[lucizoe]

Allow me to translate for y'all:

Waaaaaaahhh! Waaaaaaaaaaahhh!!! Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh!

Thanks

[faerietails]

.

[maddy29]

yeah baby!!!!! take that stupid ass christian republicans who think they can control women's bodies! fuck you!!!! ha ha! losers!!!!

i am SO proud of south dakota, and all the people who have been there workign so hard to make sure this ban is rejected. i'm really impressed by what they've done there. This makes a big statement.

very sad about the bans on gay marriage, but not surprised. this isn't something that's going away anytime soon, and we'll keep fighting for equal rights.

[nickclick]

whoo hoo! stick it to 'em, girls!

South Dakotans Reject Sweeping Abortion Ban

[hoosierman78]

Court won't rethink 'Mary Doe' abortion case
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/10/scotus.abortion/index.html

This is the first abortion decision of one of the most conserviative courts in reacent history. What do you think it signals about the right to choose in america, the Republican party as a pro-life party and Bush as a pro life president?

Honestly, I don't think it reflects at all on the Republican Party being a pro-life party nor Bush as a pro-life president. I think it reflects more on the justices themselves being able to put aside personal opinions and, simply stated, interpret the law. It also signals that they have respect for SCOTUS precedent and most likely will not rule to make abortion illegal. Now, if they turn it over to once again be a state matter, that could have much different results. I will wait until a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade is made, as this ruling, from what I read, only addresses the medical reasons for abortion. It is, IMO, a positive sign though.

[nohope]

Court won't rethink 'Mary Doe' abortion case
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/10/scotus.abortion/index.html

This is the first abortion decision of one of the most conserviative courts in reacent history. What do you think it signals about the right to choose in america, the Republican party as a pro-life party and Bush as a pro life president?

[maddy29]

From NARAL:

All your calls and emails made a difference! Late Friday night, September 29, pro-choice senators blocked Majority Leader Bill Frist's dangerous and divisive "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act" (CIANA)! This is a major victory over far-right, anti-choice groups that had bullied the Senate into passing the bill, right before the elections.

Thank you for your help! Frist was three votes shy of the 60 he needed to move the bill forward for a vote.

The anti-choice-controlled House already passed CIANA, so if we had lost the vote on Friday, the bill would have gone straight to President Bush - who has promised to sign it into law. CIANA would impose a sweeping and confusing parental-involvement law on doctors, young women, and responsible adults who are simply helping teens facing crisis situations.

Friday's vote underscores the importance of electing pro-choice lawmakers on November 7, and sending emails and making calls to your elected officials - no matter where they stand on the issue of women's freedom and privacy. The change of only a few votes could have paved the way for the Senate to pass a dangerous and divisive bill. Now, take this momentum into the final weeks of the elections - and remind your friends and family to vote pro-choice!

[sybarite]

Thanks for posting the CCPA/CIANA info msp. I'm not in the US but am anxious about what's happening, so appreciate the update.

Stipulating someone must revert to their home state's laws wherever they are seems bizarre to me. Is there a precedent for this? How badly people want to control these young women. 'Prayerful reflection' my ass.

[msp]

It's fucked up, but it makes perfect sense. Because you see, it's not about babies, abortion, protecting the innocent, what have you. It's about control. But better yet, check out this chart posted on Alas, a blog back in March.

(In other news, I'm surprised no one's commented on the fact that the House voted to pass CCPA/CIANA last week. Luckily, it was stopped in the Senate. I know it got lost a little bit in the shuffle, but besides endangering young women by isolating them from trusted adults in instances when they can't turn to their parents, it also saddles them with the laws of their home state no matter where they travel. Laws don't typically work like this - it's called federalism and it's a core principle of our government. Say, if you're driving through West Virginia in a car with Ohio plates, you can't get pulled over for going the West Virginia speed limit - 70 on the interstate - because the speed limit in Ohio is lower. You follow the law of the state that you're in.)

[mornington]

lovemypugs, ignore the tr*ll. If you add him to your ignore list in the control panel, the discussion in here suddenly makes sense!

what tes said. I will never understand these people.

[LoveMyPugs]

WOW!

Don't think I'll be checking back into this discussion.

[tesao]

ginger kitty, i'm with YOU!

rosie violet, querida, the fact is, that it makes no sense. these people make.no.sense. these are the same people who are opposed to abortion under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE because it is "killing" yet are also PRO death penalty! there is NO.SENSE!! on the contrary, it is nonsense.

we know that.

and have i mentioned lately just how much i adore the ignore function????

[ginger_kitty]

*crosses fingers and hopes the pro-lifers split, fight amoungst themselves, and self-destruct!*

[msp]

Well, and of course there are many, many, many people who oppose abortion but use birth control. The die-hard anti-choicers run a real risk of alienating their own people, the moderates who (rightly) recognize birth control, comprehensive (or at least "abstinence plus") sex ed, and family planning as a way to reduce the number of abortions.

[pollystyrene]

I read an article today about the pro-life movement focussing more on contraception and apparently, it's dividing the ranks. There's quite a few who disagree with it, saying that if they don't focus strictly on ending abortion, the whole movement will weaken and fall apart.

[roseviolet]

ErinJane, that is bizarre. I couldn't even watch the whole thing. It's sad that someone can get on television and spread such false information. The fact is that the birth control pill prevents ovulation. The woman's body does not release an egg, therefore, there is no egg to be fertilized. Hence no pregnancy. Isn't this a good thing?

[erinjane]

Hokay then. Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I found this through feministblogs.com.





http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006...ntrol-massacre/
"“That’s why I make the comparison between dead Jews and dead babies.”

[roseviolet]

Found this through Boing Boing: morality clauses, EC, and broken condoms
http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/09/m...en-condoms.html
How strange is it that they would have no problem giving EC to a married woman, but would refuse it to an unmarried woman. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

[ginger_kitty]

All I'm saying is that the anti-choice side will use something like that against the pro-choice side without seeing what was really going on(like that's something new). I certainly don't identify the movement with people like that, but I'm sure you'll see them holding up posters "I wouldn't kidnap my daughter to force her to have an abortion".

I get your point, a lot of anti abortion people will use a story like that to group pro-choice people with psychos like that to make us look bad. Which is definately a shame.

maddy, I am with you crossing my fingers and hoping the Nov. elections help turn things around a bit. I have been trying to encourage everyone I know to get out and vote even though this isn't a presidential election year, so changes can be made.

[maddy29]

just a quick post-good news-we had our Mass. primary yesterday and TONS of pro-equality cool ass people won! very exciting stuff!!!! i feel a little ray of hope shining down, like maybe, just maybe, we can win some big elections this fall and change some things!!! woo hoo!