News – Abortion opponents in South Dakota filed petitions this week that are likely to put an initiative on November's ballot calling for a near-ban on abortion, renewing a contentious fight over a similar proposal in 2006.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
richus9money
dexlovex2
alamala
WhitneyHolder
ShaunPeterson
mesodude
daducha
GregD
lawrencee
newsarefree
MidnightPrism
Belii
avpd85
jaredcwhite
spkguy
Pupi
joelos
Goppy
Emmanuel70
libsRfunny
Aidenag
Mdiar
msaleem
AtheismIsReality
Reyeschild
OnionHead
cosmogenium
Wolfie2007
saltyveruca
dadesider
puffin
Tangent001
ThackerAgency
shead
kibasilasa
satansatan
GHOSTWHOWALKS
jordan11
tomboy501
IceTi
TheRealizer
Will1313
MyWayOnNow
Bkumm
sue2008
Lifeoflava
hurr1
Neophile
LudoTony
271)
Leslee Unruh is the executive director of the group that put this initiative on the ballot. In the article, she says, "My job is to protect the women of South Dakota."
By what measure is restricting women's rights, as defined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, protecting the women of South Dakota?
Anti-abortion and anti-birth control measures have never been designed to protect women. They are designed to keep women barefoot and pregnant so they can't get all high-minded and get into "man" things like business and politics.
That's why I asked the question. Unruh could have made many other statements to defend her position (not that I would have agreed with any of them), but she chose to say her job is to protect women.
I wish the reporter had followed up and asked how she thought her ballot initiative protects women.
An exercise in futility. Roe vs. Wade already set a broad groundwork about restricting abortion. In this case the rights of individuals definitely trumps the rights of religious zealots, as is best.
Put new clinics on federal land, take the state right out of these matters.
"Put new clinics on federal land, take the state right out of these matters."
The federal government will never step up. Interestingly, though, two different Indian reservations in SD have said they will assist in opening womens' health clinics on reservation land offering abortion services if this measure passes. How interesting that the very people the feds are responsible for decimating, abusing and outright murdering are stepping in to preserve womens' healthcare rights.
The federal government will never step up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Correction, "The Federal Government well never step up, for US citizens." The US Government has REPEATEDLY set-up, funded and performed abortions in third world country. They just won't do it on US soil (which includes military bases overseas).
Let's not forget the abortions we perform daily by our mere presence in Iraq.
Stop it!! Wrong story. Stay on subject!!
We're talking about baby killing, right?
Yes abortion, not Iraq!!
Because for some reason baby-killing in Iraq is patriotic while supporting abortion in the US is murder? Strange standards.
so your admitting that abortion is baby killing??
I'm admitting that whatever it is, I don't see how they're different.
you avoided the question
So if the baby is in Iraq, the abortion doesn't count?
Meso, even you should know the difference here.
I for one NOT talking about Iraq. I do refer to the 'clinics' in Central America, Africa and even Eastern Europe that have been set-up, funded and administered by the US to reduce populations and increase HIV/AIDS in some areas.
That should have said increaseD HIV/AIDS in some areas.
I did not mean to imply that the US was helping to spread HIV/AIDS.
My apology.
"Put new clinics on federal land, take the state right out of these matters."
My, how very "Stalinist" of you.
Riiight.
And how very Hilterist of you.
Beau 7890
Before you jump down my throat. I do believe women should be allowed to have an abortion,(with limits).
What some people confuse is rights and laws. You have the right to : free speech, press, to bear arms, speedy trial etc. But it is the law that allows you to drive 55, buy beer, get a driver's license, get married, etc.
You don't have the right to an abortion, show me the Amendment in the Constitution. You can have an abortion stated by law. Which in some cases overrode state law. That is the problem. Give the states there due. Push it back to the state, let them pick what they want and don't want. That was the purpose of the govt. in the first place. Strong state govt., weak federal govt. SO, the federal govt . can not impose laws the state does not support. Or become a dictatorial form of govt.
Ahem. You are backwards here I'm afraid. The Constitution does not GIVE rights. You ALREADY HAVE every right you care to claim. What the Constitution does is GUARANTEE certain of those rights, while remaining somewhat mute on others. But one should remember that what OUR Constitution does is GRANT certain rights and powers to the federal government, while retaining ALL OTHERS for the states or the people. Please refer to the 10th Amendment. This means: the law does not ALLOW you to drive 55 - it only PREVENTS you from driving faster. You already have the RIGHT to buy beer, but STATES regulate how old you must be. The crap about it being a "privilege" to drive is just that: crap. You have a RIGHT to operate a vehicle, except as restricted by the STATE.
Same reasoning applies to abortion. A woman has a RIGHT to do as she wishes with her own body -- except as restricted by the state. The Supreme Court has already ruled thusly, except that women are PREVENTED from the casual termination of a pregnancy after the first trimester. Any state laws contradicting the Supreme Court will eventually (sooner than later), we presume, be struck down as has previously been the case.
Show me the right by an Amendment in the Constitution. She has it by law. The right was never guaranteed in the Constitution. It should be an issue for the state.
As a father, I don't agree with allowing minor girls to have an abortion without parental consent. That is major surgery that could kill her. And I am not being advised of it. She can't go to the dentist without me being there. And I had to sign a notice to have my cat's manhood removed. And people want to allow minors to have this done without parents knowledge.(Some states do already) Not no but h*ll no!!
Again, make it a state vote, each state makes up there own rules to govern the issue.
"As a father, I don't agree with allowing minor girls to have an abortion without parental consent. That is major surgery that could kill her. And I am not being advised of it. She can't go to the dentist without me being there. And I had to sign a notice to have my cat's manhood removed. And people want to allow minors to have this done without parents knowledge.(Some states do already) Not no but h*ll no!! "
Thank God your daughter can do it without parental consent. It sounds like you'd abuse her in some way if she came to you with this problem.
What type of a person are you? Are you saying that you would rather see my daughters die from a botched abortion because I was not notified, when I could of helped! You are sick!!
I suspect that rather, the point is that since it IS legal, any young woman desiring an abortion - whether parents are appraised or not - has a MUCH better chance of a good outcome that if it were illegal and the same woman was thereby forced to seek the procedure from someone NOT medically qualified.
It is a medical procedure!! That can have its complications!! Don't you get it!!
"It is a medical procedure!! That can have its complications!! Don't you get it!!"
Maybe you should calm down and ask yourself why your daughter would prefer to consult a complete stranger rather than you regarding her medical and reproductive concerns.
Yes - of course -I- get it. There is always a risk. There is ALSO a risk involved in childbirth. The really, really bad risk is in having a D&C performed with a coat hanger by someone not really qualified to do it.
So... which would you rather: A) your daughter goes to a medical clinic without you knowing about it and takes care of her problem in the safest possible environment or B) instead of getting the parental consent the state requires and suffering the humiliation and confrontation with the parents, she goes to a back alley abortionist and dies from an infection?
Presumably YOU have provided your daughters with confidence in your caring supervision so that they WOULD come to you with this, and a thorough knowledge of biology so that this does NOT ever become an issue. In some households this might not be the case.
The real problem here is that legal juveniles are actually reproductive adults. Marriage between the ages of 13 and 16 used to be the norm in human society. Now we are neonatal until we are thirty, or until death from old age in some cases. Why do you think it necessary for you to make or be informed of reproductive decisions by reproductive adults?
The ruling is that anti-abortion laws violate the Constitutional right to privacy--a right implied by the other rights specifically guaranteed. So now PRIVACY is an official Constitutional right, and states have no authority to abrogate a Constitutional right.
There is only an assumed right to privacy in the Constitution.
I among others maintain that a right cannot legally be abridged. Therefore, the assumption of privacy can be abridged by warrant.
The court says "implied", which is done by the authors, not "assumed", which is done by the readers.
All your rights can be denied or abridged, any time the welfare of the nation or a substantial number of citizens is jeopardized. You can be silenced, imprisoned, have property confiscated, even killed, legally and Constitutionally. The reason a warrant is required is because of the right of privacy.
When you live in a society of rights your rights end where other peoples rights begin. The problem here is that people seem to think that even though a fetus can feel pain it is not human and does not deserve rights of it's own. Those same people also feel that even though it takes two to make a baby, only one should have the right to kill it.
I agree with you, tang. It is idiotic to argue that a fetus is not human, what else could it be? My personal point of view is that in all cases, abortion of viable fetuses is immoral, and I will not aid anyone in terminating a pregnancy. My political opinion, though, is that it is not within the scope of anyone else's authority to force any woman to carry a child who does not want to. Period. Not the government, not the father, not the parents of a minor. Therefore abortion needs to remain legal, and available.
"The problem here is that people seem to think that even though a fetus can feel pain it is not human and does not deserve rights of it's own."
--You accuse those who want the right to choose of treating babies as an inconvenience but you have no trouble voting for people who deny children health insurance once they get here (because it's an inconvenience to your wallet). That, to my way of thinking, is the height of hypocrisy, Tangy. Get down off your high horse.
You cannot compare the two. Why? Because in one instance the child is murdered, and in the other it has to live with parents who don't care enough to provide for it. Also, even without health insurance, you can go to the er and be seen and treated. Not to mention the fact that children of people who honestly cannot afford health care are provided for.
What you want is not health insurance for children who need it, but a taxpayer funded socialized medicine for all so You do not have to take responsibility for Yourself or Your kids.
What do you think of this quote?
"I don't want my 16 year old daughter being *punished* with a child."
"I don't want my 16 year old daughter being *punished* with a child."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And yet you would call her a MURDERER if she didn't want to spend the next 9 month waiting to give birth to a baby conceived while she was raped only to give the baby up for adoption (because she doesn't want to be reminded of the rape every day) and then spend the rest of her life dreading the day that someone is going to knock on her door to say 'I'm ____ and you gave me up for adoption.'
But of course the answer is....'you shouldn't punish the child because of the 'choices that others make.' BULL SH!T.
"What you want is not health insurance for children who need it, but a taxpayer funded socialized medicine for all so You do not have to take responsibility for Yourself or Your kids."
--Wow. That's quite a flip flop, Tangy. How is it that you were all for being "social" and taking a page right from Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village" when you bullied and browbeat the woman into carrying the pregnancy to term but when the child gets bigger and requires more of that "goodwill", suddenly the well of loving, selfless concern and golden, warm and caring neocon fuzzy moments evaporate?
"What do you think of this quote?
"I don't want my 16 year old daughter being *punished* with a child."
--I think it says as much about meddlesome, hypocritical neocons as it says about this mother. You don't give a CRAP about children and you damn well know it. Instead, you want to make it your business to punish women for the "crime "of having sex (by forcing them to have children they aren't emotionally or financially prepared to support). You made that clear in your second paragraph above. Once the child is here, suddenly you're worried about your political principles and "socialism" and then all that phony concern for "innocent life" goes straight down the toilet. You can't wiggle your way out of this, Tangy. You're a hypocrite to the core. I haven't met a conjob who isn't a total hypocrite.
"What you want is not health insurance for children who need it, but a taxpayer funded socialized medicine for all so You do not have to take responsibility for Yourself or Your kids."
PRECISELY. Medical care should be free of out of pocket expense and available to every citizen at need. I believe this with all my heart and have for 40 yrs. If we would do things like this instead of antagonizing the Middle East, or the Southeast Asia as we once did, we'd all be a lot better off financially, socially, health-wise, and spiritually. Virtually the entire reason for my support for Hill is that of all the candidates her health care plan most closely approaches this goal of free universal care. I am completely and unabashedly socialist on this issue.
tanglang:
Here's the full quote, rather than the misleading edited one you probably heard:
"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
CLEARLY, Obama is talking about his daughters being punished with an STD, NOT A CHILD, for making the mistake of having sex too early.
Do you have a problem with that?
States vote in different gun laws. Which are violation of the 2nd Amendemnt. D.C. just had a law overturned. But no one argues that piont. But mention abortion and everyone freaks out. It should be reversed, the Fed govt. should insure that the Bill of Rights are not violated and the States take out the abortion issue.
"But mention abortion and everyone freaks out"
Mention gun rights (guns which kill constantly) and people tend to freak out, too, even though the second amendment isn't so clear.
I don't know the numbers, but there are way more abortions a year then people killed by gun violence. Ted Kennedy's car and abortion doctors have killed more then any one gun I own. And it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, NOT the right of the people in the militia.
Laura Bush's car has killed more people than all of my guns.
Strange enough the occupant of the car that she hit was her boyfriend. Seems like librarian Laura's car has killed as many people as Ted Kennedy's.
"AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - At 17, Laura Bush ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, killing her boyfriend who was driving it, according to an accident report released to The Associated Press on Wednesday."
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3910b26e685a...
At least she didn't leave the scene of the accident and did not report it for how long 10-12 hours or more. Accidents I understand, swimming out of the car and making no attempt to save her or call for help. That is criminal.
It never ends with you people. Codi, you must be one of the lost 18 percenters that still supports GWB, right? I can tell because you make excuses, you rationalize and you deny.
Running a stop sign and killing someone is criminal Codi. Maybe if it was your son who was decapitated by Lil Debutante Laura you'd feel differently.
Prior to me telling you about Laura's prior homicide were you aware of it? If not why do you suppose that the putatively "Liberal Media" has kept it hushed up so well?