South Dakota Abortion Bill - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 03-06-2006, 08:49 PM

Don't discount the ingenuity and the will of women to maintain control over their own bodies. This is the future in the United States, and unfortunately, only the most fortunate women who seek a relatively safe termination of a pregnancy will receive treatment as described below....i.e. in the future, this may be as good as it gets for women who seek abortion. Does a victim of forced sex deserve this, or a forced full-term pregnancy....does any woman deserve this, as a consequence of exercising her right to choose, only because she does not have the money to travel to another jusrisdiction? If you answer yes...why do you support the restriction of only those with limited wealth from choosing a safe abortion?:

Quote:

http://mollysavestheday.blogspot.com...-abortion.html
Thursday, February 23, 2006
For the women of South Dakota: an abortion manual

.........In the 1960s and early 1970s, when abortions were illegal in many places and expensive to get, an organization called Jane stepped up to the plate in the Chicago area. Jane initially hired an abortion doctor, but later they did the abortions themselves. They lost only one patient in 13,000 -- a lower death rate than that of giving live birth. The biggest obstacle they had, though, was the fact that until years into the operation, they thought of abortion as something only a doctor could do, something only the most trained specialist could perform without endangering the life of the woman.

They were deceived -- much like you have probably been deceived. An abortion, especially for an early pregnancy, is a relatively easy procedure to perform. And while I know, women of South Dakota, that you never asked for this, now is the time to learn how it is done............

..........Instruments needed and their uses

You will need:

One set of uterine dilators (any equipment may be purchased from numerous websites. If you need assistance in finding this equipment, do not hesitate to email me at molly.xxxx@gmail.com)
Vaginal speculum
Pregnancy test
One set of uterine curettes
One pair of uterine forceps
One pair of regular forceps..............

........I will be following up this article with directions for performing vacuum aspiration for first-trimester pregnancies and inducing miscarriages for later ones. I hope this can prove educational for the next generation of women, who may have to start a second Jane program. I am sorry we live in times where it is necessary to publish this material, but if women work together, an abortion ban doesn't mean that women and girls are left with no choices.

Quote:

http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/special...Abortionb.html
Jane Abortion Collective Oral History Collection
An inventory of its records at the University of Illinois at Chicago

Collection Summary
Creator: Jane Abortion Collective
Title: Jane Abortion Collective Oral History Collection
Dates: 1980
Abstract: The papers consist of transcriptions of interviews conducted by UIC Sociology Professor Pauline Bart circa 1980 with members of the Chicago Jane Abortion Collective. The interviews include an incomplete history of the organization, the interviewees' personal experiences as members, and their perspective of some of the internal and external issues the organization faced. They roughly cover the period from 1965 to 1973. Not all the transcriptions are complete.
Quantity: 0.5 linear feet
Identification: JAbortion

Administrative History of the Jane Abortion Collective

The Abortion Counseling Service of Women's Liberation (ACS), unofficially known as "Jane," formally organized in Chicago in 1969, when abortions were illegal in Illinois and throughout most of the United States. Its aim was to counsel women and assist them in receiving safe abortions. Many of the members had been assisting women locate abortion services since the mid-1960s. Initially Jane volunteers screened underground abortionists, attempting to ensure that they were competent and reliable. Frustrated by this process the group soon learned how to perform abortions themselves. They only charged women for the costs involved and preformed the services without charge if the woman was unable to pay.

In the fall of 1969 approximately 100 feminists formed the Chicago Women's Liberation Union. After some discussion it made ACS a member and work group of the union.

The organization operated until the spring of 1973 when legal abortion clinics opened in Illinois after the United States Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision made abortions legal during the first two trimesters of a woman's pregnancy..........

tricks · 03-06-2006, 11:13 PM

What about birth control. The SD law makes hormone based birth control illegal with the statement "... that the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm"

No Pill, patch, ring, iud's, depo-provera. They do not necessarily prevent the fertilization of an egg, but its implantation in the uterus.

No morning after pill either.

Looks like condoms and foam from now on.

Paq · 03-07-2006, 12:52 AM

...wow..didnt' think of that statement..

foam is about 80% effective..roughly same as rhythm method when used perfectly....scary...roughly same as pullout as well...yikes..

i seriously don't see how in the world something like this passes in 2006...seriously...

tecoyah · 03-07-2006, 04:38 AM

As the father of two girls, I can honestly say it would be very difficult for me to live in South Dakota at this point. Not that I anticipate my daughters will ever get an abortion, but I simply could not remove this option from an unknown future for them. Fortunately I live in a state that is unlikely to change its laws in this regard anytime soon, but if indeed this did change, I would be forced to move elsewhere as a result.

Ustwo · 03-07-2006, 08:11 AM

Democracy is a bitch sometimes.

stevo · 03-07-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

As the father of two girls, I can honestly say it would be very difficult for me to live in South Dakota at this point. Not that I anticipate my daughters will ever get an abortion, but I simply could not remove this option from an unknown future for them. Fortunately I live in a state that is unlikely to change its laws in this regard anytime soon, but if indeed this did change, I would be forced to move elsewhere as a result.

As tec has shown us, thats why we have 50 states. I find it highly improbably, almost impossible that all 50 states would outlaw abortion. If you live in south dakota and don't like the law there are 49 other states to chose from. Why anyone would live in south dakota in the first place is a mystery to me.

trickyy · 03-07-2006, 05:16 PM

yeah, no kidding, that state sucks. sorry (if you live there).

i also think the "molly saves the day" renegade abortion guide, which i've seen linked various other places, was waaaay over the top.
so here's my guide:

Spektr · 03-22-2006, 12:16 PM

If we are to maintain our grasp on the fundamental rights of the United States of America, we must closely examine how ideology and percieved "moral values" are a stain upon our society. The purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to maintain equal accessibility to freedom in this country. A law that hinders the rights of a specific group of the American citizenry (in this case women) is wholly antithetical to the core upon which our country is founded. Logic and rationality must be the mechanisms through which we govern ourselves, not alleged moral values which are based upon individual perception and are all-to- easily manipulated into baseless scare tactics.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-22-2006, 12:28 PM

Sorry to break it to you Spektr, but the Bill of Rights, or the constitution as a whole, in no place mentions any fundamental right to privacy, or for that matter anything on abortion. You find those at the behest of creative judicial interpretation.

host · 03-23-2006, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Sorry to break it to you Spektr, but the Bill of Rights, or the constitution as a whole, in no place mentions any fundamental right to privacy, or for that matter anything on abortion. You find those at the behest of creative judicial interpretation.

Mojo_PeiPei, it may interest you to learn that the following is contained in the "Privacy Lesson" that the U.S. State Dept. displays on the web to inform folks from other countries about the matter of "a right to privacy". There are indications that the authors of the web page regard "a right to privacy", particularly related to a right to access to contraceptives and to abortion, without intrusion into these private matters, by the government, as "settled" law.....far from being a product of "creative judicial interpretation", they are the prevailing view of justices of competing politcal affiliation, for more than 115 years, and thus, are no more deserving of your "creative" label, than any other rulings of the SCOTUS, including "Brown v. Board of Ed."

Where else is their an example of such a long series of consistant and progressive SCOTUS rulings, as these rulings related to "privacy", that would qualify for the critical and marginalizing label of "creative judicial interpretation"? Can you provide any examples of a progression of SCOTUS rulings, on one area of the law, in an overlapping time period (late 19th century to early 21st century) that you would exclude from your "creative judicial interpretation"? Do you accept that the SCOTUS has any standing to interpret the constitution, that result in more legitimate interpretation, than it has in the privacy rulings?

Quote:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub...of/privacy.htm
From — C H A P T E R 6 —
Privacy

....Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v. United States (1928)

Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all conversations between them on any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. . . .

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the one most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Brandeis considered it irrelevant that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment had not used the word "privacy" specifically, nor had they mentioned wire-tapping. How could they, since telephones had not been invented! What he and others have sought is not the literal meaning of the words, but what the Framers intended — namely, that government should leave people alone. The manner of intrusion did not matter; the fact of it did.

Eventually Brandeis's view prevailed, and, in the 1960s, the Court ruled that wire-tapping did violate a constitutionally protected right of privacy. As Justice Potter Stewart explained, the Fourth Amendment protects people not places. If people have legitimate expectations of privacy, such as in their home, then they may invoke the protection of the Constitution to ensure that privacy.

Nonetheless, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) the Court asked the question — Did the people want the state to be involved with intimate private decisions about family planning? The answer was clearly no, because this was a personal matter, a private decision, in which that the state had no business intruding. Justice Douglas, in striking down the state law and upholding the right of the clinic to dispense birth control information, declared that privacy, even though not mentioned directly, nonetheless enjoyed the constitutional protection that Justice Brandeis a generation earlier had proclaimed....

...Following the decision in Griswold that information about birth control, and the decision whether to use it, constituted a private matter, the Court in a case involving a woman's right to have an abortion, a few years later extended the right of privacy......

...Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)

It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. . . . At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State....

...Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to bodily integrity, and to abortion. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment.....

Spektr · 03-23-2006, 11:44 AM

I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I wrote Mojo. My comment was in no way related to the existence or lack there of of a privacy clause within the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. That is a seperate discussion in and of itself. The debate over abortion can be solved on a infinitely more simple level than that:

The goal of a representative democracy is, ultimately, the unconditional accessibility to equal rights for the entire citizenry. No special treatment, every citizen is granted the same inalienable freedoms. If our elected officials create legislation which, in effect, limits the rights of a SPECIFIC group of citizens and ONLY that group, then they have instituted a policy that is radically anti-American.

joshbaumgartner · 03-23-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spektr

I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I wrote Mojo. My comment was in no way related to the existence or lack there of of a privacy clause within the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. That is a seperate discussion in and of itself. The debate over abortion can be solved on a infinitely more simple level than that:

The goal of a representative democracy is, ultimately, the unconditional accessibility to equal rights for the entire citizenry. No special treatment, every citizen is granted the same inalienable freedoms. If our elected officials create legislation which, in effect, limits the rights of a SPECIFIC group of citizens and ONLY that group, then they have instituted a policy that is radically anti-American.

Unfortunately such a sound principle has been twisted by certain groups into the argument that not interfering with a woman's body is somehow unfair as it allows a woman to do something a man can not (abort a pregnancy), but yet to force a woman to carry a fetus to term is a perfectly balanced law because afterall it bans a man from having an abortion too, so is not gender discriminatory. As much as the absurdity of this logic is self-evident to myself and others, it doesn't dissuade its promoters.

Gender-specificity in legislation is not prohibited, as we recognize that there are unique aspects between men and women and that ignorance of the law does not necessarily promote the common good. I can walk around bare-chested all I want, but my wife would be cited for indecent exposure were she to do the same. I can see the point of those who would want to do away with this restriction, but the fact remains that no court finds this rule a violation of the Constitution or that too many Americans see it as a way to restrict the rights of women. It may be unequal but it is not unreasonable the law didn't give women breasts and men not, but the law does have to reflect the reality of the fact they have them and men don't. Likewise, the law didn't give women the ability to have a pregnancy and thus have the option to abort the pregnancy, thus there is nothing inappropriate about the law recognizing the reality that women have that option.

There are some valid reasons to oppose abortion, but the gender-equality arguement is not one of them.

03-06-2006, 11:13 PM	#42 (permalink)
tricks Crazy	What about birth control. The SD law makes hormone based birth control illegal with the statement "... that the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm" No Pill, patch, ring, iud's, depo-provera. They do not necessarily prevent the fertilization of an egg, but its implantation in the uterus. No morning after pill either. Looks like condoms and foam from now on. __________________ People Are Stupid. People can be made to believe any lie, either because they want it to be true or because they fear that it is.

03-07-2006, 12:52 AM	#43 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	...wow..didnt' think of that statement.. foam is about 80% effective..roughly same as rhythm method when used perfectly....scary...roughly same as pullout as well...yikes.. i seriously don't see how in the world something like this passes in 2006...seriously... __________________ Live. Chris

03-07-2006, 04:38 AM	#44 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	As the father of two girls, I can honestly say it would be very difficult for me to live in South Dakota at this point. Not that I anticipate my daughters will ever get an abortion, but I simply could not remove this option from an unknown future for them. Fortunately I live in a state that is unlikely to change its laws in this regard anytime soon, but if indeed this did change, I would be forced to move elsewhere as a result. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

03-07-2006, 08:11 AM	#45 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Democracy is a bitch sometimes. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-22-2006, 12:28 PM	#49 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Sorry to break it to you Spektr, but the Bill of Rights, or the constitution as a whole, in no place mentions any fundamental right to privacy, or for that matter anything on abortion. You find those at the behest of creative judicial interpretation. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-07-2006, 05:16 PM	#47 (permalink)
trickyy ►	yeah, no kidding, that state sucks. sorry (if you live there). i also think the "molly saves the day" renegade abortion guide, which i've seen linked various other places, was waaaay over the top. so here's my guide:

03-22-2006, 12:16 PM	#48 (permalink)
Spektr Copacetic Location: Nati	If we are to maintain our grasp on the fundamental rights of the United States of America, we must closely examine how ideology and percieved "moral values" are a stain upon our society. The purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to maintain equal accessibility to freedom in this country. A law that hinders the rights of a specific group of the American citizenry (in this case women) is wholly antithetical to the core upon which our country is founded. Logic and rationality must be the mechanisms through which we govern ourselves, not alleged moral values which are based upon individual perception and are all-to- easily manipulated into baseless scare tactics.

03-23-2006, 11:44 AM	#51 (permalink)
Spektr Copacetic Location: Nati	I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I wrote Mojo. My comment was in no way related to the existence or lack there of of a privacy clause within the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. That is a seperate discussion in and of itself. The debate over abortion can be solved on a infinitely more simple level than that: The goal of a representative democracy is, ultimately, the unconditional accessibility to equal rights for the entire citizenry. No special treatment, every citizen is granted the same inalienable freedoms. If our elected officials create legislation which, in effect, limits the rights of a SPECIFIC group of citizens and ONLY that group, then they have instituted a policy that is radically anti-American.