South Dakota bans abortions to test Roe v. Wade  

redmustang91 57M  
8705 posts
3/7/2006 9:37 am

Last Read:
3/7/2006 11:53 pm

South Dakota bans abortions to test Roe v. Wade

My guess is the first of many midwest and southern states which will ban abortions, South Dakota is challenging Roe v. Wade by banning almost all abortions. Women who care about their rights have themselves to thank if this holds up, as they voted in Repubs and George W. who appoint conservatives who do not care about females' rights.

South Dakota Bans Most Abortions By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer
Tue Mar 7,

South Dakota's governor signed a near-total ban on abortions in the state into law in what the governor called a "direct frontal assault" on the U.S. Supreme Court decision to legalize the practice 33 years ago.

Supporters and opponents of abortion rights had been gearing up for a showdown even before Gov. Mike Rounds added his signature to the bill Monday and both sides expected a lengthy battle.

"We fully intend to challenge this law," said Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic. "It's just a question of how."

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 or incest but such victims could get emergency contraception.

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

A judge is likely to suspend the abortion ban before it is due to take effect July 1, which means it wouldn't change state policy unless the case gets all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and the state wins.

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 1973's Roe v. Wade.

While Rounds said he personally believes it would be better to chip away at abortion one step at a time rather than directly confront Roe v. Wade, he said many abortion opponents think otherwise.

"Personally I think this court will be more interested in looking at different aspects of Roe v. Wade rather than the direct frontal assault, but we'll never know unless someone tries," Rounds said.

Rob Regier, executive director of the South Dakota Family Policy Council, commended Rounds' decision. "His signature marks the beginning of a renewed effort to abolish abortion in our country," Regier said.

Some other states are considering similar bans on abortion, and the South Dakota legislation will have an impact in other states, said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"We see that this is about more than just South Dakota. It's about the country," Keenan said. "The bottom line in all of it is elections matter."

Planned Parenthood has not yet decided whether to challenge the measure in court or to seek a statewide public vote in November. A referendum would either repeal the abortion ban or delay a court challenge to the legislation.

"Obviously, we're very disappointed that Gov. Rounds has sided on the side of politics rather than on the side of the women of South Dakota to protect their health and safety," Looby said.

If the bill is put to a statewide vote, the battle is likely to be nasty, said Thelma Underberg, executive director of National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice South Dakota.

"It could be an ugly campaign," Underberg said.

In the meantime, Planned Parenthood will remain open to provide services that include family planning, emergency contraception and safe and legal abortions, Looby said.

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

The abortion bill earlier this month passed the House 50-18 and the Senate by 23-12. For the most part, Republicans have dominated the Statehouse since the 1970s.

State Democratic Rep. Pat Haley voted against the measure, saying that while he opposes abortion he could not vote for the bill because it contains an exception only for the life of a woman.

"Not allowing an exception for , incest and the health of the mother is a radical position," he said. "Most of the people who have talked to me about this think that this is a very foolish piece of legislation, and most of those people are pro-life."

But Leslee Unruh, founder of the Alpha Center that provides counseling to pregnant women and those who have had abortion, said the governor's decision to sign the bill is a victory for women.

"We finally have been heard," said Unruh. "We are so excited. We're ordering lobster and having a party. We are thrilled."

HotTXpussy4U 48F

3/7/2006 10:45 am

My jaw hit the ground when I read this news yesterday. I never talk politics.. but just figures that a bunch of MEN would decide to take away a woman's right to choose. Let them find their happy ass pregnant at 15,16,17... You can tell they never had to carry a child or care for one either when it needs to be clothed, fed and all the above, but you have no money. Them banning it is just another way to screw us...Barefoot and Pregnant is in the past - move on!

Sorry - - but sometimes issues just piss me off. Whethere I agree or disagree..I am not a criminal and have done nothing to have my rights revoked...last time I look in lived in AMERICA!

MissAnnThrope 56F
11488 posts
3/7/2006 12:00 pm

We all knew this was going to happen. It's a test case. South Dakota was determined to test Roberts and Alito and make sure they are what they wanted in Supreme Court Justices. This was in the works even before Alito was confirmed.

The simple fact is, most legal scholars feel, for all his personal morals, Alito isn't going to help overturn Roe v. Wade. It does remain to be seen, but he is considered to have more sense than that. The fact this bill doesn't make provisions for and incest makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will overturn it. However, we all know it's going to take time to get to the Supreme Court, which will give other states time to try to do the same themselves.

So, how many doctors do you think are going to be willing to claim that a full pregnancy is going to put a healthy woman's life in danger now? Most doctors in this country already lie to HMOs to get their patients care that they need.

49AK 55M
1823 posts
3/7/2006 12:21 pm

The implications are even more far-reaching... I heard on public radio yesterday that a bill passed at the same time and also signed into law in South Dakota allows private citizens to anonymously donate to a fund which would cover the state's costs in court, so that the state was not burdened by the enormous costs associated with a legal challenge in Federal court.

This is an invitation for states to take on the interests of private individuals and corportations and pass clearly unconstitutional statutes, knowing that they do not have to be burdened by the costs of court challenges. And because it is anonymous, it is essentially a bribe or influence pedaling, with no transparency.

I hope that this goes nowhere, but there is nothing certain about anything, except that the conservatives have us in the fast lane to 1950.

redmustang91 57M  
8576 posts
3/7/2006 12:39 pm

I am a liberal Dem as I have said a few times, but the and incest exception never resonated with me. How is the fetus responsible for that? I am sure many fine citizens were the result of extracurricular sex whether consensual or not in the history of mankind. And while incest is culturally taboo, different cultures make different degrees of relatives taboo. Some recessive genes are desired like blonde hair and blue eyes. Abortions for spinal befida, severe mental retardation or physical problems with a very short life span seem justifiable, but not to some handicapped!

redmustang91 57M  
8576 posts
3/7/2006 12:44 pm

Those who blame men for this law should note that women are just as likely to be pro-life and want to ban abortions! Even some who have had abortions! I expect we will have Nevada offering bus trips to abortion clinics like the old days for no fault divorce in Reno, NV! Maybe some women and moderates will get out and vote Democratic in 2006!

HotTXpussy4U 48F

3/7/2006 4:10 pm

I always do - - for that specific reason. Democrats are the only ones who give a crap about women's health and their rights as human beings with brains! I just know when I see pictures of all these houses - - -50 men, 2 women....that's what I see.

redmustang91 57M  
8576 posts
3/7/2006 11:51 pm

Well the body in question contains a little person who can live separately and be a viable person at 26 weeks or so. At that point it is not just her body but two bodies intertwined. Once the fetus can live alone outside the womb, the calculus of life changes for many.

Become a member to create a blog