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.
# posted by Sloopy Picklehump @ 6:50 PM 
