South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions

Users who are viewing this thread

Mrs Behavin

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,411
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.55z
Governor Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota. The law will make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life -- but there are no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, has pledged to challenge the legislation. Rounds said he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html
 
  • 46
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

hhayes

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,521
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
i am not a believer of abortions myself i think it is wrong but there are things that happen to people where i can see people having one.
i had a friend one time have an abortion and i was so heartbroken and i didn't really agree with the choice
 

OUZBnd

Active Member
Messages
2,807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.06z
Re: RE: South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions

lemon said:
that violates rights. i just dont know which law provides the precedent. :dunno

Im not saying i agree with the law, but what right does it violate? By allowing abortions doesn't it violate the law - murder? It's just a matter of how you view it.
 

Rusteh

Active Member
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.01z
Re: RE: South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions

lemon said:
the law should be its the couple/women's choice. since she's the one that has to cope with it.

key words right there (not that i agree)
 

Haus

OTz Original
Messages
16,068
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.10z
i agree in abortions but only for certain reasons. like if you want an abortion cause you made a oopsie. then thats wrong IMHO. but i agree in it if the doctors know there is going to be a serious birth defect on the baby or a girl got pregnant by being raped then i agree with having an abortion
 

Mrs Behavin

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,411
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.55z
:agree
If my daughter got raped, I would give her the option of an abortion. But I would leave that entirely up to her. But I wouldnt be against her having one under those circumstances.
 

OUZBnd

Active Member
Messages
2,807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.06z
If someone gets raped, why not just automatically take the morning after pill - It works. I don't understand why you would wait until you needed an abortion to decide you dont want the baby.
 

Mrs Behavin

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,411
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.55z
Ive heard from numerous people whether its on TV or real life say how some of them are embarrassed to admit they were raped. Some say they dont feel anyone would believe them . And if thats the case, she might not say anything until its too late to take the morning after pill or she may be too young to even know anything about the morning after pill :dunno
 

Sim

Active Member
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
30.11z
This is going to be really long, and I would appreciate you reading all the way through it as it all pertains to the topic at hand. It contains my personal life, and will probably give you better insight as to the person I am.

Ok. Case in point:

I was 15, and over at my cousin's house around the corner from my home, partying with her and her sister's friends. I was new to the area, even though I had been visiting it my whole life. I was tired after doing shit all day long, and so I went into her room to lie down. I woke up four hours later to a red haired, green eyed 23-year-old man on top of me, covering my mouth with his hand. There was literally nothing I could do at the time, other than to just ignore it as best as possible.

Now my parents gave me every option available in 1992. I could have an abortion, I could keep the baby myself, I could have the baby and let them raise it, I could have the baby and give it to my aunt and uncle who could only have one child and love children, or I could give it up for adoption outside of the family. Regardless of what the situation was, I was the one given the options, as it was my body. Let me tell you how much I respect the fucking hell out of my folks for that!

I made my choice. Xane is turning 13 this May. He is the best child anyone could have ever asked for. I kept him because I felt as though it was my own stupidity going to the cousins' house knowing what goes on there. I didn't do squat to the guy who helped create the life, because had I brought charges against him, his name would have been on the birth certificate...and I didn't feel he had the right to be there...and the courts agreed with me. (I have friends in high places...and we'll leave it at that.)

I have no regrets at all. I'm not someone who ever really harped on the fact that I had been raped. It wasn't my fault, but rather a character flaw in the individual who performed the act. Besides, look what I acquired from this! I could go on and on about my child...well, really about all of them...

Fast forward through Justice's birth in 1994 with my first husband, who by the way, cheated on me a few months before I gave birth...and to after I kicked that loser to the curb for my birthday in March of 1995. That was my eighteenth birthday gift to myself...my personal freedom.

Now I've never been hard up for cash. I've always had money (won a settlement at six that I can't speak of in public, but can do so in private if it is so desired), but I wanted to do something for myself. I wanted to be in a position where I could be more dominant and could control every aspect of everything...so I stripped for three months and paid off my tuition in full to Baylor. (That's right...mother of two little boys took off the clothes. lol) This was something major for me...because I had only worked in the family businesses up until that point.

Anyway...I met my future husband during this time. He was my bodyguard (yeah, I needed one), and he and his best friend moved into my home to keep an eye on me. I had issues with my ex at the time, and a couple people who were stalking me on his behalf, as well. Things went well for us, and we finally started our relationship a few months in. I decided I wanted another child...and I became pregnant. I had to have an abortion, though, because I became terribly ill, and it was at a point where it was either the baby or me. I couldn't make the decision for myself, so he made it for me...and I never blamed him or myself. I figured shit happens, and it was just my day to be in front of the fan.

A few months later, I became pregnant again and had the absolute easiest pregnancy I had ever had...the delivery of Liberty was a cinch, too. I was told I wouldn't be able to carry her, but I did. *smiles*

After she was born, the condom broke, and once again, I found myself pregnant...while I was taking care of my dying father, trying to go through mid-terms and working clinicals in cancer centers. I'm thinking that Darian's extreme emotional attachments have a lot to do with what I went through with my pregnancy for her. Again, they said I wouldn't carry her, and we almost lost her when she was stuck in the birth canal for eight hours (while the doctor dozed in the rocking chair watching Wheel of Fortune, mind you).

After Darian, we figured we'd have a baby...but not for ourselves. We wanted to give a life to my aunt and uncle that I spoke of earlier. They deserved to have another child, after all, and we knew they would be very loving parents. It didn't ever come to that, though. I had two miscarriages, and another forced miscarriage (that's a fancy term for abortion) due to how ill I became throughout. I finally had my uterus removed in 2002 due to cancerous cells starting to form.

Now had I been able to bring myself to have an abortion in the beginning, I wouldn't be where I am today. I would have finished med school to become a physician, and would be living in a third world country, helping the children there who need it so badly. But the point that I had the choices was something that still is very important to me. When people take away those liberties of choosing what to do with your own body, it is like they are taking away your ability to use an extra square of toilet tissue, should you wish. It isn't so much the thought that it can be used as a form of birth control for people (as it is sometimes abused), but that it is the last form of hope that you have to give your own self time to grow and heal and become more mature before you have the responsibility of another person.

When people take away the right to terminate a life that isn't capable of living outside the womb, they take away the mother's life. They take her ability to do something that will benefit her and the future children she may have. I simply do not agree with anyone taking away those rights.

And while I understand the issues people have concerns and personal attachments to fetuses which will eventually become children...but why disallow the abortions to take place if the fetus is not viable in the world without the assistance of a carrier? We put animals down every day...why are we not as attached to their children, which ARE viable outside the womb? I understand peta has a problem with it, but why should it be any different? We can put them down, but not our own...it just doesn't make sense.

On another note, is it state or federal that mandates such? I would think it is state, since this is about a particular state taking away rights...but if it is federal, then they're kinda bound to keep them legal, are they not?
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade made the following rulings.

* that no state may make laws regulating abortion during the first three months of pregnancy except to provide that they be done by licensed physicians.
* that laws regulating abortion between the third month and the time of viability are constitutional only in so far as they are aimed at safeguarding the health of mothers.
* that laws relating to the time from viability (6-6 1/2 months) until the end of the pregnancy may not prevent abortion if it is "to preserve the life or health of the mother".
* that the "health" of the mother includes "all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age—relevant to the well-being of the patient."

Then on July 1, 1976 the Court extended its original decision to affirm:

* that abortions may be performed on minor daughters without the knowledge or consent of their parents, and
* that women (whether married or unmarried) may obtain abortions without the knowledge or consent of the baby's father.

So with this in mind, I don't know how South Dakota can do this...
it will be interesting to watch... I'm sure it's a move by the conservatives in this country to challenge the Rove v Wade decision. They now have a chance at overturning it with the addition of the two new Justices. I just hope that we don't go back to abortion being illegal with back-alley abortions. People need to stop all this fighting over abortion rights and put their energy into prevention, alternatives and education. It won't eliminate the need for abortion, but it will stem the tide of uneducated girls that use it, which account for thousands of abortions.
 

Sim

Active Member
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
30.11z
Very well put, Tim...and thank you for looking up the legalities for me!

I realize that it's only challenging the more "hostile" forms of abortion, but at the same time, it's squashing the rights of thousands of women who really feel it's the best option available.

*sighs* I hope the challenges are met with doors slammed appropriately.
 

lemon

Member
Messages
7,916
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.01z
so sim...

about that settlement :lol



damn. that must have been one hell of a roller coaster ride for those years.

good to see that ya kept your mind through it all too :cool



-----------------------

tim, it sure as hell seems like that it is THE opportune time to challenge roe vs wade. but the result, if the challengers are successful, it is not going to be good.
 

Sim

Active Member
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
30.11z
Ya know, Lemon...the one thing that kept me sane the entire time was my sense of humor. I can look at any situation and get a kick out of it...for instance, the guy who started it all is bald now. I find that hilarious. Not to mention, he isn't allowed back into the State of Texas...so again, funny shit! lol But thanks for the compliment!

And you're right on the money with what you stated...it won't be any good.
 

Mrs Behavin

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,411
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.55z
Re: RE: South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions

RecklessTim said:
January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade made the following rulings.

* that no state may make laws regulating abortion during the first three months of pregnancy except to provide that they be done by licensed physicians.
* that laws regulating abortion between the third month and the time of viability are constitutional only in so far as they are aimed at safeguarding the health of mothers.
* that laws relating to the time from viability (6-6 1/2 months) until the end of the pregnancy may not prevent abortion if it is "to preserve the life or health of the mother".
* that the "health" of the mother includes "all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age—relevant to the well-being of the patient."

Then on July 1, 1976 the Court extended its original decision to affirm:

* that abortions may be performed on minor daughters without the knowledge or consent of their parents, and
* that women (whether married or unmarried) may obtain abortions without the knowledge or consent of the baby's father.

So with this in mind, I don't know how South Dakota can do this...
it will be interesting to watch... I'm sure it's a move by the conservatives in this country to challenge the Rove v Wade decision. They now have a chance at overturning it with the addition of the two new Justices. I just hope that we don't go back to abortion being illegal with back-alley abortions. People need to stop all this fighting over abortion rights and put their energy into prevention, alternatives and education. It won't eliminate the need for abortion, but it will stem the tide of uneducated girls that use it, which account for thousands of abortions.


I know for a fact that here in Arkansas that they will not do an abortion w/o a parents consent and being there with you of your under 18.
Now I do know that this girl I work with has a 16 yr old cousin and she got pregnant and wanted an abortion and has nothing to really do with her parents so Stephanie (the girl I work with) had to go before a judge and get his okay that she can take her cousin to get the abortion.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Re: RE: South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions

Mrs Behavin said:
I know for a fact that here in Arkansas that they will not do an abortion w/o a parents consent and being there with you of your under 18.
Now I do know that this girl I work with has a 16 yr old cousin and she got pregnant and wanted an abortion and has nothing to really do with her parents so Stephanie (the girl I work with) had to go before a judge and get his okay that she can take her cousin to get the abortion.

Ok, I found this decision by the supreme court

1979: In Bellotti vs. Baird, the court implies that states may be able to require a pregnant, unmarried minor to obtain parental consent to an abortion so long as state law provides an alternative, such as letting the minor seek a state judge's approval.

Under this decision, they can deny a minor without parental consent as long as they provide an alternative to her as stated above.

Maybe that's why :dunno
 

Makaio

New Member
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I think there should be some exceptions, but only a few; like if you're under 18, going to die from it, was raped, and so on.

Otherwise, I believe that if you're over 18, you shouldn't have gotten knocked up in the first frickin' place. Busted condom? Whine.

Again, that is my opinion.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
For those of you who are against abortion, here are some interesting facts to consider.

1. There are 1,370,000 abortions in the US each year
2. There are 51,000 people that adopt a child (relations & marriage not included)
3. There are 100,000,000 households in the US

If abortion was made illegal in the US today, within 5 years we would have to house over 6 million unwanted children. Who will take care of these children? Who will support them and care for them?

Why is it that I will never see anyone say "I am against abortion and I think it should be illegal in all but the most extreme cases... but this is how I think we can help those women that feel that it is the best choice for them"?

I don't think abortion should be illegal, we don't have the resources to deal with the population explosion that will come after. And this doesn't even account for all the back-alley deaths that will come with it.

I guess it would be the same as making petroleum products illegal to own or use without first preparing how we will deal without it....
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top