confronting Roe signed into law.

[Justin_stacy]

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Bill to kill 'Roe'
signed into law
Abortion ban by South Dakota
touches off fierce legal battle

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds today signed into law a highly restrictive anti-abortion bill aimed ultimately at overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

The legislation, passed last month by state lawmakers, bans abortion in nearly every case and punishes doctors who perform one with a $5,000 fine and five years in prison
The bill allows abortion only in the event a mother's life is in danger, making no exception for rape or incest.

South Dakota Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's sole abortion clinic, has said it will challenge the law.

Rounds said in a written statement he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not be enacted unless upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," Rounds said. "The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."

Prior to the signing, an anonymous donor pledged $1 million to help the state defend the new statute.

Last week, Rounds was in Washington for a National Governors Association meeting where he found more pledges of donations and the support of some of his colleagues across the nation.

"There is a lot of interest in it here," Rounds said, according to the Associated Press. "And there are a number of states that have similar legislation. A lot of governors expressing support and wishing us good luck and suggesting that they will have similar types of proposals that may very well be favorably looked upon across the United States."

State lawmakers in Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi and Indiana also are considering legislation that would heavily restrict abortions.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49131
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Abortion_Rights_Debate

[selftitled85]

its funny because roe v wade will soon enough be challenged for the fact that the roe already said that people put her up to going to court. she has many times lamented the fact that she had the abortion and believes in anti-abortion.

[Love As Arson]

its funny because roe v wade will soon enough be challenged for the fact that the roe already said that people put her up to going to court. she has many times lamented the fact that she had the abortion and believes in anti-abortion.
Her opinion is irrelevant and I do not believe that these laws will be upheld.

[badnewsherald]

I'm from south dakota and am quite ashamed. at least my stock in coat hangers went up

[hobbes2809]

I am especially sickened that abortions by rape or incest will still be considered criminal under the SD law.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Now we will see the results of illegal abortions similar to those performed in Africa in the worlds most prosperus nation. Ironic.

[commatosa]

this is an awesome bill. this means that if a 50 year old guy never had kids and really wants one, he can just rape a 12 year old girl and he gets one. Woohoo!! Way to go SD. you guys sure passed an important bill.

[Justin_stacy]

Her opinion is irrelevant and I do not believe that these laws will be upheld.
I agree with both......but as for the South Dakota law i don't think anyone believed it would be upheld (in its current form), the intentions were to confront the horrible RVW ruling and make the court either reaffirm it or correct it. Which can't be done unless the ruling is confronted head on without exceptions (incest or rape).

[Love As Arson]

I agree with both
This is a first. Ha.

[we are cured]

I am especially sickened that abortions by rape or incest will still be considered be criminal under the SD law.

somebody enlighten me- are rape and incest illegal in south dakota? i know it has little argumentative bearing on this law, but it just seems interesting to say 'oh you cant rape that girl, but if you impregnate her, you're gonna be a daddy!'

[commatosa]

somebody enlighten me- are rape and incest illegal in south dakota? i know it has little argumentative bearing on this law, but it just seems interesting to say 'oh you cant rape that girl, but if you impregnate her, you're gonna be a daddy!'

it's a perfect example of the amount of thinking that goes into politics when religion dictates your decisions.

[Justin_stacy]

it's a perfect example of the amount of thinking that goes into politics when religion dictates your decisions.

not really one to talk there are you?

And what the hell does religion have to do with this?

[Cal Smith]

not really one to talk there are you?

And what the hell does religion have to do with this?

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

[we are cured]

i dont know how religious they are up in south dakota. in fact the only thing i knew about south dakota was mount rushmore and the badlands (or is that north?).

i just watched a great movie for class called inherit the wind, i don't know if any of you are familiar with it. it was all about the monkey trial in a ficticious community that was highly religious. in my opinion organized religion can tend to obscure independent thought (not always, though)- you are told what to believe, what to chant, etc. again i dont know how much this has to do with this south dakota nonsense, but i thought i'd throw that out there.

[charly horse]

This just shows everyone how males dominate society. It angers me a great bit to know that people are willing to restrict what other people are doing to their bodies. Men don't have to deal with giving birth, it shouldn't be their desicion. It should only be the decision of the mother and her doctor. What some other woman is doing to her body does not affect anyone else. When abortions occur the "child" isn't even a child yet, it's still a fetus. There are great differences. This is an extremely difficult topic to discuss though, it has so many different points circumstances. Its difficult to just take once stance on this. For the most part I greatly disagree with this bill and I'm very disstatisfied.

[ambiotic]

What doesn’t religion have to do with this law being passed is there some economic value in robbing a women's right to choose???? Here is an interesting fact for you all since dubaya has been in office abortions are on the rise! This is simple math Sex Ed that doesn’t provide education on contraception = more abortions. No one thinks abortions are a good thing I just would hate to live in a country that is so draconian to outlaw it right out. Perhaps we should leave the way we go about unwanted conceptions within the family, and perhaps the pro-life folks can let those who differ in there opinion go about treating there body as they see fit? Keep your rosaries off her ovaries... Also to those that think RvW was a horribly written bill perhaps you should understand that the high courts take that precident and build off it .. See partial birth abortions and basicly any case against planned parenthood in the last 20 years. We set precident and build off it, but I bet you didnt hear that in the super churches.

[Justin_stacy]

i dont know how religious they are up in south dakota. in fact the only thing i knew about south dakota was mount rushmore and the badlands (or is that north?).]..

How religious the state is, is pointless in the matter....Morality shouldn't be a concept limited to just those that believe in a higher being.

As for abortion and the state of South Dakota Ramussen found that as of March 7, 2006--
South Dakota voters are evenly divided on the issue--45% support the ban the governor just signed, and another 45% oppose it.

Forty-four percent (44% [71% nationally]) say it is too easy for a woman to get an abortion in South Dakota. Twenty-five percent (25%) say that it's too hard while 19% say that the balance is "about right."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/February%202006/South%20Dakota%20February.htm

and yes Rushmore is in South Dakota!

in my opinion organized religion can tend to obscure independent thought (not always, though)- you are told what to believe, what to chant, etc..

I'd say the same thing can be said about academia.....

[open mind]

whether it's made illegal or not (under the supreme court) it's still going to happen, it's just a matter of the one life dying or the risk of two people dieing, which is why i'm not a crazy anti-abortion kind of guy.........really people making it illegal just opens up a whole new criminal market and puts average citizens in the category of criminals while putting their life in jeopardy, i don't like the practice of abortion at all really, but making something illegal never stops an activity (see the war on drugs)

[commatosa]

not really one to talk there are you?

And what the hell does religion have to do with this?

um...I've never let religion dictate my decisions....and what does religion have to do with this? What would drive someone to be so oblivious to common sense? what else could it be in this case? morality my ass. my morals tell me that a girl who got raped 2 months after having her period shouldn't be subjected to having to bare that child and consume her life shortly after her innocence was taken away from her. she should AT LEAST be given the option of aborting that child. hey if she wants to keep, she can, but south dakota shouldn't have a say on that. anyway, these idiot state congressman are only doing this to blockade abortion rights. and usually that comes from religion.

[selftitled85]

This just shows everyone how males dominate society. It angers me a great bit to know that people are willing to restrict what other people are doing to their bodies. Men don't have to deal with giving birth, it shouldn't be their desicion. It should only be the decision of the mother and her doctor. What some other woman is doing to her body does not affect anyone else. When abortions occur the "child" isn't even a child yet, it's still a fetus. There are great differences. This is an extremely difficult topic to discuss though, it has so many different points circumstances. Its difficult to just take once stance on this. For the most part I greatly disagree with this bill and I'm very disstatisfied.


no this is wrong. you see i could agree with maybe giving abortions up to the first trimester. but after that time that fetus starts to resemble human and you can see it moving and blinking its eyes. it is alive and it should have the rights of a human.

but i do agree they should allow it for incest or rape.

and dont even get me started on partial birth abortions...

[Justin_stacy]

Its about time you grew some balls and responded.

um...I've never let religion dictate my decisions.... .

Let’s take this slowly….now. Reread the comment carefully. Notice anything(?), like maybe some highlights.

Here let me help. It's a perfect example of the amount of thinking that goes into politics when religion dictates your decisions.

Or….Amount of thinking that dictates YOUR decisions.

Point is you’re a puppet and you have little right to comment on anyone elses decision making process, when your own is such a joke.

morality my ass. my morals tell me that a girl who got raped 2 months after having her period shouldn't be subjected to having to bare that child and consume her life shortly after her innocence was taken away from her. she should AT LEAST be given the option of aborting that child. hey if she wants to keep, she can, but south dakota shouldn't have a say on that. anyway, these idiot state congressman are only doing this to blockade abortion rights. and usually that comes from religion.

Morality your ass is fine, but that is the crux of the decision, not religion. See we’ve been over this before morality, humanity, compassion are not traits solely aligned to religious believers, and since those are the root of the opposition, this is not a question of religion.

As for South Dakota’s ruling, I’ll explain it to you so you can understand. What South Dakota, and 7 other states, are trying to do with this law is make the current Supreme Court take another look at the unconstitutional ruling its predecessors found in Roe v. Wade. Either making them reaffirm this poor ruling or strike it down, and return it back to the states where it belongs. To do this they must confront the ruling by passing a law that runs against it. But it doesn’t stop their, because any appellate judge could through the law out before it even reaches the Supreme Court, so what the Legislature must do is not only confront the ruling but also make the new law different or “controversial” enough to have the Supreme Court be willing to hear it, which they don’t have to do. So that is why the South Dakota Legislators, smartly, added in the no exceptions for incest and rape clause. This way they are guaranteeing themselves an audience with the Supreme Court. Get it?

And because I know you don’t stay up on current news, some of the legislatures in said state have already said that if they do succeed in their courageous battle to bring down Roe v. Wade they will reinstate abortions for rape and incest and even allow the citizen of the state to vote on the level(s) of abortion that are to be allowed within the boundaries of South Dakota.

[Love As Arson]

no this is wrong. you see i could agree with maybe giving abortions up to the first trimester. but after that time that fetus starts to resemble human and you can see it moving and blinking its eyes. it is alive and it should have the rights of a human.

but i do agree they should allow it for incest or rape.

and dont even get me started on partial birth abortions...
Appearance should not be the crux of your argument.

[selftitled85]

Appearance should not be the crux of your argument.

it isnt...but you can notice movement as well as see the heart beating. this should show that the fetus is alive.

[emoishardcore]

its funny because roe v wade will soon enough be challenged for the fact that the roe already said that people put her up to going to court. she has many times lamented the fact that she had the abortion and believes in anti-abortion.

yeah the women....i think her name was McCarren or something, alraedy admitted taht shes pro-life several times.....t me the whole things a mute point. people are even really concerned about pro choice or pro life. tahts not even the arguement. its a semantics battle ebtween when we should consider a fetus a human being. without this undersanding, we cannot entitle it to any rights and then weigh those rights of the fetus to the mother. right now, i dont think we can fully make such a decision, so i don't undersand how we can overturn this.

more importantly DONT MESS WITH TEXAS!

and by that i mean, bush needs find another line of work...like reality tv host or something

[emoishardcore]

What doesn’t religion have to do with this law being passed is there some economic value in robbing a women's right to choose???? Here is an interesting fact for you all since dubaya has been in office abortions are on the rise! This is simple math Sex Ed that doesn’t provide education on contraception = more abortions. No one thinks abortions are a good thing I just would hate to live in a country that is so draconian to outlaw it right out. Perhaps we should leave the way we go about unwanted conceptions within the family, and perhaps the pro-life folks can let those who differ in there opinion go about treating there body as they see fit? Keep your rosaries off her ovaries... Also to those that think RvW was a horribly written bill perhaps you should understand that the high courts take that precident and build off it .. See partial birth abortions and basicly any case against planned parenthood in the last 20 years. We set precident and build off it, but I bet you didnt hear that in the super churches.

i think i agree with you....not sure if i followed all of it.

but a slgiht add on is taht since abortions have been more widely available since the mid 80's....juvenille delinquency has been falling at a somewhat steady rate. not saing this changes anything but ust thought id throw it out there

[Jarrodtexas]

....Morality shouldn't be a concept limited to just those that believe in a higher being....



If you don't base morality on the belief of a higher being, then by what standard do you guage morality.

[A picasso blue]

I've heard someone say thaRoe is not a hero for feminism. she is hypocrite and a coward for allowing the very thing she was fighting to win her over.

i'm done ranting for now

[Justin_stacy]

....Morality shouldn't be a concept limited to just those that believe in a higher being....



If you don't base morality on the belief of a higher being, then by what standard do you guage morality.

So without a belief in a higher being an individual can have no concept of right and wrong, good or bad? So you personally, without the help of a "god," wouldn't be able to conclude that hurting the helpless is wrong? That stealing is bad? That murder is inhuman?

Do you know what morality means? It doesn't just pertain to religious beliefs, but an understanding of what is good and bad conduct.

[Jarrodtexas]

Yes but you need some absolute standard to define good or bad..If there is none, then the guage of morality becomes subjective. I can say that what I consider right for me is wrong for you and that is obviously untrue. For some reason we all seem to adhere the same standards of right and wrong.

IN a sentence, without an absolute standard then we are in a world of moral relativity. And to me, that is ridiculous. It would spawn chaos.

Morals only exist because something had to set the standard. Otherwise how would anyone know what good and bad are.

Your argument is not thought out, if I have no explained myself in a way you can understand, read the first chapter of Mere Christianity, by cs lewis. He is much more eloquent than I.

[Jarrodtexas]

Yes but you need some absolute standard to define good or bad..If there is none, then the guage of morality becomes subjective. I can say that what I consider right for me is wrong for you and that is obviously untrue. For some reason we all seem to adhere the same standards of right and wrong.

IN a sentence, without an absolute standard then we are in a world of moral relativity. And to me, that is ridiculous. It would spawn chaos.

Morals only exist because something had to set the standard. Otherwise how would anyone know what good and bad are.

Your argument is not thought out, if I have no explained myself in a way you can understand, read the first chapter of Mere Christianity, by cs lewis. He is much more eloquent than I.

[Justin_stacy]

Your argument is not thought out, if I have no explained myself in a way you can understand, read the first chapter of Mere Christianity, by cs lewis. He is much more eloquent than I.

It's like living in a box. When you are limited in what you've seen or "heard" then it is justifiable for there to be only one solution to every problem. But the fact is the world doesn't always work that way. People who do not possess a religious inkling, like you, are not inherently amoral. The fear of a higher being or his words does not drive everyone to act, but yet these people can still understand the difference between right and wrong.

It is a failing of self described religious individuals to think they have the market cornered on morality, particularly when their book or higher being can’t be proven to be anything other then the creation of mere humans.

Again morality does not have to be defined by religion.

[Love As Arson]

it isnt...but you can notice movement as well as see the heart beating. this should show that the fetus is alive.
Bodily functions do not consitute life.

[cal1082]

Bodily functions do not consitute life.

You once described to me that you would describe life as happening once the child is out of the womb. I don't understand how you can argue the above, but in your own terms use a marker like the child being out of the womb to declare human life. Comparing what you're saying above and comparing what you've argued in the past on the same topic is comical.

Double standard deluxe

[Love As Arson]

You once described to me that you would describe life as happening once the child is out of the womb. I don't understand how you can argue the above, but in your own terms use a marker like the child being out of the womb to declare human life. Comparing what you're saying above and comparing what you've argued in the past on the same topic is comical.
You simply don't understand my argument, then.

[cal1082]

You simply don't understand my argument, then.

Please explain.............

Let me show you what I'm referring to.

"Bodily functions do not consitute life."
"Appearance should not be the crux of your argument."

Your argument above is quite clear. You don't believe we can judge that a fetus is a human just because of how it looks, and it's bodily functions.

Now this is what you had argued before.

"Life begins at birth. At least, that is the best dividing line between human life, as in me, and a fetus."
Life begins at birth. At least, that is the best dividing line between human life, as in me, and a fetus.

I'm not arguing your defenition of life here, because I dont care and have said before I think you views on being willing and accepting to kill a baby minutes from its birth is disgusting.

My point here is how can you sit on you high chair and dictate what is life? How can you tell someone without a doubt that you're right in your defenition of 'life' and their without a doubt wrong in their defenition of 'life'?

[mikeford]

its funny because roe v wade will soon enough be challenged for the fact that the roe already said that people put her up to going to court. she has many times lamented the fact that she had the abortion and believes in anti-abortion.

too bad Jane Roe isn't a real person and Roe v. Wade is more of an advisory decision than a real case of Party X v. Party Z

[emoishardcore]

I've heard someone say thaRoe is not a hero for feminism. she is hypocrite and a coward for allowing the very thing she was fighting to win her over.

i'm done ranting for now

it was believed that she was cohersed at the time of the whole trial and has now since recanted since becomming more religous and other nonsensical crap. presonally i dont care what people think, so long as religion is not part of the equation.