South Dakota House Votes To Ban Abortion
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Abortion, LawThe 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.
That’s right. Not only do 47 House members in South Dakota feel abortion should be illegal, but they also think it’s not right for a women to terminate her pregnancy if she has been raped. Also, they’re okay with a girl being raped by her father and forced to carry that child for 9 months. And last, but certainly not least, even if a pregnancy is wrecking a woman’s health she can only be at death’s door before she has the right to end her suffering.
Ridiculous.
Now, of course this hasn’t been made a law yet, but I do expect more state legislators to do this…especially given the buzz on Alito’s legal stance on abortion and women’s rights. And yes, that’s all speculation at this point, but the right-wing is going to try and make abortion illegal and these are the first steps.
Are you ready?
This entry was posted on Friday, February 10th, 2006 and is filed under Abortion, Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
This is purely a political tactic to test the supreme court. They are doing something similar with partial-birth abortions in New Hampshire. When the court strikes down the law, they will have the option of rejecting it based on lack of said exception. That will tacitly re-open the Roe v. Wade issue, in that the abortion ban could be valid when the exceptions are added.
February 12th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
At least there is a measure of principle in South Dakota.
Take a look at Indiana, where I live. Instead of going directly after abortion and Roe, the Indiana State Legislature is passing a law that would require clinics to improve their facilities to make them “safer” — but the requirements would shut down every clinic in the state because of the costs involved.
During House hearings, legislators kept arguing about the safety of the woman as the driving motivation and the urgency to implement the requirements in the Summer of 2006 without any existing facility being grandfathered. Yet two days later the same committee passed legislation requiring updated sprinkler systems in nursing homes — but grandfathered existing nursing homes until 2008.
Public health and safety indeed….
February 12th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Yeah, that’s pretty weak.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Some states don’t feel like providing an ambigious provision regarding a woman’s health for profiteering-abortionist to use to justify every abortion.
February 13th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
“ambigious provision regarding a woman’s health ”
Ambiguous only to idiot laymen like us.
February 25th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
i believe in god, but my god is kind & compassionate. he would understand my need for an abortion if i were the victim of rape or incest. to force the innocent victim of a serious crime to carry a rapist’s child to term is cruel & unusual punishment. and allowing the rapist 50% of the rights to that child is sheer lunacy. why is the law more concerned with protecting the rights of the rapists & sexual predators that it’s victims? (mother & unborn child included). according to the people wanting to pass this law, they must think rapists make wonderful parents. i would like to ask them what kind of world they’re bringing a child like that into? life is hard enough even when you’re wanted & conceived out of love. if abortion is banned, millions of children are going to end up homeless, abandoned & abused, with their rapist fathers in jail. and the women who were forced to have those children after being victims of rape or incest will have their own lives ruined beyond repair too. it should be a crime to force a woman to carry a rapist’s child to term & then make her share parental rights with a monster. if men were the ones being directly affected by banning abortion in this way, it would never happen in a million years. and that’s the sad, sad truth about the state of this country. woman are becoming 2nd class citizens once again. welcome to the 21st century.
April 20th, 2008 at 2:39 am
One would think that the people from South Dakota being a state of the USA would be more sensitive to women issues. They would have a modern outlook and open minded about women issues.
April 20th, 2008 at 2:44 am
South Dakota is not a third world country nor can it be categorised as a developing country.
It would be interesting to find out if women were consulted in the making of these laws. It affects women and it applies exclusively to women hence I cannot emphasise enough on the need to get the women of South Dakota involved in this process.
April 20th, 2008 at 3:01 am
The general rule is that people should take responsibility for their own actions. You can choose a specific action but you cannot choose the consequence of that action. It is inevitable.
I may choose to stand in front of a moving train but I cannot choose what will happen to me when that train hits me. It’s a consequence I have no control over. That is the reason why we have the freedom of choice. We choose the action but we cannot choose the consequences of that acion.
If two consenting adults choose to conceive (action) they cannot choose what will happen as a result of that conception, which is the birth of a child (consequence) In this kind of case, where the woman gives birth to a child, the couple should nt be allowed to abort the child but to face the consequences of their action by allowing them to have that child. It is their responsibility that the child grows into a loving and nutured enviroment.
However, if a woman is pregnant as a result of rape, an incestutous relationship or is faced with a sitiation where her life is in danger, she should be allowed to choose what she wants and her wishes ought to be respected.
In the event that her life is in danger, her wishes should be paramount to that of the unborn child. If she wishes to sacrifice her life to save that of the unborn child, then her wishes should be respected and implemented.
South Dakota, please respect your women and listen to her side of the story. They are equal partners to men. They deserve to be heard, it is their god given right.