Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Texasforever

Hehe, us in South Dakota have already put it up and it passed, but the governor was concerned about the cost of defending the law in the SCOTUS as well as our law didn't have a provision to protect the mother's health so it got the veto. We aren't naive, if that were a provision we'd have a million reports coming out that pregnancy is dangerous, regardless of actual circumstances.

I love SD, we're always right, in more ways than one!


304 posted on 07/18/2005 9:57:27 PM PDT by xmm0 (This post has been brought to you by the letters "U," "S," and "A" and Amendment number 1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]


To: xmm0

I think you may be talking about partial birth abortion...right?


306 posted on 07/18/2005 9:58:31 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies ]

To: xmm0

"I love SD, we're always right, in more ways than one!"


I'll second that ;)


366 posted on 07/18/2005 10:31:36 PM PDT by Augie76 ( . . . long-time lurker . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson