd suffered a drubbing, bigtime!

THAT is the backlash.

True Grace

02-10-2006, 02:55 PM

Forseti

02-10-2006, 03:04 PM

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060207/NEWS06/602070353&SearchID=73235253886388

Idaho is trying the same thing right now.

Native American

02-10-2006, 03:06 PM

Regarding the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice", I know many people who claim they are pro-life "for themselves" but they would never tell someone else not to have an abortion. :rolleyes:

So I'm not sure I trust polls where the choices are pro-life/pro-choice, because there are many dishonest people who aren't willing to come out and admit that they are pro-abortion/death/murder.

You're probably right. But that's like those same people claiming they are pro-black "for themselves" but they would never tell someone else not to lynch a negro. :rolleyes:

True Grace

02-10-2006, 03:14 PM

You're probably right. But that's like those same people claiming they are pro-black "for themselves" but they would never tell someone else not to lynch a negro. :rolleyes:

Oh, I know.

It disgusts me that they think their child is too precious to rip out of their womb in pieces, but not other women's babies. "Who cares if millions of other babies are slaughtered every year as long as mine isn't." :barf:

You should read the posts in that link posted earlier. Someone suggested an "abortion cruise"! And a few women in there were bragging about their abortions.

Native American

02-10-2006, 03:20 PM

You should read the posts in that link posted earlier. Someone suggested an "abortion cruise"! And a few women in there were bragging about their abortions.

Ugh! How sick!!! :barf:

Republican_Legion

02-10-2006, 03:31 PM

But abortion could be an issue to be voted on, if there's a backlash from this and it affects the election. We could indeed have a very pro-abortion crowd running Washington, and that would not be good.

Wonderful! Now what do they mean by pro-choice and pro-life? I highly doubt many of those professing to be pro-life would agree with the provisions of the SD law. Again you prove my point. It's obvious you seem to think all of these people feel as you do. I'm not that confident, and if they don't, and it affects the election, this law going to the SCOTUS soon could do far more harm than good.

Its gonna effect the elections in our favour.
The 2004 debates mentioned about the SCOTUS issue on possiblty of appointing new SCOTUS justices and Bush still won with his 'Culture of Life'.

People came out in flocks to vote for bush in 04. Look at the election results and you will see that in almost every category bush got an increased percentage from Catholics, Latinos, Jews, African Americans, Democrats and Republicans. If the american people were Majority pro-choice they wouldnt have let Bush win so easily. The culture of Life issues has had a tremendous effect on securing the south and midwest senate seats.

Senator Ben Nelson(D-NE) who is staunchly pro-life obviously knows that his postion on it and on other things is why he might very well keep his seat in 06. Senator Daschle was ousted for being a radical abortionist Filbustering prick stuck in the wrong state and look at what legislation his state passed. Hispanic voters nationwide are more and more realizing that the DNC wants abortion on demand.

Alot of fellow mexicans I know didnt know the Democrats are for Abortion and Gay Marriage. Alot of them just want healthcare but if you convince them of what the dems really stand for they get pissed off at the Immoral DNC.
The only pro-abortion people I know are White. The publicty the law in South Dakota will get will more then likely boost the GOPs votes from hispanics. The democrats phony religious tactic from Tim Kaine will be defeated.

If we stand around complaining that the SD law is gonna make us lose then we are defeatists who are afraid to stand up and elect another Ronald Reagan like Politican.
Ronald Reagan showed us that Conservatives can be elected.
The RNC once thought reagan to be 'too hard' to get elected.

Native American

02-10-2006, 03:49 PM

Its gonna effect the elections in our favour.
The 2004 debates mentioned about the SCOTUS issue on possiblty of appointing new SCOTUS justices and Bush still won with his 'Culture of Life'.

People came out in flocks to vote for bush in 04. Look at the election results and you will see that in almost every category bush got an increased percentage from Catholics, Latinos, Jews, African Americans, Democrats and Republicans. If the american people were Majority pro-choice they wouldnt have let Bush win so easily. The culture of Life issues has had a tremendous effect on securing the south and midwest senate seats.

Senator Ben Nelson(D-NE) who is staunchly pro-life obviously knows that his postion on it and on other things is why he might very well keep his seat in 06. Senator Daschle was ousted for being a radical abortionist Filbustering prick stuck in the wrong state and look at what legislation his state passed. Hispanic voters nationwide are more and more realizing that the DNC wants abortion on demand.

Alot of fellow mexicans I know didnt know the Democrats are for Abortion and Gay Marriage. Alot of them just want healthcare but if you convince them of what the dems really stand for they get pissed off at the Immoral DNC.
The only pro-abortion people I know are White. The publicty the law in South Dakota will get will more then likely boost the GOPs votes from hispanics. The democrats phony religious tactic from Tim Kaine will be defeated.

If we stand around complaining that the SD law is gonna make us lose then we are defeatists who are afraid to stand up and elect another Ronald Reagan like Politican.
Ronald Reagan showed us that Conservatives can be elected.
The RNC once thought reagan to be 'too hard' to get elected.

WELL SAID, Sir!!! Let the Nervous Nellies go vote Libertarian or vote Demmie if they want. They seem to regard the pro-abortion Democrats as some sort of invincible enemy, and rather than take on that enemy in the public square, they fret and worry about "But what if the Democrats get really mad at us? Maybe they will make a backlash occur against us!"

Let them go crawl under their beds and quake in their Nervous Nellie nightgowns if they want to, but that's not what I intend to do! http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/vote.gif

star2589

02-10-2006, 05:41 PM

South Dakota House passes ban on abortion, challenging court's Roe v. Wade decision
Feb 10, 2006
By Michael Foust
Baptist Press

PIERRE, S.D. (BP)--In a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the South Dakota House of Representatives easily passed a bill Feb. 9 that would ban nearly all abortions in the state.

The bill passed by a vote of 47-22 and now goes to the state Senate, where a vote is expected to be tight. Ten of the Senate's 35 members are sponsors. It is not known whether Gov. Mike Rounds, a pro-life Republican, would sign it.

Supporters of the bill -- which has an exception for the mother's life -- hope it leads to the overturning of Roe, the infamous decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Opponents of the bill tried unsuccessfully Feb. 9 to add an amendment making an exception for rape and incest.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22627

Beowulf

02-10-2006, 08:52 PM

And with a Conservative SCOTUS, this may stick.

USPatriot8320

02-10-2006, 08:54 PM

It's still 5-4 I believe

Teenager

02-10-2006, 09:30 PM

I got to this thread late, but Kentucky is on the way to passing a similiar bill.

Link (http://news.communitypress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060209/EDIT/602090454/1076/Local)
Link 2 (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/politics/13836287.htm)

USPatriot8320

02-10-2006, 09:31 PM

Something like this will never happen in NY... NYC decides NY policy

Teenager

02-10-2006, 09:39 PM

You should read the posts in that link posted earlier. Someone suggested an "abortion cruise"! And a few women in there were bragging about their abortions.

This is the comment of a woman who made the following, reviling, disgusting argument on another forum:

So. Here's a riddle for you.

Question: If a zygote is a "child", and a ****ing rapist is a "father", what does that make a rape victim?

Answer: Livestock.

Hope I never get raped in South Dakota, because if anyone ever forced me to gestate and birth a rapist's sickening devil-spawn, you know what I'd do? I'd hunt the rapist down, put a gun to his head, and make him eat that mother****ing thing alive.
After which, I'd strangle him slowly to death with the umbilical cord (which I'd save, for that specific purpose).
Maybe Rep. Keri Weems, stay-at-home mama extraordinaire, ought to put that in her [profanity deleted] and smoke it.

USPatriot8320

02-10-2006, 09:39 PM

Wow thats incredible.... I have yet to formalize my position on abortion... But I'm liking S.D's idea... Unless the womens life is in danger then no...

Teenager

02-10-2006, 09:44 PM

Wow thats incredible.... I have yet to formalize my position on abortion... But I'm liking S.D's idea... Unless the womens life is in danger then no...

That's definately my position. Although I'd probably support abortion in cases of rape too...ok, don't bash me yet, cuz I'm still undecided on that aspect.

USPatriot8320

02-10-2006, 09:45 PM

Rape, Incest, or fear of losing ones life...

DeclinetoState

02-10-2006, 09:47 PM

If we can abort an innocent fetus created during a rape, can we also sentence the guilty rapist to death?

USPatriot8320

02-10-2006, 09:49 PM

If we can abort an innocent fetus created during a rape, can we also sentence the guilty rapist to death?

Yes. and I think we should... Those animals can NOT be rehabilitated...

aaron11

02-10-2006, 10:34 PM

Rape, Incest, or fear of losing ones life...

If both parties (Mother & Unborn Child) are innocent, how are we to choose who lives and who dies and why must a rape result in the death of an innocent? I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I find your logic hard to follow. Either the Unborn Child has the right to live or it doesn't. I could support the morning after pill, which in case of rapes could be prescribed by the the Doctor immediately after doing the "Rape kit" for the police report and affectively stop the process of Life before it begins.
In "Life or death cases" who is going to determine which Life is more important, the mothers or the child's? I would give my life so that my Son could live in a heart beat.

USPatriot8320

02-10-2006, 10:35 PM

Don't know what to tell ya... I believe what I believe... When my mother was pregnant for me... The doctors were pretty sure that my birth might end her life.. She went through it anyways. But my belief is if the mother may die she has the right to choose what she wants..

aaron11

02-10-2006, 10:41 PM

I could understand it as an emotion, but not a right. The thought that any parent could choose their own life over that of their child is depressing.

USPatriot8320

02-10-2006, 10:43 PM

I could understand it as an emotion, but not a right. The thought that any parent could choose their own life over that of their child is depressing.

It is... But there are many factors involved... What if the mother has young children already? A family to support? Situations like that...

aaron11

02-10-2006, 10:56 PM

It is... But there are many factors involved... What if the mother has young children already? A family support? Situations like that...

Ah yes, the almighty "grey area" strikes again. Well, your still putting a higher emphasis on one Life over another and your forgetting that "uncertainties" work both ways. In other words the Doctors have no way of knowing with absolute certainty that the Birth will kill the mother, conversely, the Child will die, absolutely.

Their are alternative medical procedures that all but eliminate the "life or death" abortion argument. As far as I'm concerned the over all negative affects of abortion as a policy and as a right out weigh any alleged need for it in terms of medical procedures.

USPatriot8320

02-10-2006, 10:58 PM

Warlady

02-10-2006, 10:59 PM

What's the point of doing this when there are at least five votes in favor of Roe on the SCOTUS?

Are you sure about that Thomas? If I recall correctly it was Sandra Day O'Connor that was the swing vote the last time Roe came to the SCOTUS and she voted with the libs. Now she has been replaced by Alito who is admittedly pro-life. Why are you so sure there are five votes in favor of Roe now? I think if it comes back to them now it may be returned to the states which means ultimately to the people. NA is correct that a huge majority of Americans are against abortion especially unregulated abortion or abortion as a means of birth control and most especially partial birth abortion which over 70% of Americans are in favor of that ban.

USPatriot8320

02-10-2006, 11:01 PM

Are you sure about that Thomas? If I recall correctly it was Sandra Day O'Connor that was the swing vote the last time Roe came to the SCOTUS and she was replaced by Alito who is admittedly pro-life. Why are you so sure there are five votes in favor of Roe now? I think if it comes back to them now it may be returned to the states.

You are right WL. Before Alito it was 5-4 now it's 4-5... It will be returned to the states...

aaron11

02-10-2006, 11:10 PM

Having a medical procedure available is much better than women using coat hangers, throwing themselves down the stairs, abusing drugs or alcohol, ect...

Now you have given into emotionalism completely. The coat hanger argument is absurd, do you even know that their have only been a few such cases? Some of which occurred while abortion was/is legal and even free? Regardless of our laws their will always be stupid, illogical, self destructive people, should we allow them to decide our cultural direction? IE, drug addicts kill themselves and do crazy stuff all the time, should we allow them access or the right to drugs?

I know it's a tough issue, that's part of being in the grown up world. Like you, I used to be wishy washy when it came to opinions that affected other people, until I became a parent and then I realized that that is what life is all about, responsibility.

USPatriot8320

02-10-2006, 11:13 PM

Now you have given into emotionalism completely. The coat hanger argument is absurd, do you even know that their have only been a few such cases? Some of which occurred while abortion was/is legal and even free? Regardless of our laws their will always be stupid, illogical, self destructive people, should we allow them to decide our cultural direction? IE, drug addicts kill themselves and do crazy stuff all the time, should we allow them access or the right to drugs?

I know it's a tough issue, that's part of being in the grown up world. Like you, I used to be wishy washy when it came to opinions that affected other people, until I became a parent and then I realized that that is what life is all about, responsibility.

It's understandable.. I'm still finding my footing in this world... Now like I said my mother wasn't suppose to have children.. She had me and then my little sister, she's 6 now.. It almost killed her but never once did abortion cross her mind... I'm very grateful to have that little darling in my life...

Antigone

02-10-2006, 11:16 PM

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060207/NEWS06/602070353&SearchID=73235253886388

Idaho is trying the same thing right now.

What does a gay marriage amendment to ban gay marriage have to do with the abortion ban in SD??

ThomasIsUnderrated

02-11-2006, 02:13 AM

Are you sure about that Thomas? If I recall correctly it was Sandra Day O'Connor that was the swing vote the last time Roe came to the SCOTUS and she voted with the libs. Now she has been replaced by Alito who is admittedly pro-life. Why are you so sure there are five votes in favor of Roe now? .

Yes, I am 100% sure of that.

Voting in favor of Roe in CASEY, the case that reaffirmed Roe:

Stevens, Souter, Blackmun, KENNEDY, and O'Connor

Voting against Roe in CASEY:

Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, and White

Now, as I said earlier in this thread, Breyer replaced Blackmun, so there is no change there. Ginsburg replaced White, so that ADDED a vote in favor, and thus the Court stood 6-3 in support of Roe before the latest appointments.

Now, Roberts replaced Rehnquist, so even if he votes to overrule Roe, that's not a net change. Alito replacing O'Connor is, but that still makes it a 5-4 decision in support of Roe.

O'Connor's retirement only changes things when it comes to late term abortions , because Kennedy joined the conservatives on that issue when it came to the Court in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart. The South Dakota law bans way more than that and has no chance of being upheld by the SCOTUS as it is currently comprised. Now is not the time to challenge Roe for the simple reason that we don't have the votes on the SCOTUS. Challenging Stenberg v. Carhart, on the other hand, is a definite possibility, and there's already several cases in the works in the lower courts that could be used to do just that.

ThomasIsUnderrated

02-11-2006, 02:16 AM

You are right WL. Before Alito it was 5-4 now it's 4-5... It will be returned to the states...

No, before Alito and Roberts it was 6-3. (As thoroughly explained in my reply to WL.) Assuming that Alito and Roberts both vote to overrule Roe that still leaves a 5-4 majority in favor of Roe simply because Roberts replaced Rehnquist (an anti-Roe) and Alito replaced O'Connor (a pro-Roe) creating a net change of one.

True Grace

02-11-2006, 07:16 AM

If we can abort an innocent fetus created during a rape, can we also sentence the guilty rapist to death?

Not if you're a liberal.

True Grace

02-11-2006, 07:18 AM

So. Here's a riddle for you.

Question: If a zygote is a "child", and a ****ing rapist is a "father", what does that make a rape victim?

Answer: Livestock.

Hope I never get raped in South Dakota, because if anyone ever forced me to gestate and birth a rapist's sickening devil-spawn, you know what I'd do? I'd hunt the rapist down, put a gun to his head, and make him eat that mother****ing thing alive.
After which, I'd strangle him slowly to death with the umbilical cord (which I'd save, for that specific purpose).
Maybe Rep. Keri Weems, stay-at-home mama extraordinaire, ought to put that in her [profanity deleted] and smoke it.

That has to be one of the most disgusting things I have ever read.

Republican_Legion

02-11-2006, 10:59 AM

Wow thats incredible.... I have yet to formalize my position on abortion... But I'm liking S.D's idea... Unless the womens life is in danger then no...

Supporters of the bill -- which has an exception for the mother's life

It does have an exception in the bill.:grin:

Longhorn_Platinum

02-11-2006, 11:13 AM

aaron11:
I could support the morning after pill, which in case of rapes could be prescribed by the the Doctor immediately after doing the "Rape kit" for the police report and affectively stop the process of Life before it begins.

:unsmile: Right now, the Mrs. wants me to take her somewhere, so I can't answer that definitively. But, it's my understanding that the morning after pill is more complicated than popping an aspirin, & must be done under a physician's supervision, & requires a follow up visit. And it doesn't stop conception, it ends an already started pregnancy.

:unsmile: As for abortion in case of rape, I'm opposed. Not only should we not punish the baby for its "father's" crime, but what's to stop a woman from claiming she was raped, just so she can have an abortion, even though it will send a former lover to prison? I know it's not exactly the same situation, does anyone remember Gary Dotson? It's not like women are incapable of making a false claim of rape, & letting an innocent man go to jail.

aaron11

02-11-2006, 11:32 AM

:unsmile: Right now, the Mrs. wants me to take her somewhere, so I can't answer that definitively. But, it's my understanding that the morning after pill is more complicated than popping an aspirin, & must be done under a physician's supervision, & requires a follow up visit. And it doesn't stop conception, it ends an already started pregnancy.

I didn't know, obviously. If in fact that is the case then I couldn't support it. I'm apposed to any form of abortion/murder after conception and find it hard to understand the logic of many that believe they can simply apply a subjective time frame of when life "begins". There is only one starting point for life, at conception. Anyone that argues that simply logic is doing so out of blind ignorance, selfishness or more sadistic purposes, IMHO.

:unsmile: As for abortion in case of rape, I'm opposed. Not only should we not punish the baby for its "father's" crime, but what's to stop a woman from claiming she was raped, just so she can have an abortion, even though it will send a former lover to prison?
No argument from me.

Native American

02-12-2006, 07:04 PM

And again you got me.. I can't really explain why I feel the way I do on this... I just don't believe it should be outlawed all together.. Having a medical procedure available is much better than women using coat hangers, throwing themselves down the stairs, abusing drugs or alcohol, ect...

Just wondering - how many women do you know who have tried to kill their husband's unborn innocent child by "throwing themselves down the stairs"?

Hell, maybe, in the final analysis, it's "better" to allow the occasional negro to be dragged, in chains, to his or her death in back of a pickup truck, rather than allowing them to live a life in which he or she later kills himself or herself via the abuse of drugs or alcohol. Looking at it that way, the KKK members who hook that negro to the back of their pickup truck are really doing that "innocent" negro guy or gal a favor?

Or so goes the moral analysis of today's Liberals.....

The Hard Truth

02-14-2006, 07:43 PM

And again you got me.. I can't really explain why I feel the way I do on this... I just don't believe it should be outlawed all together.. Having a medical procedure available is much better than women using coat hangers, throwing themselves down the stairs, abusing drugs or alcohol, ect...

Emotional instability doesn't trump the life of the baby.

Ever heard of adoption agencies? If they don't want the baby, put it up for adoption. They have no "right" to kill it.

There are even pro-life organizations and religious groups that will pay their hospital bill for them. So the old "I can't afford the hospital bill associated with giving birth" excuse is totally bogus.

I don't know of any pro-murder organizations that offer to pay for abortions out of their own private money. But they sure are big on making the taxpayer foot the bill.