New Hard-Line Abortion Bill Introduced in South Dakota
New Hard-Line Abortion Bill Introduced in South Dakota
Three months after South Dakota voters rejected an abortion ban at the polls by a 56-44 margin, state legislators have introduced another “sweeping abortion bill…that supporters hope will lead to a legal challenge of Roe v. Wade.”
The ban rejected in November was “extreme, allowing for abortion only in instances to prevent the death of a woman. The revised ban, titled the ‘Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act,’ offers additional exceptions, though they are very narrowly defined.”
Ms. Magazine reports:
In addition to preventing the death of a woman, an abortion may be obtained in cases of rape or incest, but the victim must report the rape to the police within 50 days, the physician must obtain a copy of the report record, and the victim must provide either the name and last known address or a description of the alleged rapist to law enforcement. Furthermore, the physician would be required to take blood samples from the woman and the fetus to be submitted to law enforcement.
In the case of incest, a doctor “would have to get the woman’s consent to report the crime along with the identity of the alleged perpetrator before an abortion could be performed. Blood samples from fetuses would have to be provided to police in incest cases too.”
Also, the penalties outlined in the new bill are “much more severe than last year’s bill. Any physician who performs an abortion outside the guidelines of the bill would be guilty of a class-four felony and could face up to 10 years in jail.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
138 Responses to “New Hard-Line Abortion Bill Introduced in South Dakota”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What a great idea! Maybe the dolts in SD can suggest the Death Penalty for any 13 year old rape victem. they are setting up the "murder", bringing the victim to the "crime" scene, and allowing the "murder" to take place.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pmThose IDIOTS should be thrown out of office after the last vote OF THE PEOPLE informed them of thier OPINION on this matter.
Just keep pushing the abortion issue, keep the whackos busy while the Dems fix the government.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pmSo incredibly hypocritical...these yahoos are concerned with human life only as long as it's inside the womb. Once born, the kid's on their own.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pmSD must be the bastion of the 13% Americans who do not know anything about global warming, nor where Iraq is located on a world map, nor do they see that Bush is crazy and their Anti-Abortion rant is hypocrisy since they love for Iraqi children to be killed in Iraq Fiasco War.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:32 pmWhy are the SD voters this voting for any GOP candadates to any office.
When will the standup and kill the GOP presents in SD?
February 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pmUtah is introducing a bill to ban abortion. The kicker is that they've not even voted on it, but they're already setting up a fund to fight the fact that the bill is unconstitutional, and they know it. I wish this issue in Utah got more coverage, I guess it doesn't because everyone has just given up on the Reddest of the Red states.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pmMaybe we can trick the Christafundagelicalwingnuts by claiming that global warking damages fetuses.
-GSD
February 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pmthese people are on some kind of jihad.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pmglobal warming....
February 1st, 2007 at 12:47 pmAnother Legislative body not listening to the voters. Hope the voters do the right thing and replace these legislators in the next election cycle.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pmThe right-wing plan to distract, divide and vanquish seems to be taking a foothold in the political arena. Congress needs to do the same and go for the throat of the conservative effort. How hard can it be? Surely, we've learned THAT much, these past six years. I know I have.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pmFaierie - it's a shame that Utah has such a backwards thinking majority because Utah is one of the most beautiful states in the union. There are pockets of forward thinking people in Utah. Just have to search for them.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:52 pmLib in NM - good point... if the right wingnuts can keep up the abortion, gay marriage chatter, then maybe the forward thinkers will be distracted from the real issue which should be impeach the president and force Cheney to resign. Enough said about abortion and gay marriage. These are the issues of the do nothing for Americans 109 Congress. We don't need to regress.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pmImagie that, A state acting on States Rights. What would the Founding Fathers say!?!
February 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pmSD wants to require a woman to report a rape that has taken place within 50 days of the attack? An address if the rapist is known and a description if unknown? Perhaps preventing another attack? The nerve of some people in South Dakota!
February 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pmWhat about an individuals rights Bob?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:05 pmOnce again my home state of SD has to embarrass itself with more draconian abortion laws that probably won't pass. I remember being in high school and spray painting a pro-life billboard in the middle of the night. By the next afternoon the billboard was gone and a new one put up in its place. They move fast. There are no doctors in SD that will perform abortions. A couple of doctors fly in from Minneapolis a couple times a week. Sloth Dakota - F U!!
February 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pmWas SD a Confederate State wannabe? Can we get them all relocated down "South" somehow? Might be worth doing if we can get all of the 25%'ers (ReThug + Christianists) together and then LET THEM SECEDE AGAIN....
February 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pmIn addition to preventing the death of a woman, an abortion may be obtained in cases of rape or incest, but the victim must report the rape to the police within 50 days, the physician must obtain a copy of the report record, and the victim must provide either the name and last known address or a description of the alleged rapist to law enforcement.
They have just declared non-procreational sex illegal in SD. Think about it: is a man's condom leaks in SD, the only way for the woman to get an abortion is to call her sexual partner a rapist. This goes for married people as well. All sex that results in pregnancy is considered rape, unless the woman carries it to term.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pmdon't the people in SD vote? got machines to do that for them?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pmKrazny - An individuals rights are limited everyday. Prostitution, speeding, incitement to violence, littering, transfats, IRS, etc. limit the behaviour of individuals.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:14 pmSo are they planning on also providing medical support for the expectant mother who can't abort? Prenatal care? Money to raise the child? Day care? A house for him or her to grow up in?
If they TRULY want to respect the "sanctity" of life, they need to provide for the whole life or the gesture is simply meaningless.
This law is wrong on SO many levels, it's down right disturbing. It should be disturbing to right-to-lifers too... All but the most insane and radical, anyway.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:14 pmThat's what the Courts are for. Strike it down on Constitutional grounds. The State has the right to pass the legislation, and the citizens have the right to fight the legislation through judicial action. Hence the 3 branches of government.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:15 pmHey us southerners are working hard to get rid of our crazies, we don't need any additional northern-style crazies. ;-)
(I live in NC)
February 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pmBarfly - good point of argument. This could keep the bill from passing. All the forward thinkers have to do is say, yeah, we like this bill... from a christian point of view, it will make all non-procreational sex illegal. Then post the pictures of the bill supporters in the newspapers and let folks know that these are the politicians protecting them from non-procreational sex. These politicians will be gone, solid gone at the next election.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm#
SD wants to require a woman to report a rape that has taken place within 50 days of the attack? An address if the rapist is known and a description if unknown? Perhaps preventing another attack? The nerve of some people in South Dakota!
Comment by valiant venus — February 1, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Somehow I doubt the intent of this bill is to get rapes reported. If they wanted to help in that sector they would start a rape counseling hotline, and train officers to help women who have been raped.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm#23 - "If they TRULY want to respect the “sanctity†of life, they need to provide for the whole life or the gesture is simply meaningless."
So it does take a Village? How about people being responsible for their own behaviors and consequences? Nah.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pmsad, we have to fight the same old fight for reproductive rights; potentialy harmful distraction techniques by the right, when we should be moving onward and upward, sad...
February 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pmIf a woman in South Dakota announces her intention to get an abortion, will she be incarcerated and forced to carry the baby to term? If many women do this, will South Dakota set up "birthing camps" or something like that? Will there be armed guards? What if a pregnant mother tries to escape? Will she be shot?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pmThese legislators don't give a hoot about financial support... just don't ask them to use any of their money for these unwanted pregnancies. More borrow and spend Republic behavior. Only this time the spending will be totally the responsibility of the pregnant woman. The backwards thinkers won't put up. Damn, I wish they would just shut up.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pmYou doubt the intent of this bill? Wouldn't that be a positive unintended consequence? They don't have rape counseling in SD? No trained officers to assist women dealing with such a horrific crime?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:21 pmHow can they if abortion is illegal. You mean getting pregnant immediately makes you a good parent who is ready and able to care for the child?
Remember, the one wanting the abortion has already made a responsible decision. If the government wants to force the child to be born, why should the woman be forced to financially sacrifice?
As quaint as the thoguht that sex should only be for procreation is, it's not reality.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:22 pmBluedog49 - yeah, I thought the same thing. Will the prisons now be filled with pregnant women? Is this a way to get more babies on the market for adoption? Still, who will pay for these babies? Who will pay for the incarceration of the women that had abortions? The tax payer that's who. There they go again, borrow and spend Republics.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:23 pmv v - you are such a pompous ass. Go get pregnant and have a baby.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pmThroughout history, conservatism has always fought to go backwards because progress always tends to benefit the masses much more than the nobels and aristocrats.
The problem now is that dominant conservative party has solidly ingrained themselves with a dominant religion to increase power, so we don't just have to fight the aristocrats for a fair share of the pie, we also have to fight the zealots to keep from forcing their religious beliefs.
It was a great tactic that has paid off. You think a billionaire in SD whose daughter got knocked up couldn't fly her off to get an abortion? They have NO worries about this kind of stuff! And as long as the poor zealots keep the blinders on, the american "nobels" have more opportunities to grab onto more power...
February 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pmre: #22 valiant venus
Krazny - An individuals rights are limited everyday. Prostitution, speeding, incitement to violence, littering, transfats, IRS, etc. limit the behaviour of individuals.
Is your thinking so shallow that you do not differentiate between PUBLIC and PRIVATE?
Do understand that women DIE in child birth?
Are we to believe that you are ok with the government making you do something against your will that can KILL you?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:30 pmYou doubt the intent of this bill?
Comment by valiant venus — February 1, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Simply put yes; the intent of this bill is to create a legal challenge to the Roe V Wade ruling. Nothing more, nothing less. As stated a similar bill was a no vote on an SD ballot. To claim the bill is designed to help rape victims is asinine.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pmer....it's not like most people in SD actually WANT this legislation, so let's please refrain from categorizing all of us as morons. we DID manage to vote the crap down last time.
it's just our legislature. we are fighting this loudly on http://www.cleancutkid.com and other SD progressive blogs. feel free to chime in and let our legislators know what absolute pinheads they are.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pm#38 - Childbirth has always been a dangerous experience. Thank goodness, for modern medicine! I would be more impressed with your argument if you noted how many abortions were actually performed to save the mother rather than accomommodate the mother. I suspect far fewer than your emoting suggests.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pmdon’t the people in SD vote? got machines to do that for them?
Comment by oldtree
The people there already struck down a very similiar bill in the midterm elections.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pm"You doubt the intent of this bill?"
I doubt the intent of any and all bills pushed by religious fanatics.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pmCasey Murschel - former SD legislator and currently the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota - discussed the new ban in a blogpost on http://www.BushvChoice.com.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pmre "You doubt the intent of this bill"....
they SAY it's about challenging Roe v Wade, but they also say it's about preventing murder.
of course, if it were the former, they wouldn't put exceptions in the bill.
i think it's really about control of the populace and about keeping the poor poor. in favor of protecting the hypothetical "life" of a zygote, they would put at legal, financial, and tangible risk the life of a woman. other than its political statement, it really makes no sense.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pmWhat makes abortion ok in cases of rape and incest? It can reasonably be construed that an abortion to save the life of a woman is in effect excusable killing for self-defense.
By allowing an abortion for rape or incest, they are in effect putting the rights and well-being of the woman first. Therefore, it stands to reason that any abortion is justified if it is in the interest of the rights and well-being of the woman.
QED
February 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pmwow
February 1st, 2007 at 1:43 pmThey want states rights why?
How about people being responsible for their own behaviors and consequences? Nah.
Comment by valiant venus
You mean Bush and Cheney?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:45 pmIf a woman who already has children and is having money and healthcare problems decides to have an abortion, will the state take her away from her existing children and throw her in jail? Will her children be taken away from her and put in foster care? If a man agrees with his mate getting an abortion, will he be arrested and charged with accessory to a crime?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:50 pmThere you go Juan. Yep, Bush and Cheney, being responsible for their actions.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:50 pmA thread on global warning gets 5 comments.
A thread on the continuing and escalating violence, murder, and mayhem in Iraq gets 2 comments.
Yet the threads that are receiving the most comments are the ones about an anti-gay lesbian who is pregnant, the 1,000,000th thread illustrating that Bush lies, and one discussing how a state of inbreds wants to outlaw abortion so that they can continue to impregnate their own daughters with an expectation that the daughter cannot abort the process.
If South Dakotans want to live in the ice-ages, so be it.
If Mary Cheney want to prop herself up as some hyper-superior being that some god chose to f*ck and use as a concubine, who cares?
But the murder and carnage continue in Iraq. We, the USA, are about to engage (provoke) Iran. And our congress is all afluff about itself about some resolutions that are so unbinding that they cannot figure out how to get the ink to stick on the paper.
Our priorities are wrong, in my opinion.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pmValient Venus: "How about people being responsible for their own behaviors and consequences?"
Why aren't religious fanatics like you addressing the consequences of your actions. Do you want there to be "birthing camps" where women are forced to carry babies to term or not? Do you want to take children away from Mothers who have decided they cannot support another baby? Answer the frickin questions, biblegirl.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pmTo ParottLover77:
Sorry, Should have said all US whacko's should move to a state that we can let go... like Utah... :-P NC is a great state, but still far too backward culturally and religiously... bet you're not a NC native!
February 1st, 2007 at 1:55 pmre: #51.
this is obviously a hot topic. you can whine about that, or you can concede the obvious fact. your well-spoken post bespeaks your ability to accept the obvious, so this really shouldn't be too difficult for you.
because the issue of anti-abortion legislation goes to the heart of the Constitution itself and many of its Articles, despite its low percentile of direct applicability to the populace, it has implications for everyone: men and women alike, regarding the curtailment of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights for the express purpose of religious hegemony.
people are upset about it, because such attempts at legislation constitute a more severe and insidious threat to our freedom as Americans than Bin Laden or any AL Qaeda member could ever pose.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pmtroll alert=escaped mental patient
sarcasm/OFF
February 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pmwow ardee, way to alienate roughly 2% of your audience, i'm an NC native and only slightly backwards.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pmFrankly, it's sick. How many rapists aren't caught until some years and a couple rapes after they began?
Remember, the next time you're raped, try to steal the wallet of the raper instead of fighting for your life.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pmNope. I would like liberals to spend as much time educating young women or ignorant women about the consequences of un-protected sex.
What about men? A little sexist, dont you think? Men shouldnt be educated? That shows you are not a woman.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pmOur priorities are wrong, in my opinion.
Comment by Tuber
Great post.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pmvv,
I thought we were only supposed to teach abstinence. Nevermind the fact the teaching safe sex practices reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and STDs more than abstinence-only education.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pmNope. I would like liberals to spend as much time educating young women or ignorant women about the consequences of un-protected sex.
Comment by valiant venus — February 1, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Liberals have been trying to make comprehensive sex ed a part of school curriculum for the past 20 years, but conservatives don't like talk about sex.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:24 pmThe presumption that we do not education our children is peurile at best. In fact, here in SD, there is a law which allows pharmacists to not fulfill contraceptive prescriptions based on the pharmacist's religious preference. This is why anti-abortion legislation in SD would be so heinous. The right wing here apparently wants babies at all costs. it's really rather weird.
Your operative words here are "give" and "chance". A legal requirement is not a gift, nor is it a chance. And the issue here is not about selfishness on the part of the woman. It's about the limitation of Constitutional freedoms.
But do spin away. It must be very cathartic for you to continually miss the point with such aplomb.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pmI suppose we should also round up all the women with embryos sitting in fertility clinics and force them to take each one to term.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pmre #51 re #55
I am wholeheartedly with Tuber. This has a sensationalist feel to it. Not unlike the Biden/Bush remarks on Obama thread. Of course women's reproductive rights are important. I would turn your attention to comment 37 by Parrot who eloquently laid the historical/political background on this. Is there really much differnce of opinion here on wether or not a woman has the right to an abortion? Yeah, there is the rotten apple Venus, but her opinions can readily be ignored. So put in your rant and move on.
If you want to fall into the specifics of how this can be used to help the dems. etc, okay
But Tuber's point is that one can easily get distracted away from other very large, very important subjects
February 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm#55,
In my opinion, chasing after a red herring does not make you a superior fisherman, but rather illustrates one's gullibility. And this issue is a red herring. What is the population of South Dakota? Three? (I guess it would be Five if you count mother and daughter and father and brother separately)
Just as many here have identified the hypocrisy of being anti-abortion but pro-murderous crusade, it is just as hypocritical, in my view, to be pro-abortion (individual rights) yet complacent about the rights and lives extinguished every day in your (our) name.
I believe that if South Dakotans want to continue on their path of shallowing up their gene pool, let it be. Darwinism will play itself out there.
But the most pressing issues, nationally, today are:
- Our warring/crusading/murderous ways
- The effort to eliminate the rights of privacy and speech of ALL Americans
- The dismantling of our Constitution and governmental structure
- The abysmal and horrific stewardship we are performing on our environment.
- Government corruption
That's the way I see it.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pmerock and ParottLover77
Hey, I am in NC and I think they are ALL backwards here.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pmCarlo: the matter at hand, which is actually about the limitation of personal freedoms in direct contradiction to the Constitution, is actually very large, and very important, and has far more wide-reaching consequences than who the government is currently sending to die for no apparent reason. in fact, the two issues are somewhat intrinsically tied together under the fact of the current administration's continual attempts to increase its power at the expense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and all the more worthy of note.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:29 pmpharmacists to not fulfill contraceptive prescriptions based on the pharmacist’s religious preference.
And what is wrong wiht this? Would you have it be legal to force someone to go against their religious belief?
February 1st, 2007 at 2:30 pm#67: how grand. there are indeed less than a million people here, but you fail to realize the ramifications of 1/50th of the union potentially passing legislation that defies the Constitution.
you also fail to appreciate what is at stake here, which is the Constitution itself.
you also fail to appreciate the fact that last fall, SD citizens voted a more acrimonious measure down, and that our legislature and certain lobbyists have decided to take up the torch again. it is patently not what SD citizens want to have to deal with, nor what we want representing us.
unfortunately, to small minds such as yours, none of this matters, and the fact that this is indeed an issue which contributes directly to several of your points:
- The effort to eliminate the rights of privacy and speech of ALL Americans
- The dismantling of our Constitution and governmental structure
- Government corruption
apparently is too much for you to comprehends. a pity, that. and a pity that you presumably represent "progressive" thought.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:33 pmRe: #70. our legislature is attempting to legislate a double-edged sword, making it virtually impossible for women to obtain contraceptives or obtain an abortion (from the State's singular abortion clinic). if you can't see the problem with that, and the religious hegemony that serves as the foundation for it, well....you really needn't be trying to discuss things.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:35 pmKrazny - Sex-Ed around here has been pretty much about a "how to" lesson - "how to": girls with a male, male to male, and masterbation. Baby 101 or STD 101 are a little different. But you knew that.
Dawn - I was mentioning the unselfishness of adoption, which apparently flew right over your head. But on a positive note, let me say, Thank you for the lecture. You may get down off the podium.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:35 pmThe right-wing creed:
Life begins at conception and ends at birth.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm#70,
Are you an idiot? What about the 150,000 or so troops in Iraq? For the sake of argument, let's say that 50% are Christian. A key tenet - one might say "commandment" - of that religion is "Thou shall not kill". Yet, they are ordered to kill and murder every day. So, should they be allowed to refuse to kill without repercussion and reprisal?
February 1st, 2007 at 2:37 pmHacker Bob - I think there are some here who would do away with "religious beliefs" - if they could.
Bye for now....
February 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pmThe effective way to eliminate that is to vote them out of office and organize a movement to signal their removal from office...
If this DOES NOT mobilize the citizens of SD then nothing will!
I wish them the best!
February 1st, 2007 at 2:39 pmWhy just stop at abortions? Let's make jerking off and menstruating illegal, too (billions of potential human beings are lost in tissue wads and cotton panels every day)
February 1st, 2007 at 2:42 pmIt might be that way in San Diego, but when I was in school, the point of the safest way to avoid STD's and unwanted pregnancies was abstinece, but here is how you use if a condom, because we know some of you will still have sex. I find it amusing that you complain that liberals don't educate, then when it is pointed out they do attack the message. All in a days work for you I would imagine.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:44 pmWhy stop there? Prohibit all sexual thought and/or action unrelated to attempted procreation.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:45 pm#71,
A state law cannot supersede federal law or the US Constitution. Unless the state secedes, the law will never go into affect.
How many abortions were stopped today in South Dakota?
How many innocent lives were lost today in Iraq due to our actions and involvement?
That's my perspective. Good luck to you fine folk over there in that bastion of urgency, South Dakota.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:45 pmAnd what is wrong wiht this? Would you have it be legal to force someone to go against their religious belief?
Comment by hacker bob — February 1, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Right, but what about MY beliefs, which have no problem with a woman's right to birth control? A phramacist is someone who is paid to dispense prescribed medications, not render moral judgement.
I do have the belief that registered Republicans are immoral human beings, and I work at a bank. It is against my belief system to allow Republicans to make transactions through my bank-- should I be allowed to prevent them from doing so? Of course not. But this is exactly what you're talking about letting pharmacists do.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:53 pmWould you have it be legal to force someone to go against their religious belief?
Comment by hacker bob — February 1, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Now imagine you are rushed into the ER after a car crash around midnight. You are bleeding heavily and in need for blood transfusion. But the only doctor at that hospital that night happens to be a Jehova's Witnesss and refuses to give you the transfusion on religious grounds. How about that scenarion?
I say, if their religious beliefs interfere with their profession they should look for another line of work. They are supposed to look after the well-being of their patients -whether or not the treatment is consistent with their religious beliefs.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:57 pmAnd what is wrong wiht this? Would you have it be legal to force someone to go against their religious belief?
Comment by hacker bob — February 1, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
It's against my religious beliefs to be denied birth control. Who wins?
The radical right is claiming to base their 'belief' on something that isn't even a part of their religion. The Bibles specifically say that life begins at BIRTH.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:17 pmIn the words of the great Gloria Steinham:
"If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
February 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pmI think there are some here who would do away with “religious beliefs†- if they could.
Comment by valiant venus — February 1, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Nope. We just want your hypocritical religious beliefs to stay the hell out of our non-religious lives.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:19 pmIn the words of the great Gloria Steinham:
“If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.â€
Comment by powkat — February 1, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Yeah, no shit... Just look at all the drugs they have for getting erections.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pmThis is exactally my point. They either need to do the job or find a new one. But no one can force them to go againt their beliefs.
Comment by hacker bob — February 1, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Oh robert, that was not your point at all. You said nothing in this regard on any level. In fact, you infered the exact opposite by saying (and I quote):
And what is wrong wiht this? Would you have it be legal to force someone to go against their religious belief?
February 1st, 2007 at 3:27 pmComment by hacker bob — February 1, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Good one!
Comment by unbelievable — February 1, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
How did I post in the future again?
February 1st, 2007 at 3:30 pmSo how many blastocysts did Mary Cheney destroy before she was succesfully artificially insemenated?
February 1st, 2007 at 3:39 pmIt's a great thing the mothers of Progressives decided to continue with their pregnancies. Carrying those little fetuses to term have provided immense entertainment for conservatives.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:45 pmJeez...do these whack jobs ever give up?
February 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm#85:
Where?
#92: Strangely enough H.B. 235 says:
Is this so the LDS Church can pay for the lawsuits, since they're ultimately the reason this is even happening? Ugh!
February 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pmTP, you might want to elaborate more: The text makes it look like the bill requires that you were raped AND you can provide the name or location of the rapist.
So, conservative rapists will just wear darker masks, then?
If SD really wanted to challenge the abortion case, they would have made the bill less specific. With it so narrow, the supreme court very well could throw out the bill simply because it's too narrowly defined.
Fun stuff here, folks.
Meanwhile, let's actually work on some real issues - anyone here have any ideas on informing my ill-informed community about global warming?
-Xbot
February 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pmComment by unbelievable
Wow, my post is now gone. But I have to ask, did you read the whole thing or just pull out that one sentance. Because I think I prefaced the "that's my point" statement with alot of other opinion before.
Do you think it should be legal to tell someone they have do do something against their religious belief? Wouldn't that interfere with their Constitutional rights?
I would not force the pharmacist to go against his beliefs, and the Government can not force that either.
Now, if their religious belief prevents them from the performance of the proper, stated aspects of their job, they should not have that job. If one is truely that stringent in their beliefs, they will not have a problem with that. And by fireing them, or not hiring them because they are not willing/capable of performing their required duties, protects the employer from lawsuits on the basis of religious descrimination.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pmAnother incident that puts the lie to "Democracy in Amerika." Heil.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:45 pmRabbit
How long before the main stream of America has had enough of these nuts
February 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pmnazi south dakota......... women ALL women should move out of this state and I am NOT a liberal.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:00 pmThere is NOTHING wrong with a state letting its citizens vote on what is right for there state. Letting the people decide is always the best decision. There is nothing wrong with proposing this. Let the people of South Dakota vote on it and decide for themselves if this is something they want as law. Let the people decide, not the courts!!
February 1st, 2007 at 5:23 pmIt's the same old thing. Religious fanatics can sit there an wax poetic about the morals and the responsibility, but they are simply unwilling to answer real questions about the real world consequences of the government they want. I'll ask again: Valiant Venus, if a woman professes her intention to get an abortion, should she be put in a "birthing camp" or jail and forced to carry the baby to term? If a woman's spouse agrees that, as a couple, they need the abortion, is he thrown in jail as an accessory to a crime? If the couple already has children, will these kids be taken away from the couple and put in foster homes? How will your perfect world work, Valiant?
February 1st, 2007 at 5:29 pmRoger: "Let the people decide, not the courts!!"
The people have decided that they want universal healthcare. If our legislators ever enact a single-payer system, the insurance industry will rush to court. Who will you back in that case, Roger?
February 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pmWow, my post is now gone. But I have to ask, did you read the whole thing or just pull out that one sentance. Because I think I prefaced the “that’s my point†statement with alot of other opinion before.
I read the whole thing. I stand by my comments.
Do you think it should be legal to tell someone they have do do something against their religious belief? Wouldn’t that interfere with their Constitutional rights?
Again, I repeat - what about my Constitutional Rights? Why do their personal beliefs trump mine?
And, why do they take a job where they know they will dispense medications they find objectionable?
I would not force the pharmacist to go against his beliefs, and the Government can not force that either.
Then don't be a Pharmacist.
The government can force police, teachers, and fire fighters not to strike - even if our rights are violated -for the good of the whole. What makes Pharmacists any better?
Now, if their religious belief prevents them from the performance of the proper, stated aspects of their job, they should not have that job.
Agreed.
If one is truely that stringent in their beliefs, they will not have a problem with that.
Apparently, in reality, they do - hence this issue...
And by fireing them, or not hiring them because they are not willing/capable of performing their required duties, protects the employer from lawsuits on the basis of religious descrimination.
Comment by hacker bob — February 1, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Which is then religious discrimination...
See the viscious cycle here?
February 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pmLet the people of South Dakota vote on it and decide for themselves if this is something they want as law. Let the people decide, not the courts!!
Comment by Roger_Roger — February 1, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
What if they want to own slaves? Specifically people who post under the handle of Roger-Roger? You okay with letting them do that? You have to be... It's the exact same logic.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:36 pmPosted by roger_roger:
There is NOTHING wrong with a state letting its citizens vote on what is right for there state. Letting the people decide is always the best decision. There is nothing wrong with proposing this. Let the people of South Dakota vote on it and decide for themselves if this is something they want as law. Let the people decide, not the courts!!
So, roger, did you actually READ the article before posting your tripe? The VOTERS in South Dakota REJECTED a less stringent proposal last year, yet some cretinous legislators decided to introduce an even more restrictive piece of anti-abortion legislation. Again, the VOTERS didn't want the last piece of tripe that was put before them. I'd say the VOTERS already spoke. Why can't the legislators listen to the VOTERS?
February 1st, 2007 at 5:56 pmUnbelievable.
Again, I repeat - what about my Constitutional Rights? Why do their personal beliefs trump mine?
Why do your rights trump theirs? You have freedom FROM religion but also freedom OF religion.
And, why do they take a job where they know they will dispense medications they find objectionable?
I think we agree they shouldn't have taken the job.
me: I would not force the pharmacist to go against his beliefs, and the Government can not force that either.
you: Then don’t be a Pharmacist.
We agree
The government can force police, teachers, and fire fighters not to strike - even if our rights are violated -for the good of the whole. What makes Pharmacists any better?
Pharmacists are not public servants. They are not on the government payrolls. They are in a retail business, not a government job.
me: And by fireing them, or not hiring them because they are not willing/capable of performing their required duties, protects the employer from lawsuits on the basis of religious descrimination.
you:Which is then religious discrimination…
Nope, it is based on performance at that point. Religion is taken out of the equasion. Simple, here are the job requirements, if you can not or will not perform them, I have no use for you as an employee. If I am unwilling to go to war, should I still be in the Military? No. Because I am unwilling to perform the duties of my job.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:12 pmSame thing is happening in Utah.
"Yesterday, Planned Parenthood was up on the hill to testify against an unnecessary “trigger banâ€. What we were left with is Substitute House Bill 235, an all out Abortion Ban for which Utah ’s taxpayers will have to pay 1-4 million dollars.
We believe that Roe should be protected from unnecessary lawsuits and we firmly believe that women of Utah should not be banned from safe abortion procedures.
Today, we call on you to email your lawmakers (to find your Representative go to http://www.le.state.ut.us) and tell them the following:
Dear Representative,
1st Substitute HB 235—Abortion Ban Revisions is on the House Calendar for debate. I urge you to vote against this bill when it comes up for a vote. This bill would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and is a clear case of misplaced priorities. This legislature should focus on preventing unintended pregnancy by increasing access to family planning resources and making women’s health a priority.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:12 pmMaybe we can trick the Christafundagelicalwingnuts by claiming that global warming damages fetuses.
Comment by GSD — February 1, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Good one!
February 1st, 2007 at 8:14 pmFertile women in SD better not be turning down dates on Saturday nights, or the Ovulation Police will came after them. A potential conception may have been averted.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:20 pm/sarcasm
Why do your rights trump theirs? You have freedom FROM religion but also freedom OF religion.
My right to my own body trumps everyone else's right to my body. You want someon eelse's rights to impact you physically to trump your owm rights?
I think we agree they shouldn’t have taken the job.
Then I don't get why you're defending them. Or is it religion you are defending?
Pharmacists are not public servants. They are not on the government payrolls. They are in a retail business, not a government job.
They deal with people's health. That puts them under Government supervison, and therefore subjected to the same scrutiny.
Nope, it is based on performance at that point.
Not if you aren't hiring them because of their religious beliefs. There's no performance there.
Religion is taken out of the equasion. Simple, here are the job requirements, if you can not or will not perform them, I have no use for you as an employee.
It's only that simple in theory.
If I am unwilling to go to war, should I still be in the Military? No. Because I am unwilling to perform the duties of my job.
Comment by hacker bob — February 1, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Yes. But if the military wouldn't let you join because of your religious beliefs, then it's discrimination.
I think we do agree that the way around it is by removing the religion. Welcome to my world :D
February 1st, 2007 at 8:38 pmThen I don’t get why you’re defending them. Or is it religion you are defending?
It is their right to practice their religion that I defend. Just like I defend you right not to practice religion. I assume you are still Atheist?
Not if you aren’t hiring them because of their religious beliefs. There’s no performance there.
No, I would not hire them because the would be refusing to do the job I needed done. Religion is not the issue.
It’s only that simple in theory.
Have you ever been not hired for a job? Does the employer need to state a reason why he did not hire someone?
Yes. But if the military wouldn’t let you join because of your religious beliefs, then it’s discrimination.
No, it is not. Just like it is not discrimination for the Military to "hire" a diabetic. they do not meet the qualifications. When I was a recruiter, we had a girl that wanted to join the Marine Corps. Seh was qualified in every way, but she refused to wear pants. Her religion dictated the women always were to wear long skirts of dresses in public. Because of this she could not join as the Marine Corps could not accomidate that.
I think we do agree that the way around it is by removing the religion. Welcome to my world
No, the way around it is a) the pharmacist can get another job or b) YOU CAN GO TO ANOTHER PHARMACY
February 1st, 2007 at 9:19 pmFertile women in SD better not be turning down dates on Saturday nights, or the Ovulation Police will came after them. A potential conception may have been averted.
/sarcasm
Comment by Zooey —
Judging from the looks of that lady? in the photo I would think it it safe to assume she wouldn`t be placed in the running so as not to handicap the field.
Correct?
February 1st, 2007 at 9:25 pmCorrect?
Comment by Joanie Doe
Well, she's not pretty, but she might be fertile.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:30 pmcome on now, it is SD, who need pretty?
February 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pmcome on now, it is SD, who need pretty?
Comment by hacker bob
Ok, so she's warm....and fertile. :)
February 1st, 2007 at 10:06 pmIt is their right to practice their religion that I defend. Just like I defend you right not to practice religion. I assume you are still Atheist?
They are free to practice it on and to themselves. They do not have the right to practice it on or to others.
Still? You mean, you think I converted in the last week? You can rest assured that if there is anything that will change my mind, it will be all plastered over the headlines that this silent god finally revealed himself (or herself). And since I'm 99.99% certain that won't happen, you can compare my Atheism to my gender (unless all the nuclear waste muckdog wants to generate evolves something... : )
No, I would not hire them because the would be refusing to do the job I needed done. Religion is not the issue.
But it is an issues, as that is why they aren't doing their job -and you're protecting their right to practice their religion over my right to be free from that.
I do realize that is not what you mean - but it is what you're saying...
Have you ever been not hired for a job? Does the employer need to state a reason why he did not hire someone?
Of course. No, he or she does not. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about whether or not it is discrmination.
No, it is not. Just like it is not discrimination for the Military to “hire†a diabetic. they do not meet the qualifications. When I was a recruiter, we had a girl that wanted to join the Marine Corps. Seh was qualified in every way, but she refused to wear pants. Her religion dictated the women always were to wear long skirts of dresses in public. Because of this she could not join as the Marine Corps could not accomidate that.
It's still discrimination. But I suppose I should point out that I don't think all discrimination is bad. After all, without discrimination, we'd eat poisionous berries, sit too close to a man eating tiger, or swim in a school of hungry barracuda.
No, the way around it is a) the pharmacist can get another job or b) YOU CAN GO TO ANOTHER PHARMACY
Comment by hacker bob — February 1, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Like I said... no religion...
Last post for me tonight....
Night all!
February 1st, 2007 at 10:23 pmGawd damn! I didn`t know they grew em that darn ugly up in ND.
Whhoowhee! Maybe abortion is a good thing after all. I am a professional truck driver and have been to ND many, many times and I never saw such a woman as ugly as that one. Shoot.
I did however see a sasquatch running across the interstate late one evening and it looked just like her! I shit you not.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:57 pmSo incredibly hypocritical…these yahoos are concerned with human life only as long as it’s inside the womb. Once born, the kid’s on their own.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — February 1, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Yup. Remember what George Carlin says: "You breed them in the womb so they can grow up to be dead soldiers" (I think that's the quote).
He's 100% right. Sickening too.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 amI am from SD, the last bill was too extreme for some, many people here are conservative, so what. Hope Ca falls into the ocean after an earthquake, and the east cost next time you get bombed we will keep our hard working men & women here clean up after your selves. You want to move us to the south thats great see if you can handle -40.
If your house is burning down and there are 10 kids in side you can only save 9, do you let all 10 parish? NO YOU SAVE WHAT YOU CAN!!!
February 8th, 2007 at 10:50 amOur legislatures do listen to us, MANY people want abortion abollished but some people just arent ready to go that extreme, our legislatures are listen to what we want. Our state runs just fine & dandy worry about your own. Thanks 2 my SD legislatures
February 8th, 2007 at 10:54 amYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 6:19 pmLesbian Sex Free Lesbian Sex Videos Lesbian Sex Videos
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:27 pmKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:22 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 6:05 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 6:27 pmHealth Insurance California Health Insurance Michigan Health Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 12:08 amLesbian Sex Lesbian Anime Teenage Lesbian
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 12:54 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 5:57 amGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 6:12 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 4:55 pmKds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 7:25 pmLesbians Lesbian Girls Lesbian Twins
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 2:28 amLesbian Sex Free Lesbian Porn Blonde Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 4:27 amNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 10:26 amNaked Girls Beyonce Naked Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 8:52 pmSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 10:15 amYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 6:26 amSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 10th, 2008 at 10:53 pmLesbians Girls Lesbians Teen Lesbians
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:48 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:55 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pmYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 6:57 pm