Say Anything Blog

If it does pass, it’ll also add the populace’s support to the considerations if the law gets tested in the Supreme Court on the grounds of state vs governments rights. I’m sure if that will make a difference, but it’ll be a nice bullet point.

What message will it send if the law is defeated?

That the majority of South Dakotans oppose the ban as written.

But then there’s a larger point here: If the ban is overturned by the voters the pro-abortion people will likely appeal it through the court system.  If it is overturned they’ll declare a victory for the democratic process.

What I’m wondering is why they’ll only respect the will of the voters in one instance?  When the majority agrees with them they’ll accept it, but when they don’t they’ll try to get some judge to impose their will by judicial fiat.

That’s crap.  Roe vs. Wade should be overturned so that the voters in each individual state have the ability to settle this matter for themselves.  All this furor over abortion is exactly why the founders, through the 10th amendment, left thorny social issues to the states.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Because Rob, there are three equal branches of the government and individuals can seek redress from each branch of the government including the judiciary.

Abortion is not a “right”. I hope South Dakota voters ban it entirely. It will be interesting to see.

Because Rob, there are three equal branches of the government and individuals can seek redress from each branch of the government including the judiciary.

The judiciary cannot write law, Puzzle, yet that’s exactly what they did when they read a “right” to an abortion into the Constitution where it didn’t exist.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Abortion is not a “right”.

As of today it certainly is.

Speaking of South Dakota, how do you pronounce the name of the capital?  Is it Pee-air or Peer?

Regards…

As far as the application of the law goes, yes abortion is currently a right.  But only by judicial fiat.  I don’t agree with the ruling, but the law obvoiusly has to be upheld.

As for Pierre, it is pronounced “peer.”

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

According to the Supreme Court it may be a right. BUT, they are wrong and it should be upheld. The case was decided wrongly in accordance with the constitution.

Because Rob, there are three equal branches of the government and individuals can seek redress from each branch of the government including the judiciary.

No, there are several branches of government that we forget.  First, you are correct that there are three “FEDERAL” branches of government.  But there are also state branches of government that mirror the Feds.  Each state has three branches.  But funny, two of the three state branches are who passed this law, and the law has not been challenged Constitutionally in the state because that would require a state judge and ultimately the state Supreme Court to somehow use black magic and voodoo to find some similar “right to privacy” in the state Constitution.

So what we have is a fourth branch of government in most states called a referendum.  South Dakota was the first state in the country to implement this.  It essentially is a process for voters to override the will of the state Legislature and in Arizona, it essentially passes laws that even the state courts cannot overturn.  Like a trump card.

But try this on for size from the US Today:

Four Republican state senators who voted against South Dakota’s abortion ban lost their primary elections, raising questions about support for an effort to repeal the controversial state law.
“There’s certainly no good news in the outcome for pro-choice advocates,” Bob Burns, a political science professor at South Dakota State University, said Wednesday.

The defeat Tuesday of half of the eight Senate Republicans who opposed the nation’s most restrictive abortion law might mean trouble for a planned referendum in November to rescind the ban, Burns says. The other four had no primary challengers.

This is interesting background:

South Dakota has the distinction of being the first state in the Union to provide for popular initiative and referendum for enacting and rejecting legislation. This was accomplished by constitutional amendment approved in 1898. These two forms of direct legislation, first used in 1908, rest on the theory that since the legislature may not always adequately represent them, the people should be able to pass laws they desire and nullify laws they oppose.

In 1972 the state constitution was amended to allow constitutional changes by initiative as well.

In 1988 the state’s voters changed the state constitution to eliminate a requirement that an initiative be submitted to the legislature for approval before placement on the ballot.

Note how the abortion rights folks want a vote on this one.  They didn’t want a vote in 1973.  Let’s see how this turns out for them.

I said most states.  I meant some states.  It is about 20% right now.  I think about 10 states allow referendum.

Keep in mind that California’s huge budget problems are created by their referendum process and voters voting for some mandatory spending requirements on education, etc.  Referendums are a mixed bag.  That is why we have a representative democracy as opposed to pure democracy where 50.00001% passes laws and the voters can vote to increase spending at any time with no consequences.  Just vote a mandatory spending level on education and presto--there will be plenty of money for education.

But again, I fall back to Rob’s opinion.  Regardless of whether it is by referendum or by legislative process, each state should be able to decide their own fate on abortion.  Roe took that right away, despite the Tenth Amendment which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It would seem that this supports that abortion is not a power delegated to the Federal Government.  Neither is a “right to privacy”.  There is no right to choose.  There is however a right for either the states or the people to choose.  So if a referendum works for South Dakota, then why not leave it to each state’s voters?  Seems that is what the abortion advocates want now.  Have a vote.  Instead they have used the court system.  They do not care about the Constitution or the process, but are myopic in their one issue.  Roe had huge Constitutional implications in that it in essence overrode the Bill of Rights.

Liberals love to hide behind the First Amendment and think it gives them the right to hate speech, flag burning, and to live in a Godless society, yet they do not show the same support for the Second or the Tenth.  It is a damned good thing for both of them.

Here’s my reasoning why ROE is wrong.

In as much as is possible the state has no right to interfere with someones personal decisions. 

However in the case of an abortion you have two conflicting interests:  the unborn baby and the mother.

The Elsupremo Court took the expedient step of deciding that the unborn baby was not a human without a right.  Clearly there is room for debate on that issue.  (hint: it goes on every day)

Since there’s room for debate on the issue; and not addressed in the Constitution; this matter should be left up to the legislatures. 

Because of the 10th Amendment; this issue must be brought up in the states.

Agreed 100% on that logic.  I believe that the Due Process clause that they used to defend a woman’s right to choose should be applied equally to the fetus.

I do not believe that abortion should be allowed or disallowed without state legislative action or without Constitutional Amendment to the Federal Constitution.  The SCOTUS should have send the Roe issue to the House and Senate in 1973 and stated either pass a Constitutional Amendment addressing the situation one way or the other, or as the Constitution is currently written, the decision belongs to the states.

But they didn’t and set precendence for increased Federal involvement in a person’s right to “privacy” as they so stated and basically allowed Federal interference in almost any personal and private issue.  If the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbitrator of all privacy issues, then states have no rights.

This seems pointless to me while Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. It will be interesting in a theoretical way to see what the results are.

Roe v Wade is only the law of the land because the Judicial Branch decided to take the blatantly unconstitutional step of enacting legislation.  It should be vacated for that reason alone.

This seems pointless to me while Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. It will be interesting in a theoretical way to see what the results are.

The point is that there is no law of the land.  Roe did not decide law, but rather invalidated the laws of every individual state, of which Roe specifically dealt with Texas law that the two branches of government in Texas legislated per their state Constitutions.

That is the mistake, Dave.  Congress and the President make laws.  And in 1973, if they had passed a Federal Ban or a Federal Law saying Abortion was legal, they would have gotten their asses thrown out of Congress and the next session, the law would have been overturned.  The whole point is that the SCOTUS took the power to right a law out of the hands of Congress with Roe.  They cannot pass a law to deal with it.  And by all rights, I don’t want the Feds to anyway even if they could.

There should be no “law of the land” but rather 50 different laws of the states.  This issue belongs to the states per the 10th Amendment.  Or if it is a Federal issue (which it is not) it should be up to the Congress to decide what laws are applicable.  And based on the voting records since 1994, I can almost bet that it would pass by narrow margin through the House and be Filibustered in the Senate.  But it would be a litmus test for every legislative district and every Senator and Rep would be accountible for the most divisive issue there is. 

And that is exactly how government should work.  Whether it is state legislatures or Federal, they pass laws because voters can hold them accountible.  With Roe, it takes major shifts in the SCOTUS and the willingness to revisit previous case law to change their actions.  That is not Democracy.  That is a dictatorship by nine unelected officials.  May as well be a theocracy or a monarchy or worse.  And that is why people are so pissed.  The SCOTUS is not accountible to the people and the Legislative Branch did not decide this either.  Basically the people have no say except to write laws to confirm Roe since they cannot pass a law to ban abortion.

It works for the Planned Parenthood folks now because the law favors them, but what if it was a ban on abortion or a ban on gay marriage or it was to overturn Brown v. Board of Education or banning states rights for their voters to allow medical marijauna or Kelo allowing seizing of property?  The whole point is that Roe was a bad decision because it is so undemocratic.  Whether you agree with the results or not, it sets a precedence for the SCOTUS to revisit Roe and change their mind.  And if that happens, how long before Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, etc., are gone and Roe gets revisited again?  Do you really want the SCOTUS to decide these issues?

I am wondering if any of these MEN have taken into consideration the psychological impact of a woman who would have to carry to term and then give birth to a child that was covieved by her own father who molested her.  Pretty fucked up.  I would probably either lose my mind or commit suicide if the governemnt FORCED me to carry and give birth to a child if I was raped by a family member or even a stranger for that matter.  There will be “back alley” abortions and women are going to lose their lives because of it, it happened before.  The other aspect of all of this that has been disturbing to me.  It “appears” to me that conservatives want to restrict access to birth control and then make abortion illegal on top of it.  It can’t happen both ways.  It is not realistic.  If abortion is to become illegal, then women are going to have to have access to safe and affordable health care, which includes family palnning/ birth control.  Otherwise, there will be be MANY unwanted births.  I work as a public health nurse and I see everyday, so many women and young families without healthcare.  Who is going to take care of all of these children if the mother can’t afford to care for them?

I do want to make it clear that I am pro-abortion, because I am not.  I am just a supporter of a woman’s right to chose, which includes access to birth control.  I do NOT in anyway support abortion as a means of “birth control”.  But I do belive that if a woman is raped or molested and she believes that she cannot go through with the pregnancy, she should be able to have access to an abortion.  This is simply my OPINION and from person/ professional experience.

correction: I meant to say that I am NOT pro-abortion.  Typ-o, big difference!

jeneile said, I am wondering if any of these MEN have taken into consideration the psychological impact of a woman who would have to carry to term and then give birth to a child that was covieved by her own father who molested her. Pretty fucked up.

More “fucked up” than killing the innocent? More “fucked up” than the psychological impact of a woman who has just killed one of her own? Did YOU take that into consideration? It appears not. That’s pretty fucked up jeneile. Pretty fucked up.

Am I allowed to say that? After all, I am of the XY chromosomed gender (you know, the gender that makes up 50% of the new life).

There will be “back alley” abortions and women are going to lose their lives because of it, it happened before.

This isn’t a compelling point to me. There will always be some people who will do anything. Is that a good enough argument to argue against legislating something?

It “appears” to me that conservatives want to restrict access to birth control and then make abortion illegal on top of it.

What is “restricting access”? Being against the handing out of condoms to grade school children?

If abortion is to become illegal, then women are going to have to have access to safe and affordable health care, which includes family palnning/ birth control.

Is this the “you have to support government health care if you are against abortion” argument?

Who is going to take care of all of these children if the mother can’t afford to care for them?

Is this the “you have to support the children if you are against abortion” argument?

I do want to make it clear that I am pro-abortion, because I am not. I am just a supporter of a woman’s right to chose...

Hahaha! And I want to make it clear that I am against bank robbing. I am just a supporter of a person’s right to chose to make undocumented bank transactions.

But I do belive that if a woman is raped or molested and she believes that she cannot go through with the pregnancy, she should be able to have access to an abortion.

Yeah. Who cares about the innocent life? I mean, she was raped man!

jeneile: Whether you know it or not, over 90% of abortions are performed for birth control purposes.  Face it!  That tiny minority of abortions that are performed for legitimate medical purposes, rape and incest(not the child’s fault, btw, but it suffers the death penalty anyway) are the tail that wags the dog of birth control for all you “pro-choicers”.  At least admit the truth to yourself.

What is “restricting access”? Being against the handing out of condoms to grade school children?

I am NOT aware of where this type of thing is happening.  It sure does not happen here in Madison!  What I was referring to “access to family planning/ birth control” is the planned parenthood clinics.  Here in Wisconsin, our planned parenthood clinics do NOT perform abortions.  They simply provide birth control and health education.  The funding for planned parenthood clinics is in serious jeapordy.  Women also don’t have access to Plan B, which will prevent ovulation and the fertilization of an egg, and thus prevent abortions.  I’m all about PREVENTION.  It seems that access is being restricted because of funding issues.  At least that is the problem here in this state.

I relied on planned parenthood clinics throughout college.  I’m glad that I have prevented pregnancy.  I’m waiting until I’m finished with medical school to have children.  That is my right, my decision.  I can only hope that other women have the same right as me in the future.

So yes, handing out condoms to children in elementary school is highly inappropriate.  So I agree with you.

Restricting access is REQUIRING, yes requiring schools to teach abstinence only education when it has been proven time and again to not work. Restricting access to birth control is putting the kibosh on organizations like Planned Parenthood, who’s primary purpose is preventing unplanned pregnancy (hence the name PLANNED Parenthood).  Sure they perform abortions, but not all clinics do.  For example, in the Twin Cities of Minnesota there are only two that perform abortions; however there are dozens of clinics all over the metro area.  Restricting access to birth control is not providing young women with health insurance so they have ACCESS to birth control.  This isn’t an issue of “not having sex”.  This is an issue of people, men and women, making a mistake.  For the record, it isn’t just women.  When a friend of mine ended up pregnant, the MAN asked her repeatedly to terminate the pregnancy.  She refused. 

Whereas, for me, having an abortion was the best decision I have ever made.  I have serious depressive issues.  I’ve tried to kill myself more than three times.  I have been in abusive relationships have abused alcohol.  Depression runs in my family.  Both of my grandmothers have anxiety and depressive issues.  My parents have both struggled with depression, though, not like I have.  Is that the type of situation you bring a child into?  Where the family history is unmistakable? Is it fair, if you know the child will have a shitty life?