Now, abortion ban proponents have launched a website to raise money and recruit volunteers to circulate petitions for a personhood amendment in South Dakota. Personhood amendments are even more rigid and restrictive than either of the abortion ban proposals in 2006 and 2008.
The alert points to this not so impressive website which seems to be associated with the national organization Personhood USA and the domain is registered to Keith Mason, Personhood USA, Arvada, Colorado. No sign if anyone from South Dakota is actually involved.
I honestly don't think a personhood amendment could pass here in a million years but I would hate to see any money, time, or energy expended on defeating it. Most of all, though, I would hate to see the rhetoric that would develop around the personhood issue, because it's totally irrelevant. I am not pro-choice because I don't think a fetus is a person. Person isn't exactly a medical term and it's been thrown around in some pretty questionable ways during the history of our country. I'm pro-choice because I believe in a woman's right to her bodily autonomy. It really doesn't matter whether what's inside her body is a person or not -- it's inside HER body.
The whole personhood discussion has so many problems and holes; I can already imagine the gigantic waste of time that such a measure would cause. Inevitably, it would lead to some pretty cringe-worthy biological claims from both sides and a whole lot of ignoring the real issue: the rights of women.
9 comments:
Well if it does go to a vote, I might just have a job again after all.
I also rec'd this email and laughed hysterically. Where's the logic that a Personhood amendment could pass in SD? First the anti's try to ban abortion entirely, that failed so they tried to be "reasonable" and put in so-called exceptions that "the people of SD ASKED FOR" (LOL), that failed, so of course, let's try personhood! Let's outlaw birth control entirely! Brillant idea! Honestly, how deranged are these people?
Mikey, yes you would have a job, and maybe I would have a job, it would be great fun to kick their asses for a third time, but think of all the wasted money.
Personhood amendments do more than outlaw birth control (as if that's not bad enough). Pretty much makes it impossible for pregnant women to have any rights, period. Lynn Paltrow at the National Advocates for Pregnant Women has a great column about it.
This post made me laugh. Keep guessing.
The fact that your info here came from the Campaign for UNHealthy Families should be your first clue it isn't true. Have they ever cranked out anything but lies?
Think about it - we already have a law in SD and a high court ruling that says conception produces a person - a living human being. Remember that - 1166? If you'll recall, Planned Parenthood was able to provide NO EVIDENCE contrary to the scientific fact that abortion kills PEOPLE. Sounds like we already won the personhood battle in SD.
It's remarkable that you admit you don't care if it is a person, you'd still kill it. Really there aren't words for that kind of callous and selfish depravity except perhaps, beastly.
Maybe you can have a smarter friend explain to you what a preliminary injunction is, Steve.
We all know your preliminary injunction was vacated by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Did you miss the part where I reminded you Planned Parenthood produced NO evidence for the court. Good luck on that appeal. I hope they do appeal it so this goes to the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure Planned Parenthood won't be appealing it for that reason.
I just love hearing this part over and over again.... they were able to produce NO evidence.
How could they, it's obvious stuff (at least for those who aren't ideologically bound by the philosophies of death.)
A person's a person no matter how small. (Horton Hears a Who - Dr. Suess)
When you grow up and have kids yourself, how will you spin that part of the story? Maybe Obama will ban that book by then and you won't have to worry about it.
Seriously Steve, you need to make a lawyer friend. There has been no appeal on the preliminary injunction and there won't be. The case has not been decided and it certainly can't be appealed until it's decided. That's how these things work.
Kelsey -
I noticed you avoided Voices Carry's comment on how you do not care if the child is living or not.
How would you describe your faith?
1) - Atheist
2) - Agnostic
3) - Heathenism
4) - Mystic Gnosticism
5) - Other (cannot be Christian or Judaism with your harsh view on Life).
Please enlighten us, Oh Great Mystic Law Student
Kelsey -
Do you guys play a game of "Puff Puff Pass" before you decide what to blog on?
Post a Comment