L
Liberalsaved
Guest
They don’t. It isn’t a feasible solution. It’s a challenge to Roe v. Wade. It’s mostly a gesture that will be overturned.
Once again, this is simply what will happen.
- Status
Once again, this is simply what will happen.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
You’ve ignored them in countless other threads. If I re-state them you’ll ignore or spin them again.
B
BioCatholic
Guest
i am just waiting to see “Big Bob’s Abortion Transport Bus”, traveling from South Dakota to Iowa or Nebraska or New York.
can you imagine the internet business that will spring up facilitating abortions for women in other states or countries?
i dont think too many legislatures have thought this through at all.
can you imagine the internet business that will spring up facilitating abortions for women in other states or countries?
i dont think too many legislatures have thought this through at all.
H
Ham1
Guest
…Or it will overturn Roe V Wade and throw the issue back to the states. In which case, many states will ban the procedure and some will not.
It should have a better chance than challenges in the past.
If it fails, other challenges are sure to follow.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
You have my agreement that it will only lead to more harm than good. It’s an impulsive move that judges moral repurcussions but not legal ones. And we all know how those usually end.
M
mike182d
Guest
“Ignored” is not the same thing as “disproved.”
S
siamesecat
Guest
Well it is unconstitional. Abortion is legal; that is the law. It doesn’t make it right, and people can try to pass new laws to overturn Roe v. Wade but saying theyre just going to ignore Roe v. Wade in South Dakota is definately unconstituional and from a legal standpoint it should be shut down. There’s nothing ‘activist’ about that.
M
mike182d
Guest
You’re right. We should have adhered to the Supreme Court’s decisions on slavery in the early 19th Century too. It was just unconstitutional, unlawful, and just downright stupid for people to try and obtain freedom for slaves…
H
Ham1
Guest
I believe Siamesecat’s point was just that the SD law is unconstitutional which is correct since Roe V Wade is the standing law of the country. Siamesecat is also correct in pointing out that a judge that suspends the SD law is not “activist”. A strict constructionist would suspend the law as well. It is up to the SC to overturn Roe V Wade, not some lower level Federal Judge.
I am against Roe V Wade as much as anyone on this board, but it should be overturned following the rule of law not through unbridled activism.
I am against Roe V Wade as much as anyone on this board, but it should be overturned following the rule of law not through unbridled activism.
S
siamesecat
Guest
thanks for clarifying for me ham! I wasn’t saying people shouldn’t try and overturn Roe v. Wade…you have every right to do that…but you can’t pass laws that ignore Roe v. Wade while Roe v. Wade is still in effect and be constitutional. I’m not a supporter of abortion, but I still would respect the judge’s decision from a constitutional stand point. To overturn Roe v. Wade you would have to challenge it, not make a law ignoring it.
M
mike182d
Guest
lol. I guess “ham” as an insult is doubley so during Lent?
Ok, ok…I see your point and I apologize.
However, to paraphrase former President Andrew Jackson:
“The Supreme Court has made their decision. Now let us see them enforce it.”
I see this more as a State’s Rights issue than anything else and if the States stuck to their guns, what’s the Supreme Court going to do?
Not that I advocate such a thing…
H
Ham1
Guest
Thank you Siamesecat…
As to your last point, making a law like SD did is exactly how one challenges the SC decision in Roe V Wade. Basically, SD passes the law. Then a federal judge “suspends” (I can’t remember the proper term) it. Then the SD govt appeals through the courts eventually (hopefully) landing in the Supreme Court which could then decide that (despite what was previously held in Roe V Wade) states do have the right to limit abortion. This decision would effectively overturn Roe and toss the issue to the statehouses across the country.
M
mike182d
Guest
LOL! Wow, I am an idiot!
I completely missed the fact that somebody’s name is “ham” on here! lol! I thought you were calling me a “ham.”
H
Ham1
Guest
Mmmmmmm…ham.
B
Bulldog
Guest
Its called an injunction.
S
siamesecat
Guest
Well if people go about ignoring the Supreme Court I doubt that helps uphold American government…if you can ignore rulings and laws we have no justice system. I don’t think it’s an issue of state’s rights, I think the decision of when life begins only makes sense to be enforced Nationally, or else it doesn’t make much sense. I am supportive of gay marriage in my home state, however I also think marriage as an institution should be national not just a matter of state’s rights. We’re a Union for a reason, I don’t really like the idea of having the country all divided over these sorts of issues like with slavery…we wouldn’t be like a real country.lol. I guess “ham” as an insult is doubley so during Lent?
Ok, ok…I see your point and I apologize.
However, to paraphrase former President Andrew Jackson:
“The Supreme Court has made their decision. Now let us see them enforce it.”
I see this more as a State’s Rights issue than anything else and if the States stuck to their guns, what’s the Supreme Court going to do?
Not that I advocate such a thing…
B
bones_IV
Guest
I for one, will not join the heap of people piling up on GW Bush. Bush is way off the mark when he says that in response to the South Dakota bill, that he has always wanted exceptions to be included: life of the mother, incest and rape. Please! If the baby is baby, then don’t justify murder! Never justify it. Fact: Bush favors some abortion, HE IS NOT PRO-LIFE! I also think people are intellectually dishonest when they say that Bush is pro-life. He’s pro-life with exceptions.
V
Viki59
Guest
I take it you would have disapproved of the Boston Tea Party too?
H
Horab
Guest
Liberalsaved said:
- hi chip, i was talking about exisiting laws, not like the laws you mentioned that don’t even exist. like anti-drug laws,anti-prostitution laws, laws against public indecency, i would say all those laws are heavily based on morality. some would say a right to life is more important than property rights.
- ok i kind of get the idea the term “abortion on demand” gets on your nerves. but what it means to me is a legal right to abortion thurout the whole nine months, the later along, the rarer the abortion. earlier it is a drive-thry thing with the chemical abortion pill, all they ask is if you have a fever.
L
Liberalsaved
Guest
Horab said:
Drug are debateable, but the effects of going into public stoned, such as behind a wheel, are still affecting those around you. Prostitution targets weak, vulnerable women and is a breeding ground for sexually transmitted disease.
I don’t think anyone should be able to go through with something as complex as an abortion immediately upon request. And, abortions are, in most places banned after a certain point in the pregnancy and NO ONE IS TRYING TO CHANGE THAT. Sorry, wanted to emphasize that. No one. Nada. Not even pro-choice people if they know anything about science at all, they’d know it’s far far far too dangerous. Once again, I think the problem is the majority of members of this Church deal in absolutes, and see everything in terms of “nothing or everything”. Just because I am pro-choice doesn’t mean I think absolute abortive freedom should be granted. I’m considerably more intelligent than to think that is even feasible or safe, and so are 99% of people like me.
And medication has always been a sticky area. In order to prevent such dangerous actions, or any dangerous actions with medications, we would have to stop selling medicine.
- Status