South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait

[j2k4]

Why? you want to show abortions and graphic images in clinics in the hope the woman will run out crying and still carrying...... so if they want to ban vaccines they should show the "evil sex".

You didn't even answer about the ultrasound thingie; nothing about that should prompt any crying, I don't think.

The purely informational aspect of this would seem fairly benign, don't you think?

As to the other, I suppose the natural curiousity about the prospective procedure is somewhat attenuated by that which actually is apparent, huh?

Besides, which, if you state it is not my business, who are you to say what is or is not acceptable?

You may subscribe to whatever sense of propriety you like; you may not choose mine.

and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.

So say the "feds", huh?

Then surely you must agree (for all the same reasons) that a man should have co-equal decision-making power as to whether or not he desires to participate financially in the child's rearing?

The man made his choice by not wearing a condom. I appreciate it take two to tango but there it is. If the woman decides not to have the baby then by your example the man is released is he not?. If she decides, as you would like, to have it then the two take equal responsibility.

Perhaps you'd prefer he be allowed to consult a physician on the question?

Do you think the exercise of such a right would have the effect of further increasing the number of abortions?

compulsory abortions at the behest of the male huh ? not going to fly. Of course if men feel they want to have sex and not have children they can always have the snip............. do you think he should ask a woman or the state for permission to do that?

Where do you keep coming up with this compulsory shit?

If the woman decides to have the child, it is her decision only; if, in the name of true equality, the man decides he wants no part of a pregnancy, why should the woman be allowed to unilaterally include him?

As you state things, she has control over the degree of responsibility she herself exercises, and control of his as well.

Logic dictates a man have the right to disengage as well.

[vidcc]

Where do you keep coming up with this compulsory shit?

laws are in process to try to make it mandatory...hence the compulsory however.---

Actually, that's not fair, Ava.

It's exactly the type of thing that can change someone's mind, and is, as such, out-of-bounds.

Because it is effective.

Visit Planned Parenthood, ask to see "the video about partial-birth abortion", and see what type of reaction you get.

I read a bit more, recently, about the effort (denounced by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to enlist pregnant females in a plan whereby an ultrasound picture would be taken and shown to the mother-to-be.

They want to take a picture and say "look look you evil sinner you are going to kill this baby...may it haunt you in nightmares for the rest of your days...but at least you will have days".

[vidcc]

Mississippi has a similar ban in process. It was propossed by a democrat and includes a "Socialist" Welfare Stipulation

A Christian attorney in Tupelo, Mississippi, also has reservations about the legislation. While he says the proposed ban plays to the wishes of pro-life advocates, Steve Crampton says it also creates a huge welfare problem that the state cannot afford. The attorney explains that the bill contains a provision that entitles any women who receives family counseling during her pregnancy to free medical and educational care until the child reaches the age of 19. That, says the attorney with the Center for Law & Policy, amounts to "guaranteed welfare."

"We joked in the office that I might take my wife by if she's pregnant, get a little counseling, and all of a sudden the state is now on the hook for all of our child's educational needs and medical needs until age 19," Crampton says. "That's an enormous bill to foot. It sort of codifies that socialist view of government that most of us stand staunchly against."

The attorney admits he is somewhat puzzled by Holland's bill. "It is a very clumsy effort in the law, and I think it really suggests Mr. Holland's own leanings in the area of welfare," he says. "Frankly, I'm not all that convinced of his pro-life credentials either, despite his authorship of this bill. I mean, it really makes me scratch my head as to what he was thinking at the time."

source

typical.

Anti choicers talk about "protecting the child"....as long as they don't have to be involved once it's born...provide education and healthcare....what an evil idea

[Busyman]

Mississippi has a similar ban in process. It was propossed by a democrat and includes a "Socialist" Welfare Stipulation

A Christian attorney in Tupelo, Mississippi, also has reservations about the legislation. While he says the proposed ban plays to the wishes of pro-life advocates, Steve Crampton says it also creates a huge welfare problem that the state cannot afford. The attorney explains that the bill contains a provision that entitles any women who receives family counseling during her pregnancy to free medical and educational care until the child reaches the age of 19. That, says the attorney with the Center for Law & Policy, amounts to "guaranteed welfare."

"We joked in the office that I might take my wife by if she's pregnant, get a little counseling, and all of a sudden the state is now on the hook for all of our child's educational needs and medical needs until age 19," Crampton says. "That's an enormous bill to foot. It sort of codifies that socialist view of government that most of us stand staunchly against."

The attorney admits he is somewhat puzzled by Holland's bill. "It is a very clumsy effort in the law, and I think it really suggests Mr. Holland's own leanings in the area of welfare," he says. "Frankly, I'm not all that convinced of his pro-life credentials either, despite his authorship of this bill. I mean, it really makes me scratch my head as to what he was thinking at the time."

source

typical.

Anti choicers talk about "protecting the child"....as long as they don't have to be involved once it's born...provide education and healthcare....what an evil idea

Well that Democrat is an idiot but he is consistent. He is saying government will force a woman to have a child and then add that government will do more in helping to take care of the child. Consistent but I disagree.

I'm pro-choice and pro-welfare reform (in the opposite direction). I believe this legislation would encourage baby making which is something the welfare system does already.

It's laughable how this bill is offering the welfare olive branch to make banning abortion more palpatable.

I've been around my share of ghetto betheans that will have more babies to get another check.

This will in fact encourage irresponsible behavior.

[j2k4]

Mississippi has a similar ban in process. It was propossed by a democrat and includes a "Socialist" Welfare Stipulation

A Christian attorney in Tupelo, Mississippi, also has reservations about the legislation. While he says the proposed ban plays to the wishes of pro-life advocates, Steve Crampton says it also creates a huge welfare problem that the state cannot afford. The attorney explains that the bill contains a provision that entitles any women who receives family counseling during her pregnancy to free medical and educational care until the child reaches the age of 19. That, says the attorney with the Center for Law & Policy, amounts to "guaranteed welfare."

"We joked in the office that I might take my wife by if she's pregnant, get a little counseling, and all of a sudden the state is now on the hook for all of our child's educational needs and medical needs until age 19," Crampton says. "That's an enormous bill to foot. It sort of codifies that socialist view of government that most of us stand staunchly against."

The attorney admits he is somewhat puzzled by Holland's bill. "It is a very clumsy effort in the law, and I think it really suggests Mr. Holland's own leanings in the area of welfare," he says. "Frankly, I'm not all that convinced of his pro-life credentials either, despite his authorship of this bill. I mean, it really makes me scratch my head as to what he was thinking at the time."

source

typical.

Anti choicers talk about "protecting the child"....as long as they don't have to be involved once it's born...provide education and healthcare....what an evil idea

And the cure for all the ills is to KILL THE BABY/FETUS/WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, right?

Y'know, I've wondered for quite some time now:

If abortion is "right", what on earth could ever be thought wrong?

[vidcc]

If abortion is "right", what on earth could ever be thought wrong?

Religion

edit: sorry not religion.....organised religion

[j2k4]

That's fine, then.

I think the circles we are going in are small enough for me to have called this thread quits a page or so back.

So, belatedly....

[Busyman]

That's fine, then.

I think the circles we are going in are small enough for me to have called this thread quits a page or so back.

So, belatedly....

Belated whatever....yet you still post.

[j2k4]

I read this today; from a 4/22 column by Robert Novak.

This is the sort of thing the liberal media tends to overlook, as it would provide the type of "balance" to their reportage which has the effect of turning conventional thought on it's head.

So to speak.

ABORTION FUZZY MATH

The widely publicized claim by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that state-funded contraception aid cuts down abortion as prevention of unwanted pregnancies is contradicted by figures from the same abortion think tank the senators relied on for an April 18 op-ed in the Albany, N.Y., Times Union.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that California spends more than three times as much on contraception as South Dakota for each woman who requests such services. However, California's rate of abortion per one thousand women is 31.2 percent, nearly six times as high as South Dakota's 5.5 percent.

Reid and Clinton chided South Dakota for passing an anti-abortion law while being "one of the most difficult states" for low-income women to get contraceptive devices, which the senators claim drives up abortion.

[vidcc]

Maybe in Novak Land, this comparison makes sense. Contraceptives are widely available in California, but California has plenty of abortions. South Dakota barely spends anything on making contraception available, and yet, the state has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country. This, as far as Novak is concerned, helps prove that Dems are wrong — if less contraception led to more abortion, South Dakota's wouldn't have such a miniscule abortion rate.

Except Novak is leaving out a few pertinent details, such as the overwhelming obstacles women who want to end their pregnancies face in South Dakota.

The last doctor in South Dakota to perform abortions stopped about eight years ago; the consensus in the medical community is that offering the procedure is not worth the stigma of being branded a baby killer.

South Dakota is one of only three states to have only one abortion provider — North Dakota and Mississippi are the other two — but at nearly 76,000 square miles, the Mount Rushmore State is the biggest of the three. What's more, the state's lone clinic offers abortions once a week, but which day each week depends on when out-of-state doctors will visit.

Of course, South Dakota is also home to some of the nation's poorest counties, which makes it awfully difficult for women with meager resources to travel several hundred miles.

Given these conditions, Novak's analogy is painfully stupid. Of course South Dakota's abortion rate is extremely low — they've had a de facto ban in place for years. This doesn't prove that limited access to birth control has no effect on unwanted pregnancies; it proves that if you limit a large state to one clinic that most women find inaccessible, there won't be many abortions in a state.

I don't expect much from Novak, but this is ridiculous, even for him.