# Well that didn't take long. SD Senate votes 23-12 to ban nearly all abortions. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712 "2006-02-23T00:47:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/41 "2006-02-23T19:35:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > This legislation is clearly calculated to present a challenge to _Roe v. Wade_ to the new SCOTUS ASAP. And it will happen. And the new Court will almost certainly overturn _Roe v. Wade._ And that will be the worst thing, electorally, to happen to the Republican Party since Watergate. It’s going to do them a **lot** more damage than the gay marriage controversy did to the Dems in 2004. If…IF they acutally do, I shudder to think what will be next? Will they want to take away birth control? Will a 16 year old kid be arrested for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend and charged with being a sex offender? I think that the people that have such a problem with abortions should do their best to not have any and leave everyone else alone. I don’t particularly like abortion, but I don’t think I have the right to tell someone else what they are going to do. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/42 "2006-02-23T19:37:55Z")
> [@Translucent Daydream](#): > > If…IF they acutally do, I shudder to think what will be next? Will they want to take away birth control? Will a 16 year old kid be arrested for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend and charged with being a sex offender? Possibly. But only until the next election cycle. Except in a very few of the reddest red states – and even there, state government will find enforcement next to impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/43 "2006-02-23T19:40:50Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Fair enough, then you believe that all laws pertaining to libel, slander, indecency, prosecution for revealing classified documents, etc. should all be tossed out, as well? Nope. I don’t. But I don’t think such laws conflict with the text of the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/44 "2006-02-23T19:42:52Z")
> [@Translucent Daydream](#): > > If…IF they acutally do, I shudder to think what will be next? Will they want to take away birth control? Will a 16 year old kid be arrested for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend and charged with being a sex offender? Oh, horrors! Such an act is already illegal in many states. > [@](#): > > I think that the people that have such a problem with abortions should do their best to not have any and leave everyone else alone. > > I don’t particularly like abortion, but I don’t think I have the right to tell someone else what they are going to do. Well, I think if you have a problem with murder, you should do your best not to murder anyone, and leave those that wish to murder alone. You don’t particularly like murder, I assume, but you know you don’t have the right to tell someone else what they are going to do. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/45 "2006-02-23T19:53:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nope. I don’t. > > But I don’t think such laws conflict with the text of the Constitution. Okay, just for fun: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Where in that text is there any exception for classified information? “No law abridging the freedom of speech” is pretty clear. So, I should be able to stand on a street corner and shout anything I want, right? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/46 "2006-02-23T20:02:20Z")
Hmmm…if a fertilized ovum counts as a totally unique (sic) human being, then what about the embryos that are discarded by fertility clinics? Shouldn’t that also be considered murder, if you accept the premise of the SD legislation? Could the pro-choice side mount its challenge on that basis? ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/47 "2006-02-23T20:11:23Z")
> [@Translucent Daydream](#): > > If…IF they acutally do, I shudder to think what will be next? Abortions will magically cease to happen anywhere. No one will ever be raped, birth control will never fail, and men will never run out on newly-pregnant women who have no means of supporting a child on their own. Fetuses will never have severe birth defects that would cause them to die immediately before or immediately after birth, and giving birth will never cause devastating but not-immediately-fatal health complications for the mother, like kidney damage or hysterectomies. And most importantly, in cases where the lack of an abortion would be fatal to the mother (say, after a botched illegal abortion which leaves a dead fetus inside the mother’s womb), there will always be a medical professional on hand who knows how to perform an abortion despite it’s being illegal in the vast majority of circumstances. And everyone will have a pony. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/48 "2006-02-23T20:19:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I think if you have a problem with murder, you should do your best not to murder anyone, and leave those that wish to murder alone. You don’t particularly like murder, I assume, but you know you don’t have the right to tell someone else what they are going to do. > > Right? No, and here is the difference. Murder is not a medically accepted proceedure that saved my girlfirend’s mother’s life. Abortion is, however. Murder and abortion are different in my book. Someone’s morality won’t change my mind on the subject, and I don’t expect mine to change another’s. And last I checked, if two 16 year old kids get caught bumpin fuzzies, the boy can’t be arrested and charged as a sex offender. But that is neither here nor there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/49 "2006-02-23T20:24:56Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Okay, just for fun: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > > Where in that text is there any exception for classified information? “No law abridging the freedom of speech” is pretty clear. So, I should be able to stand on a street corner and shout anything I want, right? “Abridging the freedom of speech” refers to prior restraint, not to eliminating any consequences that may flow from that speech. In other words, you’re free to speak. You may get in trouble for what you say. Of course, this is why, even with so simple a rule as “Read the text,” we still need judges. You obviously think “abridging the freedom of speech” means something different than I do. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/50 "2006-02-23T20:28:24Z")
> [@Translucent Daydream](#): > > And last I checked, if two 16 year old kids get caught bumpin fuzzies, the boy can’t be arrested and charged as a sex offender. But that is neither here nor there. Can be and are; a while back, I heard of a case here the boy had to flee to Canada. The girls generally just get counselling, on the other hand. > [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I think if you have a problem with murder, you should do your best not to murder anyone, and leave those that wish to murder alone. You don’t particularly like murder, I assume, but you know you don’t have the right to tell someone else what they are going to do. Murder is a matter of people killing people, not destroying mindless tissue. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/51 "2006-02-23T20:29:29Z")
“case **where** the boy” ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/52 "2006-02-23T20:37:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Abridging the freedom of speech” refers to prior restraint, not to eliminating any consequences that may flow from that speech. In other words, you’re free to speak. You may get in trouble for what you say. 😕 I don’t understand, it sounds like Congress (or the States) could pass a law to punish those that criticize Bush. I am still free to say that Bush is an idiot, but I will get in trouble for doing so. Have I correctly grasped what you are saying? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/53 "2006-02-23T20:40:02Z")
> [@Translucent Daydream](#): > > No, and here is the difference. Murder is not a medically accepted proceedure that saved my girlfirend’s mother’s life. Abortion is, however. > > Murder and abortion are different in my book. Someone’s morality won’t change my mind on the subject, and I don’t expect mine to change another’s. Sure. And that’s a principled distinction to draw between abortion and murder, and a very reasonable argument for why abortion should be permitted. “Don’t get one if you don’t want one, and leave everyone who does want one alone,” however, is NOT a cogent argument. > [@](#): > > And last I checked, if two 16 year old kids get caught bumpin fuzzies, the boy can’t be arrested and charged as a sex offender. But that is neither here nor there. Really? Where did you check, the last time you checked? Did you check Illinois’ criminal code? (720 ILCS 5/11‑9.1) Sec. 11‑9.1 forbids “Sexual exploitation of a child:” > [@](#): > > (a) Any person commits sexual exploitation of a child if in the presence of a child and with intent or knowledge that a child would view his or her acts, that person: > (1) engages in a sexual act; or > (2) exposes his or her sex organs, anus or breast > for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of such person or the child. > . > . > . > “Child” means a person under 17 years of age. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/54 "2006-02-23T20:42:20Z")
> [@Translucent Daydream](#): > > No, and here is the difference. Murder is not a medically accepted proceedure that saved my girlfirend’s mother’s life. Abortion is, however. Even in this draconian SD law, an exception is made for cases when the life of the mother is in danger. > [@](#): > > Murder and abortion are different in my book. Someone’s morality won’t change my mind on the subject, and I don’t expect mine to change another’s. But that argument can just be turned back on you, as it is now being done in SD. > [@](#): > > And last I checked, if two 16 year old kids get caught bumpin fuzzies, the boy can’t be arrested and charged as a sex offender. But that is neither here nor there. This varies by state, so I don’t think you can generalize. Maybe \*\*Bricker \*\*can give us a cite of which states still have laws on the books covering this scenario. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/55 "2006-02-23T20:46:54Z")
> [@treis](#): > > 😕 I don’t understand, it sounds like Congress (or the States) could pass a law to punish those that criticize Bush. Probably not. OTOH, the Alien and Sedition Acts never were ruled unconstitutional . . . ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/56 "2006-02-23T20:49:22Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Murder is a matter of people killing people, not destroying mindless tissue. But what if I don’t accept that “mindless tissue” is a sufficient distinction to permit destruction? I contend that a developing baby is worthy of more legal protection than generic “mindless tissue.” Why am I definitively, factually, objectively wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/57 "2006-02-23T20:54:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Even in this draconian SD law, an exception is made for cases when the life of the mother is in danger. She was given trying to conceive and when it happened, it was an entopic\* pregnancy. The baby would never carry to term and would kill her. It gets gray here. Her doctor told her she could either have an abortion or she could have a hysterectomy. She chose the abortion so she could try again later. Would the abortion have been medically necessary in this situation? She could have had the hysterectomy. That would have saved her life as well, but she wouldn’t be able to have children, which was why she was pregnant in the first place. \*something like that. I butchered the spelling/actually-what-is I am sure. It has been a few years and we don’t tend to sit around and talk about the abortion. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/58 "2006-02-23T20:58:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Probably not. OTOH, the Alien and Sedition Acts never were ruled unconstitutional . . . Whats the difference between that law, and what **Zakalwe** said? > [@Translucent Daydream](#): > > entopic ectopic pregnancy. Its when the fertilized egg implants somewhere outside the uterus, typically in the fallopian tubes. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/59 "2006-02-23T20:58:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But what if I don’t accept that “mindless tissue” is a sufficient distinction to permit destruction? I contend that a developing baby is worthy of more legal protection than generic “mindless tissue.” Why am I definitively, factually, objectively wrong? I don’t think you are wrong. I think that decision is a matter of personal choice and I don’t think I am going to let someone make those decisions for me. Thats why I am pro choice. You make a choice to feel the way you do. I make a choice to feel like I do. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/60 "2006-02-23T21:09:20Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Whats the difference between that law, and what **Zakalwe** said? Nothing. However, they expired in 1800. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien\_and\_sedition\_acts:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_acts:) > [@](#): > > Although the Supreme Court never ruled on the validity of any of the Alien and Sedition acts, subsequent mentions of the Sedition Act in particular in Supreme Court opinions have assumed that it was unconstitutional. For example in the seminal Free Speech case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court declared, “Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.” 376 U.S. 254, 276 (1964). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712.md?page=4)