The Return to Dark Alleys and Coat Hangers in SD
The 1950's are back
--------------------------------------------------
South Dakota Senate Passes Abortion Ban
Proponents say the law is designed for a Supreme Court challenge to Roe v. Wade.
PIERRE, South Dakota (Feb. 23) - Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.
The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12 on Wednesday.
"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.
Proponents say the law is designed for a Supreme Court challenge to Roe v. Wade.
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 bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions.
Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
President George W. Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said.
Opponents argued that the measure was too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women. They said abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman's health.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure in court if the measure wins final approval from the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds.
Rounds, a Republican and a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on the abortion ban if it would "save life."
Other state legislatures are considering similar measures. But South Dakota is the only state so far to pass such an abortion ban, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, D.C.
02-23-06 01:31 EST
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.
--------------------------------------------------
South Dakota Senate Passes Abortion Ban
Proponents say the law is designed for a Supreme Court challenge to Roe v. Wade.
PIERRE, South Dakota (Feb. 23) - Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.
The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12 on Wednesday.
"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.
Proponents say the law is designed for a Supreme Court challenge to Roe v. Wade.
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 bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions.
Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
President George W. Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said.
Opponents argued that the measure was too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women. They said abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman's health.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure in court if the measure wins final approval from the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds.
Rounds, a Republican and a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on the abortion ban if it would "save life."
Other state legislatures are considering similar measures. But South Dakota is the only state so far to pass such an abortion ban, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, D.C.
02-23-06 01:31 EST
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.
posted by George W. Bush at 12:16 PM
10 Comments:
The SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade is the beltway Republicans' nightmare scenario, and given the shakey legal underpinnings of it, I would be surprised if it weren't overturned. The political junkie in me is salivating at the prospect of the political civil war that is brewing with this, and at the reckoning in store for political elites who have relied on Roe to avoid having to take a solid position on this issue.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
- Ronald Reagan
The ole Jelly Bean at his best, what a cocksucker, but anyway, to me it's all about the right to choose, period. The state has no right to step into family planning. I can see the thumpers rebuttal already? "Who speaks for the unborn?" The parents or lack there of do.
"The bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions."
Five years? Apparently SD lawmakers don't actually consider abortion to be murder.
Iowa,
Do you believe it should be legal for me to kill my son? Why or why not?
"Five years? Apparently SD lawmakers don't actually consider abortion to be murder."
Yeah, and the erstwhile mother who solicits the abortion gets off scot-free.
Well, since your son is surviving outside of the womb (I hope), I would say no, you can't kill him (unless you get a divine message, that always makes everything ok).
A fetus can not function outside of the mother's body, it is considered part of the human body and not an individual, therefore can be removed (like an appendix) if one so desires.
So, Iowa, personhood is based on independent viability? What does that do to someone who is receiving dialysis or uses an oxygen tank?
If I could somehow cram my son back into my wife's body, would I then have the moral ability to kill him?
And if your son had wings he'd be a bird. Arguing hypotheticals is counter-intuitive IMO.
Someone on dialysis has bad kidneys and a person on an O2 tank has bad lungs. I fail to see your point.
Whereas the fetus has working kidneys and you want to kill her anyway.
My point is that you defined personhood by the ability of a child to live outside the mother. To wit:
"Well, since your son is surviving outside of the womb (I hope), I would say no, you can't kill him "
Which tells me that you are either defining personhood by viability (surviving independently) or geography (living outside of Katie).
Either way, it strikes me as awfully capricious.
Incidentally, I get a kick out of some group being called a 'reproductive rights' organization. I don't know a single Christian who would make birth control illegal. I used it for the first 5 years of my marriage and after my second child is born I intend to do the very-uncatholic thing and technologically take the bullets out of my gun.
My point is that reproductive rights is a smoke screen. They favor killing a baby up to delivery, and that's horrific. I also don't want to take 'choices' away from anyone--not people's choices to shoot up or smoke up, but only people's choices to kill other people.
What besides lunacy can possibly define a human, besides human body parts and human DNA? So far all I hear from the pro-abortion rights crowd is geography and viability.
Post a Comment
<< Home