# 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:** 7
**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 24, 2006, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/121 "2006-02-24T20:00:12Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Its funny you bring up Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of the “Ginsburg Precedent,” as an example. Its my understanding that she was the first to refuse to answer questions about specific legal points. The questions she refused to answer were generally from Republicans on such topics as women’s rights, gay rights, and yes, abortion. No different from what the Democrats did to Roberts and Alito. And how many Republicans voted against her because of this? She didn’t need to state her views on _Roe_. Those veiws were well known. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/122 "2006-02-24T20:04:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m saying that what has largely poisoned the process is the insistence of many Democrats that the \*Roe \*orthodoxy be upheld at all cost. Orthodoxy? That’s all the _settled law_ of the land means to you? Just some manifestation of a political creed? That opposition to the law has the sounder basis, so much so that it’s barely an ideology at all? > [@](#): > > I’ve not seen the Republicans push the anti-\*Roe \*position to anywhere near that extent. If they had, RBG would’ve been rejected out of hand. The anti-Roe position is the activist, ideologically-driven one, seeking to overturn the long-settled law of the land, against precedent and for that matter against public will. Yet its defenders are the ideologues. Contrary to your remarkable assertion, if the Democrats had pushed the defend-the-law position nearly as much as the anti-abortion zealots had pushed their activism, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would have been rejected out of hand. [quote=Please show me where I’ve ever said otherwise.[/quote] Right in the post I was responding to. > [@](#): > > Well, you’d be wrong. Well, that settles _that_, then. > [@](#): > > This has been a largely civil debate up until this point. It was, right up until you starting irresponsibly throwing around words like “rigid orthodoxy”, “hypocritical”, and “disingenuous”. Now clean up your act, please. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/123 "2006-02-24T20:07:35Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And how many Republicans voted against her because of this? She didn’t need to state her views on _Roe_. Those veiws were well known. The point is that Republicans asked about abortion as much as Democrats did with Roberts and Alito. As to how many Republicans voted against her, I believe it was three. I am not entirely sure why more didn’t, but I doubt it was due to respect of the President’s perogative in nominating Justices. Afterall, it was the Republicans that started, or at least greatly increased the prevelence, of refusing to vote on Judicial nominees. ---
**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 24, 2006, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/124 "2006-02-24T20:58:55Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I guess it depends on what you call a “narrow spectrum of thought”. Voting against a judicial nominee simply because they would vote against a specific case is troubling, but finding out that that nominee rejects “substantive due process” and the precedential value of those cases would be valid. Unfortunately, for good or ill, Roe has become the touchstone for determining a judge’s view fo the Constitution. Is there any reason they can’t just ask about substantive due process directly? Would a nominee reasonably be able to say he couldn’t answer in the way he could when asked about specific cases? I can’t see that \*Roe \*is a good proxy for substantive due process, since you yourself admit it was poorly decided. I don’t think that’s what Feinstein et al have in mind when they use that as a litmus test-- I think they can’t accept that any other view regarding \*Roe \*is valid. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/125 "2006-02-24T22:04:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I find the pro-choice vs pro-life numbers to be a better gauge. Too many people think abortion would illegal if \*Roe \*were overturned and they don’t realize that it would just return the issue to the states where, in most instances, it would remain legal. I’m not sure it really affects the ongoing debate, but I wish I could be so sanguine. If this Supreme Court overturned _Roe_, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the GOP-controlled Congress at least try to pass a law outlawing abortion nationally. And if they succeeded, I think they’d be one vote away from getting a Supreme Court that would uphold such a law. ---
**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 24, 2006, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/126 "2006-02-24T22:16:56Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’m not sure it really affects the ongoing debate, but I wish I could be so sanguine. If this Supreme Court overturned _Roe_, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the GOP-controlled Congress at least try to pass a law outlawing abortion nationally. And if they succeeded, I think they’d be one vote away from getting a Supreme Court that would uphold such a law. I haven’t done the math, but aren’t there enough pro-choice Repblicans to prevent that from happening? But let’s say it did happen. How long do you think the GOP would maintain control of Congress? A significant majority of Americans want abortion to be legal in the 1st trimester. But right now that doesn’t get refelcted in Congress, because abortion law is determined largely in the realm of the judiciary. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/127 "2006-02-24T23:23:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I haven’t done the math, but aren’t there enough pro-choice Repblicans to prevent that from happening? I’m just waiting for a pro-choice Republican to vote pro-choice when it counts - like the cloture vote on Alito. > [@](#): > > But let’s say it did happen. How long do you think the GOP would maintain control of Congress? A significant majority of Americans want abortion to be legal in the 1st trimester. But right now that doesn’t get refelcted in Congress, because abortion law is determined largely in the realm of the judiciary. I keep on thinking that if the GOP does something bad enough, then people will _have_ to vote for the Dems, no matter how lukewarm and wishywashy they may be. I keep on being disappointed. You may be right, but I’d be most reluctant to stake the future of abortion rights on it. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/128 "2006-02-25T12:34:26Z")
The thing that amazes me about many people who call them selves pro-life are the first to vote for some one who tells them they are lowering taxes by cutting out social services for the poor. Most that I know do not mind the fact that many unborn, born, women and innocent men die when we go to war. They say war is justified and innocent people die, but it is an unintended death. How can there be a war without innocents dying or being maimed? We know when we go to war there is a great possibility of that happening. I just heard it takes $48,000.00 to raise a child to adulthood. Are any of the pro life people willing to go without anything to help those families,or raise the chid them selves ? I believe there are many pro choice people who are pro-life of the already born. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/129 "2006-02-25T13:21:04Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I agree that a judge who finds that Bricker has a Constitutional right to rubdowns from Helen Hunt would be wrong. I may be a whore, but I’ll promise to support SDP, penumbras, and emanations til the day I die if I actually got the Constitutional right mentioned above. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/130 "2006-02-25T15:31:55Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I just heard it takes $48,000.00 to raise a child to adulthood. $48K? That’s so cute! I’m pretty sure I’ve spent more than that, and my kid is perfectly healthy and normal and only fourteen. I can’t imagine how much harder it is for people whose children have special needs of any kind. Seriously, though… it does seem that an awful lot of people who want to ban abortion also want to decimate welfare, eliminate subsidized child care, and generally make it as difficult as possible for a woman to support her child. I can only assume that these people are sad that they missed the golden age of the orphanages. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/131 "2006-02-25T16:22:32Z")
> [@Gladstone](#): > > Perhaps the five justices deciding is the best solution for now. From a larger policy standpoint, one of the worst things that could happen is to create a permanently-aggrieved segment of the population who may commonly resort to unlawful means to achieve their goals. If abortion was nationally outlawed or declared protected and legal through a Congressional act, this would create such a permanent aggrievement. On the other hand, as administrations come and go, so will justices and their decision regarding the constitutionality of abortion may change to fit the dominant popular opinion (without ruling out further changes down the road). I’m certain that the Emancipation Proclamation created such aggrievements. Most of them got over it. > [@](#): > > Ultimately, if each state were to decide the legality of abortion themselves, citizens of a state wanting an abortion would be forced to travel to states where abortion was legal. This would put them into the stream of interstate commerce, and thus the ambit of Congressional authority. I’m guessing that something would be worked out. People currently drive accross state lines to procure alcohol and other services, including the services of a prositute in Nevada, with little concern. > [@](#): > > Most abortion opponents seem to reject abortion because of vague or specific religious concerns. Probably true. However, to many it is not a religious issue. The central question[s] will always be: “When does [human] life begin?” and, “Is there a circumstance where there isn’t equal protection under the Law?” I would add that on both sides of this, brilliance, rank stupidity,vagueness and specificity appear to be equally distributed. > [@](#): > > They wouldn’t be satisfied with a states’ rights solution and would instead push for abortion to be banned entirely, everywhere. This interstate commerce resulting from a state’s ability to ban abortion within the state would give Congress the necessary pretext to further regulate, if not outright ban, interstate commerce involving abortion (assuming it could be more narrowly tailored than my description). I really doubt your premise. I’m hard pressed to believe a scenario that would allow a woman getting a [legal] abortion in NY to be prosecuted when she gets back home to ND. IANAL, but I think you’re building a straw man. I agree with your premise however—those who are pro-life would see Roe overturned, at best, as a partial victory. I think many might actually see it as a loss----that it is much harder to fight the issue state by state, and impossible in states like NY and Cal. I think they may actually be frightened by thr conclusion that, in the end, it is just a matter or state’s rights. Fighting one battle is hard enough—Fifty battles are unwinnable. Rather than an issue of states rights, they’d rather see the [legal] conclusion drawn that life begins at conception and those embryos are humans, and should be protected under the law, ergo banned entirely. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/132 "2006-02-25T16:31:45Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > …Seriously, though… it does seem that an awful lot of people who want to ban abortion also want to decimate welfare, eliminate subsidized child care, and generally make it as difficult as possible for a woman to support her child. I can only assume that these people are sad that they missed the golden age of the orphanages. I have no dog in this fight, but it is no more legitimate to characterize those who are pro-life as heartless, anti-child, anti-woman, and evil than it is for the pro-life crowd to characterize the pro-choice crowd as irresponsible, morally bankrupt, unrestrained, and evil. It sure is fun though! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Gladstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90db22/32.png) [@Gladstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gladstone)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/133 "2006-02-25T17:30:43Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > I’m certain that the Emancipation Proclamation created such aggrievements. Most of them got over it. It took a civil war (i.e. a military solution) to resolve that crisis. I’m not sure the abortion to slavery analogy is anything less than a complete worst case scenario. > [@](#): > > Probably true. However, to many it is not a religious issue. The central question[s] will always be: “When does [human] life begin?” and, “Is there a circumstance where there isn’t equal protection under the Law?” But the motive for anti-abortion advocates for even asking that second question is a religious belief that life begins at conception and that this life must be protected. > [@](#): > > I really doubt your premise. I’m hard pressed to believe a scenario that would allow a woman getting a [legal] abortion in NY to be prosecuted when she gets back home to ND. IANAL, but I think you’re building a straw man. > > Rather than an issue of states rights, they’d rather see the [legal] conclusion drawn that life begins at conception and those embryos are humans, and should be protected under the law, ergo banned entirely. The second paragraph was the scenario I was speculating about, not that a citizen of a state would be prosecuted in their home state for receiving an abortion elsewhere. A woman driving/flying between states to receive a legal abortion in another state would place her in interstate commerce, and thus under the power and authority of Congress. This would allow Congress to ban abortion either completely or merely restrict it to citizens of states where abortion is already legal. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/134 "2006-02-25T18:00:10Z")
> [@Gladstone](#): > > It took a civil war (i.e. a military solution) to resolve that crisis. I’m not sure the abortion to slavery analogy is anything less than a complete worst case scenario. Hopefully, there will be no civil wars. Still, as difficult as the transition could/would be, we’d get through it. We did alright before Roe; we’d survive without it. > [@](#): > > But the motive for anti-abortion advocates for even asking that second question is a religious belief that life begins at conception and that this life must be protected. This is not [entirely] true. The question as to whether a fetus is a human being is not just a religious question. It is a medical question, it is an intellectual question, it is a science question, it is a cultural question, it is a political question, it is a moral question and ultimately it is a legal question. Scott Peterson was convicted in _secular_ environment for killing what was deemed to be an unborn child. > [@](#): > > The second paragraph was the scenario I was speculating about, not that a citizen of a state would be prosecuted in their home state for receiving an abortion elsewhere. A woman driving/flying between states to receive a legal abortion in another state would place her in interstate commerce, and thus under the power and authority of Congress. This would allow Congress to ban abortion either completely or merely restrict it to citizens of states where abortion is already legal. I don’t think so, but that remains to be seen if SD is successful. The woman is not practicicing interstate commerce best as I can tell. She’s a consumer. You trying to tell me that the men who visist the Bunny Ranch in Nevada to procure the services of a prositute can/are prosecuted when they go back home? I don’t see your fear seeing the light of day. ---
**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 25, 2006, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/135 "2006-02-25T18:42:58Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > I have no dog in this fight, but it is no more legitimate to characterize those who are pro-life as heartless, anti-child, anti-woman, and evil than it is for the pro-life crowd to characterize the pro-choice crowd as irresponsible, morally bankrupt, unrestrained, and evil. Unless they are those things, and it sure looks like it to me. > [@the raindog](#): > > We did alright before Roe; we’d survive without it. Some of will, some of us won’t. Consider a pregnant woman who dies because she can’t get medical care, because the hospital is terrified that if she miscarries they be shut down for “abortion”; she might disagree that things are “all right”. And no, it’s not a straw man; I understand it’s fairly common in Third World hospital dependent on American aid. > [@](#): > > This is not [entirely] true. The question as to whether a fetus is a human being is not just a religious question. It is a medical question, it is an intellectual question, it is a science question, it is a cultural question, it is a political question, it is a moral question and ultimately it is a legal question. Perhaps, but it’s not a very _hard_ question. Claiming that a fetus is a person not only leads to silly conclusions like claiming that tumors and the brain dead are legally human, it fundamentally denigrates humanity. A fetus is just a lump of mindless flesh; if you define it as a person, you proclaim that walking, talking people are no more important than so many lumps of flesh. Which is precisely the attitude that anti-abortion people seem to have towards the rest of us, in my experience. > [@](#): > > Scott Peterson was convicted in secular environment for killing what was deemed to be an unborn child . Which was nothing but an attempt to chip away at abortion rights IMHO; no different than that judge who wears robes with the 10 Commandments on them. > [@](#): > > You trying to tell me that the men who visist the Bunny Ranch in Nevada to procure the services of a prositute can/are prosecuted when they go back home? How often are men prosecuted at all for visiting a prostitute, and where is it regarded as murder ? Even if your analogy holds, I can see a state doing what some areas have done with the customers of prostitutes; publish the photo and name of the “criminal”, possibly with an address. Then they can sit back while the anti abortionists harrass, assault or kill her. ---
**Author:** ![Gladstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90db22/32.png) [@Gladstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gladstone)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/136 "2006-02-25T19:45:20Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > Hopefully, there will be no civil wars. Still, as difficult as the transition could/would be, we’d get through it. We did alright before Roe; we’d survive without it. Survival isn’t the question (err, aside from the status of the fetus). My original point in saying that perhaps it is best to let the Supreme Court decide the issue is that they have the ability to change their minds much easier than a legislative act by Congress. Even if the Court does change its mind, it can always change it back when a new administration and new members of the Court come in. > [@](#): > > This is not [entirely] true. The question as to whether a fetus is a human being is not just a religious question. It is a medical question, it is an intellectual question, it is a science question, it is a cultural question, it is a political question, it is a moral question and ultimately it is a legal question. When life begins is both a medical and a religious question. In the absence of any clear answer from the medical community, however, it becomes a religious/moral question. > [@](#): > > I don’t think so, but that remains to be seen if SD is successful. The woman is not practicicing interstate commerce best as I can tell. She’s a consumer. You trying to tell me that the men who visist the Bunny Ranch in Nevada to procure the services of a prositute can/are prosecuted when they go back home? I don’t see your fear seeing the light of day. The Supreme Court has been extremely broad in defining Congress’ Commerce Clause powers. Currently, Congress can regulate: ``` 1) the channels of commerce (roads, rivers, etc.), 2) the instrumentalities of commerce (cars, trains, trucks, boats, etc.), and 3) action that substantially affects interstate commerce ``` United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) It is this third category where Congress gets a good deal of its power. For instance, the SC has ruled that Congress can regulate restaurants which get a substantial amount of their supplies by interstate transactions (Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)), hotels catering to interstate guests (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U. S. , 379 U.S. 241 (1964)), and even a farmer who grows some wheat for their own personal consumption (since by growing it, the farmer is not buying the wheat from interstate producers) (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)). While the Rehnquist Court limited this power slightly (in Lopez) for the first time since the New Deal, the Commerce Clause powers are still extremely broad. It would be hard to believe that driving or flying out-of-state, thus purchasing a plane ticket or paying for gas, and then paying for an abortion and other medical expenses in a different state would NOT be seen as something that substantially affects interstate commerce. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/137 "2006-02-26T01:50:33Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > > [@DianaG](#): > > > > …Seriously, though… it does seem that an awful lot of people who want to ban abortion also want to decimate welfare, eliminate subsidized child care, and generally make it as difficult as possible for a woman to support her child. I can only assume that these people are sad that they missed the golden age of the orphanages. > > I have no dog in this fight, but it is no more legitimate to characterize those who are pro-life as heartless, anti-child, anti-woman, and evil than it is for the pro-life crowd to characterize the pro-choice crowd as irresponsible, morally bankrupt, unrestrained, and evil. > > It sure is fun though! :rolleyes: It’s fun to fling poo, but there’s no denying that pro-life legislators, by and large, have voted against welfare programs and subsidized child care when the opportunity has arisen. Perhaps **DianaG** ’s characterization that they missed the golden age of the orphanages was off-base, except I remember Newt Gingrich making a big deal, ca. 1995, about how they were great and should be brought back. Feel free to provide evidence for the pro-choice crowd’s irresponsibility and moral bankruptcy. ---
**Author:** ![Mince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mince)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/138 "2006-02-26T03:58:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, what does “self-government” mean? Is it not our expression of common will through the legislative process by our elected lawmakers ? This is a beautiful freshman civics texbook definition. It’ll get you an “A” on your first test and not much more. ---
**Author:** ![Mince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Mince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mince)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/139 "2006-02-26T04:21:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Yeah, I’m sure the intent of the legislators in constructing this statute was to criminally prosecute all children under 17 who have sex…or make out. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/140 "2006-02-26T16:24:38Z")
> [@Mince](#): > > This is a beautiful freshman civics texbook definition. It’ll get you an “A” on your first test and not much more. And in what way is this a rebuttal of the point? > [@Mince](#): > > Yeah, I’m sure the intent of the legislators in constructing this statute was to criminally prosecute all children under 17 who have sex…or make out. And in what way is this a rebuttal of the point? [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=6) [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=8)