South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court. (Read the text of the law)

Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.

The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.

The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.

Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.

Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.

[DavidMn]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court. (Read the text of the law)

Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.

The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.

The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.

South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.

Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.

Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.

Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.

About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.This is nothing less than insanity.:mad:

[strandinthewind]

It will be interesting to see how The Court rules on this, when it gets there in like five years. I do not think The Court will overturn Roe. But, I could be wrong and certainly Scalia and Thomas would be all for that.

Interestingly, if these anti-abortion people would spend as much time and money on prevention education (from abstinence to condoms) - I think the number of abortions would be lessened by 2/3, which is far more than they will ever achieve by trying to ban them altogether like this.

[DavidMn]

It will be interesting to see how The Court rules ont his, when it gets there in like five years. I do not think The Court will overturn Roe. But, I could be wrong and certainly Scalia and Thomas would be all for that.Don't forget if Stevens retires in the next couple years or dies. We need to do all we can to make sure he lives until at least the next president takes office. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Don't forget if Stevens retires in the next couple years or dies. We need to do all we can to make sure he lives until at least the next president takes office. :lol:

I am still not convinved Alito and Roberts want to overturn Roe. I think they want to limit it, which is what this bill does - though I think they will let it be expanded more than the life of the mother exception. Very, very few people want the state to male a raped woman to have to carry a child that was the result of that rape if she chosses not to :shrug:

[JohnL]

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them,"

If he truly believes that, then he would be a huge supporter of gay marriage and every other minority group fighting for equal rights in this country. I would say that you could consider gay people to be vulnerable and helpless in their fight to gain this right. Being governor of that State, I doubt he would support that. I love the way these politicians use these supposedly deep and meaningful statements only when it suits their immediate needs. WHATEVER!!

[DavidMn]

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them,"

If he truly believes that, then he would be a huge supporter of gay marriage and every other minority group fighting for equal rights in this country. I would say that you could consider gay people to be vulnerable and helpless in their fight to gain this right. Being governor of that State, I doubt he would support that. I love the way these politicians use these supposedly deep and meaningful statements only when it suits their immediate needs. WHATEVER!!Right on!!!

[strandinthewind]

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them,"

If he truly believes that, then he would be a huge supporter of gay marriage and every other minority group fighting for equal rights in this country. I would say that you could consider gay people to be vulnerable and helpless in their fight to gain this right. Being governor of that State, I doubt he would support that. I love the way these politicians use these supposedly deep and meaningful statements only when it suits their immediate needs. WHATEVER!!

Not only that, but the "life of the mother" exception is just as much man playing God as any other reason for an abortion. I mean if we accept God choses who will live and die, then why make the exception during birth for any reason. Under that reasoning, if the baby is going to kill the mother, then God has made it so and who is man to change that?

[DavidMn]

I'm not an expert, but I would think this frontal assault by the religious conservatives WILL hurt republicans in November.

[amber]

It will be interesting to see how The Court rules on this, when it gets there in like five years. I do not think The Court will overturn Roe. But, I could be wrong and certainly Scalia and Thomas would be all for that.

Interestingly, if these anti-abortion people would spend as much time and money on prevention education (from abstinence to condoms) - I think the number of abortions would be lessened by 2/3, which is far more than they will ever achieve by trying to ban them altogether like this.

It's too logical and productive, they would never do it. :rolleyes:

[SuzeQuze]

It's too logical and productive, they would never do it. :rolleyes:

No, because it is not in line with their ideology. They know what is best for everyone, want to make the rules, but don't need to follow them themselves because they're the chosen people.

[chiliD]

I'm not an expert, but I would think this frontal assault by the religious conservatives WILL hurt republicans in November.

I want to hurt Republicans now.

[DavidMn]

I want to hurt Republicans now.I'm right behind ya.

[irishgrl]

I'm right behind ya.
me too.

I have a hard time seeing this bill having legs precisely because it doesnt have the exception for a woman's health that the Supreme Court has followed for oh, about 40+ cases I believe....

I guess time will tell, but in the meantime, I suggest all pro-choice women of child bearing age get themselves to a pro-choice state. establish residency.
and hang on tight.

[DavidMn]

me too.

I have a hard time seeing this bill having legs precisely because it doesnt have the exception for a woman's health that the Supreme Court has followed for oh, about 40+ cases I believe....

I guess time will tell, but in the meantime, I suggest all pro-choice women of child bearing age get themselves to a pro-choice state. establish residency.
and hang on tight.Ok, and the thing is I've voted for Republicans in the past. I believe in the best candidate, but these religious nuts are totally higghjacking the party.:mad: