Posted on 02/10/2006 4:48:04 PM PST by fabrizio
(CNSNews.com) - The South Dakota House has approved a bill banning almost all abortions in the state, and the state Senate is next to take up the proposed ban.
The measure, HB1215, cleared the state House by a vote of 47 to 22 Thursday after over an hour of debate.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Roger Hunt (R-Brandon), believes the time is right to mount a challenge to Roe v. Wade, and supporters are hoping such a challenge would capture the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, which could end up in a reversal of the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
Opponents of the bill were unsuccessful in trying to include exemptions for rape and incest and to protect the health of the mother.
Rep. Burt Elliot (D-Aberdeen), a teacher, said legislators would face the wrath of voters if they voted against the bill.
"How you vote on this is going to be used in campaign fodder against you," the Sioux City Journal quoted Elliott as saying. Although Elliot is pro-life, he said he opposes the bill because it does not include an exception for rape and incest victims.
"I don't believe in abortion by choice," Elliot added. "I don't believe in abortion as a method of birth control. But I sure as H.E. double hockey sticks believe in something for victims of rape."
Rep. Keri Weems, (R-Sioux Falls), a self-described stay-at-home mother, said abortion even when someone is raped is still wrong. "Taking the child's life doesn't take away the rape," the Journal quoted Weems as saying. "We can't take away the life of the child because the father has committed a horrible crime."
That is the knee-jerk emotional response. IIRC Kerry even used it during his campaign.
Statistically that number (rape/incest) is very, very low. Part of the standard rape kit is a morning-after pill.
what I want to see is legislatures start to remove judges who overturn their laws.
I think that an exception for rape and incest will be how the Supreme Court provides a "road map" for overturning Roe.
In an email to its membership, Planned Parenthood denounced the bill as an infringement of a woman’s reproductive rights. “We hold that a person mature enough to conceive a child is mature enough to decide whether to terminate that CHILD (emphasis mine) without parental interference,” said the email.
Because in the bizarre language of the pro-abortionist, "health" means whatever the MOTHER wants it to mean at the time. Hope you were using sarcasm.
I read on KELOLAND.COM, which is the news authority in Sioux Falls this:
The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.
Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.
Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.
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
No I wasn't being sarcastic. I believe that the bill could have been written to include this exemption, and used very precise language to describe exactly what would constitute "a mother's health".
I never knew that..
I think that exceptions need to be made for rape and incest. But I think it needs to be limited to the morning after pill (before a fetus or embryo is formed) which is perfectly reasonable. If a woman is raped, she simply takes the RU486. How could either side be against this?
Yes, I know. A bill that allowed abortion simply for the sake of a "mother's health" would be a poorly written bill. But don't you believe that an exemption could be written that more clearly defines the conditions where the procedure could be allowed?
>>>Good grief! They couldn't even get an exception for the health of the mother????? What reasonable person would object to that?>>>
I agree, most here and pro-lifers (as I am) would argue that the doctor would CLAIM that the health of the mother would even be 'mental' health, but even that is better than free for all random birth control abortion. By minors even.
You have a reasonable point. But how difficult would it be for a woman who really wants an abortion to simply claim rape? Or what if she is raped while at the same time in a relationship with a spouse or partner trying to conceive? Does the fact of the rape eclipse the concern that an abortion would destroy the "wanted" life? Would the partner have any standing in making this decision? In these situations, it's always safer to err on the side of prudence (life).
Even Roe severely restricts abortion (severe if Pro-aborts really knew what the decision says - they believe it gives Cart Blanche). Past the first trimester, the life/health of the mother, and, unbelieveably, the well being of the fetus is to be taken into account. But look how much this has gone to restrict abortion. I'll say it again, any exception other than the life of the mother would be a loophole big enough to drive a semi through as it is now.
I don't know if this case will be 'the one', but we will know how Justices Alito and Roberts will rule on abortion before President Bush leaves Office. Assuming this will be quickly challenged, which it will be.
It is my understanding that contraception has 3 classes:
1. contraception (prevents conception)
2. intraception (prevents egg from implanting in the uterus)
3. abortaficient (RU486) used after pregnancy confirmed.
Rape kits contain intraception meds. Also known as the morning-after pill. (widely distributed on college campuses).
You would think so, but it isn't necessarily so. Hospitals across the nation are not uniform in their treatment responses to rape victims, including counseling, STD and HIV testing and follow-up, and the dispensing of morning-after pills. Even within the same hopsital, the response may vary according to the staff on duty, despite the hospital's established written protocols. It's also important to keep in mind that morning-after pills are not 100% effective.
Got links?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.