A Freeper On SD's Abortion Ban: This Person Get It.

[cali]

"So... South Dakota has voted to shut down the only abortion clinic in the state (that's right, one), and in the process has given fuel to the pro-choice crowd, who can now claim that Republicans want to force women to have children if they're rape victims or their life is in danger. I don't support abortion, but this is going to blow up in the party's face, big time."

For once, I agree with the freepster. (with the exception of his/her position on abortion). This is a timb bomb for the 'pukes.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

1. But Republicans DO want to force victims of rape to be host organisms

I wish the moderate REpublicans would wake up to this fact. They'd never pull the (R) lever again.

[DanCa]

8. That's why we needed everyone on board the last election.

I know too many people who voted for a third party because they had a problem with Senator Kerry's "personality." Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the supreme court a bigger issue?
Senator's Kerry would have never put Roberts on Alito on the bench. Hopefully people will take the supreme court into consideration during the next election before voting..

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

10. The RW zealots have been "educating" their sheep for years on this point..

Unfortunately, many non-zealots (including moderate Republicans, disenfranchised liberals, etc) didn't seem to get this point.

Bet they will all get it now!!! Sadly, there's 3 seconds left in the game...let's hope we beat the buzzer.

[MuseRider]

2. Maybe

we will see.

I don't entirely buy the fact that they use it as a wedge issue so they won't get rid of it. They can still use it. "Vote for us or those godless liberals will bring back baby murder."

I am just simply uncomfortable with any changes to Roe but I am afraid we are going to end up losing it and many women will die before it all starts to make sense to those who just had to control women by doing this.

[cali]

5. I think you're wrong, and here's why

Every poll taken over the last decade shows the same thing: The vast majority (60%+) don't want Roe overturned, but they haven't really believed that Roe is endangered. This is a huge wake up call for those folks. In the face of that support, it does repubs no good at all to play to their base. It's a numbers game, and they lose, big time. I'm not just saying this off the top of my head, most political analysts assess it in a similar manner.

You know, I'm sure, that the SD legislation doesn't change Roe. The real, and immediate danger to women's reproductive rights is the PBA case the court has granted cert to.

[PlanetBev]

7. I think Cali is right

It just might wake up the country to what kind of cruel thugs these wingers are.

[MuseRider]

16. You are probably right on this

but it always makes me really nervous when they start this stuff up. I know I am not alone in that but gambling politically with our bodies just makes me worry a lot.

I don't know how old you are and it really does not matter but as someone who was a teenager during the time of peace and love and pre Roe I do NOT want to see our young women having to deal like we did.

I am certainly not going to argue with you because I have no real idea. I hope to goodness you are right.

[Iris]

19. The sad part is that some woman somewhere will suffer because of this.

Even though it's a battle that's already been fought. We'll just watch history repeat itself.

[KharmaTrain]

27. The Supremes Won't Make Abortions Illegal

A major misunderstanding by both sides. All the Supremes would do is throw the issue to the states...and let them decide if this procedure is legal or not. The Roe case came to be as several states, most notably New York, decided to legalize safe abortions in the early 70s. Various states were working on different proposals that were confusing and created legal headaches...so that and the court ruled on the equal protection ruling (the same one they used to put boooosh in the white house in 2000) so that there would be uniformity of the law.

Roe didn't legalize safe abortions and the Supremes can't make them illegal. Just like a state like South Dakota can make them illegal, so can a state like New York or California keep them legal no matter what ScAlito and the wingnuts try to pull. I've always felt abortion long ago became a states rights issue when individual states found ways around the law to make safe abortions harder to get and forcing clinics to close.

This issue makes a lot of money for GOOP coffers, and they need that money now more than ever since their K Street moneyline is drying up. Nothing gets the donations from the fundies flowing than another Roe ploy.

Yes, your fears are shared, but it's more perilous for the other side. While this game will work in South Dakota, let's see them try that stunt in Pennsylvania. I'm with those who will boycott any personal or business dealing with anything to do with South Dakota other than donating to Democrats and Progressives.

[skypilot]

3. "Be careful what you wish for"

*

[Gildor Inglorion]

4. Oh, well, it's only POOR women who will be affected, after all

Women of means can still go elsewhere to have their needs met.

[cali]

6. WTF are you talking about?

Sheesh. The SD legislation will not have the force of law. There will be an immediate injunction. Federal law trumps state law, remember? Anyway, post-Casey state regulations have already had a terrible impact on poor women seeking abortions.

[badgerpup]

12. If you are a woman...

Please consider this.
Whether poor or you 'have resources'...
are you simply a biological gestating machine, a walking, talking incubataor?
If, all of a sudden, your mind no longer worked, would you still be as useful and as functional a part of society as you are right now, because your 'female parts' weren't affected and still 'worked'?

Or is there maybe more to you and your life than the ability/liability of reproduction?
Think about this one...

[Gildor Inglorion]

26. I'm not a woman, I'm a gay man, and probably the world's biggest

abortion-rights supporter. I was being sarcastic, and I'm dreadfully sorry you can't recognize it when you see it.

[Gildor Inglorion]

25. I'm sorry you can't recognize sarcasm when you see it

WTF I was talking about is a prevalent Reupke attitude that NOTHING affects them personally, so who cares what the insane B*shit administration does? If daddy's little girl gets in trouble, off she goes to Martinique or Guadaloupe for a nice, relaxing long weekend and comes back, minus fetus, with a killer tan to boot. Poor women can look out for themselves. See the point?

[katmondoo]

9. No it is not just the poor... this effects every facit of a woman's life

from the right to credit to the right of property ownership. This is only the beginning of the end to women's rights. Tne fact that a woman will now become a liability for credit, for being productive on a job, for a mortgage because she may be saddled with child care. Beware if you are divorced because then you may be more apt to get pregnant and not have a husband to support you. There are all kinds of horrors awaiting these women in SD. Seems being divorced makes you sexually active in the minds of the money lenders.

[cali]

11. I don't know how many different ways to say this:

THE LEGISLATION IN SD WILL NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW.

There will be an immediate injunction. It's highly doubtful this case will ever go to the SC. So doubtful that it's not even worth contemplating at this time. That said, I agree completely with you about the ramification of banning abortion, and the SD law is particularly hideous and cruel

[cascadiance]

13. This might be the fundies "test" of Bush's nominees now...

Perhaps they are wanting a confirmation that Roberts and Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade which they are being told through back channels that they will (in order to get their votes, etc.). They probably don't want to wait until after 2006 to see if the Supremes will rule for them or not, since they are one issue voters that will vote heavily based on this outcome.

My guess is that the financial elites, etc. of the Rethuglican Party might not be a party to this and actually would like to keep any supreme court case outcome nebulous for 2006. It might be in our favor to have this case get ruled on early.

If the Supremes rule against South Dakota, you have a fundie revolt within the Republican Party and many probably vote with the Dems for all of the other crap they are having to deal with in order to get their fundie agenda go through.

If the Supremes rule against Roe V. Wade, then you have another revolt amongst women and other Rethug moderates that finally hit their tipping point of right wing agenda and also vote with the Dems.

Perhaps either way with an early ruling, we ultimately win the election, though we might have to get enough of the congress by 2008 to fix the abortion thing with a constitutional ammendment or something like that that the Supremes can't rule against. That or do a Supreme Court impeachment or two if they are found to have protected an earlier impeached president improperly too with their various court rulings on whistleblowers, etc.

[cali]

15. Please read my other posts on this thread

It is highly unlikely that this will make it up to the SC. If by some chance it does, that wouldn't happen for years.

[0rganism]

14. Well, s/he's half right

I don't see it necessarily "blowing up in the (GOP)'s face", but it's definitely going to give the pro-choice crowd something to hold up as a blatant example of how heartless, arrogant, and vicious the forced-pregnancy crowd has become.

[SmokingJacket]

17. Duh. Republicans DO want to force rape victims to have have children

and women whose lives are in danger.

[Iris]

20. you're right!

We're not just claiming the Republicans want to force women to give birth, they're showing us that the actually do want to force women to give birth.

Nice catch.

[cali]

21. And how!

The posts over there are really out there:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584963/posts?q=1&&page=151

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. This one is especially disturbing:

> And what about all those women who make false accusations of rape?
> Would you just as strongly support the death penalty for them?

> If you search The Innocence Project you will see that the majority of those men
> wrongly convicted and now freed by DNA evidence had rape among the charges they were
> convicted on.

> Think how many men are sitting, rotting in jails right now, on the word of a
> lying female they actually had sex with, and will never have DNA evidence to free them.

224 posted on 02/24/2006 5:39:09 PM PST by MensRightsActivist

And here's an example of an evangelical wanting to have it both ways.
If Abortion is a sin, she should be worried about her own salvation,
not the legality of the procedure. Instead, she expects to see her
"murdered daughter" in heaven. "Oh, but I'm saved now!" typical
right-wing evangelical hypocrisy. This is how they justify all
manner of actual murder in the name of the State:

> I aborted a baby because of a rape. It was the worst mistake of my life and I have lived
> for over 30 years with the knowledge that I participated in the murder of my daughter.
> I hope she forgives me if I ever meet her in heaven.

[Iris]

18. "I don't support root canals"

Jeez - why do they have to phrase it like that. "I don't support abortion" Well, guess what buddy, neither do I! What's to support about it? It's a medical procedure. It's between a woman and her doctor.

[SoCalDem]

22. republicans don't want abortion banned, they just

want certain republican voters to THINK they do..If it ever really got banned, that would be one less "bloody shirt" for them to wave every few years when they need the troglodytes to emerge from the everyday ooze, and go vote..

The GAGG issues are valubale to them, ONLY as long as they reamain "in danger"..

Guns
Abortion
God
Gays

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Isn't 60-70% for keeping things the way they are with abortion?