CNN.com

 

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.

 

The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.

 

"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.

 

The bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions.

 

Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

President Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said.

 

Opponents argued that the measure was too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women. They said abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman's health.

 

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure in court if it wins final approval from the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds.

 

Rounds, a Republican and a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on the abortion ban if it would "save life."

 

Other state legislatures are considering similar measures. But South Dakota is the only state so far to pass such an abortion ban, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, D.C.

 

If the Supreme Court decides that a woman has a right to choose then the states should have no authority to pass a bill or any law banning ANY type of abortion. I beleive that a woman has a right to choose, and so does the President and the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court decides that a woman has a right to choose then the states should have no authority to pass a bill or any law banning ANY type of abortion. I beleive that a woman has a right to choose, and so does the President and the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Since when?

 

And as far as states having the authority...that's what they're allowed to do. They obviously aren't expecting this to just be accepted, they're doing this in the hopes that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, as you said in the topic's subtitle.

If the Supreme Court decides that a woman has a right to choose then the states should have no authority to pass a bill or any law banning ANY type of abortion. I beleive that a woman has a right to choose, and so does the President and the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Since when?

 

I think what he might be meaning there is that he thinks the prez is allowed to make his own decision on the issue and live by that in his private life, much like women abroad in the nation, as well as even the supreme court justices. At least that is what I think he is getting at.

If the Supreme Court decides that a woman has a right to choose then the states should have no authority to pass a bill or any law banning ANY type of abortion. I beleive that a woman has a right to choose, and so does the President and the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Since when?

 

I think what he might be meaning there is that he thinks the prez is allowed to make his own decision on the issue and live by that in his private life, much like women abroad in the nation, as well as even the supreme court justices. At least that is what I think he is getting at.

 

What I meant to say is I beleive that President Bush has 2 opinions on abortion: a personal opinion and a Presidential opinion that is good for the country. Bush does not beleive in abortion personally but he beleives that it is better for the country. He has said that he does not support abortion but he does not support any laws that ban aboriotn, even partial birth abortions. He has a personal opinion and professional opinion.

 

In my opinoin a woman has the right to choose. No where in the constitution does it say that a woman does not have the right to have a abortion.

What I meant to say is I beleive that President Bush has 2 opinions on abortion: a personal opinion and a Presidential opinion that is good for the country. Bush does not beleive in abortion personally but he beleives that it is better for the country. He has said that he does not support abortion but he does not support any laws that ban aboriotn, even partial birth abortions. He has a personal opinion and professional opinion.

er, no.

 

that would make him pro-choice.

Ok, guys stop tearing it to pieces. WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY is that I beleive Bush recognizes that his personal view on Abortion is not the best for the country.

Ok, guys stop tearing it to pieces. WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY is that I beleive Bush recognizes that his personal view on Abortion is not the best for the country.

 

he does?

thats what i beleive. he has said time and time again that he does not support abortion but he does not support any laws on abortion, so he does not let his personal opinion be expressed in his professional judgement. is that hard for your guys to understand.

Looks like the govna's going to sign. :confused

 

At a press conference Friday morning, Rounds said he will sign the bill if he determines that it can save lives.

 

?I?ve indicated I?m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives,? Rounds said. ?If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.?

 

But Rounds said he didn?t necessarily agree with the ?frontal assault? tactic the bill takes to overturning the decision that legalized abortion.

 

?Personally, I think we will save more lives by continuing to chip away at Roe v. Wade,? he said.

Linky

Democracy 101: you get the government you deserve. And if you didn't vote, well, you deserve what you get.

 

As it is, I was thinking of cancelling my 1st Financial credit card anyways (they're based in SD), but this clinches it.

At a press conference Friday morning, Rounds said he will sign the bill if he determines that it can save lives.

 

?I?ve indicated I?m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives,? Rounds said. ?If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.?

 

But Rounds said he didn?t necessarily agree with the ?frontal assault? tactic the bill takes to overturning the decision that legalized abortion.

 

?Personally, I think we will save more lives by continuing to chip away at Roe v. Wade,? he said.

 

I love it when people take the stance of "saving the lives of the unborn," as if there was such a thing. You think this guy has adopted kids, by the way? Any who opposes abortion worth their salt should be the first in line to adopt all the unwanted kids we have. Stopping abortion only adds to this number.

 

In case you're interested in the President's ACTUAL stance of abortion (he's against it), check out his original debate on the matter in 2000 against former Vice President Al Gore:

 

http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

 

Ban partial-birth abortions, and reduce abortions overall

 

GORE (to Bush): On the issue of partial-birth or so-called late-term abortion, I would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the ability to save a women?s life or to act if her health is severely at risk. [but] the main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overturned. I support a woman?s right to choose; my opponent does not.

 

BUSH: I know we need to ban partial-birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent & I have strong disagreements. I believe banning partial-birth abortion would be a positive step toward reducing the number of abortions in America. This is an issue that?s going to require a new attitude. We?ve been battling over abortion for a long period of time. Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life.

 

 

Find common ground where good people disagree

 

Q: What is your attitude towards abortion:

 

BUSH: Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. This is a very important topic, and it?s a very sensitive topic because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is promote a culture of life in America. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born and unborn, ought to be protected in law and welcomed into life. What I do believe is, we can find good common ground on issues like parental notification or parental consent. And I know we need to ban partial-birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreements. I believe banning partial-birth abortion would be a positive step toward reducing the number of abortions in America.

 

And my FAVORITE part from the whole shebang:

 

Every child born and unborn ought to be protected

 

Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother?s life. He?ll try to seem non-threatening, respecting others? views without backing off his long-held ?pro-life? position. He previously had said he would not demand that his Supreme Court nominees be anti-abortion. It?s even conceivable he?ll choose a running mate who supports abortion rights, Bush said. ?I?m going to talk about the culture of life,? he continued. ?I?ve set the goal that every child born and unborn ought to be protected. But I recognize [that many] people don?t necessarily agree with the goal. People appreciate somebody who sets a tone, a tone that values life, but recognizes that people disagree.? He pointed out that those gun-toting killers at Columbine High School did not value life; they ?devalued? it.

 

So by supporting abortion we're no better than the Columbine killers? :lol

 

Anyways, the whole point is Bush is AGAINST, AGAINST, AGAINST abortion. In his personal life he's against it and in his presidency he's against it. He wants to be your friend, however, in the sense that he wants to say we can find a "common ground" in our stances on abortion. I believe the problems with some of his nominees to the Supreme Court have been they would most definitely try and overturn Roe v. Wade at some point.

I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions.

I smell a right answer here:

 

I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions.

I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions.

 

 

Or OMG get on the pill

Or OMG get on the pill

 

:notworthy

I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions.

 

 

Or OMG get on the pill

 

I wasn't aware the pill is 100% effective. Or that everyone had the resources and foreknowledge to always use it.

I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions.

 

 

Or OMG get on the pill

Dont be naive. If you think the nutjobs that want first trimester abortion gone will stop there, you really need to learn more. You think theyll be ok with teenage girls and boys having access to condoms or contraceptives? You think they are ok with adults getting these? No dice on both counts. And if you think for a second that their solution, ie drilling abstinence and Jesus into everyones heads, will actually stop unwanted pregnancies, then Ive got a bridge to sell you.

Or OMG get on the pill

 

:notworthy

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

 

OMG OMG lyk I so agree!

 

I mean the pill is 100% effective.... Actually about 92-93% effective

I mean the pill is completely healthy..... Actually it can cause blood clots, migranes, irregular menstrual bleeding, obesity, etc.

I mean the pill is for everyone....Or not. Have high blood pressure, cancer, anemia, migranes, diabetes, it's not for you. Also if you're over 35, might not be recommended.

 

It's also a $300 investment a year. I am sure all parents wouldn't mind helping their young women daughters out with that. And right now some pharmacies don't want to issue morning after pills, only a matter of time before they won't want to issue any pills to stop pregnancies, give it time.

 

Let's also not forget not everyone who gets a "bun in the oven" does so willingly. Then again there are also those times when it is between losing the baby or losing the baby and the mother.

 

It's called a choice. Don't like abortion, don't do it. In no way does it affect you. Once you are born you can't be aborted, so trust me if you are reading this, I promise you, you are safe from abortion. You say it's morally wrong, against your religion? Well don't do it, let the people who do it, and codone it go to hell, voice your opinion, but let that be that.

It's also a $300 investment a year. I am sure all parents wouldn't mind helping their young women daughters out with that. And right now some pharmacies don't want to issue morning after pills, only a matter of time before they won't want to issue any pills to stop pregnancies, give it time.

 

Let's also not forget not everyone who gets a "bun in the oven" does so willingly. Then again there are also those times when it is between losing the baby or losing the baby and the mother.

 

Good points. Here are the common responses:

 

-Poor people should work harder so they can make more money so they can pay for the pill.

-Women and girls who were raped probably asked for it because they were sluts.

-The mother should sacrifice her life for the child.

-Why do you want to encroach on someone's job if they choose not to do the job they chose?

I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions.

 

 

Or OMG get on the pill

Dont be naive. If you think the nutjobs that want first trimester abortion gone will stop there, you really need to learn more. You think theyll be ok with teenage girls and boys having access to condoms or contraceptives? You think they are ok with adults getting these? No dice on both counts. And if you think for a second that their solution, ie drilling abstinence and Jesus into everyones heads, will actually stop unwanted pregnancies, then Ive got a bridge to sell you.

 

Guess what, teenage boys and girls DO have access to condoms and contraceptives. Go to mother f***ing Eckerd and buy a box of rubbers. Go to the health center and get on the pill. You can't pay 30 bucks a month for the pill? Get a f***ing part time job. Go figure, it will give you something to do besides having unprotected sex with your pothead classmates.

 

But seriously, if you honestly "can't afford protection or don't have access to it" (oh boo-hoo) keep your f***ing legs closed, or keep your pecker in your pants. WHAT A CONCEPT!!!

If you can't afford contraception, you shouldn't be having sex. If you can't afford a contraceptive, you definitely can't afford a kid. Rape is pretty much the only time when abortion should be alright. Other than that, if you can't afford a kid don't have sex. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

Hey, I'm personally pro-life but I don't want the government getting involved in abortions. My reasoning for this is completely separate from the reasoning given thus far in this thread.

I have to agree with Dodge (I can't believed I just entered an argument about abortion, oh noes)

 

Abortion should be an option available, but we can't have people going around, having unprotected sex and then getting abortions every time. There needs to be some kind of responsibility.

Don't abortions cost money?

Hey I'm pro choice, I'm just f***ing tired of the cookie-cutter leftists.

Abortion should be an option available, but we can't have people going around, having unprotected sex and then getting abortions every time. There needs to be some kind of responsibility.

 

 

Do you honestly think people want to have an abortion? That their goal in life is to get pregnant so they can have an abortion? Be serious now.

 

Of course the answer is no, unless they have other mental disorders that probably manifest themselves other ways as well. I have a hard time believing people plan having abortions years in advance. It is the last option the person has. Maybe some people are lax about it and they figure "oh well if I get preggers I'll just have an abortion", but I doubt that is the majority. I happen to believe most people have a good head on their shoulders and understand the concept of responsibility.

 

Don't abortions cost money?

 

 

A lot of insurance companies cover abortions, as well as state programs. There are clinics that work with people to dramatically reduce the price.

 

On the flip side, insurance companies don't like paying for birth control pills.

 

But seriously, if you honestly "can't afford protection or don't have access to it" (oh boo-hoo) keep your f***ing legs closed, or keep your pecker in your pants. WHAT A CONCEPT!!!

 

 

So what if you can afford protection, and use it, but still get a bun in the oven? WHAT A CONCEPT! Brith control, of all sorts, is not 100%. So is it okay to have an abortion then? Or are you going to back track on me.

 

if you can't afford a kid don't have sex.

 

 

Should couples living below the poverty line be barred from having sex and kids? Because, seriously, if the family is already below the poverty line, how can they possibly afford a kid on top of it?

 

Oh, tell the homeless people to stop having sex too, lord knows they can't afford the kid.