"Losses on Ballot Measures Jolt Religious" Bwahahahaha!

[in_cog_ni_to]

Do they HEAR US YET?? How long will it take for these freaks to leave us the hell alone? Why don't they just buy a plot of land somewhere and live amongst themselves and stop trying to shove THEIR beliefs down OUR THROATS? How many more years will they continue to preach their crap that NO ONE wants to hear?


Losses on Ballot Measures Jolt Religious
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer


Donn Rubin, chairman of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving ...
From the country's heartland, voters sent messages that altered America's culture wars and dismayed the religious right _ defending abortion rights in South Dakota, endorsing stem cell research in Missouri, and, in a national first, rejecting a same-sex marriage ban in Arizona.

Conservative leaders were jolted by the setbacks and looked for an explanation Wednesday. Gay-rights and abortion-rights activists celebrated. The verdict on abortion rights was particularly clear. Oregon and California voters defeated measures that would have required parents to be notified before a girl under 18 could get an abortion, and South Dakotans _ by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent _ rejected a new state law that would have banned all abortions except to save a pregnant woman's life.

"This was really a rebellion in the heart of red-state, pro-life America _ the heart of the northern Bible Belt," said Sarah Stoesz, head of the Planned Parenthood chapter that oversees South Dakota. "It sends a very strong message to the rest of the country."

South Dakota legislators had passed the law in expectation it would trigger a court challenge and lead to a possible Supreme Court reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. Abortion-rights leaders said Wednesday that such strategies should be abandoned. "Voters in every corner of the country made it clear they are tired of divisive attacks on a woman's right to choose," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.<snip>

[zonkers]

1. Kick.

[liberalhistorian]

2. Don't kid yourself about South Dakota's vote.

A major reason for its defeat was its extreme restrictiveness; that made even those who are opposed to abortion uneasy and a lot of them voted against it. If it had been less restrictive, however, such as including exceptions for rape and incest and allowing much greater latitude in the "health of the mother" provision and not just allowing abortion only when "the mother's life is in extreme danger", I think it would have passed. And that is also the general consensus in the state here today. I know several people who would have voted for it, but they didn't like the restrictions.

The legislature is already talking about revising the law to include more exceptions, thus making it more palatable to many of those who voted against it, it just might pass.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Good grief. I have a bumper sticker that says:

"Don't Like Abortions? Then Don't Have One!"

Why oh WHY can't these people just live by that? Don't they get it? Not everyone thinks the way they do. I will never understand why some strange MAN who has NO UTERUS thinks he has ANY RIGHT to tell ME what I can and can't do with my body OR a strange WOMAN, for that matter. NO ONE has a right to tell another human being what they can and can't do with their own body! This issue REALLY makes my blood boil.

We DO NOT want to live under a theocracy, fercryingoutloud! I want these people out of my life for good. I'm tired of them, just as most of this country is.

[greendog]

5. A new law that includes "exceptions"...

...would come with it's own set of uncomfortable problems.

If you include exceptions for rape, incest, or health....you've created the need for some type of government abortion bureaucracy to determine if a particular exception applied to a particular woman. And...the system would have to be able to decide in a timely fashion.

Would we have a special "abortion magistrate"? Would he/she be elected or appointed? Or would we burden our current judicial system with abortion claims? Would there be some sort of public trial? Personally, I don't see how something like this could ever work.

I think a lot of people would find the idea of an abortion bureaucracy to be almost as creepy as the idea of forcing rape victims to bear the children of their attackers.

[liberalhistorian]

6. Oh, I agree, but that won't stop them

from trying to pass and implement it. Nothing will, I'm afraid.

[greendog]

7. I think we should ask them to

...explain how they'd handle "claims" for their exceptions.

I've rarely heard any mention of how we'd deal with this. And I'd bet most of them have never even thought of it.

I think it'd be fun to watch the hard core zealots try to convince the mildly delusional religious conservatives that we need to create a taxpayer financed abortion bureaucracy. "It'll only add $200.00 a year to your property taxes." Heads would explode!

[and-justice-for-all]

3. Just say NO TO THEOCRACY!! nt

[bluedogyellowdog]

8. South Dakota and Arizona

are not really part of the Bible Belt, not at all. They're western states with a libertarian streak running through them. Arizona was one of the first two states to pass medical marijuana a decade or so ago. The only religion South Dakota is a hotbed of is the Lutheran Church, not evangelicals or fundamentalists.

Missouri? Maybe more Bible Belt but certainly not the heart of it.