SD House Passes Abortion Ban

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs
And if the Supreme Court ever decided to overturn Roe v Wade they will have to declare life begins at conception.
Which will change everything when a fetus has the same rights as a living person.
Imagine the incredible changes!
e.g. smoke one cigarrette during pregnancy get convicted of assault. A doctor gives you any medication that has even the SLIGHTEST effect on the fetus he goes to jail for assault.

I've used that argument before, and it went by totally ignored. If it's a child, then smoking in the presence of a pregnant woman constitutes assault with a deadly weapon. Maybe we need to install cameras in the house where every pregnant woman lives, and monitor the progress.

That's because it's the definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[TheSlamma]

Just like the religious repubs and their "Drug War" it will be just the same, more underground they have no idea how to control. Hanger jobs, woman poisoning themselves to the fetus dies, dumpster babies.

Thats okay though, those white suburban churches are far enough away from the heat.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs
And if the Supreme Court ever decided to overturn Roe v Wade they will have to declare life begins at conception.
Which will change everything when a fetus has the same rights as a living person.
Imagine the incredible changes!
e.g. smoke one cigarrette during pregnancy get convicted of assault. A doctor gives you any medication that has even the SLIGHTEST effect on the fetus he goes to jail for assault.

I've used that argument before, and it went by totally ignored. If it's a child, then smoking in the presence of a pregnant woman constitutes assault with a deadly weapon. Maybe we need to install cameras in the house where every pregnant woman lives, and monitor the progress.

That's because it's the definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

No, banning abortion is the definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

If you have no evidence or logical arguments capable of debating me, kindly shut the f-ck up.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
No, banning abortion is the definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

Well now, just a second there, professor. Since you've just demonstrated that you obviously have no understanding of what a slippery slope fallacy is, I'll provide the necessary linkage to assist you in your everlasting quest for knowledge. Slipper Slope Fallacy. Hope that helps!

If you have no evidence or logical arguments capable of debating me, kindly shut the f-ck up.

I already used them to successfully beat you in a previous thread, but you already knew that, which is why you ducked out of that thread. Come back to me when you learn the first thing about logic and pull your egotistical head out of your ass.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Does a relatively small issue like this have too be used as wedge between democrats and republicans? When people make political choices on issues like this we get administrations in office like what we have now. I consider my self pro choice, but won't any sleep on it unless some politician uses it to get the sheep to vote for him based on that issue alone.

How do you define this as a 'small' issue? Abortion is the most common surgical procedure performed in the US today - about 3600 times per day, 1.3 million times per year. It's the end to over 20% of all pregnancies. Sounds like a fairly important issue to me, regardless of which side of the fence you're sitting on, especially when one considers the moral weight that the issue carries.

you think those numbers are horrifying. well 40-80% of natural conceptions are naturally aborted. those numbers certainly dwarf anything else and gives one an idea of how much moral worth a so called creator gives early life. sacred my ass.

the repubs are a buncha hipocrits on this issue. 1.3 million abortions you say. well thats 1.3 milion less unwanted children. considernig that this already lowers the number of unwanted children we have ot deal with, why is it that we still have children in foster care instead of being adopted by these wonderful pro lifers? they can't even handle the current supply. you think they can handle a million more? laughable. these pro lifers should put their money where their mouth is and adopt or stfu. and then theres the issue of foster children and how they are treated in the system. wonderful? i think not. there are horrifying stats on how they turn to crime or homelessness when thye age out of the system and are uncerimoniously dropped from the system. have these pro lifers been working to help these people with more social programs and funds? or course not, they
ve had decades to shore up their arguement that they will actually help children once born but they've done nothing. their neglect of real live children after they are born just destroys their credibility about loving life. they just love birth. after that they just don't give a flying sh*t about you. bush has been cutting programs again, while increasing miltary budgets, love for life? u must be joking. he just cut student aid programs again.

not ot mention the slippery slope is already the favorite of pro lifers. in a way they use it ot define fetus's as full human beings. and that abortion will lead to whatever justified murder blabbity blah blah. course the same people/party generally support the death penalty which is always amusing.

just leave people alone. stop being the taliban. liberals lay off the gun control, conservatives lay off the women.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs
And if the Supreme Court ever decided to overturn Roe v Wade they will have to declare life begins at conception.
Which will change everything when a fetus has the same rights as a living person.
Imagine the incredible changes!
e.g. smoke one cigarrette during pregnancy get convicted of assault. A doctor gives you any medication that has even the SLIGHTEST effect on the fetus he goes to jail for assault.

I've used that argument before, and it went by totally ignored. If it's a child, then smoking in the presence of a pregnant woman constitutes assault with a deadly weapon. Maybe we need to install cameras in the house where every pregnant woman lives, and monitor the progress.

Then when the child is born, and gets a lung infection, we can let him die, since his parents don't have any insurance.

women are best protected in kitchens. preferable shrouded in a burka. and pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to drive. why risk it? hell, any woman having unprotected sex even with her husband should be housebound. any strenuous activity could accidentally contribute to a natural abortion*miscarriage before detection by pregnancy tests. once pregnant they should be banned from work as any extra stress/strain could contribute to a natural abortion. this would be murder of course intentional or not. and with such a crime you must take the harshest measures to make sure theres no possibility of it happening if at all possible. how would we know if women are taking such risks with life? we can't take their word, it is a matter of human life and mruder after all. have them sewn shut and have video monitors installed in all bedrooms across the countries. cheating the system is conspiracy to commit murder and should be prosecuted.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: robains
themusgrat,

So who created this nutrition tube?

The rock I live on is planet earth. The rock I live under is "common sense". Where have you been living?

Rob.

The mother. So she owns the tube, but not the fetus. I also live on earth.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Guttmacher Institute
Best source of information on abortion . . . so much so that even these whack jobs cite AGI.

By your "dated" . . . circular . . . logic, we should judge Bush43's sobriety based on his behavior in the 70s. Abortion rate and abortion ratio are both useful assessments for clinicians and public health authorities. But neither is useful to the ignorant . . . Regardless, both have been falling for over a decade. The ratio is important b/c it compares births to abortions. The rate is important b/c it tells us what the broad population of "fertile" women are doing.

We haven't seen incidence rates of 1.6 million since the last Republican was in office. In fact, over 40% of all legal abortions occurred while Ronald Reagan and Bush41 were in office. I always find it peculiar the Right to Life people favor citing such numbers instead of the lower incidence of more recent years. Granted, they usually avoid mentioning Reagan or Bush. I wonder why . . .

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Sounds like a fairly important issue to me, regardless of which side of the fence you're sitting on, especially when one considers the moral weight that the issue carries.

How is it important to YOU? Have you had one?

No? Then shut the hell up and let half of this country have control of their own bodies...

FS

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Guttmacher Institute
Best source of information on abortion . . . so much so that even these whack jobs cite AGI.

By your "dated" . . . circular . . . logic, we should judge Bush43's sobriety based on his behavior in the 70s. Abortion rate and abortion ratio are both useful assessments for clinicians and public health authorities. But neither is useful to the ignorant . . . Regardless, both have been falling for over a decade. The ratio is important b/c it compares births to abortions. The rate is important b/c it tells us what the broad population of "fertile" women are doing.

We haven't seen incidence rates of 1.6 million since the last Republican was in office. In fact, over 40% of all legal abortions occurred while Ronald Reagan and Bush41 were in office. I always find it peculiar the Right to Life people favor citing such numbers instead of the lower incidence of more recent years. Granted, they usually avoid mentioning Reagan or Bush. I wonder why . . .

Ah, so you didn't call my numbers into question for any other reason than to bash a dead president? Maybe you can remind me what this thread was about, because I'm having a hard time remembering after all of your diversions.

Originally posted by: Future Shock
How is it important to YOU? Have you had one?

No? Then shut the hell up and let half of this country have control of their own bodies...

FS

1. Learn how to quote.
2. Take a class in logic.
3. Reread your post.
3. Get back to me.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Link

02/10/2006
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.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

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

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

This country is headed for civil war.

I don't think this should be allowed, the Supreme Court ruled abortions are legal...

A "NO" vote on Bush would have been wiser then. Now you get to enjoy the decent into Hell with the rest of us.

Bush has nothing to do with the SD House passing an abortion ban.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Bush has nothing to do with the SD House passing an abortion ban.

Did you read this part?

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.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ntdz
Bush has nothing to do with the SD House passing an abortion ban.

Did you read this part?

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.

Yes. Bush has nothing to do with it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Does a relatively small issue like this have too be used as wedge between democrats and republicans? When people make political choices on issues like this we get administrations in office like what we have now. I consider my self pro choice, but won't any sleep on it unless some politician uses it to get the sheep to vote for him based on that issue alone.

How do you define this as a 'small' issue? Abortion is the most common surgical procedure performed in the US today - about 3600 times per day, 1.3 million times per year. It's the end to over 20% of all pregnancies. Sounds like a fairly important issue to me, regardless of which side of the fence you're sitting on, especially when one considers the moral weight that the issue carries.

First, as BBD documents, your numbers are inflated. The CDC also reports substantially fewer abortions than your figures. Let's put that aside for the moment, however, and consider the objective importance of abortion your way, by the numbers.

If there are, say, one million abortions per year in the U.S. today, and each materially affects two people (a generous assumption), this means abortion materially impacts 0.67% of all Americans. In contrast, there are some 37 million Americans living in poverty (12.7%), making poverty 18.5 times more important than abortion. There are 45.8 million Americans without health insurance (15.3%), making this almost 23 times more important than abortion. There are a 61 million American adults who are obese (20.3%), and a full 130 million (43.3% of all Americans, 64.5% of adults) who are overweight, making these issues 30.5 and 65 times more important than abortion respectively. (All figures taken from the latest government data I found.)

Then we have meta-issues like political corruption, the environment, and the economy, issues that affect essentially every American. Put it all together, and I think that, objectively, by the numbers, abortion really isn't that important at all, especially since it is an elective procedure. It has gained a veneer of importance only because a small, shrill segment of America has decided their personal, third-party beliefs somehow outweigh the beliefs and interests of the small number of people who are affected first hand.

Finally, although it's a bit off-topic for this thread, I would like to extend your approach to objectively weighting importance to one other issue. There have been about 3,000 Americans killed by terrorism in the last 10 years or so. This is a annual rate of about 300 Americans per year. By your by-the-numbers approach, this makes terrorism less than a drop in the bucket in its real impact on Americans, less than 1/120,000 as important as poverty, for example. Yet somehow, this administration has convinced a sizable number of Americans that terrorism is overwhelmingly the most critical issue facing us, justifying killing tens of thousands of innocent people, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and significantly curtailing American's Contstitutional rights. Much like abortion, it is an issue that has gained inflated importance because people are so emotional and irrational and easy to manipulate by unscrupulous people with self-serving agendas.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ntdz
Bush has nothing to do with the SD House passing an abortion ban.

Did you read this part?

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.

Yes. Bush has nothing to do with it.

Bush created the perceived opportunity to change abortion laws. But you knew that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Guttmacher Institute
Best source of information on abortion . . . so much so that even these whack jobs cite AGI.

By your "dated" . . . circular . . . logic, we should judge Bush43's sobriety based on his behavior in the 70s. Abortion rate and abortion ratio are both useful assessments for clinicians and public health authorities. But neither is useful to the ignorant . . . Regardless, both have been falling for over a decade. The ratio is important b/c it compares births to abortions. The rate is important b/c it tells us what the broad population of "fertile" women are doing.

We haven't seen incidence rates of 1.6 million since the last Republican was in office. In fact, over 40% of all legal abortions occurred while Ronald Reagan and Bush41 were in office. I always find it peculiar the Right to Life people favor citing such numbers instead of the lower incidence of more recent years. Granted, they usually avoid mentioning Reagan or Bush. I wonder why . . .

Ah, so you didn't call my numbers into question for any other reason than to bash a dead president? Maybe you can remind me what this thread was about, because I'm having a hard time remembering after all of your diversions.

The only diversion I see is yours, trying to draw attention from the fact you used inflated numbers to help your case.

Originally posted by: Future Shock
How is it important to YOU? Have you had one?

No? Then shut the hell up and let half of this country have control of their own bodies...

FS

1. Learn how to quote.
2. Take a class in logic.
3. Reread your post.
3. Get back to me.

OK, two diversions. You're also evading Future Shock's point.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
First, as BBD documents, your numbers are inflated. The CDC also reports substantially fewer abortions than your figures. Let's put that aside for the moment, however, and consider the objective importance of abortion your way, by the numbers.

First, I gave complete citations for my information and admitted that the numbers are slightly dated (one from 1991, the other from 1995).

If there are, say, one million abortions per year in the U.S. today, and each materially affects two people (a generous assumption), this means abortion materially impacts 0.67% of all Americans. In contrast, there are some 37 million Americans living in poverty (12.7%), making poverty 18.5 times more important than abortion. There are 45.8 million Americans without health insurance (15.3%), making this almost 23 times more important than abortion. There are a 61 million American adults who are obese (20.3%), and a full 130 million (43.3% of all Americans, 64.5% of adults) who are overweight, making these issues 30.5 and 65 times more important than abortion respectively. (All figures taken from the latest government data I found.)

Your first assumption is inherently flawed, as you have no way to ascertain its validity. How can you define who is materially impacted by an abortion? You can't. You just made the number up to suit your agenda. Fair enough - I could let that slide if it was followed by a cogent argument about the topic at hand. Instead, however, you throw out two more red herrings: poverty and obesity. You can spin statistics any way you want, but these issues have nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong and are, therefore, completely irrelevant.

Then we have meta-issues like political corruption, the environment, and the economy, issues that affect essentially every American. Put it all together, and I think that, objectively, by the numbers, abortion really isn't that important at all, especially since it is an elective procedure. It has gained a veneer of importance only because a small, shrill segment of America has decided their personal, third-party beliefs somehow outweigh the beliefs and interests of the small number of people who are affected first hand.

Finally, although it's a bit off-topic for this thread, I would like to extend your approach to objectively weighting importance to one other issue. There have been about 3,000 Americans killed by terrorism in the last 10 years or so. This is a annual rate of about 300 Americans per year. By your by-the-numbers approach, this makes terrorism less than a drop in the bucket in its real impact on Americans, less than 1/120,000 as important as poverty, for example. Yet somehow, this administration has convinced a sizable number of Americans that terrorism is overwhelmingly the most critical issue facing us, justifying killing tens of thousands of innocent people, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and significantly curtailing American's Contstitutional rights. Much like abortion, it is an issue that has gained inflated importance because people are so emotional and irrational and easy to manipulate by unscrupulous people with self-serving agendas.

More red herrings. You also assume that I'm in favor of our 'war on terror' without my actually stating as much.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
First, as BBD documents, your numbers are inflated. The CDC also reports substantially fewer abortions than your figures. Let's put that aside for the moment, however, and consider the objective importance of abortion your way, by the numbers.

First, I gave complete citations for my information and admitted that the numbers are slightly dated (one from 1991, the other from 1995).

If there are, say, one million abortions per year in the U.S. today, and each materially affects two people (a generous assumption), this means abortion materially impacts 0.67% of all Americans. In contrast, there are some 37 million Americans living in poverty (12.7%), making poverty 18.5 times more important than abortion. There are 45.8 million Americans without health insurance (15.3%), making this almost 23 times more important than abortion. There are a 61 million American adults who are obese (20.3%), and a full 130 million (43.3% of all Americans, 64.5% of adults) who are overweight, making these issues 30.5 and 65 times more important than abortion respectively. (All figures taken from the latest government data I found.)

Your first assumption is inherently flawed, as you have no way to ascertain its validity. How can you define who is materially impacted by an abortion? You can't. You just made the number up to suit your agenda. Fair enough - I could let that slide if it was followed by a cogent argument about the topic at hand. Instead, however, you throw out two more red herrings: poverty and obesity. You can spin statistics any way you want, but these issues have nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong and are, therefore, completely irrelevant.

Then we have meta-issues like political corruption, the environment, and the economy, issues that affect essentially every American. Put it all together, and I think that, objectively, by the numbers, abortion really isn't that important at all, especially since it is an elective procedure. It has gained a veneer of importance only because a small, shrill segment of America has decided their personal, third-party beliefs somehow outweigh the beliefs and interests of the small number of people who are affected first hand.

Finally, although it's a bit off-topic for this thread, I would like to extend your approach to objectively weighting importance to one other issue. There have been about 3,000 Americans killed by terrorism in the last 10 years or so. This is a annual rate of about 300 Americans per year. By your by-the-numbers approach, this makes terrorism less than a drop in the bucket in its real impact on Americans, less than 1/120,000 as important as poverty, for example. Yet somehow, this administration has convinced a sizable number of Americans that terrorism is overwhelmingly the most critical issue facing us, justifying killing tens of thousands of innocent people, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and significantly curtailing American's Contstitutional rights. Much like abortion, it is an issue that has gained inflated importance because people are so emotional and irrational and easy to manipulate by unscrupulous people with self-serving agendas.

More red herrings. You also assume that I'm in favor of our 'war on terror' without my actually stating as much.

"Is this really the direction that this forum is taking? Instead of actually addressing any points made in a response post, we'll simply say that the other person is wrong? How smart. " -- CycloWizard.

ROFLMAO!

I'll simply note that you totally avoided my point, that by your own standard of weighting importance based on the numbers, your pet issue of abortion is relatively insignificant compared to other issues facing America. To quote myself (instead of you), "[The abortion issue] has gained a veneer of importance only because a small, shrill segment of America has decided their personal, third-party beliefs somehow outweigh the beliefs and interests of the small number of people who are affected first hand."

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Dude, you continue to cite numbers from references that are decades old. That's just plain retarded.

There's really no utility in journal articles from the 90s (citing research from the 80s) and books written by ideologues. If that's slightly dated then George Bush was slightly a cokehead.

On a positive note, abortions are in decline, although that decline isn't nearly as sharp as its heyday . . . Clinton years. Granted, it was broad socioeconomic and informational factors that likely led to the decline . . . not Clinton policies per se.

Its also quite positive that VERY few women die from abortions. In general, we physicians prefer not to kill our patients.

The CDC reports fewer abortions b/c several states do not provide data. Accordingly, AGI is considered the most accurate source of abortion statistics. If the National Right to Life Committee knows enough to cite AGI for info . . . seems like random tools carrying their water would at least have a clue to do the same.

Every time you use inflated stats, you essentially commit a substantially similar offense as your opposition . . . you devalue life. In the boom years of Ronald Reagan, it's quite reasonable to believe that some abortions were the product of weakening public social support. Poor, unmarried women have always been overrepresented in abortion stats.

But I guess all we need are some capital gains/dividend tax cuts and all will be well.:roll:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
[ ... ]
The CDC reports fewer abortions b/c several states do not provide data. ...

Yes, including California. I mention the CDC simply because they offer more recent data, and they corroborate the continuing drop in both abortion numbers and rates since the peaks cited by CycloWizard.

 

[Tab]

On the subject of abortion and how BaliBabyDoc mentioned Ronald Reagen. Didn't Reagan write a book agaisnt abortion? Has anyone ever read it?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ntdz
Bush has nothing to do with the SD House passing an abortion ban.

Did you read this part?

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.

Yes. Bush has nothing to do with it.

Bush created the perceived opportunity to change abortion laws. But you knew that.

So you're saying Bush is a supporter of the SD House banning abortion? Provide a link proving that please.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: her209
Did you read this part?

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.

Yes. Bush has nothing to do with it.

Bush created the perceived opportunity to change abortion laws. But you knew that.

So you're saying Bush is a supporter of the SD House banning abortion? Provide a link proving that please.

Better than that, I'll give you two links:

• Sylvan Learning Center (Reading is fundamental.)
  Straw man logical fallacy

Now back to your bridge.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: her209
Did you read this part?

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.

Yes. Bush has nothing to do with it.

Bush created the perceived opportunity to change abortion laws. But you knew that.

So you're saying Bush is a supporter of the SD House banning abortion? Provide a link proving that please.

Better than that, I'll give you two links:

• Sylvan Learning Center (Reading is fundamental.)
  Straw man logical fallacy

Now back to your bridge.

Did you read the original quote from the article that her209 used as "evidence" Bush is involved with the SD House banning abortion? I'll provide it to you again:

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.

Does that mention Bush anywhere? The only way Bush has something to do with this is if he is supporting the ban in SD. So I'll ask you again, please provide evidence he supports the ban.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: her209
Did you read this part?

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.

Yes. Bush has nothing to do with it.

Bush created the perceived opportunity to change abortion laws. But you knew that.

So you're saying Bush is a supporter of the SD House banning abortion? Provide a link proving that please.

Better than that, I'll give you two links:

• Sylvan Learning Center (Reading is fundamental.)
  Straw man logical fallacy

Now back to your bridge.

Did you read the original quote from the article that her209 used as "evidence" Bush is involved with the SD House banning abortion? I'll provide it to you again:

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.

Does that mention Bush anywhere? The only way Bush has something to do with this is if he is supporting the ban in SD. So I'll ask you again, please provide evidence he supports the ban.

Are you really that dense? Can you comprehend simple English sentences? Bush created the perceived opportunity to change abortion laws. You following? "Supporters are pushing the measure" due to the perceived opportunity to get the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade. Bush created that perceived opportunity by adding two more conservatives to the bench. You should really try that Sylvan link. You'll need it to understand the Straw Man link.