It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: South Dakota Set to Challenge Roe

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
The South Dakota legislature is expected to give final approval to a bill that would outlaw all abortion in that state, except in cases where the mother's health is at risk. South Dakota has one abortion clinic that performs some 800 abortions per year. If passed, the law would provide a five year prison sentence for those who perform the procedure.
 



www.msnbc.msn.com
A direct attack on Roe v. Wade is coming from the South Dakota legislature. The new bill, which outlaws abortion, makes no exceptions, not for a pregnancy caused by incest or rape. It would only be legal—the only exception if it would save the pregnant woman's life.

Doctors who perform abortions could face up to five years in prison. The bill passed the State Senate 23-12. It's expected to pass the House again and then go to Governor Mike Rounds' desk. The bill's sponsor says he thinks the antiabortion movement has momentum on its side and a—quote—“change in national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future.”

GOV. MIKE ROUNDS ®, SOUTH DAKOTA (via phone): I think most of the legislators that voted for this particular law expected to be enjoined immediately upon its effective date, which would be July 1. I think what they want to do is to send a message that says if the court is prepared to look at Roe v. Wade they will look at a whole host of different challenges.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is going to be a real stem winder and as Dan Abrams points out in his piece, this is a direct shot across the bow of the Supreme Court. I don't necessarily see it as an insult to the Court because challenges to the law are what the Supremes are all about, but we can definitely expect to see some legal and social fireworks before the proverbial fat lady sings.

This kind of challenge in my estimation was inevitable because it is such a visceral issue on both sides and like so many issues that confront our world today, there seems to be no middle ground, no room for compromise. It is the timing I question.

So far the US has managed to avoid massive social upheaval relative to the war on terrorism, because most Americans know that something must be done. It's just the details that divide us.

I fear that an issue as volatile as abortion just might set off a real cultural war at home while we are trying our best to quell threats from abroad. Let us hope that whatever occurs in this matter, it will be to our benefit, not to our detriment.

Related News Links:
www.npr.org
www.slate.com
www.kpua.net
www.keloland.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Majority wants Abortion to Stay Legal; So it probably won't happen
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 2006/2/24 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Rape or incest isn't an exception. I think they would of won a more people over to their side if they weren't so extreme.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I don't think that is an issue. The battle line is drawn at the legality of abortion, not in details. The SD legislature is not writing a law so much as they are crafting a challenge to Roe v. Wade. They know that it will be a long time before such a law will actually go into effect. You can bet that the life of the mother clause is sop.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
It seems that South Dakota is not alone in the effort to craft legislation to challenge Roe. Addia Wuchner, Kentucky state legislator, is proposing legislation that will ban abortion in Kentucky. Wuchner acknowledges that the bills might have problems getting out of committee, but that on the House and Senate floor, the bills might face less of a challenge.

Naturally, there is strong opposition in some quarters:


Anne Maron, vice chair of the Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, has a different view.

"We as an organization would like to reduce the number of abortions to zero if we could, but that's not going to happen. Some women will have abortions whether or not it's illegal, and some women will die," she said.

Maron, who saw Wuchner discuss the abortion issue on KET, said, "This is a lovely, intelligent woman who believes in what she is doing. I totally respect the point of view that abortion is wrong, but I don't agree with legislation that bans it for everyone," she said.

news.communitypress.com

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


news.cincinnati.com

[edit on 2006/2/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I agree that this is a radical move toward challenging Wade vs Roe, that is why they have not left any alternatives in the bill.

Is quite a move and one that obviously they are against of having the people in the state vote.

So actually they are keeping the challenge it in the hands of politicians.

If this would go to a vote in the state perhaps the results will yield a different result.

But as usual politicians are the ones making the decision.

Funny, this will only start another abortion war, and another war against privacy rights.

So I wonder who will make the decision to separate one from the other.


[edit on 26-2-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I'm sure with the recent Supreme Court shuffle there will be several attempts to see how the newbies will really vote.

The ones that don't allow for exceptions definitely won't pass. The Kentucky one says 'most abortions', not detailing the exceptions.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
personally I am vehemently in favor of watching these stodgy near taliban fanatical fools fail. As is the dogma slave ick factor is stonewalling research that puts us behind in some seriously needed fields by the day. Stem cells, self replicating nanotech and bioengineering all are suffering under the congressional votes that allow creationism to be taught in school.

Honestly people want to know why canadian immigration is getting hit with increased load by the day of americans looking to emigrate? TA FREAKIN DAH here it is. Restrictions on technology due to some ingrained religious ick factor is more reminiscent of the taliban... and personally I don't want to watch goat head polo on ESPN.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Now this is just a stupid move. Do people REALLY think that abortion is just a 20th century phenomenon? Do they REALLY think that by outlawing it , it's going to go away?

No, it's just going to move underground and the death toll will rise from backyard abortion failing and killing women ......... just like the good old days.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mulberryblueshimmer
Do people REALLY think that abortion is just a 20th century phenomenon? Do they REALLY think that by outlawing it , it's going to go away?

No, it's just going to move underground and the death toll will rise from backyard abortion failing and killing women


I honestly think they don't care. In fact, I think they'd rather see the woman die as punishment, even if she takes the "baby" with her, than let a "murderer" like her live.

Sugarlump, You're right. It's talibanish!



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Do you want to know the wildest part??? I live in Kentucky and have many media ties, (I spent 5 years in the media), and this is the first I had heard about KY working on a bill.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
This is one issue that really ticks me off. The Republicans proclaim from the rooftops that they are for the individuals rights against the intrusions of the government yet they are the first in line, nay they push their way to the head of the line, to meddle in those very issues that are most private...matters of right to life (or death) sexual preference and reproduction...the hypocricy stinks to high heaven. Why do you think that there was such a backlash against the whole terry schivo thing? Nobody should even dare to attempt to tell me or anyone else what I should do with my lover, my mind, my life or my body. And the real stink of all this is that all these attempts to overturn Roe vs Wade, is not to outlaw abortion per say but to outlaw federal funding of abortion for poor people...if you remove the federal government from the issue then states can do what they want. Years ago I knew a woman, a good friend actually who had one child already but she was sloppy with her birth control and used abortion as a back up. I remember my late wife and I generally felt that this was wrong, not the abortion the irresponsiblity inherent in her action but this certianly doesn't mean that everyone who gets an abortion behaves this way. The bottom line was that it was her body and her life and my moral opinions on the matter, were mine alone and should in no way effect her. If abortion is outlawed we will go back to the days of coat hangers and of women bleeding to death in back alleys...which is worse I ask? Also these oh so much more moral that thou's who oppose abortion really don't give a flying boink about the life that they are "saving". It doesn't matter to them if the child is born into poverty or drug addiction or severe retardation or will never recieve love and in my mind that give lie to all their hystronics. This is one of those issues where when looked at objectivily the black and white of it fades into shades of gray. If as these so called christians (I really wonder what Jesus would have to say about his most shrill followers?) claim that we have free will then we must needs have the freedom not only to get it right, but to screw up as well but it is not up to them to pass judgement on who has screwed up, it is between that person and their god. Sometimes what seems to be a great wrong is a profound act of mercy.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
The Supreme Court has ruled that the tactic used by the National Organization for Women to deny anti-abortion protesters the right to protest outside abortion clinics is an abuse of the Hobbs Act which makes illegal the use of robbery and extortion to impede commerce. The ruling stated that the 1994 legislation passed by Congress made it illegal to attack or blockade an abortion clinic, thus making the Hobbs Act irrelevant to abortion protesters. Some have called this decision a victory for First Amendment rights.


The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others

Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the decision.

Yahoo.com

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It is unclear to me how this ruling will affect the abortion cause in its entirety, but clearly the Supreme Court is willing to hear cases that involve abortion and to clarify the laws pertaining to the ongoing debate and the tactics used by both sides.


[edit on 2006/2/28 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I always though that the reason of banning protest right in front of business were due to the fact that it would hinder business.

That is why any protest is due certain distance away, not that has been banned completely.

Now if an abortion clinic is to have protesters in front of their doors then the patients privacy rights will be violated. Right?

I really don't understand the whole issue here but courts do not make things any easier.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The issue is, as stated by Justice Breyer, that the Hobbs Act was not intended to cover the kinds of incidents that affect abortion clinics and that the application of that law to such acts is unnecessary because of the law passed in 1994. Unions were afraid that a broad interpretation of the Hobbs Act to apply to abortion clinic protests could hinder the efforts of Americans to exercise their First Amendment rights for such causes as higher wages and better benefits for workers, among other things, so they joined in on the appeal of that application.


In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create "a freestanding physical violence offense" in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

Instead, Breyer wrote, Congress chose to address violence outside abortion clinics in 1994 by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which set parameters for such protests.

Yahoo...


[edit on 2006/2/28 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
If I were a woman going have an abortion, that would be stressful enough without running the gauntlet of the self righteous jackasses screaming hysterically and abusively...where are her rights to privacy and her right to be left alone? I have seen these people in action and it is unseemly.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
If I were a woman going have an abortion, that would be stressful enough without running the gauntlet of the self righteous jackasses screaming hysterically and abusively....


Yes, I wish the righteous bitties would stay home and do some cross stitch or something.

Will be interesting to see where this all goes.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I agree that this will be something to see,

Taking into consideration that in the past many of the people that goes into protest binges around abortion clinics are nothing more than radical religious with the worst agenda of intimidation and scare tactics it will be nice if somebody will spray them with mace when they get to close for comfort or when they invade somebody's else space.


But anyway abortion clinics are not illegal and they are businesses like any other so I imagine that their right to operate goes under some other laws when it comes to their security.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Whenever this argument arises I am always astonished that is usually old rich white men that want to make decisions how a women treats her body.

As far as the legal ramifications against Dr.s that perform abortions; this is what will kill this bill. Taking on the AMA is not only short sighted but stupid.

If and I say "if" this bill passes for S. Dak. what will the right wing go after next. Oh I know!! Homosexuality will be made a crime. Or maybe......



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
The list of states that are crafting legislation to challenge Roe v. Wade seems to be growing. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Tennessee are all now in on the act.


"Across the country, state politicians are creating a gauntlet of anti-choice laws and regulations to make it more difficult for women to get the best and safest reproductive health-care services," Eve Gartner, senior staff attorney for Planned Parenthood, said in a statement following the South Dakota ban. "South Dakota's ban is the most sweeping abortion ban passed by any state in more than a decade. Planned Parenthood will go to court to ensure women, with their doctors and families, continue to be able to make personal health-care decisions — not politicians."

Nationwide, abortion opponents are split over whether it's time to pull out all the stops on banning abortion or time to continue seeking to restrict the procedure with less ambitious bills, such as measures to require parental consent or regulate clinics.

"The pro-life community is divided on what the best strategy is," said Sam Lee, of the anti-abortion group Campaign Life Missouri.

abcnews.go.com

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


While it seems likely that most of these bills will be passed into law, the real effect is that there will be another challenge to Roe v Wade before the Supreme Court. Many experts believe that Roe is still alive and well and is expected the survive these latest attacks by the various states.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
This is one issue that really ticks me off. The Republicans proclaim from the rooftops that they are for the individuals rights against the intrusions of the government yet they are the first in line, nay they push their way to the head of the line, to meddle in those very issues that are most private...matters of right to life (or death) sexual preference and reproduction...the hypocricy stinks to high heaven.


Originally posted by whaaa
If and I say "if" this bill passes for S. Dak. what will the right wing go after next.

I grew up in a coal-mining, steel-making area of the country that had, to read some of the responses here, overwhelmingly Republican values. Abortion was a no-no, and if a woman dared get an abortion, she was definitely going to burn forever in hell because the church taught us so.

Anti-abortion. Very religious. Except that this state was Pennsylvania, which is a blue state and very heavily Democratic, as was the town I grew up in.

So please, don't try to make this a Republican issue. Doing so is most definitely embracing ignorance.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join