At least in Pierre, the Abortion bill faces a "No", a "No", and a "maybe."
KCCR News is reporting today that of the District 24 legislators, the abortion bill sponsors can count on two "no" votes, and one maybe:
None of the three local legislators are supporting House Bill 1293, this year’s abortion bill. Senator Bob Gray of Pierre says lawmakers and South Dakotans don’t want to deal with the abortion issue again after last year. He says people are tired of the issue for now.Read it all here.
Bill supporters say this year’s version is different because it provides for more exceptions, such as rape or incest, of when an abortion might be necessary. Representative Ryan Olson of Onida says there is no clear process as to when those exceptions might be acceptable. Representative Tim Rounds of Pierre says he hasn’t not decided yet whether he will support or oppose the bill, but he has questions about those exceptions.
Comments
People might be conservative in the district. Conservative to the point that they don't want government telling them they have no choices when it comes to the most personal of issues.
Bottom line is we are sick of this issue and many of us in District 24 applaud our legislators for listening to the voters of this district.
If all you pro-lifers want to vote on abortion again, get organized and put it on the next election ballot.
Very shallow statement. I am suprised he said that.
Im tired of Medicaid funding. Im tired of Education shortfalls. I'm tired of Czech Day recognitions!
We dont vote for representatives to only declare importance to the flavor of the day. Did our representatives not notice the large # of signs in Pierre that said "No on 6-because we need exceptions", or something to that tune...how many people go as far to explain WHY they vote a certain way on a topic??
during WWII, or Hitler could still be marching people into ovens.
The issue is a dead duck.
South Dakota already has the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation and one of the lowest per capita abortion rates.
No more can be done without an amendment to the US Constitution declaring that fertilized eggs are "people" and that their rights to life trump their mothers'.
Give it up.
You've done all you can. You're beginning to discredit yourselves and lose your thunder.
Last year should have been a wake up call. If you push this too hard, you'll end up comprimising your own values and totally discrediting your cause.
You're at the shore of the Rubicon right now. Cross it, and there's no going back.
You really should be more careful about choosing which hill you want to die on.
Surely this bill can't be it.
The heart runs away from the mind.
Strike 2:
The ego runs away from the heart
Strike 3:
The mouth runs away from the ego
3 strikes and you're out.
Batter up.
Are you trying to put down the pro lifers from fighting for women's health and human life?
You should take note that there is another post by PP about multiple abortion measures this session. Get real, this issue isn't going away.
Most definitely. I'm warning you people, you're losing your edge. If your fight is worth fighting, don't shoot yourselves in the foot.
Take my word for it. Last go round you did yourselves a whole lot of damage. Well over half the people I know who were 100% with you are no longer interested because they no longer trust you.
And this new bill makes things worse, not better.
If you can't see why, it's because you have stopped thinking.
Since you're all for the killing, why would you care that the pro-life folks are "shooting themselves in the foot"? Usually, the opposite side loves to see their opponent self-destruct. If you think that's the case, you should be cheering us on, not trying to stop us.
So full stream ahead for all of you. The rest of us will sit back and watch you self-destruct.
Explain the signs w/ clarification why they voted no on 6. It was very very far from black and white. The no votes were not all pro-choicers, but pro-lifers against the lack of exceptions. How hard is that for pro-choicers to believe. Now we have exceptions in the proposed law, and the pro-choicers are scared. period.
Lets let the SD voters decide. The ones that are tired of it would surely be too tired to come to the polls, right??
Thinking people don't do that.
It makes you sound hysterical and fanatic.
But suit yourself.
Just don't say nobody warned you.
Now you are worried abt the pro-life self destructing? Nice try and way to dodge the bullet...Simply answer the original posting below...
"Explain the signs w/ clarification why they voted no on 6. It was very very far from black and white. The no votes were not all pro-choicers, but pro-lifers against the lack of exceptions. How hard is that for pro-choicers to believe."
Please do explain. This bill would eliminate 95% or more of the abortions performed in South Dakota and also answers the concerns of the only talking points that they UNhealthy family campaign had. Plus, it answers those concerns while not having huge holes for planned parenthood to take advantage of.
So, let's see. Eliminates 95% or more of abortions while answering concerns from last years law.
Hmmmm...please do explain.
Could it be the fact that you are pro-abortion and just want abortion for any reason under the sun? I have a feeling that answer is a YES.
Great point also 2:13!!!
It brought people out of their usual reticence to discuss the issue and inflamed them enough to be public about insisting that the Government should keep its nose out of people's most private and intimate business.
But now that people have taken a stand against the fanatic moralizers in their party (which took tremendous courage for some of them) and found that their world didn't come to an end for doing so, they are not likely to go back to enjoying the brow beatings any more.
Liberty works like that.
Get used to it.
Roe vs. Wade was created under the assumption that one could not tell when a human life began. Now that technological advances in biology, and embryology can all show that without a doubt a new human life is formed at the moment of conception. Knowing this all the courts have to do is get any law that calls into question whether the unborn child is a separate human life and Roe is going to be dismantled. Until that point the pro-life community will keep moving forward and none of your negative talk with detour us from doing so.
Get used to it.
Like I said., knock yourselves out...
Oh wait, I think you already have.
I haven't said one thing to you that was negative.
In fact, I've been giving you some very good political advice. Take it, or leave it.
If you want to achieve your goal, you're going to have to amend the US Constitution.
That's what you should be working on, not these twisted, fascist, socialist, jackbooted-police-state, mockery-of-justice, backwoods laws.
In passing them, you've made the people of our state the laughing stock of the nation to all but a very zealous few. There is a big difference between heroes and fools.
The SCOTUS won't even look at these laws, I guarantee you. So all you are doing is tearing your own political party apart and completely alienating the others all of whose votes you will need.
That's no way to build consensus.
In short, I admire your passion, but your political approach is dreadful.
And that as negative as I'm going to get.
Good luck with your small minded, short sighted agenda.
So you don't think the courts will look at this law? Why wouldn't they?
I've heard this before when 1166 was passed and can you tell me how that lawsuit is doing?
Ah yes, it was been working it's way through the courts and in the past month has seen multiple victories.
In looking over the notes to that suit planned parenthood is in serious trouble and it looks like Long/SD have a great shot at taking this one all the way.
This is forcing judges to look at new evidence and not base their decisions on past arguments, not to mention that 1166 states that life begins at the moment of fertilization which is a talking point planned parenthood refuses to debate, but they can't ignore it anymore since they want to pursue this case.
So you talk about strategy until you are blue in the face. Someone such as yourself that promotes abortion is not one I would look to for advice.
pp, how are those reports coming on the case of long/sd vs. planned parenthood?
Which makes me wonder, who's helping W.Roger the Dodger's legal bills?
James, you above all should give it a rest. I've never seen you convince anyone of anything.... ever.
You're all about yourself.
And that's just not the point, you know?
"You're all about yourself. And that's just not the point, you know?"
A hypocritical liberal response.
Isn't it interesting this is coming from the same side saying "MY body, MY choice"
-Talk about being all about yourself!!
Do I call you pro-murder when you support the death penalty?
It's pro-choice people, because that's exactly what it is. CHOICE!! CHOICE!! Love it or leave the country for Iran where you can beat down women all you like.
(ps. PP is extremely subtle. If you don't watch closely, you won't notice. That's why I'm sending this to 12 other blogs.
PP. the objective reporter, what a f**king joke.)
Anon, since I have utterly no idea what you're talking about, (and I haven't deleted anything under this post) what did I supposedly "edit"?
The SOLE reason I edit anything is because it stands as libelous/slanderous, and I can't permit that to stand if I catch it.
In that case, I prefer to delete. (which hasn't been done under this post). In the case where the majority of the comment is worthwhile, sometimes, on rare occasion, I'll redact just that portion.
So, like I said, what did I supposedly edit?
Too much, too little too late, brother. You know what you did, home boy.
Make all the laws you want posting signs and trying to put words in doctors mouths. They will take you to court and you will lose. Even if they were forced to do so, the 24 hour waiting period has done nothing other than cost people more money.
If you found some way to ban abortion in South Dakota but not ban it everywhere else people will go to Iowa or Minnesota. People will buy pills on the black market, get them from doctors and pharmacists who prescribe them for other conditions or find under ground abortion providers.
None of this will stop a single abortion, it will just make them illegal or annoy the person seeking one by all the signs and extra paperwork.
The people pushing these bans have no clue how they are going to enforce them. They have had to put millions into meth enforcement and we can't keep up with this. So are we going to have a war on underground RU486, something that is a perfectly legal drug with other medical uses? Where are you going to get the resources to stop that? The drug is not illegal.
What has caused the abortion rate to go lower and lower is the availability and increased options in birth control.
Under that logic, an acorn IS an oak tree. Same. Exact. Thing.
Also, a fertilized chicken egg isn't breakfast. Instead, it's a chicken. A feathered, clucking chicken.
Do you realize how patently silly that is?
"The SOLE reason I edit anything is because it stands as libelous/slanderous"
That's a lie, and you know it. You frequently delete posts that you find to be "off topic." Or will you deny that now?
OOOOOH!! Such a tough big bad blogger. Hey, if you want your stuff published so bad feel free to post under something other than anonymous. I appreciate the editing pp. I have had my own comments edited and taken off of Blogmore for no reason. So don't sweat it with this person.
You have to be kidding me? Roughly 1.3 million abortions in the US last year and you claim that as "lower and lower". What a surprise to know you just want to push out more birth control. When is the last time you walked into a gas station and DIDN'T see a box of condoms for sale.
I have personally spoken with many women who have had abortions and all of them have said they had an abortion because it was legal. I have not talked to a women yet who has had an abortion who said if it were illegal they would still go and seek out an abortionist to kill their unborn child.
Just more scare tactics from the pro-abortion camp.
What? The fact that you are comparing human life to an acorn?
Yes, that is incredibly silly and a little off topic as well. We are discussing human life here, not mother nature.
anon 5:37 - "It's pro-choice people, because that's exactly what it is. CHOICE!! CHOICE!!"
What CHOICE are we talking about here? The "choice" is abortion and that is the topic at hand.
Paper or plastic, that is a choice.
Fris or Onion Rings, that is a chioce.
We are talking about one specific issue in this debate and that is abortion. If you don't like being pro-abortion then don't advocate for something that hurts women and ends human lives.
And I still have no idea what I deleted.
Choice is one of the foundations of America. That's the beauty of it, you see. Women who don't want abortions can choose not to have one. Women who choose to have an abortion can have one. It's that simple. It is up to each individual woman to decide for herself.
Why would you deny women their own choice?
That is why I'm pro-choice. I am all for a woman fundamental right to choose whatever is right for her, adoption, abortion, keeping the child.
Isn't that beautiful thing? I support a woman in all her choices. That makes me pro-life as well, doesn't it?
Is there anything in this state that brings the bloggers out more than the topic of abortion? Trouble is, we've heard this same stuff over and over and over....
Should an undeveloped embryo have more rights than the woman in whose body it resides? Do the majority of South Dakotans want the state to intervene and make those type of personal decisions for a woman?
You say yes. I say no.
I doubt if anyone has changed his or her mind since this idiocy began, and I doubt if anyone will.
But worrying about things that don't affect one personally can help take one's mind off of one's own problems. Trying to control other people can do that too.
And the beat goes on.
"Choice is one of the foundations of America."
You are correct, but FREEDOM is THE foundation of America and when someone's "choice" causes another person to lose their freedom that is where their freedom of "choice" ends. It doesn't matter what that "choice" is (rape, abuse, murder, abortion), when you place it next to a loss of freedom it doesn't stand.
"I support a woman in all her choices."
It takes less than 48 hours after conception to determine genetically whether that human life is male or female. So what about the unborn females? Do you stand for them?
Do you support a women if she made the "choice" to kill her husband or her 2 year old child?
Again, the only "choice" we are talking about in this discussion is abortion.
anon. 11:14
"Should an undeveloped embryo have more rights than the woman in whose body it resides?"
No, the embryo should not have MORE rights. All I'm saying is that the unborn human life should AT LEAST have the Right To Life. That is the right that a those in the Pro-Life movement are speaking on behalf of.
But my impression was, he would print things others won't. The Blogmore hosts have to conform to the connstraints of their editor and their parent corporation. PP has no such supervision, as he is quick to point out.
As for posting anonymously, I do it here so that those who have to to protect their jobs don't have to feel bad. When in Rome... you know?
That makes it especially ironic to be criticised for posting anonymously by someone who is doing the same thing. Absurd, actually.
Finally, James just doesn't get it about giving fetuses more rights than living breathing woman.
Those women don't have the right to use anyone's body to stay alive. They don't have the right to attach themselves to another human being for 9 months or to put them through hours of agony and endanger their health.
If you want to say fertilized eggs are "people" you have to deal with the consequences of your declaration. It's as simple as that.
"People" have a right to "equal" protection under the law. James wants to make some people more equal than others. That's not right. Read your Orwell.
You are half right.
You actually made almost worthy rebuttal of that post.
It does not matter what the sex of the fetus/embryo/cell is when a woman is deciding what to do. Does the sex matter when a woman chooses to come to term? Does the sex matter when a woman decides that adoption is the best choice for her? No, it doesn't. The same applies to abortion.
What situation are you describing when you say that a woman faces a choice between killing her husband vs killing her 2 year old? That seems to have little to do with abortion? Unless you are attempting to equate abortion with murder.
What is the difference between an unborn child, a 2 week old child and a grown adult?
Time for development, that's it.
So you stand up for "women's rights" when they are old enough to give birth and have $500 cash in their pocket to pay for an abortion. Otherwise you truly don't stand for "women's rights", you stand for abortion on demand.
murder - "the crime of unlawfully killing a person/human/individual especially with malice aforethought"
Yep, since the unborn child is a unique and individual human life and abortion ends that life I guess that would be murder.
Thanks for confirming my post Patti!
Time.
What a lame argument.
The problem is, you actually think you make sense.
Are you comparing human life with 2:30pm and 2:30am?
What a lame argument.
The problem is, YOU actually think you make sense.
Yes I am. Now you see it, now you don't.
Unless of course you're really serious about protecting all human life that has the "potential in time" to become an actual "person."
But it's already crystal clear that you're not.
So the time argument is absurd on it's face.
Person is just another word for human life.
So let's look at your sentence again shall we?
"Unless of course you're really serious about protecting all human life that has the "potential in time" to become an actual human life.
Your argument makes no sense.
According to your logic a 2 week old child is not a human life because it has not "fully developed". It still only "has potential".
So when does the human life go from a "potential human life" to a human life if not at conception?
The placenta is human life, the pluropotent stem cells in the amniotic fluid are human life.
The question you raise is the crux of the whole issue.
And the answer is not a simple one, no matter how hard you wish it to be.
The pro-life crowd needs to tread carefully so they don't divide themselves even further.
May I remind you that RTL said the exact same thing about 1166 and they have been dead wrong about that as that lawsuit is still winning its way through the courts.
To me, a collection of four cells is not a child, unborn or otherwise. A collection of four cells
is not an adult. It is you who are making the ridiculous claim that four cells is equal to adult. You might as well say
an sperm is equal to 80 year old man.
Absurd.
Why wouldn't I stand up for women's rights? I would stand up for my own rights as a woman and I think all women
should be extended the same courtesy as me. I want the freedom of choice for myself and for every woman in America.
So a woman who seeks an abortion to save her own life is guilty of murder with malice aforethought? Boy, your mind is
scary.
I reject your continued claims about 'the unborn' and that abortion is murder. That is just the kind of worthless, meaningless rhetoric I expect from many pro-lifers.
Can either of you point to a post where anyone pro life has said that sperm by itself is a human life? That is absurd!
Yes, a sperm is necessary to create a human life, but a sperm in and of itself is not a human life.
Patti, could you also then please point to anyone that has said that a sperm or 4 cells are the same as a 80 yr. old man?
The only thing anyone has said is that no matter how small or at what point in development that life is, that unique human life still has the right to life. That right cannot be trumped by another human's right to choice. It's very simple logic and it's unfortunate you allow the pro-abortion rhetoric to get in the way of common sense.
It's all human life.
If you mean something else, use different words.
These answers make as much sense as yours. The things you name are organs or cells created by a human body for a specific function. The may have human cells, but they lack the ability to produce a human body (naturally, on their own. Let's leave Drs. Frankenstein and Moreau out of this conversation). The cells might be ALIVE, but, they are not A LIFE.
A sperm cell is a gamete. It has 1/2 the chromosomes of a human. It can not reproduce to make more sperm cells; in and of itself, it can not reproduce to become a baby. It is a living cell, and even though Monte Python would have us believe every sperm is sacred, is it not a living human being.
Pluripotent stem cells are cells within the human body that have the ability to become any other type of cell in the body. They are found in amniotic fluid; they are also found in the umbilical cord and in our bodies (when we are embryos and adults - and every stage of development in between). They can not become complete human beings on their own. To call pluripotent cells human lives, you should name the bone marrow in you hip bone and pelvis. It is from these regions that the pluripotent cells are harvested for bone marrow transplants to save the lives of human beings suffering from leukemia and sickle-cell anemia.
What are the characteristics that determine life in general and human life in particular? A complete genome? A zygote has that. Reacts in self -defense? The moment a sperm enters an egg, the outer layer changes to prohibit other sperm from entering. From one cell to two cells to four cells to 4 billion cells, the zygote develops into an embryo to a fetus to a baby. Life is a continuum; there is no point at which there is a clear and distinct difference from one moment to the next. The you, you are when you are ninety is the same you as today, is the same you as a newborn, is the same you 3 months before birth, is the same you at conception. The only difference is the level of development.
There is no where else to go in this current thread other than in circles.
If you don't like what I have to say that is fine, but let's stick to the facts.
Pluripotenent cells can and do indeed become full fledged adult human beings. That is exactly why they are called pluripotent.
You are confusing adult stem cells which are omnipotent with embroyonic and amniotic cells which are pluripotent.
All such cells carry the complete genome.
This is not opinion, this is fact.
But in this, you are correct:
"Life is a continuum; there is no point at which there is a clear and distinct difference from one moment to the next..."
That is precisely why you can't identify a specific monent when life began. You have to go back to the beginning of life itself.
That's because all life is the same life, all life comes from life, and no one as yet knows when,
or how it began.
Pluripotent stem cells are the descendants of totipotent cells and can differentiate into cells derived from the three germ layers.
Multipotent stem cells can produce only cells of a closely related family of cells (e.g. hematopoietic stem cells differentiate into red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, etc.).
Unipotent cells can produce only one cell type, but have the property of self-renewal which distinguishes them from non-stem cells.
Adult stem cells (aka "Somatic) are of the last two types. "Omnipotent" is a misnomer. Only God is omnipotent.
Here is what you said,
"That is precisely why you can't identify a specific monent when life began. You have to go back to the beginning of life itself.
That's because all life is the same life, all life comes from life, and no one as yet knows when, or how it began."
If life is a continuum, and no one knows when life begins, what evidence do you have that you are indeed alive?
I believe I am alive. Scientifically, I am alive. Therefore, I trace my life back to the moment I came into being - at conception.
Yeah, right.
I'm sure you remember that day.
I suggest if you search your memory banks way back, you might get a clue as to when you first knew you were a person. Most people can't go back much farther than memories of being 3 years old.
You've put yourself in the classic Cartesian double bind here my friend. "I think, therefore I
am."
Surely that's not what you're saying is it?
I will tell you that if you're using the uniqueness of your DNA to indicate your "aliveness" you're barking up the wrong tree.
DNA is inert. It's not a living substance.
That's why it can be extracted from things long dead.
What are either of you talking about?
Both of these posts are distraction tactics from the facts posted.
Post 4:01 doesn't even mention remembering the day of conception and I don't even see DNA in that post.
I have to wander if you are commening on the wrong post, because your comments clearly don't line up.
BTW, James and anon 3:39-Great Posts!
I can't imagine that we read the same post from 4:01.
Clearly, 4:01 believes himself (or herself) to exist. He also believes himself to be alive. Did he exist and was he alive yesterday? Yes. The day before that? Yes. If we keep following his yesterdays, at what point did he not exist; was he not alive? He is saying that he came into existence and began life at the moment of conception. And the day before that, he did not exist and was not alive.
It has nothing to do with memory. I don’t remember last night when I was sleeping. Was I alive last night when I was sleeping? Yes.
It really has nothing to do with DNA. DNA is a component of the zygote (the single totipotent cell that was the beginning of you). It is the DNA that proves you are human, and the physiological processes, growth, and development that prove you were alive back then.
"It really has nothing to do with DNA."
...and then at the end of the same paragraph:
"It is the DNA that proves you are human."
Do you see why:
1. I'm not surprise to find that you don't understand what I'm talking about.
and,
2. I think you don't understand what
you're talking about either.
If personhood is all about DNA,
which one of those two twins is the "person"?
Ah, the usual anti-choice rhetoric from you. The whole 'a cell is a human life'. You are argueing emotion, not logic.
I don't believe one cell, two cells is equal to a human being. That is illogical.
I guess if someone choose to kill a man who is attacking their child, that's not okay with you? Because everyone has a right to life by your own logic?
Please justify how an attacker about to kill a child is the same as an unborn child who has committed no crime.
Your logic makes no sense and it is you who is using arguments based on emotion.
The fact still stands that the only difference between an unborn child and a 2, 22, 42,62, or 82 year old is time of development.
It's not emotion, it's scientific fact.