South Dakota: A Lone Voice of Courage
Below are a few links and quotes from online news articles relating to South Dakota’s proposed ban on abortion. On the surface, it appears to be quite comprehensive. Voices are raised in a hue and cry on both sides of this extremely volatile issue: the pro-life are raising theirs in words of hope, while the pro-abortion seem to be raising theirs in words designed to inspire fear on both sides of the issue.
I am unapologetically pro-life. I don’t believe that there is ever a reason to perform an abortion, with the exception of very specific impossible medical situations, for example: ectopic pregnancies. I’m very leery of the term “mother’s health.” It’s been far too loosely defined.
At the moment, “mother’s health” is so broadly interpreted that it even includes women becoming depressed when they find out that there are going to be consequences to their actions … it’s not convenient for them to have a family, become pregnant, develop stretch marks, perhaps even lose their figures. The pregnancy will interfere with their vacation, or their job …
… I imagine that an abrupt termination of life might interfere a bit with the unborn child, too - who will never be given a chance to go on a vacation, or hold a job … or even see sunshine or breathe air. He didn’t ask to be there, and I’m sure he’d like to pack his little bags to find a more welcoming home, if he could, unfortunately - someone else’s actions put him there, and his very life is going to depend upon their “tender mercies.” Barely a whimper will be raised in defense of his existence … and he will pass nameless to join the growing number of the smallest and most helpless of all humanity who have been sacrificed on the altar of convenience.
All actions have consequences. Some consequences involve people other than ourselves, for example when we create a new life. That new life is dependent on ours for a brief while, but from the beginning, is separate from ours, genetically individual … the new life possesses its very own unique DNA. It is not a part of the woman’s body. When she aborts her baby, she is ending a life for which she was, in part, responsible for beginning, and which belongs to another human being. The only difference between the goverment calling it a legal exercise of a woman’s right to choose, and calling it murder, are a bit of time, and the participation of an abortionist.
A woman can choose to abort a baby up until the last moment. Take a look at the drawings just below to see what “partial birth abortion” is all about. Be forwarned: it’s graphic, even for line art.
I would like to know how this procedure can save a woman’s life? If she can deliver this baby up to his head, she can deliver the entire baby.
There’s no need for this. If those viable babies were allowed to live - were not murdered by having their skulls punctured and their brains sucked out, they could be given up for adoption. The waiting list for newborn adoptions is years long.
I can’t discern a single reason for this sort of procedure, beyond the murderous selfishness of the mother, and the sheer, unmitigated consciencelessness of the abortionist. There is no way for this procedure to be done with the idea of sparing a woman medically.
Before I get into the articles, I want to address an egregious example of embarrassingly blatant scare-tactic silliness from the pro-abortion camp:
“If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.”
What a load of idiocy! This sort of thing is decided in civil courts. A rapist who fathers a child is not going to automatically have visitation rights - or for that matter, any rights. This is nothing but a sound bite designed to plant a seed of worry in even the minds of those who are pro-life. Shame on you, Krista Hyphenated!
Source: ABC News (excerpt)
“Lawmakers in at least seven other states, including Ohio, Indiana, Georgia and Tennessee, are considering similar legislation.”
Source: Boston Herald
South Dakota Legislature passes abortion ban
By Associated Press
Friday, February 24, 2006 - Updated: 03:49 PM ES
PIERRE, S.D. - 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.
Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the bench.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, has pledged to sue over the measure, which would become law July 1. The clinic does about 800 abortions a year.
The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday. The Senate approved the measure 23-12 earlier this week.
Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
The governor said he believes it would be better to eliminate abortion in a series of steps, but some abortion opponents want a court challenge that could wipe out abortion in one fell swoop.
“I’ve indicated I’m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives,” Rounds said. “If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.”
During debate on the measure, lawmakers were told that an anonymous donor has pledged to give the state $1 million to defend the abortion ban in court. The Legislature is setting up a special account to accept donations for the legal fight.
“I can tell you first-hand we’ve had people stopping in our office trying to drop off checks to promote the defense of this legislation already,” Rounds said.
Opponents of the bill argued that abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a women’s health.
If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.
“The idea the rapist could be in the child’s life … makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice,” Heeren-Graber said.
Source: ABC News
S. Dakota approves bill to restrict abortions
Feb 24, 2006 — CHICAGO (Reuters) - The South Dakota Legislature on Friday approved a bill that would ban almost all abortions in a move that could set up a challenge to the national abortion standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade ruling.
The legislation, which calls for $5,000 fines and five-year prison sentences for doctors who carry out abortions, now goes to Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, who has said he is inclined to sign it.
Backers and opponents of the bill have said it is the most restrictive measure on abortion to pass a state legislature since the Supreme Court legalized abortion with the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.
Supporters hope the conflict it sets up with Roe vs. Wade will provide a vehicle to bring the issue before the Supreme Court, whose newly appointed conservative members, they hope, will be more disposed dismantle the 1973 decision.
The proposed law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances in the past three decades. It would ban abortions in almost all cases, including pregnancies that endanger the mother or that resulted from incest or rape. It makes an exception in cases that involve saving the mother’s life.
Both the state House and Senate previously passed the bill but it did not take final form until the House agreed to a minor language change.
Rounds indicated he would sign the measure if the fine print stood up to scrutiny, as the bill’s sponsors have told him it would. He vetoed a similar measure two years ago not because of its intent but because of a technicality.
The South Dakota law is part of a grass-roots, state-by-state effort to challenge abortion. Legislatures in Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Indiana also have measures before them that would heavily restrict abortions.
It could take years for a challenge based on the South Dakota law or some other one to reach the high court.
Source: BBC News
Could this be the end of Roe v Wade?
By Clare Murphy
BBC News
The South Dakota legislators who have approved a bill all but outlawing abortions in the sparsely populated state have loftier aims - an end to the Supreme Court ruling which made terminations legal across America more than 30 years ago.
They hope to provoke pro-choice groups into launching a series of challenges to the law which will ultimately end in the nation’s top court, home to two new conservative Bush appointees.
Fresh from this makeover, the court is seen as more likely than ever to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling on abortion.
There are many ifs. Even if new justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito were prepared to vote against the ruling - which is far from a given - they might still be in a minority on the nine-member bench.
For some anti-abortion activists keen to see an end to Roe v Wade, the South Dakota initiative is too little, too soon - but they nonetheless remain optimistic that a fatal blow is not far off.
The possibility of its demise sparks heated debate in a country deeply divided on the issue of abortion. Yet campaigners from both camps acknowledge that its fall could in fact make very little difference to many women seeking to end their pregnancies.
Business as usual?
Were Roe v Wade to be overturned, the issue would return to the state legislatures. In some of those likely to outlaw abortion were it to fall, local laws have already rendered the 1973 ruling all but irrelevant.
If states can decree that life begins at conception, they might also be able to use state custody laws to curtail the movements of pregnant women
William Baude
New York Times
In the past decade, state legislatures have passed more than 400 laws limiting access to abortion. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice think tank whose findings are quoted by both sides, says abortion is available only in 13% of US counties.
South Dakota, for instance, is already one of three states with only one abortion provider, joined by North Dakota and Mississippi. Many women wanting an abortion go to other states to get one.
Requirements for parental notification - in some cases involving both parents - make it harder for minors to terminate pregnancies, while mandatory waiting periods between the obligatory counselling session and the actual procedure have also been introduced in some states in the hope of preventing abortions.
Pro-choice groups argue this provision is particularly tough on poor women, who must thus take two days - often unpaid - off work. Anti-abortion groups say it gives the women time to really think the decision through, armed with the facts.
Let battle commence
But while in a post-Roe era a number of states would ban terminations outright, many would still allow them.
Liberal states such as New York and California would allow relatively unfettered access, while a handful might attach strict conditions.
But the battle would take place in state legislatures, and that, to an increasing number of pro-choicers, may be no bad thing.
It would force them to argue their case with voters at the state level, so the thinking goes, and stop them relying on unelected courts to impose their views. Abortion rights would finally have a firm, democratic foundation. Those women who currently have to travel to other states for a termination would continue to do so.
However there are many supporters of abortion rights who find this stance naive, arguing that some states which end up banning the procedure might also stop such abortion tourism.
“If states can decree that life begins at conception, they might also be able to use state custody laws to curtail the movements of pregnant women,” William Baude argued in a recent New York Times editorial.
“Once Roe has been overturned, a state may be able to place an unborn child into protective custody, forbidding their mothers to take them across state lines.”
Others in the pro-choice camp may reject such suggestions as alarmist, while many remain confident that the American public would not as yet countenance an end to Roe v Wade.
But in South Dakota, hopes in the anti-abortion camp are clearly running high that change across the US could be on the way.
A Newsy Mishmash:
Easing Slowly Into Blogging:
My Absentee Note: