Round 2.….

[Jerry]

Another abortion-ban bill heading for the Legislature

By Joe Kafka, Associated Press Writer

PIERRE — Lawmakers confirmed Friday that a bill banning most abortions in South Dakota will be introduced again in the Legislature, and it will contain exceptions for rape, incest and the health of women.


The measure was in the final drafting stages, and it was expected to be offered early next week. Tuesday is the deadline for individual lawmakers to introduce bills. Complete details of the measure were scheduled to be released Monday.

A measure that would have banned all abortions except those necessary to save women’s lives was passed last year, but it was referred to the ballot, and voters rejected it.

Last time folks like myself who vehemently oppose abortion would not vote in favore of SD's proposed abortion ban because the law was too restrictive.

I suspect that this bill will get allot more support, and pass.

I await the text.

To add commentery on the article:

Kate Looby said Friday it’s apparent that lawmakers didn’t get the message in the last election when voters rejected an abortion ban by a margin of 56 percent to

44 percent.

“The voters just spoke on this issue in November, and the message they were sending was, ‘We don’t want the government involved in this very personal, private family issue,’ and apparently, some of the legislators just can’t seem to stay out of private issues that families are facing and deal with,” Looby said.

Erm, no, that's not the message this voter sent, so apparently Kate Looby doesn't understand the totality of the issue.

Abortion opponents don't automatically vote for any abortion ban that comes along.

I did not support HB1215 because it did not include the rape and incest exceptions, and was to restrictive in the wording of it's health exception; not because I didn't want the government involved in this very personal, private family issue.

In point of fact I do want the government involved, but to a reasonable degree. HB1215 was an unreasonable degree.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Kate Looby said Friday it’s apparent that lawmakers didn’t get the message in the last election when voters rejected an abortion ban by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent.

It disturbs me more than a little that so draconian an abortion bill was turned down on so close a vote in the first place. Regardless of the "rape and incest" exemption-- which I believe is hypocritical-- the poorly worded and excessively narrow definition of "health" in the first bill was absolutely inexcusable.

Abortion opponents don't automatically vote for any abortion ban that comes along.

I don't know. I think the results from the last vote show that a sizable portion of them do.

However, I do agree with and value your comment that the results "prove" that we don't want the government involved in this-- because clearly, the majority of our society does want the government involved in some fashion. The question we must resolve is how involved we want the government to be, and upon what principles we want the government to act.

 

[Jerry]

It disturbs me more than a little that so draconian an abortion bill was turned down on so close a vote in the first place. Regardless of the "rape and incest" exemption-- which I believe is hypocritical-- the poorly worded and excessively narrow definition of "health" in the first bill was absolutely inexcusable.

The rape and incest exception is hypocritical, I'll give you that. It is inconsistent with the premise that Due Process applies to the unborn.

I for one am willing to take a that amount of hypocrisy onto my self if such a compromise will curb the abuse of Roe -v- Wade.

However, I do agree with and value your comment that the results "prove" that we don't want the government involved in this-- because clearly, the majority of our society does want the government involved in some fashion. The question we must resolve is how involved we want the government to be, and upon what principles we want the government to act.

You put your finger on it.

 

[rathi]

The supreme court will shut it down in a heartbeat if it gets passed. Trying to usurp federal authority like this will not stand.

 

[Jerry]

The supreme court will shut it down in a heartbeat if it gets passed. Trying to usurp federal authority like this will not stand.

Roe-v-Wade section 11, 1c;

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

...SCOTUS already gave the states the authority to regulate abortion, SD is bringing it back to court so that our new Justices can end abortion-on-demand; which Roe was never meant to establish.

 

[Jerry]

Here it is, HB1293

Thoughts?

 

[OKgrannie]

Here it is, HB1293

Thoughts?

These legislators seem to think doctors are grabbing pregnant women off the streets and performing abortions against the women's wishes. Notice there is NO penalty for a woman who has an abortion.

 

[Jerry]

These legislators seem to think doctors are grabbing pregnant women off the streets and performing abortions against the women's wishes. Notice there is NO penalty for a woman who has an abortion.

...and there never will be.

This bill is not a Pro-Life bill, it is a challenge to SCOTUS to clarify RvW section11, that access abortion is a state's right issue, not to be regulated on the federal level.

You will never find a penalty for the woman in any successful abortion ban.

Also, you will always find the rape and incest exception in every successful abortion ban.

 

[OKgrannie]

...and there never will be.

This bill is not a Pro-Life bill, it is a challenge to SCOTUS to clarify RvW section11, that access abortion is a state's right issue, not to be regulated on the federal level.

You will never find a penalty for the woman in any successful abortion ban.

Also, you will always find the rape and incest exception in every successful abortion ban.

What is a "successful" abortion ban? Wouldn't that be an abortion ban that PREVENTS abortions? In that case, there will never be a "successful" abortion ban. Historically, there never has been a "successful" abortion ban, and women are much more accustomed to making their own decisions now than they were pre-RvW. (And much less likely to give up that decision-making power.) Access to the internet empowers women by giving them ready access to information about abortafacients and the ability to order them. There are just TOO many women who believe anti-abortion laws are unjust for enforcement to be possible.

 

[Jerry]

What is a "successful" abortion ban?

One that becomes law and effects the desired change.

Wouldn't that be an abortion ban that PREVENTS abortions?

No legal ban on anything will ever prevent what it opposes 100%.

In that case, there will never be a "successful" abortion ban.

Each state should have the ability to find that out for themselves.

Historically, there never has been a "successful" abortion ban and women are much more accustomed to making their own decisions now than they were pre-RvW. (And much less likely to give up that decision-making power.) Access to the internet empowers women by giving them ready access to information about abortafacients and the ability to order them. There are just TOO many women who believe anti-abortion laws are unjust for enforcement to be possible.

Enforcement is perfectly possible, just like anti dug abuse laws. I don't know why you think the opposite.

 

[OKgrannie]

One that becomes law and effects the desired change..

If the desired change is to pacify the right-wingers, it won't work. Aside from the fact that they liked the first bill, they will just start lobbying to ban birth control.

No legal ban on anything will ever prevent what it opposes 100%..

Abortions bans don't work at ALL. See statistics from some Latin American countries which ban abortion. See estimates from pre-RvW.

Each state should have the ability to find that out for themselves..

No STATE government should have the right to interfere with Constitutional rights. IF abortion effects society at all, it effects the citizens in every state equally. Therefore, you are saying that the citizens of states should be allowed to enact laws enforcing their religious beliefs.

Enforcement is perfectly possible, just like anti dug abuse laws. I don't know why you think the opposite.

How successful have anti-drug laws been? How successful was Prohibition? How successful were lower speed limit laws in the 1970's? You must have a consensus of the population before any law can be enforced. In the case of the SD law, it spells out that anyone can go elsewhere and there are no penalties for TAKING a woman/girl across state lines, so they are anticipating that the law will not be effective.

 

[Jerry]

If the desired change is to pacify the right-wingers, it won't work. Aside from the fact that they liked the first bill, they will just start lobbying to ban birth control.

As I said, the desired change on the federal level is to clarify that the regulation of abortion is a state issue, not a federal issue.

SD will likely ban nearly all abortions in that event, while CA, for example, can continue to provide them on-demand.

As a Pro-Choicer you have no ground to object to the choice of a given state.

Abortions bans don't work at ALL. See statistics from some Latin American countries which ban abortion. See estimates from pre-RvW.

I would love to.
Could you give me a source or 2?

No STATE government should have the right to interfere with Constitutional rights.

...you didn't read the bill....but yes, states can interfere with a citizen's constitutional rights, it's just that abortion is not a constitutional right.

IF abortion effects society at all, it effects the citizens in every state equally. Therefore, you are saying that the citizens of states should be allowed to enact laws enforcing their religious beliefs.

Since dehumanizing the unborn is Humanist, I can claim that religious beliefs are already in the law.

But I know that religion has no play here.

How successful have anti-drug laws been? How successful was Prohibition? How successful were lower speed limit laws in the 1970's? You must have a consensus of the population before any law can be enforced. In the case of the SD law, it spells out that anyone can go elsewhere and there are no penalties for TAKING a woman/girl across state lines, so they are anticipating that the law will not be effective.

It's like my dad used to tell me, "you might find a way to do it on your own, but you won't do it in my house".

If a law against drug abuse isn't working, then the problem lies with either the mechanism of the law or with its enforcement. No law is exempt from this.

Prohibition is the equivalent to a total abortion ban, which is not happening in SD, so that analogy doesn't apply.

No one is stopping you from going to another state to get an abortion.

Speed limit law of the 70s are irrelevant also.

The "consensus of the population" is represented through our elected officials. In any event I strongly believe that this bill will go to the ballot just as it did last time. To bad you get to vote on it.

 

[OKgrannie]

As I said, the desired change on the federal level is to clarify that the regulation of abortion is a state issue, not a federal issue.
As a Pro-Choicer you have no ground to object to the choice of a given state.

Whenever the "state" is pregnant, the state can choose, when it is an individual that is pregnant, that individual gets to choose.

I would love to.
Could you give me a source or 2?

The Role of Contraception in Reducing Abortion

"But while it may seem paradoxical, the legal status of abortion appears to have relatively little connection to its overall pervasiveness. In some parts of Latin America, for example, the abortion rate is as much as twice that of the United States. Worse, mainly because the procedure must be done clandestinely, it is associated with a high incidence of maternal death and disability. By contrast, in many countries where abortion is legal and performed under safe conditions, abortion rates are among the world's lowest (see Table 1)."

In the Know: Questions About Pregnancy, Contraception and Abortion







...you didn't read the bill....but yes, states can interfere with a citizen's constitutional rights, it's just that abortion is not a constitutional right.



Since dehumanizing the unborn is Humanist, I can claim that religious beliefs are already in the law.

But I know that religion has no play here.



It's like my dad used to tell me, "you might find a way to do it on your own, but you won't do it in my house".

If a law against drug abuse isn't working, then the problem lies with either the mechanism of the law or with its enforcement. No law is exempt from this.

Prohibition is the equivalent to a total abortion ban, which is not happening in SD, so that analogy doesn't apply.

No one is stopping you from going to another state to get an abortion.

Speed limit law of the 70s are irrelevant also.

The "consensus of the population" is represented through our elected officials. In any event I strongly believe that this bill will go to the ballot just as it did last time. To bad you get to vote on it.[/QUOTE]

 

[OKgrannie]

As I said, the desired change on the federal level is to clarify that the regulation of abortion is a state issue, not a federal issue.
As a Pro-Choicer you have no ground to object to the choice of a given state.

Whenever the "state" is pregnant, the state can choose, when it is an individual that is pregnant, that individual gets to choose.

I would love to.
Could you give me a source or 2?

The Role of Contraception in Reducing Abortion

"But while it may seem paradoxical, the legal status of abortion appears to have relatively little connection to its overall pervasiveness. In some parts of Latin America, for example, the abortion rate is as much as twice that of the United States. Worse, mainly because the procedure must be done clandestinely, it is associated with a high incidence of maternal death and disability. By contrast, in many countries where abortion is legal and performed under safe conditions, abortion rates are among the world's lowest (see Table 1)."

In the Know: Questions About Pregnancy, Contraception and Abortion

"19. Does making abortion illegal stop it from occurring?

No. Abortion rates are much less related to legal status than they are to levels of unintended pregnancy. In many countries in which abortion is illegal but unintended pregnancy is widespread—for example, Chile, Peru, Nigeria and the Philippines—the abortion rate is higher than in the United States. Some of the world’s lowest abortion rates are in Western European countries, where abortion is legal and covered by national health insurance systems, but where levels of unintended pregnancy are very low. (43,44)"


HISTORY OF ABORTION

"Then, as now, making abortion illegal neither eliminated the need for abortion nor prevented its practice. In the 1890s, doctors estimated that there were two million abortions a year in the U.S. (compared with one and a half million today). Women who are determined not to carry an unwanted pregnancy have always found some way to try to abort. "

It's like my dad used to tell me, "you might find a way to do it on your own, but you won't do it in my house".

No one is stopping you from going to another state to get an abortion.

If women go elsewhere to get abortions, the law is ineffective. The object of a "successful" law is to prevent abortion, not move them elsewhere.

If a law against drug abuse isn't working, then the problem lies with either the mechanism of the law or with its enforcement. No law is exempt from this.

Yeah, I suppose so, the mechanism of law failed to provide for methods of keeping women locked up for the duration of the pregnancy.

Prohibition is the equivalent to a total abortion ban, which is not happening in SD, so that analogy doesn't apply.

If the particular exceptions don't apply to a woman wanting an abortion, it is total ban for her. These decisions are made on an individual basis, not by a group.

Speed limit law of the 70s are irrelevant also.

The lower speed limit laws were not supported by a consensus of the population, and so were impossible to enforce. Sure, some got tickets, but not nearly enough to slow down the driving public. Anti-abortion laws are not supported by a consensus of the population, and while you can lock some people up, you won't stop a significant number of abortions.

The "consensus of the population" is represented through our elected officials. In any event I strongly believe that this bill will go to the ballot just as it did last time. To bad you get to vote on it.

Unfortunately, all too often our elected officials are swayed by lobbying groups with loud voices or lots of money.

 

[Jerry]

Whenever the "state" is pregnant, the state can choose, when it is an individual that is pregnant, that individual gets to choose.

That doesn't even make sence.

The Role of Contraception in Reducing Abortion
In the Know: Questions About Pregnancy, Contraception and Abortion
HISTORY OF ABORTION

Thanks for the links.
Gimmie a bit to look em over.

If women go elsewhere to get abortions, the law is ineffective.

Then I recon you've got nothin to worry about.

The object of a "successful" law is to prevent abortion, not move them elsewhere.

I thought that this was a given, but apparently I have to say it:
As a SD state law, the purpose of banning nearly all abortions in SD state is to ban nearly all abortions is SD state, not the country.

Yeah, I suppose so, the mechanism of law failed to provide for methods of keeping women locked up for the duration of the pregnancy.

Only unyielding PL activists back a penalty for the pregnant woman, so since I thought you were PC I'm surprised to see that you endorse it.

If the particular exceptions don't apply to a woman wanting an abortion, it is total ban for her. These decisions are made on an individual basis, not by a group.

Your obviously confused as to the difference between a total ban and a partial ban.
"Total ban" means that no woman can attain an abortion regardless of circumstance.
"Partial ban" means that a woman can attain an abortion when she fulfills criteria defined by the state.

"Total ban for her", therefore, is an oxy moron.

If this bill becomes law, then any woman who can not satisfy any of the 4 criteria could not attain an abortion in SD, and that's the point.

The lower speed limit laws were not supported by a consensus of the population, and so were impossible to enforce. Sure, some got tickets, but not nearly enough to slow down the driving public. Anti-abortion laws are not supported by a consensus of the population, and while you can lock some people up, you won't stop a significant number of abortions.

I would like to see the abortion rate lowered to pre RvW levels. I would stop there.

But yes, there will be doctors who perform abortions in SD and an unknown number of them may get away with it. Still other women will trade a trip across the state border for a wire hanger. I give those women no sympathy.

Unfortunately, all too often our elected officials are swayed by lobbying groups with loud voices or lots of money.

Yup, that's politics.
No party is innocent.

 

[OKgrannie]

That doesn't even make sence.

It means that the decision belongs with an individual, not the feds, not the state, not the county, not the city. I have every right to object to any level of government reducing the choices of women.

I thought that this was a given, but apparently I have to say it:
As a SD state law, the purpose of banning nearly all abortions in SD state is to ban nearly all abortions is SD state, not the country.

Speaking of "not making sense".... If the object of the law is to stop abortion, or reduce the numbers of them, moving them from one location to another is not effective. IOW, if the concern of the law is to protect "innocent life" then it ain't workin'.

Only unyielding PL activists back a penalty for the pregnant woman, so since I thought you were PC I'm surprised to see that you endorse it.

I'm not endorsing locking women up, I'm just saying that in order to enforce that law, it would be necessary. If women aren't confined and guarded 24/7, they will have abortions.

I would like to see the abortion rate lowered to pre RvW levels. I would stop there.

Did you read my links? The abortion rate before RvW was just as high, perhaps higher than after RvW. If the right-wing is successful in denying women reproductive education and reducing access to contraception, the abortion rates will go higher regardless of the law.

Still other women will trade a trip across the state border for a wire hanger. I give those women no sympathy.

How sad, you were accurate when you said you were NOT pro-life. I know you have children, do you have a daughter? Perhaps you should think of her if you have one, when you so cavalierly dismiss the value of women's lives.

 

[Jerry]

It means that the decision belongs with an individual, not the feds, not the state, not the county, not the city. I have every right to object to any level of government reducing the choices of women.

RvW disagrees with your opinion on the matter, as it clearly left regulation of abortion up to the state, so really, how would you like to be proven wrong this time? Shall I quote some law?

Speaking of "not making sense".... If the object of the law is to stop abortion, or reduce the numbers of them, moving them from one location to another is not effective. IOW, if the concern of the law is to protect "innocent life" then it ain't workin'.

The law doesn't move anything anywhere, so your still not making any sense.

I'm not endorsing locking women up, I'm just saying that in order to enforce that law, it would be necessary. If women aren't confined and guarded 24/7, they will have abortions.

The law regards official medical procedures conducted by doctors, and unofficial medical procedures provided to the woman by a 3rd party.

I know full well that the woman gets off scott free in any event, that was part of the compromise.

I though I said that this was not a PL law.....I guess you didn't know what that meant.

Did you read my links? The abortion rate before RvW was just as high, perhaps higher than after RvW. If the right-wing is successful in denying women reproductive education and reducing access to contraception, the abortion rates will go higher regardless of the law.

To your first link, contraception was never designed to reduce abortion, it was designed to reduce conception and the spread of STDs.

To your second link, abortion does not prevent unintended pregnancies, it ends them. The unintended pregnancy must first exist in order for an abortion to even occur, otherwise there's nothing to abort. Therefore giving free access to abortion will also do nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies and your argument backfires on you.

To your third link, strict regulation of abortion was never meant to prevent or reduce unwanted pregnancy, it is meant to reduce abortion.

Unwanted pregnancy is not an item addressed in HB1293, so while it's worthy of a foot note, it is not the topic of this thread.

How sad, you were accurate when you said you were NOT pro-life. I know you have children, do you have a daughter? Perhaps you should think of her if you have one, when you so cavalierly dismiss the value of women's lives.

Appeals to Emotion do not effect me as I'll not hear of "the value of women's lives" from one who endorses the whimsical quartering and decapitation of children.

 

[OKgrannie]

RvW disagrees with your opinion on the matter, as it clearly left regulation of abortion up to the state, so really, how would you like to be proven wrong this time? Shall I quote some law?

RvW allows the state to regulate after viability or to protect the health of the woman, and such regulations are NOT to create a hardship for the woman.

The law doesn't move anything anywhere, so your still not making any sense.

Of course it does. When a woman chooses to have an abortion, if the state says she cannot have one at location A, she will go to location B even if it is a hardship for her to travel there. So the law, in effect, is moving the abortion, not stopping it.

To your first link, contraception was never designed to reduce abortion, it was designed to reduce conception and the spread of STDs.

To your second link, abortion does not prevent unintended pregnancies, it ends them. The unintended pregnancy must first exist in order for an abortion to even occur, otherwise there's nothing to abort. Therefore giving free access to abortion will also do nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies and your argument backfires on you.

To your third link, strict regulation of abortion was never meant to prevent or reduce unwanted pregnancy, it is meant to reduce abortion.

All three links show clearly that abortion rates do NOT DECLINE because of criminalization. They also mention that availability of contraception effects abortion rates.

Appeals to Emotion do not effect me as I'll not hear of "the value of women's lives" from one who endorses the whimsical quartering and decapitation of children.

:rofl As if "endorses the whimsical quartering and decapitation of children" were NOT a blatant "appeal to emotion." You may not be effected by them, but you sure make ample use of them.

 

[Jerry]

RvW allows the state to regulate after viability or to protect the health of the woman, and such regulations are NOT to create a hardship for the woman.

Its a quotation then.....

RvW section 11:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

It says "subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester", not viability.

You want to make a case for the first trimester? That's just fine. I have already offered that ground. I know which pawns to sacrifice to win the war, and the first trimester is one of them.

HB1293 offers regulation which acts in the interest of the woman's health and natural right to her child, so it is compliant with part b above and can regulate abortion accordingly. Gota love that play.

Of course it does. When a woman chooses to have an abortion, if the state says she cannot have one at location A, she will go to location B even if it is a hardship for her to travel there. So the law, in effect, is moving the abortion, not stopping it.

P. Sherman 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney.

Just like the fish, I can just keep on repeating myself.
Aside from being a challenge for clarification of RvW, HB1293's regulation, itself, is only meant to stop various abortions in SD.

SD law has no jurisdiction outside SD, so if someone chooses to leave the state to get an abortion, that's their own doing. The law doesn't force anyone to get an abortion, and your continued claims that it does are dishonest.

All three links show clearly that abortion rates do NOT DECLINE because of criminalization. They also mention that availability of contraception effects abortion rates.

If that were credible then abortions would not have gone up when abortion was decriminalized.

Source.

As if "endorses the whimsical quartering and decapitation of children" were NOT a blatant "appeal to emotion." You may not be effected by them, but you sure make ample use of them.

Apparently you don't know what an Appeal to Emotion is, as what I said is what actually happens in an abortion, and it happens to whom I said it happens to.

However,

I know you have children, do you have a daughter? Perhaps you should think of her if you have one, when you so cavalierly dismiss the value of women's lives.

...is an attempt to appeal to my emotion because it has little or no connection with HB1293.

 

[OKgrannie]

It says "subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester", not viability.

Subsequent to the end of the first trimester, the state can regulate to protect the woman's health ONLY. Not until the end the 2nd trimester, or viability, can the state interfere to "protect" the fetus.

HB1293 offers regulation which acts in the interest of the woman's health and natural right to her child, so it is compliant with part b above and can regulate abortion accordingly. Gota love that play.

If this were regulation acting in the interest of women's health, it would require EVERY pregnancy to be aborted. Abortion is safer than pregnancy/childbirth, and all this blather about protecting women's health is just...blather.

If that were credible then abortions would not have gone up when abortion was decriminalized.

Umm, they didn't, your link shows the number of abortions since 1973.

HISTORY OF ABORTION

"In the 1890s, doctors estimated that there were two million abortions a year in the U.S. (compared with one and a half million today). "

, as what I said is what actually happens in an abortion, and it happens to whom I said it happens to.
However,
...is an attempt to appeal to my emotion because it has little or no connection with HB1293.

Oh, spare me the moving descriptive "whimsical" and the "quartered and decapitated" melodrama. You may not be effected by Emotional Appeals, but you sure make use of them. BTW, when elective abortions are done, you can't FIND a body to be quartered and decapitated.

 

[Jerry]

Subsequent to the end of the first trimester, the state can regulate to protect the woman's health ONLY. Not until the end the 2nd trimester, or viability, can the state interfere to "protect" the fetus.

That's right.

I care not what legal methodology is used, so long as the desired result comes about.

If this were regulation acting in the interest of women's health, it would require EVERY pregnancy to be aborted. Abortion is safer than pregnancy/childbirth, and all this blather about protecting women's health is just...blather.

Okay, you don't like HB1293...I got that.

Umm, they didn't, your link shows the number of abortions since 1973.
HISTORY OF ABORTION

"In the 1890s, doctors estimated that there were two million abortions a year in the U.S. (compared with one and a half million today). "

Yes it does.
You must have missed the "Annual Number of Abortions" column.

Oh, spare me the moving descriptive "whimsical" and the "quartered and decapitated" melodrama. You may not be effected by Emotional Appeals, but you sure make use of them.

This is not the first time you have accused me of doing what you are guilty of, so it's no surprise.

BTW, when elective abortions are done, you can't FIND a body to be quartered and decapitated.

...found 2 bodies when my children were aborted....they matched up the pieces to be sure they got it all.

***
Did you want to discuss HB1293 yet?

 

[OKgrannie]

I care not what legal methodology is used, so long as the desired result comes about.

If the desired result is FEWER abortions, why don't you work toward something that could actually make that happen instead of lobbying for futile legislation? Such as implementation of comprehensive sex ed in public schools, increased access to contraceptives for teen-agers and all people, electing public officials that manage the economy to benefit the people?

Yes it does.
You must have missed the "Annual Number of Abortions" column.

Your link only shows the number of abortions after 1972, you have no idea if 1973 had more abortions than 1972. The number went up some AFTER 1973, but dropped again.

Originally Posted by OKgrannie
Umm, they didn't, your link shows the number of abortions since 1973.
HISTORY OF ABORTION

"In the 1890s, doctors estimated that there were two million abortions a year in the U.S. (compared with one and a half million today). "

...found 2 bodies when my children were aborted....they matched up the pieces to be sure they got it all.

Were they late-term abortions?

Did you want to discuss HB1293 yet?

I thought we were discussing HB1293. In general, abortion regulation is bad, it causes more problems than it solves. Parental consent laws drive teen-agers to illegal abortionists, parental notification laws drive young parents to dumpster babies, criminalizing abortion drives women to criminal abortionists, etc. HB1293 won't be any better, and there isn't a problem anyway. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You have said repeatedly that HB1293 is only intended to apply to SD, and that is false. It is intended to challenge RvW in the hopes of spreading their anti-woman legislation into every corner of the country.

 

[jallman]

So here is how I feel about it...turn abortion over to the states to either ban or permit abortion. Then watch the issues that arise over the coming decade when a woman has her rights usurped when a hysterical, science hating, mob turns out to vote her into forced submission to pregnancies. Watch the deaths by coat hanger abortions rise, watch the child neglect rise, the crime rates...everything these "morality" police want not to happen. I give it 50 years...75 at most and the respect for a woman's reproductive rights will be higher than ever.

 

[talloulou]

So here is how I feel about it...turn abortion over to the states to either ban or permit abortion. Then watch the issues that arise over the coming decade when a woman has her rights usurped when a hysterical, science hating, mob turns out to vote her into forced submission to pregnancies. Watch the deaths by coat hanger abortions rise, watch the child neglect rise, the crime rates...everything these "morality" police want not to happen. I give it 50 years...75 at most and the respect for a woman's reproductive rights will be higher than ever.

There is now a wide array of birth control methods available. Even the MAP can now be obtained easily.

You are so worried that women are going to hurt themselves with wire hangers? Where is your outrage over the female feticide? You would have me believe that abortion somehow empowers women? Seems to me that in certain countries abortion is used against women. In India and China ultrasounds are used in many instances not so much to get a view of the unborn so much as to ascertain if the unborn has a penis and thus is worth keeping. :roll:

 

[jallman]

There is now a wide array of birth control methods available. Even the MAP can now be obtained easily.

You are so worried that women are going to hurt themselves with wire hangers? Where is your outrage over the female feticide? You would have me believe that abortion somehow empowers women? Seems to me that in certain countries abortion is used against women. In India and China ultrasounds are used in many instances not so much to get a view of the unborn so much as to ascertain if the unborn has a penis and thus is worth keeping. :roll:

We aren't talking about other countries when I directly said let the states (meaning United States) sort the decision out for themselves and then take a comparison. Your claim is irrelevant, off topic, and specious.

What's your deal lately...you are normally so rational and level headed...