Near ban on Abortion - South Dakota

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 48 minutes ago


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.

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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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.
Click to expand...

South Dakota
 
States rights. Maybe this time they'll read it.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Don't start Mike.
 
what is the point?

no one who does not want to understand a pro-choice arguement is going to, it is many other threads, I just look at it as another right lost to the goverment.
 
I'm a little torn. I'm all for individual states making up their own direction for such things, but it is the government denying a freedom instead of reinforcing one. What I truly feel about such a thing is all extremes at once and not very kind.. so I'll keep my maw zipped to keep this from spiraling into another 'go nowhere abortion thread'.
 
In other news, coat hanger and gin sales expected to skyrocket in South Dakota.
 
Leslie said:
In other news, coat hanger and gin sales expected to skyrocket in South Dakota.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the good ol' "jumping from ladders" and "baseballbat to belly"..
 
Yet no one has thought about the "take a short trip to a neighboring state" method. Nice to know how the minds function.
 
HL, you didn't expect intellect to reign in thread like this, did you?

and Paul, it's not a matter of understanding. We all understand the Pro-choice movement. Our disagreements stem not from the mother's rights, but from the child's. That, and off course, the use of abortion as a form of birth control. But those are topics for older threads.
 
unclehobart said:
I'm a little torn. I'm all for individual states making up their own direction for such things, but it is the government denying a freedom instead of reinforcing one. What I truly feel about such a thing is all extremes at once and not very kind.. so I'll keep my maw zipped to keep this from spiraling into another 'go nowhere abortion thread'.
Click to expand...

Many freedoms are granted, or taken away, at the whim of a legislature. Take a look at the 2nd Amendment. If we did to the first what we do to the 2nd, there would be hell to pay.

Whether abortion is among certain unalienable Rights is arguable. Especially when followed up with that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We must staty out of a womans womb, but we need to override a religious tenet (protected by the 1st Amendment) & force parents to seek medical care for their children, unless the child seeks an abortion, at which time we must stay out our childs personal medical decision?

I find abortion ghastly & I promise never to have one. When all 50 states ban it, there may be room to fight, but until then, it needs to be removed from the realm of the federal government & returned to the state level, where it belongs. Choice, while vital, may also need to be regulated & carry inconveniences. Part of the choice is driving to Madison. :shrug:

There is no right answer to this.
 
HomeLAN said:
Yet no one has thought about the "take a short trip to a neighboring state" method. Nice to know how the minds function.
Click to expand...
cause all the teenagers and crackwhores and poor women with 8 kids already definitely have the cash and freedom and ability to just whip over to the next state. Sure. Logic at it`s finest.

For me the next *province* is a 5-6 hour drive. So, I would need to somehow magically get a license and car, or someone to want to spend that time taking me there or $200 for a bus but of course I can`t go home alone so I need someone anyway or have to get a room for another night, requiring yet more cash and credit cards and ID, and daycare for the kids I already have for all that time, and pay for that too, and .....

that all would have been unpossible for me a couple years back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top