Kraus makes the case for us.
Bill Fleming put this on Blogmore and it's getting good reviews:
_________________________________________________
Elizabeth Kraus herself gives the best reason to vote AGAINST HB1215. But apparently she’s not capable of bringing her own thoughts to their logical conclusion.
Here’s a hint, Kraus: The sex act between an adult and an underage person, or among close relatives looks the same as it does between consenting adults. You don’t even need ultrasound.
By your own admission (see quote below), a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest is a pregnancy that should not have happened in the first place.
At a minimun, it should be the woman’s right to decide to how to deal with such a situation, not Krause’s and the rest of the good citizens of SD.
That would be the best way for state government to provide for the safety and well-being of a raped SD citizen.
Anything less amounts to supporting the reproductive rights of sex crime criminals.
The state shouldn’t abandon its support for these women simply because she was violated in an illegal act. Lawsthat are mutually and ethically self-contradictory sends justice for these crime victims flying straight out the window.
Here’s Kraus’s quote:
“People say the government should stay out of personal issues, but it is involved in many of those issues,” Kraus said. “You can’t marry a close relative or have sex with an underage person. It is part of the government’s obligation to provide for the safety and well-being of its citizens.”
_________________________________________________
Elizabeth Kraus herself gives the best reason to vote AGAINST HB1215. But apparently she’s not capable of bringing her own thoughts to their logical conclusion.
Here’s a hint, Kraus: The sex act between an adult and an underage person, or among close relatives looks the same as it does between consenting adults. You don’t even need ultrasound.
By your own admission (see quote below), a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest is a pregnancy that should not have happened in the first place.
At a minimun, it should be the woman’s right to decide to how to deal with such a situation, not Krause’s and the rest of the good citizens of SD.
That would be the best way for state government to provide for the safety and well-being of a raped SD citizen.
Anything less amounts to supporting the reproductive rights of sex crime criminals.
The state shouldn’t abandon its support for these women simply because she was violated in an illegal act. Lawsthat are mutually and ethically self-contradictory sends justice for these crime victims flying straight out the window.
Here’s Kraus’s quote:
“People say the government should stay out of personal issues, but it is involved in many of those issues,” Kraus said. “You can’t marry a close relative or have sex with an underage person. It is part of the government’s obligation to provide for the safety and well-being of its citizens.”
posted by Bill Fleming at 8:02 AM
8 Comments:
Skogg. What are the rules regarding referendum. When can people start circulating petitions. Do they have to wait until the law is signed. And, if he doesn't sigh it, do they have to wait until the Legislature overides his veto? I think petitions have to be in in may. Over 16,000 of them. That's not very much time, especially if proponants of the bill can stall the petition drive out into April. Do you know more about how that scenario would play?
A petition proposing an ordinance or resolution must be signed by 5% of the voting population of the municipality that the ordinance/resolution would effect. As this is a statewide bill/issue, you would need signatures of at least 5% of the state's voting population.
Once you have the petition signed properly, you have to file it with the finance officer of the municipality, so in this case it would be the State's Treasurer.
Once it's verified, the finance officer will present the petition to the governing body at its "first meeting". I assume that means the first meeting of the first session to commence after filing the petition.
At least, that's what I understand the law to be. Yeah confusion!!
someone payed attention in government class!
It was my favorite class. I miss Mr. Roeber.
Verification word: TUNEYME!
Skogg, you didn't answer any of my questions. Did you read them?
I did answer your questions in a way. To get a referendum, it won't be discussed until the first day of the next session. You also need a lot of signatures. Therefore, I suggest you get started.
You do have to wait until the law is signed, however...because right now it's nothing but a proposal, although it is likely to be signed.
The "due date" you're thinking of is probably so it's in before the summer session? (that's a guess)
Also, here's the form for the beginning of the petition:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED qualified voters of the state of South Dakota, petition that the following law, as enacted by the Legislature of the state of South Dakota, be submitted to the voters of the state of South Dakota at the general election on November ____, _____, for their approval or rejection pursuant to the Constitution of the state of South Dakota.
If I get bored later, I'll investigate the due date.
Don't worry Skogg, I found out the stuff already.
When it's time, we'll organize, right?
Polyman,
A referendum is started when a law is passed that the people don't like and want to take ot off the book–cancel it out – repeal it. If a referendum passes in the general election, the law is null and void – canceled out – it is no longer in effect.
In order to get a referendum on the ballot, somebody has to circulate petitions and get at least 16,000 signatures. 20,000 would be better, because some of them will be thrown out (not a regestered voter, form filled out wrong, duplication, etc.)
That's what you would sign. Then, you would go vote on election day. It's a two step process with a campaign sandwiched in between. But yes, if the people vote to refer a law and win, the law is no longer in effect.
The problem right now is that the Governor hasn't signed the bill, so until he does, there's no law to campaign against. I think he might be stalling. Every day he waits is a day opponants wont have to gather petition signatures.
If he never signs it, it's like a silent veto. The legisature would have to meet to override his veto. That will waste some more time.
So, if people are going to try to refer this law they're going to have very little time to gather signatures. They're going to need a lot of help to get them that quickly (about a month is all the time they'll have).
Post a Comment
<< Home