A Win for Those Opposing Abortion

Remove all ads!

Supreme Court Rules Against Abortion Clinics

However one part of the article particularly surprised me:

So now, it's basically illegal to get an abortion in South Dakota. Scary stuff IMO. On the lighter side, we can now definitively say that there is absolutely NOTHING to do in South Dakota.

 

Ridiculous.

The death penalty... ability to simply buy a gun... bans on abortion... what has America become?

 

Actually, thats the kind of thing that makes the US far superior to western Europe.

 

Really, svy?

I'm just trying to work out whether that post is tongue-in-cheek or not. I can't quite read you to be honest.

 

It is despicable. Absolutely despicable. Words are not enough to express my disgust at this.

 

It's looking more like it might be time to rejoin the family that's still in Norway...

 

The 8-0 decision makes it pretty clear that it was hardly a partisan vote. No big deal.

Now, the South Dakota thing...when that reaches the Supreme Court, well, then we'll see what's what.

 

BTA - I'm not sure if that question was referencing me, or a general question to everyone. For me, I thought it was pretty obvious (as I bolded in the original post) that I didn't at all like the South Dakota ruling. Not that I ever intend to live in South Dakota mind you, but is sets a legal precedent.

[It was really for the two posters above me who seemed pretty upset over something, but didn't say what - BTA]

Just like how many high schools removed language for intelligent design from text books after a ruling in Pennsylvania said it was in violation of the separation of church and state. The ruling only applied in PA, but once a precedent is set, it tends to spread.

[ March 01, 2006, 21:32: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

Agreed. There's still plenty to do in South Dakota. I loved the Badlands and Devil's Tower when I was there, and unless I'm mistaken Mount Rushmore is also in South, not North. Though come to think of it, maybe the Badlands were in north Dakota.

Either way, there's still plenty to do. Heck, I bet the hospitals are jam-packed with people giving birth now that they can't abort.

EDIT:
Yeah, the Badlands are probably in ND now that I think about it. I had one side trip to ND for one of the things, so that was probably it. Didn't mean to hijack; don't mind me.

[ March 01, 2006, 20:49: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Fel, Mt. Rushmore is in South Dakota. However, I too thought the Badlands were in North Dakota - I've never been there though, so I could be mistaken.

 

Badlands are also in South Dakota. Beautiful state on the western 100 miles or so -- boring the rest of the way.

The South Dakota anti-abortion law was a legislation, not a ruling. It's not a legal precident, but a bad law voted by the state legislature. I think you misread that portion (or I did). Living in Salt Lake City for four years taught me the important difference between the two.

 

well, you could argue that it does threaten the womans life inthe fact that she may become suicidal should she have a child

 

the reason people are worked up on a national level at least is only because we know this is going to find find its way to the Supreme Court, it challenges Roe v. Wade obviously. Now a position made as recently as R v. W shouldn't have a chance of being overturned, but we do have a very conservative court right now, potentially R v. W could begin to erode. Other Pro-Life groups get the idea to get conservative state governments to pass laws prohibiting abortions and suddenly you've got a full fledged reaction with the Spreme Court on their side...

 

No, it was not about protesting, but about if whether or not these good "Christian folk" could threaten people who were using abortion clinics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11604762/

 

I was only commenting on what Justice Bryer said. Perhaps you know more about the case than he does.

 

The possibility to buy a gun, death penalty and anti-abortion laws are things which have my absolutely FULL support.
The only thing that I find disgusting, is that some people think it is "despicable" to oppose murder through abortion. As if the murderes were ourselves.

 

That makes me a sad panda, and I'm hardly an advocate for abortion-on-demand or late-term abortion (and have said as much, many times). I'm surprised that there hasn't been a legal challenge to anti-abortion amendments like this on the basis that it is infringing their First Amendment rights. I don't know whether it would go anywhere, but there seems to be a preponderance of Christian groups involved in anti-abortion campaigning.

However, the smart money is on abortion rates in nearby states to increase as a result of this decision. End result - feel-good moment for anti-abortionists, but with little overall change on what actually goes on. Depending on the nature and wording of the Act, it may be fairly easy to subvert its intentions legally.