We need to rebuild after Katrina and Rita," Julie Mickelberry, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Louisiana and the Mississippi Delta, said in a statement. "We don't need laws that threaten women's health."

I agree, but how do we figure out exactly which laws fall into that category?

I would hope the answer to that question would have more to do with science than politics.

Yes - a ban on abortion is far more important to Louisiana than herricane protestion. Isn't taht not obvious?

And once that gets passed, we can concetrate on getting the flag burning ban and of course, protect the State of Marriage from gays gettin in. We don't need any of those immigration changes - still lots to do in NO and we need the cheap cheap labor.

But first things first - we need to put the Punishment back into Pregnancy!

Having a governor who gave the distinct impression of being paralysed during Katrina now banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest. They only need another big hurricane and they've won the trifecta - to quote another galactically incompetent "leader".

This is why I will never, ever vote for one. What's the point of voting for Democrats if they can't protect choice, a key Democratic value? I don't care if they could possibly attract swing voters. I don't have a problem with you being personally pro-life, but don't put into legislation. If an anti-choice Democrat can promise me they'll protect choice, then, maybe, possibly, they could get my vote.

In 2004 it was clear that Bush and his cronies would do everthing in their power to, if not overturn Roe vs. Wade, at least render the law useless. Women voters still voted in huge number for this moron. "I just feel President Bush will do a better job of protecting me and my lilly-white family from those big, bad terrorist who hate us so much." (yeah right)! Women of America knew this was coming, and for the most part you all stood back and did nothing. You got what you wanted...and you have no one to blame but yourselves.

If federal law trumps state law, and if Roe v Wade made abortion legal, then why aren't all these new state laws making it illegal simply empty bluster with no legal force? I don't understand what's new about all this that can justify the Supreme Court's revisiting of the issue that's been settled law for decades now. I'd be grateful for an explanation comprehensible to non-lawyers.

Forgive my obtuseness -- gulliverb wrote:If federal law trumps state law, and if Roe v Wade made abortion legal, then why aren't all these new state laws making it illegal simply empty bluster with no legal force? I don't understand what's new about all this that can justify the Supreme Court's revisiting of the issue that's been settled law for decades now. I'd be grateful for an explanation comprehensible to non-lawyers. >>>>

According to an article in the new issue of Free Inquiry these states are passing these laws in hopes of the U S Supreme Court with two new conservative Justices will redo or undo Roe v Wade, at which time the states laws would take effect. Sorta planning ahead so to speak. And trying to use 'states rights'. ~Beth

And seen the people there. And we all saw Hurricaine Katrina. That state needs lots of abortions, and pronto. I would like to see 90% of pregnancies end in abortion in Louisiana.

Having lived in the Bible Belt for eight years, I can say that a Democrat with a pro-choice agenda has essentially no chance of being elected there, or re-elected, unless he/she is both a well-established and well-liked incumbent. Blanco is not either of those, and if she wants any chance at re-election, she will have to sign the bill.

And we, as Democrats (presumably), should shut-up about Democratic leaders who, from this point on, follow the wishes of the majority of their constituents. Though a slight majority of people, even in the South, are pro-choice, a slight majority of PEOPLE WHO VOTE are anti-choice, as has been shown in many recent elections there.

I myself am as vocally pro-choice as you will ever find, but the harsh reality is that a politician's pro-choice position is a huge liability in conservative states, and that single issue alone likely accounts for the consistent losses the Dems have experienced there. I know many people whose sole criterion for whom they vote is the politican's stand on abortion. I applaud the Dems holding on to the pro-choice ideal only as long as it doesn't single-handedly hand the gov't over to the Republicans, which sadly it has.

So if Blanco must sign the bill to keep her job come re--election, then let her sign it. Let the Repubs have their way on this issue, let them own it, even reverse Roe. In the end, it will blow up in their faces. Smart Dems will be standing by to make political hay from it.

Sometimes I think those crackers have it coming.

South Dakota still wins the prize for most extreme abortion law in the U.S., lacking even the health exception of Louisiana's bill. In South Dakota, if the law survives, even an abortion to save the life of the mother is technically illegal but wouldn't be prosecuted if the doctor tried to save both the mother and the fetus.

Anti-Choice Democrats in the Bible Belt may well be the only way to keep some tiny shred of abortion legal, so you should still vote. I assume the anti-choice Dems are also more apt to be 'lobbied' by pro-choice Dems who vote, so I think it's important to read the fine print before you decide not to vote at all and you should check with Planned Parenthood, as to what they recommend doing.

The anti-choicers have succeeded in making abortion one big gray issue i.e. waiting periods, federal funding, rape, incest, parental notification, life of mother, pharmacy prohibitions, number of clinics Etc. Etc. Pls. study up before you throw in the towel all together for anti-choice Dems.

And of course the other myriad issues which Democrats are more generous on, historically speaking, might be the difference between life and death for these unwanted babies now having to be born. Welfare, food programs, medical care etc.

So please think before you give up voting for Democrats in general.

Disclaimer: I'm a spoiled Californian; I do realize how very lucky I am to live here.