As someone who is 100% pro-choice, all I can say is this pisses me off. This will just give Bush what he wants, to deny womens' rights. I guess I got two big reasons why this disgusts me. :angry: :angry: :angry:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.ad...9990009&cid=842

Updated: 11:52 AM EST

Supreme Court Plunges Into Abortion Debate

Justices to Consider Constitutionality of Ban on Late-Term Procedure
By GINA HOLLAND, AP

APThe Supreme Court will hear the abortion case with two new justices appointed by President Bush.

WASHINGTON (Feb. 21) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.

Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.

Justices on a 9-0 vote in a New Hampshire case reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health.

The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.

Even with O'Connor's retirement, there are five votes to uphold Roe, the landmark ruling that established a woman's right to an abortion.

Alito's views "are not going to change the outcome of the central principle of Roe v. Wade," said John Garvey, the dean at Boston College Law School. "In some ways, these are tokens or markers in ... a symbolic tug of war."

Bush has called the so-called partial birth abortion an "abhorrent practice," and his Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, had urged justices not to delay taking up the administration's appeal.

The case that will be heard this fall comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.

This is unacceptable. Damn conservative republicans, leave women's rights alone. :angry:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...=top_world_news


South Dakota Legislature Plans Last Abortion Ban Vote

Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The South Dakota Legislature planned a final vote today on adopting an abortion ban that would create a constitutional challenge of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing the right of women across the U.S. to medically terminate pregnancies.

The state's House of Representatives was due to vote this afternoon on legislation that would be the first attempt in a state to outlaw all abortions since a 1989 Supreme Court ruling affirmed states' rights to regulate the procedure, said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a Washington group that supports legalized abortion.

That ruling, known as the Webster case, spawned a host of attempts to restrict abortion. South Dakota's legislation could become a test case for states wanting to ban abortion, said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, which opposes abortion.

``This will become a political battle in every state that wants to consider banning abortion,'' said Keenan.

A legal challenge may take years to wind its way through the courts, creating the possibility that the anti-abortion faction on the U.S. Supreme Court will be stronger than it is now, said Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of San Francisco in California.

There's no certainty the recent additions of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. will produce a 5-4 majority to overturn Roe v. Wade, Amar said. A court challenge may be needed just to see where the current justices stand.

Testing Court

``Unless a legislature passes a bill testing the opinion, there is no way to know if the court's opinion has changed,'' said Amar, a scholar in constitutional law. ``They can't signal a change of attitude without a vehicle for it.''

South Dakota lawmakers introduced the bill Jan. 24 after President George W. Bush's nominations of Roberts and Alito.

The House passed its first version 47-22 on Feb. 9 and an amended bill passed the state Senate two days ago. The amendment changes wording though not the ban on abortions, which has no exceptions for rape, incest of the mother's health.

Under South Dakota law, Governor Mike Rounds would have five days from when he receives the bill to decide whether to sign the measure. The Republican governor declined through spokesman Mark Johnston to say what he will do.

The U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 21 said it would hear the Bush administration's appeal of a ruling that found the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional because it doesn't make an exception when a mother's health is at risk.

I sure wouldn't want to be a woman living in South Dakota. :bad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060225/ap_on_...WtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer

South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on nearly all abortions Friday, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the bench. Lawmakers said growing support among South Dakotans for abortion restrictions added momentum to the bill.

"I think the stars are aligned," said House Speaker Matthew Michels, a Republican. "Simply put, now is the time."

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, has pledged to sue over the measure. About 800 abortions a year are performed in South Dakota.

Even with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Alito replaced, there still appear to be the minimum five votes needed on the high court to uphold Roe v. Wade. Supporters of the bill, however, said another justice could be replaced in the years it would take a case to reach the nation's highest court.

A judge is likely to suspend the abortion ban during the legal challenge, which means it would never take effect unless the state gets the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and wins.

Some opponents of the bill said abortion should at least be allowed in cases of rape or incest, or where the woman's health is threatened.

If a rape victim becomes pregnant and bears a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.

"The idea the rapist could be in the child's life ... makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice," Heeren-Graber said.

Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion. The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday, and the Senate approved it 23-12 earlier this week. If signed, it would become law July 1.

Money for the anticipated legal fight is already pouring in. Lawmakers were told during the debate that an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature is setting up a special account to accept donations.

"We've had people stopping in our office trying to drop off checks to promote the defense of this legislation already," Rounds said.

Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center, a Sioux Falls pregnancy counseling agency that tries to steer women away from abortion, said most of the abortions performed in South Dakota do not stem from rape or even failed contraception, but are simply "conveniences."

Unruh said she believes most South Dakota women want the state to ban abortion, and many who have had abortions "wish someone would have stopped them."

The governor said he believes it would be better to eliminate abortion in steps rather than all at once. Rounds indicated he does not share the view that Alito and Roberts will usher in sudden, dramatic changes in how the court views abortion. He said it could be a drawn-out legal battle, and noted that it is not even assured that the high court will hear the case.

The bill "may satisfy a lot of individuals out there who would like to see if there is one slim chance the court may entertain three years from now a direct assault on Roe v. Wade," Rounds said.

He added, however: "I've indicated I'm pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong and that we should do everything we can to save lives. If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law."

Rounds said his staff will review the bill for technical defects. He noted that he vetoed a similar measure two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was challenged in court.

Some advocates said an abortion ban would hurt poor women the most by forcing them to travel long distances to other states where the procedure is legal.

"It's a sad state of affairs that we have only one choice right now" in South Dakota, said Charon Asetoyer of the Native American Women's Health Care Education Resource Center. "But if you have to go out of state, the cost of making that trip will be prohibitive."

Kate Looby, Planned Parenthood director in Sioux Falls, said women who cannot afford to travel to a clinic might be forced to turn to unsafe methods of abortion.

"We've seen it in the past in this country, we've seen it all over the world and there's no reason to believe it would not happen in South Dakota," Looby said.

That is just pure sick. :angry:

You know how enemies are really the same? Well, put a long beard on a neo-con and you've got Sharia law!

Neo-con = Taliban = ultra-religious Zionist. It's really the same guy in different outfits waving a scornful, judgemental finger at you for wanting to design your own life! I wish we could lock them all in a room together so they could kill one another, and let the rest of us sinners live in peace! :mad:

P.S. I can only hope that this putative high-speed assault on our rights and our bodies will galvanize the women of the country to vote self-defensively come November.

I am really pissed about this, sure glad I don't live in South Dakota. Control freak Conservatives. :angry: :mad: :bad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060306/ap_on_...DMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer

Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure.

Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.

The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.

The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge, Rounds has said. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.

Under the new law, to go into effect July 1, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

Rounds noted that it was written to make sure existing restrictions would still be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses; after the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.

Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, said the organization has not yet decided whether to challenge the measure in court or to seek a statewide public vote in November. A referendum would either repeal the abortion ban or delay a court challenge to the legislation.

"Obviously, we're very disappointed that Governor Rounds has sided on the side of politics rather than on the side of the women of South Dakota to protect their health and safety," Looby said.

She said Planned Parenthood would continue providing services that include family planning, emergency contraception and safe and legal abortions.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in the state.

What next?? Conservative republicans are control freaks, religious fanatics and oppressors. When and where will it end???? :angry:

I'd almost rather be thrown into prison, than to allow the government to imprison me inside my own body! :mad:
South Dakota ain't called the Badlands for nuthin'.

This is the day the ultra right wing neo cons have lived for for so long....it must be like a dream to them...pure heaven...".preventing those floosies from having those abortions and murderin' their unborn. That'll teach them to respect their men when they are barefoot, pregnant and stuck in the kitchen and there is nothing those wimmen's libbers can do about it." >snark<
It makes me absolutely sick. One has to hope that this law will be struck down right away. If not hopefully they can get out of the state if they need services at the very least, until they find a way to outlaw that.

This is like an unstoppable disease going from red state to red state. Wish the damn conservative republicans would just go away and take their oppressive ways with them. :angry:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_...DMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Tenn. Senate Backs Anti-Abortion Step

By LUCAS L. JOHNSON II, Associated Press Writer

The state Senate on Thursday passed a proposal to amend the Tennessee Constitution so that it doesn't guarantee a woman's right to an abortion.

The 24-9 vote was the first step of many toward officially amending the state constitution. The measure would go before voters if the General Assembly approves it twice over the next two years.

The state Supreme Court has ruled that the Tennessee Constitution grants women a greater right to abortion than the U.S. Constitution.

Abortion rights supporters are attacking the measure as a stepping stone to prohibiting all abortions in Tennessee if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the landmark abortion decision in Roe v. Wade.

"The resolution is an all-out attack on the women of Tennessee and seeks to rob women of their right to make choices about their own health, safety and personal welfare," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee.

Sen. David Fowler, a Republican sponsor of the bill, proposed a similar resolution last year that cleared the Senate but stalled in a House committee.

"I regret this will cast me as being hardhearted, unsympathetic and unkind but that's not who I am," Fowler said.

Tennessee has a long process for amending its constitution, requiring approval by both chambers in session of the General Assembly, two-thirds approval by both chambers in the next session, and then approval by voters.

Several states are considering restrictions on abortion that eventually could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. South Dakota's governor signed a law Monday that would prohibit all abortions except those necessary to save a mother's life.

Some opponents of abortion rights hope the additions of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito will make the court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, although a majority of the court still appears to support the 1973 ruling.