only if your christian,virgin,raped & sodomized, maybe!


darkbeaver
Republican
#1
The Towering Solons of Abortion

Email this item Email Print this item Print
Posted on Mar. 7, 2006

By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas—South Dakota is so rarely found on the leading edge of the far out, the wiggy, the California-esque. But it has now staked its claim. First to Outlaw Abortion This Century. The state legislature of South Dakota, in all its wisdom and majesty, a legislature comprised of sons and daughters of the soil from Aberdeen to Zell, have usurped the right of the women of that state to decide whether or not to bear the child of an unwanted pregnancy. They will decide. Women will do what they decide.

These towering solons, representing citizens from the great cosmopolitan centers of Rapid City and Sioux Falls to the bosky dells near Yankton, are noted for their sagacity and understanding. When you think “enlightenment,” the first thing that comes to your mind is “the South Dakota Legislature,” right?

As well it might. The purpose of the law is to force a decision from the United States Supreme Court, where the appointments of John Roberts and Sam Alito have now shored up the anti-choice forces.

The South Dakota Legislature has made it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion under any circumstances except to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or to preserve the health of the mother. Should this strike you as hard cheese, State Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, explains how rape and incest could be exceptions under the “life” clause. Napoli believes most abortions are performed for “convenience,” but he told “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” about how he thinks a “real-life example” of the exception could be invoked:

“A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”

Please stop and reread the paragraph above. See? Clearly Napoli’s exception would not apply to the South Dakota woman also interviewed by the NewsHour. “Michelle” is in her 20s, has a low-paying job and two children. And says she simply cannot afford a third. She drove five hours to the state’s only abortion clinic.

“It was difficult when I found out I was pregnant. I was saddened because I knew that I’d probably have to make this decision. Like I said, I have two children, so I look into their eyes and I love them. It’s been difficult, you know, it’s not easy. And I don’t think it’s, you know, ever easy on a woman, but we need that choice.”

But who is she to make that choice when Bill Napoli can make it for her? He explains: “When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn’t allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again. ... I don’t think we’re so far beyond that, that we can’t go back to that.”

I find this so profound I am considering putting Sen. Napoli in charge of all moral, ethical and medical decisions made by women. Certainly lucky for the women of South Dakota that he’s there, and perhaps that’s what we all need—a man to make decisions for us in case we should decide to do something serious just for our own convenience.

Look at some of the incompetent women we have running around in this country—Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright, now there are a couple of girls in need of guidance from the South Dakota legislature. Female doctors, lawyers, airplane pilots, engineers and, for that matter, female members of the South Dakota Legislature—who could ever trust them with an important decision?

In South Dakota, pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription for contraceptives should it trouble their conscience, and some groups who worked on the anti-abortion bill believe contraception also needs to be outlawed. Good plan. After that, we’ll reconsider women’s property rights, civil right and voting rights.

For years, the women’s movement has been going around asking, “Who decides?” as though that were the issue. Well, here’s the answer. Bill Napoli decides, and if you’re not happy with that arrangement, well, you’d better be prepared to do something about it.
 
Jay
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

When you think “enlightenment,” the first thing that comes to your mind is “the South Dakota Legislature,” right?

Not me...when I think of "enlightenment" I think of garbage bags full of aborted fetuses.....who wouldn't?
 
Nuggler
#3
That has to be one of the sickest, reactionary, piece of bullshit legislation in a long time.
I guess in S.Dakota, they just don't have enough to do. Plus the religious right nutjobs believe this will be appealed all the way to the supreme court, and Bush has seeded it with enough wing nuts to strike down Wade vs. Roe.
To what end? What the hells the point?.........ME telling YOU what you can and cannot do
If it sticks, they will be back to back alley coathanger specialists.
 
Jay
#4
Is it reactioanary though?
 
Jersay
#5
Quote:

That has to be one of the sickest, reactionary, piece of bullshit legislation in a long time.
I guess in S.Dakota, they just don't have enough to do. Plus the religious right nutjobs believe this will be appealed all the way to the supreme court, and Bush has seeded it with enough wing nuts to strike down Wade vs. Roe.
To what end? What the hells the point?.........ME telling YOU what you can and cannot do
If it sticks, they will be back to back alley coathanger specialists.

Have to agree with you 100%.

Now in a democracy it is all about choice is it? Well I guess they believe women shouldn't have a right to chose.

I would be okay with restricting some abortion, but banning abortion due to incest and rape is wrong. I bet we will see some dead mothers and some infants in garbage cans sometime soon.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

When you think “enlightenment,” the first thing that comes to your mind is “the South Dakota Legislature,” right?

Not me...when I think of "enlightenment" I think of garbage bags full of aborted fetuses.....who wouldn't?

Be careful Jay Darkbeaver did not write the quote you used.
When you think of enlightenment you think of phospher bombs and napalm,right. This legislation points to the shared philosophys of the Christian fanatics and the Islamic fanatics. Dead fetuses bother you but millions of murdered innocent civilians do not.
 
Curiosity
#7
It's a cop out for this legislation....and it has nothing to do with the Federal government.

Any State can make its own laws. Just as Nevada seems to outdo all the others in certain areas of "sin"....

Women in S. Dakota will not be any more deprived of having a safe clean medical abortion if they so wish, by traveling to anther State which does perform them. Inconvenient of course.... but apparently the legislation is what the legislators wish for their State.

Think S. Dakota is playing up to certain special interest groups and right to lifers....who may have the majority voting block. Because S. Dakota makes these laws in no way negates abortions taking place and they know it.
 
Jersay
#8
But if it goes to the Supreme Court and wins, then no state will have abortion. And what about women who are poor, have no car, what are they suppose to do if they are raped, or if they are 14 or 15 being abused by a family member, they are not going to grab the family car and high-tail it to another state.
 
Jersay
#9
And what about people who are not christian and not virgins, I guess they are scum to the eyes of these legislators.
 
Jay
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver


Be careful Jay Darkbeaver did not write the quote you used.

I know...


Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

When you think of enlightenment you think of phospher bombs and napalm,right. This legislation points to the shared philosophys of the Christian fanatics and the Islamic fanatics. Dead fetuses bother you but millions of murdered innocent civilians do not.


When fetuses start employing the tools to anger us into using phosphor bombs and napalm, I will quit defending them.

Personally I don't see the connection.
 
Curiosity
#11
Gee Jersay - Kinda like Canada was when my mom and her sisters were making babies almost annually????

There will always be abortion - legal or not - and if not performed surgically by doctors, there will be pharmaceuticals available and great nurses who are always going to help women in need.... a la midwivery.

The world existed long before abortions were made legal....

Perhaps women might get some safe and longer lasting birth control out of this.

Abortion isn't birth control and because it is so available many women use it for that purpose. And that in my books sucks big time.... There is plenty of prevention around and rape isn't a major cause of pregnancy! Nor is incest.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Wednesday's Child

It's a cop out for this legislation....and it has nothing to do with the Federal government.

Any State can make its own laws. Just as Nevada seems to outdo all the others in certain areas of "sin"....

Women in S. Dakota will not be any more deprived of having a safe clean medical abortion if they so wish, by traveling to anther State which does perform them. Inconvenient of course.... but apparently the legislation is what the legislators wish for their State.

Think S. Dakota is playing up to certain special interest groups and right to lifers....who may have the majority voting block. Because S. Dakota makes these laws in no way negates abortions taking place and they know it.

Actually the women of South Dakota will be deprived Child that,s what the legislation is about,to deprive. I,m not suprised at your limp response to this article, you have no personal opinion on this issue other than it is O/K to burden the women of South Dakota if that,s what the rich insane Christians demand.
 
annabattler
#13
You know,if states enact anti-abortion legislation, then they should equally offer "support the children" legislation...children who would be guaranteed an adequate family(natural or foster),adequate medical services,adequate education,adequate social services,etc.etc.
Until they do so,no unwanted child should be born..because,after all,if the parent(s) don't want them and all the inherent responsibility,and the state doesn't provide for them...we just end up with repeating the cycle.
 
Hank C
#14
I dont agree with not allowing a raped woman to have an abortion. And if the birth may harm the mother then I dont see a big problem.....however other than that, there are no excuses for destroying a human fetus.
 
Curiosity
#15
Darkbeaver

I guess I am going to have to find a sarcasm button....

I disagree with anyone having "rights" over the woman's right to choose - not the U.S. Superior Court, not the Catholic Church, not the State's legislative body.

A woman must have that right and sorry fellas - ultimately only the woman.

My only wish is that women would stop using abortion as birth control.

Abortions - back alley or pristine in a good clinic - are still abortions when they should be so outmoded as a means to solution of handling whether a woman becomes pregnant or not in the first place.

If by rape or incest, then by all means it is whatever the woman chooses.

Of course nobody asks the child.

Dark Beaver writes:

Actually the women of South Dakota will be deprived Child that,s what the legislation is about,to deprive. I,m not suprised at your limp response to this article, you have no personal opinion on this issue other than it is O/K to burden the women of South Dakota if that,s what the rich insane Christians demand.

Beav - what do you mean by deprived??? An abortion facility for them to take care of their problem? There will always be those - they just won't be legal.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#16
I would certainly hope that the Supreme Court of the United States of America would strike down any legislation that would endeavour to terminate a woman's right to choose. Does the constitution in the United States have any sections akin to Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Canada) that would permit the Court to allow for some abortion, but permit restrictions thereon?
 
I think not
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Wednesday's Child

Any State can make its own laws.

No they can't when it contradicts federal law.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

I'm sure the ACLU if not someone else will file a suit against this, and they will win. It's happened many times before already.
 
Curiosity
#18
ITN

Thanks for that information - was Nevada an "outlaw" state then or did it have gambling and prostitution before the laws had been enacted...?

Hmmmmmm then there is the Polygamy in Utah and Denial of Government Taxation and States' rights in Montana or Idaho....

I better try and look these up..... unless there's a teacher around .... (hint hint).
 
I think not
#19
Polygamy and gambling are not federal crimes to my knowledge hence why certain states have them
 
Curiosity
#20
ITN

Yes - but weren't they "original" parts of those States - before we became more organized at "personal law" and "family law"....

I know more states have gambling now - but am not certain about legal prostitution. I didn't know it wasn't a federal crime - so they are leaving that up to the states as well?

Hmmm I have some reading do to eh ITN - glad you are back with us by the way!

Later.... am worried about FiveParadox...I gave him the url to a whole host of gorgeous creatures..... he may be gone for days!
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#21
Haha, nope, I cannot view them; it shows an Angelfire placeholder in place of the images, and when I tried to navigate to the page myself, I was forbidden access by the Angelfire domain. Oh well.
 
mattyaloo
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Is it reactioanary though?

ALL women have a choice. Choose not to get pregnant. Irresposible actions lead to consequences. What we're talking about here is CONVENIENCE.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#23
mattyaloo , the problem here is that it would impede women who do not have a choice on the matter — this legislation would make it harder for women to exercise an abortion, even under legitimate circumstances.

When one is raped, one cannot make a mental decision or whether or not to become pregnant.
 
Sassylassie
#24
I'm RC but I believe in the right to choose. The day a male dominated government tells me what I can do with my body is the day Hell will Freeze over.
 
Machjo
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by annabattler

You know,if states enact anti-abortion legislation, then they should equally offer "support the children" legislation...children who would be guaranteed an adequate family(natural or foster),adequate medical services,adequate education,adequate social services,etc.etc.
Until they do so,no unwanted child should be born..because,after all,if the parent(s) don't want them and all the inherent responsibility,and the state doesn't provide for them...we just end up with repeating the cycle.

There are some good points here. If religionists want to see this legislation stick long term, they'd better make sure it works. For instance, if the legislation is passed, but religionsts do nothing to reduce the number of unwnted births through some effective educational strategy, or if we end up with a next generation of massive slums growing in the inner cities, prostitution, et.c et.c etc. from adults who'd suffered neglected childhoods, this legislation will be repealed a generation later.

So if religionists want this legislation to stick, they'd better develop the resources needed to educate the public about how to prevent such pregnancies, and be prepared to help single mothers with raising their children, etc. Now the ball is in the other court. Let's see if the religionists can succeed!
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#26
Even if religious persons act to ensure that a legislative framework supports this measure, that would have no bearing on the case if brought to the Supreme court of the United States of America (assuming that such a Court works on the same principles as does the Supreme Court of Canada . Such legislative measures could be rendered irrelevent, were the main measure to be challenged.
 
Machjo
#27
I'm curious though, since everyone talks about "rights"; what about the rights of the feotus?

I personally believe life begins at conception, one reason being that that there is regular development of the feotus from that point forward until childhood, before which such development is simply not possible. So if life begins some time after conception, then where precicely do we draw the line. There is no other point quite as dramatic as conception itself. Sure eyes, arms, fingers, legs, etc. develop and evolve over time, but again, the beginning, the genesis which makes it all possible is conception.

Just curious to know your thoughts on this.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#28
On this issue, I run around in circles in my head, lol; there are so many good points, on each side of the debate on when one can deem a fetus to be deserving of rights as awarded to a citizen. Right now, I think that my opinion is that one should not afford rights to fetuses (under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Statutes of Canada) until such time as the organism would have a reasonable chance to survive if delivered.
 
cortez
#29
Abortion is a very sad thing that humans do to their children. I fully agree that the best thing is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. However, there will always be unwanted pregancies, and there will always be abortion- I agree that we do not want to go back to the days of back street abortions.
I think that if society wants to prevent abortions, it should be more responsible in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Many schools are not allowed to teach contraception, leaving many young people without adequate knowledge. If society wants to prevent abortions, it should help the pregnant woman financially and socially so she could have the child and then either keep the child or place it up for adoption. Many high schools do not even allow pregnant students to continue attending!
I am sure few women make this decision lightly.
 
Machjo
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by cortez

Abortion is a very sad thing that humans do to their children. I fully agree that the best thing is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. However, there will always be unwanted pregancies, and there will always be abortion- I agree that we do not want to go back to the days of back street abortions.
I think that if society wants to prevent abortions, it should be more responsible in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Many schools are not allowed to teach contraception, leaving many young people without adequate knowledge. If society wants to prevent abortions, it should help the pregnant woman financially and socially so she could have the child and then either keep the child or place it up for adoption. Many high schools do not even allow pregnant students to continue attending!
I am sure few women make this decision lightly.

Certainly if we believe that a woman ought to keep a child, but then boot her out of school when she's pregnant, then are we not sending her the message that she ought to get rid of the kid?
 

Similar Threads

14
Orphaned, Raped and Ignored
by Mowich | Feb 1st, 2010
8
Children raped at Abu Ghraib
by darkbeaver | Apr 2nd, 2008