2.26.2006
Nice work South Dakota
Ok, the more I read about this, the more it pisses me off.
Apparently last week, the South Dakota Legislature decided to directly challenge the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, and virtually ban all abortions. Abortions would not be allowed in cases of rape or incest, or if giving birth would damage the health of the mother. The ONLY instance it would be allowed is when the life of the mother is threatened (SOURCE). And of course in the case of a rape, the rapist would have rights to the child that was born out of his act. That makes sense, right?
This is the result of a grass roots campaign by pro-life activists. They are going state by state, trying to get legislatures to propose similar bills. South Dakota's population is just a hair above 770,000, and their legislature only meets through March of the year (what do they do the rest of the year?), so this is going to be rushed through.
How many times do we need to re-visit this? Don't we have bigger, more important things to worry about than (once again) challenging a 33 year old court decision. I understand this is a sensitive subject for many people, and I also have a measure of respect for people who are pro life, although the extreme nature of a lot of these people does not help their cause at all. I myself think that a woman's body is her business, although I do not think that abortion should be used as a method of birth control.
Hopefully the governor does not sign this into law, and it just goes away. But I do not see this happening.
Apparently last week, the South Dakota Legislature decided to directly challenge the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, and virtually ban all abortions. Abortions would not be allowed in cases of rape or incest, or if giving birth would damage the health of the mother. The ONLY instance it would be allowed is when the life of the mother is threatened (SOURCE). And of course in the case of a rape, the rapist would have rights to the child that was born out of his act. That makes sense, right?
This is the result of a grass roots campaign by pro-life activists. They are going state by state, trying to get legislatures to propose similar bills. South Dakota's population is just a hair above 770,000, and their legislature only meets through March of the year (what do they do the rest of the year?), so this is going to be rushed through.
How many times do we need to re-visit this? Don't we have bigger, more important things to worry about than (once again) challenging a 33 year old court decision. I understand this is a sensitive subject for many people, and I also have a measure of respect for people who are pro life, although the extreme nature of a lot of these people does not help their cause at all. I myself think that a woman's body is her business, although I do not think that abortion should be used as a method of birth control.
Hopefully the governor does not sign this into law, and it just goes away. But I do not see this happening.
2.12.2006
2 reasons why the 80's ruled
2.07.2006
States Eye Picketing at Soldiers' Funerals
I'm sorry but this is messed up.
"COLUMBUS, Ohio - States are rushing to limit when and where people may protest at funerals — all because of a small Kansas church whose members picket soldiers' burials, arguing that Americans are dying for a country that harbors homosexuals. "
Further down:
"Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps' daughter and an attorney for the church, said states cannot interfere with their message that the soldiers were struck down by God because they were fighting for a country that harbors homosexuals and adulterers."
And maybe even worse:
"Legislation against funeral protests was also introduced in West Virginia last month after a small knot of protesters from Westboro Baptist demonstrated outside a memorial for the 12 men killed in the Sago Mine disaster. The protesters held signs reading, "Thank God for Dead Miners," "God Hates Your Tears" and "Miners in Hell," arguing that the miners' deaths were a sign of God's wrath at America for tolerating gays."
Seriously, what is wrong with people.....
"COLUMBUS, Ohio - States are rushing to limit when and where people may protest at funerals — all because of a small Kansas church whose members picket soldiers' burials, arguing that Americans are dying for a country that harbors homosexuals. "
Further down:
"Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps' daughter and an attorney for the church, said states cannot interfere with their message that the soldiers were struck down by God because they were fighting for a country that harbors homosexuals and adulterers."
And maybe even worse:
"Legislation against funeral protests was also introduced in West Virginia last month after a small knot of protesters from Westboro Baptist demonstrated outside a memorial for the 12 men killed in the Sago Mine disaster. The protesters held signs reading, "Thank God for Dead Miners," "God Hates Your Tears" and "Miners in Hell," arguing that the miners' deaths were a sign of God's wrath at America for tolerating gays."
Seriously, what is wrong with people.....
