Faaaabulous.

Louisiana governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco — a woman and a Democrat — signs into law a South Dakota-style abortion ban.

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) – Louisiana Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law a ban on most abortions, which would be triggered if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its 1973 ruling legalizing the procedure, a spokesman said on Saturday.

The ban would apply to all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest, except when the mother’s life is threatened. It is similar to a South Dakota law that has become the latest focus of the abortion battle.

But, see, it’s okay, because it will only go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and it will allow abortions for rape and incest for Medicaid recipients just as long as Medicaid rules require it.

So, let’s review. The South Dakota ban is turning into a political disaster even among conservatives, Louisiana already *has* a trigger law, there are large swaths of coastal Louisiana that are depopulated and destroyed and have no functioning economy, the levees in New Orleans are barely patched together, tens of thousands of people are living in tin cans with hurricane season upon us . . . . and it’s vitally necessary to pass an abortion ban that won’t even take effect until some future event happens?


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

13 comments for “Faaaabulous.

  1. Magis
    June 19, 2006 at 9:34 am

    “Two things you should never watch being made; sausage and laws.”

  2. June 19, 2006 at 9:50 am

    It’s the babies! Jesus loves babies! We’ve got to save the babies!

  3. June 19, 2006 at 10:02 am

    Louisiana already *has* a trigger law, there are large swaths of coastal Louisiana that are depopulated and destroyed and have no functioning economy, the levees in New Orleans are barely patched together, tens of thousands of people are living in tin cans with hurricane season upon us . . . . and it’s vitally necessary to pass an abortion ban that won’t even take effect until some future event happens?

    Not to mention all the legal costs the state will incur trying to defend this law against the inevitable court challenges, money that could be much better spent on all the things mentioned in your quote…

  4. zuzu
    June 19, 2006 at 10:09 am

    Lis, the article says the existing trigger law is already tied up in litigation. How the Legislature expects that this one will turn out differently is a mystery.

    Unless they’re counting on backups in the courts due to the waterlogging of court records.

  5. June 19, 2006 at 10:20 am

    I’d love to see Louisianna’s governor take better care of her living, breathing citizens before she got so worried about the unborn ones. This “concern for life” certainly wasn’t evident towards the poor and mostly black citizens of New Orleans.

  6. exangelena
    June 19, 2006 at 10:45 am

    Interestingly, this 2005 poll ranks Louisiana as the second most pro-life state behind Utah:
    http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm
    South Dakota ranks eleventh, with relatively even numbers of pro-life and pro-choice.

  7. June 19, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    It must be due to all those rugged individualists in South Dakota. They truly don’t want the government interfering in their lives, unlike your typical conservative who just wants the government out of his wallet.

  8. Frederick
    June 19, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    Blanco has proven that you don’t have to be a Republican or a man to be a total dick who disempowers women.

  9. Esme
    June 19, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    I love all this “only in case of the life of the mother” crap. Apparently, your health doesn’t matter, your capability to have children when you’re capable of providing for them doesn’t matter. All that matters is if you’re going to die.

    So now 2 states which have outright declared that a clump of dependent cells are more important than me. I don’t know why, but every time I hear about these kinds of things, I really wish there were some groups sticking up for the appendices of the world, who are being removed at an alarming rate. And the tonsils. Please think of the tonsils.

  10. June 19, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    Like Esme, I’m most interested in the fact that the law’s sole exception is for the life of the mother, though for a different reason. That a woman’s health isn’t important to these legislators doesn’t surprise me in the least, as it’s just par for the course on that side of the tracks.

    What I am curious about at this point, however, is how the provision is worded, i.e., precisely how does it define the issue of the mother’s life being in danger. Is this another situation like the South Dakota law, which – if I read it correctly – would have essentially required that you were about to die RIGHT NOW before an abortion could be considered. Inevitable death didn’t seem to matter under that statute’s wording unless it was imminent.

    If that’s where the trend is going, well, I’m sure we can all readily see how damn scary that is.

  11. June 19, 2006 at 10:12 pm

    I was very disappointed when I read this yesterday precisely because she is a woman and a democrat. I now feel even more like the Dem’s are leaving women as a whole out to die a slow painful agonizing death. Hah! At least the Episcopal Church got smart and elected their first woman bishop so the rage is brewing on both sides of the line now.

  12. Marksman2000
    June 20, 2006 at 12:10 am

    So start your own party.

  13. June 20, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    Until this nation gets around to instituting some viable system of proportional representation – yeah, that’ll happen – a third party has about as much chance of surviving long enough to make a difference as a snowball does in Hades.

Comments are closed.