South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions

Well, here it comes, upcoming Supreme Court battle over Roe v Wade.
Now that the Court is stacked I wouldn't be surprised if R v W was reversed.


www.cnn.com...

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

I personally am opposed to abortion, but everyone has the right to chose what goes on with their own body.

It is my hope that legalised "murder" does get reversed.

(nice kitty)............nice kitty.........aarrggggg!

You mean like the "legalized" murder we call the death penalty? Hmmm......

If I were a betting man, I would say RvW is gonna stand, simply based upon the tried and true principle of "Stare Decisis". For those of you who do not know the term, it is Latin for "to stand by that which is decided", which means that courts will "generally" stand by the previous decisions of empowered and legal courts on similar or like topics of law. One of the key elements of out legal system is the stability of our system of laws, and stare decisis is the cornerstone of our law.

Alito has said that he believes in the priority of stare decisis. Whether or not he was lying at the time remains to be seen.......

any doctor, who does perform an abortion under that law, had better have all their little ducks in a nice tidy row when it comes to proving that the mothers life was in danger. my bet would be the doctor would lean towards the side of caution, and not toward the side of the well being of the mother. and, I am sure that those who wrote this law fully understands this fact.

in other words, if this law stands, expect at least a few women to die unnecessarily. the government had two lives in their hands, to decide which one was of more "value" to them...the mother, or the child, which one should live, which one should die.....and they chose the child..

under the constitution, I don't think they could make this decision, even if the child was considered an equal. but in so many ways, it isn't an equal, it's nourishment, it's shelter and warmth, everything is dependant on the women it lives within.

For the 'pro' crowd....do you think that it is okay to wait unitl the 3rd trimester to decide to have an abortion? Where they have to use a procedure that crushes the fully formed babies head and then suck out the brain? These are fully formed babies; people have had premature babies at 5 months which have lived with no defects whatsoever.

People actually think the above is okay? But strip a grown man and make a pyramid and take a picture is immoral and wrong?!?

I can see the need if the mothers life is in seroius danger or of rape or incest....but this late-term abortions have to stop.

www.boston.com...

www.womensenews.org...

tell ya what,

when Bush brings home our troops and just leaves Iran alone to develope their bomb.....he can "have faith" in his God just as easily as any women who is told going thru with a pregnacy could possilby kill her, can't he??

and well, when the some neo-cons who gripe about abortion willingly and cheerfully open up their wallets to help out all the deformed babies that would be born into the world, instead of having them denied medical care because their parents certainly couldn't afford it, like what happens in tx....

well, then come back and talk to me about late term abortions.

seems to reason to me, that if a women has going that long carrying her baby, well, more than likelly she has plans to give birth to it, and well, more than likely something has popped up that has killed her dreams....either a problem with her, or her baby.

Getting back on topic. The SD legislature all but admitted that this bill was designed to be a direct challange to RvW and get the case heard before the SCOTUS to see if the law could be struck down. One can oly hope that there are no other pressing problems put off so they can grandstand.

The reality of the matter is this: If Alito tips the balance and overturns RvW it will revert back to the states and you will see a Red State / Blue state breakdown.

On the plus side in that scenario, the protestors / terror groups outside of clinics could and should come under tougher laws to prevent them from interfering as they can now.

An interesting and related story that appeared in the New York Times about parental notification and the abortion rate:

nytimes

MOD EDIT: Fixing a long link.

[edit on 3/7/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

according to the cdc, 20% or less of the abortions involve minors....that leaves around 80% of them completely unaffected by the laws. what kind of results did they expect?

oh, and by the way.....the late term abortions....they account for only around 1.5%.

www.religioustolerance.org...

[edit on 6-3-2006 by dawnstar]

Who will feed all those babies? You got to ask yourself that. If you think the state will think again. I know of women who have children and babies on the way. Who have been turned away from any help from the state. I just don't think they have the money to help them.
I think they will find more dead babies like that one just a few days ago on the east coast, left in the road to die. I also think we will see more familys on the street begging.
Would all of you who agree with this feed those familys? Would you make sure that their rent was paid? Would you pay for there health care? Make sure that the kids had shoes and coats for the winter?Or would you just look at them and say get a job?
I know I can't pay anything for them. I am one of the 37 million poor americans. I know what I would tell them to do. I would tell them to eat the christains and the rich. Keep what you kill. String them up , gut them , BBQ them and feed them to the masses. ( Little Billy says "Hey Pa whats for dinner tonight?" Pa says, " Paris Hilton shes a bit stringy , buts she'll do".)

The evil south dakota ....................where is the human right...

I guess this is why SD is one of poorest states

[edit on 7-3-2006 by darkhero]

You mean like the "legalized" murder we call the death penalty? Hmmm......

Yeah those little evil infants, how dare they not pay because you got F’d at a college party After all, as one of the legislators said last night, we convicted Scott Peterson on two counts of murder yet its ok if its an abortion.

By the way Roe V Wade is not going to get overturned with the present court. And there should be exceptions, if R V W is overturned there should be exceptions only in cases of rape, incest, or if the is a serious danger to the mother. .

Originally posted by dawnstar
when the some neo-cons who gripe about abortion willingly and
cheerfully open up their wallets to help out all the deformed babies
that would be born into the world....

Do you have stats on how many abortions are performed because
of the preborn child being deformed? Considering that most happen
in the first trimester and well before any deformities can be detected,
I'm going to have to call you on this statement.

And yes, I am willing to have my tax money go to help children
with birth defects. I'm more than willing to cut Ted Kennedy off
from his tax paid martini lunches and have that money used for
those children.

womensissues.about.com...

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...
Excerpt

Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as
follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal
health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of
abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic
reasons or for birth control. This includes about 25% for primarily
economic reasons.

Fetal abnormality is almost always NOT the reason for abortion.
So I don't think that the country would go broke helping to take
care of the very few children that would be born with abnormalities.


[edit on 3/10/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by Sistinas
Who will feed all those babies?

The parents who adopt them.

The waiting list in America is YEARS and YEARS long. Many adoption
agencies won't even adopt to people who are over 35 years old.

Do you know how many families go overseas to adopt? It wouldn't
be happening nearly as often if there were more children available
for adoption here in America.

This is great news. We finally give those without a hope a chance at living on our world. The only problem is that once we all see how horrid abortion really is we'll have population overload.

Any ideas...

IMHO we would have to have compulsory euthanaisa.

Socrates taught us to deny ignorance, accept the truth. I think he would be impressed with modern sciences ability to gain this. Socrates accepted that his actions required his untimely death by drinking hemlock.

[edit on 10/3/06 by byhiniur]

It won’t be reversed you think Karl Rove would want to lose the main thing that keeps fanatical Christians coming to the polls? Those justices support Stare Decisis Republican power depends on it, that and Christians never reading their bible about what Jesus really was like.



[edit on 10-3-2006 by DiRtYDeViL]

well, let's see.....and I could be wrong on this one...

around 1.4 % of the abortions are done in the third trimester. I am taking for granted that these abortions are being done so late because a problem was discovers either with the mother, or with the baby. there is somewhere between 800 - 1200 abortions per year, and well, let's take that 1.4%, since well, any that were done because of problems that would have affected the mother were more than likely made up by those who through genetic testing and such discovered problems earlier in the pregnacy....let's say that that is around 12 to 13 children per year.... with varying lifespans.

so, year one....12
year two, 24
3, 36
4. 48
5,60
6, 72
7, 84
8, 96
9, 108

and ect.....and well depending on the life span of each individual child, well......it will grow yearly.

all this I agree, we do have the resources and the financial abiitiy to care for these, with some modest budget adaptations. but, well, tx will refuse many of them care right after birth....so, I don't think the adaptations will come to soon, don't hold your breath!!

and as far as adoptions go, many, many children are by passed by the adopters, ummm, they're too old, aren't healthy enough, aren't "perfect" enough....then you have that nice maze of beaucracy that you have to make you way through just to find out that you are too old, not rich enough, not nuturing enough, not perfect enough....so, well, there is your problem there...

hey, I know, can we just start a lottery, if your number hits, you get this child here, regardless of weather you want them or not, weather you have the means to care for them or not, weather you're a mass murderer in prison, or a saint living in a convent.....can we force these babies onto others...because that's what it would take.

ya know, when we decided to go to war, we based our decision on the validity of the evidence that we had, and we found that evidence to be sufficient to protect our butts from Iraq's wmds......the evidence was wrong!! but when it comes to euthanasia or abortions involving the risks to the mothers, well, it seems that no amount of evidence would suffice. you could have a slew full of doctors saying that yes this baby has no hope of survival and is in extreme pain day and night and another slew full of doctors saying that yes this mother has a 90% chance of dying and leaving your existing children parentless waiting for some kind soul to take them in (just to have those kind souls travel all the way to asia to adopt their vision of the perfect baby), and it's just not good enough for some.
and ya, we're talking about only 1-2% or the abortions or whatever small number it might be, but they are actual people, with families who care deeply about them. they contribute to our society, pay their taxes, contribute also to building and maintaining this nice healthcare system. to ignore them medical needs because your views are biased against them isn't right in any sense of the word!! and, obviously, since you feel it's perfectly fine to drop missles on Iraq killing God only knows how many in a very random way based on evidence that doesn't even match up to the validity being present in these women's cases, there is a bias!!

what really happens to unwanted disabled kids...

www.syracuse.com.../base/news-16/1142025557201700.xml&storylist=ny

do we have any voluteers to adopt any of them, take them home? at least provide them with an opportunity to learn what they can??

People tend to forget why women are allowed the right to a safe abortion. Before RvW women got unsafe abortions. Your mother, your sister dead, left sterile. Overturning RvW will not stop abortions; they will return to the back alleys, or nowadays perhaps to a storage garage. You will come home to your daughter bleeding to death or dying from infection. Remember this. God help us.

Originally posted by dawnstar
well, let's see.....and I could be wrong on this one...
there is somewhere between 800 - 1200 abortions per year

Yes. Your math is way off. Sorry.

There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted
eacy year, 20 million of them obtained illegally.

There are approximately 126,000 abortions conducted each day.

womensissues.about.com...




[edit on 3/11/2006 by FlyersFan]