Results tagged “bans” from iVillage - Beehive

Come now, who doesn't love a good debate about the latest ban? We've buzzed about abortion bans, smoking bans, bans on trans fat and gun control (which is sort of close to ban ... work with me here). Then there are the more creative bans like a recently suggested Lawrence, KS cell phone ban and even a proposed ban on microwave popcorn in Seattle's City Hall. Seriously -- have you ever worked in a place where people continuously burn microwave popcorn? You'd be campaigning for mandatory prison sentences, too. My recent favorite, though, is this anti-sag ordinance that passed unanimously in a Louisiana town last week. An anti-sag ordinance? Don't worry, your less-than-toned body isn't on trial here -- but your pants may well be! You may be facing a stiff fine if you're walking around in overly saggy pants and showing your drawers (or more!) in public in Delcambre, Louisiana. The new law will apply equally to men and women, the town officials say. Hmmm ... so if you're one of those people we discussed recently, you may want to reschedule that summer vacation to Louisiana. My favorite quote from this news story:

Mayor Broussard's public advice for people who like their pants to hang low: "Just wear it properly. Cover your vital parts. I mean, if you expose your private parts, you'll get a fine. If you walk up and your pants drop, you get a fine. They're better off taking the pants off and just wearing a dress."

What do you think? Have saggy, baggy pants overstayed their welcome? Anything else you'd like to see banned? What about loud car stereos? Nosey neighbors? Sippy cups? A ban on bans? For more on the anti-sag story and some public reaction, check out our latest Street Talk video and our "How Low Can You Go?" slideshow.

On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling that bans a procedure popularly called "partial birth abortion". The 5-4 decision marked the first time that the court has ruled on a specific procedure rather than the question of abortion overall. While most abortions performed would not be affected by this ban, the ruling has obviously added fuel to an already volatile long-running debate between pro-life and pro-choice activists. While abortion opponents see it as a major victory for their beliefs, abortion rights groups feel it's a major setback. Likely echoing their concerns, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held a dissenting opinion and stated that this ruling "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court." She went on to say that the decision flies in the face of previous decisions and procedures deemed necessary by medical organizations. I'm paraphrasing a bit there, but Ruth's not the only one with a dissenting opinion around here; this news has sparked a lot of conversation on our boards as well. From the Abortion Debate board:

"I do not wish for abortion to become illegal but I can't say I was upset to hear this procedure will no longer be performed."

"I don't know about you, but if I need medical help, it's the doctor I'm turning to, not a politician trying to look "moral."

This ban is posturing and potentially dangerous."

Of course they're also discussing this ruling -- and the politics associated with it -- on the Politics Today board:

"No surprise. I fully expected *this* court to put it's layman opinion ahead of the medical experience and knowledge of licensed OB's and gynocologists on the issue before it.

It's called arrogance."

"I believe there has been so much objection due to the fact that it is a slippery slope. Once you start limiting abortion or banning certain procedures, it is only a matter of time until they ban the entire procedure."

What do you think about this ruling? Do you feel that this is a major development in the abortion debate? Does the decision set the stage for what issues are going to be in the spotlight for the 2008 presidential race? Share your thoughts and reactions here.