[The Grim Reefer]

South Dakota (or is that Dakoduh) has just passed a law to outlaw most all abortions. It is an abvious attempt to get Roe v wade back in front of the US supreme court. I think the right to lifers over estimated their support on the high court, they get 4 votes at best. I just dred having to listen to the feminazis and the hollyer than thou crowds go at each other for a year or two.

[schrocat]

what's a feminazi exactly?

[The Grim Reefer]

Originally Posted by schrocat

what's a feminazi exactly?

The radical feminist movement that lives and breaths over the single issue of abortion.

[schrocat]

so if a woman is pro choice, and it's a priority to her...she's a feminazi?

I'm just wondering.

I never did get the nazi part.

[schrocat]

Grim...

gimme a link to the story if you get a sec.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by The Grim Reefer

I just dred having to listen to the feminazis and the hollyer than thou crowds go at each other for a year or two.

I guess you meant to say that you dread having to listen to the feminazis and the holier-than-thou crowds. Hollyer than thou crowds deal in Christmas wreaths.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

what's a feminazi exactly?

It's a word coined by Rush Limbaugh to describe any woman who doesn't share his view that all uteri are state property.

P.S. -- I see where Daryn Kagan has chosen not to become the future fourth ex-Mrs. Limbaugh. They're history!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

Grim...

gimme a link to the story if you get a sec.

This popped up a while back -- at least a week ago. I agree, I don't think they have the votes on the Court yet to overturn Roe.

It seems that the anti-choice people have been waiting for Alito to be confirmed in the belief that the Supreme Court will then be inclined to overturn Roe. First they need a case to go before the Court. They have been planning this for years and several states were lined up as potential candidates for a test case. I guess South Dakota won.

They deliberately wrote the law without the Supreme Court mandated exceptions knowing that it would be challenged immediately and eventually end up before the Supreme Court. They expect Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy to rule that this issue should be decided by the individual states, thus overturning Roe. I have no idea why they think Kennedy will join in on any such decision and I'm not yet sure that Roberts will either. That would leave them with a 6-3 decision against.

They intend to argue that Roe v. Wade is a violation of states' rights. I don't think they will succeed. Even if they prevail, it wouldn't make abortions illegal nationwide, just give each individual state the right to set it's own abortion laws. Talk about a mess!

There are a lot of issues that will swing in the opposite direction now that Alito is on the Court but this isn't one of them. And even those issues where O'Connor would have been the swing vote in the past, I'm not sure that Kennedy may not move more to the middle now that O'Connor is gone. Note that I say "middle" rather than left because I consider him to be right of center. Pat Robertson would have us believe that only Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist were not extreme liberals on the Rehnquist court.

[Poseidon]

Some folks think this issue could be inflammatory enough to actually start a civil war. I think those folks are desperate to get their AGENDA media air time.

I guess SD is as good as a place as any to start a bunch of crap!

[Ninong]

It's a divisive issue. It's not something that would result in a civil war.

Down here in southeast Louisiana, about 75% of the people favor overturning Roe v. Wade. The statewide number is closer to 65% in favor of overturning Roe.

When I lived in San Francisco, more than 80% of the people there support Roe just the way it is. Statewide support for Roe in California is about 65%.

Nationally the majority of Americans do NOT support overturning Roe. Pushing this issue could result in major future problems for the GOP.

[The Grim Reefer]

Originally Posted by Ninong

It's a word coined by Rush Limbaugh to describe any woman who doesn't share his view that all uteri are state property.

P.S. -- I see where Daryn Kagan has chosen not to become the future fourth ex-Mrs. Limbaugh. They're history!

Limbaugh actually stole it from a clown named Wally George who had a show on public access TV in so cal like a million years ago. He was like a right wing version of Jerry Springer.

[schrocat]

I find it hard to believe that anti medical privacy people would stop at their state borders.

Nor would they stop with anti medical privacy issues.

Just a hunch.

[The Grim Reefer]

Originally Posted by schrocat

so if a woman is pro choice, and it's a priority to her...she's a feminazi?

I'm just wondering.

I never did get the nazi part.

Watch some of the NARAL people go off and you will or should understand. Those people push it so hard that it seems like they think having an abortion is a right of passage for a woman. I am personally against abortion but think it should be legal but also think Roe v Wade should be overturned. Go figure.

[schrocat]

Rush says: "a feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed"

I never met anyone in my life who held "seeing to it as many abortions as possible be performed" as their biggest priority...but they must be out there, Rush wouldn't exagerate.

I'll have to keep a look-out.

[The Grim Reefer]

Originally Posted by schrocat

I find it hard to believe that anti medical privacy people would stop at their state borders.

Nor would they stop with anti medical privacy issues.

Just a hunch.

Anti medical privacy people? The only absolute medical privacy only applies to abortion. That is my problem with the Roe v. Wade decision. My right to privacy doesn't allow me to grow a little "herb" on my own land and smoke it in my livingroom. I can't marry 3 women and if I deposit or withdraw a large sum of money in my bank account the government is notified. Where's my right to privacy? Then you have these nutjob judges that rule a girls right to privacy is violated if her parents are even told she's had an abortion. Of course the parents have to consent to her having any other non emergency medical procedure or even getting a peircing or tattoo in many states.

[The Grim Reefer]

Originally Posted by schrocat

Rush says: "a feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed"

I never met anyone in my life who held "seeing to it as many abortions as possible be performed" as their biggest priority...but they must be out there, Rush wouldn't exagerate.

I'll have to keep a look-out.

Limbaugh exagerate, say it aint so. I first heard Rush back in the early days when my Democrat cousin used to listen to him while running his daily delivery route in So Cal when Limbaugh was just starting out. He was pretty entertaining back then before he developed the ego.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by The Grim Reefer

Anti medical privacy people? The only absolute medical privacy only applies to abortion. That is my problem with the Roe v. Wade decision. My right to privacy doesn't allow me to grow a little "herb" on my own land and smoke it in my livingroom. I can't marry 3 women and if I deposit or withdraw a large sum of money in my bank account the government is notified. Where's my right to privacy? Then you have these nutjob judges that rule a girls right to privacy is violated if her parents are even told she's had an abortion. Of course the parents have to consent to her having any other non emergency medical procedure or even getting a peircing or tattoo in many states.

Yes, anti medical privacy people.
"What happens here stays here" should be applicable to a doctors office as well as Las Vegas.
It's none of my business.
Nor is it the business of the foamy congregation de jour.

Sorry about your marijuana delima, have you considered starting a church? You could roll your first sacred j with the most recent Supreme Court decision.

[The Grim Reefer]

Church of the devine bong I actually only tried pot a couple times when I was a kid and didn't like it. I do think it should be legal but that is another argument.

There are many medical precedures and drugs the government has banned. A doctor is required by law to notify the authorities of gun shot or abuse cases so the what goes on here stays here dog wont hunt.

On another related topic I see where a doctor determining a death row inmate is uncontious (sp?) before the lethal injection is made (lest the poor murderer feels any pain) could lose their license for violating their oath but sucking the brains out of a partially born infant is OK. Bizarre.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by The Grim Reefer

A doctor is required by law to notify the authorities of gun shot or abuse cases so the what goes on here stays here dog wont hunt.

Good grief.
Those situations are already covered and provided for.
They wouldn't change.

[The Grim Reefer]

Originally Posted by schrocat

Good grief.
Those situations are already covered and provided for.
They wouldn't change.

But that is my point. If a woman has an absolute right to privacy if she wants to end the life of her fetus wouldn't that same right to privacy extend to someone who has been shot, abused or overdosed on drugs?