QuoteOn the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, as demonstrators march on Washington both for and against abortion, it is worth noting that the South Dakota legislature is going to try another attempt at banning abortions in their state. I find it most notable that this bill is titled the "Woman’s Health and Life Protection Act". It reveals the awareness of the damage abortions do to the mother, both physically and psychologically.Looks like South Dakota has started a trend. According to a UPI article in the Washington Times, at least five states are now ready to pass strict anti-abortion legislation.Sweeping anti-abortion laws proposed
Jan. 31, 2006 at 9:28AM
Legislators in at least five states are proposing bold anti-abortion measures as the Bush administration reshapes the U.S. Supreme Court, a report said.
With the goal of challenging the Roe vs. Wade ruling that ensured a woman’s right to an abortion, lawmakers in Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota and Tennessee propose banning all abortions except when the woman’s life is in danger, Stateline.org reported.
If enacted, legal experts said the laws would be the first absolute abortion bans since the landmark 1973 ruling.
However, some abortion foes worry that state bans could backfire especially since five pro-Roe justices remain in the Supreme Court.
It’s as predictable as the sun rising that lower courts would strike down such state bans, said Americans United for Life Director Clarke Forsythe.
It would be better to pass legislation "that can be enforced," such as parental notification requirements and fetal pain warnings, the constitutional lawyer told the state issues organization.
I agree that it may be too soon to declare "victory", but I have to agree with Maggie Gallagher that it’s time to start getting ready for life in a post-Roe America.
The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor’s attempt to save the mother’s life.
"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," [Kate] Looby [of Planned Parenthood’s South Dakota chapter] said.
NEVER SAW AN ANTI-CHOICE MALE
who wasn’t a member of the clergy who also wasn’t one of the following:– Extremely overweight;
– Fairly unattractive;
– Financially struggling or downright broke;
– In a miserable marriage he felt he had to enter because of a pregnancy;
– Suffering some serious emotional instability issue, like alcoholism;or some combination thereof.Additionally, I have never met an anti-choice male (again barring clergy) who wasn’t also a racist, an anti-Semite and a gay basher.
That’s because misogyny rarely comes alone as a prejudice.
How is it misogyny to be pro-life?
How is it misogyny to be against women having unnecessary surgery?
How is it misogyny to be against a woman losing her child?
How is it misogyny to be against women having increased rates of depression, infertility, and suicide? (this is just one consequence of abortions – see http://www.afterabortion.info/psychol.html and http://www.afterabortion.info/physica.html )
How is it misogyny to be against something that increases heart-break and failed relationships for women? (Read "Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion" by Theresa Burke )
How is it misogyny to be against something that increases the chances of having premature babies in the future? (See http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/n4/cerebralpalsy.html)
Is it not more misogynic to know all these risks and threats, and still be pro-abortion?