South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill

POSTED BY: Arcadia
UPDATED: Friday, March 24, 2006 07:38
VIEWED: 11467
PAGE 1 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

ARCADIA

Friday, February 24, 2006 4:50 AM

from cnn.com

link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/22/dakota.abortion.ap/index.html

Quote:
PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.

The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.

"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.

The bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions.

Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade.

President Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said.

Opponents argued that the measure was too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women. They said abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman's health.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions 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.

Rounds, a Republican and a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on the abortion ban if it would "save life."

Other state legislatures are considering similar measures. But South Dakota is the only state so far to pass such an abortion ban, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, D.C.

Whether you take the pro or con position on the abortion debate, this is an important developement in the abortion debate, so I thought I'd post in here to spread the word (if anyone hasn't heard already).

As a young woman whose views are generally liberal, usualy votes democrat, and does consider herself a feminist (though I don't affiliate with NOW or any other national groups) my first reaction to this article was: AHHH!!!

Other (perhaps more intelligent and well stated) thoughts?

"Objects in Space"
River: It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think...

GEEZER

Friday, February 24, 2006 3:28 PM

My initial response was less restrained than your's and somewhat more unprintable. I'm having a hard time expressing how utterly stupid this is without descending into explicit language. And to ice the cake of farce, the bill's main sponsor was a Democrat? And a woman?

All I can think of to do now is do a web search on what goods are made in South Dakota, so I can boycott them. Maybe I'll have rational comments later.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:50 AM

Okay. So the people of South Dakota, as represented by their state legislature, are dumbasses. They have the right in a democracy to be dumbasses, and they have excercised that right (to be dumbasses). If there are any South Dakotans on the board who don't support this dumbassery, then you're not dumbasses. Congratulations.

I'm sure that Planned Parenthood has already got their challenge to this (dumbassed) legislation primed and ready to go as soon as the (...you know) governor of that (ibid) state signs it. You can bet their suit (concerning this dumbass legislation) will be on the express fast track straight to the Supremes.

Enough about the dumbasses in South Dakota (those dumbasses). The next phase of the assault on Roe v. Wade won't be their (Dum...No! Enough of that!) legislation, but the late-term abortion law challenge that's already on the Supreme Court calendar. This case is where we'll find out how Justices Roberts and Alito are going to go. In fact, I'm not sure how many of the sitting Justices have had to rule on Roe cases, so we'll see where the Court as a whole will settle.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CARTOON

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:10 AM

Whether one agrees with a law or not, the thing is -- it is the duly-elected legislatures which have the rights to make the laws -- not the courts.

If a legislature makes a law you don't like, you have every right to vote in people who agree with your views to have the law changed.

However, when an unelected judge (or panel of judges) legislates from the bench, we the people have no legal recourse to change the law.

I'd rather see legislators make stupid laws than judges. At least we can vote them out. We have no such recourse with non-elected judges.

And, btw, I'm pro-life, so I don't think this is stupid. However, regardless, the theory works for laws I disagree with as well as those I agree with. If we disagree with a law, we should change them in the legislatures via elections, not the courts -- which have no right to legislate from the bench (and which, unfortunately, they've been doing for several decades now).

GEEZER

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Whether one agrees with a law or not, the thing is -- it is the duly-elected legislatures which have the rights to make the laws -- not the courts.

If a legislature makes a law you don't like, you have every right to vote in people who agree with your views to have the law changed.

However, when an unelected judge (or panel of judges) legislates from the bench, we the people have no legal recourse to change the law.
I'd rather see legislators make stupid laws than judges. At least we can vote them out. We have no such recourse with non-elected judges.

And, btw, I'm pro-life, so I don't think this is stupid. However, regardless, the theory works for laws I disagree with as well as those I agree with. If we disagree with a law, we should change them in the legislatures via elections, not the courts -- which have no right to legislate from the bench (and which, unfortunately, they've been doing for several decades now).

The way I understood it, legislatures make the laws, and if the laws are challenged (in court) as to Constitutionality, the various Courts determine if they're Constitutional or not, based on their interpretations of the State or Federal Constitution. If the legislature isn't happy with the court's decision, they can attempt to amend the Constitution. So there is recourse if the Court overturns a law. And to carry it further, if later on the legislature decides a previous legislature was wrong in amending the Constitution, they can fix it, e.g. Prohibition. So there's always a remedy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CARTOON

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The way I understood it, legislatures make the laws, and if the laws are challenged (in court) as to Constitutionality, the various Courts determine if they're Constitutional or not, based on their interpretations of the State or Federal Constitution. If the legislature isn't happy with the court's decision, they can attempt to amend the Constitution. So there is recourse if the Court overturns a law. And to carry it further, if later on the legislature decides a previous legislature was wrong in amending the Constitution, they can fix it, e.g. Prohibition. So there's always a remedy.

Exactly.

That's the way it's supposed to work.

Unfortunately, we seem to have had quite a few activist judges in the past few decades, seeing "constitutionality" where it heretofore never existed.

That's why I'd prefer to trust the elected legislators. We can always get rid of them if we disagree with them. The judges answer to no one, and can act with impunity.

GEEZER

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
That's why I'd prefer to trust the elected legislators. We can always get rid of them if we disagree with them. The judges answer to no one, and can act with impunity.

But legislature, by amending the Constitution, always trumps the Court. You just have to get enough people to vote for the Constitutional Amendent. Consider the attempt at the Equal Rights Amendment 30 or so years ago. I expect that, sooner or later, there will be a Constitutional Amendment put forward concerning abortion, either for or against, and the people will get to decide for keeps.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:22 AM

I’ve not read the actual law, so I don’t really know if its dumbass or not. However I don’t think that abortion should necassarily be illegal, so I probably wouldn’t be inclined to agree with the law even if I did read it.

But the deciding factor for me is that I think the State of South Dakota has a Constitutional right to make whatever law on abortion their people or legislation deem important, whether I agree with it or not, as long as said law doesn’t interfere egregiously with the health or rights of the mother or the child.

That’s not to say that I don’t think there isn’t some Constitutionality to the issue of abortion, indeed my feeling that it should be legal, at least to some degree, is based on my belief that there is some implied Constitutional ‘Right’ to privacy to some extent applicable to the issue of abortion.

But I’m leery that an implied ‘right’ in the Constitution should supercede the explicit right of the Tenth Amendment, so I tend to think that the Supreme Court should take this issue carefully and avoid overturning it, unless they truly believe that there is some “egregious offense.” The belief that abortion is “right” is not an egregious enough offense.

But if the law was indeed meant to challenge Roe V. Wade, then it may intentionally be overly strict in its restrictions of abortion, and therefore possibly not really representing the opinions and beliefs of the People of South Dakota. That would make it an irresponsible law, and on that basis, I’d have to agree that it’s probably a dumbass law.

But then this is largely just supposition.

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl was seeds to grow.

JONUS

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:48 PM

It's called birth control. Baby-murdering liberal whores should look into it.

If you want to kill the life living inside you, do it the old-fashioned way and drink a bottle of vodka. But then you'd end up drunk and having unprotected sex...AGAIN.

Attack me, not my opinion.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
It's called birth control. Baby-murdering liberal whores should look into it.

Now. Now. Let’s be fair. It’s not really “baby”-murdering. It’s just “fetus”-murdering. (Except in the case of partial birth abortion. That might actually be baby murdering.)

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE