March 21, 2006
Banning Abortion: Not a Good Idea
This is a bit off today's topic, but I thought people would enjoy knowing that Mike Rounds, the South Dakota governor who signed the abortion ban, has seen his approval/disapproval numbers go from 72-23 in February to 58-38 in March. He doesn't have a challenger for 2006, though that could change soon. I was sort of guessing that this abortion ban would blow up in its proponents' faces -- pro-lifers outnumber pro-choicers in South Dakota only 49-47.
Let's hope that the birth-control-denying state legislators of Missouri are next.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Banning Abortion: Not a Good Idea:
» Buy MP3 Music Online - Digital Music Downloads from MP3 Music
MP3 Music Downloads - MP3.com offers links to legal digital music downloads from a wide variety of services. Buy MP3 music online from your favorite artists ... [Read More]
Tracked on May 3, 2006 2:52:15 AM
Serves him right, too, after his pathetic triangulation on signing the bill. Rough paraphrase: "I support going slow on overturning Roe and I'm perfectly aware that this bill is unconstitutional. But it will move the process along, and I stand behind the values it represents so what the hell, I'll sign it and let the courts overturn it. Then I'll ride the righteous wave of our fallen values to reelection."
At least the wingnut who introduced it probably believes in his cause. Actually, I'm not sure what's worse: Rounds' cynicism or Hunt's wingnuttery.
Posted by: Laura | Mar 21, 2006 11:41:32 PM
Let's see, duly elected politicians pass bill and elected governor signs it. Seems OK to me.
That darn democracy!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 22, 2006 3:06:57 AM
It looks like the Sioux Nation might come up with an alternative to AmTaliban repression.
Posted by: CParis | Mar 22, 2006 12:12:03 PM
It was very surprising to me that they are actually pushing ahead with an abortion ban, as it seems to me something that is more useful to the right-wing as a rallying call/lightning rod than anything else. If the extremists got their way and actually got it fully banned, then the crazies would find another even more extreme agenda item to push that might in turn alienate some of the more moderate members of the right wing. Maintaining the current fine balance seems the best way to profit from the threat of banning it.
Posted by: Raff | Mar 22, 2006 1:15:28 PM
It's like she's lifting both middle fingers to the South Dakota government. Hope it's real.
Yours is a common question. I know that I at least share it. It will be interesting to see what happens now that the wingers are getting what they want. While it would be nice if this introduces a period of relative complacency on their part, their ministers of propaganda will make sure that the self-righteous horde will remain fired up over the liberal threat to God and Country. It just may be, however, that some who currently lean GOP will find themselves uncomfortable with living in a fudamentalist utopia.
Far more likely, IMHO, that Big Business will decide that it is time to reassert their dominance over the GOP, leading to a real battle over who actually controls that party. And that's where the real fun will begin. Hopefully Dobson & Co. will make good on their threats to form another party if they lose their current stranglehold.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 22, 2006 2:00:34 PM
The last time the Nanny State got what it wanted we got Prohibition. That didn't last long either before people started bitching, finding ways around the law, and throwing cases out through jury nullification. A ban on abortion will end up being the same way - except with the added "benefit" of seeing young women scarred for life (or possibly dead) because of their self-inflicted abortions. A costly and sad way to fix a bad decision.
Posted by: NonyNony | Mar 22, 2006 2:15:55 PM
I am far from convinced that the last time the Nanny State got what it wanted was prohibition. There is 'The War on Drugs', 'Secondhand Smoke' and even seat belt laws. The Nanny State is certainly alive and well, and unfortunately seems to have broad bi-partisan support.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Mar 22, 2006 2:48:12 PM
The issue that is not discussed is the difference in the underlying philosophy between the two groups.
Group A believes that the fetus is not a person and has no rights. Thus we get "Keep your hands of my uterus". If that is true, then this is a reasonable position.
Group B believes that the fetus *is* a person and has rights. Thus we get the cry of "abortion if murder". If that is true, then this, too, is a reasonable position.
What the far left tries to do is use the assumption that theirs is the philosophy that everybody holds and then ridicule the conservatives' position. Looking at the bill introduced in South Dakota and the other states that are planning the same thing, it doesn't look like this tactic has worked very well for them.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 22, 2006 4:30:56 PM
What the far left tries to do is use the assumption that theirs is the philosophy that everybody holds and then ridicule the conservatives' position.
Actually, Fred, what the left tries to do is to get group B to state a coherent position, by asking uncomfortable questions like:
* If a fetus is a person with rights, and we make abortion illegal, then is a woman who obtains an abortion to be charged with murder? Millions of women obtained abortions illegally in the past, so this is a significant issue.
* If any fertilized human embryo is to be treated as a person with rights, what do we do about fertilization clinics, wherein we intentionally try to fertilize more embryos than we can use and discard the ones we don't implant? Do we have to switch to one embryo at a time, and vastly increase the cost and inconvenience of such treatments? Or do we simply not address the issue at all?
Here's a link to twenty questions in this vein. Fred, do you have the intellectual courage to answer them?
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Mar 23, 2006 8:33:50 PM
If a fetus is a person with rights, how come I didn't get a tax break for my unborn child last year? My wife was pregnant, after all.
If a fetus is a person with rights, how come we don't make it a crime to smoke within breathing distance of a pregnant woman? How come we don't mandate 24hr surveillance of all pregnant women to make sure that they do not lift more than 20lbs, never smoke, never drink, only have 1 cup of coffee a day, always take their vitamins, get enough sleep and so forth? What should the penalties be for women who refuse to do this?
If a person has rights, fetus or otherwise, why don't conservatives give a good goddamn about anyone after they're born? Why don't conservatives care about hungry children? Why don't conservatives care about disabled children?
Oh wait. It's because they are self-righteous hypocrites. It's interesting how so many of them fervently believe in a literal Hell, when their own actions consign them to it.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 23, 2006 11:06:37 PM
Posted by: peterwei | Oct 22, 2007 12:58:01 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.