South Dakota House Approves Abortion Ban

heyjupiter678 · #1 02-10-2006, 02:24 PM

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45916

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.

JohnL · #2 02-10-2006, 02:31 PM

maybe it is just me, but it just seems that ever since DUBYA took office that this whole country is going backwards in time and in way of thinking. Good Lord...sure, make someone who was raped by their own father or uncle have a baby. Whatever!! I swear, if a Republican is elected President in 2008 I am moving to Canada.

DavidMn · #3 02-10-2006, 02:36 PM

Uh-Oh. That's only one state from me.!!

JazmenFlowers · #4 02-10-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnL

maybe it is just me, but it just seems that ever since DUBYA took office that this whole country is going backwards in time and in way of thinking. Good Lord...sure, make someone who was raped by their own father or uncle have a baby. Whatever!! I swear, if a Republican is elected President in 2008 I am moving to Canada.

I won't be far behind you.

DavidMn · #5 02-10-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

I won't be far behind you.

Just come to Minnesota. Were close enough...

JazmenFlowers · #6 02-10-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Just come to Minnesota. Were close enough...

lol........

gldstwmn · #7 02-10-2006, 03:02 PM

This is going to get ugly.

DavidMn · #8 02-10-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

This is going to get ugly.

It didnt take ling for the uglinesss to start, did it?

skcin · #9 02-10-2006, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Uh-Oh. That's only one state from me.!!

What does that have to do with anything?

Well, except that there'll be an influx of desperate women driving over to your state for abortions.

irishgrl · #10 02-10-2006, 04:02 PM

aaarrrrrrrgh

not that it was unexpected....but wouldnt it be de-lish if their smelly plan failed and the Justices upheld Roe anyway? Im going to pray for that anyway...

GypsySorcerer · #11 02-10-2006, 04:27 PM

Not unexpected, but still scary as hell.

Lala · #12 02-10-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnL

maybe it is just me, but it just seems that ever since DUBYA took office that this whole country is going backwards in time and in way of thinking. Good Lord...sure, make someone who was raped by their own father or uncle have a baby. Whatever!! I swear, if a Republican is elected President in 2008 I am moving to Canada.

By then it could be just as bad here with Stephen Harper as PM. Unfortunately, the Sponsorship Scandal created a vote out of fear and a desire to have a scandal free government (The Conservatives are already proving that this is impossible by putting an un-elected senator in the cabinet and allowing a Liberal MP to cross the floor). Anyways, Harper did a "good" job of campaigning on "changing" the government and eliminating scandal. He avoided the socially right-wing dogma which he was spitting out in the last election, and Canadians seemed to forget where his values were that short time ago. It makes me sad because this country I BELIEVE is about equality, compassion, understanding, and accepting people for who they are and what they believe. We ARE NOT America Jr.

Anyways, that was my rant. I'm sorry to have gone off topic kind of because some of you hate that. But...here's hoping Canada will still be a safe haven for those opposed to what their country is doing.

And to get back on topic...I find it rediculous "Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected." My beliefs are complex to the point where sometimes I'm not even sure what I think, but who the hell are a bunch of guys in suits to force a woman who has been raped by a family member that they have to have the baby. I can't imagine being in that position.

JazmenFlowers · #13 02-10-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lala

Anyways, that was my rant. I'm sorry to have gone off topic kind of because some of you hate that. But...here's hoping Canada will still be a safe haven for those opposed to what their country is doing.

And to get back on topic...I find it rediculous "Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected." My beliefs are complex to the point where sometimes I'm not even sure what I think, but who the hell are a bunch of guys in suits to force a woman who has been raped by a family member that they have to have the baby. I can't imagine being in that position.

I'm right there with you in this respect.

irishgrl · #14 02-10-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lala

And to get back on topic...I find it rediculous "Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected." My beliefs are complex to the point where sometimes I'm not even sure what I think, but who the hell are a bunch of guys in suits to force a woman who has been raped by a family member that they have to have the baby. I can't imagine being in that position.

you know, upon further reflection, they may have shot themselves in the foot by leaving out those amendments. One hopes anyway...

heyjupiter678 · #15 02-22-2006, 08:07 PM

The SD senate passed the ban . . .

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1651268

South Dakota legislature passes abortion ban

Feb 22, 2006 — SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - South Dakota's state senate voted on Wednesday for an abortion ban aimed at giving the conservative-tilting Supreme Court an opening to overturn rulings granting women the right to the procedure.

Only an unlikely veto by Republican Gov. Michael Rounds could prevent the legislation from becoming law, people on both sides of the issue said.

"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," said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood, which operates the sole clinic providing abortions in South Dakota.

"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 capitol 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 1973 ruling said women have a constitutional right to abortion.

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.

Five states have proposed similar bans, but South Dakota's legislature was the first to pass a law, which threatens to punish doctors who perform abortions with a five-year prison term and $5,000 fine.

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.

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.

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.

----------