South Dakota Bans Abortion
Jonny_Paycheck
17,825 Posts
Pretty fucked.
Jonny_Paycheck
17,825 Posts
Comments
link?
newspaper
This thread title is misleading, but it's not a strictly republican action either. Scary.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/23/politics/main1339393.shtml
Across the country, abortion rights advocates reacted with outrage and dismay. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which runs the sole abortion clinic in South Dakota, said it was bracing to fight the move in court immediately, if the governor signs it.
"This represents a monumental step backward for personal privacy for women," Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said.
Some opponents of abortion rights celebrated what they called a bold and brave move and lauded South Dakota for taking the lead in what they said they hoped would become a series of states to challenge Roe, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal.
The shifting makeup of the United States Supreme Court, the opponents said, offered a crucial opportunity, the first since at least 1992.
"It is a calculated risk, to be sure, but I believe it is a fight worth fighting," State Senator Brock L. Greenfield, a Clark Republican who is also director of the South Dakota Right to Life, told his colleagues in a hushed, packed chamber here.
After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators rejected pleas to add exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of the pregnant woman and instead voted, 23 to 12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save the woman's life.
They also rejected an effort to allow South Dakotans to decide the question in a referendum and an effort to prevent state tax dollars from financing what is certain to be a long and expensive court battle.
To be enacted, the bill, the most sweeping ban approved in any state in more than a decade, requires the signature of Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, who opposes abortion.
After overwhelmingly approving the measure this month, the House, too, has to vote on it again because the Senate slightly reworded it, although the intent of the bill was unchanged and the vote there seems unlikely to shift.
Mr. Rounds has said he will not comment on whether he will sign the measure until it reaches his desk. It is likely to arrive there by next week. He has 15 days to make a decision.
In an interview this week, Mr. Rounds said he had doubts about whether now was the time to make a "full frontal attack" on Roe v. Wade, as opposed to pressing for more laws that restrict abortions ??? setting limits, for instance, on their timing, methods or the requirements for parental notification.
Those restrictions, he said, have immediate effects on preventing abortions in South Dakota.
Mr. Rounds suggested that the two approaches might be possible simultaneously, particularly as a way to keep opponents of abortion rights from splintering over strategy questions. The key, he said, was in "saving lives while at the same time appeasing a segment that says you won't know unless you try the direct frontal attack."
Lawmakers opposed to abortion rights here ??? and advocates opposed to abortion rights around the country ??? have been split over timing questions. Some argue that the arrivals of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on the Supreme Court and speculation that Justice John Paul Stevens might soon retire, made now an ideal time to challenge Roe.
Others, however, have said a challenge should wait, for the arrival of additional justices who might be open to overturning Roe and for a shift in public opinion.
Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the South Dakota action ??? similarly broad bans have recently been proposed in at least five other states ??? reminded her of a wave of state challenges to Roe in the years just before 1992, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed a core right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
"People have this sense that the court is in flux and is shifting so they want to try to test out how far they can go," Ms. Northrup said. "The answer will be in how the new justices vote."
On Wednesday in the Senate chamber, any division about strategy among opponents of abortion rights seemed to have vanished.
"This state has a right and a duty to step up to the plate," Senator William M. Napoli, Republican of Rapid City, told his colleagues before he voted for the ban.
It passed by a margin larger than many on both sides had predicted.
Opponents, meanwhile, questioned the purpose of such a law and the potential costs of the litigation, and they recited harrowing stories of women who had become pregnant, for example, after having been raped.
"What can we as a state possibly gain by passing a bill that is unconstitutional?" asked Senator Clarence Kooistra, Republican of Garretson, who added that he represented the "silent majority" of South Dakotans who would not approve outlawing abortion nearly entirely.
Leaders of a movement against abortion rights in this state said they had raised $1 million in donations to help pay for the legal fight ahead.
"I didn't want money to be the reason people wouldn't vote for this bill," said Leslee J. Unruh, founder and president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse in Sioux Falls, who said she could not disclose the identities of those who had pledged money. "We're concerned with the 800 children aborted here every year."
After the vote, Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, left the statehouse promising to press Mr. Rounds to veto the bill.
"I'm very hopeful that he will be a voice of reason in this process and will choose the health and safety of the women of South Dakota over the political tool that this bill was designed to be," Ms. Looby said.
Failing that, she said, Planned Parenthood will sue, and it expects that a court will block the law from going into effect, while the case makes its way through the courts, a process that could take years.
"It scares me," Ms. Looby said, "to think that may in fact be the reality for my daughter's generation."
Actually those two words are rarely used in South Dakota.
The #1 Birth Control used in the state is 20/20 eyesight.
Wow.
know what i mean? Like... what's the hell???
Couldn't agree more.
oh shit! hahaha!!!
Seriously fucked up and disgusting.
ZING!
Women of South Dakota: You didn't really think you'd get away with your diabolical scheme to control your own bodies, did you? You've been foiled, you nefarious bastards!
(OK, I know this is meant to be a trigger law to be used as an assault on Roe v. Wade now that the Supreme Court is considerably more right-wing, but still...the contempt for women is rather disgusting.)
Unfortunately, these are the operative words in this sentence. This is sets the stage for the ultimate showdown on reproductive rights. These people are fucking barbarian neandrathal pigs and I'm ashamed to breath the same air as them.
No, it's largely a symbolic gesture--in fact, I think laws banning abortion already exist in several states, relics of the pre-Roe v. Wade era.
Roe v. Wade remains controlling law.
However, what South Dakota's legislators are clearly hoping to do is to position themselves to challenge that ruling, which is very troubling. It's a very tenuous decision legally and a pretty aggressive example of judicial legislation. It has survived this long because a majority of the Court consistently recognized it as a good end despite the questionable means and because they did not want to face the wrath of the American public. Now, however, your president is packing the Court with justices specifically tasked with overturning it.
"And what burns besides witches?"
"Mooooooooooore witches!"
As long as I've brought up Monty Python, I'd like to point out that "Every Sperm Is Sacred" is meant to be a joke song, not a national reproductive health policy proposal. Somebody might want to clue the government in on that.
not to mention the democratic process that is so revered
They really didn't waste any time trying to force this issue
Interesting how those who speak out against 'judicial activists' and 'legislating from the bench' are the ones most interested in... judicial activism and legislating from the bench
I didn't read the article above, but it may not have mentioned that a private donor has stated he's willing to pony up up to a million dollars to finance the court battle so the latter isn't an issue
Well, that's been clear for some time. They don't give a shit about "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" or any of the other catch-phrases they tossed about. They just didn't want judges they don't agree with doing those things.
Also, good call on ignoring the revered democratic process, missbassie. So many anti-choice people I see like to couch their position in those terms: "I just want the people of America to decide, not nine jerks in black robes!" The fact that those same people are now cackling with glee over this South Dakota development pretty much puts that lie to bed.
Pro-choice groups have failed miserably over the past several years to articulate pro-choice arguments that stand up to other simple, yet very effective constructs, such as ???life begins at conception.??? That is a powerful emotional argument. Most importantly, it is simple and straightforward. Trying to counter this with otherwise reasoned arguments related to medical freedom and/or reproductive rights has clearly been ineffective.
Think about this:
Pro-choice vs. Pro-life
Life begins at conception. vs. A woman???s right to choose.
Time to rethink. They are winning and that is sad.
"partial-birth abortion"
The left needs to fire up some damn thinktanks and get to work on the PR campaign or all is lost