This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Sounds like a full retread of HB 1293, which the legislature killed this year. The reasons for voting it down hard will be the same as well:
- The law will lead to more costly litigation. "No matter how it passes, it's going to end up in court," says State Senator Bill Napoli.
- The law won't save babies.
- The law makes doctors into policemen (as Rapid City ob-gyn Dr. Marvin Buehner puts it in Harlan's article) and policemen into doctors.
- The law makes women second-class citizens.
And for those of you sick of all this BS from stupid white men like Aberdeen lawyer Rory King (to whom the LRC sent the revised ballot measure) and myself, read Cornelia Dean's very straightforward article on the experiences of one abortion doctor: "Telling the Stories Behind Abortion," New York Times, 2007.11.06. Listen to the women, fellas....
I don't appreciate being called a right wingnut just because I am opposed to abortion on demand. I would have expected better from you, Cory. We will have to agree to disagree on this subject, but hopefully in a respectful manner.
ReplyDeleteNonnie! You continue to surprise me. I had no idea you were one of the "right wingnuts" I was referring to, the key players involved in preparing this new abortion ban and submitting it to the Secretary of State. Please, tell all! We'd love to know who's involved, how many meetings you've had, and how much money your group plans to spend on this futile legislation.
ReplyDeleteLet's see: legislation that makes women second-class citizens, won't save any babies, and probably won't pass Constitutional muster. Sounds right-wing, sounds nutty...
Yeah, like I'd be involved in preparing legislation of any kind - not! I just have a different opinion than you do, but don't feel that makes me a right wingnut any more than your opinion makes you some other kind of wingnut. We have different opinions, and there are plenty on both sides of this issue who agree with one or the ohter of us. We will get further if we discuss this rationally without name calling.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel this would make women second class citizens. I also believe that it just might pass Constitutional muster because there was nothing in the Constitution that authorized Roe v Wade in the first place.
And if abortions are a little harder to get, just maybe people will be a little more responsible in their personal decisions, both men and women.
t
Keep in mind, Nonnie, the right wingnuts to whom I referred in the original post are the folks pushing the legislation, whoever the sneaky devils are.
ReplyDeleteOf course, whatever fond appellations I may heap upon you, oh faithful reader, you're still wrong on this issue. See you at the polls!
By the way -- how much harder can abortion be for a South Dakota woman to get than under the current system? Toughest abortion laws in the country, one clinic that flies in one abortion doctor maybe a couple times a month, 5+ hour drive...
But you forget: laws making abortion hard to get >don't have any impact on the number of abortions, let alone on sexual behavior. You want to change people's behavior? This is an issue where the ballot box is the wrong way to do it. Try love, try neighborliness, try anything else, but give up on looking to Big Brother to solve the problem.