South Dakota’s new anti-choice law says:
No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.
Any violation of this section is a Class 5 felony.
A Class 5 felony in South Dakota is “five years imprisonment in the state penitentiary”.
George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney all agree with this provision.
They all believe that a medical professional should be put in prison for up to five years for in any way dispensing health care to a woman if it relates to an abortion.
Let’s ask America what they think about that.
Polling shows that the vast majority of Americans, while they support certain restrictions on abortion (as I personally do), believe the procedure should be available and that we don’t throw doctors in jail for providing health care.
The Republican party just needs a little more rope before they completely hang themselves. I believe the day is very near when Americans stand up and say, “Enough is enough” and religate the Republicans to the fossil bin where they belong.
Bad as this part of SD’s law is–it isn’t the worst part.
This odious law defines any fetus as a person with complete rights. That means if a woman miscarries, has an accident, whatever, that results in the termination of a pregnancy–that woman is subject to a murder investigation.
Yup, those conservatives really want Govt. off our backs.
From OW’s citation:
When does Jadegold EVER base a comment on the actual reported facts?
This odious law defines any fetus as a person with complete rights. That means if a woman miscarries, has an accident, whatever, that results in the termination of a pregnancy that woman is subject to a murder investigation.
Stop it. The law is quite clear on the issue of intent.
I tried to post two the two relevant sentences (from Sec. 4) but they’re awaiting moderation — coincidence? I think not.
Yeah Frank, they’re jailing doctors, not mothers. Wow, that’s some awesome morality there.
If the fetus is a human being then why is the penalty not the same as for premeditated murder? The law contradicts itself. Anti-choice = anti-American
Granted that the law, as it stands right now, would not hold the mother responsible for accidental manslaughter in the case of a misscarriage, the question comes, if this law does intend to treat a human fetus without any sort of cognitave function, minimal physical development if any, and absolutely no awareness of the world around him as an upstanding US citizen, whats stopping them?
If she accidentally kills a human being, shouldnt there be an investigation? Would use of birth control before the fact be used against her? Would she have to prove she didnt intentionally fall down the stairs? Where is the line drawn, if we’re only dealing with human beings here and not, as it may be, an undeveloped clump of biomatter? Should we just trust these… oh lets make up a stupid sounding name… Birth-mongers to just stop at some sensible point that everyone finds agreeable? When theyve managed to affecct law with severely questionable science and misapplied religion?
What? The representatives of the people of South Dakota setting abortion policy for the people of South Dakota? Without consulting their betters on the east & west coasts? Can’t have that. Might lead to some sort of “federal” style of government.
Apparently stick thinks that it is illegitimate to criticise a law passed by a state legislature if one is not a citizen of that state.
That seems pretty extreme. I’ll bet he just means laws that he likes.
Hey stick, that’s a great concept. Can we apply it to our legal, under state law, medical marijuana here in California? Can we keep our labeling laws for Bovine Growth Hormone and Genetically Modified foods? Can we set higher standards for gas mileage in SUVs and trucks? Can we legalize marriage between same sex couples? Cane we legalize the morning after pill and euthanasia for terminally ill people? Can we decide not to send our state’s National Guard to Iraq? Get back to me when you’ve got an answer.
Hey Impor-
You’ve mixed up a nice batch of things there. In my opinion:
Medical marijauna — yes
Labeling laws — yes, provided it passes an interstate commerce test
Higher gas standards — see above
Gay Marriage — yes, as long as you don’t insist that other jusrisdictions have to recognize its validity
Morning after pill & euthanasia for terminally ill people are different subjects entirely. No one is denying that terminally ill people are people. Get back to me on that when you understand the difference.
National Guard to Iraq — You’ve got the makings of a fine federalist! Unfortunately if you can’t federalize the guard to send them to Iraq, you can’t federalize them to prevent Governors from treating them as their private army. See Orval Faubus, Arkansas, 1957.
Funny, sticks “rationale” is the same one that cons used to keep Jim Crow laws down south.
Wilbur makes a vaild point:
That is absolutely right, which is why the “mother” (it’s difficult to refer to someone who would kill her child as a mother) and the abortionist and all of their accessories ought to be held to the standard for premeditated murder.
Factcheck-
Actually Impor seems to be the one in favor of disallowing the federalization of national guard units. I merely pointed out that it may lead to undesirable ends from his point of view.
FYI, the relationship between state militias (aka “national guard”) and the federal government is determined by legislation. Get a majority of congressmen and senators to endorse whatever restrictions you’d like to place on guard deployment, avoid a filibuster and a presidential veto, and voila! No guard units can be deployed abroad.
‘Course you’ve got to win an election or two to get things started.
So I’ll put you down for nothing, right Dana?
What will we do for the mothers who have to raise unwanted children, because the state owns their uterus? What will we do for their children?
Hey stick: good point. When they snarl at you, you got ‘em.
Dugger
You know, there are a lot of people who don’t have the most pleasant of circumstances growing up; some are in very poor families (that would have been me), some aren’t as healthy as they might be, some had to go to school on the short bus (that would be Mr Willis
), and some are just plain unwanted.
But, amazingly enough, most of them don’t opt to kill themselves, most of them try to struggle through. Even people with major physical handicaps don’t try to kill themselves very frequently.
Why is it, then, that so many of us are willing to decide, for others, that their lives are just too miserable, and that we ought to kill them before they suffer those miserable lives?
Since there are more abortions than live births, adoption is not an option for more than 10-15% of displaced abortions. That is being kind.
So what about the other 85-90%? Remember all of the abortions that occur because the baby has conditions that will make the baby’s life a horrible struggle. What would you do with all the unwanted children?
Impor, your examples are irrelevant as they fall under federal jurisdiction. The state law does not supercede federal law in the example of marijuana for medicinal purposes in California. Although the federal law doesn’t overturn the state law, those who decide follow state law are still subject to federal prosecution.
There is no federal law regarding abortion and therefore, the states are within their rights to pass such legislation.
Fact: I assume that at least some of the women who would prefer not to be inconvenience by having a child will give up their children for adoption. That might not be the best life possible for the child, but it’s a heck of a lot better than death.
Oliver. tf abortion is aagainst the law, then the people who violate that law should be punished…
Is there a problem with that?
Or do you believe that somehow South Dakota has the right to regulate abortion, which, of couse, they do, but no right to punish those who violate the law?
To all the anti-choicers who hate abortion:
Do you really want a person who would choose to abort their child raising that child, if they came to term because of a lack of abortion rights? What are you prepared to do for all the unwanted children?
factcheck: Could you please define “unwanted children”, and, if it’s not too much to ask, explain how it is that you know how many there are?
For extra points, please refute Dugger’s contention that “at least some of the women who would prefer not to be inconvenienced by having a child will give up their children for adoption.”
California decides to allow medical marijuana, and the conservatives cry out that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST DO SOMETHING!
South Dakota decides to outlaw abortion, and these same conservatives cry STATES’ RIGHTS!
Consistency, people.
Yet another example of factcheck not living up to his name.
Wikipedia (via Gruttermeyer) says there were 1.31 M aborts in 2000.
The CDC says that there were 4,058,814 births in 2000.
Care to revise and extend your remarks?
Some missing facts:
1. A Class 5 penalty carries a maximum of 5 years, not a mandatory 5 years.
2. It is again ignored that South Dakota’s abortion ban was sponsored by a Democrat, not a Republican.
3. President Bush has ssaid he would not support South Dakota’s ban because it only provides an exception for the life of the mother, and not for rape or incest.
Facts aside, the refusal to grant that a fetus, at some point, develops rights is out of touch, particularly with the hallowed Roe v. Wade. Under such a theory, someone who intentionally punches a pregnant woman in the stomach right before her due date, causing the death of a “fetus” would be guilty of only a simple assault, likely carrying no mandatory jail time. Some of us think that would be murder.
It is irrelevant that the bill was sponsored by a Democrat- the Democrat is wrong in my eyes (see, Democrats can say that about their own).
It is funny that none of the anti-choicers will answer the question I posed. Would you want a woman who would choose to terminate the pregnancy to raise a child she didn’t want to have? Adoption is not possible in all circumstances.
If we as a society are going to require that all pregnant mothers are forced to bear the full pregnancy, how far are we willing to go to ensure the welfare of the potential child?
If the mother smokes, are we going to put her in jail, for endangering the life of her fetus?
If the mother drinks, are we going to put her in jail?
If the mother eats Quarter Pounders, are we going to put her in jail?
If the mother jumps up and down too frequently during her pregnancy, are we going to put her in jail?
Are we willing to build homes to house the unwanted children?
Factcheck, you’re falling off message. I thought to people such as yourself that being pro-choice was all about the mother and her body. But now you’re attempting to use the child as a means to support your position.
As for life being a horrible struggle, your logic dictates that we should just start doing away with all of the invalids in this country. I mean, why bother? A man I know (he’s not really a friend. I know him well enough. He’s a member of our church) has recently been diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s Disease. He’s going to die. There’s no doubt about it unless they find a miracle cure. His life at some point in the future is going to become a horrible struggle. In Factcheck’s mind, Wayne would have been better off being aborted to avoid that ‘horrible struggle.’
Good post Frame, how about if the mother doesn’t want the child, shouldn’t the father be required to take custody of the child and raise the child?
Anti-choice isn’t about the child, it is about punishing women for having sex.
And like Randi Rhodes says, they love the fetus, hate the child.
“Would you want a woman who would choose to terminate the pregnancy to raise a child she didn t want to have?”
Here’s another one: If a man gets a woman pregnant and splits or refuses to raise the child, should we be able to put him in jail for five years? If not, why not?
You guys who are so gung ho on banning abortion, tell your party to run on that. Because even Republicans do not support banning abortion and imprisoning doctors.
To borrow a pro-lifer’s slogan: It’s not a “consequence,” it’s a baby.
The denial of medical care should not be used as a cudgel to enforce your code of “responsibility” on pregnant women.
So how is the man accepting the consequences of “irresponsibly having sex” with this SD law?
BTW, thank you for admitting that the fetus isn’t what you are concerned with, it is the sex.
The fetus has no rights to deny. This society only gives rights to the living. After the fetus survives the birth process is when the baby gets constitutional protections.
It’s not about punishing anyone for having sex, rather it is forcing people to accept the consequences of irresponsibly having sex.
So basically pro-abortion is about denying rights to a child who may not be wanted? I’m surprised then that more pro-abortion supporters don’t argue for overturning Roe v. Wade and those pesky restrictions the State is increasingly allowed to impose.
I’m happy that the God-fearing, truck-driving, red-meat-eating people of South Dakota are exercising their long-time fanatical, cult-like belief that they have every right to trample on the privacy of a woman’s own body.
Oh, happy day.
JK
“Right now, the father has no say in the abortion decision.”
As it should be. I’m talking about men who leave or refuse to help. Should we be able to jail these men for abandonment? Afterall, SD is talking about jailing doctors who had nothing to do with the actual sex act that seems to have you guys so hopped up.
As to your other point, why is there an exception to save the life of the mother? You’re talking about accepting the consequences of having irresponsible sex. Well, what if the consequences are death?
Often times limit cases draw into the open the underlying assumptions and judgements behind a position. Let’s try one out. A mother is told that she will certainly die in child birth but that her child will also live. The mother chooses to have an abortion. Is she morally justified in doing so and why?
Pregant women are denied various forms of medical care while they are pregnant and it is considered “responsible” to do that in order to protect the unborn child.
I would prohibit all abortions, except to save the life of the mother. That would mean that fathers and mothers who chose to give up the child for adoption would still be responsible for paying child support.
Please oh PLEASE run on that. Your radical right-wing view of abortion will win many seats, I am sure.
Only difference is, former slaves actually were living human beings, rather than potential humans.
Only someone who hates and disrespects women would say that women abort out of “convenience”. Abortion is a serious decision, and right or wrong, it is her decision. Not yours. Not mine.
If you really want to stop abortion, give women more choices in life. Make health care available for her and the child, regardless of employment status. Make good, safe daycare more available for working single mothers. Make fathers pay support, imprison them promptly when they do not. Make birth control available and free. Make sex education available, and make it part of the public square. Take away the taboo of sex, so people don’t sneak around and engage in unprotected sex to avoid detection.
But you don’t want to do any of that, because this is really about punishing women for THEIR sexuality (while excusing the male).
Frame asks:
Right now, the father has no say in the abortion decision. He is obligated, by law, to support his child, whether he wishes to have a child or not.
I would prohibit all abortions, except to save the life of the mother. That would mean that fathers and mothers who chose to give up the child for adoption would still be responsible for paying child support.
“So how is the man accepting the consequences of irresponsibly having sex with this SD law.”
He isn’t. And no one seems to be asking him to. Anti-choice forces speak about being responsible for the “consequences” of sex but then treat every pregnancy as if it were a virgin birth: Their focus is entirely on making sure women bear the full responsibility of raising a child.
Does the anti-abortion movement ever talk about legal sanctions on men who get women pregnant and refuse to face the “consequences”? If more fathers stuck around maybe there would be less abortions. Maybe we could keep abortion legal but jail men who abandon the women they impregnate.
In other words, why is the law always being directed at women, and now their doctors, but never at the fathers? They get off scott free (pun intended)
Factcheck writes:
So, in order to protect the perhaps one percent of abortions that would fall into the “hard case” categories, you believe that it is imperitive that we allow abortion on demand, to sacrifice over a million children a year to keep abortion available for such cases.
The fact is that such exceptions existed before Roe v Wade. You didn’t need to slaughter millions to help thousands.
Factcheck writes, correctly:
Well, that is a true enough statement, legally. And we can find that logic demonstrated in past Supreme Court decisions; perhaps you ought to read Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Abortion is the putting of the convenience of the woman ahead of the life of the child.
Whether it is viability or some other standard, at some point before birth that fetus becomes a baby. When that occurs (and I am by no means arguing that I know when it occurs absent my own beliefs) that baby is deserving of protection.
If you don’t know when it occurs, then how on earth can you tell women when they have to keep the child?
Noone can agree on when each individual fetus becomes viable. That’s why we have the “birth” standard to decide when protect the child.
In the meantime, I am unwilling to tell a 11-year-old who has been raped by her father that she can’t have an abortion after 6 months.
I am unwilling to tell a woman who is carrying a fetus with no brain stem that she has to carry that fetus to natural birth.
These situations are rare, but part of real life. They are why I am unwilling in placing bans on medical procedures. I respect women enough to allow them to decide when to bear this burden.
“No one is saying that this Democrat-sponsored law is any good or has a prayer of holding up. Nevertheless, Roe v. Wade, which the pro-abortion ers hold so dear, does allow (and perhaps even requrie) restrictions on abortion as the pregnancy progresses into the second and third trimesters. Of course, the pro-abortion ers have never met a reasonable restriction that they would support.”
Nice answer Hedley. Only you completely forgot to mention men or fathers entirely. Like I said, the anti-choice crowd seems to think women get pregnant spontaneously — or from door knobs. Such is the state of sex eduction in the Red States.
“Abortion is the putting of the convenience of the woman ahead of the life of the child.”
Once again, where’s the man in all this? Isn’t abortion also putting the convenience of the man before the life of the child? If so, shouldn’t the man come under the thumb of the law as well?
So how is the man accepting the consequences of irresponsibly having sex with this SD law?
No one is saying that this Democrat-sponsored law is any good or has a prayer of holding up. Nevertheless, Roe v. Wade, which the pro-abortion’ers hold so dear, does allow (and perhaps even requrie) restrictions on abortion as the pregnancy progresses into the second and third trimesters. Of course, the pro-abortion’ers have never met a reasonable restriction that they would support.
BTW, thank you for admitting that the fetus isn t what you are concerned with, it is the sex.
Your words, not mine. This isn’t about punishing anyone for having sex. But on the other hand there are consequences for engaging in sex — one being that a pregnancy might occur. And if that pregnancy does occur, at some point, that pregnancy results in a life coming into being — a life which increasingly gains certain rights. Some people feel that occurs at conception, others that it does not begin until the moment of birth. Personally, I feel both positions are extremist and unrealistic. Whether it is viability or some other standard, at some point before birth that fetus becomes a baby. When that occurs (and I am by no means arguing that I know when it occurs absent my own beliefs) that baby is deserving of protection.
The fetus has no rights to deny. This society only gives rights to the living. After the fetus survives the birth process is when the baby gets constitutional protections.
So then you support legalized abortion up until the moment of birth since the “fetus” is just an inanimate object unitl it is born? Obviously you support the overturning of Roe v. Wade because why would there be a need for any restrictions in the second and third trimesters if there are no rights to protect? Recall that Scott Peterson was found guilty of second degree murder for the death of his unborn son. How can you murder something that is neither alive nor has any rights?
As to your other point, why is there an exception to save the life of the mother? You re talking about accepting the consequences of having irresponsible sex. Well, what if the consequences are death?
Good point. If you are “pro-life”, then why do you pick the life of the woman over the life of the fetus? Isn’t that the basic debate against abortion, that the woman is putting her life ahead of the fetus’ life? Shouldn’t you try to save both lives?
“… it is forcing people to accept the consequences of irresponsibly having sex.”
Also, is the anti-choice movement now making distinctions between irresponsible sex and responsible sex that accidentally ends in pregnancy? What if a couple is tyring to avoid pregancy through contraception but it fails and they end up pregnant? It happens. Should this responsible couple now be forced to face the consequences of responsible sex?
Quite so.
Those specific forms of medical care are NOT denied in order to impose the “consequences” of irresponsible sex on the pregnant woman.
While we’re at it, can we just do away with the whole “irresponsible sex” angle here? Not every woman who seeks an abortion is single, careless, or unconcerned about having a healthy child. Some are married. Some have used birth control that failed. Some seek an abortion because something has gone dramatically wrong with their pregnancy. And, of course, some seek an abortion because they have been raped or have been subjected to incest.
Also, is the anti-choice movement now making distinctions between irresponsible sex and responsible sex that accidentally ends in pregnancy? What if a couple is tyring to avoid pregancy through contraception but it fails and they end up pregnant? It happens. Should this responsible couple now be forced to face the consequences of responsible sex?
In at least months 7, 8 and 9 … yes.
Yes. I never said I would outlaw all abortion. I would allow abortion during the first trimester without restriction regardless of how responsible or irresponsible. During the third trimester I would only allow abortion if the life of the mother was at stake and there was no other reasonable medical option. The second trimester for me is more murky. I don’t know that a law could be sufficiently crafted, but if there was a legitimate reason for an abortion (to the extent that there can ever be a legitiamate reason) (i.e., rape, incest, life of the mother, medical state of the fetus, etc.) I would allow it.
That’s just my opinion. I don’t expect most here to agree with it. I would neither ban all abortions, nor allow all abortions. I think there is a reasonable middle ground.
If a woman is on birth control and it fails, she becomes pregnant and carries the fetus to term, has the baby and decides to keep it, can SD charge her with attempted murder?
If a woman miscarries, can the husband sue her for wrongful death?
So many nagging little details, so little comon sense.
Again, as always, the issue is not and should not be about whether abortion is right or not. Even hard-line Pro-choice advocates would say abortion is not a good thing. The issue is whether it should be safe and controlled so women don’t DIE!
Fact wrote:
Do you think, then, that I ought to surrender on what is right just to be politically popular?
Of course, there were plenty of times in which a politician couldn’t have run on a platform of the abolition of slavery or for women’s suffrage and had a snowball’s chance of winning. Would a politician running on integration have won in Alabama (or even Boston) in 1950? Would a Southern politician running on prosecuting KKK lynchings have won in 1928?
Fact asks:
If you can, yes. There may be circumstances, such as an ectopic pregnancy, where such becomes impossible. The life of the woman and the unborn child are equal, not of different values.
There may be situations in which a woman must become “un-pregnant,” to save her life. If the child is far enough along to save his life, his life should be saved; if he is not, a certain practicality occurs: the death of the mother will kill her unborn child as well. In that case, when only one life can be saved, you save the one.
I do not agree to any of the talk about the “consequences of irresponsible sex.” The goal is to save the life of the child, period, not to punish the woman because she didn’t behave responsibly.
“In at least months 7, 8 and 9 & yes.”
Which means you support abortion in months 1 thru 6 for people who acting responsibly during sex? I wonder if Dana agrees. Meanwhile those that act irresponsibly, however, must follow through with the pregnancy. Tell me, how is the law supposed to identify who is who?
It is ironic that the pro-abortion’ers are so concerned with the appropriate role of the father and yet will not support any legislation that requires that the father be notified (not consent) if a woman chooses an otherwise lawful abortion.
The fetus has no rights to deny. This society only gives rights to the living. After the fetus survives the birth process is when the baby gets constitutional protections.
** Buzzer Sounds **
Wrong again Factcheck. In most states, if you murder a woman who is more than 6 months pregnant you can can (and most likely) will be charged with two murders. As such, that shows the right of an unborn child to their life does have moral, legal and constitutional protections.
Further, this odious SD law also spells the end for IVF in SD.
“There may be situations in which a woman must become un-pregnant, to save her life.”
Fascinating, the tortured language some people will resort to. Of course, what Dana means to say is that there are some situations in which abortion is necessary and morally acceptable. Falling back on simple practicality, however, avoids the larger issues. In a situation in which it’s either the mother or the unborn child, it’s the mother’s life that is granted moral weight. Why, all life being equal, as Dana says.
And Hedley, you’ve just described the position/reservations of what I think could be described as the average pro-choice supporter. When you get down to it, it’s a pretty reasonable position. I think Duros brings it all home: It isn’tabout whether we support or encourage abortions, it’s about making the procedure safe for women who choose to go through it.
Finally, the decision to get an abortion should be left entirely with the woman so that she cannot be forced to carry a preganancy to term against her will. I just want to know why fathers always seem to drop out of the “consequences” arguments.
Dana says,
Wilbur makes a vaild point:
If the fetus is a human being then why is the penalty not the same as for premeditated murder? The law contradicts itself.
That is absolutely right, which is why the mother (it s difficult to refer to someone who would kill her child as a mother) and the abortionist and all of their accessories ought to be held to the standard for premeditated murder.
Dana, I find your opinion repulsive, but at least it has some intellectual consistency. All the rest of you anti-choicers need to step up and agree with Dana or admit that you’re “pro-life” stance is just a smoke screen for reactionary moralism. Someone who is really “pro-life” would not divide “human beings” into people whose murder is only worth 5 years in prison and those whose murder is worth life in prison or capital punishment.
Someone who is “pro-life” would also not support war and capital punishment the way many of you hypocrites do.
If we could cut all the “pro-life/pro-choice” bullshit and have an honest debate between those who a) believe the option of abortion must remain safe and legal b) those who believe that any abortion is premeditated murder worrthy of the normal penalty for that crime and c) those who just think women should be punished for letting their chastity belts slip, then we could really see where the American public stands.
Again, if you miscarry or have an accident that results in the termination of a pregnancy in SD—it may result in a police investigation of the woman.
Sounds like the Taliban, huh?
So Stick, I guess I’d be safe in saying that you are not a supporter of the Bush administration because of their very poor record on states rights and person liberty? Or are you one of those ‘hofbrau’ libertarians who pick and choose the freedoms they support over the concept of liberty itself? The point of my post is that political and moralistic concerns are driving the legislators in SD. If only it was as simple as you pretend it to be. Drop me a line when Bush and the neo-conservatives start acting anything like libertarians. Right now it seems that the concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch, rule by fiat, is their overarching goal. If you can give me some examples of ‘rights’ that don’t aid corporations and hinder the citizens right to privacy and redress have come from this ‘movement’ please post. If you truly are a libertarian and you believe that these folks have your interests in mind you’re more deluded than rank and file Democrats.
“Again, if you miscarry or have an accident that results in the termination of a pregnancy in SD it may result in a police investigation of the woman.
Sounds like the Taliban, huh? ”
Sounds like you need help, fucktard.
The bottom will fall out of the suburban GOP if the zealots inspired by the South Dakota Legislature succeed in severely restricting or otherwise abrogating the right of women to choose abortion. I welcome the apocalyptic firestorm of controversy that will ensue if the Supreme Court of this country, in an ill-advised lurch to the right, outlaws abortion.
Again, if you miscarry or have an accident that results in the termination of a pregnancy in SD it may result in a police investigation of the woman.
Repeating something over and over again does not make it true.
Jadegold says, “Sounds like the Taliban, huh?”
No — the Taliban wouldn’t “investigate.” They would simply drag the woman into the town square and stone her to death.
Being a Republican, some little part of me will be sad to see abortion go, because it has robbed the Democrats of millions of potential votes.
And I have to chucke at liberals who refer to pregnancy as a “punishment,” as if procreation isn’t the primary biological function of sexual intercourse. I thought you guys were all about biology; you know, evolution and all that.
Liberals also have a problem with the abortion vs. capital punishment issue. You can make fun of conservatives for supporting capital punishment while wanting to end abortion, but your own position of encouraging abortion while decrying capital punishment begs the same kind of explanation. In the case of capital punishment, at least the convicted criminal had the opportunity to choose whether or not he committed his crime. An unborn child has no choice over the circumstances of its conception or the termination of its life. If liberals really want to be advocates for the helpless, then that is the aspect of “choice” that they should most heavily consider.
And as for all the hysterics over doctors getting jail time — I seem to remember that last summer, the ACLU was jumping up and down over the prospect of sending school officials from Tangipahoa Parish, LA to prison for commiting the despicable crime of holding a Bible study in a public school building. So I guess after both sides get through with us, no one will be left free.
Sorry, if the truth hurts, Jay.
Read the legislation; it affords full rights to any fetus. Thus, if that fetus is harmed–due to whatever reason—that must be investigated. Just as if some adult were harmed or killed.
Just like the Taliban, Jay.
So if a woman in SD experiences a spontaneous miscarriage–she’ll likely be investigated. Imagine: a woman miscarries; she’s probably upset by that event. Then the SD police come knocking on her door with an eye toward prosecuting her.
No the Taliban wouldn t investigate. They would simply drag the woman into the town square and stone her to death.
Yes, Mike, you’re right. It’s so much more civilized of us to actually conduct an investigation, then toss a woman into jail for having a miscarriage.
And I have to chucke at liberals who refer to pregnancy as a punishment, as if procreation isn t the primary biological function of sexual intercourse.
Myself–I “chucke” at your poor wife.
This has got to be the stupidist argument you have EVER made. Seriously. As I already posted rom the actual law in response to the first time you made this stupid claim:
Yet Jadegold repeatedly types:
If I ever needed evidence that you were amazingly dense, this is a doozy. I’m suprised you’re not too embarrassed to show your name.
Liberals also have a problem with the abortion vs. capital punishment issue. You can make fun of conservatives for supporting capital punishment while wanting to end abortion, but your own position of encouraging abortion while decrying capital punishment begs the same kind of explanation.
No it doesn’t. “Pro-life” is a dishonest monicker, and it’s equally dihonest to allege that those who oppose “pro-life” are “pro-death”. If anyone is pro-death in this country it is conservatives, since they actively advocate killing, in the form of war, in the form of capital punishment, in the form of ravaging the biosphere for the sake of profit. Most of us who are pro-choice don’t encourage people to have abortions. We would be perfectly happy if no abortions happened. We just don’t feel that the fetus has rights that outweigh the rights of a real human being to do what she wants with the insides of her body.
As I already posted rom the actual law in response to the first time you made this stupid claim:
Of course–as can be easily seen—the part of the legislation you posted has nothing to do with the issue.
“Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.”
The emphasized part refers to women undergoing an abortion—not to miscarriages or other accidents that terminate a pregnancy.
Reading comprehension is your friend, JWG.
You can’t possibly be this stupid.
The law seeks to criminalize abortion for those who perform the abortion. However, the law gives the mother an exception to the criminality of the issue. If the miscarriage is not intentional, then it is not illegal under the conditions of the law. If the miscarriage was intentionally created (by anyone), then she is specifically exempted from criminality. In other words, what new conditions does this law add to the current legal tools available to prosecutors that would allow them to charge a mother with a crime?
Feel free to continue proving your absolute lack of intelligence. Your grasp of the English language and logical reasoning is spellbinding.
Jeez, people. It’s not that hard. You’re talking about “investigation” and “conviction” as if they’re the same thing.
The law exempts pregnant women from conviction. But how will law enforcement convict abortion providers without including pregnant (or previously pregnant) women in the investigation?
Additionally, Jadegold is referring to the woman being investigated in the absence of an abortion provider as a result of this law.
Um, Quaker…read what Jadegold wrote:
and
So when Jadegold refers to a woman being “subject to a murder investigation” he’s referring to her being a target rather than a source of information.
JWG, this line: “Then the SD police come knocking on her door with an eye toward prosecuting her.” doesn’t sound right to me.
However, as noted above, it sounds entirely possible that zealous enforcement of the statute could result in questioning a woman who has suffered a miscarriage.
And that could happen. If a woman shows up in an emergency room following a miscarriage, will law enforcement officials want to know whether it resulted from an attempted abortion?
Beats me. However, it’s possible.
Let’s see what a SD attorney says about it, shall we?
Facts are such stubborn things.
This legislation states a fetus–at any stage after conception–enjoys the same full rights as any human being. Thus, if that fetus comes to end via spontaneous miscarriage an investigation must ensue–just as if a six-year-old had died.
Jadegold, you get dumber every time you post. You just linked to a debate about a proposed constitutional amendment for SD (SJR 2) in order to support your idiotic statements about their new state law, the “Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act” (HB 1215) to which Oliver linked. You can’t use a lawyer’s claims about the proposed language for a constitutional amendment to support your arguments about a completely different law with its own specific language.
Facts are stubborn, all right. Let me know once you get yours sorted out.
READING COMPREHENSION. Look again. Pay attention to each section that actually changes existing law: “That chapter 22-17 be amended by…” Your claim is NOWHERE to be found. The ONLY place the act refers to the rights of the fetus is in the introduction (Section 1) stating, “to fully protect … the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child … abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited.” This statement by itself does not create or change any law. Additionally, the statement specifically states that the only function of the act in its effort to protect the rights of the unborn is to ban abortion.
You are making sh*t up and claiming it is part of the law
Please tell me more about “reading comprehension.”
The text of the law, as linked by OW, doesn’t mention miscarriage at all. It refers only to abortion and it specifically excludes the prosecution of a woman for whom an abortion is performed or attempted.
To prosecute a woman who has a miscarriage, law enforcement would a) have to learn of the miscarriage, b) determine that the behavior of the woman contributed to the miscarriage, and c) that the behavior was intended to cause the miscarriage.
That still wouldn’t address the statute’s exclusion of the pregnant woman as a target of prosecution. The bill leaves a great, gaping flaw: it doesn’t mention women who perform abortions on themselves. I suspect this was omitted because the authors of the bill can’t muster the political will to criminalize women who have abortions.
If you’re right, Frank, that makes JadeGold prescient and not mistaken about the possible effect of the law.
You’re probably right, Quaker, and it will wase its passage to the Governor’s desk for a signature. It’s a clever idea.
The law can be amended later to charge them with negligent homicide — probation for a first offense.
I don’t think he’s prescient — I think he either misread or didn’t read the law to which Oliver referred.
Actually, the Doctor is what’s called an “actor”. The woman who goes to a doctor, and asks for an abortion, is consciously having the abortion administered by the doctor.
The law as it is written now implies the woman has lost her senses or something.
YES IT DOES.
Compare that statement to a later statement:
and
There are times when a specific group of people are specified. Other times the group is EVERYONE which would include the mother. Continuing:
This does not specify who performs the abortion so it includes the mother herself. An intentional miscarriage is an abortive procedure and would be covered under the law as written. Therefore the mother is exempted from prosecution.