South Carolina...

[Schmitz in 1972]

I suppose that's how it is with Democrats. Always trying to have the question of abortion decided in the courtroom because you know you cannot win at the voting booth.

[Brandon H]

Well not quite in this case. While Roe v. Wade was a rediculous ruling in the courts, this one is a little bit more legitimate. Regional law supercedes Maniciple (or state) law. The concern here is that the Louisiana Law may violate a regional law. The wording between the LA and SC laws are different. I didn't look into this and if I had known this, I would have recommended the wording be duplicated.

I hope this law stands, but if not, we will reintroduce with the necessary modifcations.

[Emsworth]

I believe that regional law only authorizes a ban on facilities that perform abortions, not on abortions themselves.

[Q]

I suppose that's how it is with Democrats. Always trying to have the question of abortion decided in the courtroom because you know you cannot win at the voting booth.

Red herring.  There are no Democrats here, so I don't know what you're talking about.  Also, the laws brought about by this ballot question are not permitted by law, so to allow it to stand would be unconscionable.  This has nothing at all to do with the particular subject addressed by this ballot question (abortion), but about the constitutionality/legality of that ballot question in itself.  Please note that the two are separate matters entirely.

[Q]

No, I believe you may only have a ban on abortion facilities. I was torn between the wording of the initiative and the practice of allowing municipalities (states) trying out initiatives. IRL, states make unconstitutional laws. Each LA citizens signed the petition to have this appear on the ballot, so I put it up. I am not a member of the judiciary and do not wish to exceed my authority.

But Q is correct, the Magistrate needs to review this second law. With the first, he instructed me I should probably put it on the ballot. If I have erred, I'd be happy to have a ruling/precedent to instruct me about future municipal elections.

I agree with you, Governor.  It's a matter best left up to the judicial branch; you were right to have still placed it on the ballot despite doubting the legality of the actual ballot question.  It was legal for the question in and of itself to have been put before the voters, as all the requirements for ballot access were met.  I salute you for restraining yourself and your office in this matter.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm pro-life but accept that there are grounds for abortion in specific circumstances. If every state of the Union had the following as Statute:

Abortion is permitted only in cases of maternal life or where the pregnancy carries a high risk of having some detrimental effect on the woman's psychological and/or physical well-being; or in cases of rape and incest

That would suffice

I find the idea of abortion being a matter of choice as though as though it was some belated form of contraception utterly abhorant. Furthermore, as things stand, fathers (except in cases of rape or incest) should have some rights too and, in cases of minors, parents should be notified

Safe, legal and rare (i.e. abortion with restrictions). An all out ban on abortion on all grounds, for me, is not an option

Dave 'Hawk'

[Schmitz in 1972]

I'm pro-life but accept that there are grounds for abortion in specific circumstances. If every state of the Union had the following as Statute:

Abortion is permitted only in cases of maternal life or where the pregnancy carries a high risk of having some detrimental effect on the woman's psychological and/or physical well-being; or in cases of rape and incest

That would suffice

I find the idea of abortion being a matter of choice as though as though it was some belated form of contraception utterly abhorant. Furthermore, as things stand, fathers (except in cases of rape or incest) should have some rights too and, in cases of minors, parents should be notified

Safe, legal and rare (i.e. abortion with restrictions). An all out ban on abortion on all grounds, for me, is not an option

Dave 'Hawk'

Please stop masquerading as pro-life.

First of all, someone who truly though the child was alive would not make an exception fro rape and incest. Secondly, allowing abortion for the mother's psychological well-being completely defeats the purpose of the ban. Last, the tired phrase "safe, legal, and rare" is just as much (more in fact) a pro-choice line than it is a pro-life line.

[© tweed]

I believe that regional law only authorizes a ban on facilities that perform abortions, not on abortions themselves.

Indeed.  I'm going to start companies of traveling abortion doctors in both Louisiana and South Carolina.

We'll come to you!

[afleitch]

I believe that regional law only authorizes a ban on facilities that perform abortions, not on abortions themselves.

Indeed.  I'm going to start companies of traveling abortion doctors in both Louisiana and South Carolina.

We'll come to you!

We might need them in the MidEast!

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm pro-life but accept that there are grounds for abortion in specific circumstances. If every state of the Union had the following as Statute:

Abortion is permitted only in cases of maternal life or where the pregnancy carries a high risk of having some detrimental effect on the woman's psychological and/or physical well-being; or in cases of rape and incest

That would suffice

I find the idea of abortion being a matter of choice as though as though it was some belated form of contraception utterly abhorant. Furthermore, as things stand, fathers (except in cases of rape or incest) should have some rights too and, in cases of minors, parents should be notified

Safe, legal and rare (i.e. abortion with restrictions). An all out ban on abortion on all grounds, for me, is not an option

Dave 'Hawk'

Please stop masquerading as pro-life.

First of all, someone who truly though the child was alive would not make an exception fro rape and incest. Secondly, allowing abortion for the mother's psychological well-being completely defeats the purpose of the ban. Last, the tired phrase "safe, legal, and rare" is just as much (more in fact) a pro-choice line than it is a pro-life line.

Well, I'm not pro-choice. I just don't take an absolutist line on the issue. I don't support abortion being prohibited in all circumstances nor do I support abortion being freely available on demand. I don't think such a position is unreasonable

Nothing I've suggested sanctions a woman's right to choose and as I've stated I find the concept of abortion being a matter of choice abhorant. I've cited maternal life and medical reasons as being mitigating circumstances permitting abortion. That is not being pro-choice

Furthermore, in cases of rape or incest, it's immoral, unnatural and unjust for a child to be conceived in that way. Not to mention the devastating psychological effects on the mother, other family members and the child

Dave