Does a 3-day waiting period violate your rights?

[Gadawg73]

States are running massive deficits, teachers are being laid off, taxpayers are over taxed, gas is $4 a gallon, education is a mess, health care costs families $15K a year, the deficit is massive, we are in 3 wars and what does a dumbass politician spend time on while IGNORING THE ABOVE:
Abortion: A NON ISSUE.
Any politician that ignores the real problems we face should not be in office. Moral police: STAY AWAY AND YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.
Anyone that follows them are not true conservatives.

 

[The Rabbi]

States are running massive deficits, teachers are being laid off, taxpayers are over taxed, gas is $4 a gallon, education is a mess, health care costs families $15K a year, the deficit is massive, we are in 3 wars and what does a dumbass politician spend time on while IGNORING THE ABOVE:
Abortion: A NON ISSUE.
Any politician that ignores the real problems we face should not be in office. Moral police: STAY AWAY AND YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.
Anyone that follows them are not true conservatives.

Who died and made you the voice of Conservatism?
FWIW, conservatives tend to believe in individual rights. Do the terms "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mean anything to you? Do you think protecting life is not a valid government exercise?

 

[Gadawg73]

States are running massive deficits, teachers are being laid off, taxpayers are over taxed, gas is $4 a gallon, education is a mess, health care costs families $15K a year, the deficit is massive, we are in 3 wars and what does a dumbass politician spend time on while IGNORING THE ABOVE:
Abortion: A NON ISSUE.
Any politician that ignores the real problems we face should not be in office. Moral police: STAY AWAY AND YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.
Anyone that follows them are not true conservatives.

Who died and made you the voice of Conservatism?
FWIW, conservatives tend to believe in individual rights. Do the terms "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mean anything to you? Do you think protecting life is not a valid government exercise?

Your posts are DOA.
Who do you put in charge of "protecting life"?
You? Government? Doctors? District Attorney? The Moral Police?
You want government to pick and choose which doctor is correct when he claims "it was in the best interest of the health of the mother" and I know that is a pipe dream.
Come join us in the real world.
End Roe v. Wade TOMORROW and what will you have:
It goes back to the states. TELL ME WHERE I AM WRONG.
Some states will ban abortion outright. Ok with me as that is their right.
Some states will allow it with some restrictions. I oppose abortion but that IS THE LAW and YOU know there is nothing YOU can do about it.
Some states will allow it AT WILL. I oppose that but that IS THE LAW and YOU know there is nothing YOU can do about it.
So overturn Roe v. Wade and what are THE UNDISPUTED FACTS RABBI EINSTEIN:
1. Women that live in states where it LEGAL to have abortions will have abortions.
2. Women that live in states where it is ILLEGAL to have abortions that have a car or can afford to buy a friggin airline to ticket will fly to another state WHERE IT IS LEGAL orout of the country AND HAVE THEIR ABORTION WHICH YOU can not stop no matter what or:
3. Women that live in states where it is ILLEGAL to have abortions and have NO $$ will have their kids that:
a. they do not want and could give a shit about raising them and
b. do not know how to raise them and will not teach them a damn thing.
I oppose abortion but live in the real world. You folks do not think anything through and are naive and gullible as to how the REAL WORLD and the LAW no matter if it is legal or illegal operates.
Tell me where my analysis of the law IF IT IS OVERTURNED is wrong. You can't.
Abortion is a NON ISSUE. Get over it and help us SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WE NEED TO SOLVE.

 

[Dr Grump]

South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into Law
Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a bill requiring women seeking an abortion to wait three days after meeting with a doctor and receive counseling before undergoing the procedure, news agencies reported.

South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into Law

Up to this point, liberals have regularly said no.
What say ye now?

Nothing wrong with it....good law if it makes them think....then they can have it...

I guess you're trying to equate a three day waiting period for guns. That is also good law if any state has it on the books...

 

[Dr Grump]

FWIW, conservatives tend to believe in individual rights.

Not the ones I've seen on this board.....

 

[The Rabbi]

States are running massive deficits, teachers are being laid off, taxpayers are over taxed, gas is $4 a gallon, education is a mess, health care costs families $15K a year, the deficit is massive, we are in 3 wars and what does a dumbass politician spend time on while IGNORING THE ABOVE:
Abortion: A NON ISSUE.
Any politician that ignores the real problems we face should not be in office. Moral police: STAY AWAY AND YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT.
Anyone that follows them are not true conservatives.

Who died and made you the voice of Conservatism?
FWIW, conservatives tend to believe in individual rights. Do the terms "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mean anything to you? Do you think protecting life is not a valid government exercise?

Your posts are DOA.
Who do you put in charge of "protecting life"?
You? Government? Doctors? District Attorney? The Moral Police?
You want government to pick and choose which doctor is correct when he claims "it was in the best interest of the health of the mother" and I know that is a pipe dream.
Come join us in the real world.
End Roe v. Wade TOMORROW and what will you have:
It goes back to the states. TELL ME WHERE I AM WRONG.
Some states will ban abortion outright. Ok with me as that is their right.
Some states will allow it with some restrictions. I oppose abortion but that IS THE LAW and YOU know there is nothing YOU can do about it.
Some states will allow it AT WILL. I oppose that but that IS THE LAW and YOU know there is nothing YOU can do about it.
So overturn Roe v. Wade and what are THE UNDISPUTED FACTS RABBI EINSTEIN:
1. Women that live in states where it LEGAL to have abortions will have abortions.
2. Women that live in states where it is ILLEGAL to have abortions that have a car or can afford to buy a friggin airline to ticket will fly to another state WHERE IT IS LEGAL orout of the country AND HAVE THEIR ABORTION WHICH YOU can not stop no matter what or:
3. Women that live in states where it is ILLEGAL to have abortions and have NO $$ will have their kids that:
a. they do not want and could give a shit about raising them and
b. do not know how to raise them and will not teach them a damn thing.
I oppose abortion but live in the real world. You folks do not think anything through and are naive and gullible as to how the REAL WORLD and the LAW no matter if it is legal or illegal operates.
Tell me where my analysis of the law IF IT IS OVERTURNED is wrong. You can't.
Abortion is a NON ISSUE. Get over it and help us SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WE NEED TO SOLVE.

Is it not the government's job to protect life? Does the gov't not have laws against murder for that very purpose?
You dont know what would happen. Will some people always get abortions? Yes. But are there people who would not? Yup. No law is 100% effective. That doesn't make it a bad law. Otherwise we might as well repeal laws on murder and rape.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course there is such an argument. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. There is an argument, and it has won the day.

Someone should post the argument then.

And it hasn't won the day because it hasn't passed constitutional muster.

It passed the legislature and was signed into law. That makes it the law. That means it has won the day.
Sorry. Try again next time.

We're talking about the constitutionality of the law.

Now tell us what the compelling interests are that justify infringeing on a woman's constitutional rights as established by Roe v Wade.

Or admit they're aren't any.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Who died and made you the voice of Conservatism?
FWIW, conservatives tend to believe in individual rights. Do the terms "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mean anything to you? Do you think protecting life is not a valid government exercise?

Conservatives tend to claim they support the Constitution too, and constitutional law has determined that it is the individual right of Privacy - for a woman seeking an abortion in the first trimester -

that prevails over any compelling interest in protecting the fetus.

 

[The Rabbi]

Someone should post the argument then.

And it hasn't won the day because it hasn't passed constitutional muster.

It passed the legislature and was signed into law. That makes it the law. That means it has won the day.
Sorry. Try again next time.

We're talking about the constitutionality of the law.

Now tell us what the compelling interests are that justify infringeing on a woman's constitutional rights as established by Roe v Wade.

Or admit they're aren't any.

The constitutionality of the law is unchallenged. So you are wrong.
There obviously were compelling interests in preserving life. Otherwise they would not have passed the bill. It is no infringement.
You are clearly wrong here. Let's just see how long it takes you to admit it or stop posting.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who died and made you the voice of Conservatism?
FWIW, conservatives tend to believe in individual rights. Do the terms "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mean anything to you? Do you think protecting life is not a valid government exercise?

Your posts are DOA.
Who do you put in charge of "protecting life"?
You? Government? Doctors? District Attorney? The Moral Police?
You want government to pick and choose which doctor is correct when he claims "it was in the best interest of the health of the mother" and I know that is a pipe dream.
Come join us in the real world.
End Roe v. Wade TOMORROW and what will you have:
It goes back to the states. TELL ME WHERE I AM WRONG.
Some states will ban abortion outright. Ok with me as that is their right.
Some states will allow it with some restrictions. I oppose abortion but that IS THE LAW and YOU know there is nothing YOU can do about it.
Some states will allow it AT WILL. I oppose that but that IS THE LAW and YOU know there is nothing YOU can do about it.
So overturn Roe v. Wade and what are THE UNDISPUTED FACTS RABBI EINSTEIN:
1. Women that live in states where it LEGAL to have abortions will have abortions.
2. Women that live in states where it is ILLEGAL to have abortions that have a car or can afford to buy a friggin airline to ticket will fly to another state WHERE IT IS LEGAL orout of the country AND HAVE THEIR ABORTION WHICH YOU can not stop no matter what or:
3. Women that live in states where it is ILLEGAL to have abortions and have NO $$ will have their kids that:
a. they do not want and could give a shit about raising them and
b. do not know how to raise them and will not teach them a damn thing.
I oppose abortion but live in the real world. You folks do not think anything through and are naive and gullible as to how the REAL WORLD and the LAW no matter if it is legal or illegal operates.
Tell me where my analysis of the law IF IT IS OVERTURNED is wrong. You can't.
Abortion is a NON ISSUE. Get over it and help us SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WE NEED TO SOLVE.

Is it not the government's job to protect life? Does the gov't not have laws against murder for that very purpose?
You dont know what would happen. Will some people always get abortions? Yes. But are there people who would not? Yup. No law is 100% effective. That doesn't make it a bad law. Otherwise we might as well repeal laws on murder and rape.

Someone goes and shoots someone in the back of the head and that is murder.
A woman has an abortion.
Are you claiming that the circumstances ARE THE SAME?
If you do you are dumb as a box of rocks.
The woman has a doctor that states "it was in the best interest of the mother".
Now tell us OH RABBI THOU should she get the abortion?
Was it murder when a doctor gives that as the reason?
See how foolish your "abortion is murder" argument is? Middle class women, the majority-probably 70%+, would ALWAYS get their abortions.
ALL your law accomplishes is that poor women, 30% of the women, THAT DO NOT WANT BABIES AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR THEM, will be stopped from having abortions by your stupid law.
Everyone else gets their abortion scot free. Absurd claims you make and stupid law.
And I OPPOSE ABORTION.
Get in the real world.

 

[signelect]

If you can't stay on topic go to another post, this had nothing to do with guns. If the mothers life or baby's life is threaten they don't have to wait. Abortion for birth control is just wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your posts are DOA.
Who do you put in charge of "protecting life"?
You? Government? Doctors? District Attorney? The Moral Police?
You want government to pick and choose which doctor is correct when he claims "it was in the best interest of the health of the mother" and I know that is a pipe dream.
Come join us in the real world.
End Roe v. Wade TOMORROW and what will you have:
It goes back to the states. TELL ME WHERE I AM WRONG.
Some states will ban abortion outright. Ok with me as that is their right.
Some states will allow it with some restrictions. I oppose abortion but that IS THE LAW and YOU know there is nothing YOU can do about it.
Some states will allow it AT WILL. I oppose that but that IS THE LAW and YOU know there is nothing YOU can do about it.
So overturn Roe v. Wade and what are THE UNDISPUTED FACTS RABBI EINSTEIN:
1. Women that live in states where it LEGAL to have abortions will have abortions.
2. Women that live in states where it is ILLEGAL to have abortions that have a car or can afford to buy a friggin airline to ticket will fly to another state WHERE IT IS LEGAL orout of the country AND HAVE THEIR ABORTION WHICH YOU can not stop no matter what or:
3. Women that live in states where it is ILLEGAL to have abortions and have NO $$ will have their kids that:
a. they do not want and could give a shit about raising them and
b. do not know how to raise them and will not teach them a damn thing.
I oppose abortion but live in the real world. You folks do not think anything through and are naive and gullible as to how the REAL WORLD and the LAW no matter if it is legal or illegal operates.
Tell me where my analysis of the law IF IT IS OVERTURNED is wrong. You can't.
Abortion is a NON ISSUE. Get over it and help us SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WE NEED TO SOLVE.

Is it not the government's job to protect life? Does the gov't not have laws against murder for that very purpose?
You dont know what would happen. Will some people always get abortions? Yes. But are there people who would not? Yup. No law is 100% effective. That doesn't make it a bad law. Otherwise we might as well repeal laws on murder and rape.

Someone goes and shoots someone in the back of the head and that is murder.
A woman has an abortion.
Are you claiming that the circumstances ARE THE SAME?
If you do you are dumb as a box of rocks.
The woman has a doctor that states "it was in the best interest of the mother".
Now tell us OH RABBI THOU should she get the abortion?
Was it murder when a doctor gives that as the reason?
See how foolish your "abortion is murder" argument is? Middle class women, the majority-probably 70%+, would ALWAYS get their abortions.
ALL your law accomplishes is that poor women, 30% of the women, THAT DO NOT WANT BABIES AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR THEM, will be stopped from having abortions by your stupid law.
Everyone else gets their abortion scot free. Absurd claims you make and stupid law.
And I OPPOSE ABORTION.
Get in the real world.

Ending life is ending life. Which part of that do you not understand?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It passed the legislature and was signed into law. That makes it the law. That means it has won the day.
Sorry. Try again next time.

We're talking about the constitutionality of the law.

Now tell us what the compelling interests are that justify infringeing on a woman's constitutional rights as established by Roe v Wade.

Or admit they're aren't any.

The constitutionality of the law is unchallenged. So you are wrong.
There obviously were compelling interests in preserving life. Otherwise they would not have passed the bill. It is no infringement.
You are clearly wrong here. Let's just see how long it takes you to admit it or stop posting.

Roe v. Wade does not recognize the life of the fetus in the 1st trimester as a compelling state interest that can justify infringement on a woman's right to an abortion.

Maybe for starters you should actually read Roe v Wade and at least give yourself a modicum of familiarity with the constitutional law that applies to this situation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone find it ironic that, just a reminder here,

The Rabbi opposes child labor laws?

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone find it ironic that, just a reminder here,

The Rabbi opposes child labor laws?

You seem to be a chorus of one.

Anyway, Roe does not establish an unrestricted right to abortion. The law obviously had a public purpose in mind, one that you won't bother to research.
So you have lost the issue of "law of the land." You have failed to make every point you tried.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In that it further restricts access to a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE, in that it adds a layer of politically charged guilt and inculcation, the answer is yes, it violates rights.

And so, you'd similarly apply this argument to, say, guns?
In that it further restricts access to a LEGAL PRODUCT, in that it adds a layer of politically charged guilt and inculcation, the answer is yes, it violates rights?

A three day waiting period to buy a gun is a cool down period.

As is the period for abortions.

Could you imagine a scenario where someone can be so incensed that buying a gun and shooting someone that day is a possibility? How does that compare to someone wanting an abortion?

Well, lets see:
-In the case of the gun purchase, a life may end
-In the case of the abortion, a life will end
-In virtually every gun purchase, no life ends
-In virtually every abortion, a life ends.

So, given the threat posed by each act to the life of another, I'd say the 3-day cooling down period is far more applicable to abortions than gun purchases.
If you support the 3-day wait for guns, how can you oppose the 3-day wait for an abortion?

It is possible that an abortion must be performed within a narrow time frame.

It is possible that a gun is needed in a narrow time frame.

 

[M14 Shooter]

of course it violates your rights .
any restictions enforced by the govt on your right to choose is a violation.

And a 3-day wait to buy a gun...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into Law
Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a bill requiring women seeking an abortion to wait three days after meeting with a doctor and receive counseling before undergoing the procedure, news agencies reported.

South Dakota Governor Signs Tough Abortion Bill Into Law
Up to this point, liberals have regularly said no.
What say ye now?

we need more kids on welfare . three days will only advance the trimester , but what about the pill ? it has to be done within three days so they outlawed it ?
but really more kids on welfare is a good thing .

You did not answer the question.

 

[Nosmo King]

And so, you'd similarly apply this argument to, say, guns?
In that it further restricts access to a LEGAL PRODUCT, in that it adds a layer of politically charged guilt and inculcation, the answer is yes, it violates rights?

A three day waiting period to buy a gun is a cool down period.

As is the period for abortions.

Could you imagine a scenario where someone can be so incensed that buying a gun and shooting someone that day is a possibility? How does that compare to someone wanting an abortion?

Well, lets see:
-In the case of the gun purchase, a life may end
-In the case of the abortion, a life will end
-In virtually every gun purchase, no life ends
-In virtually every abortion, a life ends.

So, given the threat posed by each act to the life of another, I'd say the 3-day cooling down period is far more applicable to abortions than gun purchases.

It is possible that an abortion must be performed within a narrow time frame.

It is possible that a gun is needed in a narrow time frame.

During that three day waiting period for a gun purchase, background checks can be run (although they rarely are). Does anyone advocate counseling for the purchase of a gun? Seems that in Idaho, they want those three days to inculcate some morals and religious bigotry to dissuade an abortion.

And if you absolutely positively need that gun today, chances are you're about to kill someone. Take the entire judicial system on your shoulders, act as judge, jury and executioner. Commit a violent crime against society. But no counseling is required. Seems strange, doesn't it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Funny that South Dakota wants to require a 72 hour waiting period for a woman to get an abortion, but only requires 48 hours to purchase a firearm.

How about a 72 hour waiting period and counseling for anyone wanting to purchase a firearm?

I, like many here, would want to know what this "counseling" entails and who is going to pay for it.

I think the differance is in the intent .
3 days before an applicant can own a gun gives time for the application to be checked to see if in fact its been done correctly and the applicant is in fact who he/she says he/she is and has no criminal background

Except that it is not.
-The background check is instant, and required by federal law.
-The three day period does not, by law, include a more thorough background check
-The waiting period is a cooling-off period designed to, at its finest point, save the life of someone that the purchaser may have in mind to kill when he buys the gun

Same with the three-day wait for an abortion - is a cooling-off period designed to, at its finest point, save a life. If a 'cooling-off' period is a sound reason to require a person to wair before exercising the right to buy a gun, then it is a considerably more sound reson to require a person to wait before having an abortion.

NO ATTEMPT IS MADE TO CHANGE THE APPLICANTS MIND .

Seperate issue. The question here is the waiting period itself.