Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
South Dakota has banned abortion - is your state next?
Please join us in sending a message to U.S. governors asking them to hold the line on a woman's right to choose.
Help protect the right to choose in your state by volunteering with your state affiliate
Help protect the right to choose in your state by volunteering with your state affiliate
The worst has happened: South Dakota has banned abortion.
What does the law do? South Dakota's criminal ban outlaws abortion in almost all cases and does not protect a woman in cases of rape or incest or even when her health is in danger. Doctors who violate the ban could face up to five years in prison.
This is the second time that South Dakota has pushed to ban abortion, and the governor is so anti-choice that he has stated, "[a]bortion...should always be illegal." Even as we see increasing restrictions across the country, it is still a shock to hear that any state has actually passed a law to deny women their constitutional right to choose altogether.
The law is part of a larger anti-choice strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade altogether. To quote the South Dakota House Speaker Matthew Michels, "I think the stars are aligned." [Los Angeles Times, 2/25/06]
According to Governor Rounds, who was just in Washington, DC for a national governors' meeting, he is getting support from his peers: "A lot of governors [are] expressing support and wishing us good luck and saying they may have similar proposals that may be favorably looked upon across the United States." [Keloland TV, 2/26/06]
He's right - this legal strategy isn't just happening in South Dakota. Anti-choice lawmakers are pushing similar unconstitutional legislation in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia, all with the intent of ending the right to choose through the courts.
Our opponents may be fired up over this latest victory, but we can't let them achieve their goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.
Please join us in sending a message to U.S. governors asking them to hold the line on a woman's right to choose. Click here to send your governor a message today: http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/gov_noabortionbans_0306/wix3k3g4h5k5dii?
Help protect the right to choose in your state by volunteering with your state affiliate. Click here to find the NARAL Pro-Choice America affiliate in your state: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about-us/state-affiliates/
What does the law do? South Dakota's criminal ban outlaws abortion in almost all cases and does not protect a woman in cases of rape or incest or even when her health is in danger. Doctors who violate the ban could face up to five years in prison.
This is the second time that South Dakota has pushed to ban abortion, and the governor is so anti-choice that he has stated, "[a]bortion...should always be illegal." Even as we see increasing restrictions across the country, it is still a shock to hear that any state has actually passed a law to deny women their constitutional right to choose altogether.
The law is part of a larger anti-choice strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade altogether. To quote the South Dakota House Speaker Matthew Michels, "I think the stars are aligned." [Los Angeles Times, 2/25/06]
According to Governor Rounds, who was just in Washington, DC for a national governors' meeting, he is getting support from his peers: "A lot of governors [are] expressing support and wishing us good luck and saying they may have similar proposals that may be favorably looked upon across the United States." [Keloland TV, 2/26/06]
He's right - this legal strategy isn't just happening in South Dakota. Anti-choice lawmakers are pushing similar unconstitutional legislation in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia, all with the intent of ending the right to choose through the courts.
Our opponents may be fired up over this latest victory, but we can't let them achieve their goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.
Please join us in sending a message to U.S. governors asking them to hold the line on a woman's right to choose. Click here to send your governor a message today: http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/gov_noabortionbans_0306/wix3k3g4h5k5dii?
Help protect the right to choose in your state by volunteering with your state affiliate. Click here to find the NARAL Pro-Choice America affiliate in your state: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about-us/state-affiliates/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
S. Dakota Legislation to Ban Most Abortions
By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday that would ban most abortions in South Dakota, a law he acknowledged would be tied up in court for years while the state challenges the 1973
U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
ADVERTISEMENT
[0]
The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
The governor issued a written statement saying he expected a lengthy legal battle over the law, which, he said, would not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it.
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.
The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and
Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn
Roe v. Wade.
Abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge, Rounds has said. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.
Some other states are considering similar bans on abortion.
Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
Rounds noted that it was written to make sure existing restrictions would still be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses; after the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.
Kate Looby, state director of
Planned Parenthood, said the organization has not yet decided whether to challenge the measure in court or to seek a statewide public vote in November. A referendum would either repeal the abortion ban or delay a court challenge to the legislation.
"Obviously, we're very disappointed that Governor Rounds has sided on the side of politics rather than on the side of the women of South Dakota to protect their health and safety," Looby said.
Planned Parenthood runs the state's single abortion clinic, which performs about 800 abortions each year.
By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday that would ban most abortions in South Dakota, a law he acknowledged would be tied up in court for years while the state challenges the 1973
U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
ADVERTISEMENT
[0]
The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
The governor issued a written statement saying he expected a lengthy legal battle over the law, which, he said, would not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it.
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.
The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and
Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn
Roe v. Wade.
Abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge, Rounds has said. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.
Some other states are considering similar bans on abortion.
Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
Rounds noted that it was written to make sure existing restrictions would still be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses; after the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.
Kate Looby, state director of
Planned Parenthood, said the organization has not yet decided whether to challenge the measure in court or to seek a statewide public vote in November. A referendum would either repeal the abortion ban or delay a court challenge to the legislation.
"Obviously, we're very disappointed that Governor Rounds has sided on the side of politics rather than on the side of the women of South Dakota to protect their health and safety," Looby said.
Planned Parenthood runs the state's single abortion clinic, which performs about 800 abortions each year.
For more information:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/abortion_south_...
(3/6/2006)
Governor Mike Rounds' Statement on Signing Abortion Ban
"South Dakotans will continue to care about both the unborn child and mother"
“I have signed House Bill 1215 into law. It is An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, to prescribe a penalty therefore, and to provide for the implementation of such provisions under certain circumstances.
HB 1215 passed South Dakota’s legislature with bi-partisan sponsorship and strong bi-partisan support in both houses. Its purpose is to eliminate most abortions in South Dakota. It does allow doctors to perform abortions in order to save the life of the mother. It does not prohibit the taking of contraceptive drugs before a pregnancy is determined, such as in the case of rape or incest.
In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them.
Because this new law is a direct challenge to the Roe versus Wade interpretation of the Constitution, I expect this law will be taken to court and prevented from going into effect this July. That challenge will likely take years to be settled and it may ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Our existing laws regulating abortions will remain in effect.
The reversal of a Supreme Court opinion is possible. For example, in 1896, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Plessy versus Fergusoncase that a state could require racial segregation in public facilities if the facilities offered to different races were equal. However, fifty-eight years later, the Supreme Court reconsidered that opinion and reversed itself in Brown versus Board of Education. It proclaimed that separate could not produce equal. The 1954 Court realized that the earlier interpretation of our Constitution was wrong.
HB 1215 will give the United States Supreme Court a similar opportunity to reconsider an earlier opinion.
While this is a state and national issue, I want to emphasize that whatever the courts decide, South Dakotans will continue to care about both the unborn child and mother. If we are pro-life, we must recognize the need to take care of women who are faced with a difficult pregnancy. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, we cannot protect the innocent child, unless we protect and care for the mother. We must help each mother to see the value of the gift that is a child, and nurture the mother for her own sake and for the sake of her child.
Our state is committed to helping greater numbers of pregnant woman who will allow their babies to grow inside them and be born. In both the private and public sector in South Dakota, we have healthcare options, economic assistance before and after birth, adoption services, and, most importantly, people who want to help pregnant women, young mothers and their children.
There are also many people in South Dakota who will continue to help those women who have had abortions in the past. We want those women to know that we care about them, too.”
For more information:
http://www.dakotavoice.com/200603/20060306...
when they still support incumbent Senators who voted to cut off debate on Alito so that he could be confirmed by the Senate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/naral-and-planned-parenth_b_16277.html
[South Dakota has now passed legislation making it illegal for a woman to have an abortion even in the case of rape or incest. It's a law perfectly timed to test the new Supreme Court now that Samuel Alito has joined their ranks. How exactly did we get to this place?
Ask Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
They sat back, bilked their membership like an ATM then didn't show up to fight Alito's confirmation, frolicking in their mountain of hoarded cash even as they pissed and moaned. Worse yet, afterwards they told their members to thank those in the Senate -- like Joe Lieberman -- who cast their votes to let this happen.
Now women across the country are enraged and they're "irritated" by the phone calls and faxes they're getting. Their disconnect from the real world of pro-choice is both dangerous and astonishing.
The religious right has been preparing for this moment for decades, and so have NARAL and Planned Parenthood. All their fundraising literature invoked this threat to Roe v. Wade like a bogeyman that could only be held off with cash:
"NARAL Pro-Choice America surpassed its fundraising goals in the hours following Justice O'Connor's announcement," said President Nancy Keenan. Donors "are deeply concerned that President Bush will choose to further divide this nation by nominating a radical right-wing conservative."
Moderation is not the tone of fundraising appeals in the nomination contest. "This is big, people. Huge," NARAL wrote to supporters. "It's true, there is no freedom without choice. Without choice, we are not free."
But what did NARAL do when the time came? Nothing.
The conventional wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the Democratic party will be just fine if it shifts dramatically to the right and "goes with the flow." NARAL was birthed by pioneering feminists like Betty Friedan who had fire in their bellies, but somewhere along the line they became an institutional behemoth who wanted to court the rich and the powerful more than they wanted to actually serve the cause that so many hard working Americans entrust them to do -- guard choice.
They began endorsing Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and giving money to Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Yet when the Alito cloture vote went down -- the only meaningful vote, which could've been stopped with 40 "nay" votes from getting to the floor -- all of these people voted "aye." People like Chafee and Joe Lieberman later voted "nay" in the final vote which only required a simple majority of 51. They then ran around and huffing and puffing about this coathanger-wielding like they'd done something really brave on behalf of choice. Nobody was fooled.
Well, nobody but Planned Parenthood:
SUPREME COURT WRAP UP
On Tuesday, January 31, 2006 the Senate voted to confirm Samuel Alito, Jr. 58-42 as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice after failed efforts by Senate Democrats to filibuster his nomination. Take time to thank Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Joseph Lieberman for opposing Samuel Alito's nomination. We thank all our supporters and activists for their energy and effort to defeat this nomination.
And nobody but NARAL, who said "Thank your senator for opposing Alito!" and then listed a whole slew of Senators who hadn't supported them on cloture.
Lest you think there was some kind of collective brain atrophy on the part of the institutional pro-choice forces, take comfort in the fact that NOW gets it:
LIEBERMAN HAS TURNED HIS BACK ON WOMEN
Senator Lieberman turned his back on this country's women by refusing to support a filibuster against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Judge Alito was confirmed yesterday by a vote of 58-42. While Connecticut NOW recognizes the 42 senators who voted against confirmation, the crucial vote happened the day before, when senators voted on whether or not to end debate on this nomination. Since the Republican leadership had enough votes to confirm Alito, a filibuster was the only way to prevent his confirmation.
Connecticut NOW applauds Senator Dodd for his support of the filibuster. Shamefully his colleague, Senator Lieberman, demonstrated a lack of respect and concern for the women and girls of Connecticut and the nation by his refusal to support the filibuster. Senator Lieberman pointed out that he had studied Samuel Alito's record carefully and so he was aware of the threat Alito poses to a woman's most basic constitutional right: to control her own body and decide whether or not to bear a child. As reported by The Hartford Courant, Senator Lieberman stated that he did not support a filibuster because Alito's confirmation vote did not meet the standard of "extraordinary circumstances" decreed by the Senate "Gang of 14." "This is a slap in the face to every woman of this state, no matter her political beliefs, economic status or race," stated Rosemary Dempsey, President of CT NOW. "“What could be a more '‘extraordinary circumstance'’ than when a woman'’s right to make her own reproductive health decisions is seriously threatened?"
Former NARAL head Kate Michelman gets it, too -- she herself has endorsed Chafee's opponent Matt Brown. This particular brand of GOP sycophancy while choice burns seems to be a product of Nancy Keenan's fevered money hunger. Meanwhile, although NARAL asked their members what they thought about the Alito vote on their Bush v. Choice blog, when people like noted feminist Katha Pollit challenged their continued support for Chafee their comments were deleted.
Striking fear into the hearts of their memberships with Supreme Court terror alerts they use for the purpose of shaking them down is bad enough. That these organizations continue to endorse people like Lincoln Chafee and ask women to grovel before those who whallop them and blacken their eyes is worse. That the Democratic candidates who are now running against Chafee both say they would not have voted for cloture on Alito, yet NARAL continues to endorse Chafee anyway, is a disgrace.
Planned Parenthood won't even count the cloture vote on their scorecard. To them it is "not significant." I would accuse them of being stupid but there is no way they are that profoundly ignorant of the political process. They have become Washington insiders and have clearly made some kind of decision to court power by ignoring the destruction of choice being carried out by the very candidates they continue to bootlick for their beatings.
Should one of the pro-choice judges on the Supreme Court retire before the end of the Bush junta, choice in this country will not survive another nominee confirmed by this Senate. There is no more important task before the pro-choice movement today than the defeat of Senators in states that are solidly pro-choice like Joe Lieberman, Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe -- Senators who have proven that they will knuckle under to the Bush junta first and care about choice only when they're let off their leash, only when it doesn't matter.
The NRA would've yanked their endorsement from any Senator who voted against them like that in a heartbeat.
Why not NARAL and Planned Parenthood?
Ned Lamont is a solidly pro-choice candidate running against Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. If you care about pro-choice in this country, thank NOW for having the clear-eyed vision to understand the dangers that are imminent. Contact NARAL and Planned Parenthood and tell them you are cutting them off until they denounce the members of the Gang of 14, yank their funding and use that money to support Senate candidates who will actually stand up to George Bush and the bullies of the Republican party next time there is a Supreme Court vacancy.
Don't give them any more money for their fancy vases and swank offices and expensive lunches with the GOP forced childbirth lobby. Give your money to true pro-choice candidates for the US Senate like Ned Lamont who will take a stand when the time comes, and it will come. Give 'til it hurts. Then give some more.
That NARAL and Planned Parenthood don't seem to care about this simple truth is nothing short of shocking and they do not deserve to be the guardians of pro-choice in this country until they make a commitment to show up and defend it.
Jane Hamsher blogs daily at firedoglake.blogspot.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/naral-and-planned-parenth_b_16277.html
[South Dakota has now passed legislation making it illegal for a woman to have an abortion even in the case of rape or incest. It's a law perfectly timed to test the new Supreme Court now that Samuel Alito has joined their ranks. How exactly did we get to this place?
Ask Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
They sat back, bilked their membership like an ATM then didn't show up to fight Alito's confirmation, frolicking in their mountain of hoarded cash even as they pissed and moaned. Worse yet, afterwards they told their members to thank those in the Senate -- like Joe Lieberman -- who cast their votes to let this happen.
Now women across the country are enraged and they're "irritated" by the phone calls and faxes they're getting. Their disconnect from the real world of pro-choice is both dangerous and astonishing.
The religious right has been preparing for this moment for decades, and so have NARAL and Planned Parenthood. All their fundraising literature invoked this threat to Roe v. Wade like a bogeyman that could only be held off with cash:
"NARAL Pro-Choice America surpassed its fundraising goals in the hours following Justice O'Connor's announcement," said President Nancy Keenan. Donors "are deeply concerned that President Bush will choose to further divide this nation by nominating a radical right-wing conservative."
Moderation is not the tone of fundraising appeals in the nomination contest. "This is big, people. Huge," NARAL wrote to supporters. "It's true, there is no freedom without choice. Without choice, we are not free."
But what did NARAL do when the time came? Nothing.
The conventional wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the Democratic party will be just fine if it shifts dramatically to the right and "goes with the flow." NARAL was birthed by pioneering feminists like Betty Friedan who had fire in their bellies, but somewhere along the line they became an institutional behemoth who wanted to court the rich and the powerful more than they wanted to actually serve the cause that so many hard working Americans entrust them to do -- guard choice.
They began endorsing Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and giving money to Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Yet when the Alito cloture vote went down -- the only meaningful vote, which could've been stopped with 40 "nay" votes from getting to the floor -- all of these people voted "aye." People like Chafee and Joe Lieberman later voted "nay" in the final vote which only required a simple majority of 51. They then ran around and huffing and puffing about this coathanger-wielding like they'd done something really brave on behalf of choice. Nobody was fooled.
Well, nobody but Planned Parenthood:
SUPREME COURT WRAP UP
On Tuesday, January 31, 2006 the Senate voted to confirm Samuel Alito, Jr. 58-42 as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice after failed efforts by Senate Democrats to filibuster his nomination. Take time to thank Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Joseph Lieberman for opposing Samuel Alito's nomination. We thank all our supporters and activists for their energy and effort to defeat this nomination.
And nobody but NARAL, who said "Thank your senator for opposing Alito!" and then listed a whole slew of Senators who hadn't supported them on cloture.
Lest you think there was some kind of collective brain atrophy on the part of the institutional pro-choice forces, take comfort in the fact that NOW gets it:
LIEBERMAN HAS TURNED HIS BACK ON WOMEN
Senator Lieberman turned his back on this country's women by refusing to support a filibuster against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Judge Alito was confirmed yesterday by a vote of 58-42. While Connecticut NOW recognizes the 42 senators who voted against confirmation, the crucial vote happened the day before, when senators voted on whether or not to end debate on this nomination. Since the Republican leadership had enough votes to confirm Alito, a filibuster was the only way to prevent his confirmation.
Connecticut NOW applauds Senator Dodd for his support of the filibuster. Shamefully his colleague, Senator Lieberman, demonstrated a lack of respect and concern for the women and girls of Connecticut and the nation by his refusal to support the filibuster. Senator Lieberman pointed out that he had studied Samuel Alito's record carefully and so he was aware of the threat Alito poses to a woman's most basic constitutional right: to control her own body and decide whether or not to bear a child. As reported by The Hartford Courant, Senator Lieberman stated that he did not support a filibuster because Alito's confirmation vote did not meet the standard of "extraordinary circumstances" decreed by the Senate "Gang of 14." "This is a slap in the face to every woman of this state, no matter her political beliefs, economic status or race," stated Rosemary Dempsey, President of CT NOW. "“What could be a more '‘extraordinary circumstance'’ than when a woman'’s right to make her own reproductive health decisions is seriously threatened?"
Former NARAL head Kate Michelman gets it, too -- she herself has endorsed Chafee's opponent Matt Brown. This particular brand of GOP sycophancy while choice burns seems to be a product of Nancy Keenan's fevered money hunger. Meanwhile, although NARAL asked their members what they thought about the Alito vote on their Bush v. Choice blog, when people like noted feminist Katha Pollit challenged their continued support for Chafee their comments were deleted.
Striking fear into the hearts of their memberships with Supreme Court terror alerts they use for the purpose of shaking them down is bad enough. That these organizations continue to endorse people like Lincoln Chafee and ask women to grovel before those who whallop them and blacken their eyes is worse. That the Democratic candidates who are now running against Chafee both say they would not have voted for cloture on Alito, yet NARAL continues to endorse Chafee anyway, is a disgrace.
Planned Parenthood won't even count the cloture vote on their scorecard. To them it is "not significant." I would accuse them of being stupid but there is no way they are that profoundly ignorant of the political process. They have become Washington insiders and have clearly made some kind of decision to court power by ignoring the destruction of choice being carried out by the very candidates they continue to bootlick for their beatings.
Should one of the pro-choice judges on the Supreme Court retire before the end of the Bush junta, choice in this country will not survive another nominee confirmed by this Senate. There is no more important task before the pro-choice movement today than the defeat of Senators in states that are solidly pro-choice like Joe Lieberman, Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe -- Senators who have proven that they will knuckle under to the Bush junta first and care about choice only when they're let off their leash, only when it doesn't matter.
The NRA would've yanked their endorsement from any Senator who voted against them like that in a heartbeat.
Why not NARAL and Planned Parenthood?
Ned Lamont is a solidly pro-choice candidate running against Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. If you care about pro-choice in this country, thank NOW for having the clear-eyed vision to understand the dangers that are imminent. Contact NARAL and Planned Parenthood and tell them you are cutting them off until they denounce the members of the Gang of 14, yank their funding and use that money to support Senate candidates who will actually stand up to George Bush and the bullies of the Republican party next time there is a Supreme Court vacancy.
Don't give them any more money for their fancy vases and swank offices and expensive lunches with the GOP forced childbirth lobby. Give your money to true pro-choice candidates for the US Senate like Ned Lamont who will take a stand when the time comes, and it will come. Give 'til it hurts. Then give some more.
That NARAL and Planned Parenthood don't seem to care about this simple truth is nothing short of shocking and they do not deserve to be the guardians of pro-choice in this country until they make a commitment to show up and defend it.
Jane Hamsher blogs daily at firedoglake.blogspot.com]
If you ignore anti-abortionists they will go away. Not!! They have state power now, if you ignore them they will just become more powerful as they fill the vacuum that should be full of militant pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-women people. I hope next year NARAL realizes that the "Walk for Life" in san Francisco should be faced with 1000's of us. Or we could just keep ignoring these people, it worked in Nazi germany, didn't it? sara
The way I see it, there will be a moment much earlier than next year's Walk for Life when moderate republicans and democrats will finally be dragged out of their slumber and into a street demonstration, or at least direct action along the lines of getting extra 'day after pills' via prescription to hand out to those in need, or funding and arranging transportation for people in affected states. Mississippi and two more states already have plans to quickly pass laws similar to that signed in South Dakota. Progressives who have been responsible and patrolling this issue all along can't do much more than they already have, but there is a big pool of lazy inactives out there.
In South Dakota, supposedly they also recently passed a father's rights law in cases of incest and rape so the woman can't give up the baby for adoption without his consent.
I personally wish there were a lot more emphasis on what politicians in S. Dakota have already been inflicting on state residents for years. There was widespread involuntary sterilization of indigenous groups, plus involuntary widespread adoption of babies to out of state couples.
In South Dakota, supposedly they also recently passed a father's rights law in cases of incest and rape so the woman can't give up the baby for adoption without his consent.
I personally wish there were a lot more emphasis on what politicians in S. Dakota have already been inflicting on state residents for years. There was widespread involuntary sterilization of indigenous groups, plus involuntary widespread adoption of babies to out of state couples.
The left defeats all other principles when it attempts to defend the barabric practice of abortion. It is the takin of life, done mainly for convenience. It is not in line with justice, non violence or peace. It is not feminist.
I'm sure every woman knows the consequences of unprotected sex, abortion is murder. What's the difference from a baby on the outside to a baby on the inside? Nobody has the right to take life.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network