Please Freepmailme if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Posted on 02/22/2006 2:49:16 PM PST by Tim Long
The South Dakota Senate just passed a bill that bans almost all abortions in the state. It now goes to the governor to be signed.
If it is signed into law, it will be struck down within a few minutes by some federal judge."
Probably, but if it is, it will go all the way to SC, YES!
The babies are innocent...their lives are more important.
And prosecute the hell out of those rapists.
When does it hit The Supremes?
A highly problematical position. Is it a life we're talking about... or isn't it? Why would my "mental health" be more important that your life?
I've got to assume your feminist past has some lingering side effects. :-)
Murder is an unlawful killing so it depends on the state of the law where the procedure occurs.
If you are asking whether it is wrong to purposely kill one to save the other, then yes, it is wrong. I am not saying that I would not do it, it would be a very hard choice indeed, but I believe it would be wrong!
Why would NRL want to scuttle the bill?
not quite yet ready for signature:
Late Wednesday, the South Dakota Senate approved a bill intended to prompt a court battle that could overturn the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
The bill would ban nearly all abortions in the state. The measure now returns to the House, which earlier passed a different version and now must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate.
Supporters note that with the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court is more likely to consider overturning the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. They say President Bush may have a chance to appoint a third new justice in the next year or two.
But opponents say the measure is too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women.
The bill was passed 47-to-22. Amendments aimed at providing exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.
The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying if they continue with the pregnancy. The bill ill now go back to the House for approval of some technical changes, and then on to Governor Rounds for his signature.
That was the partial birth abortion case and Kennedy is willing to get rid of those.
This is not about partial birth abortion, this is about all of them. This law can not be upheld WITHOUT overturning Roe/Casey.
Include in the Casey majority were O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy. If Alito and Roberts rule the right way on Roe/Casey, we'd still lose that one 5-4.
So an abortion will be good for their mental health?
I don't know. South Dakota had enough votes to pass this bill in the last two years, and before the vote, Right to Life and Planned Parenthood worked together to change elected officials' votes. Why do you think? Maybe they worry if abortion ever went away, they wouldn't have a purpose. As long as it's 100% legal, they can keep sending out fundraising letters.
Considering Bush just emptied a 12 gauge into his own foot over the UAE port deal, that is a big if.
Why would NRL want to scuttle the bill?
Because they would loose their reason for being and funds. They stopped it last time because "the time isn't right".
Since then I have decided not to support NRL.
Please Freepmailme if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
I'd like to know what crisis situation could arise so suddenly and so expectedly with a competent OB in charge, that would justify all the required time to allow the baby's head to be out far enough to be visible, and that would precipitate stabbing that baby's head and killing that baby, who is now delivered into the world ... only dead now .. instead of doing a Caesarian. And this time-consuming choice is somehow safeguarding the mother's health?
A competent OB would know that the mother might be too small to deliver naturally prior to the birth and plan for a Caesarian .. that would already be in the plan. I'm remain convinced that the need for this lib "last ditch baby killing" .. aided by docs with an agenda .. is a farce.
Because they know they don't have the votes on the Court to overturn Roe, unless Anthonly Kennedy changes his mind.
My feminist past has nothing to do with this and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that I am survivor of having been molested and raped.
Pro-life groups divide over abortion ban
Two pro-life groups are clashing with each other over a South Dakota bill to criminalize abortion that was defeated by a single vote in the state Senate.
The public-interest Thomas More Law Center accuses National Right to Life of "complicity" with pro-abortion groups over demise of the bill, designed to become the most restrictive abortion law in 30 years and help overturn the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision.
The Michigan-based law firm helped draft the bill, which would have banned virtually all abortions in that state and made abortion a felony punishable for up to 15 years. The bill passed the state House by an overwhelming majority, 54 to 14, before its narrow defeat in the Senate, 18-17.
In a news release, the More Center quoted a bewildered 25-year member of Right to Life and director of an abortion counseling service, Leslee Unruh.
"We were shocked, saddened and dismayed that National Right to Life lobbied against this bill," she said. "In effect, they aborted the right to life bill."
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the More Center concluded, "One thing we know for sure, Planned Parenthood and NARAL could not be happier with National Right To Life."
In response, National Right to Life called the charge of joining forces with pro-abortion groups "absurd, untrue, and unproductive."
"In fact," the group said, "National Right to Life called for no grassroots action against the bill, sent no one into South Dakota, sent no letters to the South Dakota legislature, issued no press releases and spoke only to one South Dakota state senator who is also South Dakota's representative to the National Right to Life Committee board of directors."
The More Center said state Sen. Jay Duenwald led "behind-the-scenes opposition" when the bill reached the State Affairs Committee.
"Together with pro-abortion senators, Duenwald's lobbying efforts succeeded in removing the ban and replacing it with an informed consent measure, something already covered by South Dakota law," the law center's release said.
Thompson accused National Right to Life of betrayal.
"It is one thing for National Right to Life to disagree with the timing of a bill banning abortions, it is another thing for them to join forces with pro-abortionists to kill the ban – it is betrayal of the unborn and pro-life movement," he said. "When is it the wrong time to do what is right? This organization has lost the moral authority to lead the pro- life cause." (excerpted)
I never knew so many state legislatures had the guts to even try this.
There never is a medical necessity to rip apart a baby
when the mother's life is in jeopardy.
Do a c-section and let the baby have a chance to
survive!
That is known as the Principle of Equal Protection (PEP)
by Colorado Right to Life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.