It makes me sick that we have to have this argument again. I'd like to spend the whole election talking about health care, education, energy, and economic development rather than the fringe rantings of deluded theocrats (I'm not running for President; I can say that). But when 46,000 people can be hoodwinked into signing up to put the continued status of women as equal citizens to a vote, well, we've got some civics education to do.
The Well-Timed Period points out that this initiative is the Nanny State run riot. The initiative's major effects:
- subjecting women to unnecesary pain and suffering
- banning birth control
- declaring that women exist for the sake of the State (there's your Communism)
- declaring women incapable of giving informed consent
- making government documentation and a DNA sample preconditions for obtaining medical care....
It's foolish and irrational to think that anyone can hoodwink 46,000 South Dakota citizens. There are two competing ideologies involved with the abortion debate -- apparently, the 46,000 represent the ideology from one side that believe the issue is relevant and central to both politics and South Dakota "life" (pun intended). The competing ideology people have every bit an aggressive spokesperson. It will come down to the votes and the will of the people -- as it should.
ReplyDeleteTake special note of Section 2 which bans the morning after pill and charges doctors and pharmacists with a felony if they prescribe or sell it, charging them with performing an illegal abortion, a Felony. This crosses over into banning birth control pills depending on interpretation.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, Section 2 says, "Any person who administers, prescribes or sells any medicine or drug that would cause termination of pregnancy is guilty of performing an illegal abortion which is a Class 4 Felony."
It certainly conflicts with Section 1, #4 that states, "A pregnant woman possesses certain rights which offer protection under the Constitution of the United States and laws of the State of South Dakota including the fundamental right of a pregnant woman to make decisions that advance the well-being and welfare of her child."
So, according to Section 1, #4, a woman should be able to make a decision whether she aborts based on her "Constitutionally-protected right to decide the well-being and welfare of her child?"
I would hope voters are smart enough to see through this smoke and mirrors effort. You can dress up a pig and put lipstick on it, but at the end of the day, it is still a pig. This new abortion bill is an oinker!
Just read the petition all the way through. (Note...if you are planning to do the same, a magnifying glass would be helpful). Did anyone other than me pick up on the fact that the incest clause only works for those under the age of 18? WTF?
ReplyDeleteI am still wondering how Atty. Gen. Long is at all invovled in the writing of this bill. The pro- lifers will never stop trying to push there morals on everyone else. Good luck with that! Keep up the good work Cory. I love reading your blogs even though I sometimes do not agree with you.
ReplyDeleteYou say "It makes me sick that we have to have this argument again. I'd like to spend the whole election talking about health care, education, energy, and economic development."
ReplyDeleteI say, didn't you just run for school board? How can you demonstrate concern about educating children when you don't care if they live or die? Before you can educate a child, the child has to be born. Being pro-lfe and pro-education "should" be part of a continuum that all Americans from both political parties embrace. Unfortunately that is not not the case. Democrats believe in this concept termed "choice." In other words, the will of the woman takes precidence of the will of the child to the extent that the woman can "choose" to terminate the life. If the child manages to survive the woman's "choice" then the democrats priority is to spend money on educating the child. The republicans have the opposite priority. They de-emphasize education as a national priority compared to the democrats. But they emphasize allowing all babies the opportunity to survive gestational experience. Which is more fringe? How can there be liberty and ahppiness if there is no life?
No more blood dripping off my coat hangers. Leave the law the way it is. There's only room on my bed for me and my boyfriend. Big brother, you're not welcome.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:36: keep reaching.
ReplyDeleteNone of what you say changes the fact that this proposed legislation renders women second-class citizens. I will not let anyone take away my daughter's constitutional rights as an equal citizen before the law. You don't protect children by rendering half the population a subservient class.
sure glad someone is sticking up for my rights. I would have never been able to grsduate from high school if i didn't get my abortions. now i've got a job and everything. if i had kids i would have to be on welfare.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know which war produced more deaths: the civil war to free the slaves, or the abortion war to free the unborn?
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:29: Based on IP records and previous posting, I have reason to suspect the veracity of your comment. Feel free to contact me privately to set me straight.
ReplyDeleteCAH 12:12
ReplyDeleteConstitutional rights have been overturn before.
You would rather murder your grandchild than have your daughter a second class citizen for nine months? What's more important than life?
The Taliban(pro lifers), will be out with their moral authority propaganda in the coming months. Please join me and support a womens right to choose and volunteer for Planned Parenthood.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the link.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 10:01AM,
It's foolish and irrational to think that anyone can hoodwink 46,000 South Dakota citizens.
Is it, really? I ask because I'm not local (and I don't have any hard data), but I find it hard to believe that there are so many people in SD with Communist/totalitarian leanings, people who think the individual exists to serve the State.
Anon @ 10:04 AM,
I'll do you one better. The petition says that any person who administers an abortifacient drug is guilty of a Class 4 Felony, but that, under the proposed law, pregnant women upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to are not subject to any criminal conviction and penalty for an unlawful abortion.
Which means pregnant women who wish to self-abort can take all the RU-486 and misoprostol they want, they cannot be prosecuted.
See, this is what happens when you try to base legislation on fantasy [namely that pregnant women are incapable of consent]. Reality sneaks in and slaps you silly.
Anon @ 10:05 AM,
I noticed that too and I don't get it.
Anon @ 10:36 AM,
I'm new here, so I'll be on my best behavior and limit my response to this:
But [republicans] emphasize allowing all babies the opportunity to survive gestational experience. Which is more fringe?
Incorrect. What the people who signed this petition [as opposed to republicans, an unsupported generalization] emphasize is that the State gets to make medical decisions for pregnant women.
Depending on who's in power, this means either forced pregnancies or forced abortions [or a combo, if the State decrees that it wants certain groups of women to have children but not others].
Asking the State to enact forced pregnancy/abortion laws is more fringe.
Anon @ 12:39 PM,
Be careful what you wish for!
And when the State decides that *you* are a second class citizen and are to be treated accordingly [in your case, not for 9 months but for life, just because] don't hesitate to come back and let us know how your subservient legal status is important and serves the glory of the State.
Thank God there are still people who speak for up for life in the womb even though they are accused of being called a communist like Leslee Unruh!
ReplyDeleteTalk about Smoking Mirrors! The anti-life group in 2006 said that the ban went too far in totaling banning abortion in South Dakota. They stressed a need for abortion for victims of rape and incest. So now they have the exceptions and they're still moaning! Prolifers, Keep up the incredible work and continue to stop the carnage in the womb!
I'll vote against any measure that expands government intrusion into people's private lives. Period.
ReplyDeleteI believe that life begins at conception. Most posters here don't and never will. Fine. This debate will go on forever, and someday we will all have the opportunity to find out who is correct. Personally, I would rather err on the side of protecting life than find out too late that I had advocated killing life.
ReplyDeleteThis dirty business of killing unborns has been cloaked in the finer language of choice and has taken on a veil of respectability. Doesn't change what it is though.
This bill addresses all the reasons given by Planned Parenthood before for opposing the last bill. Just can't please some people it seems.
The easy availability of abortion in SD today icnreases the number of abortions by making abortion simply a last ditch form of birth control.
I know I'll get blasted for this by the pro-abort people here, but so be it. I didn't say anything that isn't a fact.
So...does your devoutly Christian wife think that abortion is a morally neutral subject? Meaning that God doesn't mind either way?
ReplyDeleteI understand that as a human being she can certainly have political opinions differing than mine. But throwing in the "Christian" seems to suggest that she has the higher moral ground...
As a Lutheran, and Lutherans starting the whole Sola Scriptura without any bad and evil human traditions, what Biblical reference, book, or theme are you suggesting condones abortion? Children seemed to be a blessing in the Old Testament, and Jesus seems to suggest oh, say, Holiness over pragmatism. But I’m open to the fact I’m missing something, please fill me in.
I also don’t want to suggest the Pro-Lifers always have God’s blessing either. Both sides seem to forget that abortion deals with TWO people, the mother and child.
Sorry to drag you into this Erin. It just annoys me when Cory uses your Christianity to make a point. And aren’t fathers already second class citizens when it comes to parenthood. A woman doesn’t need the consent nor even to inform the father, does she? He could then be stuck paying child support for a child he might not want, or lose a child he wanted to have. Seems kind of unfair. Not that outlawing abortion is a great idea either. But neither side wants to accept that abortion is a very complex issue and a law either way doesn’t deal with the problem.
Christine Nelson
Hi, Christine!
ReplyDeleteMy main point is Constitutional. I mention Erin's faith to note that at least one Christian I know sees a distinction between moral questions and legal questions. She outdoes me in formal training in theology and politics -- she is, after all, a political science major, and that's her Constitutional Law text on our bookshelf. I'm just trying to keep up....
I understand the legal and moral difference, and our country's weird about deciding what's okay and at what age. If Erin's statement is coming from the legal side and not theolocial, I understand.
ReplyDeleteChristine
I think you've got it, Christine. Even if you could offer an argument saying Christians are called to end abortion, I think Erin would respond (and I definitely will respond) that you don't do that with poorly written, unconstitutional legislation.
ReplyDelete