Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Battle to overturn S. Dakota abortion law begins

Old 03-24-06, 10:15 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Battle to overturn S. Dakota abortion law begins

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/rights_ab...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--


SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - Abortion-rights supporters planned to launch an attack on Friday on a new South Dakota abortion law designed as a direct challenge to the
U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 33 years ago.
ADVERTISEMENT

An abortion-rights coalition, South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, said it would lay out its strategy to take down the law in mid-morning news conferences in Sioux Falls and Rapid City.

The Sioux Falls local newspaper reported that the group would announce a petition drive to overturn the law through a referendum in November. The group has not publicly detailed its strategy, but participants in the campaign have said that a referendum had advantages over a lawsuit.

..

A petition drive would fly in the face of the expectations of abortion opponents, who have been counting on a legal challenge to the law in the hopes that the case would eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.




Interesting strategy. Not sure if they are scared of losing or just trying to piss of the prolife people. Now what happens if they lose the referendum?
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 10:36 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Pleasantville - in black & white ;P
Posts: 5,970
Never underestimate the power of dead people to vote!
mosquitobite is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 11:18 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
I would guess they think it has a good chance to pass, and in so doing, will be a big slap in the face of the legislators. They can always go the other route later.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 11:20 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,052
Originally Posted by Venusian
[url]Interesting strategy. Not sure if they are scared of losing or just trying to piss of the prolife people. Now what happens if they lose the referendum?
Then it will be time for a lawsuit.

If the referendum succeeds, it sends an interesting "fuck you" message to anti-choice pols everywhere. And perhaps a few will be defeated while the ref. is passing.

If not, well then, human rights are being denied, so sue.
OldDude is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 11:26 AM
  #5  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,829
I assume a referendum passes with a simple majority in South Dakota. Which means they only need 50.1% of voters to vote "Yes" in order to overturn the whole thing.
Groucho is online now  
Old 03-24-06, 12:15 PM
  #6  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,519
Don't be so sure that the referendum will pass. The pro-life groups will get the grassroots out to fight it hard.
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 12:20 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
i saw a national poll on the law but haven't seen one local to SD. Anyone seen one?
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 01:27 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Pleasantville - in black & white ;P
Posts: 5,970
My thoughts are: the legislature (who was VOTED FOR BY THE PEOPLE), passed this law. Therefore, vote them out if you don't like them.
mosquitobite is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 01:31 PM
  #9  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,519
Originally Posted by mosquitobite
My thoughts are: the legislature (who was VOTED FOR BY THE PEOPLE), passed this law. Therefore, vote them out if you don't like them.
Well, you could vote them out, but the law will still be on the books. The pro-choicers are trying to get the law taken off the books. It's possible that the legislators would get voted out because of this, but who knows for sure. Sometimes people vote for elected officials and don't agree with 100% of the laws they make and act accordingly. That doesn't always mean voting that person out of office for one thing that you disagreed with them on. I see the law and voting the politicians out of office as 2 seperate issues.
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 01:37 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Pleasantville - in black & white ;P
Posts: 5,970
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/arti...cal/news01.txt

Groups urge S.D. counter-boycott
Meanwhile, one abortion-rights Californian has taken a novel and opposite tack: Instead of bypassing South Dakota, Jack Mingo suggested only half-jokingly, we think that abortion-rights folks spend a few weeks in South Dakota. Or at least long enough to register to vote.

Citing a 2004 Minnesota Public Radio story on RV voters, Mingo noted that the South Dakota Legislature created a loophole in voter registration laws to allow snowbirds and people who live in recreational vehicles presumably Republicans to vote in South Dakota while living elsewhere.

Its a law apparently designed to help the Republicans, but we can make it blow up in their faces, Mingo said. He figures 90,000 people could turn South Dakota into a blue state.

Its a beautiful state. While youre there, head down to the voter registration office. Register to vote. Then come home, and as election time draws near request an absentee ballot from the comfort of your own home, he wrote.
mosquitobite is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 01:41 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,397
Originally Posted by mosquitobite
My thoughts are: the legislature (who was VOTED FOR BY THE PEOPLE), passed this law. Therefore, vote them out if you don't like them.
But people in this country like to vote for people, and then question and attempt to overturn everything they do. It's what we've become.
General Zod is online now  
Old 03-24-06, 01:54 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
so screw with the electoral system? hmmm
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 02:08 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,052
Originally Posted by Venusian
so screw with the electoral system? hmmm
That ain't right. For an given election, you can only be a resident of and vote one place,

If the states allow a little flexiblity, I don't mind if someone chooses which (of a couple a choices) state he is resident of, but the second vote should draw jail time. So, are those Califorians happy not voting in California?
OldDude is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 02:12 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Well, really, California could lose 100,000 democrat votes without any real effect on the election, but adding 100,000 democrat votes in South Dakota would probably have a pretty tremendous effect.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 02:13 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Originally Posted by OldDude
That ain't right. For an given election, you can only be a resident of and vote one place,

If the states allow a little flexiblity, I don't mind if someone chooses which (of a couple a choices) state he is resident of, but the second vote should draw jail time. So, are those Califorians happy not voting in California?
the problem is i dotn think many states check with other states so unless the residents told california, california wouldn't know.
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-24-06, 02:29 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,052
Umm, there was some scandal about 'snow birds" voting in both Florida and New York last Presidential election. I'm not sure how it came to light, but I am fine with it being prosecuted as a felony.
OldDude is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 01:22 PM
  #17  
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by Venusian
An abortion-rights coalition, South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families,


How can a pro-abortion group be a "family" group. They want to kill babies, not rescue them. They are the opposite of "healthy families".
Summer_Wind is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 01:27 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,460
Originally Posted by OldDude
Umm, there was some scandal about 'snow birds" voting in both Florida and New York last Presidential election. I'm not sure how it came to light, but I am fine with it being prosecuted as a felony.
I agreed with you at first, but then I thought about it. When you are voting for President, you are not actually voting for George Bush or John Kerry or whoever -- you are voting for an elector from your state. So as long as New York, for example, is comfortable allowing a part-time resident to have a say in who New York's electors are, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with allowing that part-time resident to also have a say in who Florida's electors are (again, assuming Florida is okay with that).

All of this presupposes that both New York and Florida are aware that the voter is eligible in both jurisdictions -- a pretty big assumption, of course.
JasonF is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 01:38 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,052
Well, they both define it as a crime.

But perhaps I should have said "Federal" election. You are also taking a dual voice in who should represent the states in both the House and Senate. You are clearly being "over-represented" relative to other voters. It defies the "one man, one vote rule" and once you open the door to it, you basically have to let everyone vote in every state if they want. You should be able to vote for mayors and governors everywhere too.

But I don't think any state lets you votes in two states, although they make lack the will to detect and enforce it.
OldDude is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 02:10 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,450
Originally Posted by Summer_Wind


How can a pro-abortion group be a "family" group. They want to kill babies, not rescue them. They are the opposite of "healthy families".
How can a Pro-Life group be a "pro-life" group if they kill doctors and blow up clinics. They are the opposite of "pro life".
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 02:18 PM
  #21  
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Originally Posted by Summer_Wind


How can a pro-abortion group be a "family" group. They want to kill babies, not rescue them. They are the opposite of "healthy families".
How can a Pro-Life group be a "pro-life" group if they kill doctors and blow
up clinics. They are the opposite of "pro life".
Because 99.9% of pro life people don't agree with killing doctors. 100% of pro-abortion people agree with killing babies.

You do the math.

Pro life people want to save lives, not take them. You can't say that about pro abortion groups
Summer_Wind is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 03:34 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,450
So, define life then. What do you define as a "life to save".
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 04:10 PM
  #23  
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
So, define life then. What do you define as a "life to save".
A baby that can't defend itself?
Summer_Wind is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 04:35 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Originally Posted by Summer_Wind
Because 99.9% of pro life people don't agree with killing doctors. 100% of pro-abortion people agree with killing babies.
I am pro-abortion rights and I have never agreed that killing babies is OK.

I do think killing fetuses is OK before the 24th week of gestation which is the earliest time that "brain birth" occurs. A fetus is not a person until that point and thus is not a a baby.

Now that's the way I see it and this article backs up my position:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

You may disagree but you can't just call abortion "baby killing" and expect everyone to accept that. People reasonably differ on when they think a fetus becomes a person with rights.
movielib is offline  
Old 03-26-06, 04:43 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 17,006
Originally Posted by Summer_Wind
Because 99.9% of pro life people don't agree with killing doctors. 100% of pro-abortion people agree with killing babies. You do the math.
You're not going to change any attitudes here. In fact, I don't think any person in the world who is either pro-life or pro-choice will ever change their minds. I think we should just separate the country into two areas, one allowing abortions, one not, and let the people who are pro-choice live in one place, and the people who want to abolish abortion, 'abolishionists' if you will, live in the other place. I don't see how there would be any conflict...and things should remain civil without there being a war between the states...
Rockmjd23 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.