Political Crossfire Forums

[Xenophen]

LOOKS LIKE SOUTH DAKOTA IS GOING TO TEST THE COURTS UNDER BUSH'S NEW JUSTICES. I THINK ITS A MAJOR STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

SD Abortion Bill Takes Aim at Roe

By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A01



South Dakota lawmakers yesterday approved the nation's most far-reaching ban on abortion, setting the stage for new legal challenges that its supporters say they hope lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade .

The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion.

The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe , which in 1973 recognized a right of women to terminate pregnancies. Its sponsors want to force a reexamination of the ruling by the court, which now includes two justices appointed by President Bush.

"The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future," said Rep. Roger W. Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill. To his delight, abortion opponents succeeded in defeating all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman. Hunt said that such "special circumstances" would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene.

Kate Looby, director of Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, which plans to immediately challenge the ban, said that while she was not surprised, she was still a "little shocked" by the vote. "Clearly, this is a devastating day for the women of South Dakota," she said. "We fully expected this, yet it's still distressing to know that this legislative body cares so little about women, about families, about women who are victims of rape or incest."

National abortion rights organizations said the South Dakota vote has set the stage for a new fight to keep abortion legal at the federal level and in the states. "When you see them have a ban that does not include exceptions for rape or incest or the health of the mother, you understand that elections do matter," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We will be very active in '06 and in '08 in electing candidates that represent the views of most Americans."

The antiabortion movement has focused primarily in recent years on a state-by-state effort to enact restrictions on access to abortion, including pushes for parental-notification laws and waiting periods before the procedure may be performed. A 1992 Supreme Court decision again affirmed a right to abortion in a Pennsylvania case, known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey , that said states cannot put an "undue burden" on women getting access to abortions.

Not all antiabortion groups agreed with the South Dakota supporters' effort to directly challenge Roe .

"If you're just reading the law as it stands now, South Dakota's law doesn't really stand any chance under Roe or Casey . I have to agree with those who think it's remote," said Chuck Donovan, executive vice president of the Family Research Council and a former lobbyist for the National Right to Life Committee.

He said there is not a consensus for a national approach to finding a way to overturn Roe . "There are lots of voices out there and nobody has a single strategy, so South Dakota has stepped in to fill that void," Donovan said.

Still, some abortion opponents are more confident than they have ever been that Roe could be overturned with two new conservative members of the high court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Roberts has not publicly expressed his view on abortion rights. Alito opposed Roe as a young Reagan administration lawyer and had a mixed record on abortion rights while a federal appeals court judge.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a federal law banning a procedure that opponents call "partial birth" abortion is constitutional. The law passed Congress in 2003 but has been struck down by three federal appeals courts and has yet to take effect.

South Dakota is the first but not the only state to consider new abortion restrictions this year. Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky have introduced similar measures.

Rounds has indicated that he would sign the South Dakota measure if it does not jeopardize existing abortion restrictions while the legislation is challenged. In 2004, he vetoed a similar bill because of concerns that abortion restrictions would be eliminated during legal wrangling. Hunt said his bill has addressed the governor's concerns.

Hunt has also said that when the inevitable challenge to the ban is filed in court, the ban's supporters will be prepared for a costly court fight with $1 million already pledged by "an anonymous donor."

Even without this latest ban, South Dakota was already one of the most difficult states in the country in which to get an abortion, those on both sides of the issue say. It is one of three states with only one abortion provider (Mississippi and North Dakota are the others), and its one clinic, the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, offers the procedure only once a week. Four doctors who fly in from Minnesota on a rotating basis perform the abortions, since no doctor in South Dakota will do so because of the heavy stigma attached.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota, which has a population of 770,000 spread out over 77,000 square miles. Last year, South Dakota passed five laws to restrict abortions, including one that would compel doctors to tell women that they would be ending the life of a "whole, separate, unique human being." That law has been blocked by a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[jlrobe]

I am pro-choice but I do agree that this is a big step. Whether not its a step back or step up is to be debated. To be honest, this is a good thing. THis will end abortion bombers, and dangerous pro-life radicalism. I am glad to see the pro-lifers utilizing the space they have been given. It is time for the proper war to begin, the war in the courtroom. This should be interesting. There are new ideas and new technological and scientific advances. It should be a close one.

[Mycroft147]

i think this is good but it raises the question of what status this raises the fetus to. It seems that now it has a right to life, but still not as much of a right as the woman. In fact it is much less, because the fetus is being allowed to be murdered, while if the woman died it would not be murder, just a natural death. Its a good step but raises the question why the fetus is only given part of the right to life, is it only part human or what?

[Xenophen]

In my opinion, I think abortion should be banned in all of its forms. Going off of what was just said, the fetus has a right to live. Although it would be hard for the mother and even the father (he is going to be losing most likely the girl of his dreams) to allow this, but its just one of the dangers of child bearing that we humans have to deal with.

[jlrobe]

Xenophen wrote: In my opinion, I think abortion should be banned in all of its forms. Going off of what was just said, the fetus has a right to live. Although it would be hard for the mother and even the father (he is going to be losing most likely the girl of his dreams) to allow this, but its just one of the dangers of child bearing that we humans have to deal with.

I know you guys dont believe this, but I guarantee you there will be a huge black market if this were true. I guarantee you, 95% of every couple faced with this would have an abortion illegally.

I guess it doesnt make much sense to me.

If my wife had one abortion, then we lose one "potential" child. But then we have 3 children after that and we have a family of 5. The first child was not able to be born, but that led to 4 others living in its place. Sounds fair to me.

Hey, if a mother wants to die for her baby, more power to her, but that is her choice. What about the embryo's choice you say? Well, the mothers right supersedes the embryo's.

Hey, your beliefs are your beliefs though. I pray you arent faced with such a decision.

[Xenophen]

jlrobe wrote: Xenophen wrote: In my opinion, I think abortion should be banned in all of its forms. Going off of what was just said, the fetus has a right to live. Although it would be hard for the mother and even the father (he is going to be losing most likely the girl of his dreams) to allow this, but its just one of the dangers of child bearing that we humans have to deal with.

I know you guys dont believe this, but I guarantee you there will be a huge black market if this were true. I guarantee you, 95% of every couple faced with this would have an abortion illegally.

I guess it doesnt make much sense to me.

If my wife had one abortion, then we lose one "potential" child. But then we have 3 children after that and we have a family of 5. The first child was not able to be born, but that led to 4 others living in its place. Sounds fair to me.

Hey, if a mother wants to die for her baby, more power to her, but that is her choice. What about the embryo's choice you say? Well, the mothers right supersedes the embryo's.

Hey, your beliefs are your beliefs though. I pray you arent faced with such a decision.

I pray no one is faced with that decision. Quite frankly, the whole issue of abortion most of the time can be avoided. There are some situation and cases where it will arise and their will always be controvesay. But, as for the unwanted children and the mothers that have abortions just because its inconvenient can be avoided.

This is a big step for our country nevertheless.

[Sailor Moon]

90% of illegal abortions were performed by legitimite doctors in good standing, even in 1960.

I DONT think that fetuses should have any protections by law, aside from making assisted abortions illegal. This would cause all miscarriages and stillbirths to have to be accounted for, and might make lots of women go to jail unneccessarilly. So, yes fetuses have the right to life as far as not being aborted. Just please please dont give fetuses further protections, like calling them citizes or "people", even though we all know they ARE people.. but this would cause problems for women.. LOTS of em. Like birth defects being prosecuted, and like certain things being made illegal to pregnant women- like cigarettes and wine, beer, (not that that is good for you, but it shouldnt be criminalized, or called "child abuse") and I mean loads of other stuff, like just DRIVING... or riding a bike.. I mean what are they going to do to protect womens rights? Make belly armor?

[jlrobe]

Sailor Moon wrote: 90% of illegal abortions were performed by legitimite doctors in good standing, even in 1960.

I DONT think that fetuses should have any protections by law, aside from making assisted abortions illegal. This would cause all miscarriages and stillbirths to have to be accounted for, and might make lots of women go to jail unneccessarilly. So, yes fetuses have the right to life as far as not being aborted. Just please please dont give fetuses further protections, like calling them citizes or "people", even though we all know they ARE people.. but this would cause problems for women.. LOTS of em. Like birth defects being prosecuted, and like certain things being made illegal to pregnant women- like cigarettes and wine, beer, (not that that is good for you, but it shouldnt be criminalized, or called "child abuse") and I mean loads of other stuff, like just DRIVING... or riding a bike.. I mean what are they going to do to protect womens rights? Make belly armor?

I am sure the legal system wouldnt let that happen. However, they migth do a little of what you say, and I think it is fair for them to do so. If abortions are illegal, the legal precedent wil be that the fetus has a right to life. If the fetus has a right to life and the mother miscarriers, then she can and should be prosecuted in some circumstances

1) Intent (she intended to misscarry the baby through her actions. This would be really hard to prove, but if the legal system failed to prosecute it would be wrong)
2) Depraved Indifference. (The termination of a pregnancy means the death of a life. Now, if is happened natrually, no harm no foul, but if the mother acted in ways that she knew would kill the baby, then she should be thrown in jail if the fetus has a right to life. Again, this will be hard to prosectute, but the option should be there.)

[Sailor Moon]

jlrobe wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: 90% of illegal abortions were performed by legitimite doctors in good standing, even in 1960.

I DONT think that fetuses should have any protections by law, aside from making assisted abortions illegal. This would cause all miscarriages and stillbirths to have to be accounted for, and might make lots of women go to jail unneccessarilly. So, yes fetuses have the right to life as far as not being aborted. Just please please dont give fetuses further protections, like calling them citizes or "people", even though we all know they ARE people.. but this would cause problems for women.. LOTS of em. Like birth defects being prosecuted, and like certain things being made illegal to pregnant women- like cigarettes and wine, beer, (not that that is good for you, but it shouldnt be criminalized, or called "child abuse") and I mean loads of other stuff, like just DRIVING... or riding a bike.. I mean what are they going to do to protect womens rights? Make belly armor?

I am sure the legal system wouldnt let that happen. However, they migth do a little of what you say, and I think it is fair for them to do so. If abortions are illegal, the legal precedent wil be that the fetus has a right to life. If the fetus has a right to life and the mother miscarriers, then she can and should be prosecuted in some circumstances

1) Intent (she intended to misscarry the baby through her actions. This would be really hard to prove, but if the legal system failed to prosecute it would be wrong)
2) Depraved Indifference. (The termination of a pregnancy means the death of a life. Now, if is happened natrually, no harm no foul, but if the mother acted in ways that she knew would kill the baby, then she should be thrown in jail if the fetus has a right to life. Again, this will be hard to prosectute, but the option should be there.)

Actually it would be really easy to prosecute. And it would take away quite alot of womens anatomical freedoms. If she, say, was hooked on drugs, and hurt her baby- well she obviously knew drugs wouldnt be good- but you cant expect her to just quit her habit at the drop of a hat. So theres indifference. And crack? Come on. Just having indifference is enough to find intent. (or make it up, and convince a jury)

Self induced abortions MUST remain legal. Assisted abortions must become illegal.

Also, you say "if she acted in ways she knew WOULD kill the baby", but a prosecuter will get her on "in ways she knew COULD kill the baby", thus removing all autonomy from the equation.

[jlrobe]

Sailor Moon wrote: jlrobe wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: 90% of illegal abortions were performed by legitimite doctors in good standing, even in 1960.

I DONT think that fetuses should have any protections by law, aside from making assisted abortions illegal. This would cause all miscarriages and stillbirths to have to be accounted for, and might make lots of women go to jail unneccessarilly. So, yes fetuses have the right to life as far as not being aborted. Just please please dont give fetuses further protections, like calling them citizes or "people", even though we all know they ARE people.. but this would cause problems for women.. LOTS of em. Like birth defects being prosecuted, and like certain things being made illegal to pregnant women- like cigarettes and wine, beer, (not that that is good for you, but it shouldnt be criminalized, or called "child abuse") and I mean loads of other stuff, like just DRIVING... or riding a bike.. I mean what are they going to do to protect womens rights? Make belly armor?

I am sure the legal system wouldnt let that happen. However, they migth do a little of what you say, and I think it is fair for them to do so. If abortions are illegal, the legal precedent wil be that the fetus has a right to life. If the fetus has a right to life and the mother miscarriers, then she can and should be prosecuted in some circumstances

1) Intent (she intended to misscarry the baby through her actions. This would be really hard to prove, but if the legal system failed to prosecute it would be wrong)
2) Depraved Indifference. (The termination of a pregnancy means the death of a life. Now, if is happened natrually, no harm no foul, but if the mother acted in ways that she knew would kill the baby, then she should be thrown in jail if the fetus has a right to life. Again, this will be hard to prosectute, but the option should be there.)

Actually it would be really easy to prosecute. And it would take away quite alot of womens anatomical freedoms. If she, say, was hooked on drugs, and hurt her baby- well she obviously knew drugs wouldnt be good- but you cant expect her to just quit her habit at the drop of a hat. So theres indifference. And crack? Come on. Just having indifference is enough to find intent. (or make it up, and convince a jury)

Self induced abortions MUST remain legal. Assisted abortions must become illegal.

Also, you say "if she acted in ways she knew WOULD kill the baby", but a prosecuter will get her on "in ways she knew COULD kill the baby", thus removing all autonomy from the equation.

Well, it would be tough to establish intent. As for depraved indifference, hey, it is what it is. If a woman chose to have sex, then she chose to risk getting pregnant. IF she cant stop poisoning her body, she should be prosecutued if a fetus has a right to life.

The federal courts can hash out all the details eventually.

[Sailor Moon]

Thats my point. A fetus should be protected from abortion, but not given an implied or explicit legal right to life through this endeavor.

Just because you cant abort it, doesnt mean it wont die. In fact, about 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. It wouldnt be fair to not inject into the law "fetuses are protected from abortion, being assisted directly through prescription or direct contact through a separate individual from the mother, but this does not, and shall not imply, that they have any rights or personhood, including the right to life. This is to protect women from miscarriages and stillbirths and prosecution thereof.". This would do the trick, well enough.

[galba]

Xenophen wrote: LOOKS LIKE SOUTH DAKOTA IS GOING TO TEST THE COURTS UNDER BUSH'S NEW JUSTICES. I THINK ITS A MAJOR STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

SD Abortion Bill Takes Aim at Roe

By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A01



South Dakota lawmakers yesterday ....

:bana: Yay!

[galba]

Xenophen wrote: In my opinion, I think abortion should be banned in all of its forms. Going off of what was just said, the fetus has a right to live. Although it would be hard for the mother and even the father (he is going to be losing most likely the girl of his dreams) to allow this, but its just one of the dangers of child bearing that we humans have to deal with.

I agree.

[jlrobe]

Sailor Moon wrote: Thats my point. A fetus should be protected from abortion, but not given an implied or explicit legal right to life through this endeavor.

Just because you cant abort it, doesnt mean it wont die. In fact, about 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. It wouldnt be fair to not inject into the law "fetuses are protected from abortion, being assisted directly through prescription or direct contact through a separate individual from the mother, but this does not, and shall not imply, that they have any rights or personhood, including the right to life. This is to protect women from miscarriages and stillbirths and prosecution thereof.". This would do the trick, well enough.

Ahhhh, I see. hmmmm, interesting.

Well that makes it difficult because to overturn Roe v Wade, the fastest way is to give the fetus right to life priviledges. But as you say, if you give them these priviledges then you run into trouble. So, how does won legalize abortion without making the legal argument that a fetus has a right to life.

I guess you can just make it a medical ban, but on what basis? If the doctor is acting on behalf of his patient, there is no problem. The problem comes because he is breeching the right of the fetus.

i think giving a fetus the right to not be aborted priviledges but not be considered a personhood, would be more difficult to do. And giving right to life priviledges has been difficult enough.

Interesting.

[Sailor Moon]

jlrobe wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Thats my point. A fetus should be protected from abortion, but not given an implied or explicit legal right to life through this endeavor.

Just because you cant abort it, doesnt mean it wont die. In fact, about 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. It wouldnt be fair to not inject into the law "fetuses are protected from abortion, being assisted directly through prescription or direct contact through a separate individual from the mother, but this does not, and shall not imply, that they have any rights or personhood, including the right to life. This is to protect women from miscarriages and stillbirths and prosecution thereof.". This would do the trick, well enough.

Ahhhh, I see. hmmmm, interesting.

Well that makes it difficult because to overturn Roe v Wade, the fastest way is to give the fetus right to life priviledges. But as you say, if you give them these priviledges then you run into trouble. So, how does won legalize abortion without making the legal argument that a fetus has a right to life.

I guess you can just make it a medical ban, but on what basis? If the doctor is acting on behalf of his patient, there is no problem. The problem comes because he is breeching the right of the fetus.

i think giving a fetus the right to not be aborted priviledges but not be considered a personhood, would be more difficult to do. And giving right to life priviledges has been difficult enough.

Interesting.

The right to life is naturally occurring. People do not get charged with attempted suicide for smoking cigarettes, even if they develop cancer from it. Whatever a person does to themselves, impacts their life in a positive or negative way. Therefore, none of us have an implicit right to live beyond cause and effect. We cause ourselves to be harmed, and it is natural to understand that, especially with all the rumbling tumbling new technologies of the modern world, there are many causes that can be effective in invoking miscarriage.

To introduce unnatural or man made chemicals or tools into the body, for the explicit means to destroy a life, is unnatural, though. That destroys the ability (to have even a fighting chance) to live. Otherwise, cause and effect must not be ruled out, from outside sources. Basically, if the woman wants to drink, smke, do drugs, be a stunt devil, etc, is her perogative. All of these things still maintain the natural rights of the fetus. The fetus is subjected to the dangers of cause and effect, in day to day living, just as anybody else is. Just dont introduce anything into the uterus thats foreign or not, in any circumstances, used in day to day life. (e.g. chemicals, or RU486, etc) as those are designed for the sole intention of killing the fetus, and nothing more.

So like if a woman is a stunt double or something, she can continue with her job, and not intend to kill her fetus, and still miscarry. She could INTEND to kill her fetus, too, but since her job is a part of her "normalcy" in her life, then induced abortion would not hold up in a court. The fetus is, unfortunately, subject to cause and effect pertaining to what happens to its home (the mother), and therefore may die during gestation, without criminal offence from the mother.

Thats autonomy, from where I stand, and I think its really the only way.

[jlrobe]

Sailor Moon wrote: jlrobe wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Thats my point. A fetus should be protected from abortion, but not given an implied or explicit legal right to life through this endeavor.

Just because you cant abort it, doesnt mean it wont die. In fact, about 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. It wouldnt be fair to not inject into the law "fetuses are protected from abortion, being assisted directly through prescription or direct contact through a separate individual from the mother, but this does not, and shall not imply, that they have any rights or personhood, including the right to life. This is to protect women from miscarriages and stillbirths and prosecution thereof.". This would do the trick, well enough.

Ahhhh, I see. hmmmm, interesting.

Well that makes it difficult because to overturn Roe v Wade, the fastest way is to give the fetus right to life priviledges. But as you say, if you give them these priviledges then you run into trouble. So, how does won legalize abortion without making the legal argument that a fetus has a right to life.

I guess you can just make it a medical ban, but on what basis? If the doctor is acting on behalf of his patient, there is no problem. The problem comes because he is breeching the right of the fetus.

i think giving a fetus the right to not be aborted priviledges but not be considered a personhood, would be more difficult to do. And giving right to life priviledges has been difficult enough.

Interesting.

The right to life is naturally occurring. People do not get charged with attempted suicide for smoking cigarettes, even if they develop cancer from it. Whatever a person does to themselves, impacts their life in a positive or negative way. Therefore, none of us have an implicit right to live beyond cause and effect. We cause ourselves to be harmed, and it is natural to understand that, especially with all the rumbling tumbling new technologies of the modern world, there are many causes that can be effective in invoking miscarriage.

To introduce unnatural or man made chemicals or tools into the body, for the explicit means to destroy a life, is unnatural, though. That destroys the ability (to have even a fighting chance) to live. Otherwise, cause and effect must not be ruled out, from outside sources. Basically, if the woman wants to drink, smke, do drugs, be a stunt devil, etc, is her perogative. All of these things still maintain the natural rights of the fetus. The fetus is subjected to the dangers of cause and effect, in day to day living, just as anybody else is. Just dont introduce anything into the uterus thats foreign or not, in any circumstances, used in day to day life. (e.g. chemicals, or RU486, etc) as those are designed for the sole intention of killing the fetus, and nothing more.

So like if a woman is a stunt double or something, she can continue with her job, and not intend to kill her fetus, and still miscarry. She could INTEND to kill her fetus, too, but since her job is a part of her "normalcy" in her life, then induced abortion would not hold up in a court. The fetus is, unfortunately, subject to cause and effect pertaining to what happens to its home (the mother), and therefore may die during gestation, without criminal offence from the mother.

Thats autonomy, from where I stand, and I think its really the only way.

You make an interesting point, however, if a 14 year old girl makes attempts on her life, her parents can have her committed, even though she is just doing it to herself. Of course, when she is 18, she can do whatevr she likes, including kill herself.

But, if the language reads "fetus has a right to life", then frivilous lawsuits can and will occur. That is not a good thing, and as such, the justice department has to avoid that language. Avoiding that language would be hard. If you look at Irelands laws, that is exactly how they ban abortion. Ireland doesnt have the same legal structure we do though. If taking an abortion pill designed to abort babies even 15 weeks after conception is aginast the law, then taking other chemicals will be too, until a legal precendent is set.

It isnt fair necessarily for the women, but if the law reads what it does above, and if our legal system isnt reformed, then women will be prosectured, especially if intent can be established, until a legal precedent is made to protect them. Most lilely, if they change the laws of abortion, several other laws will take effect.

[Sailor Moon]

jlrobe wrote:

You make an interesting point, however, if a 14 year old girl makes attempts on her life, her parents can have her committed, even though she is just doing it to herself. Of course, when she is 18, she can do whatevr she likes, including kill herself.

No she cant do whatever she likes when shes 18-... and her parents cant have her committed, literally, even before that. They can suggest it, though. It takes a police officer or a medical professional to actually have someone committed, and actually when shes older, she can still be committed for suicide attempts. She can commit herself, voluntarily, at any age, though.

Quote: But, if the language reads "fetus has a right to life", then frivilous lawsuits can and will occur. That is not a good thing, and as such, the justice department has to avoid that language. Avoiding that language would be hard. If you look at Irelands laws, that is exactly how they ban abortion. Ireland doesnt have the same legal structure we do though. If taking an abortion pill designed to abort babies even 15 weeks after conception is aginast the law, then taking other chemicals will be too, until a legal precendent is set.

I agree. That is the entire basis of my claim. But you seem to keep repeating the same things over and over, while not realising that the law should not state that a fetus has rights, just a protection from abortion, with a few added words for clarity.

Quote: It isnt fair necessarily for the women, but if the law reads what it does above, and if our legal system isnt reformed, then women will be prosectured, especially if intent can be established, until a legal precedent is made to protect them. Most lilely, if they change the laws of abortion, several other laws will take effect.

That is why I am such a strong supporter of clarity in laws that would make abortion illegal. I totally understand what youre saying, but can you agree with what I am, especially in regards to "cause and effect" regarding death, versus the right to life? My point is that there should be very specific clarity to what entails "negligence" or what have you.. I believe youre in agreement to this, and I completely agree that "right to life" should be clear as well, as far as cause and effect relationship to death being naturally occurring, as well as autonomous.

[The Grandmaster]

Someone please help the ol' Grandmaster here, he is confused. How can they do this?? I thought that Roe vs Wade...by the Supreme court of the United States, insured all women were allowed abortions of they so chose, and that this couldn't be overridden by the state. How are they allowed to do this?

*confused look on face...*

[jlrobe]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Someone please help the ol' Grandmaster here, he is confused. How can they do this?? I thought that Roe vs Wade...by the Supreme court of the United States, insured all women were allowed abortions of they so chose, and that this couldn't be overridden by the state. How are they allowed to do this?

*confused look on face...*

I belive Bush pused some new law throgh, although i dont know what kind of law or how it works exactly. Anyhow, it doesnt really matter. The state will claim that it isnt in violation of Roe v Wade at which state their will be a new court case. Maybe it will be the United States of America vs. South Dakota. Now that is a fair fight :).

The problem I see with this is that if SD gets SMASHED, does that help the pro-life movement or hurt it.

Maybe I am confused too.

Darn your grandmaster. Now you got me all confused.

[Sailor Moon]

jlrobe wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Someone please help the ol' Grandmaster here, he is confused. How can they do this?? I thought that Roe vs Wade...by the Supreme court of the United States, insured all women were allowed abortions of they so chose, and that this couldn't be overridden by the state. How are they allowed to do this?

*confused look on face...*

I belive Bush pused some new law throgh, although i dont know what kind of law or how it works exactly. Anyhow, it doesnt really matter. The state will claim that it isnt in violation of Roe v Wade at which state their will be a new court case. Maybe it will be the United States of America vs. South Dakota. Now that is a fair fight :).

The problem I see with this is that if SD gets SMASHED, does that help the pro-life movement or hurt it.

Maybe I am confused too.

Darn your grandmaster. Now you got me all confused.

Theyre doing it to prove that it can be done. This could change history. This will force the Supreme Court to assess the fetus's situation as a reality, and not just sweep it under the table as if it doesnt exist.