South Dakota Bans Abortion

minsue

Gosling
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
Posts
22,062
No comment from me, I've covered this ground too much already here. Just posting for those who may want to know. ~ M

South Dakota passes abortion ban
Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:05 PM ET

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.

The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

"My understanding is we are the first state to truly defy Roe v. Wade," the 1973 high court ruling that granted a constitutional right to abortion, said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood's South Dakota chapter.

State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky also have introduced similar measures this year, but South Dakota's legislative calendar means its law is likely to be enacted first.

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

"If he chooses to sign it, we will be filing a lawsuit in short order to block it," she said after attending the afternoon debate at the state capital in Pierre.

Proponents have said the law was designed for just such a court challenge.

The timing is right, supporters say, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. The two conservatives could pave the way to a decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The high court said on Tuesday it will rule on whether the federal government can ban some abortion procedures, a case that could reveal whether the court reshaped by President George W. Bush will restrict abortion rights.

In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the last direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades.

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.

Planned Parenthood operates the sole clinic in South Dakota where roughly 800 abortions are performed each year by doctors from neighboring Minnesota, Looby said.

Two years ago, Rounds vetoed a similar bill, saying it would wipe out existing restrictions on abortion while it was fought in the courts. A rewritten bill lost narrowly in the state Senate.

Some legislators opposed to abortion rights questioned whether it was premature to challenge Roe v. Wade, and said litigation would prove expensive for the sparsely populated state. An anonymous donor has offered $1 million to the state to defray the costs of litigation.
 
The timing is right, supporters say, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. The two conservatives could pave the way to a decision overturning Roe v. Wade.


This isn't necessarily a bad thing... even with the 2 new justices, I don't think RvW will be overturned... it could serve to solidify the right to choose for a long time to come...

and if it goes the other way...

I don't think Bush or the Republicans have any idea what kind of backlash an overturning of this decision could create...

could easily swing the '08 election to the dems...

but they'll be dealing with riots before that...

you can push women only so far, folks...
 
SelenaKittyn said:
I don't think Bush or the Republicans have any idea what kind of backlash an overturning of this decision could create...

could easily swing the '08 election to the dems...

but they'll be dealing with riots before that...

you can push women only so far, folks...

I've heard that the more canny republicans work to keep abortion legal just so they can have a hot issue to fight against in public. They therefore don't want it made illegal, because then they'd lose their greatest rallying point.

Supposedly that's why Bush didn't appoint a fire-breathing conservative to the supreme court. Just like the War on Terror, the War on Abortion keps them in power.
 
It's a good thing that the unborn don't vote. Let's just say that no pro-choice candidate would stand a snowball's chance in hell (and I don't even believe in hell) of getting elected if they did....but I digress... :rolleyes:

I consider myself pro-life, but even I think that this law sounds a bit too far. A deliberate challenge to Roe vs. Wade is not what we need right now. There is too much risk of an extreme decision being made. Then again, I don't want Roe reversed, just modified or reformed. Some tinkering with Roe, that's all. As Clinton once said about affirmative action (though I have plenty of reservations about that too) "mend it, don't end it". :rolleyes:
 
SelenaKittyn said:
This isn't necessarily a bad thing... even with the 2 new justices, I don't think RvW will be overturned... it could serve to solidify the right to choose for a long time to come...

and if it goes the other way...

I don't think Bush or the Republicans have any idea what kind of backlash an overturning of this decision could create...

could easily swing the '08 election to the dems...

but they'll be dealing with riots before that...

you can push women only so far, folks...


The court, in recent years, has tended to split 5-4 over abortion. Justice O'connor, being the swing vote that general came down on the side of women's rights. While it is true, that 2 conservatives were replaced with conservatives, the new court's makeup is, in all likelihood now predisposed to strike down the Roe decision.

It can be assumed that thomas and Scalia will vote to strike it down. It can also be assumed that alito and roberts will as well. So you have Kennedy, Stevens, Byer, Ginsburg and Souter. All five would have to vote to uphold roe. In the past, at least one of them has generally voted with the conservatives. The odds favor Roe being overturned as soon as it is heard.

You are basically starting out with four justices whose minds are made up based on their previous history and politics. Only one of the remaing five neds to vote with them. Even if we further assume both Clinton appointees will vote to uphold it, you only need one of the remaining three to side with the conservatives.
 
"The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades."

"Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters."

If forcing a woman to bear the child of a rapist isn't torture, I don't know what is.
 
the law as described, with no exceptions {correction: for rape and incest}is the Catholic (Vatican) position, as far as I know.

the law's lack of provision for the life {correction: should say HEALTH} of the mother should result in the law's being overturned. (she's loses a right to {healthy} life, and becomes an incubating machine).

(Note that the 'partial birth' law now before the SC has been carefully [re] crafted so as to consider dangers to the life of the mother.)

as some posters have noted, the more foolish attempts to gain the 'pro life' goal may backfire and produce rulings that at least partially solidify the present laws (for most Americans favor exceptions for rape and incest---I believe this was Reagan's position, iirc).

:CORRECTION: The Bill allows for the mother's life to be saved, if killing the fetus is required along the way. The bill does NOT have an exception for 'health' however, and that may still be a fatal flaw. I've revised the posting at the marked places.

The article is not very clear.
 
Last edited:
Parents, teach your children about birth control, and safe sex!!!
Start at about age seven.
When they hit dating age, teach them how to roll on a condom. Take your daughter to get a consultation on birth control- about fifteen or so, or earlier if she shows signs of becoming sexually active earlier. Emphasise that it has NOTHING to do with her having sex- she doesn't have to have sex just because she is protected from pregancy. It would protect her -from that one aspect, at least- if she should be raped.


Just

do

it

yourself.
 
Well spoken, Stella. On a side note, the image of a father showing his son how to put on a condom gives the idea for a gay incest story, you know, father/son. Or it could be bi, or a mother showing her son..... :D
 
SEVERUSMAX said:
Well spoken, Stella. On a side note, the image of a father showing his son how to put on a condom gives the idea for a gay incest story, you know, father/son. Or it could be bi, or a mother showing her son..... :D
*snicker*
My girl has complained about how hard it is for her to find anything to do that would be rebellious- except for maybe smoking cigarrettes, and she doesn't like them :D
 
Interesting complaint.

she'll find something... it's a teenage law :rolleyes:

My neice rebelled... she's a complete and utter slob to her mother's fastidious anal-retentive cleaning frenzies...

there's always something! (to paraphrase Gilda :))
 
SelenaKittyn said:
she'll find something... it's a teenage law :rolleyes:

My neice rebelled... she's a complete and utter slob to her mother's fastidious anal-retentive cleaning frenzies...

there's always something! (to paraphrase Gilda :))
Mine could become anal retentive, and I wouldn't mind too much :rolleyes:

But, seriously, if you live in one of these states- no matter where you live- teach your children to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy.
And do it in time.
Because the government isn't going to do it for you.
 
Last edited:
I remember the teenage girl who got raped by her own father, got pregnant, and was denied an abortion in her own state, so she tried to go to another state to get the abortion, but her father caught up with her at the bus station and shot her.

How would the supporters of the anti-abortion law in SD defend their stand against abortion in such a case? "Well, if you can't make your father wear a condom or persuade him to practise coitus interruptus, you'll just have to raise that child/sibling of yours, missy!"
 
Travel allows choice

As usual, the proposed law wouldn't affect those rich enough to travel to a state or country that allows abortion.

The real losers will be those women who are already financially disadvantaged. An unwanted baby conceived by rape or a now-absent father, especially if the child will be HIV positive or severely-handicapped, could condemn the woman and her child/children to a lifetime of welfare.

The rich can avoid the consequences of any such law. The poor suffer - again.

Cue for Chorus of 'She was poor but she was honest...'

Og
 
The real losers will be those women who are already financially disadvantaged. An unwanted baby conceived by rape or a now-absent father, especially if the child will be HIV positive or severely-handicapped, could condemn the woman and her child/children to a lifetime of welfare.


welfare/medicaid won't pay for an abortion anyway...

square one... :rolleyes:
 
Great idea, South Dakota!?

SEVERUSMAX said:
It's a good thing that the unborn don't vote. Let's just say that no pro-choice candidate would stand a snowball's chance in hell (and I don't even believe in hell) of getting elected if they did....but I digress... :rolleyes:

I consider myself pro-life, but even I think that this law sounds a bit too far. A deliberate challenge to Roe vs. Wade is not what we need right now. There is too much risk of an extreme decision being made. Then again, I don't want Roe reversed, just modified or reformed. Some tinkering with Roe, that's all. As Clinton once said about affirmative action (though I have plenty of reservations about that too) "mend it, don't end it". :rolleyes:

Hmmmmm. And after all, all those new mothers will have to do something to support those children, too, rather than goof off at home or go to college or marry a nice guy--they can become waitresses or topless dancers. Then all the Dakotans will have more willing wenches to abuse. The children will grow up on welfare and their grandparents (the mother's parents) will treat them as "accidents" in many cases. They'll vote Democrat when they grow up. *pauses to vomit in the trashcan* And all those children will be of age just in time to get sacrificed in the next World War.

Give me a break! If a woman doesn't want to have a child, why force her? My only careat has been and remains that the prospective mom should see a movie of an abortion in progress. If she still doesn't want the child, then both she and the child are better off with an abortion. I've long believed, also, that there's a point where the abortion shouldn't be performed--sticking a needle in a kids head during delivery is not cool.

And, yes, I'm a Republican, but I don't like the Republican stand on abortion. :rolleyes: How can women stand for this crappy interference with their rights???
 
Give ME a break! All I said was that it was a good thing that the unborn can't vote. I'm moderate to conservative on the abortion issue, whereas I'm fairly liberal on most social issues. I'm saying that Roe needs to be reformed, not challenged or preserved in its entirety. And I hold to my personal view that I would rather be born poor than not born at all. Poverty is not the end of world, nor does it have to be permanent. And if my mother hates me, then so be it. With such a mother, the feeling would be mutual.
 
Last edited:
SEVERUSMAX said:
Give ME a break! All I said was that it was a good thing that the unborn can't vote. I'm moderate to conservative on the abortion issue, whereas I'm fairly liberal on most social issues. I'm saying that Roe needs to be reformed, not challenged or preserved in its entirety. And I hold to my personal view that I would rather be born poor than not born at all. Poverty is not the end of world, nor does it have to be permanent. And if my mother hates me, then so be it. With such a mother, the feeling would be mutual.

OK! Duly noted, and I shouldn't have quoted and then put the whole rant into one post. I'll quickly apologize for that.

I'm pretty liberal, I guess, on the abortion issue and many social issues and very conservative when it comes to personal freedom and putting up with bullshit from other people, nations, religious parties, etc. We'll have to agree to disagree on some things.

It is, indeed, a good thing that the unborn can't vote. :D
 
Stella_Omega said:
Parents, teach your children about birth control, and safe sex!!!
Start at about age seven.
When they hit dating age, teach them how to roll on a condom. Take your daughter to get a consultation on birth control- about fifteen or so, or earlier if she shows signs of becoming sexually active earlier. Emphasise that it has NOTHING to do with her having sex- she doesn't have to have sex just because she is protected from pregancy. It would protect her -from that one aspect, at least- if she should be raped.


Just

do

it

yourself.


Very well spoken. I feel the same way and did the same thing with my 13 year old sister. She came to me, said she was sexually active and the next day we went and got a giant box of condoms and got her put on the pill. Parents don't understand that they're not little kids, start early since every kid is growing up faster and faster by the generation.

As for overturning Roe v. Wade: :mad:

Don't say it "can't" happen, anything can - look where we are right now in America alone. Look what is happening with the war on abortion...So many angry women...so many.
 
arienette said:
Look what is happening with the war on abortion...So many angry women...so many.

Ok. I'm cynical, but here's my thing:
I don't think there are that many who are angry. Look around at the women today. How many of them really take a stand on abortion? We should be angry. We should be mobilizing to protect our rights, but we're not. Most women are so busy with jobs and family that they're totally oblivious to the world around them.
I do think that a SC decision overturning Roe would definitely be a kick in the pants for many. I just hope that's not what it takes to get women to take action.
 
sophia jane said:
Ok. I'm cynical, but here's my thing:
I don't think there are that many who are angry. Look around at the women today. How many of them really take a stand on abortion? We should be angry. We should be mobilizing to protect our rights, but we're not. Most women are so busy with jobs and family that they're totally oblivious to the world around them.
I do think that a SC decision overturning Roe would definitely be a kick in the pants for many. I just hope that's not what it takes to get women to take action.


Along with that, it should be noted a lot of the pro life groups are predominantly female.

The issue is particularly devisive, because it isn't one issue, it's several roled up into a glop where extricating yourself from the morass and finding the real issues is dificult.

Just as an example, you could ask a woman if she was for killing unborn childnren and she might reply resoundingly no.

But ask her if she is in favor of making women second class citizens and she might just as loudly reply no.

that would tend to make her pro life and pro choice at the same time. Which this issue often does, as it's intricate with a lot of contradictory consequences, no matter how you slice it.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Along with that, it should be noted a lot of the pro life groups are predominantly female.

The issue is particularly devisive, because it isn't one issue, it's several roled up into a glop where extricating yourself from the morass and finding the real issues is dificult.

Just as an example, you could ask a woman if she was for killing unborn childnren and she might reply resoundingly no.

But ask her if she is in favor of making women second class citizens and she might just as loudly reply no.

that would tend to make her pro life and pro choice at the same time. Which this issue often does, as it's intricate with a lot of contradictory consequences, no matter how you slice it.

Yes, you're absolutely right. Which is why it's unfortunate that it's become such a political hotbed, decided too often by men.
I'm pretty much anti-abortion and as I've posted before, when I found myself young, stupid, alone and pregnant, I decided to give the baby up for adoption. That said, I'm pro-choice because when the government starts making such intimate decisions for me or other women, I've got a problem with that.
 
sophia jane said:
Yes, you're absolutely right. Which is why it's unfortunate that it's become such a political hotbed, decided too often by men.
I'm pretty much anti-abortion and as I've posted before, when I found myself young, stupid, alone and pregnant, I decided to give the baby up for adoption. That said, I'm pro-choice because when the government starts making such intimate decisions for me or other women, I've got a problem with that.


I'm pro choice, because I don't like the idea of being accorded the same staus as a brood mare.

It will really come down to how you percieve the issues involved. So many times, the arguments over abortion would be incomprehensible to someone not familiar with the situation. One side arguing about preserving life, another about preserving rights. You might well think both were right and wonder what the problem was. The arguments, being based on such different takes as to seem to have no common thread between them whatsoever.
 
The issue's so damned polarised. I'm very much in favour of abortions as a general concept. However, I'm of the opinion that they should be limited right down to very early weeks. At the moment in the UK, a woman can have an abortion within 24 weeks of pregnancy (for any medical or mental health reasons). I believe that premature babies have survived after only 26 weeks. To my mind, a 24 week old foetus is too damned close to being a baby for my liking. I don't think life begins at conception, but it certainly begins a bit before 24 weeks.

But where does that put me on the abortion spectrum? Am I pro-choice for being pro-abortions. Or pro-Life for wanting far tighter restrictions? There appears to be no political middle ground.

The Earl
 
Back
Top