• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

In my day, never was longer.

Bark louder, little dog.

Americans barely caring about Afghanistan is so last month.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

The willow is too close to the house.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

I did not have telepathic declassification on my 2022 bingo card.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / The First Of Many

The First Of Many

by Tim F|  February 11, 20063:40 pm| 61 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

SD House Approves Abortion Ban

The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

…Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Olympics Open Thread
Next Post: Dumbest. Legislation. Ever. »

Reader Interactions

61Comments

  1. 1.

    The Other Steve

    February 11, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    …Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

    Sounds to me like they are hoping it will be overturned by a court.

  2. 2.

    KC

    February 11, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    Sad to say it, but oh well.

  3. 3.

    Eural

    February 11, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    …Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

    Yeah- there’s your “culture of life” at work. Protect every fetus and screw the mother if necessary. Sad.

  4. 4.

    The Other Steve

    February 11, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    Abortion debate isn’t about fetus, it’s about controlling women.

  5. 5.

    ChristieS

    February 11, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    Here is a huge entry on this from yesterday. Along with the postings, be prepared for the shocking picture that accompanies the article. And if anyone can tell me how to bury the URL into a small one or two word description for the website I’d be grateful. I don’t know how to do that.

    Disclaimer: MyLeftWing is the blog of MaryScott O’Conner. She IS the far left, and will be happy to tell you that.

  6. 6.

    Otto Man

    February 11, 2006 at 4:41 pm

    And if anyone can tell me how to bury the URL into a small one or two word description for the website I’d be grateful. I don’t know how to do that.

    Sure thing.

    1. Write the text — for instance, “the MyLeftWing Blog”
    2. Highlight the text
    3. Click on “link” in the list of commands above the post window
    4. Paste the URL in the pop-up box and click OK

    The end result will look like this: the MyLeftWing Blog

  7. 7.

    ppGaz

    February 11, 2006 at 4:43 pm

    Abortion debate isn’t about fetus, it’s about controlling women.

    Take one more pass with Occam’s razor.

    It’s about superiority. Being morally superior to other people. It’s about false sanctimony. It’s about power, but not just over women. Over “them.”

  8. 8.

    ChristieS

    February 11, 2006 at 4:53 pm

    Otto, thank you. Heh…I’ve copied your instructions into my word docs, lol. That way I’ll have them to refer to the next time. I link so rarely that I can never remember how.

  9. 9.

    ChristieS

    February 11, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    Just to see if I can follow directions and still stay on topic, here is Anne Lamott and The Rights of the Born.

  10. 10.

    StupidityRules

    February 11, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    Sales of steel coat hangers reportedly up 550% in South Dakota.

  11. 11.

    Eural

    February 11, 2006 at 5:23 pm

    Thanks for the link Christie – neat piece. Polling indicates most main stream Americans seem to be against abortion privately (or at least the concept) but support a woman’s freedom to choose. Yet, most evangalicals (though by no means all) are against that right. They are also against any compromise or discussion on the issue that doesn’t clearly label abortion as murder. How to reconcile those disparities is a heckuva problem. I know that for my conservative friends abortion is the defining battle that they helped elect Bush to fight. Any other problems with his administration are easily forgiven in light of his judicial appointments which they say are clearly abortion driven regardless of the other claptrap that might get argued during the appointment process.

  12. 12.

    Krista

    February 11, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

    I don’t even know what to say to this…no words could express my disgust.

  13. 13.

    guyermo

    February 11, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    Republican culture of life “We’ll have your baby whether you want it or not, and even though you’ll die in the attempt.”

  14. 14.

    CaseyL

    February 11, 2006 at 5:35 pm

    Does this have a chance of passing S Dak’s Senate? If so, any woman in S Dak who aspires to being more than an ambulatory incubator better either get her tubes tied or move to another state.

    Oh, I’m absolutely sure they want this to go to the SCOTUS. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when/if it does (no earlier than the 2007 session, is my guess). Count on 4 votes to uphold (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts) and see which way Kennedy swings.

  15. 15.

    Jill

    February 11, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Sick f*cks. If men had uteruses abortion would have been written into the constitution.

  16. 16.

    Zifnab

    February 11, 2006 at 6:19 pm

    Sick f*cks. If men had uteruses abortion would have been written into the constitution.

    It’s a rather ham-handed attempt if you ask me. I mean, even if they do have four votes solidly in their favor on the Supreme Court, I can’t help but see this type of law getting struck down again and again all the way up the district levels. And if Roberts ment a single sordid thing about Staire Desises, this will clear it up in short order. I can’t imagine anything flying so flagrantly in the face of O’Conner’s undue burden constrant.

  17. 17.

    ChristieS

    February 11, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    Check out Indiana’s proposal

    Krista, if this passes, can I come live with you? I promise my daughter and I don’t eat much.

  18. 18.

    KC

    February 11, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    I’m not trying to be defeatist here, but I think it’s time to face some facts: conservatives have pretty much won on abortion, at least for now, and things aren’t going to change until 1) more middle class voting aged women are affected by anti-abortion legislation and 2) Roe is overturned and federal legislation stemming abortion is put forward. The reason I say this is because several states have already made it very difficult for women to obtain abortions and as of yet, I am aware of no mass outcry in them against anti-abortion legislation. To the contrary, from what I understand, the wind is at the anti-abortion forces’ backs. When I see women (and men) in those states start rising up in anger, I might change my mind. Until then though, I think that things are going to probably get worse before they get better, at least for pro-choicers.

  19. 19.

    John Cole

    February 11, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    I am of the opinion that any complete ban on abortion will be temporary, and will be followed by reversals and a permanent Democratic majority.

  20. 20.

    Zifnab

    February 11, 2006 at 7:00 pm

    I am of the opinion that any complete ban on abortion will be temporary, and will be followed by reversals and a permanent Democratic majority.

    Here’s hoping. But I’m just not seeing it.

    Maybe when they start outlawing contraception… but even then, you have to understand that in some states the special interests literally own everything. Governor. Legislature. Courts. All bought and paid for. People getting angry just doesn’t matter anymore in some places.

  21. 21.

    Perry Como

    February 11, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    Dead daughter or dead fetus? That’s what it will come down to.

  22. 22.

    ChristieS

    February 11, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    John, you might be correct on all points, the saddest part of that is the number of women who will be negatively affected by the ban while it’s still in force.

    Unless we figure out a way to reversibly sterilize people when they’re born and make it mandatory (no, I’m NOT advocating this, it’s purely rhetorical), there will always be unexpected and unwanted pregnancies. And if these women cannot get legal abortions, then they’re going to get illegal ones.

  23. 23.

    Zifnab

    February 11, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    Indiana is one of 29 states with “informed consent” laws that require women seeking an abortion to receive information about the procedure

    Here’s what really pisses me off to no end. You’re not allowed to sue your HMO, you’re not allowed to sue your doctor for full damages in a botched procedure due to Tort “Reform”, and people are increasingly restricted from sueing pharmaseudical companies. But when it comes to getting an abortion, suddenly the health and well-being of the patient is of the highest priority.

    Does anyone but me see a bit of hypocrasy in all of this?

  24. 24.

    Perry Como

    February 11, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    Does anyone but me see a bit of hypocrasy in all of this?

    You vote for the religious whackos you have, not the whackos you want.

  25. 25.

    ChristieS

    February 11, 2006 at 7:11 pm

    John, thanks for editing my first post.

  26. 26.

    ChristieS

    February 11, 2006 at 7:11 pm

    ChristieS Says:

    John, thanks for editing my first post.

    Or Tim.

  27. 27.

    John Cole

    February 11, 2006 at 7:15 pm

    You are welcome.

  28. 28.

    tb

    February 11, 2006 at 7:25 pm

    Republicans to women: Fuck you, we own your bodies.

  29. 29.

    Steve

    February 11, 2006 at 7:59 pm

    Interesting post on a related topic yesterday…

    Shorter version: Legislators with all daughters rate 12% higher on women’s issues than legislators with all sons.

    Kinda interesting. Maybe more people should have daughters.

  30. 30.

    Pooh

    February 11, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    The point of this law is to make it as egregious a violation of Roe/Casey, etc. as possible to make sure it goes up the ladder, but quickly. Though if I’m Planned Parenthood, I don’t rise to the bait on this particular one – first for that reason and second, IIRC there are no doctors who perform the procedure left in SoDak (maybe it was NoDak) anyway.

  31. 31.

    Alan

    February 11, 2006 at 9:01 pm

    In a way I’m glad. It’s about time this issue gets hashed out. I’m sick and tired of the Religious Right’s hold on the GOP. And if the courts end up repealing RvW then it’s up to the legislature. If the GOP controlled congress doesn’t do a thing to fix it they’ll lose their majority in a dying heartbeat. And sorry Rush Limbaugh and all the other “conservative” pundits–a majority may believe abortion is immoral but that does not translate into making abortion illegal. Conservatism is for limited government–that includes economic and social issues. You can take your absurd pro-life agenda and shove it up your ass.

    -Signed: a Barry Goldwater conservative. :)

  32. 32.

    richard

    February 11, 2006 at 9:19 pm

    I was speaking to someone in the know in South Dakota who told me that the prolife organizations are opposing the passage of this legislation with their supporters in the senate. A lot of groups consider that the timing is bad, since the appeal will reach the supreme court while there is still a pro-Roe majority and therefore will end up cementing the superprecedent status of Roe- arguably it will be a new Roe which allows the Supremes to remedy the problems of the old decision and will reflect the sentiments of the new century. In this light, prochoicers should be encouraged by the potential of this horrible decision. I don’t know how the SD prolifers are going to be able to justify opposing this legislation to their supporters, or how they will be able to provide cover to legislators who oppose it on their behest. I also wouldn’t care except that the potential for self-destruction is so promising. There is at least one abortion provider in SD who will be affected (Planned Parenthood of SD) although I don’t know what kind of penalty provisions are in the bill- there was a recent swathe of sex-bills in the SD legislature, including a ban on contraception promotion, which did not have penalty provisions.

  33. 33.

    Sojourner

    February 11, 2006 at 9:46 pm

    This is excellent news. It’s about time voters truly understand what they’re voting for. It ought to really hit home when the otherwise college-bound teenage daughter turns up pregnant or the wife experiences serious and permanent health issues due to having to go full term.

    They voted for these assholes, fuck ’em.

  34. 34.

    Krista

    February 11, 2006 at 9:49 pm

    ChristieS – no problem! I have a snuggly old dog, an inflata-bed and inside access to lobster. What more could you want?

    Yeah, this whole topic just angers and depresses me. Like you said, there are ALWAYS going to be unwanted pregnancies. If people didn’t have their heads up their asses and a chokehold on their Bibles, they’d know that the ideal scenario would be to reduce unwanted pregnancies by means of education, and accessible and inexpensive contraception. Instead, those reality-challenged fuckwits think that if they can get their way, then the only people having sex will be married, and financially and mentally able to care for a child. Everybody else will just have to take up knitting or something.

    What I want to know is: are they fucking kidding? Or are they that stupid and naive to think that this is a possibility?

  35. 35.

    Krista

    February 11, 2006 at 9:56 pm

    Sojourner – that’s the problem, though. Even if every single person of voting age in South Dakota HAD voted for those assholes, there are still blameless people there, like that college-bound teenage daughter you mentioned. She might not have been of age to vote for those assholes, but her life might be permanently derailed (or even endangered) because of this.

    I too, hope it serves as a wake-up call to the voters, but it’s a travesty that it came to this, and that in the meantime, there are going to be victims of this bill.

  36. 36.

    Sojourner

    February 11, 2006 at 10:01 pm

    Even if every single person of voting age in South Dakota HAD voted for those assholes, there are still blameless people there, like that college-bound teenage daughter you mentioned. She might not have been of age to vote for those assholes, but her life might be permanently derailed (or even endangered) because of this.

    In the past, I would have agreed with you. But after witnessing the incredible damage the Repubs have inflicted on this country over the past five years, my position is a whole lot more ruthless. People have to be held accountable for their actions – and that includes voters like John Cole.

  37. 37.

    Zifnab

    February 11, 2006 at 10:05 pm

    They voted for these assholes, fuck ‘em.

    The problems don’t rest with those who voted for them. Rich, white Republican suburbanites rarely suffer from legal issues when they can just buy their way out from under them. But Republicans love to pick on the poor, the minorities, and the disenfranchised. If you’re a Democrat or a pro-choicer you get to suffer just as much as the Republican who voted these douche bags in.

    Seriously, if you want to talk about Democrats suffering under the Republican yoke, just come down to Texas. We’ve got a shithole education system and a fiscal policy that I’m sure even Mexico is laughing at. As an Austin resident, I can honestly tell you its not like the state lacks Democrats. It just lacks Democrats with cronies in office.

  38. 38.

    james richardson

    February 11, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    Further on in the article, some lawmaker or other says something like “Aborting the child won’t undo the rape” as to why there was no exception clause. I think it was a women as well. I suppose it never occured to (her) that the issue is a woman has control over her own body and what happens to it.

    I agree with some of the above however that this is indeed Democracy. These are the voters’ representatives. Whether or not it would be overturned (and I think it would be without an exception clause), it will be interesting what the voters do on election day; whether they re-elect this group of lawmakers or boot them out.

  39. 39.

    Krista

    February 11, 2006 at 10:15 pm

    All your uteri are belong to us

  40. 40.

    Sojourner

    February 11, 2006 at 10:24 pm

    Seriously, if you want to talk about Democrats suffering under the Republican yoke, just come down to Texas. We’ve got a shithole education system and a fiscal policy that I’m sure even Mexico is laughing at. As an Austin resident, I can honestly tell you its not like the state lacks Democrats. It just lacks Democrats with cronies in office.

    Let the Republican yoke continue to tighten. Take away our rights, shred the Constitution. Whatever it takes to force the uninformed, lazy American citizens to get off their asses and take their country back.

  41. 41.

    Evilbeard

    February 11, 2006 at 11:26 pm

    What if that never happens Sojourner? I’d rather fight now before dissent is illegal and not just frowned upon as unamerican.

  42. 42.

    Pooh

    February 12, 2006 at 12:06 am

    All your uteri are belong to us

    heh. Zero Wing = Snark gold.

  43. 43.

    CaseyL

    February 12, 2006 at 12:54 am

    Back in the 60’s-70’s, before Roe, when abortion was illegal almost everywhere, there was something called the Jane Project:

    “For the first time, the story of JANE is told by those who operated and were served by the collective, most of whom have never spoken publicly about JANE before. “If you needed an abortion, for whatever reason, you took your life into your own hands – and you were terrified, absolutely terrified,” recounts a member of the collective of the late 1960s. “All you knew is that you might die, that this person didn’t know what he was doing and you were going to pay hundreds of dollars…to bleed to death in some hotel room.”

    Heather Booth, then a student at the University of Chicago involved in civil rights and antiwar movements, found herself sought out by a few young women who were pregnant, scared, and desperate. They had somehow heard that Booth knew of a safe abortionist. Soon others began to call, prompting Booth and several other young feminists to found JANE, an anonymous abortion service that provided counseling and acted as the go-between for pregnant women and doctors willing to perform the procedure.

    Appalled at the exorbitant procedure fees and upon discovering that their main abortionist wasn’t a licensed physician, the women of JANE learned to perform illegal abortions themselves. Eventually, the underground collective performed over 12,000 safe, affordable abortions. Word of the illegal alternative was spread through word-of-mouth, cryptic advertisements, and even by members of Chicago’s police, clergy, and medical establishment.”

    I wonder, once Roe is reversed, if we’ll see an underground movement start again.

    Hell, in the Brave New World Order Bush is creating for America, we might go back to the 60’s in a big way. A real underground might grow again, in areas besides abortion/birth control (just imagine what’ll happen if they bring back military conscription). It’ll be a lot harder, with the surveillance technologies we have today – but hackers could play an important role in evading those, too.

  44. 44.

    ppGaz

    February 12, 2006 at 1:07 am

    This is also the first of many.

    By the time all the photos are out there, it’s going to look like George Bush and Mr. Abramoff are butt buddies.

    And may I say, it couldn’t happen to a nicer alcoholic drug addict lying ne’er do well failed businessman. That would be Bush, not Abramoff, for those of you who just tuned in.

  45. 45.

    Jackmormon

    February 12, 2006 at 1:43 am

    Oh, Jesus. A friend of mine mentioned this at dinner tonight, but I hadn’t heard of it before then. We’re single women living in New York State; we’ll probably be okay when the inevitable happens. Lower-income women–especially lower-income under 18 year-old women–who happen to live in conservative states: they’ll be bearing that child to term.

    States’ rights, my ass. I should hope that anyone who has the vestige of sympathy for this Federalist argument would also support a woman’s ability to travel somewhere where her desire to end her pregnancy might still be legal. I don’t count on this legal consistency, however; the next step is to make interstate travel in order to pursue an abortion a crime. Or just really, really inconvenient.

  46. 46.

    CaseyL

    February 12, 2006 at 2:20 am

    Wouldn’t it be nice if those assholes devoted one-tenth as much of their time and energy to protecting children who aren’t fetuses anymore? If they were as adamant about the well-being of actual kids as they are about blastocysts?

  47. 47.

    John Redworth

    February 12, 2006 at 3:02 am

    Wouldn’t it be nice if those assholes devoted one-tenth as much of their time and energy to protecting children who aren’t fetuses anymore?

    They basically do spend about 10th of their time doing this… they are also busy trying to ban things like school plays, video games and trying to re-establish religious teachings in schools…

  48. 48.

    Richard Bottoms

    February 12, 2006 at 5:02 am

    I am of the opinion that any complete ban on abortion will be temporary, and will be followed by reversals and a permanent Democratic majority.

    Ha Ha
    — Nelson Muntz
    http://www.snpp.com/guides/nelson.file.html

  49. 49.

    Richard Bottoms

    February 12, 2006 at 5:07 am

    This is excellent news. It’s about time voters truly understand what they’re voting for. It ought to really hit home when the otherwise college-bound teenage daughter turns up pregnant or the wife experiences serious and permanent health issues due to having to go full term.

    They voted for these assholes, fuck ‘em.

    Totally agree.

    I have no sympathy for their agony over the state of the Republican party. These dickheard are you creation, not mine.

    As a friend recently said, kiss my entire ass.

  50. 50.

    Richard Bottoms

    February 12, 2006 at 5:11 am

    I don’t even know what to say to this…no words could express my disgust.

    Woo Hoo. I can’t wait until they start going after contraceptives for adult women. You know they will, it’s an overreach they just cannot avoid making because they are so certain of being morally right about it.

    When the Christine Whitman’s of the party have to weigh politcal power versus getting knocked up, well it won’t be pretty.

  51. 51.

    Louise

    February 12, 2006 at 6:21 am

    Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

    This is as it should be. If abortion is murder, it’s murder, no matter how or why the sperm and egg got together. I’ve got no patience for “right-to-lifers” who try to make themselves feel better by adding exceptions. Even “health of the mother” — hell, the mother has had a lot of years to sin, while the embryo/fetus is clean as a whistle. Clearly, if you have to choose, it’s the sinful mother who should have to die.

    And I’m with Alan and RichardBottoms — bring it on. I think John is right; let’s get some of this stuff legislated so people can see the impact of voting for these assholes.

    Caveat: I would hope that, should this pass in SD or anywhere else, a well-run underground railroad would be there to help as many girls and women as possible, until the dickwads could be defeated.

  52. 52.

    Richard 23

    February 12, 2006 at 11:40 am

    “States rights” seems to be more about the state’s rights than individual rights. One is either pro-choice or pro-coathanger (or pro-knitting needle). Which are you?

  53. 53.

    tb

    February 12, 2006 at 11:58 am

    those reality-challenged fuckwits think that if they can get their way, then the only people having sex will be married, and financially and mentally able to care for a child.

    I think their thinking runs more along the lines of heaping negative consequences on whore women who dare to have non-marital sex, and making wives subservient to their husbands and the state. They’re very anti- any practical means of reducing the number of abortions that doesn’t involve the submission of women.

    This “caring for the child” nonsense is totally off the radar.

  54. 54.

    Jack Roy

    February 12, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    I gotta say, I’m underwhelmed, if this is accurate:

    …a bill that would nearly ban all abortions….

    A bill that would ban nearly all abortions, I should think would be concerning. But a bill that would nearly ban all abortions is about as troubling as a bill nearly banning any abortions—that is to say, almost but not quite really banning any abortions.

    The original understanding of the Constitution forbade dangling modifiers, damnit!

  55. 55.

    Barry D

    February 12, 2006 at 5:29 pm

    Jackmormon Says:

    “Oh, Jesus. A friend of mine mentioned this at dinner tonight, but I hadn’t heard of it before then. We’re single women living in New York State; we’ll probably be okay when the inevitable happens. Lower-income women—especially lower-income under 18 year-old women—who happen to live in conservative states: they’ll be bearing that child to term.

    States’ rights, my ass. I should hope that anyone who has the vestige of sympathy for this Federalist argument would also support a woman’s ability to travel somewhere where her desire to end her pregnancy might still be legal. I don’t count on this legal consistency, however; the next step is to make interstate travel in order to pursue an abortion a crime. Or just really, really inconvenient.”

    Jackmormon, do you really see the GOP letting states’ rights stop them from banning abortion nationwide (with extraterritoriality clauses, as well)?

    If Roe v Wade is overturned, the only reason that a flat-out federal ban wouldn’t be immediately passed is due to GOP fear of an immediate backlash. And that could be averted by slicing abortion rights to death piece by piece, so that there are no headlines.

  56. 56.

    Krista

    February 12, 2006 at 7:17 pm

    I can’t wait until they start going after contraceptives for adult women.

    Jeez, I’m gonna get rich off of this. Blackmail birth control pills from Canada. Ladies, send your three easy payments of $39.99 US, and receive a years’ worth of Triphasil. I’ll even throw in a decorative carrying case. (American flag pattern not available at this time.)

  57. 57.

    StupidityRules

    February 13, 2006 at 8:27 am

    Blackmail birth control pills from Canada.

    A threat more dangerous than terrorists. Obviously the government should be allowed to open any mail and search for illegal birth controls. If they find any the person that the package is addressed to should be prosecuted for attempted possession with intent to distribute/use an illegal murder weapon.

    And while we’re at it. Pregnant women should not be allowed to leave the country unless they promise not to have an abortion. If they do, they should be prosecuted for first degree murder. They should also have to pee on a stick every time they want to leave the country. Just to be sure.

  58. 58.

    Krista

    February 13, 2006 at 9:14 am

    Blackmail birth control pills from Canada

    Blackmail Black MARKET birth control pills from Canada.

    Gad…

  59. 59.

    Lee

    February 13, 2006 at 11:15 am

    They should also have to pee on a stick every time they want to leave the country.

    Actually I was thinking that ALL women should be required to pee on a stick every 2 weeks or so (actually maybe a blood test since that is more accurate). We want to make sure that if they are pregnant that they can be held responsible if anything happens to the little voter.

  60. 60.

    Krista

    February 13, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Lee – for the love of mike, don’t give them ideas!

  61. 61.

    Moe

    February 14, 2006 at 11:45 am

    http://moethesleaze.blogspot.com/

    Please visit and give YOUR views regarding abortion rights and how society should resolve the competing ideas.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • Citizen Alan on Late Night Open Thread: All Mah Gapes Gone! (Jan 28, 2023 @ 6:21am)
  • NotMax on Late Night Open Thread: All Mah Gapes Gone! (Jan 28, 2023 @ 6:15am)
  • bjacques on Late Night Open Thread: All Mah Gapes Gone! (Jan 28, 2023 @ 6:05am)
  • Geminid on War for Ukraine Day 337: International Holocaust Remembrance Day Amidst Another Genocidal War in Europe (Jan 28, 2023 @ 5:59am)
  • Aussie Sheila on Late Night Open Thread: All Mah Gapes Gone! (Jan 28, 2023 @ 5:58am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!