Unless you're living under a rock, you've already heard that South Dakota was crafting an abortion ban specifically designed to raise the issue before the US Supreme Court. Most recently, they've gone as far as to vote down amendments including exceptions for rape, incests, or the health of the mother. However, the procedure may still be performed if the mother's life is threatened. I'm not sure how that doesn't qualify as a "health of the mother" exception, but it stands.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202424.html

Quote :

"S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe' Senate Ban Does Not Except Rape, Incest By Evelyn Nieves Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, February 23, 2006; Page A01 South Dakota lawmakers yesterday approved the nation's most far-reaching ban on abortion, setting the stage for new legal challenges that its supporters say they hope lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade . The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion. Rep. Roger Hunt, a sponsor of the bill, said momentum is building for a change in national policy on abortion. Rep. Roger Hunt, a sponsor of the bill, said momentum is building for a change in national policy on abortion. The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe , which in 1973 recognized a right of women to terminate pregnancies. Its sponsors want to force a reexamination of the ruling by the court, which now includes two justices appointed by President Bush. "The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future," said Rep. Roger W. Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill. To his delight, abortion opponents succeeded in defeating all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman. Hunt said that such "special circumstances" would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene. Kate Looby, director of Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, which plans to immediately challenge the ban, said that while she was not surprised, she was still a "little shocked" by the vote. "Clearly, this is a devastating day for the women of South Dakota," she said. "We fully expected this, yet it's still distressing to know that this legislative body cares so little about women, about families, about women who are victims of rape or incest." National abortion rights organizations said the South Dakota vote has set the stage for a new fight to keep abortion legal at the federal level and in the states. "When you see them have a ban that does not include exceptions for rape or incest or the health of the mother, you understand that elections do matter," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We will be very active in '06 and in '08 in electing candidates that represent the views of most Americans." The antiabortion movement has focused primarily in recent years on a state-by-state effort to enact restrictions on access to abortion, including pushes for parental-notification laws and waiting periods before the procedure may be performed. A 1992 Supreme Court decision again affirmed a right to abortion in a Pennsylvania case, known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey , that said states cannot put an "undue burden" on women getting access to abortions. Not all antiabortion groups agreed with the South Dakota supporters' effort to directly challenge Roe. "If you're just reading the law as it stands now, South Dakota's law doesn't really stand any chance under Roe or Casey . I have to agree with those who think it's remote," said Chuck Donovan, executive vice president of the Family Research Council and a former lobbyist for the National Right to Life Committee. He said there is not a consensus for a national approach to finding a way to overturn Roe . "There are lots of voices out there and nobody has a single strategy, so South Dakota has stepped in to fill that void," Donovan said. Still, some abortion opponents are more confident than they have ever been that Roe could be overturned with two new conservative members of the high court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Roberts has not publicly expressed his view on abortion rights. Alito opposed Roe as a young Reagan administration lawyer and had a mixed record on abortion rights while a federal appeals court judge. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a federal law banning a procedure that opponents call "partial birth" abortion is constitutional. The law passed Congress in 2003 but has been struck down by three federal appeals courts and has yet to take effect. South Dakota is the first but not the only state to consider new abortion restrictions this year. Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky have introduced similar measures. Rounds has indicated that he would sign the South Dakota measure if it does not jeopardize existing abortion restrictions while the legislation is challenged. In 2004, he vetoed a similar bill because of concerns that abortion restrictions would be eliminated during legal wrangling. Hunt said his bill has addressed the governor's concerns. Hunt has also said that when the inevitable challenge to the ban is filed in court, the ban's supporters will be prepared for a costly court fight with $1 million already pledged by "an anonymous donor." Even without this latest ban, South Dakota was already one of the most difficult states in the country in which to get an abortion, those on both sides of the issue say. It is one of three states with only one abortion provider (Mississippi and North Dakota are the others), and its one clinic, the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, offers the procedure only once a week. Four doctors who fly in from Minnesota on a rotating basis perform the abortions, since no doctor in South Dakota will do so because of the heavy stigma attached. About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota, which has a population of 770,000 spread out over 77,000 square miles. Last year, South Dakota passed five laws to restrict abortions, including one that would compel doctors to tell women that they would be ending the life of a "whole, separate, unique human being." That law has been blocked by a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood."

3/5/2006 11:02:21 PM

why don't you learn how to properly title a thread?

3/5/2006 11:11:32 PM

Does it itch?

3/5/2006 11:18:37 PM

Abortion is the result, not cause, of an unwanted pregnancy. If only these people would spend their time, money and energy promoting things that prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place -- abstinance, BC, money shots, etc.



But then they'd all be out of job, so I guess that won't happen.

3/5/2006 11:26:41 PM

There's already one dumb as hell thread on this from about a month ago.

3/5/2006 11:27:25 PM

abortions should be mandatory for people on welfare.

3/5/2006 11:42:19 PM

abortions should be mandatory for people on welfare.

3/5/2006 11:43:14 PM

Quote :

"There's already one dumb as hell thread on this from about a month ago."

Did that one list the stricken amendments as part of the bill?

3/6/2006 7:06:11 AM

^It would have if you posted your article there instead of creating a new one

3/6/2006 9:27:49 AM

Quote :

"However, the procedure may still be performed if the mother's life is threatened. I'm not sure how that doesn't qualify as a "health of the mother" exception, but it stands."

You don't understand the difference between "health" and "life"?

3/6/2006 10:54:20 PM

^You should understand that "life" to this crowd is only "life" if it is viable in the emotional, economical
and genetic sense. In their view life without health ( as they define it ) is not really life. So his statement, although rediculous from our perspective, makes sense if you weaken your understanding of what true "life" is.

3/6/2006 11:37:43 PM

i don't consider you "life" is you can't spell ridiculous

3/6/2006 11:57:47 PM

I don't consider you "life" if you don't know when to use the word "if."

3/7/2006 12:15:19 AM

if they want to challenge Roe vs Wade, that's one thing, but I don't see why they don't go for one step at a time. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that this is gonna go through, so they're just squandering political capital (however much SD has).

I mean, seriously...why are they even worried about excluding life/health of the mother clauses at this stage in the game? They're making an uphill battle even more difficult for themselves, for no reason or potential gain.


It's a little bit like that futile, counterproductive effort to pass the anti-gay marriage amendment. I mean, I'm a Christian Republican (albeit not one who identifies with the religious right, either ideologically or practically), but even IF I did agree with their agenda and ideologies, I would still have to conclude that they are politically inept. What power they do enjoy stems from the brute force of their numbers and ability to organize themselves into a voting block, rather than any sort of political astuteness or craft.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:37 AM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:38 AM. Reason : asdfasdf]

3/7/2006 12:32:16 AM

well, you have to remember that in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun and the majority basically decided that they were not going to delve into the question of when life began since the experts couldn't even come to a decision on that. I hope that is not what SD was shooting for, because if so this is going to fail miserably since this law is no different from the one passed in Texas many years ago (a little thing called precedent)

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:37 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/7/2006 12:35:04 AM

From what I've heard SD is trying to make this somewhat of a states rights issue... but ultimately I think their lack of exceptions for incest and rape will cast this is such a bad light that it will fail hard and only set even more precedent for the upholding of Roe v Wade.

3/7/2006 12:49:52 AM

that's sort of what i'm getting at

3/7/2006 1:26:05 AM

Well, as the law sits now, Abortion is already a predominantly state-right. The state of Mississippi has only one abortion clinic. In effect, the abortion industry has been regulated to oblivion, every bit of which was perfectly constitutional thanks to the 1994 ruling.

It is a tremendous hardship, and I am stead fastly against it, but in a democracy the idiots sometimes win the vote. Roe v. Wade was bad constitutional interpretation, which makes it worse than a stupid S.D. law in my opinion.

While abortions may become more difficult to acquire in the future, but thankfully as long as the right to exit is maintained then women's choice organizations can organize monthly bus-trips to states which allow abortion. This is not optimal, it would be best if the people of these states got a brain, but it is their right to be stupid, and I support it.

3/7/2006 1:38:36 AM

On the flipside, there is no reason for 99% of abortions not to be done with RU-486 in the first few weeks of pregnancy, which basically amounts to a miscarriage of a lump of cells. I'm comfortable with that...but definitely not after the 1st trimester, and probably at some point even before the end of the 1st trimester.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 1:43 AM. Reason : safety of the mother cases notwithstanding, of course]

3/7/2006 1:41:51 AM

Quote :

"well, you have to remember that in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun and the majority basically decided that they were not going to delve into the question of when life began since the experts couldn't even come to a decision on that. I hope that is not what SD was shooting for, because if so this is going to fail miserably since this law is no different from the one passed in Texas many years ago (a little thing called precedent)"

Precedent can be overturned. Happens more or less every term.

And I disagree with your interpretation of Roe and Doe. The Court stated that if it could be proved that the baby is a human life, then of course his right to life would be protected. By ruling that his right to life could not be protected, the Court effectively ruled that the baby was not a human life. (Beyond the scope of judicial competence, but nevertheless.)

Quote :

"if they want to challenge Roe vs Wade, that's one thing, but I don't see why they don't go for one step at a time. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that this is gonna go through"

With the current Supreme Court, no. But with respect to John Paul Stevens, the man has to be carbon-dated to find out how old he is. Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozes off during hearings. Etc. All it takes is for one of them to go to the Lord (or the other place, as it pleases them), and then it is possible. And it takes at least a year for a case to wend its way through the federal court system. The state took a gamble here.

I'm not sure it was a wise gamble actually. If Stevens or Ginsburg don't die within the next year or so, then all the state has done is add strength to the very precedent they want to overturn. They are gambling on Stevens or Ginsburg dying. While it is statistically probable, with each of them being older than the earth itself, still I would not have taken the gamble.

"One step at a time" legally does not do anything. Sure you can go one step at a time, but no matter how many steps you take, until you take the big step of challeing the precedent directly, the precedent is still there.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 2:06 AM. Reason : add]

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 2:09 AM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 2:04:36 AM

states rights

3/7/2006 2:11:41 AM

I didn't say that the court has to follow precedent, and I am well aware that precedent get overturned often. You in fact contridicted yourself by saying

Quote :

"If Stevens or Ginsburg don't die within the next year or so, then all the state has done is add strength to the very precedent they want to overturn."

Precedent is one of the main areas the SC looks to to make a decision (along with text, structure, moral reasoning, etc). All I am saying is that this law looks no different from the law in Texas that was at issue in Roe and that the SC will have a major hurdle in overcoming this and explaining why this law is different. Good day sir.

3/7/2006 10:56:41 AM

basically every pro-life organization that i read or hear on tv, says the same thing, that this is a bad idea. the best way, they say, is to "chip away" at the foundation of Roe v Wade by legislating incremental changes such as parental notificiation, bans on dialation and extraction (so-called 'partial birth'), etcetera.

they happily admit that such a piecemeal strategy will bring down Roe v Wade much more effectively than SD's type of frontal attack.

3/8/2006 12:08:59 AM

we think this freedom is wrong

best way to defeat it is to chip away at it until there is no freedom left

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

3/11/2006 1:17:19 PM