ACLU Condemns Legislation Aimed at Banning Abortions »
Posted By Spadecaller 1 year, 7 months ago in NewsThe American Civil Liberties Union today condemned a vote in the South Dakota House of Representatives approving legislation aimed at banning almost all abortions in that state. The legislation comes on the heels of a statewide election last November that repealed a similar ban at the polls.
Read Full Story at commondreams.org »
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 223
-
0%
mcgrievysr1 year, 7 months ago
I'm a liberal who is against abortion. However, that being said, I'm also against allowing government to ban abortion because it can't be banned effectively. It will only drive it into secrecy and that will imperil many more lives. Yes, let's educate kids about how to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
And, while I'm on a rant, I'm deeply resentful of our president who garnered the fundamentalist vote by promising to ban abortion. I don't want him to do that, but to say he would when he has not was duplicitous.
Reply-
-
0%
Jayson1 year, 7 months ago
The problem is that some people don't think that the right to end the life of an unborn child should be a civil right, and therefore don't appreciate the ACLU fighting on the side of murder.
Either way, I defy anyone with a brain to explain to me in a clear way where abortion can be found in the constitution.
Reply
-
-
0%
DeadHead131 year, 7 months ago
Why? By what criterion is it the parents' responsibility?
Most people are ignorant, and it follows that most parents are ignorant. In addition, most of them are biased in their views by their religiosity or political affiliation.
If the state doesn't educate the children they will not be educated.
Reply -
100%
kctrixter1 year, 7 months ago
Mrbs "educating the kids is the parents responsibility not the goverments."
If you believe that it is not the government's responsibility to decide what people are taught about sex, do you also think it is not the government's responsibility to decide how someone handles the outcome of those teachings, or should people be allowed to choose according to their own beliefs?
Reply -
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
This concept is only partially true. Most parents are not sufficiently educated to be able to teach their children world languages, advanced mathematics, advanced physics or other sciences. With game shows on the air such as "Being educated by a 5th grader," do I really need any additional evidence to back my case?
Reply
-
-
0%
mark-stevens1 year, 7 months ago
Parents wake up! No sex education in the schools. No to vaccines to prevent a sexually transmitted cancer which at least will sterilize the girl or worse will kill her.
Teach 12 year old girl, that humans have in them a desire to survive, left over from when reaching twenty one was un heard of.
That young boys have an uncontrolled urge to procreate.
That they lie about love or anything else to try to impregnate the young girl. Even a forced situation could occur.
Tell 12 year old girls that no, brings honor.
That that boys and men who never grew up, treat women like it is a hunt. Bagging, scoring, rack
Teach girls that an abortion is dangerous, that it could cause sterilization or death.
I took two friends to an abortion clinic. Both knew that there was a chance of getting pregnant, they didn't want to argue with there dates.
One nearly bled to death, a week later. The other got an infection, that may prevent her from having children.
Reply-
0%
Dobes_Rule1 year, 7 months ago
"No to vaccines to prevent a sexually transmitted cancer which at least will sterilize the girl...."
WHAT? Why are you spreading misinformation?
From The CDC:
"Is the HPV vaccine safe?
The FDA has licensed the vaccine as safe and effective. This vaccine has been tested in thousands of females (9 to 26 years of age) around the world. These studies have shown no serious side effects. The most common side effect is brief soreness at the injection site. CDC, working with the FDA, will continue to monitor the safety of the vaccine after it is in general use."
Reply -
0%
ssp10101 year, 7 months ago
Go, Mark Stevens!
And everyone ought to have to watch "The Hard Truth", "The Brutal Truth" or "Silent Scream". Although these are old videos, I think seeing what's done to babies during an abortion might make everyone think before having sex outside of marriage. The difference between man and animals is supposed to be the ability for the brain to rule the body, but no one teaches that to kids these days... or to adults either, for that matter.
Reply
-
-
0%
Spadecaller1 year, 7 months ago
Will the fundamentalists be exploited by the Republican elitists again and make this issue one more way to divide the electorate at the polls? I wonder.
Reply-
100%
mcgrievysr1 year, 7 months ago
Spadecaller----Will the fundamentalists be exploited by the Republican elitists again and make this issue one more way to divide the electorate at the polls? I wonder.
Heh,heh,heh. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again and again, and I'm a "fundie". :-)
Reply -
100%
Filby1 year, 7 months ago
I am! Oh, boy, am I ever!
See, there's this thing called an "acorn" and this other thing called a "tree". The two are desperately different (to thinking people).
For example, ever try sitting, on a warm summer's day, in the calm cool shady branches of an acorn?
You say you can't, because its not a tree? But the genetics are the same! Therefore, by your logic, an acorn is a tree, and you can sit in the shade of a tree, so you can sit in the shade of an acorn! But you can't, because it makes no f**king sense whatsoever! Just like your teeny tiny over-emotional attempt at an argument!
An acorn is not a tree and a zygote -- which has no brain or even a distant approximation of an actual, functional brain, for example -- is not a human.
Nope.
Not ever.
Reply-
0%
Jayson1 year, 7 months ago
So what at 6 months, how exactly, besides size, is a "fetus" different than a "human person"? The acorn/tree example is more analogous to an unfertilized egg/human. As soon as the acorn has begun germination, it is, in fact, a tree. You might not be able to sit in the shade of that young tree, but again, you can't sit in the shade of every tree. Being able to or not being able to sit in the shade of the object does not make it a tree. In the same way, a developing fetus is obviously a human person. It may be small and hidden, but a person nonetheless.
Reply
-
-
-
40%
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
Will the fundamentalists be exploited by the Republican elitists again and make this issue one more way to divide the electorate at the polls? I wonder.>>>
Of course they will, and they'll 'happily' be exploited. They're martyrs. They love it, all the wailing and 'god' speak. Makes em feel important, and part of a 'group.' CONS know that, and use it. CONS also know they can't stop abortion, but fail to mention that it's a Constitutional issue, and they won't be changing that.
Reply
-
-
0%
Amazing11 year, 7 months ago
Shame on these lawmakers in South Dakota. To pass such a ban after the voters had overturned it is one more sign that those in power really think they know what is best for everyone.
I think we can all agree that abortions are not a happy choice and that it would be better to have fewer, or ideally, none. But that depends on information and the availability of real birth control options including the morning after pill for those instances where a woman has been raped.
This should not be a political issue. This is for the woman, her family, her doctor and has no place in any legislature.
Reply-
100%
Natureboy1 year, 7 months ago
Well, that's a failing of representative democracy, isn't it? These people give a damn what you think, but only every four years, when they are running for (re)election. They care much more about what you think if you raise five or six figures for their election campaign. The rest of the time, they are feathering their own nests.
Representative democracy is to democracy is as military intelligence is to intelligence.
Reply-
0%
ssp10101 year, 7 months ago
Isn't "representative democracy" an oxymoron. Natureboy? We are a Republic, not a Democracy. A republic has a representative government, whose reps are elected to represent and serve the people. A democracy lets the majority rule. Unfortunately, we are quickly moving away from a Republic and to a democracy.
We have politicians who are building their own little empire of power, and we just keep reelecting them. Representing the people, are they? Hardly...they're representing themselves. What America needs is a resurgence of Statesmen, and throw out the politicians!
Reply
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
Tango571 year, 7 months ago
"In a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute, South Dakota ranked 44th in the nation in its efforts to help women avoid unintended pregnancy."
This statement is a reflection of the environment in the House, total disdain not just for women, but the people of the state. Even though the voters feel otherwise, they are being ignored. What happened to representing the constituents? What happened to democracy? The House members are watching Washington and have learned, they can do what ever they want regardless of any laws without regard to anyone else.
Reply -
0%
leatherneck1 year, 7 months ago
Spadecaller you got it right. The Republican elitists will exploit whatever they can to divide the electorate.
Reply -
67%
JohnBryansFontaine1 year, 7 months ago
If there's any doubt what happens to a nation when Abortion becomes illegal, how such a nation slides into anti-democratic Theocracy, read:
Pro-Life Nation
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abort
"There are other countries in the world that, like El Salvador, completely ban abortion, including Malta, Chile and Colombia. El Salvador, however, has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus - the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal. Like the woman I was waiting to meet."
- from 'Pro-Life Nation', by Jack Hitt, New York Times Magazine, April 9th, 2006
Reply -
-
-
0%
mark-stevens1 year, 7 months ago
unfortunately 16 year old girls are threatened with a"lost love"
Try Elvis's "Its Now or Never"
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
TruthDetector1 year, 7 months ago
First I am a conservative. I am neither a Republican or a Democrat, I am a registered Independent.
This article is a classic piece of work, it manipulates a persons way of thinking. Allow me to show some examples. Now please bear in mind that my comment is not intended at this time to actually give an opinion on the abortion issue but my comment is directed to show this article is intended to direct in one direction. Now the person who submitted this article has done so as a willing accomplice in doing this to you. Let's see how they do this.... unborn......(cont)
Reply-
-
0%
TruthDetector1 year, 7 months ago
TruthDetector..."I will get hate comments and personal attacks from the Liberals, and actual comments to on my response to the article from the Conservatives."
Should I repeat them jock?
Listen jock, before the vote on the ban, (which by the article we know nothing about) the people voted for the Legislators. If they think they do not want their voted legislators doing this they can express themselvs at the voting booth. There is an organization trying to stop that process though.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
TruthDetector1 year, 7 months ago
"ACLU Condemns Vote"... How is it that this ACLU organization is allowed to be heard as it tries to intimidate and manipulate politicians the people voted for, and policies that our Government is considering?
"Says State Lawmakers Continue to Play Politics with Women's Health"... This so called journalist twists so that abortion seem to have to do exclusively do with Women's health.
"This ban is yet another unconstitutional attack on reproductive health care,".. Once again quoting the ACLU rep as if her words have authority given by the people. Not mentioning the health of the unborn......(cont)
Reply-
100%
IcCaRus1 year, 7 months ago
"ACLU Condemns Vote"... How is it that this ACLU organization is allowed to be heard as it tries to intimidate and manipulate politicians the people voted for, and policies that our Government is considering?"
first, they are allowed to be heard because in america we have this pesky little thing called free speach.
second (and more to the point in this instance), yes, the people did vote for these politicians. however, the people also defeated this just last year. these politicians are NOT doing what the people clearly want.
you can try to disect and discredit the article all you want, but the fact remains that the people of South Dakota are against this, and the legislature knows it.
remember, above all else, they are supposed to represent US.
Reply-
0%
TruthDetector1 year, 7 months ago
IoCaRus "first, they are allowed to be heard because in america we have this pesky little thing called free speach".
I will repeat again, please underline the words "as if her words have authority given by the people"
TruthDetector.."Once again quoting the ACLU rep as if her words have authority given by the people"
Reply
-
-
-
100%
TruthDetector1 year, 7 months ago
Now let's see how well they have done in manipulating our minds.
AMAZING 1 says..."Shame on these lawmakers in South Dakota. To pass such a ban after the voters had overturned ... know what is best for everyone."...Where in the article does it say that the Legislators passed a ban? unborn......(cont)
Reply-
0%
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
In November 2006, the voters repealed a ban that would have outlawed nearly all abortions in the state - South Dakotans voted 56 to 44 percent against the measure.
The South Dakota legislature passed a ban in 2006. Enough people gathered signatures on a petition to have the ban repealed. The voters decided in November 56 to 44 percent to repeal the ban.
Having said all that, I am not a fan of abortion. I am personally against abortions. However, since I am a male, I cannot imagine the pain and trauma a woman faces knowing she is surrendering her unborn child. Not all women have sex with the intention of getting pregnant. In particular, cases involving incest with minors or rape. I would also contend that cases exist in which the life of the mother is at stake. My heart goes out to women who are faced with these decisions.
Reply-
0%
TruthDetector1 year, 7 months ago
david, no offense but this is another example of how the article was written in a way to twist our thinking.
I will quote the article "Today's legislation passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 45 to 25."
The way that part was carfully placed in the article was clearly intending to have people think that this is the way the people voted. This is actually the way the Legislature voted on a new resolution to be placed on the ballot
Don't be offended, I had to read it a couple of times myelf in order to see what the writer did
Reply
-
-
-
67%
TruthDetector1 year, 7 months ago
"force voters to consider a ban on nearly all abortions in the state".. Notice how it is worded? Making it sound as if the voters have no choice. The voters are not being forced to do anything except vote once again. Once again quoting an unqualified person.
"families, not politicians, should make these very personal health care decisions," and families did that by voting for the representatives they now have. unborn......(cont)
"Today's legislation passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 45 to 25." Quite impressive and overwhelmingly in favor.
"According to recent research, South Dakota ...efforts to help women avoid unintended pregnancy." How hard is this to teach. Everyone knows there is only one way to assure 100% that you will not get pregnant. This is a no-brainer, how hard is it to teach morality? (Oops, ok my small opinion)......(cont)
Reply-
63%
IcCaRus1 year, 7 months ago
just stop! the people of the state have ALREADY spoken; they do NOT want this ban.
Reply -
0%
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
What about gay sex? No one is likely to get pregnant if both partners are of the same gender. Thus, you do have more ways than one to have sex without pregnancy being an issue.
Reply
-
-
100%
TruthDetector1 year, 7 months ago
JohnQPublic says... "I guess what I don't understand is how the legislature can go against the will of the people in such a manner!" ...
