So you honestly think the government has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body? So you would agree that you are overweight and the government can restrict your diet, it is in your best interest and you are hurting the economy with your gross health care costs.

Steve,

She can do whatever she wishes with her body - but once a child comes in, then she is no longer entirely a free agent. Actions have consequences...the action of sex, among its many possible consequences, includes pregnancy.

Murder is never the answer.

Abortion, the one way conservatives don't kill things! why doesn't the culture of life include mandatory blood / organ donation? think of all the lives that would be saved and for once republican males would know what it feels like to not have total rights to there own body

Aric,

A woman does have total control over her body. She can exercise self-control (so can men, by the way) and not have sex if she is unwilling or unable to have a child. Once she is pregnant, it is not only her body involved. Very simple biology here.

And if we are going to make stupid generalizations, maybe all those democrat males would keep their pants on if they had to take responsibility for the children they help create. Think about that too.

CeCe, why don't you do a scientific study of how many children are born out of wedlock to registered Democrats and to registered Republicans. Let me know what you find.

Tom, I suspect the number is pretty equal, but I'n not sure what point you are trying to make. If you're referring to my comment about democrat men, I was simply responding to a really stupid comment about republican men made by aric. I thought that was obvious.

CeCe,

I understood what you were trying to do. I do think it's a bit sad to say "I was just writing something in response to something stupid," but I digress. Really I was responding to the notion that liberals are to blame for pregnancy/abortion problems, not conservatives with their Godly abstinence (and, to a lesser extent I guess, Godly condoms).

To the issue as hand! Mark, the story you linked to (but didn't read, apparently) said, "Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters." So much for restoration of the Rights of the People!

Tom, I too was responding to a notion that I thought rather sad, that being republican men are against abortion so that women will be denied "control of their bodies." I know many men, both dem and repub who are pro-life and are so because they have genuine love and concern for women and their babies. Such broad generalizations do nothing for the discussion and I was trying to point that out.

Roe vs Wade took this issue out of the hands of the people. The ELECTED representatives of South Dakota represent the people.

What these idiot anti-abortion nuts don't get is that making abortion illegal will not stop it, will probably INCREASE it, albeit underground, cause adult deaths, etc. Those of us who saw what happened pre Roe know what improvements have been made. There are 1/3 of the abortions AFTER making it legal because those contemplating abortion could have legal discussions of the alternatives. Do you know how many women went for illegal abortions, tried to change their minds, and were FORCED into having the abortion? Do you know how many abortions went bad and the women died from infections afraid to get medical help? Get a clue; it's education that stops abortion not making it illegal.

Of course they represent the people. It is suspicious, though, that they don't want to give the actual people a chance to directly decide this important issue.

Not that it matters. With no exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother, this bill (or law, if it temporarily becomes such) is going nowhere.

Josie, care to document your assertions? Your entire post is one unfounded assertion after another. Do you know how many women die from "safe, legal" abortion. Go to some prolife websites as they are the ONLY ones willing to disclose this information. You'll never get it from Planned Parenthood. Yes, education can help prevent a lot of things, but the law is a teacher as well, and abortion law has taught our society very badly.

Tom, I usually don't put much stock in surveys, but if they have any credibility, this issue is moving more in the pro-life direction. Even people who describe themselves as "pro-choice" would limit abortion much more than it is now. I'm not sure that this law is going nowhere. As I understand it, even Daschle had to run pretty much as a pro-lifer to get elected (I may be wrong, as I am only taking someone else's word for it).

I would just like to comment that the bill does allow for a legal abortion in the case of the mothers health.

Andrea,

I think not - because "health" is too nebulous. You can get some doctor, somewhere to say "health" requires it be done...but what is wanted is an exception to save the LIFE of the mother. In the pro-life world, that is what we're most concerned about - and this bill has a life exception.