South Dakota Bans Abortion

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

It will be challenged in court, of course, but as of now, a woman in South Dakota will not be able to end any pregnancy, unless her life is threatened. In other words, if she's raped or the victim of incest, and becomes pregnant, she will be forced to become a mother, even if she doesn't want to.

Gatekeeper

[Imran Siddiqui]

Old news . Mississippi did as well... these moron don't realize that even if it gets to the Supreme Court, they don't have enough votes.

[flash9286]

If you really believe that a fetus has the right to life can you reasonably make an expectation for rape.

[MrFun]

Flash, according to Gatekeeper's OP, they do NOT allow for that exception.



Anyway, cheers for denying women autonomy over their own body!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now usually I'd think this was a ploy by the Bush White House to 'rile up the base' when this gets struck down, but it seems far less calculating to see these state legislatures pass such horrendus abortion bills, banning it even for rape (though Mississippi's allows that exception).

It doesn't seem that graceful politically. If Rove was on this, they'd do something like ban "partial birth abortions" and scream that even something that most people agree on (and most are against partial birth abortion) can't be banned.

[germanos]

Sentencing rape-victims to 9 months...

[Gibsie]

Actually there's not even an exception for when the woman's life is in danger. How very Christian of them...

[Gatekeeper]

Imran:

Technically, it's old news in the sense that the S.D. Legislature passed the measure week, week-and-a-half ago. The new news nugget is that Gov. Mike Rounds (Republican) signed it today, making it officially the law of the land in South Dakota.

I'm of the opinion that this is a situation where the woman, her loved ones and her doctor know what's best. Not lawmakers or interest groups, whose professed "love" of life ends at birth, at least judging from the incarceration and poverty rates in South Dakota.

There's also a national movement under way to boycott tourism in South Dakota.

Gatekeeper

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Old news . Mississippi did as well... these moron don't realize that even if it gets to the Supreme Court, they don't have enough votes.

from what i gather SCOTUS wont knock it down though. RAther the lower courts will do so, and SCOTUS will refuse to take the appeal. So the law goes down, but SCOTUS doesnt have to reaffirm Roe.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
from what i gather SCOTUS wont knock it down though. RAther the lower courts will do so, and SCOTUS will refuse to take the appeal. So the law goes down, but SCOTUS doesnt have to reaffirm Roe.

Yep, I'm sure that's what'll happen as well. These idiots are thinking that with Roberts and Alito, there will be 4 justices granting cert, allowing it to be heard in front of the Supreme Court. But these laws are so incredibly violative of prior precedent that there is no way that's going to happen. A late term abortion law, perhaps, but not a total ban.

And even if it gets up there, they are 1 vote short.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by MrFun
Flash, according to Gatekeeper's OP, they do NOT allow for that exception.



Anyway, cheers for denying women autonomy over their own body!!

I'm saying in general, not relating to this specific case. But say you truly believe that a fetus has a right to life (which I think most pro-lifers do) can you say that a fetus losses that right just because his father was a rapist. I mean, I guess you could make the argument that the mother was forced to have the child so she doesn't have the same obligations as a women who just got a unwanted pregnancy. But I would think that a so called right to life almost trumps any rights the raped mother has to terminate the pregnancy just because she was raped.

[SlowwHand]

Think of China, in reverse.
China has a staggering population growth. So,...
South Dakota, on the other hand, has nada. Keep them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, the interesting thing about SD's law is that they have said it won't take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds the law. So sayeth the Governor at least.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, the interesting thing about SD's law is that they have said it won't take effect unless the Supreme Court upholds the law. So sayeth the Governor at least.

That's one the weirder laws that I've heard of, and probably violative of some provision in the SD Constitution. It can only become a law if it is legally challenged and the challenge fails?? It would then appear that pro-choice forces could block the law by not challenging it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually there's not even an exception for when the woman's life is in danger. How very Christian of them

Yes there is.

PIERRE, March 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed into law the first abortion ban in the United States since the 1973 Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision. The bill, House Bill 1215, passed with strong bi-partisan support in both houses and makes abortion a felony in the state, punishable by up to five years imprisonment. It is to go into effect this July.

The only exception to the South Dakota law would be cases where the life of the mother was in danger. Lawmakers successfully avoided making changes to the bill that would allow abortions in cases of rape, incest, or for the "health" of the mother, exceptions which usually cripple the application of laws against abortion. It does not prohibit abortifacient drugs such as the morning after pill in cases of rape or incest.

On signing the bill the Governor stated, "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."

The Governor acknowledged that the law is "a direct challenge" to Roe vs. Wade and said he expects the law to be taken to court and prevented from going into effect in July. "That challenge will likely take years to be settled and it may ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Our existing laws regulating abortions will remain in effect," said Rounds.

Rounds did suggest however that a reversal of opinion from the Supreme Court is possible.

Rounds concluded his remarks saying: "While this is a state and national issue, I want to emphasize that whatever the courts decide, South Dakotans will continue to care about both the unborn child and mother. If we are pro-life, we must recognize the need to take care of women who are faced with a difficult pregnancy. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, we cannot protect the innocent child, unless we protect and care for the mother. We must help each mother to see the value of the gift that is a child, and nurture the mother for her own sake and for the sake of her child.

"Our state is committed to helping greater numbers of pregnant woman who will allow their babies to grow inside them and be born. In both the private and public sector in South Dakota, we have healthcare options, economic assistance before and after birth, adoption services, and, most importantly, people who want to help pregnant women, young mothers and their children."