KSFY: Advance copy of abortion measure in hand
KSFY is announcing that they have an advance copy of the abortion measure in hand and are giving details on what it contains:
Despite Gordon Howie being the likely person whose name is going to be on the line, I'm told that the measure has significant ties to (if not being written by) Harold Cassidy, the new Jersey attorney who has been haunting the halls of the State Capitol lately.
I'll have more on this later.
The new bill says if a woman's life is in danger, or she is a victim of rape or incest, an abortion can be performed upon certain conditions.You can read that all here, but that last line is complete BS. SOMEONE is going to have to put their name on the line as the prime sponsor of the measure.Specifically, the bill says if a doctor determines the pregnancy has put a woman's life in danger and another doctor agrees with the assessment, an abortion can be performed.
In a case of rape or incest, the crime must be reported within 50 days of the event. An abortion could then be performed no later than 17 weeks into the pregnancy in both cases.
and...
A source tells KSFY there are 25 sponsors of the bill, but there is no prime sponsor, it's a group effort.
Despite Gordon Howie being the likely person whose name is going to be on the line, I'm told that the measure has significant ties to (if not being written by) Harold Cassidy, the new Jersey attorney who has been haunting the halls of the State Capitol lately.
I'll have more on this later.
Comments
About time some member the legislature has the courage to draft a medical marijuana bill.
Maybe we could expect to see doctors and patients, and not law enforcement and Sec. of Health Doneen Hollingsworth (who has already demonstrated ZERO knowledge of this issue), testify as to the merits of such a bill.
That would be a great day for the South Dakota legislature.
Secondly, the Vote Yes on Six Campaign claimed that there were exceptions for rape and incest in the bill (remember the "emergency contraception exception?"). What are they going to argue now? That there really wasn't a rape or incest exception in the last bill, but now there is one? Are they going to say that they were lying the last time around?
I'm sick and tired of these out-of-state abortion zealots treating South Dakota like their personal test tube. If this guy wants to push his personal agenda, or force a case that results in significant legal fees and noteriety heading towards his firm, maybe he should do it in a state where he pays taxes. And he can take the creeps with their vans covered with pictures and slogans (and always with out-of-state plates) with them.
And what does it say about our own legislators who, apparently, can't even draft their own legislation? If Gordon Howie or the other "collaborators" want to introduce legislation that they drafted, or they drafted with the help of South Dakotans, fine. But it is unethical for them to use their official positions in state government to serve a legislative surrogates for out-of-state special interests who will make money off of efforts that 1) divide our state, and 2) cost our state treasury taxpayer dollars.
Aw, never mind...
Why in the world are we taking direction from someone from, of all places, New Jersey on the laws we should pass in our state? Their state is screwed up enough, they ought to spend their time trying to clean up their own rat-hole of a state before coming out here and meddling with our affairs.
And I do wonder how much Harold Cassidy stands to make off this little scam...
When Roger finally discloses the donor, don't be surprised if it's a "Waste Management Company," and if I were Steve Hildebrand, I'd have someone else start my car for me...
Fahgetaboutit...
I guess this adds a new twist to the lobbying efforts on this bill. "I'm Harold, this is Vinny, Paulie and Lou. We'd like to talk to you about the abortion bill and the future of your knee caps..."
Any word on this size of this Cassidy character's trunk?
But seriously, why are our legislators listening to some trial lawyer from New Jersey and ignoring the clearly stated will of the people of South Dakota?
Just go home. All of you.
Why even have elections? Why don't we just let the special interests just appoint the legislature and let the majority avoid the trouble of going to the polls and registering our voices.
This is an incredible perversion of democracy. Every one of those legislators on this piece of crap legislation ought to be embarassed and ashamed (although, I'll bet that they're feeling tremendously self-righteous right now...).
"the fixed written will of the people, the constitution, demands that the right to life extends to all human beings"
Right about that, but can you tell me where in the constitution, state or federal, it declares that a fetus is a human being? Thanks in advance.
too many senators want to be re-elected. I see one of my senators, who was a strong supper last year, is not on the list. I was surprised he is listening to the voters. Usually is head strong and does as he pleases.
For what reason would that "bunch" in the House decide to put up a bill which they are evidently incapable of writing into the hopper knowing it won't get through the Senate. And probably in most cases their district defeated it at the polls last November. Are they daffy? Don't they know they need to give it a rest or the people are going to be so sick of it, they aren't ever never going to get anything passed. They certainly are an inept group of politicians, to say the very least.
It is interesting to note that we now learn that the law they passed last year did not include a rape or incest clause.
So why would be believe them now?
14th amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,"
Says nothing about fetuses, clearly states about living breathing humans though.
As for your faux science that somehow conception is the point of independent life your sadly wrong and should look into some remedial science classes.
PS, you tipped everyone off your Catholic.
I just can't believe that any of our legislators are going through with this again. Notice, the "best and brightest" of the SD legislature are not signing on. Let that be a clue for the rest of them.
Outlawing abortion will merely turn women into outlaws. It will not stop abortion from occurring. Rather, it will harm, and, in some cases, kill women.
Thus, if people actually wanted to reduce the incidence of abortion, they would promote sex. ed. and birth control. If fewer abortions was actually their goal.
Sorry.....accessible, affordable birth control so teenagers can have all the sex they want without worry is just not going to be supported by my fellow Catholics or the Church! I don't know about the other churches, but the Catholic Church says "No Way"!
Abstinence is the word….get used to it!
It’s Good vs Evil…..let’s see who lines up on what side when this bill is brought to the floor!
Maybe those of us who aren't Catholic don't need to have your religion's morals pushed on us by the government of this state.
I also have to be raped by a relative or stranger and THEN they are kind enough to allow me to decide for myself.
Boy, they surely care a lot about me don't they? I guess I should be lucky they consider me smart enough to feed and clothe myself.
I should make sure to walk two steps behind them, all the better to kick their asses.
The Catholic Church can continue to urge its teenagers to practice abstinence. It cannot, however, dictate policy for the state of South Dakota.
So it's not really all about the little fetuses. It's really about legislating sexuality. Huh. Who'da thunk?
First, some news. 95% of all people have sex outside of marriage. Abstinence is not effective as birth control. Never has been. Never will.
Second, if you don't want Catholic teenagers to have sex, then teach them, in church. Don't try to impose your religion beliefs on the rest of us through the force of state law.
Do the reseach and tell me where this statistic originated.
I know the answer. Planned Parenthood.
Where is the support?
Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States 1940-2003 is a study that was done by Lawrence P. Finer, PhD, which was published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports.
Information about this study is available online at http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Sex/6-12-21-AlmostAll.htm
or http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16287113/ Check it out for yourself.
It states that "According to this analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44."
"The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government’s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12- to 29-year-olds,” Finer said.
No where is there anything to suggest that Planned Parenthood had any type of involvement in this study.
No, you are wrong.
Lawrence Finer works for Guttmacher Instituite.
Guttmacher Instituite is a division of Planned Parenthood.
The 95% statistic is propaganda to tell us everyone is doing it thus it must be okay
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html
No, you are wrong.
Lawrence Finer works for Guttmacher Instituite.
Guttmacher Instituite is a division of Planned Parenthood.
The 95% statistic is propaganda to tell us everyone is doing it thus it must be okay
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html
The bill apparently has the safeguards that the crime must have been reported, to prevent opening the floodgates to deception. Also, there is no place or reason for any "health" exception , and I hope this bill contains none. Anyone with any knowledge of past court rulings knows the clause would make any supposed ban absolutely worthless.
I would vote for this bill, for the good of the people of SD and America, despite whatever excuse the rabid pro-aborts come up with next.
The connections are: the founder, Alan Guttmacher, was formerly a president of Planned Parenthood before founding the research organization that bears his name; and the research is about sexual and reproductive health, which is what Planned Parenthood focuses on.
But they are two separate organizations.
Finer's study was based on interviews conducted for the National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This federal organization collected the data for their National Survey of Family Growth. Finer analyzed the data that the government collected for his premarital sex study.
MSNBC reports that Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who advocates abstinence for young people, said he found the high percentages of premarital sex cited in the study to be plausible.
Of course people who do not like the results of Finer's study will question the validity of it. That's par for the course.
to avoid having to make another choice.
This bill has the exceptions you, PP, et al wanted. So what if there are also items in place to help ensure these exceptions are not being misused. Guess we know the angle that PP will be coming from this time in opposition to this new bill.
This is about control and the subservient role of women pushed by men and all too many women in our society.
I didn't want the last abortion bill and neither do I want this one.
I am pro-choice. I support any choice the woman makes, be it abortion, adoption, keeping the child etc. I would not support a bill that limits a woman's right to choose.
Isn't that a wonderful thing? Supporting a woman no matter what she chooses?