South Dakota abortion ban. Thoughts?

fett on 23/2/2006 at 17:51

(http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060223/ts_nm/rights_abortion_dc;_ylt=Ah8q9NvjLaMauKhhvN5JZcas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ) Here's the story at Yahoo.

No suprise to anyone here that I'm pro-life - have been before I had any type of 'spiritual' convictions about the issue or had read anything about conception and the medical side of the whole thing.

So this is obviously a fortuitious time for such a move given the recent appointments to the Supreme Court, but I'm suprised at how quickly and unabashedly South Dakota has sprung this. Since I don't understand the llegalities of this, I have a few questions (RBJ?)

1) How likely is this to actually stand up?

2) States can make abortion law automously from the Federal govt., but what is the relationship between what has happened in South Dakota and Roe v. Wade (a federal case?) - I'm not very clear on the implications here.

3) On the medical & moral side, I do support abortion rights for cases of incest, rape, and danger to mom, but pro-choice folks aways scream about 'coat-hanger abortions in the alley' if Roe v. Wade is overturned. How likely is it that such things will happen en masse if it is overturned, and how likely is it that clinics will simply ignore the new laws preventing abortion? Will it become a kind of 'wink wink' industry (don't ask don't tell) at GYN clinics?

I just don't see the U.S. going backwards from Roe v. Wade, but what kind of precedent does this South Dakota ruling set?

SD on 23/2/2006 at 18:15

Quote Posted by fett

No suprise to anyone here that I'm pro-life

No, we've always known you were a fucking idiot.

jprobs on 23/2/2006 at 18:19

Quote Posted by fett

I just don't see the U.S. going backwards from Roe v. Wade, but what kind of precedent does this South Dakota ruling set?

Who to say it's a step Backwards?

SD on 23/2/2006 at 18:22

I personally can't think of a better word to describe the imminent return to the days of dangerous backstreet abortions and treatment of women as second-class citizens.

fett on 23/2/2006 at 18:24

Quote:

No, we've always known you were a fucking idiot.

Let's start over StD. This was intended to be a discussion. That's where grown-ups exchange opinions, information, and ideas. In a civilized society, they are able to do so even if those opinions and ideas are different. Unless provoked, it's typically considered obnoxious and trollish to attack someone sight unseen in a thread. If you'd like to join us, please grow up.

SD on 23/2/2006 at 18:37

I'm being told to grow up by someone whose idea of progress is to support the implementation of dangerous social policies that would send humanity back to the Stone Age.

Do we really need another interminable abortion debate? No. So let's just agree that "pro-lifers" (the least apt term for any group of people ever) are idiots and move on.

Chimpy Chompy on 23/2/2006 at 18:38

Well I wouldn't support this law. Pretty much pro-choice here. But I would have thought, from the pro-lifers' perspective, it would have made practical sense to allow abortions for rape\incest cases. Or those threatening health (as I understand it only cases with a severe threat of death to the woman are permitted?). Throw their opposition a few concessions for the sake of looking reasonable, rather than pushing for a near-all-out ban from the start.

[edit]Stronts, you will never get anywhere with this "discussion" business until you learn to appreciate perspectives outside your own.

So, yeah, grow up.

Wyclef on 23/2/2006 at 18:42

Quote:

How likely is it that such things will happen en masse if it is overturned, and how likely is it that clinics will simply ignore the new laws preventing abortion? Will it become a kind of 'wink wink' industry (don't ask don't tell) at GYN clinics?

It's more likely that the states will divide along familiar red/blue lines. The daughters of South Dakota's well-to-do will find discreet and legal abortion services in Minnesota and Wisconsin, while poor black Mississipian women will be, as always, shit out of luck.

SD on 23/2/2006 at 18:47

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

Stronts, you will never get anywhere with this "discussion" business until you learn to appreciate perspectives outside your own.

Okay. So you think we should appreciate the perspective of people who, for example, believe that we should build skyscrapers out of jello and custard?

Of course not. And you know why we shouldn't? Because those people are idiots. That's what we got going on here. QED.

Gestalt on 23/2/2006 at 18:49

Quote:

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down.

Pro-Life is an interesting way to describe this sort of behaviour.