South Dakota Passes Bill Banning All Abortions Except If Woman Is In Danger Of Dying

[Nuc]

Well I guess after this nobody will want to live in South Dakota. Oh yeah, that's right. Already nobody wants to live there.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Wow, yer so smart..Now a few years ago when these people were elected, which ran on overturning ROE or anti-abortion? Zip?..get the point? I doubt it.
This is nothing more than political grandstanding, it's not about representing the people. If it were about representing the people of the state, they would take a state vote, and then proceed. No one with two brain cells to rub together can miss what this is really about.

Do they not vote for representatives in your state? I didn't think that was possible, but at least it might explain your confusion.

But at least we now know that your answer is, yes! You do think all your reps should resign, so the people can vote directly on every single matter.

Or wait; did I miss it? Are they supposed to vote directly only on the matters that Mr. P thinks they should?

Oh yeah, one more thing. Did the people of SD vote directly that there should be a law against murder? If not, it was wrong for those upstart legislators to pass laws making it illegal, wasn't it? Or laws against computer hacking? Copyright infringement? And so on. And so on.

 

[dilloduck]

Wow, yer so smart..Now a few years ago when these people were elected, which ran on overturning ROE or anti-abortion? Zip?..get the point? I doubt it.
This is nothing more than political grandstanding, it's not about representing the people. If it were about representing the people of the state, they would take a state vote, and then proceed. No one with two brain cells to rub together can miss what this is really about.

It's about your personal war with religious folks--we all know that. It still doesn't change the fact that South Dakota can do what it wants or is this another right of a state that you think should be taken away?

 

[Mr. P]

It's about your personal war with religious folks--we all know that. It still doesn't change the fact that South Dakota can do what it wants or is this another right of a state that you think should be taken away?

What the hell do religious folks have to do with this? Geeeezzzzzz you guys are so unbelievable.

If you and Abbey Abnormal would READ, you would understand States rights are what I support in this thread. Those rights come from the people voting on an issue, NOT politicians promoting there careers in the guise of representation. And I’ve never said SD couldn’t do what they want. In fact what I'm saying is, SD should BE allowed to do so, let em vote, or are you afraid they may vote the other way?

 

[dilloduck]

What the hell do religious folks have to do with this? Geeeezzzzzz you guys are so unbelievable.

If you and Abbey Abnormal would READ, you would understand States rights are what I support in this thread. Those rights come from the people voting on an issue, NOT politicians promoting there careers in the guise of representation. And I’ve never said SD couldn’t do what they want. In fact what I'm saying is, SD should BE allowed to do so, let em vote, or are you afraid they may vote the other way?

They've already voted. Why should they vote again? Do you hear a loud outrage coming fron the area? Are South Dakotans marching in the streets protesting the decision? Do you ANY signs that they disagree what thier ELECTED (by votes) representatives have decided? I was born in South Dakota and still have lots of relatives in South Dakota. I KNOW how they feel about abortion. You want to poll the jury in some desperate hope the decision will be some how reversed.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeezzzz , what is it about secularists? Pretending that only the politicians are the ones pushing this through is nothing but pure denial.

 

[nukeman]

I have to ask, if SD was voting to keep abortion legal and the majority of the people wanted to make it illegal but the legislature was not listening would all of you still feel that this important issue should not be put forth in a referendum to be voted on by every person of legal age in SD???

Its fine to say the representives are voting for the people when they are voting the way you feel at this moment, but come on do we really believe that crap. They vote for what is going to make them important..

Would all of the pro-lifers on this board be so quick to let their representitives vote if they were for abortion????

I for one have to agree with Trigg that in certain instances it should be available (never as a form of birth control). I would never have my daughter carry a rapist child if she didnt want to.... Of course this is my choice and thats the great thing about America Its A Choice..

 

[KarlMarx]

Wait a minute folks………

This goes against what is always promoted here, “Let the People decide”, are you ignoring that? They (the people) didn’t vote on it. Before ya get all excited about it, don’t ya think you should know what they think?

Bottom line is…This is Legislation by a few that affects many, without a vote; in order to do nothing more than TEST the two new members of the Supreme Court. Is that how you want to see the Country run? NOT ME.

Actually, they did, in a way. The legistlature is elected by the people. If enough people object to the bill, they can push to get it repealed or have it put up for a voter referendum. If nothing is done, or the bill isn't repealed, the will of the people prevailed in either case. It's clearly a win-win situation.

And yes, the bill clearly is designed to bring the issue of abortion to the Supreme Court. Still.....33 years ago, the abortionists of this country pulled a fast one on the rest of us... it's time to rectify this national disgrace. First, it's time that a large segment of our population get the same rights as the rest (the unborn). Second it's time that a large segment of population regains their Constitutionally granted right (the voters).

 

[MissileMan]

Actually, they did, in a way. The legistlature is elected by the people. If enough people object to the bill, they can push to get it repealed or have it put up for a voter referendum. If nothing is done, or the bill isn't repealed, the will of the people prevailed in either case. It's clearly a win-win situation.

And yes, the bill clearly is designed to bring the issue of abortion to the Supreme Court. Still.....33 years ago, the abortionists of this country pulled a fast one on the rest of us... it's time to rectify this national disgrace. First, it's time that a large segment of our population get the same rights as the rest (the unborn). Second it's time that a large segment of population regains their Constitutionally granted right (the voters).

The people voted for the legislature and the executive who appointed the judges. They are being paid to interpret the law. It's the hypocrits that are the problem here. In the Schaivo case, there were lots of people hoping that the SCOTUS would override the legislature of Florida. In Roe v. Wade, these same people want the SCOTUS to let the legislature prevail. If the SCOTUS makes a decision they agree with, they're defending the Constitution. If the SCOTUS makes a decision they disagree with, they're judicial activists creating law. Make up your minds already!

 

[KarlMarx]

The people voted for the legislature and the executive who appointed the judges. They are being paid to interpret the law. It's the hypocrits that are the problem here. In the Schaivo case, there were lots of people hoping that the SCOTUS would override the legislature of Florida. In Roe v. Wade, these same people want the SCOTUS to let the legislature prevail. If the SCOTUS makes a decision they agree with, they're defending the Constitution. If the SCOTUS makes a decision they disagree with, they're judicial activists creating law. Make up your minds already!

Right.... and when it's Roe vs. Wade it's 1973 it's SCOTUS doing its job.... when it's Gore vs. Bush in 2000, it's Bush stole the election...

But at least on our side, it's consistent, in both cases, .... it's known as "defending the right to life"....

 

[Hobbit]

The people voted for the legislature and the executive who appointed the judges. They are being paid to interpret the law. It's the hypocrits that are the problem here. In the Schaivo case, there were lots of people hoping that the SCOTUS would override the legislature of Florida. In Roe v. Wade, these same people want the SCOTUS to let the legislature prevail. If the SCOTUS makes a decision they agree with, they're defending the Constitution. If the SCOTUS makes a decision they disagree with, they're judicial activists creating law. Make up your minds already!

Actually, the legislature and executive branches in Florida tried to intervene, but the judge said they had no grounds. Hm, guess we weren't for SCOTUS overruling the legislature, after all.

 

[Mr. P]

Right.... and when it's Roe vs. Wade it's 1973 it's SCOTUS doing its job.... when it's Gore vs. Bush in 2000, it's Bush stole the election...

...

I think they were doing their job in both cases, and agree with both rulings.

 

[Mr. P]

Actually, the legislature and executive branches in Florida tried to intervene, but the judge said they had no grounds. Hm, guess we weren't for SCOTUS overruling the legislature, after all.

That's true. Your side just wanted Congress to pass a law, which IMO is worse.

 

[misterblu]

Killing - absolute wrong.

<slightly off topic>

Do you feel that all killing is absolutely wrong? What about one soldier killing another, enemy, soldier? Putting a criminal to death?

</slightly off topic>

 

[musicman]

That's true. Your side just wanted Congress to pass a law, which IMO is worse.

Why? Congress can do that, you know. It's WHAT they do, in fact.

I can understand the confusion, though. We've been watching judges write law for so long...

 

[Mr. P]

Why? Congress can do that, you know. It's WHAT they do, in fact.

I can understand the confusion, though. We've been watching judges write law for so long...

But not on a individual legal case or state. Sure they pass law, but you know exactly what they were attemping here. It wasn't right and it failed.

 

[dilloduck]

But not on a individual legal case or state. Sure they pass law, but you know exactly what they were attemping here. It wasn't right and it failed.

That's right--it's up to the ACLU to bring suits based on individual legal cases before the Supreme court and try to change the law for everyone.

 

[Mr. P]

That's right--it's up to the ACLU to bring suits based on individual legal cases before the Supreme court and try to change the law for everyone.

Congress filed suit in the Supreme court? Missed that. Maybe I forgot, it has been awhile.

 

[dilloduck]

Congress filed suit in the Supreme court? Missed that. Maybe I forgot, it has been awhile.

No--national and local legislatures PASS LAWS that challenge the supreme court to make rulings on thier constitutionality. Things are challenged in different ways.

 

[Mr. P]

No--national and local legislatures PASS LAWS that challenge the supreme court to make rulings on thier constitutionality. Things are challenged in different ways.

I know that dillo, what are you trying to say?
BTW...I think Congress has proposed law that never made it outta the gate due to constitutionality too.

 

[dilloduck]

I know that dillo, what are you trying to say?

That challenging the contitutionality of anything is an equal opportunity venture, whether done by legislation or suit.