NEWS: abortion illegal in SD effective 7/1

read more HERE

curious this is going down so closely to Bush's 2 supreme court appointees...

I don't know what to say, really, other than my desire to remain a US citizen is falling @ a weekly rate it seems...

Pretty fuct up.

So people wanting an abortion will drive to a neighboring state. Yay. We should set up clinics on the border right next to the liquor stores and fireworks stands.

It won't go into effect though, it will be held up waiting for appeal, and eventually. it will come to the supreme court ruling as to whether i will remain law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

So people wanting an abortion will drive to a neighboring state. Yay.

---

and it will be challenged in the supreme court, and who knows how they will rule.

my faith in the supreme court is at an all-time low

Fuck.

fuck fuck fuck.

and I'm listening to Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

and it will be challenged in the supreme court, and who knows how they will rule.

my faith in the supreme court is at an all-time low

---

Well that's ok, cause I hear Alito is pretty liberal on abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 72Twenty

Fuck.

fuck fuck fuck.

---

Better use these then:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

and it will be challenged in the supreme court, and who knows how they will rule.

my faith in the supreme court is at an all-time low

---

Don't worry...yet. The conservatives only have four votes (assuming that Alito and Roberts join Thomas and Scalia on the issue). Anthony Kennedy voted with the majority in Casey which reaffirmed Roe.

IMO, I think this is plain retarded by the conservatives to do this in an election year. They do not have the majority to overrule Roe and the SD bill is so draconian that they are not going to convince Kennedy to change sides.

What it does do is make this an election year issue. It also splinters the GOP as not everyone in that party supports the outright ban on abortions.

Edit to add: I also think that C.J. Roberts may surprise many folks with his jurisprudence. Granted he is a Catholic and that is worrisome on the abortion issue, but during his confirmation hearings, he repeatedly stated that there are certain cases (I believe that he was alluding to Roe) as superprecedent--as the Court has taken the occassion more than once to reaffirm the principle in subsequent case law.

Why aren’t these religious extremist being beaten with rubber hoses in Gitmo? If extraordinary rendition was every justified…

It's going to be a year before we even find out if the Supreme Court will even hear the case. This is going to be a long and ugly fight. I don't see any way this can have a good out come for conservatives in the long run, they are shooting them self in the foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurch

It's going to be a year before we even find out if the Supreme Court will even hear the case. This is going to be a long and ugly fight. I don't see any way this can have a good out come for conservatives in the long run, they are shooting them self in the foot.

---

It could be as soon as the October term. Planned Parenthood will most likely seek an injunction in federal district court. Given that Roe is controlling law, the district court will grant the injunction. It then goes to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (perhaps as early as this summer), with eventual disposition, most likely, by the Supreme Court in the following two terms.

This is all about taking choices away from women who don't have many choices. Any women with access to money will be able to get an abortion no matter what the laws are.

"I brought up one of my favorite forced birth conundrums the other day, guaranteed to make wingnut "life begins at conception" heads explode. If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?"

There is audio.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/06.html#a7413

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

Why aren’t these religious extremist being beaten with rubber hoses in Gitmo? If extraordinary rendition was every justified…

---

That might be the best idea I have ever heard.

Excuse my ignorance, but was this voted for by the SD people?

about time a lawmaking body stood up for what's right in this country, too bad it's only South Dakota. the stink of it is that with the law being all-encompassing (ie doesn't make provisions for health of mother, rape, incest, etc) , it has no chance at being upheld by the courts. Roe will continue to live on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

Excuse my ignorance, but was this voted for by the SD people?

---

Indirectly. It was not by referendum, but by their elected officials.

The republican party has to attempt this stuff now or risk losing their most cohesive base of support (religious conservatives). They are through their supreme court battles (couldn't touch this fight off before the appointments) and the fundies are starting to clamour for some "beef." It is a major sore spot that the number one uniting principal for them has not seen more progress with an ostensibly anti-abortion Prez, house, senate plus governors etc...etc..etc...

As a general rule right now republicans can flat not get elected unless they have the devoted support of the fundies, making moves on abortion is the only way to mollify them. They must at this point risk alienating moderate voters. This could turn out good for the Dems if they could sell themselves as more fiscally conservative (shouldn't be that hard to do given recent history) and a little more middle of the road on abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lone Star

about time a lawmaking body stood up for what's right in this country, too bad it's only South Dakota. the stink of it is that with the law being all-encompassing (ie doesn't make provisions for health of mother, rape, incest, etc) , it has no chance at being upheld by the courts. Roe will continue to live on.

---

The problem is that Roe is a terribly reasoned decision. This makes it susceptible to attack from both liberals and conservatives. In the end, however, this must be balanced against the liberty afforded to the individual to determine whether or not to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. It is petrifying to think that the government should intervene and tell a woman what do regarding a child she may not want.

Well if states like SD can allow this, then states like California can allow gay marriage, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Well that's ok, cause I hear Alito is pretty liberal on abortion.

---

YEAH THEY SAID IT ON FOXNEWS SO IT MUST BE TRUE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

The republican party has to attempt this stuff now or risk losing their most cohesive base of support (religious conservatives). They are through their supreme court battles (couldn't touch this fight off before the appointments) and the fundies are starting to clamour for some "beef." It is a major sore spot that the number one uniting principal for them has not seen more progress with an ostensibly anti-abortion Prez, house, senate plus governors etc...etc..etc...

As a general rule right now republicans can flat not get elected unless they have the devoted support of the fundies, making moves on abortion is the only way to mollify them. They must at this point risk alienating moderate voters. This could turn out good for the Dems if they could sell themselves as more fiscally conservative (shouldn't be that hard to do given recent history) and a little more middle of the road on abortion.

---

I agree that the GOP may feel compelled to mollify the base of the religious right, but I am sure that only 10% of the population wants abortions controls on par with the statute just passed in SD. It is a stupid move because on its face, the bill does not stand a chance. It does not have a rape or incest exception and appears to broad as to be void for vagueness. Should be interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lone Star

(ie doesn't make provisions for health of mother, rape, incest, etc) , it has no chance at being upheld by the courts. Roe will continue to live on.

---

The bill does make health of the mother provisions, but none for rape and incest. Laws like that and the people that support them scare the living shit out of me. America has transitioned from a nation of "rugged individualists" who want as much control as possible over their own lives to a nation of fundamentalist sheep. Former members of the Moral Majority and other nutjobs must have creamed their shorts when they heard this. [shudder]

If I were a lawyer, I'd be more than willing to donate my time to help Planned Parenthood litigate against laws like this.

With that being said, I have little faith that this will be overturned on a state level, and I fully believe that by Roe will be overturned within the next decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

Well if states like SD can allow this, then states like California can allow gay marriage, right?

---

Technically unless Dubs is able to pass a Constitutional Amendment barring gay marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

They must at this point risk alienating moderate voters. This could turn out good for the Dems if they could sell themselves as more fiscally conservative (shouldn't be that hard to do given recent history) and a little more middle of the road on abortion.

---

I've lost all hope in the dems. They have been handed Bushes head on a silver platter a few times and always come out looking like the stooge. Kerry and Clinton are not electable, and until the stupid asses in this party figure out that people want someone fresh like Obama, then we'll be stuck with narrow losses to the facist party.:nonono2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

The republican party has to attempt this stuff now or risk losing their most cohesive base of support (religious conservatives).

---

Actually, the issue of whether to raise it now has split the RTL movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/national/07abortion.html

Other national anti-abortion groups, though, have quietly disagreed with the timing, pressing instead to cut down on abortions by creating restrictions that may be more palatable to a wider audience, restrictions like parental and spousal notification laws and clinic regulations. If the Supreme Court upholds Roe, they have argued, the damage for those opposed to abortion rights will be grave.

"As much as this isn't the best strategic thing to do, it's there and it's the law of South Dakota now," said Daniel S. McConchie, vice president of Americans United for Life, another group. "We'll defend our position now — which is to oppose abortion."

Cristina Minniti, a spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, said no one from her organization was available to be interviewed on the South Dakota law. Instead, she issued a one paragraph statement which stated, in part: "Currently there are at least five votes, a majority, on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade."

---

Everyone pray for John Paul Stevens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rontele

It is a stupid move because on its face, the bill does not stand a chance. It does not have a rape or incest exception and appears to broad as to be void for vagueness.

---

This is true only if you are right about the way the court would or would not rule. That is IMVHO not a sure bet right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

That is IMVHO not a sure bet right now.

---

total agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

This is true only if you are right about the way the court would or would not rule. That is IMVHO not a sure bet right now.

---

Agreed. But as AlpineDad and I pointed out there are still five votes to uphold Roe. There is the less onerous alternative though of the Court invalidating the statute, however, and sending it back to the state to revise in accordance with the law (whatever this means). They potentially could give guidance to the legislature that there needs to be exceptions in order to survive constitutional muster.

Also the legal rights of Roe are not susceptible to a complete reversal. Stare decisis will ensure that if the Court swings even more conservative that it will take a parallel approach to the Fourth Amendment--a gradual chipping away of the right over the course of a decade.

In the end, if and when Roe is overturned, it will be a state's right issue. So like Blurred said, there will be abortion clinics, liquor stores and fireworks depots on state borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinedad

Actually, the issue of whether to raise it now has split the RTL movement.

---

They may not agree on the strategic timing of this but it is not a deal breaker. The only potential dealbreaker would be continued inaction on the part of the republicans. Any more stalling and you would've seen some big shifts to an action party over a power party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rontele

Agreed. But as AlpineDad and I pointed out there are still five votes to uphold Roe. There is the less onerous alternative though of the Court invalidating the statute, however, and sending it back to the state to revise in accordance with the law (whatever this means). They potentially could give guidance to the legislature that there needs to be exceptions in order to survive constitutional muster.

---

what lemon and I are saying is there are AT LEAST 4 going the other way, and a wildcard

Clinton and kerry, unelectable.

Mark Warner- promising

The religious fundamentalists in America are no different than the Taliban or Osama Been Forgotten. It comes down to dogmatic-fascism. Our beliefs are superior to yours and now it will be law. Sharia Law American style. It's about making women subservient. Dodson, Robertson and the like want to take this country back to the middle ages. Don't even get me started on the evolution in schools issue. I think since the Right doesn't want science they should be denied health care. Then when 60% of their women die in natural child birth we won't have to deal with them.

I agree that this country is really starting to piss me off. You add the SD law, Stazi like wiretapping, All of The Patriot act, Corporate ownership of Washington and a foreign policy that seems to invite everything that we say we're fighting against. It seems to me like the USA is trying to start Armagedon.

In your opinion who's the wild card, Roberts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KillingCokes

It seems to me like the USA IS STARTING Armagedon.

---

fixed it for you :redface:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

what lemon and I are saying is there are AT LEAST 4 going the other way, and a wildcard

---

I wouldn't say that Kennedy is a wild card. The statute at issue in Casey to which Kennedy joined in overturning--contained far more exceptions than SD statute. Also, while it would seem that Roberts and Alito would join Scalia and Thomas, it is not a given considering (although one could make a strong assumption based on Roberts' joining the dissent in Oregon v. Gonzales) that they are going to support abolishing Roe.

You are going to see piecemeal approaches to limiting Roe. First it will be parental or spousal notification and so and so forth. Once the Court decides to roll back Roe, however, it could be a slippery slope until we see an abolishing of abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

The bill does make health of the mother provisions

---

If I recall correctly, it makes life of the mother provisions. Not health.

i was under the impression (and correct me if i am wrong... you know WAY more than i do...) that kennedy was a "wrong law" voter in casey