Comments on: Faaaabulous.

By: Armagh444

Armagh444 — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:17:48 +0000

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.

By: Marksman2000

Marksman2000 — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:10:47 +0000

So start your own party.

By: a nut

a nut — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:12:05 +0000

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.

By: Armagh444

Armagh444 — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:06:10 +0000

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.

By: Esme

Esme — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:34:31 +0000

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.

By: Frederick

Frederick — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:33:30 +0000

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

By: Erika

Erika — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:08:42 +0000

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.

By: exangelena

exangelena — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:45:16 +0000

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.

By: Diane S.

Diane S. — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:20:23 +0000

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.

By: zuzu

zuzu — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:09:04 +0000

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.