South Dakota Bans Abortion

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
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.

Thinking on it, I believe what the Governor's statement means is that the law is on the books, but the Governor won't prosecute anyone under it until the anticipated legal challenge is complete.

[germanos]

quote:

PIERRE, March 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed into law the first abortion ban ...

Rounds concluded his remarks saying: "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."

That sums it up nicely: circumstances surrounding the pregnancy are irrevalent. A child sired is a value in itself, surpassing that of the mother/victim.
The parasitic nature of a fetus (benevolent if a result of love, malignent in case of rape) is at least recognized, but the suffering is laid on the shoulders of the mother, with no escape for her if she feels its too much for her to bear.
9 long months before releive is offered.
A cruel punishment.

[Dinner]

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.

It is better for them if they don't. This is the big issue which gets out the vote for the religious fundimentalists and "solving" the "problem" isn't in the GOP's interest. They'd much rather grand stand and keep blame "elitest judges" (who they themselves appointed) for causing the problem. A problem which the fundies can only solve by continuing to vote GOp, of course.

Anyone else would catch on but the fundies are so stupid they'll do the same thing a million times and irrationally think they won't get the exact same outcome.

[Gibsie]

Thanks BK! The article I read simply said there was no exception for health of the mother, I took that to mean no exception at all, although it's still quite disgusting that a woman whose health is in danger is going to be forced through pregnancy. Oh well, guess she shoulda though of that!

NB I saw this t-shirt today and thought of you

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=457

[MrFun]

Originally posted by flash9286


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.

I'm not an advocate for abortion for the sake of convenience or unrestricted abortion -- so even though I'm pro-choice, I'm not absolute in regards to this advocacy. I don't take lightly in favoring the terminating of a fetus' life but I also highly value a woman's autonomy over her own body.

To reply more directly to your question, I say that in the cases of risk of death of expectant mother, rape, and incest, I whole-heartedly would support that woman's choice in having an abortion.

[Elok]

Actually, this could be read as a very smart move in the long term. Few Americans are as hardcore pro-life as the SD law, but equally few are supportive of the abortion laws exactly as they stand. This probably will die out, but not before Planned Parenthood et al waste a good deal of time, money, and energy sounding shrill in opposing it. I'll be very surprised if they don't insist that anything less than RvW as it is right now will slide us back to the days of chastity belts. Of all the Pro-Life side, only the hardcore Evangelicals can sound as nutty and overzealous as PP-types on full Geekout mode ("sentenced for nine months" ), and the SD law itself is being presented as a relatively cautious testing-the-waters deal despite its extreme conservatism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Old news . Mississippi did as well...

They just decided to put on the books what was already reality in almost all of the state.

[MrFun]

The South Dakota action was stupid and completely disregards concerns of pregnant women who wish to exercise their right to choose.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by germanos
Sentencing rape-victims to 9 months...

9 months? Half of her life is more like it. Giving up the baby for adoption isn't so much better.

[Urban Ranger]

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

You can ask them nicely for a few million

[Adam Smith]

Nice game of selective highlighing Germanos.
Can I play too?

Originally posted by germanos

quote:

PIERRE, March 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed into law the first abortion ban ...

Rounds concluded his remarks saying: "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."

I happen to think that passing this law was a bad idea, and that it has no chance of being upheld, but Gov. Rounds is still entitled to a fair representation of his views.

Originally posted by Urban RangerGiving up the baby for adoption isn't so much better.

But a fetus is just a lump of flesh?

[Ramo]

Unless Kennedy changes his mind from his position in Casey v. PP, the law will be struck down.

But in the mean time, the Dems better campaign the hell out of this issue. According to SUSA, SD is roughly half pro-choice, half pro-life. The only thing that keeps pro-life candidates getting elected is the idea that they wouldn't be able to ban abortion.

[Seeker]

I believe the republicans will deliberately no push Imran's "mealy-mouthed" legislation (that can maybe pass) and will deliberately enact hardline impossible bills in symbolic vote-garnering gestures.

The republicans know that the need to keep this 'issue' alive forever, they need to preserve a 'state of continual emergency' over it rather than 'declare victory and go home' by compromising.

[Ramo]

Been reading Thomas Frank?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Adam Smith

But a fetus is just a lump of flesh?

Yeah -- unfortunately, we have some pro-choice people on here who are so cold-hearted as to use such a denigrating epithet.