Gilead Rising
Feb. 23rd, 2006 09:49 amvia Atrios:
South Dakota has passed a clearly unconstitutional abortion ban. Presumably a lawsuit will be filed and a federal court will toss the law out, the only question being whether Roberts and Strip Search Sammy will then decide to hear the case.
I've long thought that if Roe goes then the boycotting of states which ban abortion would be a moral imperative. I see no reason to visit states which claim they own the deed to my wife's uterus.
Here's the best part:
Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape. The amendment lost 14-21.
“To require a woman who has been savaged to carry the brutal attack result is a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota,” he said.
Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown objected.
Rape should be punished severely, he said, but the amendment is unfair to “some equally innocent souls who have no chance to stand and defend themselves.”
That's right, not only is there no health clause, but now if you're the victim of rape or incest you're doubly fucked as well.
As the Feministe points out:
It offers no exception for the pregnant woman’s health — if giving birth is going to cause massive kidney damage which will likely kill her after childbirth, no exception. If giving birth is going to force doctors to perform a hysterectomy, no exception. If the fetus has such a severe birth defect that it will die before, during or immediately after birth, no exception — the woman will be forced by the state to bring a doomed pregnancy to term, and to go through the dangers of childbirth for a fetus that will never live when she could have had a safer procedure.
And of course the real reason this went through:
The bill, largely drawn from the findings of the recent South Dakota abortion task force, is meant to encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States.
And with Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court I think you can see where this is going. I hope you've enjoyed sole ownership of your uteruses, ladies, because soon they become state property.
South Dakota has passed a clearly unconstitutional abortion ban. Presumably a lawsuit will be filed and a federal court will toss the law out, the only question being whether Roberts and Strip Search Sammy will then decide to hear the case.
I've long thought that if Roe goes then the boycotting of states which ban abortion would be a moral imperative. I see no reason to visit states which claim they own the deed to my wife's uterus.
Here's the best part:
Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape. The amendment lost 14-21.
“To require a woman who has been savaged to carry the brutal attack result is a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota,” he said.
Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown objected.
Rape should be punished severely, he said, but the amendment is unfair to “some equally innocent souls who have no chance to stand and defend themselves.”
That's right, not only is there no health clause, but now if you're the victim of rape or incest you're doubly fucked as well.
As the Feministe points out:
It offers no exception for the pregnant woman’s health — if giving birth is going to cause massive kidney damage which will likely kill her after childbirth, no exception. If giving birth is going to force doctors to perform a hysterectomy, no exception. If the fetus has such a severe birth defect that it will die before, during or immediately after birth, no exception — the woman will be forced by the state to bring a doomed pregnancy to term, and to go through the dangers of childbirth for a fetus that will never live when she could have had a safer procedure.
And of course the real reason this went through:
The bill, largely drawn from the findings of the recent South Dakota abortion task force, is meant to encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States.
And with Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court I think you can see where this is going. I hope you've enjoyed sole ownership of your uteruses, ladies, because soon they become state property.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 06:08 pm (UTC)C.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 07:39 pm (UTC)I HAVE NO WORDS. NO WORDS WHATSOEVER.
Stupid politicans, stupid people, stupid anti-choicers, stupid gfsdgfjsd!
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 09:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 08:33 pm (UTC)*snort* men.
You realize that the reason this is being passed is because they can't imagine such a thing on themselves, right? Because if for half a second they could imagine what pregnancy really feels like, with the added bonus of it being caused by rape, there would be no hesitation in allowing women to have abortions.
I just--I really have no coherent words for this.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 09:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 09:59 pm (UTC)But that's another rant.
The question then is, what is the govt going to do with these kids that weren't wanted in the first place? The kids who's parents weren't prepared to have them, or were forced to? If a fifteen year old girl gets raped and impregenated, how can you tell her that she must, by law, carry the baby the term?
I mean, really. I would be curious to see what these guys would say if it was THEIR wife or daughters being raped.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 11:01 pm (UTC)The US lost her credibility when Bush became president and used the word 'embetterment' in a State of the Union address.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 12:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 03:39 am (UTC)*melts*
Anyway. It's an absolutely spectacular work of fantasy; I must have read through the entire thing two times in the last four months and it is NOT a small trilogy.
In either case, after you read it, tell me who your favorite character is: Daemon, Saeten, or Lucviar. Am perversely curious.