South Dakota House passes bill banning almost ALL abortions: 1 exception

[LiberalPartisan]

PIERRE, S.D. - The South Dakota House overwhelmingly passed a bill Thursday that would ban nearly all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure as a means of drawing the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping to set up a legal challenge that ultimately will result in reversal of the high court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
The bill banning abortion, HB1215, was passed 47-22 in the House after more than an hour of debate.

Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, said the recent appointment of two new members on the Supreme Court and the prospect of one or two more replacements within a few years as older members retire makes it a good time to mount a challenge to the earlier Roe v. Wade decision.

"It is important, I believe, at this time in our history to protect the life of the unborn," he said.

Hunt is the prime sponsor of the legislation.

Although saying they personally abhor abortion, opponents made several unsuccessful attempts to make exceptions in cases of rape and incest, and to protect pregnant women whose health may be endangered.

The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion restrictions must contain exceptions to protect a woman's health, Jennifer Ring of the American Civil Liberties Union told legislators earlier.
i]

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/13835508.htm

[gizmo1979]

1. Here we go!

Hang on it's going to get alittle bumpy.

[LiberalPartisan]

5. A new underground railroad is needed

Because as soon as they can they will make leaving a new slave state to get an abortion in a free state illegal.

[murielm99]

17. We had an underground railroad before, and we will have

it again, if necessary.

That is not the way I want to see choice practiced, but it can be done. If I have to lay down my own life for choice, I will.

[The Straight Story]

2. There was this one exception:

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45916

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. Republicans would never overturn Roe v Wade

It's a red herring.

And we do not live in a fascist plutocracy.

And George W. Pigfucker is a swell guy.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[gizmo1979]

7. I've always thought this too?

We'll see if our hypothesis is correct.

[Der Blaue Engel]

10. You've always thought which?

My post was heavily coated with sarcasm, so I'm not sure what you're agreeing with...the statements or the fact that they're ridiculous?

[gizmo1979]

16. Sorry I misread your

post.I actually do think that the repugs will not overturn Roe v Wade because they would lose their biggest wedge issue.Once people lose rights is when all the people who were just kinda pro-choice become rabid supporters and you push the other sides numbers over the top.I've always thought this and now we'll see what happens.

[Der Blaue Engel]

20. Then why are they starting with this immediate bid to overturn?

They are admitting this is a Supreme Court set-up. Why would they set themselves up to lose?

[brainshrub]

4. Well, that was fast.

Let's remember all the incumbent Democrats who didn't fight when we begged them to.

[bowens43]

9. sure was.

Let's remember that a filibuster would not have stopped the appointment of Alito but would have cost us needed votes in November.

[brainshrub]

13. People who would have been upset at an Alito filibuster don't vote Dem.

The "Why fight is we aren't going to win" strategy isn't helping the Republic or the Democratic party.

I'm getting tired of supporting surrender monkeys.

[meegbear]

6. Your headline says "passes bill banning ALL abortions- no exceptions"

but the first line of the story says "... that would ban nearly all abortions in the state".

How does that jive?

[LiberalPartisan]

8. I corrected the thread title....thx.

[izzie]

15. I am sure the but in this means none.

It is very easy to read into that just what you want. I was sure when I read the heading that it was gone as even if the SC said one must put health of women in a law it is how the law is read that is important. I can recall being a serviceman wife and we all knew abortions were not done in service hospitals but women could and did get them in service hospitals. It was also done in out sides hospitals but all some thing else on the books. Now if you were poor and some one has to pay for your health care it becomes a different story. That is why it was so under reported and done so odd in a govt. paid for hospital like the service. Hay I a progressive thinking person. It should be on the books and safe but it will be around but underground just as it has been in our history

[izzie]

11. On books or off women have been doing this for ever, so------

I hardly think that a group of men from the world who think the world is flat will be able to stop them from doing it. It will go underground where it had been in history. If the young women of today want it safe once more they will have to fight for it.

[catnhatnh]

12. Rat Bastards....

will DELIBERATELY write what they KNOW to be an unconstitutional law to force the case to the US supreme court...If I was poor and forced to have a baby,and the law was then overturned,I would certainly look to sue this clown for life-long support and for violations of my civil rights...

[cali]

14. This law is good news.

No way is this freakin idiotic law going to the SC. It will be swiftly overturned in Federal Court and the SC will not grant cert. What's more this news is being spread far and wide. It alerts people to the fact that "mainstream" repukes are lunatics.

[pstokely]

24. Yes it will

anti-choice interest groups will pour millions into this.

[sinkingfeeling]

18. I'm so sick of 'he said' this and 'he said' that about abortion. Women

should unite and cut the boys off...no sex until every woman is free to make her own decisions about her own body.

[LiberalPartisan]

19. You know their response don't you?

A woman doesn't get a choice over the unborn baby in her womb. To them a woman goes from not pregnant to having a person residing in her womb.

To them:

• any abortion is murder
  
• an 'unwanted pregnancy' = the woman is a slut therefore she must be forced to give birth as punishment for being a slut
  
• a fertilized egg is a person
  

Such is the psychosis which inflicts the right-wingers

[57_TomCat]

22. There are some of us...

That vote the democratic way that do not support abortion just as many on the other side do. This truly is a dividing issue that cuts across socioeconomic and political lines.

I for one do not support abortion and I will not let my belief interfere with supporting those I think best for the job I am voting for.

In my case:

any abortion is not murder simply lawful killing of an unborn child.

an 'unwanted pregnancy' = an unborn individual with rights that need to be supported via guardian ad litem.

a fertilized egg is a person WHEN it has embedded in the uterine wall and started the process to be born.

I have no problem with choosing the lesser of two evils when it comes to rape, incest or medical necessity. I have no problem with the hormone pill that prevents the fertilized egg from attaching. I can support those that disagree with me. I can not however agree with the concept of abortion on demand because the mother wants it. There must be mitigating circumstances.

Because I think the way I do and many others do as well in both parties I see this issue in South Dakota to be far more of a dividing line and the Supreme court may well agree with me. We shall see. No matter the direction the wind shifts there will be great gnashing of teeth and beating of chests by some.

I did want to mention that reasons above are based not on religion of any sort. I tend to the agnostic in the ways of religion. Instead I am coming more from a law standpoint and a belief in what is right under law for the individual. I do support the individual first. With abortion there is a point where the new individual needs protection and I have made my choice at where that point is.

I will still support the law however no matter my personal prejudice.

[Nobody]

23. The process of being born is called labor

You said:

"I have no problem with choosing the lesser of two evils when it comes to rape, incest or medical necessity. I have no problem with the hormone pill that prevents the fertilized egg from attaching. I can support those that disagree with me. I can not however agree with the concept of abortion on demand because the mother wants it. There must be mitigating circumstances."

In that case you're pro-choice. In the above paragraph you have stated reasons why abortion is acceptable. No woman is going to let you read her medical records or any police reports she may have filed. Especially if she doesn't know you and you don't know her. Let's assume that without non-privileged, non-confidential, public domain clear and certain knowledge (not inferences!) that she is aborting for a reason you (or anyone else for that matter) find acceptable.

If you would advocate that an individual woman prove to the satisfaction of someone else who has absolutely no stake in the outcome - they will NOT baby-sit, they will NOT give mom a break from the kid when it has colic, they will NOT pick up toys, diapers, clothes, etc., they are NOT previously known to the woman and NOT previously known to give two shits about her - then you're pro-choice but only so far as people not the woman are making that choice.

For the most part, trust that women everywhere have thought this through carefully, and are aborting for reasons you find acceptable. Because you will never know for sure, and you'll sleep better at night.

[java-fiend]

21. Please, please don't cut me off!

I'm pro-choice! I swear I am!

:scared:

[HockeyMom]

25. Original Wording of this Bill from 2004

The poster actually laments that the bill has been "gutted" from the original intent (to ban "abortion causing contraceptives" also).

I so loved this: "the Legislature finds that the State has a duty to protect the pregnant mother's fundamental interest in her relationship with her unborn child". I take that to mean if the woman DOESN'T have an interest in any relationship with her unborn child, the STATE will MAKE her have one. Am I right? The only thing this brings to my mind is that woman have a DUTY to Procreate for the State. That was a Nazi concept. Read about it. If you have ever read the argument in the Griswold v Ct. Case, you will see that argument come up. The state has the right to legislate that future citizens be born. Here we go again.


http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2004/bills/HB1191S.htm

This bill should be printed in every newspaper in the country.