Abortion ban returns to ballot in South Dakota
By CraftyCorner
@CraftyCorner (5600)
United States
October 19, 2008 11:19am CST
The hot political potato of abortion is again being tossed about in South Dakota. If passed, it will be a nail in the coffin of Roe V. Wade.
*
This second South Dakota proposal is a bit watered down as compared to the first. Women may have abortions on reported cases of rape or incest, (many are unreported, which under this proposal, would leave many victims carrying fetuses) if the pregnancy is shown to endanger the life or health of the mother, and that is it.
*
Some doctors fear this proposed law will interfere with patient doctor relationships. Some medical procedures would have to be delayed until approved legally. This can make some painful decisions even more difficult. An example would be being forced by law to carry a fatally ill child to term who you know would have no quality of life.
*
People outside of South Dakota need to be aware of this as it could in future be proposed law in the state in which you live.
*
It does not matter if you personally feel abortion is right or wrong. This is about the government poking it's nose in the most intimate portion of a person's life. The government is becoming more intrusive in degrees. It is taking away our rights to make decisions. First, it will be about the abortion they want to ban. It could lead into bans on certain types of birth control women use to plan the size of their families. Later, it could be about banning the homeschooling of children. Where will it stop?
3 responses
@TheCatLady (4691)
• Israel
31 Oct 08
So what will happen is poor women will be forced to either have back ally abortions or carry to term a child they don't want. Wealthy women will go out of state, and have one in a clinic there.
1 person likes this
@CraftyCorner (5600)
• United States
1 Nov 08
That is so...provided this vote doesn't bring forth repercussions within other states.
*
(BTW, that is a pretty cat.)
@CraftyCorner (5600)
• United States
2 Nov 08
That is an excellent point that needs to be loudly expressed. More birth control means less abortions too.
@TheCatLady (4691)
• Israel
1 Nov 08
Well then to another country. If I had gotten pregnant when I was young, I wouldn't have wanted to tell my folks because it's non of their business.
But if I had to ask, they would have paid for a flight to Canada or Europe or anywhere else in the world for an abortion.
That's were the banning abortion laws are unfair and won't work. People with money,(or supportive parents with money) can always get a safe abortion.
The safest legal abortions pre Rowe V Wade were in Japan. Imagine the costs of going to Japan in the 60's.
The poor will have fewer options. It's not just the flight or the cost of the abortion. There's the time off from work or school, hotel costs, taxi's in a strange area, eating in restaurants for several days. It adds up to a lot of money.
Thanks about my kitty. That's Frankie. He's a great cat.
1 person likes this
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
19 Oct 08
People are always talking about the woman's rights but when does a baby have rights? Even Roe in Roe V Wade feels that it was a mistake. I know of a woman who wanted a boy so every time she got pregnant she'd abort the baby if it was a girl. I know of a woman who has had two abortions, one when she was young and the second time both she and her 14 year old daughter were pregnant and had abortions!
I commend S. Dakota for putting it on the ballot.
1 person likes this
@CraftyCorner (5600)
• United States
20 Oct 08
I have concerns about the far right banning birth control which is the biggest stopper of abortions in this country. Quality birth control keeps conception from happening in the first place up to 99% of the time. Many ultraconservatives want to ban the ability of a woman to control family size.
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
19 Oct 08
I first want to congradulate the state of South Dakota for standing up for it's rights as a state. You stated that this is about the government poking it's nose in area's it doesn't belong. I would agreee. It is about the federal government poking it's nose in to something that should have been a state issue and the state of South Dakota telling the federal government it's nose doen't belong in the issue.
That Aside, we have the supreme court case Roe v Wade. This being law of the land, the state referendum in south Dakota would be nothing more than symbolic and would have no legal standing right now as long as the R v W decision is still on the books. It will however be a good barometer to indicate how the people of South Dakota feel about the issue. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the people have to say.
1 person likes this
@CraftyCorner (5600)
• United States
20 Oct 08
You posed a point I did not consider. I agree that state sovereignty is a good idea as the Federal Government is getting more massive by the day.
