Great. Now I guess Louisiana women have to look forward to not only dying from botched back-alley abortions, but tubal pregnancies as well. Not to mention the risk of carrying an encephalitic baby to term.

If they're going to change the language of the bill, I wish they would change it to accurately reflect the status of a women within it: woman=incubator.

As someone who grew up in Louisiana, I find this outrageous but not all that surprising... Louisiana politics are insane and I don't even pretend to understand how what goes on down there happens.

Either way, this is a bad bad bad idea. On good days I can sort of start to understand the other point of view on this issue, and respect it, but I just cannot wrap my mind around why anyone would ever ban having an abortion to SAVE a LIFE. aaaaugh.

Well, its interesting in that it is democracy in action. In 73 most pro-choicers thought the whole thing would blow over. People get mad when you impose things on them however. Even more so when its such a fundemental issue to humanity.

One thinks she's just trying to make a point to the Supreme Court.Thats what this is all about & its were it will end up.

"People get mad when you impose things on them however. "

You mean, like, pregnancy? I mean that has to be what you're talking about - I don't recall the decision in Roe V. Wade meaning that every pregnant woman had to have an abortion.

What fucking cowards, to literally demand the lives of others to please their own Gods.

Chet: prior to 1973 and the Roe decision abortion was only legal in New York and Vermont. In the other 48 States it was legislatively against the law under the States police powers. The Roe decision essentially federalized the matter and made State law eliminating or limiting abortion impossible without Supreme Court review.

So, yes you are correct when you state I don't recall the decision in Roe V. Wade meaning that every pregnant woman had to have an abortion. Roe essentially made it a individual right’s issue, negating the possibility of democratic action. Through this actions they disenfranchised the citizens ability to effect their own laws. Hence the anger.

It's important to note that the bill's sponsor is a Democrat.
Also, the bill won't go into effect unless Roe v. Wade is overturned. Still, NARAL gives Louisiana an "F" for reproductive rights.

It's important to note...the bill won't go into effect unless Roe v. Wade is overturned

Really!!???!

I can't decide if I'm unbelievable angry or stunned by the sheer stupidity of this. I've been waiting for this to come up since our Legislative session started. I figured there wouldn't be much fuss of this bill since, well, this is Louisiana. Unfortunately, our politicians aren't known for their intelligence. But when Bajoie said she wanted to strip the provision for the life of the woman...and called it more pro-life that way, I just....I was sitting at my desk at work and I think my head actually exploded. I know I cursed, because everyone around me looked over to see what was wrong. And then they cursed too when I told them. And then it was on our local news at noon and we all pretty much agreed that the rest of the country has just essentially written Louisiana off as a lost cause. Which wouldn't be so bad, except some of us are still stuck here.

What gets me, aside from the obvious, is that this is all political grandstanding. There is absolutely no need for this law. If Roe is ever overturned, La. already has laws on the books that outlaw abortion. They would go into effect immediately. Now, if someone were trying to get those laws repealed (which we should probably do, frankly), I could understand this fuss. But this is all a big gesture, meant to make the sheeple feel better. See, your politicians are doing something! We couldn't do anything about those hurricanes that wiped out half the state. And we can't, you know, do anything about actually rebuilding the state. Or fix the fact that our unemployment rate has just skyrocketed. Or that all your children are unemployed or leaving the state to find work. Or that you have no health insurance. Or that most of you have to work three jobs to pay your bills. Or that you can't pay your electric bills and we're going into yet another insanely hot summer. (90 plus degrees already and it's only April!) But look! We can make it so no more babies die! See! We're doing something!

*sigh* If anyone wants, I've got the email, snail mail and web addresses of the three main Senators involved in this debacle on my blog. Frankly, I think Sen. Bajoie should be pelted for her 'women should die, die, die so little babies can live' deal. But then again, I'm one of those women she thinks so die, so I may be biased.

If anyone would like to use a little reason in understanding the argument, they might make some progress.

This is not about "imposing" pregnancy on anybody... unless you want to play the red herring game and mention rape, which account for less than 1% of abortions. The reality is that men and women choose to have sex, pregnancy is a normal result of that. It would still be a matter of privacy to have an abortion... except for the small matter that it's a human being that is killed.

I'm sure people want to argue against that too, but that's ridiculous. By any biological definition she is a distinct member of our species from the moment of conception. Unless we're ready to let the government decide which members of our species are entitled to protection... she IS entitled to protection.

All seriousness, this is messed, a major injustice for US women again.

Not allowing for rape and incest is just inhumane and fundamentalist. Anyone have any advice how to help?

America has to get god out of government.

Zan & the rest of you Ladies.
Imagine how much agrier you would be if something like this happened but it effected the whole country. And the people who did it couldnt be voted out of office? Why, because they were unelected judges!

Wouldent you be upset?

"*sigh* If anyone wants, I've got the email, snail mail and web addresses of the three main Senators involved in this debacle on my blog. Frankly, I think Sen. Bajoie should be pelted for her 'women should die, die, die so little babies can live' deal. But then again, I'm one of those women she thinks so die, so I may be biased."

Please paste them, I will repaste them on other boards.

Matt, there is a difference between a human being and a potential human being. A fetus has potential to develop into a viable person, but before birth or very near to it, it cannot survive without its mother or extreme medical intervention.

Also, obsession with "life begins at conception" is basically only a Christian point of view, which is one of my big problems with the idea being legislated. Jews do not believe that ensoulment happens until 40 days after the child is born, Muslims do not believe it happens until 100 days.

Fitz, allowing for the right to do something is not forcing anything on anyone, except maybe to live in the world without being an asshole. I'm sorry if you don't want women around you choosing if they remain pregnant, or if you don't want black people drinking from the same water fountain as you, or homosexuals getting the same access to social services as you, but it's not your right to force other people to conform to your religious/superstitious beliefs. Get over it.

Sen. Bajoie is being sarcastic. Votesmart.org shows she has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood.

Neither the Republicans nor this blog and its readers got the joke, apparently.

It's vote-smart.org, but tyronen speaks the truth.

See for yourself.

She also has good track records for civil liberties, civil rights, education, health issues, and labour.

But is she actually being sarcastic? There's nothing in the quote to make that clear, particularly if you're reading it online. Perhaps when she says it should be all or nothing, she means she wants nothing, but wouldn't her fellow Senators be aware of her views on the subject?

Diana Bajoie, I assure you, was being ironic.

Is she being sarcastic? I don't know. I hope so. It doesn't seem to play that way, however. And tyronen, calling it a joke is being far too dismissive of a very serious issue. Because even if she is trying to make a point, if she is simply trying to poison the legislation to the point of failure, with our fubar Legislature it's got a huge change of backfiring. It does have the merit of getting people on the record with how far they're willing to go, but is it worth the cost? I don't just mean the cost to our already tattered reputation, either. Whichever version passes, it's guaranteed to be struck down and appealed multiple times -- because they're both blatantly unconstitutional. For a state that's just suffered the kind of blows we have to waste what little money we've got on a piece of fluff legislation that isn't necessary...it makes me want to go down to Baton Rouge and shake people. We're already seen as America's very own Third World country. We really don't need this.

(On a side note, I posted the email and snail mail addies for the senators involved, but it seems to be stuck in moderation.)

ZAN(On a side note, I posted the email and snail mail addies for the senators involved, but it seems to be stuck in moderation.)

...huh (split post) sorry....

I thought silence was violent. You can bitch on-line but "they" aint gonna hear it.

Strange choice mods?

Bajoie wasn't being sarcastic; she is fighting fire with fire.

This same kind of tactic killed the abortion ban in Mississippi when nothing else could have.

It's possible that nothing will slow down the anti wildfire in Louisiana, but Bajoie's approach has a better chance than any other, for precisely the same reason that pro-choice people find it so outrageous.

Thinking inside the box guarantees that we will stay there. Senator Bajoie is holding the antiabortion mob's feet to the fire of their own making, and I salute her for it.

Hujo,

Please tell me then what is your definition of a human being. Viability? Ok, so once you're attached to a machine in a coma, and dependant on that for your life, you're no longer human? What if there's no major brain damage, and you can be brought out of the coma after a few months and be perfectly healthy? Sound familiar?

If something is not yet human, instead is "potentially human", than it must be something else... what is the else? It's not a different species, and neither is it a part of a mother or father, it's clearly a distinct living entity. No reasonable scientist, or medical person would ever define the fetus as anything but a member of the species at an early stage of development. The suggestion of "a blob of tissue", and "undividual", or a "potential human" is purely political rhetoric and is without basis in science. In common usage that fetus is referred to as a baby from the very day her mother is aware of her existence... unless she doesn't want to keep it...does that really make any sense? A wanted child is a baby, an unwanted child is a blob of tissue?

As far as the religious aspect, I make no such argument among atheists so there's no need to bring it up. But since you did, tell me how Muslims feel about abortion? I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about their beliefs. As far as a supposed Jewish belief in 40 days AFTER birth, since that's clearly not right, it can be rejected out of hand, leaving only one reasonable and scientifically consistent belief... that of Christianity - at conception.

Okay, Matt, you seem to be asking some intelligent questions, so I'll bite.

There is no scientific basis for saying that personhood begins at conception, because at conception the alleged person is just a cluster of DNA. If that qualifies as a person, then I commit mass slaughter every time I exfoliate.

Personhood, as most philosophers would understand it, is based on subjectivity. This suggests that brain development is central to personhood; that without a brain, you are not a person. This is why it's not murder if you pull the plug on someone who is clinically brain-dead and will not recover from a vegetative state. Terri Schiavo died when her brain shut down; everything after that was corpse reanimation, not medicine.

So if I think brain development sufficient as to allow for subjective experience is a prerequisite to personhood, why am I comfortable with the viability standard? Because until viability, the U.S. government is in no position to prove that the fetus is a person. And only proof that the fetus is a person can constitute grounds for overriding the sovereignty of a woman's body, regardless of when life begins.

Speculation is not good enough to justify removing the woman's right to choose. It may well be good enough to convince the woman herself to choose not to have an abortion, but that's really up to her. It's her body, and that means that, except when the government can prove that there's another person whose interests are more directly affected by the decision, she's the one who gets to play philosopher-king.

Cheers,

TH

TH,

So you're basis for protection of Human Rights is not based on objectively being a Human Being, but on a philosophical notion of "personhood"? Your "personhood" requires some form of higher thought, and viability.

You also suggest that in a case of uncertainty over such personhood, the mother's choice trump's the the possibility of making a mistake and killing a "person".

Well this is all very new philosphy, so I'll have to do a little research. Is using this as a definition of personhood based on the intent of the framers of the constitution, or is it someone else's? Can you give me a reference to where I might understand who these "most philosophers" are?

While you suggest the government cannot prove personhood based on your definition, why is that definition binding? Why not my definition which is homo sapiens=personhood?

Also, on the supremacy of authority over one's body, I would assume you extend such a right to include illegal drugs, suicide, etc?

By the way "just a cluster of DNA" is really a specious comment and is neither scientifically true nor of concern to your definition of "personhood". THe biological definition of life quite clear, and skin cells do not qualify, however a zygote does.

MATT
The governor of SD is a practicing catholic.
http://www.state.sd.us/governor/
Governor Rounds is part owner of Fischer, Rounds & Associates Inc., an insurance and real estate agency with offices in Pierre, Mitchell, Rapid City and Brandon. He has previously served as board president of the Oahe YMCA, vice president of the Home and School Association of St. Joseph School, president of the Pierre-Ft. Pierre Exchange Club and exalted ruler of the Pierre Elks Lodge. He is also a member of St. Peter and Paul Catholic Church of Pierre, the Knights of Columbus, and Ducks Unlimited.

I don’t want to get into my entire feelings on the subject of abortion, I think that in a humane society they should be available, it is this same societies responsibility to educate youth about sex and consequences and birth control. Abstinence is a dream it is not ever going to be a reality so sex education needs to be paramount because I feel abortions do happen too often.

For A first world country to ban abortions in cases of rape and incest is the real issue for me. I can’t see this inhumane banning coming out of the realm of secular ideology.

To further victimize these female victims by forcing them to carry a child conceived during a violent traumatic act is horrible. The only logic for this that I can think of would be the fundamentalist argument that, life starts at conception; therefore to kill the “child� would only be further violence because the rape was not the Childs fault.

That’s just it though science and religion are gray in the area of “life� this is why abortions should never be considered casual birth control or why catholic governeres should never ban abortion in cases of rape or incest, we don’t know. We do know that forcing a women to carry a child of rape to term is twisted and inhumane, and this has to have long lasting mental damage to the rape victim.

As far as euthanasia my living will states I am to be unplugged in the case of brain death. Living wills are very important at any age.

Hujo,

Are you saying that someone's religious beliefs can have nothing to do with their moral values and the way they govern as elected officials, even if the people who elected them were fully aware of what those moral values are?

As far as the grey areas, that's just not so, life is very simply and accurately defined by biology. Science concerns itself with facts, and facts show that it is human. You're arguing that it's fundamental right to life is superceded by someone elses right to destroy it.

I'd love to discuss the benefits of abstinence and the evils of contraception, but that's really a separate issue.

Are you saying that someone's religious beliefs can have nothing to do with their moral values and the way they govern as elected officials, even if the people who elected them were fully aware of what those moral values are?
I think moral values are separate from religion. I am a humanist and I have many similar morals to Catholics and Buddhists, yet I believe in no god. But should a governor govern ignoring his religions stance on issue in a religiously diverse state and country. I should hope so.

As far as the grey areas, that's just not so, life is very simply and accurately defined by biology. Science concerns itself with facts, and facts show that it is human. You're arguing that it's fundamental right to life is superceded by someone elses right to destroy it. We use lack of heart beat and brain activity to measure death. So when is a fetus a sentient being?
I'd love to discuss the benefits of abstinence and the evils of contraception, but that's really a separate issue You like science, we are designed to procreate in our early teens, it is a drive as powerful as hunger, good luck with promoting abstinence. And discouraging BC will only lead to more abortions.

P.S. I shouldn’t even be arguing with you on this site, as the owners apparently do not like us smelly males standing up for women’s choice. Good luck.

Matt writes:
So you're basis for protection of Human Rights is not based on objectively being a Human Being,

What the heck is "objectively being a Human Being"?

You also suggest that in a case of uncertainty over such personhood, the mother's choice trump's the the possibility of making a mistake and killing a "person".

No, I'm saying that if the government can't prove murder or manslaughter, it shouldn't prosecute it.

Well this is all very new philosphy,

It's not; it's a debate that predates the ancient Greeks and has become more relevant in the past half-century due to the questions of abortion and euthanasia, but in no wise is it new. It may be new to you because you're accustomed to religious rather than secular argumentation.

While you suggest the government cannot prove personhood based on your definition, why is that definition binding?

It isn't; if it were, elective abortion would be banned at about 18 weeks rather than 24. Neither of us are in a position to prove when personhood takes place. The only available proof of personhood is documented viability.

Also, on the supremacy of authority over one's body, I would assume you extend such a right to include illegal drugs, suicide, etc?

Use of illegal drugs impact other people, so that's really kind of a McGuffin.

But I wasn't aware that suicide was even a criminal offense. How would one go about prosecuting it? Is that what is meant by "consecutive life sentences"?

THe biological definition of life quite clear, and skin cells do not qualify,

Maybe your skin cells aren't alive, but mine certainly are. From the dermal layer down, anyway.

If you're going to use simple life as the definition, then I suppose we should ban tonsillectomies, because tonsils are certainly alive.

hujo writes:
P.S. I shouldn’t even be arguing with you on this site, as the owners apparently do not like us smelly males standing up for women’s choice.

No, I think the owners are more upset about smelly males not standing up for women's choice despite describing themselves as pro-choice.

Cheers,

TH

Wow.. this has become a pretty intense debate.
Difficult to decide with multiple opinions on every side.
I know what we should do!
Lets settle it the American way.
We'll be democratic and vote on it.

As an LSU student and transplant resident from california i cannot believe that they would pass this. Legislating morality is a crime against america. This is a secular country where people are free to make their own choices about what is moral and it sickens me to think this evangelical idea will be forced upon us.