South Dakota's Hard Line on Abortion
Friday, February 24, 2006 at 10:22AM South Dakota’s State Senate approved legislation that would ban all abortions except when a woman’s life is in danger. The bill, designed to wage a national legal fight about the legality of abortion, passed 23-12 Wednesday. It next returns to the state House, which has passed a different version.
The measure would make South Dakota the first state to ban abortion in nearly all circumstances. Doctors would face up to five years in prison for performing abortions unless a woman needed one to save her life.
"In my opinion, it is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Sen. Julie Bartling, a Democrat who is the bill’s main sponsor.
The legislation is designed to create a courtroom showdown targeting Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure in court if it wins final approval from the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds.
"South Dakota’s ban is the most sweeping abortion ban passed by any state in more than a decade. Planned Parenthood will go to court to ensure women, with their doctors and families, continue to be able to make personal health care decisions not politicians," Planned Parenthood Federation of America lawyer Eve Gartner said in a written statement.
Sen. Stan Adelstein, a Republican, said he believes it would be "a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota" to make a woman bear a child if she becomes pregnant as the result of rape.
There is a full moon and the planets are aligning. The equilibrium of the universe is off its kilter. The main sponsor of this no-holds-barred bill is state Senator Julie Bartling, a Democrat, and a principle opponent of the bill is Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein. Bravo to Democrats who vote against party lines when it conflicts with moral principle. The unborn of South Dakota salute you.
With Pres. Bush appointees to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and in light of the recent partial birth abortion case coming before the Supreme Court, there is reason to believe that Roe Vs. Wade may indeed be overturned in America. The power to make such laws would rightfully return to the jurisdiction of the states where it should have remained all along. Then perhaps there will be more "South Dakotas" stepping up to the plate to "deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children."
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/395505
Amy Proctor
South Dakota House OKs Bill to Ban Nearly All Abortions
The Legislature on Friday approved a ban on nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a direct legal assault on Roe v. Wade.
Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (11)
How many lives are going to spared because of this wonderful decision! Praise God!
Just a couple of days ago, a prayer request was going out to pray for a young couple, because her OB-Gyn, is encouraging to abort their unborn baby, why? Because he believes the baby maybe a dwarf! And have problems later in life, also I think there is a little more to it than that, not growing properly, etc.
Anyhoo, we are praying they will not give in to the doctor's urging and keep the baby and see what God can do.
Reminds me of the 1857 Dred Scott Decision (Supreme Court). A can hear a defender of slavery echoing Planned Parenthood's facade for murder:
"The Southern Plantation Owners Federation will go to court to ensure plantation owners, along with farmers and merchants, will continue to be able to make personal property decisions without the interference of government."
The slaveholders were on the wrong side of history, as are the abortion rights proponents. Let us not forget the clever ways slavery was sanitized and packaged rhetorically: "States Rights"; "private property decisions"; etc... the same hollow masking that today is expressed as "women's reproductive rights" and "personal healthcare decisions".
Fact: Slaves were considered 3/5ths of a human person under the law. Babies are considered "fetus" (read: not human) until born, with the bizarre definition of "born" as "completely separated from the mother's womb" (ie, to justify Partial Birth Abortion).
Fact: It was illegal to teach a slave to read or allow them to legally marry. If a slaveholder killed his slave, no legal action could be taken for wrongful death of the slave. Same situation of the preborn.
While greed drove the dehumanizing effects of chattel slavery, it is lust that drives the abortion practice. People believe that they have a "right" to commit acts that even nature tells you are procreative without having to accept responsibility for the natural consequences. The argument about rape is a straw man; less than 1% of abortions occur as a result of rape victims deciding to abort.
It seems a little short-sighted to me. If you have a better chance of succeeding with a slightly looser ban, shouldn't you go with that? If the looser plan is declared unconstitutional, the harsher one would have failed too. But if the looser plan succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade, you would now be sending the abortion issue to all 50 states. Anyway, I'm just a little surprised this wasn't their strategy, since the incremental approach is what people generally figure will be most successful in the long-term.
But...will women seeking an abortion merely travel to a neighbouring state?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html
"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot."
In a world where the ACLU has blurred the lines of reasonable risk it could be considered questionable, but the fact is that no state will do wrong by doing right. Let's face the facts: less than 1% of women who have abortions do so because their lives are in danger. I suspect the rate is far lower than 1%. When a woman's life is already in jeapordy, she's usually in the hospital seeking treatment and the last resort would be to abort. The stage for a legitimate circumstance is, thus, set.
In light of modern medicine and technology, where braindead mothers can actually give birth to their babies and safely delivered after 25 weeks of this condition taking place (that is, growth in uretro while the mother is brain dead), I would suggest that there is hardly EVER reason to abort a baby.... why not try to save the life of both mother AND child?
Tom, yes, that is a probability. Women will be crossing over the state line for abortions, as the occassional Irish woman does with Britain. However, state to state regulations will no doubt bring legal reciprocities. And justly so. It's about time women start being inconvenienced for their abortions and have to struggle to make it happen. Perhaps it will act as a deterent.
I'm not saying there are a lot of women who fall into the "health" but not "life" category, just the opposite. People designing this law are trying to save babies. If the "health" cases are so few, then they're only missing a few babies if they let this go, but the "health" cases are so important to opponents that it could cause the whole law to be struck down.
Another possible problem with this law is that it defines life as beginning at fertilization, and that may not hold up under review, and also makes Plan B Emergency Contraception illegal. I think it will just end up too far outside mainstream thought to stick for long.
And I'm surprised you're surprised SD is so conservative. The largest city is smaller than 200,000, the whole place is sparsely populated and rural. Sounds like your prototypical red state to me. As it is, there's only one abortion provider in the whole state, so I'm sure women were already being inconvenienced. Perhaps the law will just act as a deterrent to women continuing to live in the backwoods, and states like SD will keep losing their population to major cities. It's always seemed to me that that would be the real result of sending Roe v. Wade back to the states.
It's always good news when Death is dealt a setback. But even if Roe is overturned, I think that abortionists will find ways to get around the law. Probably this will take the form of "abortion states" where abortion remains legal, or "abortion cities" where municipal authorities thumb their noses at state law. Count on pro-abortion judges to continue to legislate from the bench. This is how Jim Crow laws operated for years in the South - a mixture of demagogic brazenness, legalistic maneuvering, and compliant authorities.
The modern abortion movement with its "search and destroy" mentality is the darkest stain on our modern culture. I suspect that it will continue to poison our politics for decades to come.
As of today, I have no idea if they went through with the abortion yesterday, I will let you know as soon as I know. I pray they didn't.
Thank you for drawing the comparison between slavery and abortion which I also attempted to do above. I am very surpised more pro-lifers don't see the powerful similarities. I also sadly must conclude that you are right, and that abortion states will flaunt their culture-of-death policies and abortion will remain the scourge of America. 33 years of killing 40 million babies has calloused our national heart and even external reforms will not be enough to undo the spiritual damage.
GOD surely will NOT put up with this Country continueing to murder babies much longer.
As much as I love my son, (who BTW is 27), I cannot imagine ANYONE not wanting the joy that I have, when I am with my granddaughter, (age 6), or my sister's three grandson's (2 and 4).
A child gives UNCONDITIONAL love, and these people are killing them everyday. If there was only a way to get through to them.
My only answer is PRAYER, and LOTS of it!