South Dakota near in banning abortions

[coda]

South Dakota nears abortion ban

Friday, February 24, 2006; Posted: 3:35 p.m. EST (20:35 GMT)



PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it.

Under the legislation, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life.

The bill directly targets Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. State lawmakers believe the nation's highest court is now more likely to reverse itself on the abortion issue because of the recent appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic performing abortions in South Dakota, has pledged to challenge the measure in court if Gov. Mike Rounds signs it into law.

"I've indicated I'm pro-life, and I do believe abortion is wrong and that we should do everything we can to save lives," Rounds said before the vote Friday in the House. "If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law."

The bill passed both houses of the Legislature earlier in the session, but the House had to agree to a Senate amendment. It passed 50-18.

The new restriction would become law July 1.

Opponents of the bill argued that abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a women's health.

If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.

"The idea the rapist could be in the child's life ... makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice," Heeren-Graber said.

Kathi Di Nicola, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa in Sioux City, said her clinic already serves some South Dakotans and is ready to assist others if needed. The Planned Parenthood clinic in South Dakota has performed about 800 abortions a year.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Tekun]

Disgraceful and ridiculous!

But I had an idea that it was coming
Ever since Alito and Roberts were confirmed, pro-lifers were just waiting for the right moment

Will the Supreme Court overturn Roe? Only time will tell <_<

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds said he is inclined to sign a bill that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota, making it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman&#39;s life.

The ban, including in cases of rape or incest, was approved Friday by South Dakota lawmakers, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on
Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the
U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic in the state that provides abortions, vowed to sue. But even before the bill has a signature, money to defend it poured in. Lawmakers were told during the debate that an anonymous donor pledged &#036;1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature was setting up a special account to accept donations.

"We&#39;ve had people stopping in our office trying to drop off checks to promote the defense of this legislation already," Rounds said.

Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that conservatives John Roberts and
Samuel Alito are on the bench. Lawmakers said growing support among South Dakotans for abortion restrictions gave the bill momentum.

"I think the stars are aligned," said House Speaker Matthew Michels, a Republican.

The legislation was decried by opponents who said it would particularly impact rape victims and poor women. Currently, a clinic in Sioux Falls is the only place where abortions are provided in South Dakota. The closest alternative is a Planned Parenthood location in Sioux City, Iowa, about 90 miles away.

"It&#39;s a sad state of affairs that we have only one choice (for abortion) right now," said Charon Asetoyer of the Native American Women&#39;s Health Care Education Resource Center in Lake Andes. "But if you have to go out of state, the cost of making that trip will be prohibitive."

If a rape victim becomes pregnant and bears a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.

"The idea the rapist could be in the child&#39;s life ... makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice," Heeren-Graber said.

About 800 abortions are performed in South Dakota each year. Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center, a Sioux Falls pregnancy counseling agency that tries to steer women away from abortion, said most of them do not stem from rape or even failed contraception, but are simply "conveniences."

Unruh said she believes most South Dakota women want the state to ban abortion, and many who have had abortions "wish someone would have stopped them."

Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion. The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday, and the Senate approved it 23-12 earlier this week. If signed, it would become law July 1.

A judge is likely to suspend the abortion ban during the expected legal challenge, which means it would never take effect unless the state gets the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and wins.

Rounds said his staff will review the bill for technical defects. He said he vetoed a similar measure two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was challenged in court.

"I&#39;ve indicated I&#39;m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong and that we should do everything we can to save lives. If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law," he said.

[Sabocat]

Pro-choice groups are rallying to get this decision to be brought to the Supreme Court, but in reality the fascist dominated Supreme Court will uphold South Dakota&#39;s decision.

This is why Roberts and Alito were put there in the first place. I would expect that most of the states that currently have Republican governors, will follow suit, and quickly at that.

Look for the "Governator" to be the next.

[guerrillero]

February 10, 2006
South Dakota House Votes Against Abortion. South Dakota, a state with only one abortion clinic for its 780,000 scattered inhabitants, is on its way to outlawing abortion within its borders. The state House voted 47-22 on Thursday to pass a ban on all abortions - including rape and incest cases - unless the mother&#39;s life is in danger.

Similar efforts to ban abortion have sprouted up in Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. With the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, pro-life legislators believe the Supreme Court could be primed to finally overturn Roe v. Wade.

Many major pro-life organizations, however, believe these abortion ban attempts are premature and will actually damage the pro-life cause. If South Dakota&#39;s Senate also passes the ban bill and the governor signs it, the ACLU will instantly jump on the law. It would undoubtedly be ruled unconstitutional in a lower court. Then it would be dragged up to the Supreme Court. There the current justices would either refuse to hear the case or would reject the law by at least a 5-4 vote and then BAM, another chalk mark on the wall of the pro-abortion camp.

No, it&#39;s not the right effort at the right time.

Clarke Forsythe, the Director of Americans United for Life, said recently that it would be better policy "to be passing legislation that can be enforced and that can protect women and minors from the physical and psychological risks of abortion." For instance, states should continue to enforce parental notification laws and should require that women be notified of fetal pain in pre-abortion counseling.

The most important step that communities can do is to help the pregnant women who find themselves in difficult situations. Pro-life groups should continue to set up charitable organizations in major cities to offer pregnant young women counseling and other assistance.

Legislators should continue to pass laws that require medical facilities to inform women about the developmental stages of their unborn children and to give warnings about potential health and mental risks. They might also require medical facilities to take ultrasounds before giving women abortions. This is a health as well as a moral precaution. Abortion facilities have been known to perform "abortions" on non-pregnant women, or women with ectopic pregnancies.

These are just examples. Many things can be done to place limits on abortion without seeking an outright ban that would most likely be deemed unconstitutional at this time.

http://usconservatives.about.com/b/a/243154.htm

[guerrillero]

Does this piss anyone off?

[Body Count]

http://www.themagazine.info/56/Pictures/Briner%20inc/HangerChromeThree.jpg

[FidelCastro]

what is wrong with being pro-life. I am but i respect pro-choice very much and i do think that abortion should be used but as a last resort. Every option should be considered first before abortion should be because life is precious and in most cases, it is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies.

[Jazzy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:22 PM
what is wrong with being pro-life. I am but i respect pro-choice very much and i do think that abortion should be used but as a last resort. Every option should be considered first before abortion should be because life is precious and in most cases, it is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies.
how would you feel if you found out you were adopted and tracked down your birth mother only to find out that she didn&#39;t want to see you because you were a product of rape? If they outlaw abortions desperate women will resort to the old methods of self-abortion; the picture of the coat hanger.......

[KC]

what is wrong with being pro-life. I am but i respect pro-choice very much and i do think that abortion should be used but as a last resort. Every option should be considered first before abortion should be because life is precious and in most cases, it is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies.

Fetuses aren&#39;t "alive".

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:43 AM
Fetuses aren&#39;t "alive".
They&#39;re just as alive as a finger or a liver. In other words, they are a living part of a woman, not a separate human being.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:22 PM
I am but i respect pro-choice very much and i do think that abortion should be used but as a last resort. Every option should be considered first before abortion should be because life is precious and in most cases, it is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies.
Firstly, as they pointed out, fetuses are "who." They&#39;re "what."

Second, and more important, this myth that people are having "casual" abortions is a lie concocted by the far-right to portray those in support of abortion as immoral baby-killers.

[VermontLeft]

what is wrong with being pro-life.

It&#39;s an intrusion into someone else&#39;s body&#33;

I don&#39;t care what u think about shit, but once you start trying to force that shit on me, we got a problem. I don&#39;t want some fat rich man to tell me what I can do with my own fucking womb. If i want to have a baby or not, it&#39;s my fucking decision and mine alone. :angry: fuck, this shit pisses me off. I don&#39;t know that this country is becoming, what the rfuck hapened to all the FEMINISTS&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? :angry:

[LSD]

Every option should be considered first before abortion should be

No it "should" not. In fact, there&#39;s no "should" here whatsoever.

People have the right to do what they please with their own bodies, period. The "state" has absolutely no business passing "legislation" restricting that fundamental freedom.

All this debate about what the "abortion law" should be misses the fundamental point. There should be no abortional law. This has nothing to do with the government. Until a baby is out of a woman&#39;s body and hence part of society, society has absolutely no relationship with it and absolutely no obligations to it.

A foetus has about as much internal "right to life" as a cancer cell, it is certainly no more genetically unique.

Honestly, though, no one should be surprised by this move. It was just a matter of who would get there first. As soon as Bush anounced his court nominees, we knew that eventually there had to be an abortion "trial case". I suppose the religious nutters figured that sooner is better than later.

After all, if this court isn&#39;t extreme-right enough for their tastes, they&#39;d rather know now so they can start pressuring Bush for next time. <_<

[LeftistJosh]

I dont approve of abortion but if someone wants to have one then im not going to try to stop them. I think people should have a choice in these matters.

[drain.you]

State interference on issues like this make me angry&#33;
We should have a planned economy, we should have nationalisation and such but thats as far as it should go&#33;
Who has the right to say what we can and can&#39;t do with our own bodies&#33; Banned abortion is like the state impregnating people who dont want to be. Its rape by the state&#33; A rape of our rights, a rape in the almost physical sense that the state is forcing people to have babies that are accidently conceived.

PRO-CHOICE ALL THE WAY