What is your opinion of the new anti-abortion law in South Dakota?

There is a federal law making it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Given that this law pretty clearly violates rights as defined by the Supreme Court, it seems that the governor of South Dakota and any legislators who voted for this law are pretty clearly in violation. So FBI, get to work.

It's a bunch of white christian men ignoring things like democracy to enfoce their narrow vision of Christianity whgich Christ himself would likely ahve disapporved of onto everybody else. These people calim to be Ameircans yet they embrace and enforce "values" that we fought a Revolution to get the fudge away from.

I don't see where abortion is constitutionally protected. Is it on that page somewhere?

Not all abortion opponents are Christian, or even religious. Christians using God/the Bible in abortion arguments are defeating their own cause.

The FBI doesn't define Constitutional liberties, in fact the statue quite clearly says those rights "secured to him/her by the Constitution or the law of the United States, neither of which come from the FBI. That's why I referenced Supreme Court decisions. That abortions are Constitutionally protected comes from there. Roe v Wade IS the law of the land and the South Dakota law was passed in clear contravention of that law. By doing so, it seems obvious that they violated the law I referenced on the FBI website. Now I believe the excuse that gets them off from being prosecuted is that legislators simply can't be penalized for laws they pass. However, the 14th amendment requirement for equal protection under the law makes that argument unconstitutional.

Personally, I think the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment would do wonders for the system of laws we have, if only if were enforced as written rather than having all these exceptions made.

I totally disagree with it. If a woman wants to have an abortion, it should be her right to do so. Lawmakers should stay out of it.

I think it's terrible. Not only is it a terrible law in itself, but it is also a blatant ploy to get the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.

ok

I think it sucks. Personally, I don't think that I would ever choose to terminate a pregnancy. However, I still believe that abortion should be legal. This is a crap law that was passed only to test the waters at the Supreme Court.

I see a man signing it into law, not a woman.

Abstaining due to being the wrong gender to be relevant.

I think not taking into account rape or incest, is preposterous. It's forcing a woman to relive a traumatic event day after day after day for a child who probably wouldn't want to be born, if they knew what caused their existence: pain.
Also, how is it ok to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own body? It reeks of the dark ages - when women had no rights - when seperation of classes, genders, and races were accepted, and ok. You can know the difference between right and wrong: You can base a government at the seat of God, and base most of the laws on a sense of right and wrong. But then you separate church and state for a reason. You cannot legislate morality. I don't recall Jesus nor Buddha ever getting involved in politics.

Das ist nicht sehr gut.
Not saying abortion is good..But, I think you should be able to do it if you need to/ want to..
No sense in causing the child pain later in life because you don't really want it..
Woah, once again..sounded horrible..

This in 'The Land of the Free'. Shame on S-Dakota!

I think it's outrageous.

I don't even think it should be looked at as a moral or a religious issue. It's an ethical issue. I don't think the debate can even progress properly as long as everyone on both sides is arguing it based on morality.

I think it sucks. We are going so backwards over these past 6 years or so. Completely backwards, in almost everything political.
I believe there should be a time limit- meaning you can't get an abortion after so many months. Other than that, it's your choice & I'd rather have it done as safe as possible than illegally, because when they get rid of 'the right to choose' they are not getting the rid of the right to choose. A lot of women will still choose- keep the baby or illegally abort. That's all that will happen. Choosing to abandon the baby where they can or cannot be found. Choosing to give birth to a baby addicted to cocaine or some other narcotic. And no exception for rape or incest! He's going to make sure a 13 year old girl is forced to give birth to her father's child! Crap, I could go on for hours.

It sucks big time!

It makes me wish men could get pregnant. I think we'd have less of these types of laws if men could get pregnant.

how can one build a standard of ethics without having an idea of what is morally right or wrong? I think you are splitting hairs with the axe of a noun, joalis.

It is my opinion that people will be making a big stink about this for a while to come.

I think morals and ethics are two separate aspects of the same thing. Ethics involve others while morality doesn't necessarily have to.

Didn't know about it, thanks for the link.

I think it's wrong. A woman should be able to choose for herself.

I agree with this. This is issue would be seen & addressed differently if men AND women could become pregnant. I will go as far to say this would also be the case if ONLY men got pregnant.

Even tho I am 100% pro-life I believe this could possibly have detrimental effects. First women will cross state lines (not so bad) but if other states pass this bill as well then women may end up having their abortions in unsafe, unsterile environments leading to infection and possibly death.

I am against unjust abortion. Such as somebody is just a skank and has abortions to cover up for not using protection. But I'm for abortion if it is necessary (i.e., the mother is not healthy enough to survive it)

My impression is that it is too "stiff", but I admit I am not an expert on the details.

Inevitable ... the anti-abortion activists have been making strategic moves toward this for a while now. The pieces have been falling into place. They think they have the votes on the supreme court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

What happens now, should be interesting. Will pro-abortion activists gain strength because this move will shock normally complacent pro-abortion people (who I've heard are the majority)? Will a women's movement be rekindled? Will there be a backlash against the Christian right?

Personally, I think making abortion illegal is a bad move. I think it hurts the poorest in our society the worst. Unmarried, poor, young girls will not be able to leave their state to get an abortion. So, they will be forced to have the child, go on welfare, etc. More affluent girls will be still able to travel to another state, or country to get an abortion.

Really, the law isn't that big of a chance. The states that are closest to passing a law like this, typically already have almost zero abortion clinics. Mississippi is another good example. They have one abortion clinic left (I think, it may be gone by now).

I don't like abortion, but I think it's something we have to live with. I think we need to solve poverty before we make abortion illegal.

One of the things I'm unsure about is what exactly it means to "overturn Roe v. Wade". My understanding is that the supreme court can't just revisit an old decision and reverse it. Once it's decided, that's how the law is interpreted from then on. But, I think that "Roe v. Wade" as a lot of potential loopholes as well, so I suppose they can wriggle out of it somehow too. But, it may be that South Dakota's law is too much a direct challenge and will be shot down by the supreme court.

Anti-abortion activists have been more successful with indirect challenges that exploit sideline issues, like whether the parents have to be informed or regulations that abortion clinics have to follow. Using tactics like this, you can delay the abortion until it's too late. Or, you can make it too hard to operate a clinic. So, the end result is the same.

Still, the issue is whether states can make it illegal or not. Some (liberal) states would never do that, though. So, it's not like abortion will be illegal in the U.S. Though, perhaps that's the final goal of anti-abortion groups.

IT STINKS!

Wow, thats a loaded question.

Nobody agrees with my view,
I am not pro-choice or pro-life.

I believe that woman should have the right to murder thier unborn child.
I have no respect for the mass deception that two week old fetus is not a human being.
So I can not ally myself with either side or general opinion.

See my pickle?

If you were a pregnant woman who didn't want to have a baby - you'd be in a far worse pickle.

> I think morals and ethics are two separate aspects of the same thing.
> Ethics involve others while morality doesn't necessarily have
> to.
>
I knew you were going to say that. So ethically, you are sticking your ethical nose in my moral business, because you ethically know what is best for me based on what is morally right for everyone?

ethics: n. motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, morals, morality] 2: the philosophical study of moral values and rules [syn: moral philosophy]

You're using circular reasoning joalis. Ethics and morality are too closely intertwined to be considered two separate issues. You're still making a judgement based on what you think is morally right - for everybody.

Why do doctors, lawyers, and business people have ethics rules? Because other people are involved. As long as there is disagreement as to when an unborn baby is a person, the abortion debate will never be resolved. The matter isn't a simple matter of deciding what's best for people. If it were that easy, there wouldn't be as much debate going on, as most people don't want to make other people's decisions. It's a matter of whether the unborn are people in need of consideration and protection. That's where the issue is divided, (making it what I consider an ethical dilemma)

> Mississippi is another good example.
> They have one abortion clinic left (I think,
> it may be gone by now).

One abortion clinic left? There are two, that I know of, in central Mississippi. There was also one on the coast, but I don't know if it survived Katrina or not. I'm not sure about the rest of the state. The one in the town I live in closed not long ago, due to financial reasons.

The government needs to keep their respective noses out of my or any woman's body.

I didn't say the matter was simple. I said the same thing you are saying. That you "ethically know what's best for me based on what's morally right for everyone" meaning including the unborn child. and yeah, it's an ethical delimna but it's still based on what's morally right for everyone involved. Circular reasoning. whatever. it'll never end.

I think including the mom in the equation nullifies the the notion that the unborn child is it's own person. Pro-lifers aren't concerned with what's best for the mom. She's not the point.

I watched a PBS Frontline documentary "the last abortion clinic" about it.

Part of the program focused on Mississippi. They stated that Jackson Women's Health Organization is the only operating abortion clinic in Mississippi. JWHO's webpage seems to confirm this. It says, "January 2005, Urgent help is needed to save the only remaining women's health clinic in Mississippi that provides abortions." (that was a year ago)

Pro-Life Mississippi (the state's most powerful pro-life organization) has helped pass 15 pro-life laws and helped close down 5 abortion clinics in Mississippi. Their current target is the Misissippi's last abortion clinic in Jackson. Their president, Terri Herring, was featured on that Frontline program.

She's not the point? not the point? what is she then? just a warm cozy womb for 9 months? a safe haven? as long as we can keep her from pulling the nasty plug on the whole baby making process? No MATTER what the baby-making process is going to put her body, mind, health, and soul through. No MATTER what kind of traumatic experience might have brought her to the position she's in now. No MATTER if it may be a risk to her life to carry a child to term. No MATTER that it IS bringing another soul into an already screwed up world. No MATTER that the child wouldn't be wanted, by the mother and it's life wouldn't be the ONLY one changed FOREVER by this.
Just make sure the baby making stays on schedule.....no harm, no foul.

Okay okay, I should have said "She's not the main point" Poor choice of words on my part. I'm sure she is relevant, but the main point is the baby. Pro lifers think it's all about the baby, pro choicers think its all about the mom. That's why I think this thing will never be settled.

well, until they make a procedure available where they can provide the ability to take a viable fetus and test-tube it for prospective adoptive parents. I think that is a perfect solution. I would have gladly done that myself. In the future - maybe a long way off, but it'll happen.

I don't understand exactly what you mean.

There are plenty of prospective adoptive parents that would be lined up and banging down the door for a healthy newborn baby. Why women choose to abort rather than put baby up for adoption is beyond me.

because I couldn't CARRY a baby, joalis (not without big risks)....a test-tube is a different thing!

Couldn't, as in couldn't physically? Now I'm even more confused.

Oh, wait. I see what you mean..... big risks. Risks to the mother's physical health should always be a consideration. I'm not sure whether or not that's an issue in most abortions, though. I'd have to look at the stats.

I had a blood clot in my brain....it could have killed me.

I see. I think that's probably the most agreed upon exception.

> What happens now, should be interesting. Will pro-abortion activists
> gain strength because this move will shock normally complacent pro-abortion
> people (who I've heard are the majority)? Will a women's movement
> be rekindled? Will there be a backlash against the Christian right?



It's pro-choice. Not pro-abortion.

Pro-Lifers: Love the fetus, hate the child.

I don't get it

Most of these rabid anti-abortionists despite all their claims about "the children" oppose social programs and adoption among other things that involve taking care of post-birth kiddies. George Carlin summe dit nicely in a joke. "Pre-born you're fine, preschool you're fudgeed. They don't care about you again until you reach military age.

Also, a lot of these "Pro-Lifers" also support the death penalty, and supporte dthe South Ameircan death squads, and are not only pro-War they get antsy when we don't have anyone to bomb. When they say "right to life" they are talking about what they see as THEIR right to decide which people should live or die.

Oh, okay. You mean a lot of them, then. Not all.

I think adoption laws should be much easier than they are now. Whoever is against adoption is messed up in the head.

It's not that they're against adoption in concept, it's just that none of them would ever actually DO it. In Ohio not too long ago, a priest gave a sermon where he said "It's not enough to protest abortion. There are dozens of unwante dchildren who are wards of that state, and I'd like for thsoe of you who will be joining me at a protest to sing up to adopt one of these children." No one did. Not one. But most of them came to scream "BABY KILLER!" at scared teenage girls. Hypocrits.

Some people think running at the mouth means they are doing something.

Hmmm. That's news to me. They advertise another clinic in the newspaper, that's also located in Jackson. I saw it recently. It doesn't seem like that long ago that the local one closed, but it could have been over a year. Now, you've got me wondering. Thanks for the links.

I think its an absolute outrage and is added to the list of why I'm glad I'm not american. America is going more and more backward by the day.

I'm interested too... if you know the name of the other clinic, I'd like to know, so I can look it up.

meh... I use both terms... "pro-choice" is marketing, just like "pro-life" is. Everyone knows what they really mean...

I'm Sure

Okay. I checked into it. Looks like I was wrong. The one I've seen advertised is the one you mentioned, Jackson Women's Health. The other clinic in Jackson, New Woman's Medical closed a while back. Well, it's still open, they just don't perform abortions there. Anyhow, you were right. I was wrong. *bows down to bill*

Well, yeah people say it interchangeably, but, to me, it rings two different tunes. Pro-choice means, I have the choice to continue with the pregnancy and raise the child, or give the child up for adoption OR terminate the pregnancy. Pro-abortion makes people think that we are saying we aren't considering other options. The whole point of this issue is NOT that you CAN go get an abortion legally, but that you have the CHOICE to do so. Legally YOU choose what route to take. Legally all OPTIONS are open to you. It might seem like a small difference, but it isn't. This allows 'pro-life' their say too. These women have the CHOICE to NOT terminate the pregnancy.

This is one of the best of the points on this issue.

idiots. i hope they're prepared for all the crap that's gonna stir up...unwanted children being abused, people who can't afford children going on state funding, blah blah blah there's more than that, i know. whatever.

Its a womans body, womans right, however I do believe you cant get an abortion after a certain time because the child would be more developed. If its still an egg, then I believe its ok to choose what you want, but when its forming I believe its alive and you should just have it cause I mean theres adoption options and foster care.

The minute the sperm hits the egg, it is no longer an egg--->nothing to do with my opinions voiced here, just pointing it out.

I think it's totally backward.

I support anyone who opposes abortion and seeks to do away with it. I think it's an easy way out of running from the consequences for your actions. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex or at least be ready in case some of those guys make it past the barriers. Procreation is one of the most sacred gifts we have been given. I think we need to not take it lightly but safeguard it in every possible way. Allowing us to abort whenever we feel like it is a disgrace to what we have been given.

what makes you think Christ himself would have disapproved of governments creating anti-abortion laws?

> I support anyone who opposes abortion and seeks
> to do away with it. I think it's an easy way
> out of running from the consequences for your
> actions. If you don't want a baby, don't have
> sex or at least be ready in case some of those
> guys make it past the barriers. Procreation is
> one of the most sacred gifts we have been given.
> I think we need to not take it lightly but safeguard
> it in every possible way. Allowing us to abort
> whenever we feel like it is a disgrace to what
> we have been given.


You really don't get it do you? if you think that's all this about, you need to turn of Fox News and stick your head out a window.

> I support anyone who opposes abortion and seeks to do away with it.
> I think it's an easy way out of running from the consequences for
> your actions. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex or at least
> be ready in case some of those guys make it past the barriers. Procreation
> is one of the most sacred gifts we have been given. I think we need
> to not take it lightly but safeguard it in every possible way. Allowing
> us to abort whenever we feel like it is a disgrace to what we have
> been given.

I'm going with the simplest argument here. People rape women & children too. Why must the girl/woman who has been raped pay the consequences?

for goodness sake. Of course there's exceptions to every rule. I can understand that. But the circumstances i'm talking about were clearly spelled out in my explanation.

Honestly, i have no idea what the deal is with SD making this law and the drama along with it. I was stating my views on abortion. I don't quite understand what you mean behind "stick my head out a window" and "turn on Fox news". But if you'd like to enlighten me, by all means go aheah. But i oppose abortion and always will, that's my opinion.

> I think not taking into account rape or incest, is preposterous.
> It's forcing a woman to relive a traumatic event day after day after
> day for a child who probably wouldn't want to be born, if they knew
> what caused their existence: pain.


I've never given birth because.... well.. i'm a man. But i hear that childbirth is a pretty painful process. If all children wouldn't want to be born because of the pain it would cause their mother, no child in the entire world would want to be born. Every birth is painful. I understand that you're speaking more of emotional pain and not physical, but I know someone who was the result of rape. His mom gave him up for adoption. He is certainly happy that she chose to still have him even though he's never had the opportunity to know her. I agree though that abortion should be allowed in the instances of incest or rape. But I believe if a mother is pure in heart, she'll still love the baby even if it was the result of those nasty circumstances. Good can always come out of bad. It's just a matter of us making it happen.

Yeah... it's all "spin", though. People these days love to choose the wording of issues to help sell their cause. "Pro-Life" is really anti-abortion. "Pro-Choice" is pro-legalizing-abortions. But, neither side wants to put "abortion" in their tag because it's an ugly word. It's all marketing... hiding the truth.

It's unconstituitonal, it violates church and state seperation by trying to impose "Christian" values on an entire state, and it also violates the will of the people as if the people had actually been allowed to vote on it as oppsoed to it being fascistically pushed through (hence my favorite phrase, Christo Fasicst Zombies) it would've failed. Also, for the most part, the "Pro-Life," an ironic phrase if I ever heard one, movement's arguments are based on myths and superstition.

boy is it getting DEEP in here *puts on boots*

you know how when your parents were dishing out punishment to you and your siblings, and your brother did something wrong - if you stepped up and said "Yeah, Dad! Give it to him good! you were likely to get smacked on the head yourself?" This is the very reason why I don't believe God gets involved in any kind of politics. The relationship between us and God the FATHER is a one-on-one relationship. NO ONE ELSE should be involved. God gave us the commandments he felt like was important - but It's not likely you will stand and receive retribution with someone for what they did wrong on judgement day for all the other things - so why get up in their business about it?
I think you guys are finally starting to get a taste of my politics.... I usually quietly sit on the sidelines about them. (except for a few things)

Who says they're Christian values? Because the people who run the state are Christian? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. No offense. If that's the case, maybe the only people who should be allowed into our government are those who are atheists so that we don't get any spiritual influence in it. The people of South Dakota voted these "Christians" into office. If they didn't want a Christian, maybe they shouldn't have voted him in. It seems like to me that the people who aren't separating the church and the state are those who are looking for reasons to attack the government by characterizing their views as "Christian".

> Who says they're Christian values?

They do.

>Because the
> people who run the state are Christian?

Well, they claim to be. Why do you think I used the quotea round the word Christian? These people are even less Christian than I am, and I'm an atheist, so that's saying a lot don't ya think?

> That's
> one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. No
> offense.

I am very offended because you made a half assed assumption then used it to make a baseless insult.

> If that's the case, maybe the only people
> who should be allowed into our government are
> those who are atheists so that we don't get any
> spiritual influence in it.

Did you read a single word I wrote you dumbass?

> The people of South
> Dakota voted these "Christians" into office.

They also opposed the abortion ban. And elected offiicals, contrary to what the Quasi-nazis in the Republican party think, are beholden to the people who voted for them.

> If they didn't want a Christian, maybe they shouldn't
> have voted him in.

You jsut don't get it do you?

> It seems like to me that the
> people who aren't separating the church and the
> state are those who are looking for reasons to
> attack the government by characterizing their
> views as "Christian".

Yep, you don't get it. And I doubt you ever will. I've debated with your type before. Try reading what i wrote instead of jamming it into your patented Karl Rove Coder Ring.

While I object to abortion being used as a form of birth control, I believe it should always be an option for those who have gotten pregnant as a result of rape or incest. If you willingly engage in sexual activities that cause pregnancy, both the man & the woman should be using birth control. The burden shouldn't fall on one partner alone, they are both equally responsible. This law, in effect, is punishing females for getting pregnant from unwilling sex. Should an eleven year old girl be required to carry a pregnancy to term because a relative committed incest? Should a girl or woman of any age be forced to carry to term a child that was conceived by rape? I say 'no'! It's just barbaric to do this.

It's way too broad because it makes no exception for rape and incest. He bases his signing this bill on fetuses being children from the moment they are conceived... and this is not the case. But I do support his ban on abortion after the 24th week. If a woman can't decide before her third or fourth month if she is going to have an abortion, she should have the baby, and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it. Once the baby starts responding to stimuli, it is a living being. But at the same time, while that 'baby' is a mass of cells (pre-12th-week) a woman should have the option of deciding what is going to happen to her body.

>> Who says they're Christian values?

>They do.

Who's they?

>>Because the
>> people who run the state are Christian?

>Well, they claim to be. Why do you think I used the quotea round the word >hristian? These people are even less Christian than I am, and I'm an atheist, so >that's saying a lot don't ya think?

I don't know how you can judge who is and isn't Christian nor what is and isn't Christian, being an atheist yourself. Hell even Christians themselves can't decide what their beliefs/values/morals are nor can they decide who is and isn't Christian (which is a completely separate topic).

>> That's
>> one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. No
>> offense.

>I am very offended because you made a half assed assumption then used it to make a baseless insult.

A baseless insult for a baseless argument.

>> If that's the case, maybe the only people
>> who should be allowed into our government are
>> those who are atheists so that we don't get any
>> spiritual influence in it.

>Did you read a single word I wrote you dumbass?

Ummmm yeah I did and it sounded like a lot of crap to me.

>> The people of South
>> Dakota voted these "Christians" into office.

>They also opposed the abortion ban. And elected offiicals, contrary to what the Quasi-nazis in the Republican party think, are beholden to the people who voted for them.

Your, placements, of, comas, make, this, difficult, to, decipher.

>> If they didn't want a Christian, maybe they shouldn't
>> have voted him in.

>You jsut don't get it do you?

Do I get what you're trying to say? You're right, I don't.

>> It seems like to me that the
>> people who aren't separating the church and the
>> state are those who are looking for reasons to
>> attack the government by characterizing their
>> views as "Christian".

>Yep, you don't get it. And I doubt you ever will. I've debated with your type before. Try reading what i wrote instead of jamming it into your patented Karl Rove Coder Ring.

I'll tell you what I do "get". I get that everyone has their points of view. I get that you have strong points of view on the subject. I get that we as a general population are not fit to run this country. With that said, I get why it is important to have a government and elect officials who are fit to run this great nation. Finally, I get that people have the right to lash out when they don't like what those governmental officials have done.
Now what I don't get is how you can know my type. You don't know anything about me. I don't get how you can make that kind of judgment

The things we do and think that make us different from others - that's what makes us unique. The things we do and think that we have in common with others - that's what makes us stereotypical. Brian himself is not excluded from this.

> >> Who says they're Christian values?
>
> >They do.
>
> Who's they?

The people who supported this bill.

> >> The people of South
> >> Dakota voted these "Christians" into
> office.
>
> >They also opposed the abortion ban. And elected
> offiicals, contrary to what the Quasi-nazis in
> the Republican party think, are beholden to the
> people who voted for them.
>
> Your, placements, of, commas, make, this, difficult,
> to, decipher.

How so? There are only two commas. If you're confused by two commas, why am I even bothering to debate with you? There is nothing confusing about what I wrote here unless you're dyslexic in whcih case I apoloigze for insulting you, or if you just don't want to in which case I say leave me alone if you can't debate without misrepresenting what I'm saying.

I am pro-choice, but really don't care if a woman has an abortion or not... However, I am glad the states are taking back the power the Federal Government has stolen from them... The people should decide what the state does, and the state should tell the Federal Government what to do..not the other way around...

I think this is wrong" and if I was raped and carrying that bastards baby and I wanted an abortion and you mean to tell me I cannot have a abortion in cases of rape? This is very wrong to deny any woman an abortion in cases of rape and no fault of our own, I would sue the hell out of somebody and burn them up

> I am pro-choice, but really don't care if a woman has an abortion
> or not... However, I am glad the states are taking back the power
> the Federal Government has stolen from them... The people should
> decide what the state does, and the state should tell the Federal
> Government what to do..not the other way around...

And this is all about a womens right to choose! and if I were raped and there is a law banning abortion you mean to tell me I would have to carry a strangers baby to full term and can do nothing about this? I mean this law is biased towards women and a man signed this into law rotten stinking bastards

They need to stop killing the unborn. They have the right to life also.

I want an abortion right now please'

I think it sucks.

I agree with you.

No one has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. period end of story.

This anti-abortion law is from the dark ages where women were kept bare foot and pregnant!

They might as well tell take away her right to vote next because I expect the women of South Dakota will voice their displeasure at election time. South Dakota has voted to enslave the women of the state and sent a clear message that her body belongs not to herself but instead, belongs to the state !

Those of you opposed to abortion are free not to have one. What you don't have the right to do is dictate to others who choose differently then you do. You do not have the right to tell someone else what they must do with their own bodies.

South Dakota's law states a 13 year old child impregnated by her own father or another rapist must bear that child. The victim is punished and the perpetrator goes free. It is a barbaric law.

I'm with you 100% those laws suck a$$.

I think that it is fine. I kind of think cause of rape it should be a choice, but at the same time the child didn't do anything wrong.

I'm pro abortion

It's horrible, but I'm hoping that the Ogala Sioux tribe that's planning to offer abortions on reservation land follows through. Nobody should be forced to be pregnant against their will and that's what South Dakota is doing when it's denying abortions to rape & incest victims who have become pregnant as a result of their assaults.

It's a big step backwards when it comes to a woman and HER body. Our bodies are ours to control, not the government.

I don't know because I'm having problems with these links

You had problems with another one too, right? Are you using Mozilla or IE? Sometimes I have to go to IE to get something. It's rare but sometimes I do have to.